Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
DogOne,
You still haven't answered my question of how CTAF G can be safer than E for IFR traffic. There are three things each of which should make it safer for VFR/IFR collision risk pairs as per my earlier post - E vs G VMC minima, E vs G radio carriage requirements and E vs G transponder requirements.
Apart from the three points I've listed above, VFR procedures are IDENTICAL in G (outside of a CTAF of course) to E. I've yet to see a single factor that can help control the risk of a collision between VFR/IFR pairs any better in G than E.
Remember, if it is G above D with a A025 boundary there is 500 feet of airspace where VMC critera is 5000m vis and clear of cloud.
...
PS I don't see any reason why an aircraft without an engine powered electrical system should be exempt from radio or transponder requirements. If a tiger moth can have both powered by a small battery, any aircraft can.
You still haven't answered my question of how CTAF G can be safer than E for IFR traffic. There are three things each of which should make it safer for VFR/IFR collision risk pairs as per my earlier post - E vs G VMC minima, E vs G radio carriage requirements and E vs G transponder requirements.
Apart from the three points I've listed above, VFR procedures are IDENTICAL in G (outside of a CTAF of course) to E. I've yet to see a single factor that can help control the risk of a collision between VFR/IFR pairs any better in G than E.
Remember, if it is G above D with a A025 boundary there is 500 feet of airspace where VMC critera is 5000m vis and clear of cloud.
...
PS I don't see any reason why an aircraft without an engine powered electrical system should be exempt from radio or transponder requirements. If a tiger moth can have both powered by a small battery, any aircraft can.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Werbil, my previous response from #160
Werbil says
"Given the above four points how is it possible for G to be safer than E?"
One could ask if E is safer than G for IFR RPT, given the VFR pilot is the lowest common denominator, we are dependant on his transponder being servicable, or switched on, their knowledge of the area and the IFR tracks. The fact that they are only required to maintain 1500m horizonontly and 1000' vertically gives a lot of time to avoid them. 1500 m = .8 nm (@ 250 Kts = a few seconds) Less time than what you are allowed for a TCAS RA.
The point really is that neither is any safer than the other. Both E & G really rely on TCAS to avoid close encounters of the metal bending type. Remember the good old USA leads us on these types of encounters
If E required all aircraft to have a clearance to enter, then safety would be enhanced. VFR aircraft have to have radios and transponders, so what is the problem for the VFR aircraft to obtain a clearance?
Werbil says
"Given the above four points how is it possible for G to be safer than E?"
One could ask if E is safer than G for IFR RPT, given the VFR pilot is the lowest common denominator, we are dependant on his transponder being servicable, or switched on, their knowledge of the area and the IFR tracks. The fact that they are only required to maintain 1500m horizonontly and 1000' vertically gives a lot of time to avoid them. 1500 m = .8 nm (@ 250 Kts = a few seconds) Less time than what you are allowed for a TCAS RA.
The point really is that neither is any safer than the other. Both E & G really rely on TCAS to avoid close encounters of the metal bending type. Remember the good old USA leads us on these types of encounters
If E required all aircraft to have a clearance to enter, then safety would be enhanced. VFR aircraft have to have radios and transponders, so what is the problem for the VFR aircraft to obtain a clearance?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
In G below A030/1000AGL clear of cloud equals a fraction of a second to visually aquire an aircraft - IE absolutely zero chance of being able to take avoiding action.
I've spotted numerous aircraft that I haven't heard about on the radio (and a significant number of those have been conflicting traffic in D) - but then I keep my eyes outside the aircraft as much as possible. Given that amphibs are slow I'm also at the disadvantage that the faster jet can hit me from behind.
E (particularly at lower levels) has a number of additional defences that G in Australia doesn't have - hence safer.
I've spotted numerous aircraft that I haven't heard about on the radio (and a significant number of those have been conflicting traffic in D) - but then I keep my eyes outside the aircraft as much as possible. Given that amphibs are slow I'm also at the disadvantage that the faster jet can hit me from behind.
E (particularly at lower levels) has a number of additional defences that G in Australia doesn't have - hence safer.
Why then are you so supportive of the airspace system that I introduced when I was Chairman of CAA in 1991
In Europe, IFR is not permitted in class G. They have class E down to low levels approx 4000". They have 100% radar. For low use Ads they have class F I believe, which means a temp zone activates and only one IFR jet in the area at a time. All other AD's are class D or C. For very low use ADs, Acft must go VFR below class E.
The main difference is the radar coverage. Its all great to say class E works in EU and the states, but they mostly have radar. its down to tcas and the student pilot in his c152 to stop the disaster when it come to broome.
If your going to push this, then
we need adsb and all aircraft equipped with the gear
Or.
We keep it as is, make the class d/c steps in and out of places like broome
Aeroméxico Flight 498 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is a bit of info on the mid air in the states. All it would take in AUS is a student pilot to accidently sqwauk mode A only, over fly a class D zone in Class E, no radio contact, no radar, A080, flying parallel to broome, then clean up the ozwest jet inbound as it decends through a cloud layer. They don't see each other since the angles, the ozwest jet casn't see below very well, the piper arrow has no vision to the high left. No vision, No TCAS, No radio, No hope.
dramatic? well you explain how it is not possible?
this is your system. Are you familiar with the simple theory of the holes in the cheese? Well you are pushing to remove as many cheeses as you can, so now there is only a few cheeses where there used to be many.
Werbil,
To take up a few of your points:
I think we should totally ignore unalerted See and Avoid. The VMC rules are irrelevant to this argument. In my jet, it is simply impossible to do a practical lookout that would count towards mitigating against a midair.
In E, VFR only “should” monitor the ATC freq (good thing they are now on the charts!) Jepp ATC Series 800 section 2.1.4, as opposed to G, where radio carriage and use 5,000ft and above is mandatory (Jepp ATC Radio Comms (series 900) section 1.1.1. Note that although the table says VFR in E “requires” VHF, there are no mandatory reports or broadcasts for VFR.
G/5000ft was the reason MBZs went up to 5000ft, thereby providing a mandatory radio requirement for VFR (with, I might add, a requirement to reply if a conflict existed) all of which was thrown out the window by Dick and his NAS mates.
There are currently no requirements for IFR to make broadcasts prior to or during descent into E (or indeed prior to entering D): all we do is talk our stuff with ATC, hardly enough information for a "normal" VFR to base self-separation on.
Not strictly correct. ALL aircraft in any airspace at or above 10,000ft in Australia must carry and operate a Transponder (unless it’s too gutless to power one). Jepp ATC series 500 section 5.15.1.1 refers. E only confers a benefit below 10,000ft (and as you rightly point out, shouldn't’t be used as a mitigator).
So in summary, all E does over G for VFR/IFR conflicts is provide a transponder requirement below 10k (TCAS shouldn't be considered a slice of cheese and which is not tested or checked on the day for operability) and a radio "requirement" between 5,000ft and the ground (which is of course covered at least at Broome by the CASA-mandated VHF comms requirements with the CAGRO published in ERSA (we are at around 8000ft at 30nm so are still adequately covered by the Class G rule).
Of course this really did used to be so simple before Dick got his clutches on the pollies.
To take up a few of your points:
1: E vs G VMC minima:
In E 1500m horizontally, 1000 feet from of cloud.
In E 1500m horizontally, 1000 feet from of cloud.
E vs G radio carriage requirements
In E VHF radio with appropriate frequencies required by all aircraft
In G NO RADIO REQUIRED by aircraft B050 in normal VMC
In E VHF radio with appropriate frequencies required by all aircraft
In G NO RADIO REQUIRED by aircraft B050 in normal VMC
G/5000ft was the reason MBZs went up to 5000ft, thereby providing a mandatory radio requirement for VFR (with, I might add, a requirement to reply if a conflict existed) all of which was thrown out the window by Dick and his NAS mates.
There are currently no requirements for IFR to make broadcasts prior to or during descent into E (or indeed prior to entering D): all we do is talk our stuff with ATC, hardly enough information for a "normal" VFR to base self-separation on.
Transponder required to be fitted and operating in E, only required to be operating if fitted in G.
So in summary, all E does over G for VFR/IFR conflicts is provide a transponder requirement below 10k (TCAS shouldn't be considered a slice of cheese and which is not tested or checked on the day for operability) and a radio "requirement" between 5,000ft and the ground (which is of course covered at least at Broome by the CASA-mandated VHF comms requirements with the CAGRO published in ERSA (we are at around 8000ft at 30nm so are still adequately covered by the Class G rule).
Of course this really did used to be so simple before Dick got his clutches on the pollies.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DNS couldn't agree more! But one last little thing...
I worked Hedland Tower when there was traffic there, 3-4000 a month. We had CTR/CTA in the old wedding cake design up to FL250 and around 120 miles, our CTR was 30nm and we had the pilot station choppers and VFR training and the Doc and the sundry others who wanted to fly. I cannot remember anyone being delayed more than a few minutes due ATC procedures/separation except in IMC.
Why go cheap? Casue it is politically correct. A controller costs $X to man the tower whether controlling A, B, C, D, E or G. So why do we insist on tying their hands by giving them half baked airspace and procedures?
I worked Hedland Tower when there was traffic there, 3-4000 a month. We had CTR/CTA in the old wedding cake design up to FL250 and around 120 miles, our CTR was 30nm and we had the pilot station choppers and VFR training and the Doc and the sundry others who wanted to fly. I cannot remember anyone being delayed more than a few minutes due ATC procedures/separation except in IMC.
Why go cheap? Casue it is politically correct. A controller costs $X to man the tower whether controlling A, B, C, D, E or G. So why do we insist on tying their hands by giving them half baked airspace and procedures?
Sorry OZ, I have to disagree with you a little here.......(Slight Drift..)
Back in 'dem good ole' days when I was flying for 'Murchison Air Services' in PD in 1970, We used to get weally weally peed off with 'Remain South of the H'way' NOT above 3000' or whatever - whenever the FK.28 of the time was inbound from KA, and THERE was this little speckin the sky....waaay up theree.... and we were having to divert or interrupt a type conversion trng flt, just because.......
We could hardly 'admire' the 'procedurals' of the times......
I know...it weren't your fault.....
Back in 'dem good ole' days when I was flying for 'Murchison Air Services' in PD in 1970, We used to get weally weally peed off with 'Remain South of the H'way' NOT above 3000' or whatever - whenever the FK.28 of the time was inbound from KA, and THERE was this little speckin the sky....waaay up theree.... and we were having to divert or interrupt a type conversion trng flt, just because.......
We could hardly 'admire' the 'procedurals' of the times......
I know...it weren't your fault.....
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Griffo - nuh weren't me. Early 80s when we had worked out that the coast was actually east/west and that the AWA Fokker could see the ground above A100 to help us out!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ozineurope
Why go cheap? Casue it is politically correct. A controller costs $X to man the tower whether controlling A, B, C, D, E or G. So why do we insist on tying their hands by giving them half baked airspace and procedures?
Couldn't agree more. E airspace still requires a controller, are they paid less than their colleagues for only working E. If not, there can't be any saving, so why use it?
Notice the same question early on in the thread, but to date, no responses
Why go cheap? Casue it is politically correct. A controller costs $X to man the tower whether controlling A, B, C, D, E or G. So why do we insist on tying their hands by giving them half baked airspace and procedures?
Couldn't agree more. E airspace still requires a controller, are they paid less than their colleagues for only working E. If not, there can't be any saving, so why use it?
Notice the same question early on in the thread, but to date, no responses
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D1 - unless things have changed in the 7 months since I left - all controllers who have reached the same stage of their careers are paid the same money. Some get expedited advancement but the salary scales for GAAP, TMA, and radar towers are the same. Outstation towers may be slightly less but not a whole lot of less.
So if you were a PH TWR controller who was sent to Broome to only do D/E airspace you would not lose dollars, only that sense of well being that comes from being able to afford the rent!!
So if you were a PH TWR controller who was sent to Broome to only do D/E airspace you would not lose dollars, only that sense of well being that comes from being able to afford the rent!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Ozineurope,
So now what is the cost difference between C and E airspace. It would appear that C corridors to both Broome and Karratha would cost no more than E airspace, but provide a lot more safety to RPT passengers. It certainly would not ruin any GA operator's budget and provide them also with a mantle of safety from RPT traffic!
So now what is the cost difference between C and E airspace. It would appear that C corridors to both Broome and Karratha would cost no more than E airspace, but provide a lot more safety to RPT passengers. It certainly would not ruin any GA operator's budget and provide them also with a mantle of safety from RPT traffic!
Dog, come to think of it , An A corridor would cost no more than E and be about the same for VFR pilots , as with C procedural they would most often be told " clearance not available" That's what happens in much of the non radar C now!
And those Americans and Canadians must be dumb- they could have C in place of all their E without any extra costs!
No wonder you do not put your real name on your posts!
And those Americans and Canadians must be dumb- they could have C in place of all their E without any extra costs!
No wonder you do not put your real name on your posts!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Mr Smith, yes I am really dumb. Of course VFR aircraft are more important than than the safety of 200 passengers in a jet. How stupid of me to think that VFR aircraft would be delayed entering C airspace, but not D airspace.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well why have a tower? If they are only going to give traffic, and landing clearances. The CAGRO gives traffic now and we have that traffic information at 30 miles which gives us time to fit in. Just another waste of the public purse!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe Dick is talking about the US? No wait they did not have ATC before WW2 either, maybe Europe? Nope not there either.
Oh well must be as inciteful as all the other posts regarding ATC and the delays we embugger the VFR industry with made by Dick.
Why is it that someone who is obviously such a good business man has so little understanding of what the majority of controllers do? Cause it would not fit with the greater scheme. ATC control aircraft to stop them hitting each other, except this is not a good enough reason to deny the 172 a clearance into the same bit of airspace as the 738 or for that matter the E190 as far as Mr Smith is concerned.
If the system of priorities that applied in the US (1st come 1st served) applied in Oz then the lighty would have the same rights as the IFR RPT. I believe this is one of the things that Dick misses everytime in his shots at the airspace and the controllers. we can not give priority to a VFR over the IFR RPT, change that rule and the whole game changes. But - Dick you go sell it to the bigger part of industry who earn a lot of dollars for Australia.
QF 6 follow the Cherokee downwind, expect late landing clearance..........
Oh well must be as inciteful as all the other posts regarding ATC and the delays we embugger the VFR industry with made by Dick.
Why is it that someone who is obviously such a good business man has so little understanding of what the majority of controllers do? Cause it would not fit with the greater scheme. ATC control aircraft to stop them hitting each other, except this is not a good enough reason to deny the 172 a clearance into the same bit of airspace as the 738 or for that matter the E190 as far as Mr Smith is concerned.
If the system of priorities that applied in the US (1st come 1st served) applied in Oz then the lighty would have the same rights as the IFR RPT. I believe this is one of the things that Dick misses everytime in his shots at the airspace and the controllers. we can not give priority to a VFR over the IFR RPT, change that rule and the whole game changes. But - Dick you go sell it to the bigger part of industry who earn a lot of dollars for Australia.
QF 6 follow the Cherokee downwind, expect late landing clearance..........
At least the real issue (which we all knew anyway) is out in the open now ...
C above Broome will delay VFRs
E above Broome will not delay VFRs
Assuming that is correct ....
Come to think of it ... do you know what would work nicely above Broome? ... Class F
C above Broome will delay VFRs
E above Broome will not delay VFRs
Assuming that is correct ....
- If there are bugger all VFRs above Broome, then delays are unlikely
- If there's a hornet's nest of VFRs above Broome, then they NEED to be separated
- As was pointed out earlier, what is more important ... VFRs not hitting RPTs, or VFRs not getting delayed?
Come to think of it ... do you know what would work nicely above Broome? ... Class F
Last edited by peuce; 8th Dec 2009 at 19:28. Reason: Late thought ...