Class D Zones for Broome & Karratha
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the Wikipedia entry on Cargo Cults:
Cargo cult - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
From time to time, the term "cargo cult" is invoked as an English language idiom to mean any group of people who imitate the superficial exterior of a process or system without having any understanding of the underlying substance. The error of logic made by the islanders consisted of mistaking a necessary condition (i.e., building airstrips, control towers, etc.) for cargo to come flying in, for a sufficient condition for cargo to come flying in, thereby reversing the causation. On a lower level, they repeated the same error by e.g. mistaking the necessary condition (i.e. build something that looks like a control tower) for building a control tower, for a sufficient condition for building a control tower.
Now Dick, please explain to me how that will improve safety at Broome?
Lets see a hypothetical case of B737-800(180 people) inbound from the south east and due to other IFR traffic will have to commence a holding pattern and approach due to low cloud, yet a VFR Cessna will be able transit overhead Broome in E airspace with no radio call required, with no radar at Broome and with good old see and avoid used for seperation!
If this E airspace is the go, why don't we put it over the top of Sydney?
Lets see a hypothetical case of B737-800(180 people) inbound from the south east and due to other IFR traffic will have to commence a holding pattern and approach due to low cloud, yet a VFR Cessna will be able transit overhead Broome in E airspace with no radio call required, with no radar at Broome and with good old see and avoid used for seperation!
If this E airspace is the go, why don't we put it over the top of Sydney?
Dick (Chief Pilot of Cargo Cult Airways),
Yes, ARFOR et al actually see the benefit in not having to put up with IFRs, like self, telling them that I'm doing this and that to self-segregate from VFR KFF coming from PBO or KFQ from Pannawonica, dodging DON parachuting over Whickham at 10,000ft when I'm inbound from YPPD. Apart from not messing up his traffic sequence, there will be a lot less jibber on the frequency if it were C. 
As I have said before (ignored by you, naturally), having E does not mean VFR aircraft go away. They just become invisible (your words) to the controller. They are actually a bigger threat to me then because not only do I have to do what ATC tells me to, I also have to make sure I do not bang into one of them!
Yes , I know , a small number of ATC's including ARFOR want to provide class C as they want to take on more responsibility and liability without any extra income for AsA. They are actually charitable workers and don't really want their salaries linked in any way with the actual income they produce for their employer!
As I have said before (ignored by you, naturally), having E does not mean VFR aircraft go away. They just become invisible (your words) to the controller. They are actually a bigger threat to me then because not only do I have to do what ATC tells me to, I also have to make sure I do not bang into one of them!
Heathrow has class A. That's what we need at Broome. ... will keep those annoying VFR's out of the way.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alice Springs has 'tower' managed D and C [operating safely for decades].
That is what is needed for busy regional airports that include fare paying passengers [lots of em].
If you need additional flexibility above A050, then consider D up to A100.
EASY, SAFE, LOWEST COST!
It also relieves some of the exisitng volume with the overlying High Sectors [during tower hours], and reverts to G [Oz F with ADS-B] o/nite
That is what is needed for busy regional airports that include fare paying passengers [lots of em].
If you need additional flexibility above A050, then consider D up to A100.
EASY, SAFE, LOWEST COST!
It also relieves some of the exisitng volume with the overlying High Sectors [during tower hours], and reverts to G [Oz F with ADS-B] o/nite
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
If the procedures are as I expect:
Scenario 1:
D/E or G boundary @ A025
IFR Jet ready at Broome for departure.
VFR aircraft is overflying @ A025 so operates to E or G procedures.
VFR is monitoring the centre frequency and announces if in conflict.
Departing jet has to give a departure report on tower frequency to receive instructions to change to centre frequency.
By this time jet contacts centre it is already though the VFR aircraft's level.
Collision avoidance is therefore reliant on MK 1 eyeball and ACAS.
Scenario 2:
IFR Jet inbound to Broome.
VFR aircraft is overflying @ A025 so operates to E procedures.
VFR aircraft hears descent transmissions for jet and announces if in conflict.
Scenario 3:
D/E boundary @ A025
IFR jet ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040.
Tower cordinates clearance with centre. Departing jet is held on ground until piston twin has landed. Some delay.
Scenario 4:
D/G boundary @ A025
IFR ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040
Each aircraft is given traffic on the other, but they are on two different frequencies. One aircraft is climbing, one is descending. WTF happens now?
Personally I think A025 is too low for the boundary between D & either E or G because (a) it doesn't give VFR aircraft to assess whether they are in conflict and respond and (b) aircraft B050 do not have to maintain hemispherical (or is it quadrantle) altitudes. To me it seems an A050 boundary seems more logical providing the size of the zone encompasses the airspace normally used by instrument approach and departure procedures.
DogOne:
1: E vs G VMC minima:
In E 1500m horizontally, 1000 feet from of cloud.
In G below A030 or 1000AGL in reduced VMC allows operations clear of cloud providing monitoring appropriate frequencies.
Do you really want a VFR aircraft legally scud running at A025 through the middle of your instrument approach?
2: 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 (I can't see a CTAF being introduced around the D let alone CTAF(R) - defeats the purpose of the tower in the first place).
3: Transponder required to be fitted and operating in E, only required to be operating if fitted in G. (I know this is relying on ACAS)
4: My scenario 3 vs 4.
My understanding is that procedures are identical for VFR in E & G. Given the above four points how is it possible for G to be safer than E?
Scenario 1:
D/E or G boundary @ A025
IFR Jet ready at Broome for departure.
VFR aircraft is overflying @ A025 so operates to E or G procedures.
VFR is monitoring the centre frequency and announces if in conflict.
Departing jet has to give a departure report on tower frequency to receive instructions to change to centre frequency.
By this time jet contacts centre it is already though the VFR aircraft's level.
Collision avoidance is therefore reliant on MK 1 eyeball and ACAS.
Scenario 2:
IFR Jet inbound to Broome.
VFR aircraft is overflying @ A025 so operates to E procedures.
VFR aircraft hears descent transmissions for jet and announces if in conflict.
Scenario 3:
D/E boundary @ A025
IFR jet ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040.
Tower cordinates clearance with centre. Departing jet is held on ground until piston twin has landed. Some delay.
Scenario 4:
D/G boundary @ A025
IFR ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040
Each aircraft is given traffic on the other, but they are on two different frequencies. One aircraft is climbing, one is descending. WTF happens now?
Personally I think A025 is too low for the boundary between D & either E or G because (a) it doesn't give VFR aircraft to assess whether they are in conflict and respond and (b) aircraft B050 do not have to maintain hemispherical (or is it quadrantle) altitudes. To me it seems an A050 boundary seems more logical providing the size of the zone encompasses the airspace normally used by instrument approach and departure procedures.
DogOne:
1: E vs G VMC minima:
In E 1500m horizontally, 1000 feet from of cloud.
In G below A030 or 1000AGL in reduced VMC allows operations clear of cloud providing monitoring appropriate frequencies.
Do you really want a VFR aircraft legally scud running at A025 through the middle of your instrument approach?
2: 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 (I can't see a CTAF being introduced around the D let alone CTAF(R) - defeats the purpose of the tower in the first place).
3: Transponder required to be fitted and operating in E, only required to be operating if fitted in G. (I know this is relying on ACAS)
4: My scenario 3 vs 4.
My understanding is that procedures are identical for VFR in E & G. Given the above four points how is it possible for G to be safer than E?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
werbil
I agree with your points made except to say in scenarios 1 and 2:-
- VFR often do not self announce
- VFR often do not understand IFR tracking and position reports [particularly if an IFR non-runway aligned procedure is being flown]
- VFR sometimes omit activating transponders
Class D clearances and separation [where necessary] addresses all of the above! Which as I read your other points, supports a higher level boundary split which solves these deficiencies.
Negative, the tower will separate the two, even if still in conflict whilst still in the overlying adjoining CTA. It happens everyday in every D tower. It is part and parcel of their separation co-operation at and around the adjoining Centre airspace boundary!
The tower will achieve the separation any number of ways depending on cloudbase, approach being flown, and its orientation to the runway in use etc etc. In your example above, there is virtually NO chance the IFR jet will not be airborne before the twin lands. This of course applies irrespective of the height of the split between TWR and Enroute CTA! Conversely, if the separation confict is a long way out, sector will separate these!
Where delays occur, is when tower applicable separation is not available, but a separation standard is still technically required i.e. close in to the aerodrome whilst in class E [below A100, and most certainly below A050], with G CTAF below.
I agree with your points made except to say in scenarios 1 and 2:-
- VFR often do not self announce
- VFR often do not understand IFR tracking and position reports [particularly if an IFR non-runway aligned procedure is being flown]
- VFR sometimes omit activating transponders
Class D clearances and separation [where necessary] addresses all of the above! Which as I read your other points, supports a higher level boundary split which solves these deficiencies.
Scenario 3:
D/E boundary @ A025
IFR jet ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040.
Tower cordinates clearance with centre. Departing jet is held on ground until piston twin has landed. Some delay.
D/E boundary @ A025
IFR jet ready at Broome for departure
IFR piston inbound on descent through A040.
Tower cordinates clearance with centre. Departing jet is held on ground until piston twin has landed. Some delay.
The tower will achieve the separation any number of ways depending on cloudbase, approach being flown, and its orientation to the runway in use etc etc. In your example above, there is virtually NO chance the IFR jet will not be airborne before the twin lands. This of course applies irrespective of the height of the split between TWR and Enroute CTA! Conversely, if the separation confict is a long way out, sector will separate these!
Where delays occur, is when tower applicable separation is not available, but a separation standard is still technically required i.e. close in to the aerodrome whilst in class E [below A100, and most certainly below A050], with G CTAF below.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
ARFOR,
Over the last twenty years I've seen more and more discouragment for VFR aircraft to talk on centre frequencies, and as for that matter the CTAF as well. The AIP also reads in a manner that discourages responding with your details and intentions when when you hear conflicting traffic on a CTAF.
Over the last four years 99% of my flying has been in CTAF(R) or Class D airspace and find it very unerving when in ordinary G listening and generally saying nothing. I also find that sector retransmission deteriorates situational awareness (I don't know if this is still done to the same extent as it used to be), particularly where a lot of the comunications relate to aircraft at the other end of the state.
Like it or lump it, communications need to be in a form that the least experienced can understand. This means that either IFR pilots need to use cardinal directions and distances in their broadcasts or VFR pilots need to be trained in instrument approach terminology.
Over the last twenty years I've seen more and more discouragment for VFR aircraft to talk on centre frequencies, and as for that matter the CTAF as well. The AIP also reads in a manner that discourages responding with your details and intentions when when you hear conflicting traffic on a CTAF.
Over the last four years 99% of my flying has been in CTAF(R) or Class D airspace and find it very unerving when in ordinary G listening and generally saying nothing. I also find that sector retransmission deteriorates situational awareness (I don't know if this is still done to the same extent as it used to be), particularly where a lot of the comunications relate to aircraft at the other end of the state.
VFR often do not understand IFR tracking and position reports [particularly if an IFR non-runway aligned procedure is being flown]
Well, we know the cause of discouraging VFR to communicate, particularly on FIA & E freqs.
And leaving it up to VFR in overlying E over D to interpret IFR communications and decide if they are going to conflict or not is leaving the decision to (in many instances) the lowest common denominator.
That's assuming the VFR is even radio equipped. As I've said before on this forum, transponders are not mandatory for VFR ops in E for those sports aviation types not capable of powering them.
And leaving it up to VFR in overlying E over D to interpret IFR communications and decide if they are going to conflict or not is leaving the decision to (in many instances) the lowest common denominator.
That's assuming the VFR is even radio equipped. As I've said before on this forum, transponders are not mandatory for VFR ops in E for those sports aviation types not capable of powering them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Again the size of the zone will be interesting, to contain the instrument approaches the zone will need to be at least 15nm, others say it will be between 6 - 10 nm. It will really become a dog's breakfast if the approaches aren't contained. The report on Broome operations outlined the reason for the non standard CTAF of 30nm radius as being due to the traffic mix, and to give all the traffic time to assimilate the traffic.
Jet departures are nominally around a climb rate of 3000' fpm, which means it will be out of the D upper limit in 1 minute. So VFR aircraft operating in E around A050 - A100 on the IFR routes will get some nice close ups of the jet traffic as it hopefully passes by.
Inbound, the D controller will have the details of the IFR traffic inbound, but won't know about VFR traffic until they call up. With the number of VFR aircraft I have seen and heard in the BRM CTAF, all inbound within a few minutes of each other, the tower frequency will become easily congested, creating delays, which will further deflect the controllers role of stopping mid -airs on base or final. They can happen outside the zone) If would appear that there will need to be more than one controller on duty, which means the establishment will need many controllers. One wonders were they will come from.
"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.
Again the size of the zone will be interesting, to contain the instrument approaches the zone will need to be at least 15nm, others say it will be between 6 - 10 nm. It will really become a dog's breakfast if the approaches aren't contained. The report on Broome operations outlined the reason for the non standard CTAF of 30nm radius as being due to the traffic mix, and to give all the traffic time to assimilate the traffic.
Jet departures are nominally around a climb rate of 3000' fpm, which means it will be out of the D upper limit in 1 minute. So VFR aircraft operating in E around A050 - A100 on the IFR routes will get some nice close ups of the jet traffic as it hopefully passes by.
Inbound, the D controller will have the details of the IFR traffic inbound, but won't know about VFR traffic until they call up. With the number of VFR aircraft I have seen and heard in the BRM CTAF, all inbound within a few minutes of each other, the tower frequency will become easily congested, creating delays, which will further deflect the controllers role of stopping mid -airs on base or final. They can happen outside the zone) If would appear that there will need to be more than one controller on duty, which means the establishment will need many controllers. One wonders were they will come from.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In summary, I don't know why Dick keeps pushing the focus onto ATC. CASA maketh the rulz. All the professional ATCs will employ process and direction as per the latest regulations. The ball has now moved well and truly into the court of the airlines. If two planes hit, the only dude who does not die is the ATC. With the current liabilty laws, it is wasted bandwidth for Dick to keep on wiith his 'small number of ATCs' crap.
Inshallah
Inshallah
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 62
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bite the bl00dy bullet and put a radar in...primary as well as SSR...then everyone (ATC's) can see who is who and where everyone is...if they won't put that in...wait until someone goes bang and watch the fallout.
Surely then full radar coverage will give Dick his wet dream of being just like the good ole USA
Surely then full radar coverage will give Dick his wet dream of being just like the good ole USA
TOBZALP and others, the safety at Broome will increase with D and E above.
From your posts it is clear you do not understand how the FAA NAS procedures work.
Then how would you , CASA does not have an expert in these procedures on staff.
I suggest you ask a FAA Class D controller to explain how the system works , both in a radar and non radar environment.
The Airservices controllers employed in the USA do not want to change the current airspace dimensions or classifications in the Class D environment.
Why not ask your boss for a briefing from them!
From your posts it is clear you do not understand how the FAA NAS procedures work.
Then how would you , CASA does not have an expert in these procedures on staff.
I suggest you ask a FAA Class D controller to explain how the system works , both in a radar and non radar environment.
The Airservices controllers employed in the USA do not want to change the current airspace dimensions or classifications in the Class D environment.
Why not ask your boss for a briefing from them!
From your posts it is clear you do not understand how the FAA NAS procedures work
Who said ANYBODY is...????
A 'GOOD' system removed...and the 'replacement' still to be arrived at....in 2009!
$$$$'s and 'Freedom To Operate', ain't everything in 'safety'......
Best Regards To All!
A 'GOOD' system removed...and the 'replacement' still to be arrived at....in 2009!
$$$$'s and 'Freedom To Operate', ain't everything in 'safety'......
Best Regards To All!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The whole selling point of NAS and the ALPHABET airspace was to enable any pilot from any country to come to Australia and fly or learn to fly in standardized global airspace.
This was supposed to lead to the grand saving of millions of dollars, and be the savior of the aviation industry in Australia.
This is what the traveling Dick and Mick Smith, John and Martha King circus was pushing at the forums. Nobody, at those forums or elsewhere for that matter, could fathom how the savings were to be achieved.
Now we're supposed to embrace "FAA Class D", whatever that is. Apparently it is different to ICAO D.
So much for the rubbish that was being sold then, and so much for the ill informed operational opinion we are getting now.
This was supposed to lead to the grand saving of millions of dollars, and be the savior of the aviation industry in Australia.
This is what the traveling Dick and Mick Smith, John and Martha King circus was pushing at the forums. Nobody, at those forums or elsewhere for that matter, could fathom how the savings were to be achieved.
Now we're supposed to embrace "FAA Class D", whatever that is. Apparently it is different to ICAO D.
So much for the rubbish that was being sold then, and so much for the ill informed operational opinion we are getting now.