Dick Smith: Do You Agree With The Mandatory Broadcast Area in Class E Above D?
G'Day Mr 'H',
Re yr "I continues to scratch ma' head."
Its all about not wanting to play with the VFR's because they don't pay the $$$'s that IFR RPT do.
The 'core business' is to earn $$'s from the processing of IFR only - and the heavier the better - 737's etc pay more than C404's for example - but sometimes the smaller acft just have to be processed as well.
And the more 'automated' systems' they can use, the Better the $$'s
But NOT VFR's if they can possibly help it....(IMHO of course)
So, 'they' create 'E' - where VFR acft are 'invisible' to ATC - NIL SSR at BME.
The moral - Ya gets wot ya pay fer....VFR don't pay, so they don't get....
Best regards to all.
Re yr "I continues to scratch ma' head."
Its all about not wanting to play with the VFR's because they don't pay the $$$'s that IFR RPT do.
The 'core business' is to earn $$'s from the processing of IFR only - and the heavier the better - 737's etc pay more than C404's for example - but sometimes the smaller acft just have to be processed as well.
And the more 'automated' systems' they can use, the Better the $$'s
But NOT VFR's if they can possibly help it....(IMHO of course)
So, 'they' create 'E' - where VFR acft are 'invisible' to ATC - NIL SSR at BME.
The moral - Ya gets wot ya pay fer....VFR don't pay, so they don't get....
Best regards to all.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jabbawocky;
Perhaps there is a "dumbing down" of standards that should be addressed at the BFR or before. If you are "qualified" you are "qualified". Are standards now "half qualified"?
As for the pond bottom dwellers, they are not allowed above 5000ft yet, (or are they), so they can't access class E in the "J" curve, nor allowed into what was a basic GAAP so how can they be expected to be proficient in CTR proceedure if they are OCTA only?
GRIFFO;
Based on the above we seem to be talking about a handfull of VH registered VFR aeroplanes flown by a handfull of private pilots or wannabee space cadets. Or what is left of the Gene Pool at grass roots level where our future sky gods evolve from.
Bloggs;
When you include in a sentence a preposition you will always get that. "They are the people I always hate talking to! Hey!
So, you actually agree beating your wife before lunch time is a good thing?
Give me a break.
Maybe when you were bashing around in Bonanza's etc.....things were different, but here today things are not as they were.
As for the pond bottom dwellers, they are not allowed above 5000ft yet, (or are they), so they can't access class E in the "J" curve, nor allowed into what was a basic GAAP so how can they be expected to be proficient in CTR proceedure if they are OCTA only?
GRIFFO;
Based on the above we seem to be talking about a handfull of VH registered VFR aeroplanes flown by a handfull of private pilots or wannabee space cadets. Or what is left of the Gene Pool at grass roots level where our future sky gods evolve from.
Bloggs;
When you include in a sentence a preposition you will always get that. "They are the people I always hate talking to! Hey!
So, you actually agree beating your wife before lunch time is a good thing?
Give me a break.
Thread Starter
Frank,
Instead of asking me about beating my wife before lunch, how about you answer this:
Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?
Instead of asking me about beating my wife before lunch, how about you answer this:
Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Griffo - not sure i agree that the airspace is designed on the user pays principle. The regulator does not get the revenue generated by the RPT, it is the service provider. CASA are funded by other means so their only intent should be to design airspace that is fit for purpose. (chuckles to self).
Airspace design has gone down the road of the minimalist approach purely to assuage a vociferous few. Control zones were redesigned to be as small as possible and wherever possible to be delineated by prominent topographical features. This was to make it easy for VFR aircraft to ensure that they could remain outside the zone. Check out the Perth CTR - what a dog's breakfast and yet we still have a large number of VCAs close to the GAAP (oh sorry D zone) boundaries.
The criteria that the CTA steps were designed on were those that encompassed the descent/climb profile of the scheduled passenger aircraft thus maximising the amount of available non controlled G airspace in close proximity to major airports. This allowed VFR aircraft maximum freedom to fly where and when they wanted. Removing OPS and FS were parts of the grand plan, not only did it cut costs (well in someone's mind anyway), it removed the necessity for the VFR aircraft to talk to anyone.
So it is all about the reluctance of a vocal few to have ask for a clearance rather than cost cutting.
Airspace design has gone down the road of the minimalist approach purely to assuage a vociferous few. Control zones were redesigned to be as small as possible and wherever possible to be delineated by prominent topographical features. This was to make it easy for VFR aircraft to ensure that they could remain outside the zone. Check out the Perth CTR - what a dog's breakfast and yet we still have a large number of VCAs close to the GAAP (oh sorry D zone) boundaries.
The criteria that the CTA steps were designed on were those that encompassed the descent/climb profile of the scheduled passenger aircraft thus maximising the amount of available non controlled G airspace in close proximity to major airports. This allowed VFR aircraft maximum freedom to fly where and when they wanted. Removing OPS and FS were parts of the grand plan, not only did it cut costs (well in someone's mind anyway), it removed the necessity for the VFR aircraft to talk to anyone.
So it is all about the reluctance of a vocal few to have ask for a clearance rather than cost cutting.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Frank
1. the bottom dwellers as you call them, not me, are not allowed above 5000' yet, and you know this. They are however in large numbers above 5000' .....well because they can, and do. You should know this too 
. If you believe the vast majority follow the rules, you are in your happy place indeed.
2. correct! - how can they be proficient? Well they can't be expected to be. and with E from A025 and up, they can legally be in E it seems. nor sure how CAR 100 applies here but it does. Bit of a grey area you think?? Some said bottom dwellers as you call them do not cope well with a CTAF, let alone following instructions from ATC when a RPT Jet is about to inhale them.
So if they are OCTA only folk.....we shold not have E airspace where the potential problem is.
Simple really.
Now stop trying to wind me up with questions you should already know the answers too.
As for the pond bottom dwellers, they are not allowed above 5000ft yet, (or are they), so they can't access class E in the "J" curve, nor allowed into what was a basic GAAP so how can they be expected to be proficient in CTR proceedure if they are OCTA only?
. If you believe the vast majority follow the rules, you are in your happy place indeed.2. correct! - how can they be proficient? Well they can't be expected to be. and with E from A025 and up, they can legally be in E it seems. nor sure how CAR 100 applies here but it does. Bit of a grey area you think?? Some said bottom dwellers as you call them do not cope well with a CTAF, let alone following instructions from ATC when a RPT Jet is about to inhale them.
So if they are OCTA only folk.....we shold not have E airspace where the potential problem is.
Simple really.
Now stop trying to wind me up with questions you should already know the answers too.
Frank,
G'day, Wot we are talking about here, is the 'mixing' of some 'fast movers' who, when moving at 210kts or a bit less, nose up a bit, (Vis reduced(?), on descent, have the potential to clean up some VFR little fella who, thru no fault of his own(?), wanders into the path of the larger acft who is largely unable to manoeuvre out of the way quickly -
Compared with having a 'system' where, in proximity to a terminal area, tfc is either 'notified' or 'separated' for the safety of all parties - including those equally innocents on the ground under same flight paths...
And, yes it is being pushed by some proponents who want to be able to fly 'unrestricted' wherever they want etc etc....
So, what do you propose?
And, Hi 'Oz',
The money has always been in the equation.
The removal of OPS was to save $$'s. And in many ways was welcome....
Resp. back to PIC, where it belongs, and the removal of the 'green pastures area' which cost the industry....
In the waaay back days, it cost the taxpayer.
The removal of FS was to save $$'s. And in many ways was not so welcome because there is now nothing to provide a service for VFR / OCTA acft, except for 'when work permits' etc and this is by design.
'Others' will spruik the 'why' to you.
The 'streamlining' of FS was good - it removed those Public Service 'green pastures' in that area, deleted services to VFR's - get the picture? - and many thought that the then evolved system was economically sound and affordable.
However, that was NOT the plan.
The plan is to concentrate on 'core business' and make a profit for the Gummint and the other stakeholder, ASA to share in, and the 3rd party is the industry, which is supposed to wind up with lower charges.
A win-win-win some might say....
How much does ASA return to the Gummint each year?? - 3 stakeholders - Govt, ASA, and the industry....
'E' fits the bill for this. VFR - no services.
'Danger Danger Will Smith' is that it (E) above a terminal area is inherently unsafe - as all of the rest of us know.
'E' + is better...but 'C' would be much more betterish.....
And I think I can recall when ASA WAS the regulator.....t'aint now, but I think it may have been then....
Cheers, and you'all be careful out there...
G'day, Wot we are talking about here, is the 'mixing' of some 'fast movers' who, when moving at 210kts or a bit less, nose up a bit, (Vis reduced(?), on descent, have the potential to clean up some VFR little fella who, thru no fault of his own(?), wanders into the path of the larger acft who is largely unable to manoeuvre out of the way quickly -
Compared with having a 'system' where, in proximity to a terminal area, tfc is either 'notified' or 'separated' for the safety of all parties - including those equally innocents on the ground under same flight paths...
And, yes it is being pushed by some proponents who want to be able to fly 'unrestricted' wherever they want etc etc....
So, what do you propose?
And, Hi 'Oz',
The money has always been in the equation.
The removal of OPS was to save $$'s. And in many ways was welcome....
Resp. back to PIC, where it belongs, and the removal of the 'green pastures area' which cost the industry....
In the waaay back days, it cost the taxpayer.
The removal of FS was to save $$'s. And in many ways was not so welcome because there is now nothing to provide a service for VFR / OCTA acft, except for 'when work permits' etc and this is by design.
'Others' will spruik the 'why' to you.
The 'streamlining' of FS was good - it removed those Public Service 'green pastures' in that area, deleted services to VFR's - get the picture? - and many thought that the then evolved system was economically sound and affordable.
However, that was NOT the plan.
The plan is to concentrate on 'core business' and make a profit for the Gummint and the other stakeholder, ASA to share in, and the 3rd party is the industry, which is supposed to wind up with lower charges.
A win-win-win some might say....
How much does ASA return to the Gummint each year?? - 3 stakeholders - Govt, ASA, and the industry....
'E' fits the bill for this. VFR - no services.
'Danger Danger Will Smith' is that it (E) above a terminal area is inherently unsafe - as all of the rest of us know.
'E' + is better...but 'C' would be much more betterish.....
And I think I can recall when ASA WAS the regulator.....t'aint now, but I think it may have been then....
Cheers, and you'all be careful out there...
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep they were judge, jury and payee!!
I did a little jaunt to UK, US and Canada in the mid 90s to see how the rest of the world did it. I was the Civil Air rep. We ended up with CASA and ASA. Oh dear. I knew they would never listen to the input of a mere controller!
Certainly what we mere mortal ATCs were told was that it was meant to provide a better service and industry wanted it - that is no OPS and no FS.
Also shifted the briefing part of FS onto ATC. Always get calls when something changes or a NOTAM is a bit dodgy - used to be able to say just pop into the briefing office and the guy there will explain it. No more unfortunately. This is true as much for the big industry as the local flying organisations.
Look at the kerfuffle with changing WX and hazard alerts, what a shambles. Hazard alerting takes up a whole chapter in MATS - when in fact this is the type of stuff that OPS were really good at - supposed to be the realm of the airlines now, but guess what that little old IFR Baron dont have an ops department so the ATC gets to determine if he/she needs the amended TTF or will they be using the TAF?
As an aside I'm thinking we probably worked next door to each other back in the 80s-90s in Perth?
I did a little jaunt to UK, US and Canada in the mid 90s to see how the rest of the world did it. I was the Civil Air rep. We ended up with CASA and ASA. Oh dear. I knew they would never listen to the input of a mere controller!
Certainly what we mere mortal ATCs were told was that it was meant to provide a better service and industry wanted it - that is no OPS and no FS.
Also shifted the briefing part of FS onto ATC. Always get calls when something changes or a NOTAM is a bit dodgy - used to be able to say just pop into the briefing office and the guy there will explain it. No more unfortunately. This is true as much for the big industry as the local flying organisations.
Look at the kerfuffle with changing WX and hazard alerts, what a shambles. Hazard alerting takes up a whole chapter in MATS - when in fact this is the type of stuff that OPS were really good at - supposed to be the realm of the airlines now, but guess what that little old IFR Baron dont have an ops department so the ATC gets to determine if he/she needs the amended TTF or will they be using the TAF?
As an aside I'm thinking we probably worked next door to each other back in the 80s-90s in Perth?
To be honest, Francis. I am getting bored of thinking up new and more poignient ways of saying the exact same thing about the exact same airspace.
The simple fact of the matter is the incompatability of class E with both airspace users and those who must wear the responsibility for separation in controlled airspace.
The OAR has changed the purity of NAS class E to Unique Australian E Airspace....it is no longer class E...ICAO or FAA! The hypocricy! and yet no argument. For twenty years the proponent has railed against Australian Unique airspace and then meekly accepts this? He meekly accepts this! He makes a mockery of everything that has happened before in the name of unification and simplification...he is a hypocrite!
The simple fact of the matter is the incompatability of class E with both airspace users and those who must wear the responsibility for separation in controlled airspace.
The OAR has changed the purity of NAS class E to Unique Australian E Airspace....it is no longer class E...ICAO or FAA! The hypocricy! and yet no argument. For twenty years the proponent has railed against Australian Unique airspace and then meekly accepts this? He meekly accepts this! He makes a mockery of everything that has happened before in the name of unification and simplification...he is a hypocrite!
Hey Oz........
And yours truly was the CPSU Rep......
Shared the same dunny....so to speak....
Unfortunately, 'tis still about the ASA Managers' bonuses $$'s and 'indirect Gummint taxes'...
Do you have any 'E' where you are now??
I'm guessing, but will await the answer......
And yours truly was the CPSU Rep......
Shared the same dunny....so to speak....
Unfortunately, 'tis still about the ASA Managers' bonuses $$'s and 'indirect Gummint taxes'...
Do you have any 'E' where you are now??
I'm guessing, but will await the answer......
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed we do have E. But it does not overly any major CTRs and is certainly nowhere near any aerodromes that have RPT moves. German airspace is, well, uniquely German!
G to 2000' abv ground, F (1 in the airspace at a time), D zones, C CTAs and zones (FRA etc) and E clear of major traffic routes and not above FL100. Typical airspace arrangement is Class C CTR, overlaid by Class C ENR. Where there is a D zone Class C is above with E surrounding but clear of the traffic areas.
In some cases there is D zone (small regional airport) with E above and a unique little mandatory transponder zone which is Class E. However this is for airports similar to Camden or Narrogin and not serviced by a regular transport operator. Think lots of little aerodromes where the RFDS go to.
But..radar cover is almost total except for shielding from the hills around us! In fact in the college we do not teach procedural separation in any detail as most DFS controllers will never use it in anger.
And thought your handle was one I recognised. Good health to you and I miss those days when we used to discuss what programs to watch on the telly in the break room!!
G to 2000' abv ground, F (1 in the airspace at a time), D zones, C CTAs and zones (FRA etc) and E clear of major traffic routes and not above FL100. Typical airspace arrangement is Class C CTR, overlaid by Class C ENR. Where there is a D zone Class C is above with E surrounding but clear of the traffic areas.
In some cases there is D zone (small regional airport) with E above and a unique little mandatory transponder zone which is Class E. However this is for airports similar to Camden or Narrogin and not serviced by a regular transport operator. Think lots of little aerodromes where the RFDS go to.
But..radar cover is almost total except for shielding from the hills around us! In fact in the college we do not teach procedural separation in any detail as most DFS controllers will never use it in anger.
And thought your handle was one I recognised. Good health to you and I miss those days when we used to discuss what programs to watch on the telly in the break room!!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Children children,
Dear dear, Daddy goes away for a bit and the idiotology starts all over again.
In the big kids playground where we have to deal with Uncle Dicks fantasies the big kids work their way around it.
Our good friends at.
"Qantas will be conducting straight in approaches from 5 miles at non-towered airports - not 3 miles as permitted in recent amendments to CAR 166."
but hey what would Qantas know Dick.
In the mean time us big kids will continue to behave like, well, big kids.
Dear dear, Daddy goes away for a bit and the idiotology starts all over again.
In the big kids playground where we have to deal with Uncle Dicks fantasies the big kids work their way around it.
Our good friends at.
"Qantas will be conducting straight in approaches from 5 miles at non-towered airports - not 3 miles as permitted in recent amendments to CAR 166."
but hey what would Qantas know Dick.
In the mean time us big kids will continue to behave like, well, big kids.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Folks, some good bedtime reading on the CASA site with the Hobart and Launie studies being put back up.
Seems the OAR have found that even the governemnt push for E over D does not cut the mustard and at both they were told the C over D should remain.
Why is it we have wasted more industry funds on all the studies, the OAr and all the travel, meetings, chart printing etc, than would ever be saved if in fact a saving is to be made in any of our lifetimes.
Gaunty.....ya back!
Seems the OAR have found that even the governemnt push for E over D does not cut the mustard and at both they were told the C over D should remain.
Why is it we have wasted more industry funds on all the studies, the OAr and all the travel, meetings, chart printing etc, than would ever be saved if in fact a saving is to be made in any of our lifetimes.
Gaunty.....ya back!
The LAX mantra again. That only works if the corridor is 90° to the runway. A380s, during a Missed Approach at LAX, have to DESCEND to 2000ft so they don't hit unknown, unnotified lighties flying overhead the airport.
You are quite amazing, being obviously unable to comprehend anything but a climb for a missed approach, but the rest of the world is a little more flexible.
I have had my share share of missed approaches at KLAX, as has any body who has operated through there on a regular basis, we take it in our stride. As we do in EGLL when they are using very tight spacing in VMC ---- in both places up to 52+ movements an hour per runway ---- and a very high proportion of wide bodies.
As for "vicinity", the Australian definition of "vicinity" is as per ICAO (do you understand what it means in a Metar/Speci/TAF/TTF), so what do you think ICAO should change to meet with you approval.
Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?
Tootle pip!!
PS: Only if the missed approach starts high. the all it is, is a gentle descent to fly level --- don't you think you could manage that !!
In KLAX, tower will keep an approach going as long as possible, an instruction to go around above 1000' is very rare.
Gaunty, how true-
And for precisely this truth..the big kids will work around this experiment. There will be no issues with this experiment...and because there will be no issues, the experiment will be deemed a success. A sad day indeed.
I fear this has been the way of all the NAS attempts. Until, the lowest common denominator cashes into the game.
In the big kids playground where we have to deal with Uncle Dicks fantasies the big kids work their way around it.
I fear this has been the way of all the NAS attempts. Until, the lowest common denominator cashes into the game.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs;
If you are asking me if would I do that, the answer is no. Smacks of bad airmanship to say the least. As for the "system", well, I would use it carefully if it were an operational necessity.
OZ;
Someone defined madness as doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.
Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?
OZ;
To be honest, Francis. I am getting bored of thinking up new and more poignient ways of saying the exact same thing about the exact same airspace.
Thread Starter
Arr, Ledsled's back.
I knew the compliments would start flowing eventually.
10nm is too close for me to find out about a previously unnotified lighty ahead, so yes, I do think that the ICAO definition is not appropriate. What relevance a METAR has to the discussion only you would know.
Please read and understand the changes that came in on 3 June, by your question you obviously haven't understood.
I didn't ask you, but since you raise it, what's your answer: YES or NO?
BTW, the 3 Jun changes have nothing to do with this subject. Perhaps it is you who should read them again. Or are you going to trot out Frank's idea that because a Class D airport is a busy airport, pilots should be "broadcasting in the vicinity". I'll have to remember that when I get near Sydney. What freq should I broadcast on, by the way?
Bloggs,
You are quite amazing
You are quite amazing
As for "vicinity", the Australian definition of "vicinity" is as per ICAO (do you understand what it means in a Metar/Speci/TAF/TTF), so what do you think ICAO should change to meet with you approval.
Do you agree with having a system that allows an aircraft to drill straight over the top of a busy CTR at 2500ft without talking to anybody?
BTW, the 3 Jun changes have nothing to do with this subject. Perhaps it is you who should read them again. Or are you going to trot out Frank's idea that because a Class D airport is a busy airport, pilots should be "broadcasting in the vicinity". I'll have to remember that when I get near Sydney. What freq should I broadcast on, by the way?
Desmotronic and how many was that?
09 figures
That works out at 36.4 movements a day..just another bit of misinformation for you. Total movements works out at 100 per day or about 12 an hour give or take.
Broome doesn't need E over D...it REQUIRES C over D
- Broome Western Australia [YBRM] Equivalent to US Part 139 Class 1
12 months to June 09' Air Transport 13,300 Total 36,800
12 months to June 09' Air Transport 13,300 Total 36,800
That works out at 36.4 movements a day..just another bit of misinformation for you. Total movements works out at 100 per day or about 12 an hour give or take.
Broome doesn't need E over D...it REQUIRES C over D