Dick Smith: Do You Agree With The Mandatory Broadcast Area in Class E Above D?
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Brisbane, QLD
Age: 43
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class D does not have to be restrictive to VFR flights, yes VFR flights need a clearance but it doesnt mean they arent gooing to get what they request.
It is still VFR responsibility to separate from other traffic, but with directed TI.
If there is so few overflying, as a few people have said, then why have E with gravy, when D would achieve the same thing and meet with the holiest of Dicks grails - ICAO.
I remember on another thread, Dick, you bemoaning the fact and declaring several other countries as completely incompetent because of adjusting ICAO class of airspace rules to fit their needs and traffic...Hows this here any different?!?
It is still VFR responsibility to separate from other traffic, but with directed TI.
If there is so few overflying, as a few people have said, then why have E with gravy, when D would achieve the same thing and meet with the holiest of Dicks grails - ICAO.
I remember on another thread, Dick, you bemoaning the fact and declaring several other countries as completely incompetent because of adjusting ICAO class of airspace rules to fit their needs and traffic...Hows this here any different?!?
Thread Starter
Dick,
Geez, I didn't realise airspace wasted money when there was only one controller controlling it.
Not particularly if the zone is only 8nm. And you have obviously forgot about the Flight Service Station at Broome (Bloggs you naughty boy, that's what they are called in the US: it's a CAGRO here). Not much chance of hitting anybody on the runway with Tim watching over us. 
As usual, you have little grasp of what really goes on. Pilots collide in the circuit because nobody's been controlling them/giving them traffic so they can all set up the arrival in an orderly fashion. That is exactly what your E airspace does. Allows VFR to arrive unannounced until very late. That is why the current broadcast area/CAGRO works. The traffic levels have now exceeded that system's capacity: the most illogical thing to do would be to take VFR out of the system until they popped up just before the 8nm (smaller if you had your way!) CTR boundary.
Gobbo,
Not too sure whether you're serious or not here. First, Ground to Tower is a doddle: you do it when you're ready. Second, Centre>App>Tower: you know what app you're flying, all it is is a freq change. Contrast that with going into Broome with a 8nm/2500ft CTR. Been into Alice in a jet? It's not quite the same as arriving down a STAR. You have no idea what approach you'll get until you're quite close to the airfield. As for getting a radar vector from approach whilst still cleaning up, that's not hard, surely? How would you cope if you slotted one and had to do your escape procedure in the opposite direction to your planned departure? Cockpit procedures/standard calls? Pulling the flaps up?
I remember being involved in reducing that rediculous airspace size - up to 21nm radius at ground level and 200nm at twenty or so thousand feet. All with one controller! A huge waste of money!
The present system at Broome is a "do it yourself" separation system- even on to the runway.
The new system will have a qualified ATC responsible for planes not hitting each other in the circuit area and on the runway.
And you don't think that is an improvement?
The new system will have a qualified ATC responsible for planes not hitting each other in the circuit area and on the runway.
And you don't think that is an improvement?
As usual, you have little grasp of what really goes on. Pilots collide in the circuit because nobody's been controlling them/giving them traffic so they can all set up the arrival in an orderly fashion. That is exactly what your E airspace does. Allows VFR to arrive unannounced until very late. That is why the current broadcast area/CAGRO works. The traffic levels have now exceeded that system's capacity: the most illogical thing to do would be to take VFR out of the system until they popped up just before the 8nm (smaller if you had your way!) CTR boundary.
Gobbo,
Same as going from centre to approach to tower to ground in pretty busy components of flight. Or ground to tower then being asked to contact approach and being given vectors when you're not at acceleration altitude, you have not finished your cockpit procedures and standard calls etc etc.
Re Aerocat's post,
"To put it another way, for all its flaws, the present "do it yourself" system allows the pilots between 7 and 15 minutes to come to grips with what is going on in the area and to come up with a plan to fit in. The new system will give pilots AND ATC between 2 and 4 minutes to do the same thing. How is that better?"
Good Point Mr Aerocat.
Many of the inbound jets would often call at a point on descent well prior to the 30nm - (7 mins or so) just so they could get an appreciation of the traffic to be expected, and plan accordingly.
A VFR '210' is usually 12 mins or so from 30nm.
From 8nm the times would be.......
"To put it another way, for all its flaws, the present "do it yourself" system allows the pilots between 7 and 15 minutes to come to grips with what is going on in the area and to come up with a plan to fit in. The new system will give pilots AND ATC between 2 and 4 minutes to do the same thing. How is that better?"
Good Point Mr Aerocat.
Many of the inbound jets would often call at a point on descent well prior to the 30nm - (7 mins or so) just so they could get an appreciation of the traffic to be expected, and plan accordingly.
A VFR '210' is usually 12 mins or so from 30nm.
From 8nm the times would be.......
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 19th Jun 2010 at 05:05.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it just me or is there a fixation with lines in the sky as opposed to good practice? The IFR traffic will be in controlled airspace (E) so will still call where they do now. If you were operating VFR that day or were a VFR visitor why would you wait until 8nm to call the Tower. (Just because you can!)
Let's imagine for a moment that there is a Tower but no lines or airspace designators, what would a simple man driving a plane do?
I suggest he would call (VFR or IFR) at a distance commensurate with his speed and expect circuit joining instructions. Remember GA airports?
If he was overflying he would call at about the same time, tell the Tower what he was doing and wait for a response. He would also expect the Tower to exercise the controllers duty of care and direct him to fly in an area that was not going to be used for circuits and approaches.
So now lets throw in a few circles and lines just to let pilots and controllers know the limits of the different service areas. (ATC gives different services depending on the airspace classification). With the addition of these few lines why has anything changed? We all still know we have to give the controller time to find out where we are and fit us into his mental picture, why does the position of the service delivery line (aka airspace boundary) make any difference?
The E broadcast area above D is there because CASA and our airline colleagues do not believe that GA pilots can be trusted to apply commonsense to flying procedures. Why do we continuously impose lowest common denominator rules instead of expecting higher performance and common sense?
Let's imagine for a moment that there is a Tower but no lines or airspace designators, what would a simple man driving a plane do?
I suggest he would call (VFR or IFR) at a distance commensurate with his speed and expect circuit joining instructions. Remember GA airports?
If he was overflying he would call at about the same time, tell the Tower what he was doing and wait for a response. He would also expect the Tower to exercise the controllers duty of care and direct him to fly in an area that was not going to be used for circuits and approaches.
So now lets throw in a few circles and lines just to let pilots and controllers know the limits of the different service areas. (ATC gives different services depending on the airspace classification). With the addition of these few lines why has anything changed? We all still know we have to give the controller time to find out where we are and fit us into his mental picture, why does the position of the service delivery line (aka airspace boundary) make any difference?
The E broadcast area above D is there because CASA and our airline colleagues do not believe that GA pilots can be trusted to apply commonsense to flying procedures. Why do we continuously impose lowest common denominator rules instead of expecting higher performance and common sense?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The E broadcast area above D is there because CASA and our airline colleagues do not believe that GA pilots can be trusted to apply commonsense to flying procedures. Why do we continuously impose lowest common denominator rules instead of expecting higher performance and common sense?
And that is the issue with E. And when you consider the number of low performing and lacking in common sense things that get seen around the country, you can see why.
Thread Starter
MrApproach,
The other aspect to the answer to your question could be found by asking the NAStronauts why they so vehemently support real Class E at just above the airport. I'll tell you: so VFR can do their own thing without talking to anybody. They would be quite happy with VFRs overflying Broome at 2500ft saying nothing to anybody. Commonsense? Good Airmanship? Those piloting traits don't exist any more, at least in the airspace debate.
Yes, you are right, RPT pax expect a little more safety that that, and they have my full support. It is ridiculous that in this day and age we have people demanding to fly wherever they like with total disregard for other airspace users, with the regulators allowing them to (well, almost).
A few years ago, for a short period, we had VFRs doing their own thing in busy terminal airspace. It was a preposterous situation where big jets had to get vectored around VFR light aircraft or were given traffic on them. Crazy. After a couple of TCAS RAs (what did everybody expect?), AsA fortunately changed the airspace back.
You are now required to wear seat belts, and horses and carts aren't allowed on freeways because people can't use their commonsense (or didn't have any to start with, or are too arrogant and selfish to employ it). Similar rules are created for the safety of the majority of airspace users. If that is called catering to the lowest common denominator, then so be it.
The other aspect to the answer to your question could be found by asking the NAStronauts why they so vehemently support real Class E at just above the airport. I'll tell you: so VFR can do their own thing without talking to anybody. They would be quite happy with VFRs overflying Broome at 2500ft saying nothing to anybody. Commonsense? Good Airmanship? Those piloting traits don't exist any more, at least in the airspace debate.
Yes, you are right, RPT pax expect a little more safety that that, and they have my full support. It is ridiculous that in this day and age we have people demanding to fly wherever they like with total disregard for other airspace users, with the regulators allowing them to (well, almost).
A few years ago, for a short period, we had VFRs doing their own thing in busy terminal airspace. It was a preposterous situation where big jets had to get vectored around VFR light aircraft or were given traffic on them. Crazy. After a couple of TCAS RAs (what did everybody expect?), AsA fortunately changed the airspace back.
You are now required to wear seat belts, and horses and carts aren't allowed on freeways because people can't use their commonsense (or didn't have any to start with, or are too arrogant and selfish to employ it). Similar rules are created for the safety of the majority of airspace users. If that is called catering to the lowest common denominator, then so be it.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick quote: "No wonder you are in Europe!"
Another typical personal attack when the facts get in the way of your version. And I would say that one controller controlling 200nm from the tower is no more expensive than 1 controller controlling the nonsense airspace that will be BM and KA.
Oh and by the way - I'm coming back so see you soon.
Another typical personal attack when the facts get in the way of your version. And I would say that one controller controlling 200nm from the tower is no more expensive than 1 controller controlling the nonsense airspace that will be BM and KA.
Oh and by the way - I'm coming back so see you soon.
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
so VFR can do their own thing without talking to anybody
Commonsense? Good Airmanship? Those piloting traits don't exist any more, at least in the airspace debate.
Yes Bloggs, you are indeed "special".
Thread Starter
Cool it, Frank. Read my posts in the context of the discussion. I have met, and talked on the radio to, many VFR pilots whose professionalism, airmanship and common sense would put the NAStronauts to shame. A few rotten apples spoil the box, unfortunately.
So you actually 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?
So you actually 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 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Frank,
Maybe when you were bashing around in Bonanza's etc.....things were different, but here today things are not as they were. Now I am prepared to say that it is not unfounded etc claptrap. You are either not spending enough time flying around the country these days...or in denial. Either way, you can believe me or come for a fly around with me or bloggs....problem is you will be needing to move to Qld first coz I am not moving south into the cold for anyone!
J
More unfounded, opinionated, eliteist, "skygod" claptrap with nothing to back the assertion up other than a personal agenda. To even make such a statement shows you believe anyone, (other than a skygod), who has any radio qualifications or experience, (ie. your basic VFR pilot), learnt nothing from his/her education and is an idiot.
J
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
So you actually 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?
You are a fruitloop OZ. (and how come your Tassie mate is still with us)?
Anyway, for what it's worth, I believe if you are transitting busy controlled airspace, the safest time is when you are exactly over the centre of the busy airport at 2500ft. That is unless Bloggs' 4 Bunsen burner job does vertical arrivals and take off's.
Also, I believed (obviously wrongly again), that one needed a radio to fly in CTR or class E, and anyway, if one was fitted you had to use it, (like a transponder). Adding to this are new regulations circa 3 JUN 2010 which made it compulsory to have and use radio in the vicinity" of any "busy" airport. I understand "in the vicinity" also has a definition.
Thread Starter
Frank,
Where did I say that? Strange, I don't see it anywhere.
I didn't say you did. Note the question mark at the end of my sentence.
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.
Yes, you do, that's why we support a Class D CTR/A at Broome. Re the Class E radio requirement, I'd like to know exactly what "Continuous Two Way" means for VFR. It's odd that nowhere else in AIP is it stated that VFR require radios in E.
That rule went out some years ago when the original CTAF procedures (which replaced MBZs) were dispensed-with and CTAF (R)s were created.
That applies only to non-towered Registered or Certified airports. Towered airports are covered by the other airspace classes.
A pretty sloppy one, a distance that is uncomfortably close to the airport as far as being clobbered from behind by the likes of me while I'm inbound.
So you actually 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?
I believe if you are transitting busy controlled airspace, the safest time is when you are exactly over the centre of the busy airport at 2500ft.
one needed a radio to fly in CTR or class E
if one was fitted you had to use it
new regulations circa 3 JUN 2010 which made it compulsory to have and use radio in the vicinity" of any "busy" airport.
I understand "in the vicinity" also has a definition.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-Dubby,
That's in line with the points that quite a few have been making.
There seems to have been a recent fixation on VFR 'access' by the regulator. Why this variance to the prime responsibility regarding the 'safety of passenger transport operations' has occurred, as enunciated in the AAPS, is beyond me.
Surely, if VFR are knocked back for a clearance in C, or are given alternate routing/ altitudes, it's because they are in conflict with IFR PTOs. If ATC considers them 'in conflict,' then that must mean that there is a collision potential.
The rationale seems to be one whereby, if we introduce E, the 'problem' goes away.
In my mind, the collision potential must still exist but, by downgrading the airspace to E, CASA has effectively announced that a collision potential, heretofore established by recognised ATC procedures and standards, is myth.
I continues to scratch ma' head.
That's in line with the points that quite a few have been making.
There seems to have been a recent fixation on VFR 'access' by the regulator. Why this variance to the prime responsibility regarding the 'safety of passenger transport operations' has occurred, as enunciated in the AAPS, is beyond me.
Surely, if VFR are knocked back for a clearance in C, or are given alternate routing/ altitudes, it's because they are in conflict with IFR PTOs. If ATC considers them 'in conflict,' then that must mean that there is a collision potential.
The rationale seems to be one whereby, if we introduce E, the 'problem' goes away.
In my mind, the collision potential must still exist but, by downgrading the airspace to E, CASA has effectively announced that a collision potential, heretofore established by recognised ATC procedures and standards, is myth.
I continues to scratch ma' head.