Dick Smith: Do You Agree With The Mandatory Broadcast Area in Class E Above D?
Thread Starter
Dick Smith: Do You Agree With The Mandatory Broadcast Area in Class E Above D?
Dick,
Step up to the plate and state your position. The Australia-unique Broadcast Area in E (including the requirement to comply with CAR 100) has been created to optimise access for VFR. It is currently in place at Avalon. Do you or do you not support this non-US NAS, non-ICAO airspace arrangement?
Yes or No?
Step up to the plate and state your position. The Australia-unique Broadcast Area in E (including the requirement to comply with CAR 100) has been created to optimise access for VFR. It is currently in place at Avalon. Do you or do you not support this non-US NAS, non-ICAO airspace arrangement?
Yes or No?
Well, I decided to find out the Minister's position:
Unfortunately, I still don't know it ...
Dear xxxxxxxx,
Thank you for your email regarding airspace regulation at Broome. The points you have raised will be considered.
Yours sincerely,
The office of Anthony Albanese MP
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 14 June 2010 1:43 PM
To: Albanese, Anthony (MP)
Subject: Aviation - Airspace Regulation - Broome Issue
Dear Mr Albanese,
I am writing to ask for your point of view on an issue involving Airspace Regulation.
As you may be aware, the Office of Airspace Regulation, as part of CASA's responsibilities, is proposing to create a new Control Zone at Broome and Karratha Airports, in Western Australia.
As part of the architecture of these Class D Control Zones, the OAR is proposing a surrounding "veil" of Class E airspace ... with a VFR Broadcast requirement.
This VFR Broadcast requirement is contrary to the ICAO Class E Airspace specifications.
In your "Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010" you state that:
39 The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
The apparent conflict between ... what is proposed ... and ... your stated policy ... has created a deal of confusion amongst the flying fraternity, myself included.
My question to you is:
1. Do you believe that the proposed changes are inline with your stated policy?
2. If not, will your policy be changed, or, will the proposed Airspace changes be amended.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
Thank you for your email regarding airspace regulation at Broome. The points you have raised will be considered.
Yours sincerely,
The office of Anthony Albanese MP
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Monday, 14 June 2010 1:43 PM
To: Albanese, Anthony (MP)
Subject: Aviation - Airspace Regulation - Broome Issue
Dear Mr Albanese,
I am writing to ask for your point of view on an issue involving Airspace Regulation.
As you may be aware, the Office of Airspace Regulation, as part of CASA's responsibilities, is proposing to create a new Control Zone at Broome and Karratha Airports, in Western Australia.
As part of the architecture of these Class D Control Zones, the OAR is proposing a surrounding "veil" of Class E airspace ... with a VFR Broadcast requirement.
This VFR Broadcast requirement is contrary to the ICAO Class E Airspace specifications.
In your "Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010" you state that:
39 The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government‟s airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
The apparent conflict between ... what is proposed ... and ... your stated policy ... has created a deal of confusion amongst the flying fraternity, myself included.
My question to you is:
1. Do you believe that the proposed changes are inline with your stated policy?
2. If not, will your policy be changed, or, will the proposed Airspace changes be amended.
Thank you for your time.
Yours faithfully,
I had thought DS had already stated that he doesn't agree with modifying Class E (I'm not about to wade through the DS threads to find a quote though.)
I agree with him, HOWEVER I doubt that I agree with the conclusion that follows. If Class E needs to be modified to maintain the desired level of safety then Class E must be the wrong airspace classification for that area.
I agree with him, HOWEVER I doubt that I agree with the conclusion that follows. If Class E needs to be modified to maintain the desired level of safety then Class E must be the wrong airspace classification for that area.
Thread Starter
I see Dick Smith is on Prune at the moment, but has chosen not to answer my question.
He's in a bit of a bind here: to answer Yes, he would be admitting that his mantra is not actually standardisation with World's Best Practice/Internationally Proven systems (as he has stood for for years), but he'll do anything to get his fabled E airspace installed. Bend/change the rules and do anything that will help you achieve your Free in GE dream.
If he answers No, he would be agreeing with those of us who think this whole thing stinks.
Come on Dick. What is it going to be? Yes or No? Or is this going be another "I don't like the question so I'll just ignore it" as you and Ledsled do all the time?
He's in a bit of a bind here: to answer Yes, he would be admitting that his mantra is not actually standardisation with World's Best Practice/Internationally Proven systems (as he has stood for for years), but he'll do anything to get his fabled E airspace installed. Bend/change the rules and do anything that will help you achieve your Free in GE dream.
If he answers No, he would be agreeing with those of us who think this whole thing stinks.
Come on Dick. What is it going to be? Yes or No? Or is this going be another "I don't like the question so I'll just ignore it" as you and Ledsled do all the time?
Bloggs
Your Post #1 is difficult to answer. For a start, you state that the unique broadcast area
That’s what you believe, but I would have a feeling it’s been created to appease ill-informed people who don’t understand proper risk management.
If these broadcast procedures take away the attention from the Controller to concentrate on circuit traffic, I believe there’s a chance that safety will be reduced.
However, the number of VFRs flying in the airspace will be so small there will be probably be no measurable difference either way.
The reason the USA and Canada have E over D is not to provide access for VFR – as has been pointed out in the past, Class D when used correctly just provides a traffic information service for VFR, so there is no delay or access problem.
The reason these countries have E over D is so that the Controller – often a lone Controller in the tower – can concentrate on where the collision risk is greatest.
Of course, I’ve said this many times before, but you simply do not accept that this could be possible. You seem to believe that a non-radar tower Controller can be given a huge amount of airspace – even with Class C with mandatory separation between IFR and VFR – and still concentrate where the collision risk is greatest, ie. close to the runway.
Because you won’t accept this basic point of fact, it really is a complete waste of time in discussing the issues.
I say again – the only reason for the mandatory broadcast procedure is to appease ignorance. If it’s a way of introducing Class E – with the safety advantages stated above – considering that so few VFR aircraft will actually fly over in the broadcast zone, I suppose I would accept it.
Your Post #1 is difficult to answer. For a start, you state that the unique broadcast area
has been created to optimise access for VFR
If these broadcast procedures take away the attention from the Controller to concentrate on circuit traffic, I believe there’s a chance that safety will be reduced.
However, the number of VFRs flying in the airspace will be so small there will be probably be no measurable difference either way.
The reason the USA and Canada have E over D is not to provide access for VFR – as has been pointed out in the past, Class D when used correctly just provides a traffic information service for VFR, so there is no delay or access problem.
The reason these countries have E over D is so that the Controller – often a lone Controller in the tower – can concentrate on where the collision risk is greatest.
Of course, I’ve said this many times before, but you simply do not accept that this could be possible. You seem to believe that a non-radar tower Controller can be given a huge amount of airspace – even with Class C with mandatory separation between IFR and VFR – and still concentrate where the collision risk is greatest, ie. close to the runway.
Because you won’t accept this basic point of fact, it really is a complete waste of time in discussing the issues.
I say again – the only reason for the mandatory broadcast procedure is to appease ignorance. If it’s a way of introducing Class E – with the safety advantages stated above – considering that so few VFR aircraft will actually fly over in the broadcast zone, I suppose I would accept it.
Thread Starter
Dick,
You're not making sense.
So when the weather is bad, 8/8ths from 20k to the MDA, you've got your lone tower operator doing the whole thing. E and D. Or is it really the centre controllers running E, so your comment "can concentrate..." is meaningless.
Pull the other one, mate.
Well, I'm glad you've done a CBA on this. Given so few, then why on earth is the zone not being taken up to 4500ft? The workload will be the same, unless you are going to pay for the upgrade of the Centre controllers to become approach-rated to hand off IFRs to the tower in their tiny CTR.
So you've answered. You're quite happy to support a bodgied-up, confusing, non-standard airspace design just to get your fabled E in. No VFRs in Broome you imply? That's why the tower is going in, old chap. There aren't 100 jets a day there. The Broome VFRs are quite happy with D, by the way. It's only you NAStronauts who might fly through there once in a blue moon, or bleated about changing the steps into Alice by 2nms, that are the problem. The fringe running policy. Excellent.
You're not making sense.
The reason these countries have E over D is so that the Controller – often a lone Controller in the tower – can concentrate on where the collision risk is greatest.
The reason the USA and Canada have E over D is not to provide access for VFR
considering that so few VFR aircraft will actually fly over in the broadcast zone,
So you've answered. You're quite happy to support a bodgied-up, confusing, non-standard airspace design just to get your fabled E in. No VFRs in Broome you imply? That's why the tower is going in, old chap. There aren't 100 jets a day there. The Broome VFRs are quite happy with D, by the way. It's only you NAStronauts who might fly through there once in a blue moon, or bleated about changing the steps into Alice by 2nms, that are the problem. The fringe running policy. Excellent.
Bloggs
It’s sad that you have to distort what I say in an attempt to get your point over. You state
No, I don’t imply such a thing. I just state that the number of VFR aircraft overflying enroute in the broadcast procedure airspace will be very few.
Your attitude, then, is to make it a more restrictive airspace – however, using proper risk management, it’s better to allocate a less restrictive airspace that still fulfils a high safety outcome.
It’s sad that you have to distort what I say in an attempt to get your point over. You state
No VFRs in Broome you imply?
Your attitude, then, is to make it a more restrictive airspace – however, using proper risk management, it’s better to allocate a less restrictive airspace that still fulfils a high safety outcome.
I just state that the number of VFR aircraft overflying enroute in the broadcast procedure airspace will be very few
I am very interested to hear your view with regard to Avalon, Mr Smith. As is Capn Bloggs when he asked-
Another delicious irony and Mr Smith fobs it off as-
Ill-informed people??? That would be the OAR! I bet a certain Mr Cromatty would be happy to hear that the proponent describes his managment in such terms. Unless you fear the OAR has done the appeasing, contrary to the risk managment study...link please...why would the regulator worry about the actions of ill-informed pilots....Thin ice, Mr Smith...you are in check!
YES or NO
It is currently in place at Avalon. Do you or do you not support this non-US NAS, non-ICAO airspace arrangement?
I would have a feeling it’s been created to appease ill-informed people who don’t understand proper risk management.
YES or NO
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
That’s what you believe, but I would have a feeling it’s been created to appease ill-informed people who don’t understand proper risk management.
If these broadcast procedures take away the attention from the Controller to concentrate on circuit traffic, I believe there’s a chance that safety will be reduced.
If these broadcast procedures take away the attention from the Controller to concentrate on circuit traffic, I believe there’s a chance that safety will be reduced.
With the current system at Broome, all aircraft in the area have traffic information on everything within 30nm of Broome. For slow aircraft it's a bit of overkill, but for faster aircraft it is essential to have a mental picture so that you can make decisions on traffic avoidance before you get to the circuit area. Yes the most dangerous time for collision is close in to the aerodrome, but planning a safe course of action to avoid collisions close to the aerodrome happens much farther out. There's no point finding out about conflicting traffic 8 miles from the runway, you don't have enough time to efficiently do anything about it.
The new CTA is going to reduce this area of situational awareness from 30nm to 8nm. Having a mandatory broadcast requirement in E within 30nm (lets call it an MBZ) goes someway to improve the situation but there will still be plenty of "black" aircraft flying below the steps and therefore outside of the MBZ.
As far as I'm concerned the current plans for the CTA will be a reduction in safety. I'm all for having CTA but it needs to be done properly. Class E is inappropriate, an 8nm control zone is inappropriate, and multiple frequency changes at a busy phase of flight is also inappropriate.
I'm all for having CTA but it needs to be done properly. Class E is inappropriate, an 8nm control zone is inappropriate, and multiple frequency changes at a busy phase of flight is also inappropriate.
We do it everyday already
Oz, OK you win - the answer is yes and no !
But what could the reason be for the UK , Canada and the USA to have a very small amount of airspace ( as small as 3nm/2000'agl) at their non radar towers?
I wonder- could it be that years of experiece has shown that this is the safest way to go?
No , these countries wouldn't have a clue compared to our pilots that risk Broome and Avalon!
I will email the FAA and get them to change to 30nm radius like Broome!
But what could the reason be for the UK , Canada and the USA to have a very small amount of airspace ( as small as 3nm/2000'agl) at their non radar towers?
I wonder- could it be that years of experiece has shown that this is the safest way to go?
No , these countries wouldn't have a clue compared to our pilots that risk Broome and Avalon!
I will email the FAA and get them to change to 30nm radius like Broome!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick you said - "Of course, I’ve said this many times before, but you simply do not accept that this could be possible. You seem to believe that a non-radar tower Controller can be given a huge amount of airspace – even with Class C with mandatory separation between IFR and VFR – and still concentrate where the collision risk is greatest, ie. close to the runway."
How many collisions were there at Hedland, Karratha, Isa, Rocky, Mackay, Alice etc when we had only CTA or OCTA? What was the airspace owned by the procedural tower in those times - not sure? I controlled SFC-FL250 in radiating steps (out to 200nm Hedland) with a 30nm CTR and did not have one incident and was never too busy to deny a VFR clearance or lose the picture. And that was when Hedland was doing 3500 movements per month
And guess what - we used to run circuits with 210s, 172s and the odd 310 mixed in whilst we had the morning sequence calling us. The 4 F28s who all arrrived at the same time mixing it with the 5 or 6 310s coming back form MBL, Redmont, Strelley etc. And yet we separated them all by using procedural standards, safely, efficiently and in an orderly sequence.
No Dick E over D is not safe - cause if the above scenario presents itself at Karratha with the proposed airspace there may also be a couple of VFRs who are at 20nm in E not talking to me and I may just drop the jet straight through him. Say it cant/wont happen.
How many collisions were there at Hedland, Karratha, Isa, Rocky, Mackay, Alice etc when we had only CTA or OCTA? What was the airspace owned by the procedural tower in those times - not sure? I controlled SFC-FL250 in radiating steps (out to 200nm Hedland) with a 30nm CTR and did not have one incident and was never too busy to deny a VFR clearance or lose the picture. And that was when Hedland was doing 3500 movements per month
And guess what - we used to run circuits with 210s, 172s and the odd 310 mixed in whilst we had the morning sequence calling us. The 4 F28s who all arrrived at the same time mixing it with the 5 or 6 310s coming back form MBL, Redmont, Strelley etc. And yet we separated them all by using procedural standards, safely, efficiently and in an orderly sequence.
No Dick E over D is not safe - cause if the above scenario presents itself at Karratha with the proposed airspace there may also be a couple of VFRs who are at 20nm in E not talking to me and I may just drop the jet straight through him. Say it cant/wont happen.
Oz, of course it can happen- there is nothing in life without risk.
But what is the chance of it happening ?
Now that is the question.
If it is less than the chance of both engines failing at once on a 767 I personally would want to allocate my safety resources elsewhere. Wouldn't you?
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! We were the laughing stock of the world - and everything was separated from everything else as if all pilots were blind and incompetent.
No wonder you are in Europe!
But what is the chance of it happening ?
Now that is the question.
If it is less than the chance of both engines failing at once on a 767 I personally would want to allocate my safety resources elsewhere. Wouldn't you?
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! We were the laughing stock of the world - and everything was separated from everything else as if all pilots were blind and incompetent.
No wonder you are in Europe!
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
But what could the reason be for the UK , Canada and the USA to have a very small amount of airspace ( as small as 3nm/2000'agl) at their non radar towers?
I wonder- could it be that years of experiece has shown that this is the safest way to go?
No , these countries wouldn't have a clue compared to our pilots that risk Broome and Avalon!
I will email the FAA and get them to change to 30nm radius like Broome!
I wonder- could it be that years of experiece has shown that this is the safest way to go?
No , these countries wouldn't have a clue compared to our pilots that risk Broome and Avalon!
I will email the FAA and get them to change to 30nm radius like Broome!
If the changes don't enhance safety then they shouldn't be done or they should be modified such that they do enhance safety.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe so but we also disagree on the ability of a tower controller to ably and efficiently control airspace far greater than is being proposed. Saying what you have is merely scare mongering and does not stand up to reasoned analysis and historical empirical data.
Anyway I'm off to avoid the WC madness here in Germany - have a good weekend!
Anyway I'm off to avoid the WC madness here in Germany - have a good weekend!
Aero
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 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?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Dick
That is an improvement, but why make the rest worse, when for the same cost you can have much better.
It really is that simple.
What they have at similar places in the UK Canada and the USA is considerably different from a "whole of system" perspective. there is no dispute in that.
So why have the OAR created a far more complicated system with less safety.
the previous CTAF and unicom was better in a weird kind of way.
J
That is an improvement, but why make the rest worse, when for the same cost you can have much better.
It really is that simple.
What they have at similar places in the UK Canada and the USA is considerably different from a "whole of system" perspective. there is no dispute in that.
So why have the OAR created a far more complicated system with less safety.
the previous CTAF and unicom was better in a weird kind of way.
J
Dick, in the last 8nm it's improved, but the other 22nm is worse because we're still doing it ourselves but we won't have the information we currently have to do it with.
Think about it, 8nm miles for ATC to sort everyone out, 8nm for the flight crew to work out whether ATC are giving us good information or not. If there's a collision at Broome, it may well happen in the circuit area but it will have been set up 30nm away when the IFR pilots didn't have any information on the VFR guy to be able to get a mental picture of what is going on.
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?
Think about it, 8nm miles for ATC to sort everyone out, 8nm for the flight crew to work out whether ATC are giving us good information or not. If there's a collision at Broome, it may well happen in the circuit area but it will have been set up 30nm away when the IFR pilots didn't have any information on the VFR guy to be able to get a mental picture of what is going on.
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?
