NAS E+ and AV
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Capt12am
You wish that was what CASA thought.....I did too
. But when pushed I have been told in writing that E is not all that it would seem.....Some rules apply to some and not others.
What more can I say.
You wish that was what CASA thought.....I did too
. But when pushed I have been told in writing that E is not all that it would seem.....Some rules apply to some and not others.What more can I say.
Peuce
I agree that the broadcast rather than contact requirement struck me as odd, and CASA could have easily made it a requirement to direct the call to ATC in the Instrument for the BA. I came to the same conclusion as you - they were being clever to get around something
Jaba
Thanks for the PM. Different CASA offices and individuals have different interpretations on just about everything, as we know. Any RAA type wondering about generic Class E access should thoroughly read the CAO Part 95 exemptions that apply to their aircraft type. Most grant access to Class E in VMC below 10,000. Then check the transponder reg. situation ("engine driven system capable of powering" etc.). Despite AIP saying in a couple of places (the airspace classification tables) a transponder is mandatory for Class E, the engine driven bit clearly provides an exemption. Clearly many types can't power one, so they can and currently do operate in Class E. Radio is also not mandatory.
Where these broadcast areas are declared, they change the situation though.
I agree that the broadcast rather than contact requirement struck me as odd, and CASA could have easily made it a requirement to direct the call to ATC in the Instrument for the BA. I came to the same conclusion as you - they were being clever to get around something
Jaba
Thanks for the PM. Different CASA offices and individuals have different interpretations on just about everything, as we know. Any RAA type wondering about generic Class E access should thoroughly read the CAO Part 95 exemptions that apply to their aircraft type. Most grant access to Class E in VMC below 10,000. Then check the transponder reg. situation ("engine driven system capable of powering" etc.). Despite AIP saying in a couple of places (the airspace classification tables) a transponder is mandatory for Class E, the engine driven bit clearly provides an exemption. Clearly many types can't power one, so they can and currently do operate in Class E. Radio is also not mandatory.
Where these broadcast areas are declared, they change the situation though.
Thread Starter
Capn Midnight...another CAR that was quoted back at me...CAR165
CASA may, in respect of any specified aerodrome, temporarily suspend, either wholly or in part, the application of the rules contained in this Division
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Capt Midnight
You missed the point. You need to call me so I can explain this better, but you said E is Controlled Airspace, and I would agree, but apparently E is controlled airspace ONLY for IFR.
RAA aircraft if they meet the equipment regs can fly in CTA...no trouble at all, just as a C172 with a PPL (Nil airspace restrictions) or higher pilot. However same suitable a/c with a RAA ticket only pilot...not so. Now come to Class E, RAA only pilots are allowed in their a/c that meet the requirements.
Now....is Class E CTA for VFR or not?????
This came from the OAR and the sports aviation fellow at CASA and they sought advice from their legal folk.
Now go figure???
Unless you can help me prove otherwise.... E is CTA for IFR only.
J
You missed the point. You need to call me so I can explain this better, but you said E is Controlled Airspace, and I would agree, but apparently E is controlled airspace ONLY for IFR.
RAA aircraft if they meet the equipment regs can fly in CTA...no trouble at all, just as a C172 with a PPL (Nil airspace restrictions) or higher pilot. However same suitable a/c with a RAA ticket only pilot...not so. Now come to Class E, RAA only pilots are allowed in their a/c that meet the requirements.
Now....is Class E CTA for VFR or not?????
This came from the OAR and the sports aviation fellow at CASA and they sought advice from their legal folk.
Now go figure???
Unless you can help me prove otherwise.... E is CTA for IFR only.
J
Try to find a definition of controlled airspace and you will get confused ... many conflicting statements, even amongst ANSPs.
However, the gist of most definitions is that an airspace is controlled if control services are available ... not necessarily given.
From the ASA Website:
From CASA website:
So, I think we can safely accept that Class E in Australia is Controlled Airspace.
HOWEVER, that doesn't necessarily mean that your operation is being controlled in it ... viz a viz VFRs.
That brings up the next question .... when are you considered to be 'subject to control' ?
Which in turn, leads to the question .... does CAR100 apply to me if I am not 'subject to control' ?
Which in turn leads to the question ... if CASA believes I am 'subject to control' ( as a VFR) then ... is it still Class E airspace ?
No, and a difference should be filed with ICAO.
All very tedious, but if I was a current Controller at Avalon or if I was flying VFR though the area .... I'd want to know the answers to these questions... although, I suspect many don't really care.
However, the gist of most definitions is that an airspace is controlled if control services are available ... not necessarily given.
From the ASA Website:
Four of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) controlled airspace classes are used in Australia: A, C, D and E.
Uncontrolled Airspace (no separation service is provided by ATC ) is Class G.
Uses of each type of airspace:
Class A
High level enroute airspace. Well suited for modern passenger jets.
Class C
Surrounds major city airports starting at ground level.
Class D
This airspace is often used at smaller regional airports.
The upper boundary of Class D is usually 4500 feet (1368 m).
Class E
Australian Class E is mid-level enroute ‘controlled’ airspace. Its base is at 8500 feet (2584 m) within enroute secondary surveillance radar coverage.
Class G
Uncontrolled airspace. Flight Information Service and Traffic Information Service only..
Uncontrolled Airspace (no separation service is provided by ATC ) is Class G.
Uses of each type of airspace:
Class A
High level enroute airspace. Well suited for modern passenger jets.
Class C
Surrounds major city airports starting at ground level.
Class D
This airspace is often used at smaller regional airports.
The upper boundary of Class D is usually 4500 feet (1368 m).
Class E
Australian Class E is mid-level enroute ‘controlled’ airspace. Its base is at 8500 feet (2584 m) within enroute secondary surveillance radar coverage.
Class G
Uncontrolled airspace. Flight Information Service and Traffic Information Service only..
Controlled airspace has the same meaning as defined in ICAO Annex 11, viz. an airspace of controlled dimensions within which air traffic control service is provided to IFR flights and to VFR flights in accordance with the airspace classification. Note: Controlled airspace is a generic term which covers airspace Classes A, B, C, D, and E.
HOWEVER, that doesn't necessarily mean that your operation is being controlled in it ... viz a viz VFRs.
That brings up the next question .... when are you considered to be 'subject to control' ?
Which in turn, leads to the question .... does CAR100 apply to me if I am not 'subject to control' ?
Which in turn leads to the question ... if CASA believes I am 'subject to control' ( as a VFR) then ... is it still Class E airspace ?
No, and a difference should be filed with ICAO.
All very tedious, but if I was a current Controller at Avalon or if I was flying VFR though the area .... I'd want to know the answers to these questions... although, I suspect many don't really care.
Thread Starter
Peuce, agree! Once again it comes down to a vagueness of responsibility. If the procedures are class D then call the airspace class D and everyone will treat it exactly as advertised.
Thread Starter
Chief Galah...
By comparison with certain special departures that place you over or under traffic into ML...AV E+ puts you right THROUGH the glideslope...A risk?
Still feel privilaged First time I got one of those special clearances, I felt like a regular...made tripple sure not to **** up and ruin it for everyone.
Thats what it's all about, isn't it CG? You guys actually trust us to do the task without being wetnursed. So, things do not go pearshaped. Because, from that position, things go bad for everyone real fast...and you guys cop all the blame.
That's why Broome went D over D..Tower responsibility for airspace. Why is AV so different?
Haven't you thought the "regular" users should get a better break,
Still feel privilaged
First time I got one of those special clearances, I felt like a regular...made tripple sure not to **** up and ruin it for everyone.Thats what it's all about, isn't it CG? You guys actually trust us to do the task without being wetnursed. So, things do not go pearshaped. Because, from that position, things go bad for everyone real fast...and you guys cop all the blame.
The AV airspace set up exposes controllers to considerable
risk for a life time in court. It equally exposes the flying public
to a risk they are unaware of, all because of a small band
of people who think they have a free right to be there.
risk for a life time in court. It equally exposes the flying public
to a risk they are unaware of, all because of a small band
of people who think they have a free right to be there.
No, we're all talking about the same thing. Peuce put the situation better than I did. The quote from the CASA website is virtually word for word from ICAO Annex 11. Class E is controlled airspace, within which IFR get a different level of service from VFR.
Thread Starter
Captain Midnight...In E VFR get NO SERVICES nor are the submitted to control. For VFR E is the exact same G...E+ is exactly the same as D.
AS peuce points out..change a word and the airspace is revealed!
AS peuce points out..change a word and the airspace is revealed!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
So is it controlled airspace??
Why is any RAAus pilot allowed into it if its CTA.
A volume of airspace is categorised in its type....so how do you have a it sort of CTA.
J
Why is any RAAus pilot allowed into it if its CTA.
A volume of airspace is categorised in its type....so how do you have a it sort of CTA
.J
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The ATC people at AV strongly advised CASA against setting up
the airspace in it's current form.
Deathly silence.
The ATC people at AV have repeatedly asked CASA how to they
are supposed operate the airspace as it is depicted in the
documentation provided.
Deathly silence
The ATC people at AV appear to treat E as D when necessary to
the extent of instructing VFR aircraft to vacate the area when
things get tight.
The ATC people at AV have been told it is not good enough to provide
traffic in E and D airspace. If aircraft collide, then, despite all their efforts
to abide by the rules pertaining to that airspace, they will be
responsible. When CASA is advised of this
Deathly silence.
It is patently obvious that the political agenda prevails even though it is
totally blind to common sense. CASA will be in court, but they do not
have to face the liabilities that ATC at AV have to endure.
So despite all the overwhelming operational evidence that the
AV architecture is inherently dangerous, CASA are too spineless
and blatantly ignorant to make a stand.
The move to have a separate OAR has been the most hazardous
and reckless decision affecting air safety in this country.
P-Dubby This is why I'm critical of Civilair. Their members
are under real risk and little seems to be done about it.
the airspace in it's current form.
Deathly silence.
The ATC people at AV have repeatedly asked CASA how to they
are supposed operate the airspace as it is depicted in the
documentation provided.
Deathly silence
The ATC people at AV appear to treat E as D when necessary to
the extent of instructing VFR aircraft to vacate the area when
things get tight.
The ATC people at AV have been told it is not good enough to provide
traffic in E and D airspace. If aircraft collide, then, despite all their efforts
to abide by the rules pertaining to that airspace, they will be
responsible. When CASA is advised of this
Deathly silence.
It is patently obvious that the political agenda prevails even though it is
totally blind to common sense. CASA will be in court, but they do not
have to face the liabilities that ATC at AV have to endure.
So despite all the overwhelming operational evidence that the
AV architecture is inherently dangerous, CASA are too spineless
and blatantly ignorant to make a stand.
The move to have a separate OAR has been the most hazardous
and reckless decision affecting air safety in this country.
P-Dubby This is why I'm critical of Civilair. Their members
are under real risk and little seems to be done about it.
Last edited by Chief galah; 2nd Jul 2010 at 11:31.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chief Galah
Help Civilair out here. Exactly in which Court do you expect Civilair to fight this battle.
Do Civilair instruct their members to not work the procedures that ASA (the employer), and CASA (the Regulator) have come up with. Off we go to Fair Work Australia who will say that if ASA and CASA are happy you must work to your employers direction.
Do Civilair report ASA to CASA for a ruling on CASAs Frankenstein? Do Civilair report CASA to ummm.... CASA?
It shows where we are now at in Aviation governance in Australia, when you are saying the only ones left with any credibility for what is right is the Association of the ATCs. Civilair has been contributing through the only channels it can to the debate. Civilair has a small and dedicated office staff, and hardworking VOLUNTEER committee members.
Seriously though, what more do you expect Civilair to do? Mount a High Court challenge?
Help Civilair out here. Exactly in which Court do you expect Civilair to fight this battle.
Do Civilair instruct their members to not work the procedures that ASA (the employer), and CASA (the Regulator) have come up with. Off we go to Fair Work Australia who will say that if ASA and CASA are happy you must work to your employers direction.
Do Civilair report ASA to CASA for a ruling on CASAs Frankenstein? Do Civilair report CASA to ummm.... CASA?
It shows where we are now at in Aviation governance in Australia, when you are saying the only ones left with any credibility for what is right is the Association of the ATCs. Civilair has been contributing through the only channels it can to the debate. Civilair has a small and dedicated office staff, and hardworking VOLUNTEER committee members.
Seriously though, what more do you expect Civilair to do? Mount a High Court challenge?
Silk: "Well son, why did you allow that to happen?"
ATC: "My boss said it was safe to do"
Silk: "Well, did you think it was safe to do?"
ATC: "Well, no ..."
Silk: "Did your Union believe it was safe to do?"
ATC: "Well, no ..."
Silk: "So, you're saying that you knowingly used an unsafe procedure and the only defense you have is that your boss said it was safe?"
ATC: " ... "
Silk: "Son, if your boss said it was safe to drive on the right hand side of the road,and knowing what you know about road rules and the activities of other road users, would you?"
ATC: "Of course not ..."
Silk: "No further questions Your Honour"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I know, nothings ever black and white ... it's mostly grey, but that's the way I would look at it ... if there was ever an issue that was concerning enough.
This may not be it. But I do think you have the ability .... ney, responsibility ... to draw the line ... when appropriate.
ATC: "My boss said it was safe to do"
Silk: "Well, did you think it was safe to do?"
ATC: "Well, no ..."
Silk: "Did your Union believe it was safe to do?"
ATC: "Well, no ..."
Silk: "So, you're saying that you knowingly used an unsafe procedure and the only defense you have is that your boss said it was safe?"
ATC: " ... "
Silk: "Son, if your boss said it was safe to drive on the right hand side of the road,and knowing what you know about road rules and the activities of other road users, would you?"
ATC: "Of course not ..."
Silk: "No further questions Your Honour"
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I know, nothings ever black and white ... it's mostly grey, but that's the way I would look at it ... if there was ever an issue that was concerning enough.
This may not be it. But I do think you have the ability .... ney, responsibility ... to draw the line ... when appropriate.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Take a leaf out of Dick's book..........
Off to the High Court and take on the Federal Government.
Get lots of TV coverage.....in particular a program sponsored by an airline that flies into Avalon perhaps.
J
Off to the High Court and take on the Federal Government.
Get lots of TV coverage.....in particular a program sponsored by an airline that flies into Avalon perhaps.
J
An interesting excerpt from:
CASA
Notice of Proposed Rule Making
NPRM 9701RP
Airspace Designation and Standards
1997
CASA
Notice of Proposed Rule Making
NPRM 9701RP
Airspace Designation and Standards
1997
The cost benefit methodology (that was previously developed by the CAA, now used by Airservices, and accepted by CASA) shall be used to determine the requirement for the establishment and disestablishment
of control towers.
Where an aerodrome/approach control service is provided from the tower, a minimum of Class D must be designated for the control zone and associated airspace below A045.
The airspace associated with aerodrome/approach control service between A045 and the base of Class C must be a minimum of Class E. A radar service must be provided in this Class E airspace unless a safety/risk analysis based on aircraft mix and density has been undertaken and approved by CASA.
of control towers.
Where an aerodrome/approach control service is provided from the tower, a minimum of Class D must be designated for the control zone and associated airspace below A045.
The airspace associated with aerodrome/approach control service between A045 and the base of Class C must be a minimum of Class E. A radar service must be provided in this Class E airspace unless a safety/risk analysis based on aircraft mix and density has been undertaken and approved by CASA.
Thread Starter
Gadzooks, Peuce! Interesting! When checking the pedigree of that NPRM, I find-
Well, well, well! One wonders what happened to E after that...1998 and the Airspace2000 class E disaster.
Note to OAR..learn your history, guys. This guy has been a cronic meddler for decades.
CASA also considered the Airspace 2000 proposal of Mr Dick Smith, but deferred it for a year, following lengthy aviation industry objections, even though ASA had approved it on 4 April for implementation on 4 December.
Note to OAR..learn your history, guys. This guy has been a cronic meddler for decades.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silk: "Son, if your boss said it was safe to drive on the right hand side of the road,and knowing what you know about road rules and the activities of other road users, would you?"
ATC: "Of course not ..."
ATC: "Of course not ..."