NAS E+ and AV
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Have a look at the link at #2.
The airspace design is just guaranteed to attract VCA's and airprox's.
The airspace is under the administration of AV Tower who don't have the resources to provide the best available service.
It is the worst outcome imaginable.
What gets me is the gutless influence of our representatives in RAPAC and CivilAir. How CivilAir could allow it's members to be exposed to such on-going risk, is beyond me.
Whoever is in charge of this circus has a lot to answer for.
Why aren't you pilots out there kicking up about this? Or don't you
really know what you've been lumbered with?
The airspace design is just guaranteed to attract VCA's and airprox's.
The airspace is under the administration of AV Tower who don't have the resources to provide the best available service.
It is the worst outcome imaginable.
What gets me is the gutless influence of our representatives in RAPAC and CivilAir. How CivilAir could allow it's members to be exposed to such on-going risk, is beyond me.
Whoever is in charge of this circus has a lot to answer for.
Why aren't you pilots out there kicking up about this? Or don't you
really know what you've been lumbered with?
Last edited by Chief galah; 28th Jun 2010 at 09:41.
Thread Starter
P-Dubby...what you do is get your finger out and say what is wrong. This experiment is going to roll out over every D in the country if it is without any issues...and there are heaps of them. Procedures required and education of same leaves a lot to be desired is just a start...A broadcast doesn't need a reply yet you do in E+...VFR, not bound by clearance MUST obey ATC instructions...and ATC that must give VFR instructions in E????
Chief Galah...those that DO care in RAPAC, the questions are being put and requests for VCA incidences are being asked.
The answer for AV is the exact same as for Broome and Karratha....Class D procedures until full radar coverage is assured and then back to C...........
simple
Chief Galah...those that DO care in RAPAC, the questions are being put and requests for VCA incidences are being asked.
The answer for AV is the exact same as for Broome and Karratha....Class D procedures until full radar coverage is assured and then back to C...........
simple
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AV is different to all the other stand alone towers. The surveillance equipment is available now and has been for years. ASA management, and there are some in the system who don't and never will hold the appropriate ratings, have not got the initiative to implement the best for all involved.
AV has a TSAD. With a little extra it could be used as a RADAR, just like EN.
And we all know how well the system can work there.
AV has a TSAD. With a little extra it could be used as a RADAR, just like EN.
And we all know how well the system can work there.
Thread Starter
AV DOES have a TSAD?...CG, how good is the reception down on the peninsula south of the field? If it is good to 1500ft then use of present airspace is not required. Why not C? Or, at the minimum, D?
Bl@@dy experimenters...
Bl@@dy experimenters...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm with P-Dubby, CivilAir put in a highly researched and well articulated submission to CASA about E+ airspace and CivilAirs' concerns are along the lines of what is being said here.
Civilair have also asked ASA for their submission.
As I have stated elsewhere on pprune, if a controller refused to work the airspace, under which Courts jurisdiction would this be heard.
Civilair took the lead in the last NASdebate.
Would any pilots care to refuse to fly in the airspace? It is not up to the individual to martyr themselves, but for CASA and ASA to get it right without the political interference we have seen.
The OAR came about because it was seen that ASA would have a conflict of interest in being the designer and user of airspace. Is this new system any better?
Civilair have also asked ASA for their submission.
As I have stated elsewhere on pprune, if a controller refused to work the airspace, under which Courts jurisdiction would this be heard.
Civilair took the lead in the last NASdebate.
Would any pilots care to refuse to fly in the airspace? It is not up to the individual to martyr themselves, but for CASA and ASA to get it right without the political interference we have seen.
The OAR came about because it was seen that ASA would have a conflict of interest in being the designer and user of airspace. Is this new system any better?
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The late and great Dave Bromley wouldn't have had a bar of it.
By going E+, we have once again created a unique
Australian model that's even harder to get one's head around
than the simple version that preceded it.
The AIP Supp refers to "controlled airspace" which in itself is
misleading. There is no way E airspace can be regarded as
controlled when VFR's can be in there amongst controlled IFR
traffic. How do IFR aircraft comply with clearances and be expected
to take avoiding action at the same time?
This lunacy is not necessary. The tough old guys of Civilair (now retired)
are who you need right now. They may not have been "articulate"
but they knew how to look after their members.
By going E+, we have once again created a unique
Australian model that's even harder to get one's head around
than the simple version that preceded it.
The AIP Supp refers to "controlled airspace" which in itself is
misleading. There is no way E airspace can be regarded as
controlled when VFR's can be in there amongst controlled IFR
traffic. How do IFR aircraft comply with clearances and be expected
to take avoiding action at the same time?
This lunacy is not necessary. The tough old guys of Civilair (now retired)
are who you need right now. They may not have been "articulate"
but they knew how to look after their members.
Well, I've been on hols for a few weeks ... and I see that a degree of common sense has been applied at BRM/KTA ... for the moment.
Avalon, and the expansion of its unique procedures appears to be still a problem child.
My real problem is with this CAR100 stick. It is unnecessarily introducing more ambiguity into the system ... and isn't a system supposed to provide a standardised, unambiguous method for dealing with a process?
The greatest introduced ambiguity is a Controller's Authority to direct all aircraft in all environments ... as CASA's Avalon literature appears to imply.
By introducing that alleged stick, CASA will now put a question mark into every VFR's mind when they are contemplating a command decision.. even in Class G airspace.
"Was that controller advising or suggesting a course of action, or am I required to follow it ?"
It doesn't even have to be a tracking instruction either.
As an example ... when I was doing solo training OCTA close to a Flight Service manned aerodrome (yes, a long time ago), the FSO advised that the wx was deteriorating and that I should consider returning to the aerodrome. I considered the FSO to be a GOD and quickly headed back ( from my 8 oktas of blue training area) to the aerodrome which was now below minimas. I entered cloud. Luckily I didn't panic (too much) and headed east over the water until I found a way out of the mess and landed, as they say, without further incident.
My point being, by introducing (or intimating that) Controllers instructions must be followed ... everywhere, we would be adding another possible whole in the swiss cheese.
CASA .... please make a decision (either way) and provide your interpretation of CAR100 as it pertains to aircraft ... in Uncontrolled Airspace.
CASA ... please provide your interpretation on whether Class E Airspace is Controlled or not ... as it pertains to VFR aircraft.
Avalon, and the expansion of its unique procedures appears to be still a problem child.
My real problem is with this CAR100 stick. It is unnecessarily introducing more ambiguity into the system ... and isn't a system supposed to provide a standardised, unambiguous method for dealing with a process?
The greatest introduced ambiguity is a Controller's Authority to direct all aircraft in all environments ... as CASA's Avalon literature appears to imply.
By introducing that alleged stick, CASA will now put a question mark into every VFR's mind when they are contemplating a command decision.. even in Class G airspace.
"Was that controller advising or suggesting a course of action, or am I required to follow it ?"
It doesn't even have to be a tracking instruction either.
As an example ... when I was doing solo training OCTA close to a Flight Service manned aerodrome (yes, a long time ago), the FSO advised that the wx was deteriorating and that I should consider returning to the aerodrome. I considered the FSO to be a GOD and quickly headed back ( from my 8 oktas of blue training area) to the aerodrome which was now below minimas. I entered cloud. Luckily I didn't panic (too much) and headed east over the water until I found a way out of the mess and landed, as they say, without further incident.
My point being, by introducing (or intimating that) Controllers instructions must be followed ... everywhere, we would be adding another possible whole in the swiss cheese.
CASA .... please make a decision (either way) and provide your interpretation of CAR100 as it pertains to aircraft ... in Uncontrolled Airspace.
CASA ... please provide your interpretation on whether Class E Airspace is Controlled or not ... as it pertains to VFR aircraft.
Thread Starter
This is what McCormick had to say-
Hope that makes the guys who got a VCA feel a little bit more loved
Mr McCormick, if you guys would actually articulated the precise procedure then maybe there would be even less missed calls. Right now there is a grey area of legality. You do not need a clearance VFR in E+. However, you must "broadcast" and receive acknowledgement from TWR (??? funny, everywhere else you broadcast you do not get a reply except the beepback unit..nor do you expect one!) If you do not receive acknowledgment and you proceed you have "Violated Controlled Airspace"????
If you do not call and proceed as per E you have violated controlled airspace.
If ATC gives instructions and VFR fails to follow instructions...what happens if ATC fails to give instructions and VFR has a RA..who is responsible? Mr McCormick your wishes have made for an impossible situation. Whilst the majority do the right thing as per airmanship standards...it only takes one to make a serious incident.
Broome and Karratha have changed...if there is viable radar coverage to the south of AV..then bl@@dy well use it! C over D! E+ experiments do not belong. You have created exactly what you intended to eliminate...Unique Australian Airspace.
Overall, operations at Class D and non-towered aerodromes have been running smoothly, with the majority of pilots successfully following the new procedures. Naturally, some pilots have still been on a learning curve and may have missed a radio call or failed to get a required clearance
Mr McCormick, if you guys would actually articulated the precise procedure then maybe there would be even less missed calls. Right now there is a grey area of legality. You do not need a clearance VFR in E+. However, you must "broadcast" and receive acknowledgement from TWR (??? funny, everywhere else you broadcast you do not get a reply except the beepback unit..nor do you expect one!) If you do not receive acknowledgment and you proceed you have "Violated Controlled Airspace"????
If you do not call and proceed as per E you have violated controlled airspace.
If ATC gives instructions and VFR fails to follow instructions...what happens if ATC fails to give instructions and VFR has a RA..who is responsible? Mr McCormick your wishes have made for an impossible situation. Whilst the majority do the right thing as per airmanship standards...it only takes one to make a serious incident.
Broome and Karratha have changed...if there is viable radar coverage to the south of AV..then bl@@dy well use it! C over D! E+ experiments do not belong. You have created exactly what you intended to eliminate...Unique Australian Airspace.
Thread Starter
Comments to the Director
John McCormick thinks that just under half of respondents likes whats happening with his airspace changes.....
There must be at least 71 posters who think otherwise on this subject!
If you do not like what is happening with airspace around Avalon...then tell him what you think!
John McCormick thinks that just under half of respondents likes whats happening with his airspace changes.....
There must be at least 71 posters who think otherwise on this subject!
If you do not like what is happening with airspace around Avalon...then tell him what you think!
Where does it say you will be breached for not complying.
In summary, CAR 99A says:
- CASA may designate airspace within defined horizontal and vertical limits as an area in which broadcast requirements apply
- CASA may give directions specifying the broadcast requirements that apply
- If CASA gives a direction, it must publish a notice setting out the details of the direction in AIP or NOTAMS
- A pilot in command of an aircraft that is operating in an area so designated must not contravene a direction that applies to that aerodrome or area.
- Penalty: 50 penalty units.
CASA ... please provide your interpretation on whether Class E Airspace is Controlled or not ... as it pertains to VFR aircraft.
If a volume of Class E airspace has been declared as a broadcast area, then the directions that apply to the area override the basic Class E conditions of access.
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
Ask CASA
In one of my replies to the OAR, they seemed to think it was not controlled airspace for VFR........ you can buzz on through with just an RAAus licence according to them.
Go figure
Ask CASA
In one of my replies to the OAR, they seemed to think it was not controlled airspace for VFR........ you can buzz on through with just an RAAus licence according to them.
Go figure
Thread Starter
Citation Jet...yes. I persoanlly know of one pilot who has been done for failing to "Broadcast" in E+. If I know one, then it stands to reason there are plenty more.
Okay ... what if I, as a VFR, don't get a reply to my 'broadcast' to AV Tower? Am I precluded from entering the airspace?
And what is a "broadcast"?
And why are we required to use correct terminology and phraseologiy ... and CASA is not?
And what is a "broadcast"?
A transmission of information relating to air navigation that is not addressed to a specific station or stations (ICAO).
With respect to not receiving a reply from the TWR and proceeding into the broadcast area anyway, maybe there is a CAR clause somewhere that allows being pinged for reckless/unsafe/behaving like a peanut conduct 
Jabawocky
"Normal" Class E is indeed classed as controlled airspace and the access conditions I outlined for VFR access apply.
However the Class E over AV is Class E+ because of the declared broadcast area i.e. mandatory radio & transponder.
So we are talking about two different types of Class E
Jabawocky
In one of my replies to the OAR, they seemed to think it was not controlled airspace for VFR........ you can buzz on through with just an RAAus licence according to them.
However the Class E over AV is Class E+ because of the declared broadcast area i.e. mandatory radio & transponder.
So we are talking about two different types of Class E
With respect to not receiving a reply from the TWR and proceeding into the broadcast area anyway, maybe there is a CAR clause somewhere that allows being pinged for reckless/unsafe/behaving like a peanut conduct
All that is needed is the change of one word .... 'contact' instead of 'broadcast'.
Why won't they use that word? Because that would make it Class D ... and that would not appease those that need appeasing.
CASA ... If Class E, without appropriate surveillance, does not provide the required safety outcomes at Avalon at the moment, bite the bullet and make it Class D ... untill the surveillance is available.
This is starting to sound very familiar ...
If they bit the bullet at BRM/KTA ... why won't they at Avalon? Why is it different?
There must be some very strong political forces at play here ...
Edit: God, I'm starting to sound like Dick Smith
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
P-Dubby
I've been out of the system a while but my interest in this goes back a long way.
I started the thread "NAS apathy" years ago which elicited a lot of
responses, and showed a lot of ignorance and confusion about
airspace and who/how it is administered.
I may be wrong but OAR implement changes after consultation
with all stakeholders. They may, however, have political pressure to
follow certain policies. If the stakeholders voice, and AsA and the
airlines must be the heavies here, is strong enough, then a better outcome should have occurred with AV.
I see you're from BN. You must have a beef with how some airspace is
set up. Haven't you thought the "regular" users should get a better
break, and how your life would be easier if things were different?
The AV airspace should cater for full separation for RPT and IFR,
and separation from all other traffic. After all they pay AsA dearly
for a separation service, whereas VFR don't pay a cent.
There is a considerable amount of this traffic going to and transitting
AV airspace. There also are considerable periods when VFR in C
can come and go with clearances and traffic. Very simple.
I sat in a busy radar GA tower (not GAAP) for years, and our daily routine
was to remind pilots of their transponder faults, their navigation errors
and their poor coms. When AsA insisted on full incident reporting on transponders for purely statistical
purposes, everyone lost heart.
We sent these pilots to MB and PC and towards AV knowing full well
there was trouble coming their way.
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.
I've been out of the system a while but my interest in this goes back a long way.
I started the thread "NAS apathy" years ago which elicited a lot of
responses, and showed a lot of ignorance and confusion about
airspace and who/how it is administered.
I may be wrong but OAR implement changes after consultation
with all stakeholders. They may, however, have political pressure to
follow certain policies. If the stakeholders voice, and AsA and the
airlines must be the heavies here, is strong enough, then a better outcome should have occurred with AV.
I see you're from BN. You must have a beef with how some airspace is
set up. Haven't you thought the "regular" users should get a better
break, and how your life would be easier if things were different?
The AV airspace should cater for full separation for RPT and IFR,
and separation from all other traffic. After all they pay AsA dearly
for a separation service, whereas VFR don't pay a cent.
There is a considerable amount of this traffic going to and transitting
AV airspace. There also are considerable periods when VFR in C
can come and go with clearances and traffic. Very simple.
I sat in a busy radar GA tower (not GAAP) for years, and our daily routine
was to remind pilots of their transponder faults, their navigation errors
and their poor coms. When AsA insisted on full incident reporting on transponders for purely statistical
purposes, everyone lost heart.
We sent these pilots to MB and PC and towards AV knowing full well
there was trouble coming their way.
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.
Thread Starter
CM, Peuce is correct. In the case of AV there IS radar surveillance. If there IS surveillance then E or E+ is a lower standard of service than what is required for a busy aerodrome that should be class C.
Broome and Karratha where changed from E to E+ to facilitate DTI...(What a very old concept!)out of a non-surveillance tower. OAR, rightly, changed this airspace to D over D to enable positive control from the tower...which now places us at a busier metropolitan aerodrome. The procedures are screwed up and as Peuce points out a change of a word and we got D airspace...go figure!
I think the director should butt out and let OAR actually do what they have been directed to do..design airspace APPROPRIATE for the conditions and facilities. AV C over D, or, D over D as a minimum but should really be C all round!
Broome and Karratha where changed from E to E+ to facilitate DTI...(What a very old concept!)out of a non-surveillance tower. OAR, rightly, changed this airspace to D over D to enable positive control from the tower...which now places us at a busier metropolitan aerodrome. The procedures are screwed up and as Peuce points out a change of a word and we got D airspace...go figure!
I think the director should butt out and let OAR actually do what they have been directed to do..design airspace APPROPRIATE for the conditions and facilities. AV C over D, or, D over D as a minimum but should really be C all round!