NAS E+ and AV
Thread Starter
NAS E+ and AV
Hey people! This NAS issue isn't over yet! E+ at AV!
Granted, there is far more surveillance in place to help detect and identify VFR flying around the patch. Broadcast situation still needs looking at. How can you have a "Broadcast" if it is directed at the TWR? Who is responsible if VFR enters E+ without a broadcast? Is a VFR pilot legally bound to follow instructions from ATC in E+?It may say under CAR100 but what part of CAR100 refers to VFR and E+?
Anyone had problems transitting AV using E+?
Granted, there is far more surveillance in place to help detect and identify VFR flying around the patch. Broadcast situation still needs looking at. How can you have a "Broadcast" if it is directed at the TWR? Who is responsible if VFR enters E+ without a broadcast? Is a VFR pilot legally bound to follow instructions from ATC in E+?It may say under CAR100 but what part of CAR100 refers to VFR and E+?
Anyone had problems transitting AV using E+?
Thread Starter
AV Class E changes
Says follow instructions...but what if you do not. You do not need a clearance to be there. Like G, ATC can only advise..so how can you be legally bound to follow an ATC instruction in effectively G airspace.
So- CAR 100.1
So that means everywhere..not just controlled airspace? After coping the abuse of VFR being free to do whatever they like in E and seeing the issues with Launy and MCY..it would have been easier for ATC to say to VFR on frequency..YYY Maintain current altitude until clear of XXX...would have been so much easier...however, is it in the spirit of VFR in E
CAR100.1 has serious implications then for all operations in E not just E+...does an ATC have the authority to direct a VFR in E or E+?
Says follow instructions...but what if you do not. You do not need a clearance to be there. Like G, ATC can only advise..so how can you be legally bound to follow an ATC instruction in effectively G airspace.
So- CAR 100.1
The pilot in command of an aircraft must comply with air
traffic control instructions.
traffic control instructions.
CAR100.1 has serious implications then for all operations in E not just E+...does an ATC have the authority to direct a VFR in E or E+?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dangly Bits
Do try to keep up
...... its about the E (that is not) airspace change (that replaced class C) on the 3rd of June, which I might add, is nothing to do with Airservices, nor the staff, nor the training. 
Howbout' you .... adapt, overcome, and thrive by .... paying attention, understanding, and doing something about it before it is rolled out by CASA at a collision point near you.
Do try to keep up
...... its about the E (that is not) airspace change (that replaced class C) on the 3rd of June, which I might add, is nothing to do with Airservices, nor the staff, nor the training. Howbout' you .... adapt, overcome, and thrive by .... paying attention, understanding, and doing something about it before it is rolled out by CASA at a collision point near you.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fixa wins!
So let me get this straight. There is E over D for what, 2000 feet or so? Then into C? If you are a jet jockey then you would certainly have your work cut out for you but then you do have 2 in the cockpit.
CASA made a mandatory call and txpdr for VFR which goes against ICAO? Why would we need to go against ICAO?
Actually why do we need E over D anyway?
So let me get this straight. There is E over D for what, 2000 feet or so? Then into C? If you are a jet jockey then you would certainly have your work cut out for you but then you do have 2 in the cockpit.
CASA made a mandatory call and txpdr for VFR which goes against ICAO? Why would we need to go against ICAO?
Actually why do we need E over D anyway?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Sydney Harbour
Posts: 320
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Welcome to CASA's brave new airspace classification world: Non ICAO, Non (God Bless America) US NAS, Non whatever the f@ck it is?
I still can't work out why Australia NEEDS to be different to the rest of the world?
Thread Starter
OK...a general warning wrt class E+ around AV...DO NOT PROCEED WITHOUT CONTACTING AND RECEIVING ACKNOWLEDGMENT FROM TOWER...it would appear that this so called free airspace for VFR has a very serious sting.
Smelling more like a higher class of controlled airspace.
This is not a problem as long as everyone is clear about the issue. Getting a VCA for very grey procedure is not a very nice way of educating operators. Answers from the OAR would be a start.
Smelling more like a higher class of controlled airspace.
This is not a problem as long as everyone is clear about the issue. Getting a VCA for very grey procedure is not a very nice way of educating operators. Answers from the OAR would be a start.
Thread Starter
Note: This is not a clearance, as VFR aircraft do not require a clearance to operate in Class E airspace.
Thread Starter
2.5 Pilots of VFR aircraft intending to enter the Avalon Class E CTA
Broadcast Area:
a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions; and
c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.
Broadcast Area:
a. must broadcast their intentions to Avalon TWR prior to entry;
and
b. must maintain two way communications with Avalon TWR within
Class E CTA and notify any changes to intentions; and
c. must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100
if such instructions are issued.
Where does it say you will be breached for not complying. Where does it say you CANNOT PROCEED without making contact. One thing to declare a temporary broadcast zone...but an entire another situation if there is a serious legal issue..especially if you do not need a clearance and yet you do?
Serious issue needs clarification...pilots are getting breached!
I understand your outrage Oz, but in my reading of Air Law (correct if I am wrong), 'must' means a legal requirement so if you don't broadcast or follow instructions you are breaking a law. Am I misreading?
Thread Starter
Agree mcgrath50. The airspace is still the same...it is the broadcast issue that appears to attract the VCA...it can only be under CAR100. Thats what it says in the SUP.
The bulletin states that the tower will acknowledge but nothing about not proceeding if you do not receive same. A broadcast is a broadcast...you do not expect a reply....unless...it isn't really a broadcast but a request for authorization to continue...
The bulletin states that the tower will acknowledge but nothing about not proceeding if you do not receive same. A broadcast is a broadcast...you do not expect a reply....unless...it isn't really a broadcast but a request for authorization to continue...
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The original NAS alphabet airspace was sold as international airspace that was standardized so anyone from anywhere knew what rules were being applied in that particular piece of airspace.
CASA have screwed up the AV airpace so much that no-one has any idea about what is required by anyone who uses it.
By decreeing "... must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100 if such instructions are issued", CASA is changing E airspace into D airspace. This is contrary to the basis of E where VFR are not operating on clearances. I would put it that VFR have no legal requirement to comply with any ATC instructions in E airspace. There cannot be any legal basis for applying CAR 100 in the AV case.
No controller in his right mind should be issuing direct instructions to VFR aircraft in E airspace most especially in the unsurveilled portions of AV.
It is criminal that radar is not being used by ML Centre (where coverage is down to below 500') in the most critical areas that IFR flights go through.
Whoever signed off the AV airspace design should feel very uneasy about the absolute cock up and unnecessary confusion that they have perpetrated on the regular users of this area.
CASA have screwed up the AV airpace so much that no-one has any idea about what is required by anyone who uses it.
By decreeing "... must comply with ATC instructions in accordance with CAR 100 if such instructions are issued", CASA is changing E airspace into D airspace. This is contrary to the basis of E where VFR are not operating on clearances. I would put it that VFR have no legal requirement to comply with any ATC instructions in E airspace. There cannot be any legal basis for applying CAR 100 in the AV case.
No controller in his right mind should be issuing direct instructions to VFR aircraft in E airspace most especially in the unsurveilled portions of AV.
It is criminal that radar is not being used by ML Centre (where coverage is down to below 500') in the most critical areas that IFR flights go through.
Whoever signed off the AV airspace design should feel very uneasy about the absolute cock up and unnecessary confusion that they have perpetrated on the regular users of this area.
Last edited by Chief galah; 27th Jun 2010 at 11:52.
Amen, Amen!