Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

CASA Study: Airspace applicable to Class D aerodromes

Wikiposts
Search
The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

CASA Study: Airspace applicable to Class D aerodromes

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old 15th Mar 2011, 08:42
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,155
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
CASA Study: Airspace applicable to Class D aerodromes

See Study of the Airspace applicable to the 10 Class D aerodromes

here:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Papers and reports

Interesting reading. Class E without surveillance doesn't appear to rate very highly.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2011, 09:08
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,564
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Ambidji recommends that, provided electronic surveillance is established to the surface, Class D CTRs become Class E airspace down to 700ft above aerodrome elevation outside the Tower hours of operation.
No E without surveillance....concur
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2011, 10:12
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,581
Received 77 Likes on 45 Posts
In print! Most aussie Class D meet the criteria for US Class C! Der, well we told ya so!

Get with the program, Sled/Dick/Joker/Frank and the other NAStronauts! !
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 15th Mar 2011, 10:37
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,839
Received 19 Likes on 9 Posts
The provision of Class E airspace down to 700 feet would necessitate substantial changes to the
Brisbane and Melbourne ATC Centres, with staffing, facilities, restructuring of airspace,
re-configuration of radar displays, and re-configuration of radio frequencies amongst the many
issues to be addressed.
And golly gee willakers Dick, it's not just a simple drop in ATC solution!
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 21:41
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I encourage all to have a think about the changes proposed for most controlled regional airports. Change to Class C airspace until a 6nm, A025 Class D control zone will remove a lot of the flexibility that both IFR and VFR benefit from.

At the moment, in conditions where the bigger aircraft want instrument approaches, we can maintain a good acceptance rate with the VFR's with the Class D procedures. If this becomes class C, the possibility for delays to both categories increases. Alternatively, the VFR's get pushed low, OCTA, in close proximity to each other and the CTR boundary. This could increase the risk of airprox and VCA's.

Certainly not saying that we cannot do things better, but have a careful think of how the changes will effect everyone. When it is busy, the changes could delay IFR as well as VFR.
89 steps to heaven is offline  
Old 22nd Mar 2011, 22:01
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
..... And then Dick will have a lot more aerodromes to get held up at in his Bell and write about it on pprune. There will be ail grown threads everywhere.
Jabawocky is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.