Australian Class E article – the full text
It's not about winning or losing. I just wanted to know how it works.
Thank you for clarifying that. My next question if we were to trial this, would our airlines cancel IFR.
I am not enroute but if everyone is cancelling IFR leaving say 10000' and then they get the DTI like they currently do, then in IMC it becomes one in one out, I presume the only real difference for the enroute guy is clearing them on an approach and waiting for confirmation they are on the ground. I am not sure how much additional workload that would be, le Ping may be able to give an idea.
Just a hint of how it works overseas. When you cancel IFR in E in VMC it then works like our class G. When you are in IMC class E works exactly like class A.
I am not enroute but if everyone is cancelling IFR leaving say 10000' and then they get the DTI like they currently do, then in IMC it becomes one in one out, I presume the only real difference for the enroute guy is clearing them on an approach and waiting for confirmation they are on the ground. I am not sure how much additional workload that would be, le Ping may be able to give an idea.
Thread Starter
You would not normally cancel IFR at 10'000. It works like Coffs Tower works but an enroute controller does the terminal work. The US en route controllers must be superhuman and can do the impossible!
At Coffs when IMC exists to the minima the controller can't see the plane and uses procedural standards to separate the aircraft. The controller could be in Timbutu ! I have been in and out of Coffs lots of times in IMC and have not experienced delays.
If the Chief pilots of the airlines understood that cancelling IFR in E resulted in a class G traffic service they would support it.
In the USA some airlines do not allow their pilots to cancel IFR. That's because their pilots have no training in separating themselves from other IFR traffic. It is totally different in Aus. Airline pilots do it all the time at every class G airport.
At Coffs when IMC exists to the minima the controller can't see the plane and uses procedural standards to separate the aircraft. The controller could be in Timbutu ! I have been in and out of Coffs lots of times in IMC and have not experienced delays.
If the Chief pilots of the airlines understood that cancelling IFR in E resulted in a class G traffic service they would support it.
In the USA some airlines do not allow their pilots to cancel IFR. That's because their pilots have no training in separating themselves from other IFR traffic. It is totally different in Aus. Airline pilots do it all the time at every class G airport.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Melbourne Australia
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THE FACTS
As an old CO of mine, who went on to become the Director of Flight Standards and has been cited on this forum by our mate Dick as a good man to work with - Ron Cooper - used to say, "It is very hard to argue with some one who is unencumbered by a basic knowledge of the facts. "
When I was involved in the airspace regulation business I asked for coverage diagrams of US airspace. Interesting charts.
When I suggested the radar coverage was there to support the Class E airspace volumes I was told by those involved in the US that it as the other way around - class E was there because there was surveillance coverage. Just saying.
As someone else said many posts ago, "If you are going to import someone else's system, you must import all elements of that system."
BTW the charts provided to me by Mitre also included redundant coverage - another interesting series of charts.
MJG
When I was involved in the airspace regulation business I asked for coverage diagrams of US airspace. Interesting charts.
When I suggested the radar coverage was there to support the Class E airspace volumes I was told by those involved in the US that it as the other way around - class E was there because there was surveillance coverage. Just saying.
As someone else said many posts ago, "If you are going to import someone else's system, you must import all elements of that system."
BTW the charts provided to me by Mitre also included redundant coverage - another interesting series of charts.
MJG
If you haven't experienced delays at Coffs in IMC you have probably been lucky. I definitely can not have the same movements in IMC as I can when its visual.
Regardless of that, superhuman or not, I am not saying it can't work. I am just trying to wrap my head around it. The reality is we have 1000 controllers working 7.692million square km and the US have 15000 working 9.857million square km. We just don't have the same resources as they do to copy them in all aspects. (I realise that not all controllers are working at once, just illustrating a point)
Regardless of that, superhuman or not, I am not saying it can't work. I am just trying to wrap my head around it. The reality is we have 1000 controllers working 7.692million square km and the US have 15000 working 9.857million square km. We just don't have the same resources as they do to copy them in all aspects. (I realise that not all controllers are working at once, just illustrating a point)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone else said many posts ago, "If you are going to import someone else's system, you must import all elements of that system."
But that does not mean that there aren't some lessons to be learned from overseas practice.
While I violently disagreed with C being replaced with D, and E over D, for nothing other than what I regarded as ideology, some of the the other stuff made sense to me, and I had a long history in respect of airspace.
NAS, as a whole, was rubbish, IMHO. But that should not make us blinkered. The opportunity is there to 'cherry-pick' some stuff from overseas that might make us more efficient.
Dick and I aren't mates by any stretch of the imagination, but he talks sense (sometimes).
Dropping E to A085, when it was G before, was a no-brainer. The sky was going to fall and it didn't.
US CTAF? Just my opinion, but we've done it by halves and have never given the pure model a go. CASA dithered trying to be 'all things to all men.' All decisions are hedged and qualified - I've seen it up really close in my time.
Finally, and bear in mind my overriding comments in respect of cost/benefit and risk analysis: why the hell can't we have a trial at one location in respect of Class E to 700 AGL? Ballina for 12 months?
OK, and it may have been years ago, but I had three years working at Eagle Farm. That involved controlling, simultaneously (one bloke), Approach to Amberley, area out to 250 nm between 310 and 190, plus Evans Head and over-water airspace when the Pigs were doing their supersonic runs right across the inbound international air routes.
If the argument is such that we can't do a trial because of 'workload,' then I can only conclude that that the present breed are 'less than competent.'
I don't think anyone is arguing against a trial purely based on workload, just that it needs to be considered. Dick seems to think we can just drop in extra services using the ATC resources we currently have and that worries me because apply enough political pressure and that's exactly what could come to pass, regardless of the consequences. Ideology is like that.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
le P,
If there is not the capacity to do one simple trial in just one location, then you guys must be really hammered when it comes to capacity. I did not come down in the last shower on that one!
I've been there and back. The resources are in the system to try this at just 'one location.' A trial is all Dick is after and I agree with him on this one.
One trial, in one location. How bloody hard is that if safety is enhanced?
No pre-judgement as to the outcome. But why can we not trial it within current system resources that can absorb one trial in one location?
If there is not the capacity to do one simple trial in just one location, then you guys must be really hammered when it comes to capacity. I did not come down in the last shower on that one!
I've been there and back. The resources are in the system to try this at just 'one location.' A trial is all Dick is after and I agree with him on this one.
One trial, in one location. How bloody hard is that if safety is enhanced?
No pre-judgement as to the outcome. But why can we not trial it within current system resources that can absorb one trial in one location?
But a trial is not all Dick is after. I didn't come down in the last shower either.
You call it a simple trial but simple it ain't! Even a trial at a single location would require a serious allocation of resources - as the regs currently stand to provide an approach service I need an approach rating and the training to go with it. You'd be looking at training maybe ten controllers minimum from a single group which is a big ask - you can't just take ten people out of a roster when there are only 25 on it in the first place. Not without some serious lead time.
You call it a simple trial but simple it ain't! Even a trial at a single location would require a serious allocation of resources - as the regs currently stand to provide an approach service I need an approach rating and the training to go with it. You'd be looking at training maybe ten controllers minimum from a single group which is a big ask - you can't just take ten people out of a roster when there are only 25 on it in the first place. Not without some serious lead time.
Thread Starter
As I am writing this I am looking at the original yellow AMATS implementation booklet of 1991.
It states under stage 4 - June 1993. " IFR/IFR Separation provided in low level airspace .
That never happened. Not even as a trial and that was over 20 years ago.
All due to a campaign from lots to stop any change.
And Howabout that is totally wrong re having to import the whole system. It's used to stop change. In the US all instrument approaches are in a minimum of class E airspace. There is no reason why we have to " import" that. All of our Aussie IFR pilots are trained to self separate in IMC in class G. That can stay at many airports.
The radar coverage claim is another furphy. In the USA over 50% of approaches at non tower airports do not have radar coverage below the IAF. Many airports with low level class E don't even have radio coverage to ground level.
As VOR pointed out so well , terminal Class E is not linked to radar coverage.
The E over D introduced a major safety improvement. It was the only way we could bring in a mandatory transponder requirement for all aircraft in class E. This would not stack up in any cost benefit study but the GA organisations agreed because of less " road block" airspace. Then with a total lack of ethics that appears to be the " Canberra system" the road block airspace was put back in but the Quid Quo Pro mandate remained.
I brokered that deal and am not impressed with what then happened with the wind back .
I have always said that bringing in low level E will not be easy. But change is what I am good at and that's why I wanted to be on the NAS implementation team .
I would ask advice and surround myself with the most capable people . Worked in my business career and also in some risky adventures!
And the training cost would not be high compared to the AsA $1 billion budget. I would reduce some of the costs in the AsA head office to cover it. Done that before.
Re delays at Coffs in IMC. Yes sometimes. Just as sometimes delays in class G if you want to live.
It states under stage 4 - June 1993. " IFR/IFR Separation provided in low level airspace .
That never happened. Not even as a trial and that was over 20 years ago.
All due to a campaign from lots to stop any change.
And Howabout that is totally wrong re having to import the whole system. It's used to stop change. In the US all instrument approaches are in a minimum of class E airspace. There is no reason why we have to " import" that. All of our Aussie IFR pilots are trained to self separate in IMC in class G. That can stay at many airports.
The radar coverage claim is another furphy. In the USA over 50% of approaches at non tower airports do not have radar coverage below the IAF. Many airports with low level class E don't even have radio coverage to ground level.
As VOR pointed out so well , terminal Class E is not linked to radar coverage.
The E over D introduced a major safety improvement. It was the only way we could bring in a mandatory transponder requirement for all aircraft in class E. This would not stack up in any cost benefit study but the GA organisations agreed because of less " road block" airspace. Then with a total lack of ethics that appears to be the " Canberra system" the road block airspace was put back in but the Quid Quo Pro mandate remained.
I brokered that deal and am not impressed with what then happened with the wind back .
I have always said that bringing in low level E will not be easy. But change is what I am good at and that's why I wanted to be on the NAS implementation team .
I would ask advice and surround myself with the most capable people . Worked in my business career and also in some risky adventures!
And the training cost would not be high compared to the AsA $1 billion budget. I would reduce some of the costs in the AsA head office to cover it. Done that before.
Re delays at Coffs in IMC. Yes sometimes. Just as sometimes delays in class G if you want to live.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 3rd Apr 2016 at 20:38.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You do realise that if I give you a clearance on the ground then I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish separation? Same as if I clear you for an instrument approach I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish you've either landed or are clear of the area of conflict
ATC have carefully designed procedures for separating aircraft where required outside radar coverage. Pilots do not - they can't even issue an "instruction" to the other aircraft - they have to hope that they are both operating to the same plan.
It's separation on a principle of "if ATC didn't see it, it didn't happen" e.g. 2 aircraft flying the same approach.
The opponents of class E never mention the other "Launy" incident:
Investigation: AO-2008-030 - Aircraft proximity event, VH-VOQ and VH-VQS Launceston Aerodrome, Tasmania, 1 May 2008
where a 737 and an A320 came into close proximity during a missed approach, basically due to a misunderstanding between the pilots.
This is exactly what class E is supposed to avoid - conflicts between aircraft in IMC. The principle is that if aircraft can't see each other, ATC should provide separation.
It would make a lot of sense to me to have class E down to 700' or even 1200' at all airports where you have jet RPT.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
if everyone is cancelling IFR <snip> and then they get the DTI like they currently do
My recollection is that is what the airlines and others had a problem with re the "CANCEL IFR" procedure.
When you cancel IFR in E in VMC it then works like our class G.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Presumably, you cancel IFR at the point where it's more useful to talk to CTAF traffic than ATC. If you're approaching a CTAF and trying to arrange separation with a couple of VFR aircraft, is it helpful for ATC to be telling you they are there?
The usual response to ATC information about CTAF traffic seems to be "Thank you, we have them on CTAF" because high performance aircraft (rightly) monitor and announce on CTAF from many miles out.
The usual response to ATC information about CTAF traffic seems to be "Thank you, we have them on CTAF" because high performance aircraft (rightly) monitor and announce on CTAF from many miles out.
Airlines do not "cancel IFR" when operating into CTAFs. There is an option in the AIP to advise ATC that they are transferring to CTAF when they cannot/will not monitor the ATC frequency but with two radios (and a 3rd VHF to turn the lights on) and two crew that is not necessary.
Thread Starter
Buckshot. You are correct. Everything was put in the way to stop class E terminal airspace from working.
In Aus , once you give a taxi call in G you are classed IFR and you then can't continue to climb in E in VMC.
I spent two years attempting to fix this but CASA would not budge. As I said. All to stop any change from working.
In Aus , once you give a taxi call in G you are classed IFR and you then can't continue to climb in E in VMC.
I spent two years attempting to fix this but CASA would not budge. As I said. All to stop any change from working.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 4th Apr 2016 at 04:52.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
once you give a taxi call in G you are classed IFR and you the can't continue to climb in E in VMC.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And Howabout that is totally wrong re having to import the whole system
NAS failed because it was ideologically-based, and not grounded on stringent cost/benefit and risk analysis. Yes, I know I bang on in respect of those points, but that's why the package failed. There were fundamental flaws, as there were in all the previous 'initiatives.'
Jeezus, Man, can you just swallow your pride for once and admit you got it wrong!
Wipe the bloody slate clean and push for change that can be justified on the basis of cost/benefit and risk.
Do that in respect of a Class E trial at one location down to 700 AGL, and pure US CTAF, and you'd have my full support.
Just let the other stuff go Dick, because you are wasting undoubted energy and talent trying to justify failures past!
andrewr, easy - radio. I can't separate where I can't talk to both aircraft. Two aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome can talk to each other.
It's not an argument for E, it's an argument for controlled airspace, pilot education and bean counter culpability.
It's not an argument for E, it's an argument for controlled airspace, pilot education and bean counter culpability.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
So how do they do it in the USA and Canada?
Thread Starter
Howabout. C above D is clearly upside down. The collision risk is clearly higher closer to the runway. Why would you drop to a lower ICAO classification closer to the runway?
How does a single controller at a place like Albury operate class C effectively at 8500' when there is no primary or secondary radar to show where a VFR plane was in the Airspace .? Couldn't the controllers attention be taken away from the runway and the circuit area where collision risk is far higher?
I agree C is clearly safer when used as it is in the North American system where it is properly manned and with the proper survailance equipment.
If it was E link airspace at Albury it could stay 24 hours a day. As C it turns to dirt road G from 8500' down when the tower closes- crazy.
Why does Broome have NAS E over D if it is unsafe? Why don't we standardise like other countries? I know.
We must never change anything.
How does a single controller at a place like Albury operate class C effectively at 8500' when there is no primary or secondary radar to show where a VFR plane was in the Airspace .? Couldn't the controllers attention be taken away from the runway and the circuit area where collision risk is far higher?
I agree C is clearly safer when used as it is in the North American system where it is properly manned and with the proper survailance equipment.
If it was E link airspace at Albury it could stay 24 hours a day. As C it turns to dirt road G from 8500' down when the tower closes- crazy.
Why does Broome have NAS E over D if it is unsafe? Why don't we standardise like other countries? I know.
We must never change anything.