Australian Class E article – the full text
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jeezus wept guys!
There is just too much cynicism because it's Dick and spare me! I did a heck of a lot more than you guys combined when it came to pointing out the flaws in NAS in cross-portfolio jobs where I dealt with ministers and their associated advisers. NAS was a crock, but that should not blind us.
You seem to be a bit rigid, le P, in hiding behind the so-called regs, You sound like enroute to me. Are you seriously telling me that you can't handle a few extra aircraft in one spot with IFR to IFR separation and traffic on identified VFR?
On the other hand, I well remember an ace civ controller that I worked with, telling me, and I quote:
'These new guys sh*t their pants if they have to do anything other than monitor. Radar vectoring and taking aircraft off-track for separation is heart-attack material.' His words, not mine!
le P, if you have a modicum of skills, you should be able to handle this relatively easy one.
Regardless of my disagreements with Dick, I scratch my head in respect of the totally closed minds.
There is just too much cynicism because it's Dick and spare me! I did a heck of a lot more than you guys combined when it came to pointing out the flaws in NAS in cross-portfolio jobs where I dealt with ministers and their associated advisers. NAS was a crock, but that should not blind us.
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
On the other hand, I well remember an ace civ controller that I worked with, telling me, and I quote:
'These new guys sh*t their pants if they have to do anything other than monitor. Radar vectoring and taking aircraft off-track for separation is heart-attack material.' His words, not mine!
le P, if you have a modicum of skills, you should be able to handle this relatively easy one.
Regardless of my disagreements with Dick, I scratch my head in respect of the totally closed minds.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Howabout
You seem to be a bit rigid, le P, in hiding behind the so-called regs, You sound like enroute to me. Are you seriously telling me that you can't handle a few extra aircraft in one spot with IFR to IFR separation and traffic on identified VFR?
On the other hand, I well remember an ace civ controller that I worked with, telling me, and I quote:
'These new guys sh*t their pants if they have to do anything other than monitor. Radar vectoring and taking aircraft off-track for separation is heart-attack material.' His words, not mine!
le P, if you have a modicum of skills, you should be able to handle this relatively easy one.
Regardless of my disagreements with Dick, I scratch my head in respect of the totally closed minds.
On the other hand, I well remember an ace civ controller that I worked with, telling me, and I quote:
'These new guys sh*t their pants if they have to do anything other than monitor. Radar vectoring and taking aircraft off-track for separation is heart-attack material.' His words, not mine!
le P, if you have a modicum of skills, you should be able to handle this relatively easy one.
Regardless of my disagreements with Dick, I scratch my head in respect of the totally closed minds.
If you have a problem with the rules, take it up with CASA. Blaming an ATC strapped to a console for your woes is akin to SLF blaming a pilot for missing their connection.
Stop being so simple minded and look at the big picture.
Thread Starter
Traffic. In the lower 48 they have about 30 times the amount of traffic that we have in the Aussie mainland.
That's why the sectors are stratified . We don't need this cost .
Yes. I agree new regulations will be required that I would think could be copied from the North American regs. In the USA the en route controllers who do class E approach work as well do not have approach ratings.
We should copy the best. Or as a suggestion why don't we "borrow" a few US controllers to give a demo in the simulator. Now that's an idea!
That's why the sectors are stratified . We don't need this cost .
Yes. I agree new regulations will be required that I would think could be copied from the North American regs. In the USA the en route controllers who do class E approach work as well do not have approach ratings.
We should copy the best. Or as a suggestion why don't we "borrow" a few US controllers to give a demo in the simulator. Now that's an idea!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Apr 2016 at 01:23.
Thread Starter
Howabout. NAS was actually working until AsA prepared and posted a chart showing the old sector boundaries and frequencies. They did this without any pilot education .
It then was no longer an airspace system based on the worlds best - it was a half wound back " croc" system.
I am starting to get suspicious. Were you involved or did you know about this chart before it went out? Or were you kept in the dark about it like the NAS implementation team.?
Can't wait for your answer , either way!
It then was no longer an airspace system based on the worlds best - it was a half wound back " croc" system.
I am starting to get suspicious. Were you involved or did you know about this chart before it went out? Or were you kept in the dark about it like the NAS implementation team.?
Can't wait for your answer , either way!
Howbout, I've only been doing the job for 20+ years and FS before that. You'll catch me on ML arrivals most days. I'm not hiding behind anything, just stating the facts as they stand. If I'm to provide an approach service under current regs then I need the rating commensurate with the task. Just ask the guys and gals who do Launy approach outside tower hours.
As I and others have said numerous time, give us the resources......
Regardless of the regs a considerable amount of training would be required because none of us has done any approach training. I might know how to read an approach plate but that's been picked up along the way and not required training, after all why would an en-route controller need to know? Or would you rather let us loose on real lives never having had to worry about terrain and vectoring......
You don't think the timidity over vectoring might not have anything to do with inadequacy of training rather than actual ability? "Never let the sector vector" hasn't been around since Adam wore a minilite has it?
Now howabout answering the bloody question? You're taking after Dick by attacking those who point out problems. You're the ones wanting the test, you'll have to overcome the problems. Whose pud am I pulling?
As I and others have said numerous time, give us the resources......
Regardless of the regs a considerable amount of training would be required because none of us has done any approach training. I might know how to read an approach plate but that's been picked up along the way and not required training, after all why would an en-route controller need to know? Or would you rather let us loose on real lives never having had to worry about terrain and vectoring......
You don't think the timidity over vectoring might not have anything to do with inadequacy of training rather than actual ability? "Never let the sector vector" hasn't been around since Adam wore a minilite has it?
Now howabout answering the bloody question? You're taking after Dick by attacking those who point out problems. You're the ones wanting the test, you'll have to overcome the problems. Whose pud am I pulling?
Last edited by le Pingouin; 5th Apr 2016 at 15:59. Reason: typo
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hempy,
Your argument is not disputed in respect of the basics. Yes, those goddamned regs. Elastic aren't they, when it comes to doing nothing?
Are you seriously telling me that you are incapable of controlling IFR traffic in an enroute environment and handling a few in E down to 700 AGL with traffic on VFRs at the same time?
From memory, Hempy, you were a pretty competent controller.
Can you seriously tell me, despite the regs, that everything is perfect?
Your argument is not disputed in respect of the basics. Yes, those goddamned regs. Elastic aren't they, when it comes to doing nothing?
Are you seriously telling me that you are incapable of controlling IFR traffic in an enroute environment and handling a few in E down to 700 AGL with traffic on VFRs at the same time?
From memory, Hempy, you were a pretty competent controller.
Can you seriously tell me, despite the regs, that everything is perfect?
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout, competency is irrelevant. The way that things are structured in 2016 means that you either toe the line or you are out the door.
Could 99% of controllers perform the task you argue for? Absolutely.
By the regulations are any allowed to? No.
As I said earlier, take your beef up with CASA, not controllers simply trying to ply their trade.
Could 99% of controllers perform the task you argue for? Absolutely.
By the regulations are any allowed to? No.
As I said earlier, take your beef up with CASA, not controllers simply trying to ply their trade.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am starting to get suspicious. Were you involved or did you know about this chart before it went out? Or were you kept in the dark about it like the NAS implementation team.?
No, I had nothing to do with it, and had no prior knowledge whatsoever.
Dick, I am retired and have nothing to hide.
I gave you a guarantee! Press 700 AGL; I'll support, and you will know who I am! But don't get wrapped around the axles on my bloody identity! I was only ever a 'bit player! A minor player!
NAS was actually working until AsA prepared and posted a chart showing the old sector boundaries and frequencies. They did this without any pilot education .
NAS failed because Airservices without the approval of CASA undermined NAS and printed a special two sided chart showing ATC sector boundaries and then posted it to every pilot in Australia without any educational material on how the half wound back system was to work.
Airservices produced that chart at the request of industry - RAPAC. And CASA agreed with it.
In fact Airservices covered the cost of production, printing and distribution (at a cost of some $200k I recall).
Are you seriously telling me that you are incapable of controlling IFR traffic in an enroute environment and handling a few in E down to 700 AGL with traffic on VFRs at the same time?
Then we throw working the CTAF/VFR at the same time into the mix. If I want to maintain runway heading to avoid a bugsmasher, I wont be able to unless I get a clearance for it. Not good.
"Oh, just switch to VFR", I hear Dick say. That's also ridiculous. I've said before and I'll say it again; we do not switch to "eyeballs separation" mode just because there's no cloud; that might work in your 130KIAS bugsmaher than can pull 3g in an instant to avoid another lighty but not for us. RPT separate until we see or pass. The "pass" situation is 95% of the time. So switching to VFR to overcome the limitations of Class E is nonsense, a concept that could only come from somebody who doesn't understand.
Still, mandatory transponders for VFR at all of my airports will be a good thing.
There was a crash at the local roundabout recently. I'm surprised Dick isn't over here demanding traffic lights be installed. Nothing is risk-free.
Benalla happened over 10 years ago. As tragic as it was, how much extra money would industry have paid out if Dick had got his way and put in E all over the place then, for no re-occurrence?
Originally Posted by Dick
NAS failed because Airservices without the approval of CASA undermined NAS and printed a special two sided chart showing ATC sector boundaries
Thread Starter
CaptainMidnight you state “Airservices produced that chart at the request of industry – RAPAC. And CASA agreed with it”. You are about half correct. I agree a number of people involved in RAPAC – people like Capn Bloggs - at the time, just couldn’t accept that an airspace system could work without ATC frequency boundaries being shown on charts and all VFR aircraft above 5000ft being forced to monitor all ATC calls and answer when they could be traffic.
In fact there is no system in any country in the world that is like this. What the people at RAPAC were trying to do is to go back to the old pre-1990 AMATS system where it was necessary to be on the correct frequency as IFR and VFR aircraft flew at the same levels due to the quadrantal rule.
On Friday 12th March 2004, my manager rang me at 2.50pm from my farm at Gundaroo (I was at Terrey Hills), he said that a chart had been sent to him as a private pilot, which showed the frequency boundaries both G and E airspace – the chart was double-sided.
I immediately rang Bruce Byron, the Director of CASA. Bruce was horrified and said ‘Dick, I told Airservices not to send out any chart that showed the frequency boundaries, unless there was at least 3 months education beforehand on how the system was supposed to work”.
So in fact, CASA only agreed to the chart going out if a pilot education campaign had taken place and Bruce, later told me, that he thought that Airservices would then quickly realise that it was simply impossible to properly communicate and educate a half wound-back system – and therefore the charts would not go out.
CaptainMidnight, as you probably noted I have all this in detail, ready for the Royal Commission, when there is an unnecessary accident, and the Royal Commissioner asks why the system was half reversed and it’s shown that it was because of ignorance.
In fact there is no system in any country in the world that is like this. What the people at RAPAC were trying to do is to go back to the old pre-1990 AMATS system where it was necessary to be on the correct frequency as IFR and VFR aircraft flew at the same levels due to the quadrantal rule.
On Friday 12th March 2004, my manager rang me at 2.50pm from my farm at Gundaroo (I was at Terrey Hills), he said that a chart had been sent to him as a private pilot, which showed the frequency boundaries both G and E airspace – the chart was double-sided.
I immediately rang Bruce Byron, the Director of CASA. Bruce was horrified and said ‘Dick, I told Airservices not to send out any chart that showed the frequency boundaries, unless there was at least 3 months education beforehand on how the system was supposed to work”.
So in fact, CASA only agreed to the chart going out if a pilot education campaign had taken place and Bruce, later told me, that he thought that Airservices would then quickly realise that it was simply impossible to properly communicate and educate a half wound-back system – and therefore the charts would not go out.
CaptainMidnight, as you probably noted I have all this in detail, ready for the Royal Commission, when there is an unnecessary accident, and the Royal Commissioner asks why the system was half reversed and it’s shown that it was because of ignorance.
Thread Starter
In relation to the RAPACs – as I’ve stated previously I was not allowed to be involved in the implementation group and in fact the implementation group was specifically prevented from talking to RAPACs and explaining how well and how safe the international system we were copying worked.
That specifically meant that enroute the VFR aircraft flew at a semi-circular 500ft level and were not required to listen and announce air traffic control frequencies.
One of the reasons Airservices sent out the chart is there their Chief Executive at the time, Bernie Smith, was a private VFR pilot who’d been trained in the old system and was completely obsessed with flying by radio – many pilots were who were trained in the old system.
The locations of the ATC VHF outlets were shown on the NAS charts – as they are in North America – so if a pilot wanted to call ATC the pilot could simply call the nearest VHF outlet. As I’ve pointed out numerous times on this site, by monitoring the area frequency from the chart boundaries, often there is no communications to ATC or other aircraft at all, as the frequency boundaries on the charts are there for workload purposes – not for VHF coverage purposes.
Capn Bloggs – NAS did fail because it was half wound-back without proper education on how the system works in other leading aviation countries of the world. I now notice that most RAPACs are reconsidering their view about frequency boundaries on charts. This is because the CASA decision to require traffic at airports not marked on charts to use the ATC area frequency has come because of the chart boundaries being put back on and us having this half wound-back system.
That specifically meant that enroute the VFR aircraft flew at a semi-circular 500ft level and were not required to listen and announce air traffic control frequencies.
One of the reasons Airservices sent out the chart is there their Chief Executive at the time, Bernie Smith, was a private VFR pilot who’d been trained in the old system and was completely obsessed with flying by radio – many pilots were who were trained in the old system.
The locations of the ATC VHF outlets were shown on the NAS charts – as they are in North America – so if a pilot wanted to call ATC the pilot could simply call the nearest VHF outlet. As I’ve pointed out numerous times on this site, by monitoring the area frequency from the chart boundaries, often there is no communications to ATC or other aircraft at all, as the frequency boundaries on the charts are there for workload purposes – not for VHF coverage purposes.
Capn Bloggs – NAS did fail because it was half wound-back without proper education on how the system works in other leading aviation countries of the world. I now notice that most RAPACs are reconsidering their view about frequency boundaries on charts. This is because the CASA decision to require traffic at airports not marked on charts to use the ATC area frequency has come because of the chart boundaries being put back on and us having this half wound-back system.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Apr 2016 at 03:22.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight, as you probably noted I have all this in detail, ready for the Royal Commission, when there is an unnecessary accident, and the Royal Commissioner asks why the system was half reversed and it’s shown that it was because of ignorance.
IMHO, you've almost dashed your last chance of doing something positive. You frustrate the hell out of me!
You once said that arguing with me was like arguing with your teenage daughter. Well, as they say in Bahasa Malay, 'sama-sama!'
Just get over what's already done and dusted and swallow the pride!
PS I'll read the PM a bit later as the dog is giving me 'goo-goo eyes' for his walk.
And stop it with the 'conspiracy theories!' There were none.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not class D?
We use class D at many controlled aerodromes around Australia, but it is not an aerodrome specific airspace category. Instead of class E, why not Class D en-route. No separation required IFR / VFR, but all players in that airspace are known.
I am not suggesting all class E becomes D, but certainly in the airspace feeding into controlled aerodromes it would be ideal.
Just a thought.
I am not suggesting all class E becomes D, but certainly in the airspace feeding into controlled aerodromes it would be ideal.
Just a thought.
Thread Starter
89. We don't have en route D because the cost would be prohibitive .
In fact our Pre AMATS G airspace above 5000' was, for VFR., equivalent to class D because a traffic information service was provided to IFR on all VFR.
That cost about another $70 million per year. That's what D would probably cost.
The only reason we don't have D above D at terminal tower airspace is that pre AMATS we just had controlled and uncontrolled airspace.
Controlled was closer to C and the concrete minded ones say that you should never re allocate airspace to a lower category - only a one way ratchet if changing to more expense and more restrictions .
,
In fact our Pre AMATS G airspace above 5000' was, for VFR., equivalent to class D because a traffic information service was provided to IFR on all VFR.
That cost about another $70 million per year. That's what D would probably cost.
The only reason we don't have D above D at terminal tower airspace is that pre AMATS we just had controlled and uncontrolled airspace.
Controlled was closer to C and the concrete minded ones say that you should never re allocate airspace to a lower category - only a one way ratchet if changing to more expense and more restrictions .
,
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Apr 2016 at 04:30.
In the lower 48 they have about 30 times the amount of traffic that we have in the Aussie mainland.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
in fact the implementation group was specifically prevented from talking to RAPACs and explaining how well and how safe the international system we were copying worked.
However, this is all ancient history and of no use to moving on.
A search of this site did turn up a couple of interesting The Australian articles though:
http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ach-skies.html