Australian Class E article – the full text
Thread Starter
It's all very mysterious. Fly IFR in the USA and the ATC frequencies are going like machine guns with hardly a space to get a word in for a clearance request.
Fly in the similar airspace in Australia and you can go for so long without ATC saying anything that you call them to see if you are still on the air. Often they answer " it's a bit quite today" .
It would appear that with a bit of airspace re organisation we may actually be able to provide a class E service at Ballina at no extra cost.
Fly in the similar airspace in Australia and you can go for so long without ATC saying anything that you call them to see if you are still on the air. Often they answer " it's a bit quite today" .
It would appear that with a bit of airspace re organisation we may actually be able to provide a class E service at Ballina at no extra cost.
Fly in the similar airspace in Australia and you can go for so long without ATC saying anything that you call them to see if you are still on the air. Often they answer " it's a bit quite today".
I have never said a high likelihood. It's a very low chance with potentially horrendous results.
Whereas
Fly IFR in the USA and the ATC frequencies are going like machine guns with hardly a space to get a word in for a clearance request
Can I be forgiven for finding this all a bit confusing? Contradictory, even?
Thread Starter
Ok. You all win. It's ok for VFR in Australia to make self announcements on ATC separation frequencies. The other countries that prohibit this to protect their Air Traffic Controllers are wrong.
And no. There is no reason for Australia to have the traffic loadings on ATC frequencies as the USA.
But maybe room for a little more workload so we could have a bit of E at Ballina .
And no. There is no reason for Australia to have the traffic loadings on ATC frequencies as the USA.
But maybe room for a little more workload so we could have a bit of E at Ballina .
Ok. You all win. It's ok for VFR in Australia to make self announcements on ATC separation frequencies. The other countries that prohibit this to protect their Air Traffic Controllers are wrong.
It's completely incoherent to say VFR should be prohibited from making self announcements on ATC separation frequencies, on the grounds that they could overtransmit an important ATC instruction, but say VFR are allowed make a transmission requesting flight following on ATC separation frequencies. A request for flight following is just as likely to overtransmit an important ATC instruction as any other transmission. And there are already lots of overtransmissions on ATC frequencies, but the system seems to be capable of dealing with the consequences.
That said, if you get the system changed and VFR sticks to 126.7 or the CTAF in the vicinity while in G - that's fine. We can all do that. Let's just hope the change is implemented properly.
But maybe room for a little more workload so we could have a bit of E at Ballina .
Thread Starter
That's why I said you win.
In the USA it is totally accepted that VFR can request flight following directly to ATC but they are not allowed to make self announcements on the same frequencies.
You say this is " completely incoherent ". Maybe to you but it is a fact.
To me and many others it appears totally rational.
Remember it's just not the initial announcement. It's the " radio arranged separation" that follows that is more of a problem. If you remember Bloggs and others would not accept that alerted see and avoid works at places like Launceston. They want both aircraft to start communicating and arrange separation. This really blocks up an ATC frequency.
In the USA it is totally accepted that VFR can request flight following directly to ATC but they are not allowed to make self announcements on the same frequencies.
You say this is " completely incoherent ". Maybe to you but it is a fact.
To me and many others it appears totally rational.
Remember it's just not the initial announcement. It's the " radio arranged separation" that follows that is more of a problem. If you remember Bloggs and others would not accept that alerted see and avoid works at places like Launceston. They want both aircraft to start communicating and arrange separation. This really blocks up an ATC frequency.
In the USA it is totally accepted that VFR can request flight following directly to ATC but they are not allowed to make self announcements on the same frequencies.
You say this is " completely incoherent ". Maybe to you but it is a fact.
You say this is " completely incoherent ". Maybe to you but it is a fact.
It's like your assertion that 90% of VFR pilots are "defying" the "CASA ruling". I think you'll find that the ones operating out of unmarked, uncertified, unlicensed strips and cattle properties in the middle of nowhere might actually realise that there are no mandatory calls there.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I guess I might as well get my first post out of the way by jumping straight in the fire. I control air traffic, and I believe there is some merit to what Dick Smith has suggested as changes to our system, albeit that I'm not a huge Dick Smith fan on a personal level.
Controlled approaches down to 700ft could definitely be done using current resources, and would be extremely beneficial to the safety of flights. As a controller, I'm really not a fan of the whole separating to a085, then passing traffic and basically saying may the force be with you. I have the traffic picture right in front of me, and could make everything much more orderly than some of the scary self separation I have seen. As has been pointed out, there would be quite a training lead in time for this, but that doesn't really justify not looking at it.
In IMC, you get separated, and once your in VMC, you can be cleared visual approach, then you can manoeuvre how you wish once within 5nm, it really doesn't seem that complex. I would love to see it done at Armidale, there is radar to the ground there, seems like a perfect candidate for it. The biggest challenge won't be the finer details of how it should work, it will be convincing people that the current system can be changed without the world ending.
Controlled approaches down to 700ft could definitely be done using current resources, and would be extremely beneficial to the safety of flights. As a controller, I'm really not a fan of the whole separating to a085, then passing traffic and basically saying may the force be with you. I have the traffic picture right in front of me, and could make everything much more orderly than some of the scary self separation I have seen. As has been pointed out, there would be quite a training lead in time for this, but that doesn't really justify not looking at it.
In IMC, you get separated, and once your in VMC, you can be cleared visual approach, then you can manoeuvre how you wish once within 5nm, it really doesn't seem that complex. I would love to see it done at Armidale, there is radar to the ground there, seems like a perfect candidate for it. The biggest challenge won't be the finer details of how it should work, it will be convincing people that the current system can be changed without the world ending.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick you'd get more respect from me if you didn't misrepresent the situation at places like Ballina.
"There isn’t even a radio operator on the ground at these airports to confirm that
the aircraft radio is working correctly and give local weather conditions". Dick, there's an AFRU at Ballina and an AWIS (QNH, wind speed/direction, temp, dewpoint, cloud) on 134.8. Don't need the person on the ground. More than enough for a competent pilot to handle. As for multiple IFR arrivals in IMC - again rare to happen at Ballina and easily handled the way it is handled at Narromine or Birdsville or Charleville....
The problem is there is no problem.
But don't let the facts get in the way.
"There isn’t even a radio operator on the ground at these airports to confirm that
the aircraft radio is working correctly and give local weather conditions". Dick, there's an AFRU at Ballina and an AWIS (QNH, wind speed/direction, temp, dewpoint, cloud) on 134.8. Don't need the person on the ground. More than enough for a competent pilot to handle. As for multiple IFR arrivals in IMC - again rare to happen at Ballina and easily handled the way it is handled at Narromine or Birdsville or Charleville....
The problem is there is no problem.
But don't let the facts get in the way.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
If you remember Bloggs and others would not accept that alerted see and avoid works at places like Launceston. They want both aircraft to start communicating and arrange separation. This really blocks up an ATC frequency.
It beggar's belief that on the one hand you rip into me for wanting to keep DTI in Class G+ and do self-segregation and demanding that we IFR be controlled by ATC to 700ft, and on the other you are quite happy to let VFR swan around without saying anything so close to the airport! The stupid part about it was the tower was there and talking! Who would organise a system where, within 15miles of a major airport, VFR can swan along doing their own thing. It is quite acceptable to play ATC, but both parties MUST be involved. If only one aeroplane knows what's going on, it's NOT Alerted See and Avoid.
Rediculous Madness!
Previously, IIRC, you also made some jibes at the ATSB after Launy shemozzle along the lines "they didn't say anything bad about E". Here's what the report had to say:
While a single occurrence does not provide the basis for a major change to the USbased NAS, which is yet to be fully implemented, the circumstances of this serious incident are indicative of a need for further review and analysis by the responsible authorities in consultation with industry.
The ATSB recommends that Airservices Australia, in consultation with the Civil
Aviation Safety Authority and the NAS Implementation Group, review NAS procedures and communications requirements for operations in Class E airspace, with particular emphasis on air transport operations during climb and descent in non-radar airspace, with a view to enhancing situational awareness of pilots operating in that airspace. The review should include examination of, and where necessary revision and updating of, education, training and chart frequency material.
Aviation Safety Authority and the NAS Implementation Group, review NAS procedures and communications requirements for operations in Class E airspace, with particular emphasis on air transport operations during climb and descent in non-radar airspace, with a view to enhancing situational awareness of pilots operating in that airspace. The review should include examination of, and where necessary revision and updating of, education, training and chart frequency material.
Thread Starter
Notim. As explained elsewhere I built the original AFRU and put it in at Bundaberg and received great resistance from pilots who claimed it was not necessary. Good to see you accept at least one change I promote.
Certainly not necessary in other countries as they all have unicom operators at non tower airports with airline traffic. And the AFRU won't tell you if your radio is working correctly- just if there is a carrier wave present.
How does the AFRU inform you that an airline aircraft has just entered and backtracking down the runway without giving any CTAF calls? ( as Qantas did at Ayers Rock)
How does an AWIS tell you that there is a local rainshower on the runway threshold?
I like the idea of a real person at the airport like the USA and Canada. Then again we did not do it in the past when we were trained - lets get The AFIS back.
Certainly not necessary in other countries as they all have unicom operators at non tower airports with airline traffic. And the AFRU won't tell you if your radio is working correctly- just if there is a carrier wave present.
How does the AFRU inform you that an airline aircraft has just entered and backtracking down the runway without giving any CTAF calls? ( as Qantas did at Ayers Rock)
How does an AWIS tell you that there is a local rainshower on the runway threshold?
I like the idea of a real person at the airport like the USA and Canada. Then again we did not do it in the past when we were trained - lets get The AFIS back.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Apr 2016 at 07:01.
Thread Starter
Bloggs. Yair. That E with its transponder and radio mandate for VFR in lower risk link airspace above D is fundamentally flawed but class G in higher collision risk terminal airspace with no transponder requirement and no third party requirement is fantastic .
Could it be that you think everything we did in the past was acceptable and any change is not? I think so.
How did you ever move from piston to jet?
Could it be that you think everything we did in the past was acceptable and any change is not? I think so.
How did you ever move from piston to jet?
How did you ever move from piston to jet?
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
class G in higher collision risk terminal airspace with no transponder requirement and no third party requirement is fantastic .
And don't worry about transponders, I would be quite happy to mandate them for all aeroplanes into RPT ports. Besides, you are going to force virtually all VFR visitors to those ports to get them anyway because of the Class E requirement for transponders.
You are also aware of course that carriage and use of transponders is mandatory above A100, which covers a flight to the point where mandatory radio kicks in "in the vicinity".Re your third-party requirement comment, you are obviously not aware of the MANDATORY frequency confirmation requirements of the CAOs. I won't provide you with the reference, I'll leave that to Leddie, as he is really good at providing references to justify all his claims...
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 7th Apr 2016 at 10:28. Reason: Cough Cough...
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
My problem is that you presented the issue as if there NO mitigating factors in place.
As a qualified CIR and IFR-current pilot I am quite happy to encounter a rainshower on the threshold! Aren't you? There's approach minima that include visibility for a reason (BTW, a UNICOM guy/gal in any of the aviation businesses in Ballina can't see the threshold of RWY 24 and if they're sitting in an office doing the Unicom on top of their real job, they can't see the runway at all. )
As for the aircraft on the wrong frequency or doing the wrong thing - I've seen "bad/poor behaviour" and errors made in controlled airspace as well - you've got to keep your wits about you - I've been given turn instructions in Cairns that would have put me into Mt Whitfield and seen ultralight aircraft plough on through controlled airspace undetected. The YAYE radio call incident with an RPT is pretty bloody rare. You may as well take the example of aircraft debris falling to the ground occasionally and mandate we all live under concrete shelters, just in case....
Have a look at this: Unicom Responsibility Who's Running The Radio? - Flight Training and see if it solves the non-problem for you.
My problem is that you presented the issue as if there NO mitigating factors in place.
As a qualified CIR and IFR-current pilot I am quite happy to encounter a rainshower on the threshold! Aren't you? There's approach minima that include visibility for a reason (BTW, a UNICOM guy/gal in any of the aviation businesses in Ballina can't see the threshold of RWY 24 and if they're sitting in an office doing the Unicom on top of their real job, they can't see the runway at all. )
As for the aircraft on the wrong frequency or doing the wrong thing - I've seen "bad/poor behaviour" and errors made in controlled airspace as well - you've got to keep your wits about you - I've been given turn instructions in Cairns that would have put me into Mt Whitfield and seen ultralight aircraft plough on through controlled airspace undetected. The YAYE radio call incident with an RPT is pretty bloody rare. You may as well take the example of aircraft debris falling to the ground occasionally and mandate we all live under concrete shelters, just in case....
Have a look at this: Unicom Responsibility Who's Running The Radio? - Flight Training and see if it solves the non-problem for you.
Thread Starter
No tim. A really good article and good advice on the FAA Unicom .
Main point is that there is a third party to confirm that the radio is working correctly.
Actually I agree that it's not simply black and white and I apologise if what I have written comes over that way.
It's a real pity that skilled people such as Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer offer a US style Unicom service because of the CASA more prescriptive requirements. Pity we can't copy the best from anywhere.
The fatalities at Lockart River may have been avoided if the airport groundsman had been allowed provide a Unicom service and talk to the plane with his handheld. He told me that on the day it was clear of cloud to the east of the aerodrome. If he could have informed the pilot he may have chosen not to do the IFR approach in high winds over the only mountain ridge in the area and come in visually from the east.
Main point is that there is a third party to confirm that the radio is working correctly.
Actually I agree that it's not simply black and white and I apologise if what I have written comes over that way.
It's a real pity that skilled people such as Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer offer a US style Unicom service because of the CASA more prescriptive requirements. Pity we can't copy the best from anywhere.
The fatalities at Lockart River may have been avoided if the airport groundsman had been allowed provide a Unicom service and talk to the plane with his handheld. He told me that on the day it was clear of cloud to the east of the aerodrome. If he could have informed the pilot he may have chosen not to do the IFR approach in high winds over the only mountain ridge in the area and come in visually from the east.
I just dunno Dick.
Perhaps a VFR pilot would have 'maintained VFR' and come in from the East as well....
That's a 'long bow', and will not be appreciated by some...
Cheers
Perhaps a VFR pilot would have 'maintained VFR' and come in from the East as well....
That's a 'long bow', and will not be appreciated by some...
Cheers
Don't start dredging up Lockhart River with a 'poor old pilot who wasn't given enough info' slant Dick - as you would be aware there are very strong factors showing that wasn't the case at all.