Heathrow changed to Class D to save the industry money,Williamtown what's happening?
Captain bloggs,
Don't get bogged down in the minutiae. The three points that I think an airspace system should be designed around are:
1. Be consistent.
2. Be logical.
3. Focus your resources where they will do the most good.
I used examples from the US airspace system to illustrate how these principles have been applied.
In Australia we have an airspace system( and broader regulation set) that is inconsistent, illogical and fails to focus on key risks. It is inefficient and if it doesn't cost you directly (as it costs dick) it will cost you in lost future employment opportunities or freedom to fly for pleasure.
Don't get bogged down in the minutiae. The three points that I think an airspace system should be designed around are:
1. Be consistent.
2. Be logical.
3. Focus your resources where they will do the most good.
I used examples from the US airspace system to illustrate how these principles have been applied.
In Australia we have an airspace system( and broader regulation set) that is inconsistent, illogical and fails to focus on key risks. It is inefficient and if it doesn't cost you directly (as it costs dick) it will cost you in lost future employment opportunities or freedom to fly for pleasure.
So using your example of a young family...
They are totally safe except if they get holding waiting to fly thru the centreline at willy town as that is the only time the engine might fail?
Really, that's what you are using?
They are totally safe except if they get holding waiting to fly thru the centreline at willy town as that is the only time the engine might fail?
Really, that's what you are using?
I explained how in Australia, the military controllers at Williamtown were totally opposed to a CASA proposal that Williamtown be Class D because the controllers thought they were being down-graded.
How do you know the military controllers at Willy are opposed to Class D? Do you have reliable information that it's because they don't want to be 'down-graded', or are you relying on third-party gossip?
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
As one who has to use the LHR zone very regularly (and land in it), I'd say be careful of what you wish for.
To land at a private helicopter site now, in the "inner area", not only does one have to obtain the landowner's permission, but also one has to pay the CAA for a written permission (takes up to 28 days to obtain - so forget any short notice requests). Then, on the day the ATC supervisor has to be contacted to discuss entry permission and to obtain a slot time. Ten minutes leeway is you are allowed. Then of course, once in flight the usual radio calls must be made but you can expect no priority over IFR traffic. A separate departure clearance has to be negotiated by phone before starting up. Not easy on the individual when the passengers turn up early and unannounced and want to go immediately.
Overall, a very much retrograde step from a pilot's point of view. Aviation in UK gets more difficult every day. The rules are never for the pilots' convenience and they seem to change far too often to keep up.
To land at a private helicopter site now, in the "inner area", not only does one have to obtain the landowner's permission, but also one has to pay the CAA for a written permission (takes up to 28 days to obtain - so forget any short notice requests). Then, on the day the ATC supervisor has to be contacted to discuss entry permission and to obtain a slot time. Ten minutes leeway is you are allowed. Then of course, once in flight the usual radio calls must be made but you can expect no priority over IFR traffic. A separate departure clearance has to be negotiated by phone before starting up. Not easy on the individual when the passengers turn up early and unannounced and want to go immediately.
Overall, a very much retrograde step from a pilot's point of view. Aviation in UK gets more difficult every day. The rules are never for the pilots' convenience and they seem to change far too often to keep up.
Dick, if you want to compare with the UK then how about comparing with MATZ airspace rather than Heathrow.
I've never understood why the military need such massive areas of restricted airspace here, perhaps someone can explain.
I seem to remember Gatwick being Class D when I was flying there over 20 years ago.
I've never understood why the military need such massive areas of restricted airspace here, perhaps someone can explain.
I seem to remember Gatwick being Class D when I was flying there over 20 years ago.
Avoid imitations
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Wandering the FIR and cyberspace often at highly unsociable times
Posts: 14,572
Received 412 Likes
on
217 Posts
I've never understood why the military need such massive areas of restricted airspace here, perhaps someone can explain.
And there it is, right on cue.
I'm trying to think of the aviation safety debate version of Godwin's Law. Instead of a Hitler or Nazi analogy inevitably arising, it's the overblown risk that relies on cognitive bias.
I'll call it LB's law: Sooner or later some infinitesimally small risk will be overblown and used as a justification in Australia for something that has been demonstrated as unjustified in other places where the same risk is greater.
ShyTorque: If all the fast jets in the Australian military took off at the same time and flew for their endurance trying deliberately to collide with a light aircraft in the air, the chances one of them achieving that outcome are lower than one of them being hit by a meteor. That's why nations with fast jet fleets a hundred times bigger than Australia's have military airspace volumes one thousandth the size (and less) than Australia's.
I'm trying to think of the aviation safety debate version of Godwin's Law. Instead of a Hitler or Nazi analogy inevitably arising, it's the overblown risk that relies on cognitive bias.
I'll call it LB's law: Sooner or later some infinitesimally small risk will be overblown and used as a justification in Australia for something that has been demonstrated as unjustified in other places where the same risk is greater.
ShyTorque: If all the fast jets in the Australian military took off at the same time and flew for their endurance trying deliberately to collide with a light aircraft in the air, the chances one of them achieving that outcome are lower than one of them being hit by a meteor. That's why nations with fast jet fleets a hundred times bigger than Australia's have military airspace volumes one thousandth the size (and less) than Australia's.
For lead balloon
July 26 USAF F16 collides with a C150, two dead
Took 1 Google search
Didn't take a meteor
Take 30 seconds and you can find a list of meteors...I mean civil vs military mid airs.
Notice I didn't mention Nazis...doh
July 26 USAF F16 collides with a C150, two dead
Took 1 Google search
Didn't take a meteor
Take 30 seconds and you can find a list of meteors...I mean civil vs military mid airs.
Notice I didn't mention Nazis...doh
Yep. In countries that have real air forces and real traffic densities, there are higher probabilities of mid airs. And those countries have decided that the costs of trying to reduce the probabilities of mid airs between military aircraft and civilian aircraft to zero are unjustified and just plain silly.
Australia, on the other hand, continues to regulate to put more and more cotton wool around everything and everybody, in the belief that the world can eventually be made risk free.
And the threat of mid-airs is such a rich vein of fear to mine for those engaged in the busy and lucrative work of making more laws and putting more cotton wool around everything and every body.
Let's hope the C150 pilot had CVD, so that there's more 'evidence' to justify cleansing the skies of the danger posed by CVD.
Australia, on the other hand, continues to regulate to put more and more cotton wool around everything and everybody, in the belief that the world can eventually be made risk free.
And the threat of mid-airs is such a rich vein of fear to mine for those engaged in the busy and lucrative work of making more laws and putting more cotton wool around everything and every body.
Let's hope the C150 pilot had CVD, so that there's more 'evidence' to justify cleansing the skies of the danger posed by CVD.
In countries that have real air forces
Better tell the guys and girls doing 9 hour + missions over the Middle East to come on home, apparently they aren't part of a real Air Force now.
For those who may be interested, here are some findings from the JOINT CASA AND RAAF AERONAUTICAL STUDY OF WILLIAMTOWN AIRSPACE October 2015:
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/file...f?v=1444362227
"The unique circumstances of Williamtown prohibit the safe use of Class D services due to: military flying operations, geographical position of the aerodrome close to coastal VFR traffic, and lack of separation services. The annual number of passengers already meets the thresholds for at least considering Class C airspace and services. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration."
"The study considered all operations in the vicinity of Williamtown and the current and projected passenger numbers and concluded that Class C airspace would provide the safest and most efficient service for Williamtown."
"A coastal VFR route will be required with any airspace design due to the proximity of the aerodrome and its CTR and the need to protect aircraft in controlled airspace and RAs. The study team concluded that a VFR procedure such as Sydney Victor One is not compatible with an ICAO based CTR design for Williamtown."
Last edited by BuzzBox; 19th Jul 2016 at 01:28.
A few other snippets from the joint review:
"The main difference between Class C and Class D airspace is ATC are not required to separate IFR and VFR aircraft. This could provide a certain level of flexibility for both the military and civil operators.
Class D is utilised at aerodromes where the majority of aircraft are of a similar type and speed range. This is the case at aerodromes with a high proportion of GA VFR aircraft such as Bankstown and Camden.
The purpose of Class D procedures is to address the risk without major impact on the efficiency of aviation activities which is beneficial at high-density traffic locations. Critical to Class D operations is the principle of see and avoid which has several limitations14. Class D procedures provide assisted traffic de-confliction to enhance see and avoid between IFR and VFR aircraft. The main users of Williamtown airspace are high speed low visibility military aircraft operating in large numbers, quite often in formation, with limited ability to be sighted and avoided in a timely manner by civil aircraft."
Class D is utilised at aerodromes where the majority of aircraft are of a similar type and speed range. This is the case at aerodromes with a high proportion of GA VFR aircraft such as Bankstown and Camden.
The purpose of Class D procedures is to address the risk without major impact on the efficiency of aviation activities which is beneficial at high-density traffic locations. Critical to Class D operations is the principle of see and avoid which has several limitations14. Class D procedures provide assisted traffic de-confliction to enhance see and avoid between IFR and VFR aircraft. The main users of Williamtown airspace are high speed low visibility military aircraft operating in large numbers, quite often in formation, with limited ability to be sighted and avoided in a timely manner by civil aircraft."
"Class D airspace has reduced VFR horizontal distance and altitude below cloud requirements compared to Class C airspace. This factor combined with low visibility paint schemes and higher speeds of military aircraft further limit the ability for civil aircraft to see and avoid traffic.
The geographical position and runway orientation often puts terminal traffic in conflict with the popular coastal route. This circumstance is exacerbated by the critical stage of flight for arriving and departing aircraft which will put VFR aircraft in conflict with PT and military aircraft. Many of the PT aircraft at Williamtown are of a medium wake turbulence category which may create an unrecoverable hazard for light aircraft in a near miss situation. Therefore, the geographical proximity of the aerodrome relative to the coast creates risks that require some form of additional control measures.
However, considering that the annual number of passengers already exceeds the AAPS threshold for consideration of Class C airspace and under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, it would be difficult to justify Class D airspace given the number of PT passengers and potential issues of see and avoid."
The geographical position and runway orientation often puts terminal traffic in conflict with the popular coastal route. This circumstance is exacerbated by the critical stage of flight for arriving and departing aircraft which will put VFR aircraft in conflict with PT and military aircraft. Many of the PT aircraft at Williamtown are of a medium wake turbulence category which may create an unrecoverable hazard for light aircraft in a near miss situation. Therefore, the geographical proximity of the aerodrome relative to the coast creates risks that require some form of additional control measures.
However, considering that the annual number of passengers already exceeds the AAPS threshold for consideration of Class C airspace and under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, it would be difficult to justify Class D airspace given the number of PT passengers and potential issues of see and avoid."
"When military aircraft are operating Williamtown can be one of the busiest and most complex volumes of airspace in Australia due to the diverse types of aircraft and differing operations that must be managed by ABATS. The Class C service provides clear instruction to ABATS on the processing of PT and other civil operations. Additionally, Class C airspace allows the RAAF to tailor separation standards for its use while still affording an acceptable level of safety to PT aircraft.
The only sector of the aviation community that was dissatisfied with the current Class C service was a small number of GA pilots. The main source of dissatisfaction was perceived unreasonable delays due to the need for ABATS to separate them in accordance with Class C procedures. During observations covering a period of several weeks at Williamtown the team observed only minor delays to GA aircraft all of which were justifiable as a result of arriving or departing PT aircraft not military traffic. Of note, stepped airspace would also resolve some of the need to apply restrictive separation standards as some transit aircraft could remain in Class G airspace."
The only sector of the aviation community that was dissatisfied with the current Class C service was a small number of GA pilots. The main source of dissatisfaction was perceived unreasonable delays due to the need for ABATS to separate them in accordance with Class C procedures. During observations covering a period of several weeks at Williamtown the team observed only minor delays to GA aircraft all of which were justifiable as a result of arriving or departing PT aircraft not military traffic. Of note, stepped airspace would also resolve some of the need to apply restrictive separation standards as some transit aircraft could remain in Class G airspace."
BuzzBox, Thanks for posting the link to that report. Hopefully some of the recommendations get implemented.
The Western LFA is a large area, which is as big as the Williamtown terminal area, larger than Sydney’s airspace and comparable in size to RAAF Pearce. Figure 09-01 shows the Western LFA.
The Western LFA is mainly used by Hawk and PC9 aircraft and is activated by NOTAM, typically in one week blocks. The study team observed the activation of this airspace for only one aircraft operating in the NE corner of the area and the resultant level restrictions and additional tracking by a civil aircraft to avoid the LFA. The civil aircraft was 25 nm from the military aircraft actual area of operation. Further, PT aircraft on the W223 route from NICLA to Taree can be held up in descent because the Western LFA is active to 9,000 ft AMSL. ABATS and ATC reported that this was not an unusual occurrence and that they had no visibility or control of the LFA operations. A segmented redesign of the LFAs combined with slight route changes could improve the descent options for PT aircraft.
Another aspect that requires investigation is the actual need for RA airspace for Defence Low Flying operations. In accordance with the Act, the decision to use RA airspace for low flying needs to be based on safety. Therefore, a risk based assessment and justification is required for the RA airspace. Such an assessment may indicate a lower level type of mitigation of the risk, such as a DA may be suitable.
The Western LFA is mainly used by Hawk and PC9 aircraft and is activated by NOTAM, typically in one week blocks. The study team observed the activation of this airspace for only one aircraft operating in the NE corner of the area and the resultant level restrictions and additional tracking by a civil aircraft to avoid the LFA. The civil aircraft was 25 nm from the military aircraft actual area of operation. Further, PT aircraft on the W223 route from NICLA to Taree can be held up in descent because the Western LFA is active to 9,000 ft AMSL. ABATS and ATC reported that this was not an unusual occurrence and that they had no visibility or control of the LFA operations. A segmented redesign of the LFAs combined with slight route changes could improve the descent options for PT aircraft.
Another aspect that requires investigation is the actual need for RA airspace for Defence Low Flying operations. In accordance with the Act, the decision to use RA airspace for low flying needs to be based on safety. Therefore, a risk based assessment and justification is required for the RA airspace. Such an assessment may indicate a lower level type of mitigation of the risk, such as a DA may be suitable.
Another interesting section
9.3.12 Ship Transfer Area of Operation
The Ship Transfer Area of Operation, known as Marine 1 airspace, is a local procedure for the processing of helicopters used for ship to shore transfers. The area was introduced because radar coverage in the area wasn’t sufficient to provide a surveillance based separation service. A radar map of the area of operation is now displayed on the controller’s screen which enables the controller to provide radar separation between Williamtown traffic and the Marine 1 airspace.
The issue with using a system radar map is that the required separation from the boundary creates a funnelling effect on Williamtown traffic. This is made worse when R596 Salt Ash becomes active. When Marine 1 and R596 are active only one track (runway heading) is available to the controller.
It was found that the helicopters operating in the Marine 1 airspace are typically below 500 ft AMSL and approximately 6.5 nm from the airfield. It seems excessive when considering that if the Marine 1 area was a known obstacle below 500 ft AMSL it would be accounted for (avoided) in the ATC traffic management of flight operations but ignored in regards to having to separate from it as if it was an aircraft. This is another example of a problem being created by the lack of stepped airspace and the application of Class C procedures. While this report cannot recommend a change to separation standards it is likely that with CTA steps and CTR redesign the Marine 1 area could be removed from future controlled airspace thereby avoiding the need to apply separation standards.
Finding 27
Marine 1 airspace protects aircraft from a perceived risk, rather than an actual risk.
The airspace creates new risks that must be managed by ABATS. Current MATS and MOS Part 172 separation standards do not provide a suitable solution.
Recommendation 27
Marine 1 airspace should be reviewed in the context of a stepped airspace design.
9.3.12 Ship Transfer Area of Operation
The Ship Transfer Area of Operation, known as Marine 1 airspace, is a local procedure for the processing of helicopters used for ship to shore transfers. The area was introduced because radar coverage in the area wasn’t sufficient to provide a surveillance based separation service. A radar map of the area of operation is now displayed on the controller’s screen which enables the controller to provide radar separation between Williamtown traffic and the Marine 1 airspace.
The issue with using a system radar map is that the required separation from the boundary creates a funnelling effect on Williamtown traffic. This is made worse when R596 Salt Ash becomes active. When Marine 1 and R596 are active only one track (runway heading) is available to the controller.
It was found that the helicopters operating in the Marine 1 airspace are typically below 500 ft AMSL and approximately 6.5 nm from the airfield. It seems excessive when considering that if the Marine 1 area was a known obstacle below 500 ft AMSL it would be accounted for (avoided) in the ATC traffic management of flight operations but ignored in regards to having to separate from it as if it was an aircraft. This is another example of a problem being created by the lack of stepped airspace and the application of Class C procedures. While this report cannot recommend a change to separation standards it is likely that with CTA steps and CTR redesign the Marine 1 area could be removed from future controlled airspace thereby avoiding the need to apply separation standards.
Finding 27
Marine 1 airspace protects aircraft from a perceived risk, rather than an actual risk.
The airspace creates new risks that must be managed by ABATS. Current MATS and MOS Part 172 separation standards do not provide a suitable solution.
Recommendation 27
Marine 1 airspace should be reviewed in the context of a stepped airspace design.
Thread Starter
I love it. It's all about keeping the status quo re the classification so no change has to be made.
That's because it's clear on the ATC side of the RAAF there is a shocking lack of personnel with leadership abilities who can make change,
Note the double mention of the discredited safety "as the most important consideration"
That's rubbish as safety is always limited be the resources available if aviation is to be affordable . As I have stated elsewhere Australia is the only country that has such a statement in the act. It's used to stop cost reductions and allow a one way ratchet if more expensive regulations .
Class D simply gives ATCs more flexibility to safely move aircraft . They can provide the same separation as C if they so choose . Most of the delays in the lane are caused by civil aircraft arriving from the west.
Compare Williamtown movements with Gatwick which has always been D.
That's because it's clear on the ATC side of the RAAF there is a shocking lack of personnel with leadership abilities who can make change,
Note the double mention of the discredited safety "as the most important consideration"
That's rubbish as safety is always limited be the resources available if aviation is to be affordable . As I have stated elsewhere Australia is the only country that has such a statement in the act. It's used to stop cost reductions and allow a one way ratchet if more expensive regulations .
Class D simply gives ATCs more flexibility to safely move aircraft . They can provide the same separation as C if they so choose . Most of the delays in the lane are caused by civil aircraft arriving from the west.
Compare Williamtown movements with Gatwick which has always been D.
Thread Starter
When the first ditching fatalities occur I and others will make sure those who have prevented this commonsense change over many decades are held responsible.
The reason the team did not see a lot of VFR holding is that many pilots like myself don't go that way anymore .
The reason the team did not see a lot of VFR holding is that many pilots like myself don't go that way anymore .
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Worldwide
Posts: 1,468
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only for single engine? Twins too?
Only VFR or all?
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flydive 1 says:-
No Flydive 1 .
Dick is saying the military should stop being selfish dogs in the manger.
Are you advocating that flying over water should be prohibited?
Only for single engine? Twins too?
Only VFR or all?
Only for single engine? Twins too?
Only VFR or all?
Dick is saying the military should stop being selfish dogs in the manger.
