Heathrow changed to Class D to save the industry money,Williamtown what's happening?
Thread Starter
Heathrow changed to Class D to save the industry money,Williamtown what's happening?
Not many know but Heathrow Airport – one of the airports with the highest traffic levels in the world has now changed its low level terminal airspace to Class D.
I spoke to one of the air traffic controllers and he told me, “Dick, it’s all about empowering air traffic controllers so we can get VFR traffic – mostly helicopters through the area without unnecessary delays.”
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. He said, “That’s pathetically childish. With Class D a controller can still hold a VFR aircraft outside the zone if required for safety reasons however the most controllers realise this is going to cost money so they don’t hold VFR aircraft unless necessary for safety”
Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.
Wouldn’t you think they would be happy to follow Heathrow and put in some modern airspace so the good controllers could simply give traffic information when it was safe to do so and allow VFR aircraft to fly along the beach at 500’?
I spoke to one of the air traffic controllers and he told me, “Dick, it’s all about empowering air traffic controllers so we can get VFR traffic – mostly helicopters through the area without unnecessary delays.”
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. He said, “That’s pathetically childish. With Class D a controller can still hold a VFR aircraft outside the zone if required for safety reasons however the most controllers realise this is going to cost money so they don’t hold VFR aircraft unless necessary for safety”
Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.
Wouldn’t you think they would be happy to follow Heathrow and put in some modern airspace so the good controllers could simply give traffic information when it was safe to do so and allow VFR aircraft to fly along the beach at 500’?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looking at the map, if the Heathrow concept were adopted at Williamtown, the Inner Area which protects the RWY centrelines would extend well over the water and not help coastal aircraft.
The following NATS restrictions also apply:
4. Access to the airspace immediately around Heathrow Airport – referred to as the ‘Inner Area’ – will be restricted via PPR (Prior Permission Required) by telephone. Unless you really need to fly inside the ‘Inner Area’, you should plan to route around it.
5. The London CTR will be a Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) with Mode S required.
It appears that if Williamtown did implement similar procedures, an inner area would be more restrictive than the current Class C zone and both the coastal and overhead routes would be unavailable. With the nature of Williamtown operations, telephone approval probably wouldn't work either. Then there is the cost of a Mode S transponder.
The following NATS restrictions also apply:
4. Access to the airspace immediately around Heathrow Airport – referred to as the ‘Inner Area’ – will be restricted via PPR (Prior Permission Required) by telephone. Unless you really need to fly inside the ‘Inner Area’, you should plan to route around it.
5. The London CTR will be a Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) with Mode S required.
It appears that if Williamtown did implement similar procedures, an inner area would be more restrictive than the current Class C zone and both the coastal and overhead routes would be unavailable. With the nature of Williamtown operations, telephone approval probably wouldn't work either. Then there is the cost of a Mode S transponder.
Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.
Thread Starter
. I am trying to prevent unnecessary fatalities.
Please don't judge me on what you would do under similar circumstances .
There is a real risk . When small single engined aircraft are held orbiting over the ocean at Anna Bay it's clear that an engine failure would likely result in a ditching.
Please don't judge me on what you would do under similar circumstances .
There is a real risk . When small single engined aircraft are held orbiting over the ocean at Anna Bay it's clear that an engine failure would likely result in a ditching.
Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown.
According to you Dick and a lot of others GA is dead ,apparently that's why you are selling your Citation. If that is the case, and I have no evidence to prove otherwise, then the chances of an aircraft holding for 30 minutes with a young family are next to nothing. I think most families with young children are simply too busy working and trying to pay off a mortgage to have the disposable income to afford to fly a light aircraft. From where I sit most young families with children fly up and down the coast squashed up in the fuselage of Tiger or Jetstar. As Aerocat, stated take your emotive language out of your posts and also do your research as others have done.
What we need is a system based on sound reason and logic not based on emotional reaction and fear. In this sense Dick is as bad as his opponents, however...
In the USA they don't teach you how to fly through Williamtown or transit Avalon or land at Bankstown. They teach you how to deal with each of the different classes airspace. This then means that every bit of class C(or D) airspace is exactly like the other in what you have to do, who you have to talk to and how and if you will get access. Even the Class B zones the have are very similar and it doesn't take long to work out the minor differences. This consistency is what we should aspire to.
Also in the USA they have clear logic to their airspace. For instance you never find a class D tower with radar in the tower. If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition. This simple logic helps in making decisions about upgrading and downgrading airspace classes as traffic volumes change. If an airport becomes busy enough to warrant radar then it becomes class C. If the radar becomes unserviceable and there isn't the traffic to justify upgrade/replacement then the airspace becomes class D. We should aspire to this too.
Generally, the FAA has allocated its resources to areas where there is the greatest risk. The greatest risk of collision is in close to the airport and at lower levels and hence this is where they control VFR traffic and further away or directly overhead they do not. Directly overhead a regional airport, 6000 feet above is a location that has a very low collision risk and so they do not bother to control this area. For some reason in Australia we do. Why do we have class C at say Tamworth that goes all the way to the base of the class A? Unless you ave unlimited resources you need to focus your efforts on where they will do the greatest good. This is a principle we should also aspire to.
In the USA they don't teach you how to fly through Williamtown or transit Avalon or land at Bankstown. They teach you how to deal with each of the different classes airspace. This then means that every bit of class C(or D) airspace is exactly like the other in what you have to do, who you have to talk to and how and if you will get access. Even the Class B zones the have are very similar and it doesn't take long to work out the minor differences. This consistency is what we should aspire to.
Also in the USA they have clear logic to their airspace. For instance you never find a class D tower with radar in the tower. If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition. This simple logic helps in making decisions about upgrading and downgrading airspace classes as traffic volumes change. If an airport becomes busy enough to warrant radar then it becomes class C. If the radar becomes unserviceable and there isn't the traffic to justify upgrade/replacement then the airspace becomes class D. We should aspire to this too.
Generally, the FAA has allocated its resources to areas where there is the greatest risk. The greatest risk of collision is in close to the airport and at lower levels and hence this is where they control VFR traffic and further away or directly overhead they do not. Directly overhead a regional airport, 6000 feet above is a location that has a very low collision risk and so they do not bother to control this area. For some reason in Australia we do. Why do we have class C at say Tamworth that goes all the way to the base of the class A? Unless you ave unlimited resources you need to focus your efforts on where they will do the greatest good. This is a principle we should also aspire to.
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. He said, “That’s pathetically childish. With Class D a controller can still hold a VFR aircraft outside the zone if required for safety reasons however the most controllers realise this is going to cost money so they don’t hold VFR aircraft unless necessary for safety”
Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes [insert dramatic think of the children dribble]
Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes [insert dramatic think of the children dribble]
Originally Posted by No one
If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition.
Interestingly, I can fly over Orlando, Tampa, Miami etc at >10'000 VFR without talking to anyone. No issues, no worries.
Now that I live & fly in the US, in retrospect the Oz system is ludicrous.
Now that I live & fly in the US, in retrospect the Oz system is ludicrous.
Captain Bloggs, no need to shout.
I obviously wasn't making myself clear that I was talking about the system in the USA and its definitions and not the system in use in Australia. I have included the definitions from the FAA AIM below but have added the underlining.
FAA AIM:
3−2−4. Class C Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a 5 NM radius core surface area that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation
3−2−5. Class D Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures.
I obviously wasn't making myself clear that I was talking about the system in the USA and its definitions and not the system in use in Australia. I have included the definitions from the FAA AIM below but have added the underlining.
FAA AIM:
3−2−4. Class C Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a 5 NM radius core surface area that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation
3−2−5. Class D Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures.
I'll shout when I get tired of reading the diatribes of the Yank sympathisers, No one.
AS I said...
There is no reason why Class C has to be radar-driven, and just because the yanks do it that way is irrelevant. There are things that the yanks do which are just plain stupid; that doesn't mean we have to follow.
AS I said...
It's just the way the yanks do it
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You can fly over the top of Chicago at 10,000 ft without a 'clearance' and not speak to anyone let alone listen to a control frequency. Yet again Australians' thinking they are the best at everything and trying to preach it to the world. It's not only ludicrous it's embarrassing. The nanny state has brainwashed every Australian into thinking a rule is required to scratch your arse, after paying the appropriate fee to do so.
Fuji
Not true, I regularly fly across the London Zone in a single Cessna. For example Ascot- BUR. No PPR required just a call on Thames Radar. If traffic permits get the clearance no problem.
Not true, I regularly fly across the London Zone in a single Cessna. For example Ascot- BUR. No PPR required just a call on Thames Radar. If traffic permits get the clearance no problem.
The general approach in business to product development, product improvement, innovation and quality control is firstly to copy what works for other people.
It is only when you are:
(a) Already copying worlds best practice.
(b) Producing a world class internationally competitive product.
© Have run out of competitors processes to copy.
That you actually strike out into the unknown and through research and development come up with new and better ways of doing things.
Those observations explain why China and so called "Tiger Economies" can post 5+ percent GDP growth for decades….until the day they have exhausted ideas to copy and find themselves doing worlds best practice…then they have to chip away at the R & D coalface with the rest of us developed economies and be satisfied with 3.5% GDP growth if they are lucky.
The idea that CASA meets any of conditions (a), (b) or © is laughably ludicrous. We have **** people using and building **** processes based on **** ideas to produce **** regulations that have no possible basis in international norms that produce **** outcomes. To put that another way, we should be doing stuff exactly like no_one suggests!
I forget who said it: "The Galapagos islands of aviation regulation."
The obvious thing to do is to sit down with the NZ regulations and adopt them with as little change as is humanly possible. This is equivalent to the number one rule of software systems implementation ; "use an international standard package and change your systems to match the software, not the other way around".
It is only when you are:
(a) Already copying worlds best practice.
(b) Producing a world class internationally competitive product.
© Have run out of competitors processes to copy.
That you actually strike out into the unknown and through research and development come up with new and better ways of doing things.
Those observations explain why China and so called "Tiger Economies" can post 5+ percent GDP growth for decades….until the day they have exhausted ideas to copy and find themselves doing worlds best practice…then they have to chip away at the R & D coalface with the rest of us developed economies and be satisfied with 3.5% GDP growth if they are lucky.
The idea that CASA meets any of conditions (a), (b) or © is laughably ludicrous. We have **** people using and building **** processes based on **** ideas to produce **** regulations that have no possible basis in international norms that produce **** outcomes. To put that another way, we should be doing stuff exactly like no_one suggests!
I forget who said it: "The Galapagos islands of aviation regulation."
The obvious thing to do is to sit down with the NZ regulations and adopt them with as little change as is humanly possible. This is equivalent to the number one rule of software systems implementation ; "use an international standard package and change your systems to match the software, not the other way around".
Thread Starter
Fujji. Gatwick - slightly more movements than Williamtown and its D without any special phone calls.
As I said. It's about empowering ATCs to make professional decisions to save holding delays and cost.
As I said. It's about empowering ATCs to make professional decisions to save holding delays and cost.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Maybe so but this thread you initiated cited Heathrow procedures which, if introduced at Williamtown, would make transit more difficult with an inner area to deal with.
I have been held when transitting Williamtown waiting for an RPT jet to depart so if the airspace can be made more accessible well and good but Heathrow is not a good example to use.
P.s. Yesterday I happened to come across the old documentary of you and James Randi taking on the dividers. That was good work.
Maybe so but this thread you initiated cited Heathrow procedures which, if introduced at Williamtown, would make transit more difficult with an inner area to deal with.
I have been held when transitting Williamtown waiting for an RPT jet to depart so if the airspace can be made more accessible well and good but Heathrow is not a good example to use.
P.s. Yesterday I happened to come across the old documentary of you and James Randi taking on the dividers. That was good work.