CASA Class G Discussion Paper
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kaz. The evidence shows this is not so. Our radar coverage under the J curve is similar to the radar coverage in the US an Canada in similar traffic density airspace .
And as we learned on another post the Low Level Radar service in the UK isn’t even available on weekends!
So don’t come on with that one despite the fact that people at CASA have used it for years to stop the intro of NAS.
And as we learned on another post the Low Level Radar service in the UK isn’t even available on weekends!
So don’t come on with that one despite the fact that people at CASA have used it for years to stop the intro of NAS.
That's strange...I thought you identified an urgent safety issue involving poor radar coverage.
No Cookies | The Mercury
Were you wrong then or are you wrong now?
Kaz
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is a popular and serious thread, and it seems some of the scribes do not understand all of the related issues. Dick is correct, however he is fighting a small vocal minority that fail to understand that the entrenched culture must change if there is to be any improvement in aviation in Australia, and this is not only applicable to airspace matters. How many of the scribes here participate in their local RAPAC and add their voice to the discussion? Does not seem to be many by some of the remarks to date?
Yes, CASA (or certain folk within?) have totally missed the point, however the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries and if the airfield was or was not marked on a chart (which chart?).
The DP addressed these issues and the result of the feedback was significantly in favour of retaining the MULTICOM as a national low level frequency.
The issue now is that CASA tabled a proposal that came from left field introducing a 20nm CTAF which was NOT part of the DP nor placed on the table with industry at large or the RAPACs at any stage.
This all came about back in 2013 when without any consultation or it seems any knowledge of what they were doing some officers introduced a change under the pretext that it was a "clarification" with no obvious consideration of the unintended consequences. It took the RAPACs some three years just to get the then DAS to agree to a DP.
At this time it is understood that the RAPACs have made it know to the DAS that it was not appropriate to introduce the 20nm CTAF with this proposal, however the diehards within have refused to separate the two questions which makes their survey invalid by not offering a choice and locking the two questions together.
The latest position of the RAPACs is to seek the wind-back of the change that introduced this mess, and that is to remove the requirement to use the area frequency at airfields not marked on charts. It is believed that this could be undertaken quickly and simply by NOTAM and AIP amendment. The remainder could then be discussed further including the 20nm CTAFs which we know from experience will not work.
Those readers that have been in this industry for some time will know that the only thing that is consistent in aviation is change. How we manage that change is part of the issue as there are always those that have such a deep culture that they fight any change. This "culturelock" is of course is not unique to aviation.
Many of the changes introduced with NAS etc were based on the need to have some international harmonisation in our rules and procedures. Many of us know that the air in Australia is the same as other places in the world (except in the US where you can breath at 12000ft without O2), so why do we need to be different? Much of this goes to the top levels of Government and the bureaucracy where there is an element of 'power and control' that in Oz we must do things our own way. At the end of the day this costs the country and the industry money as we really do not have to reinvent the wheel.
Sadly, both CASA and the RAPACs are missing the obvious, probably because they don't like it - the need to forget radio at all when VFR in G or E (except in the vicinity of a marked airfield).
Yes, CASA (or certain folk within?) have totally missed the point, however the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries and if the airfield was or was not marked on a chart (which chart?).
The DP addressed these issues and the result of the feedback was significantly in favour of retaining the MULTICOM as a national low level frequency.
The issue now is that CASA tabled a proposal that came from left field introducing a 20nm CTAF which was NOT part of the DP nor placed on the table with industry at large or the RAPACs at any stage.
This all came about back in 2013 when without any consultation or it seems any knowledge of what they were doing some officers introduced a change under the pretext that it was a "clarification" with no obvious consideration of the unintended consequences. It took the RAPACs some three years just to get the then DAS to agree to a DP.
At this time it is understood that the RAPACs have made it know to the DAS that it was not appropriate to introduce the 20nm CTAF with this proposal, however the diehards within have refused to separate the two questions which makes their survey invalid by not offering a choice and locking the two questions together.
The latest position of the RAPACs is to seek the wind-back of the change that introduced this mess, and that is to remove the requirement to use the area frequency at airfields not marked on charts. It is believed that this could be undertaken quickly and simply by NOTAM and AIP amendment. The remainder could then be discussed further including the 20nm CTAFs which we know from experience will not work.
Those readers that have been in this industry for some time will know that the only thing that is consistent in aviation is change. How we manage that change is part of the issue as there are always those that have such a deep culture that they fight any change. This "culturelock" is of course is not unique to aviation.
Many of the changes introduced with NAS etc were based on the need to have some international harmonisation in our rules and procedures. Many of us know that the air in Australia is the same as other places in the world (except in the US where you can breath at 12000ft without O2), so why do we need to be different? Much of this goes to the top levels of Government and the bureaucracy where there is an element of 'power and control' that in Oz we must do things our own way. At the end of the day this costs the country and the industry money as we really do not have to reinvent the wheel.
Thread Starter
Triadic. Really good rational post.
Of course one of the problems is that the casa officers who introduced the change ( or clarification as they called it ) probably have very little knowledge of how the North American airspace system works in practice. I understand most of them are ex Australian military with quite fixed views on how our system should operate.
And it’s also obvious that some others on this thread have a similar lack of knowledge.
One of the first things we did before deciding on the AMATS changes was to send a group of ATCs , pilots and CAA regulators to the USA and Canada to actually fly in the system. From my memory all involved where impressed with various parts of the system.
That’s what CASA needs to do again. The CASA officers who are pushing for the giant unique 40 mile CTAFS need to go to both the US and Canada and see how the system works so well there without such huge CTAFs and prescriptive regulation. They need to discuss with their regulatory colleagues in these countries how they operate with a far simpler and more ICAO compliant system.
Then they need to have open minds and decide if Australia can harmonise a little closer to the procedures of these aviation powerhouses.
Of course one of the problems is that the casa officers who introduced the change ( or clarification as they called it ) probably have very little knowledge of how the North American airspace system works in practice. I understand most of them are ex Australian military with quite fixed views on how our system should operate.
And it’s also obvious that some others on this thread have a similar lack of knowledge.
One of the first things we did before deciding on the AMATS changes was to send a group of ATCs , pilots and CAA regulators to the USA and Canada to actually fly in the system. From my memory all involved where impressed with various parts of the system.
That’s what CASA needs to do again. The CASA officers who are pushing for the giant unique 40 mile CTAFS need to go to both the US and Canada and see how the system works so well there without such huge CTAFs and prescriptive regulation. They need to discuss with their regulatory colleagues in these countries how they operate with a far simpler and more ICAO compliant system.
Then they need to have open minds and decide if Australia can harmonise a little closer to the procedures of these aviation powerhouses.
More waffle, Dick. No comments, I notice, on the hypocrisy of allowing IFR pickup aka VMC dodgem cars while you are castigating us for using DTI to self-separate in "G"?
triadic said:
My bolding.
So there is no proposal from the RAPACs to also delete FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from the charts.
Correct?
the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries
So there is no proposal from the RAPACs to also delete FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from the charts.
Correct?
Thread Starter
Bloggs. This is painful. Class E terminal airspace if used correctly has all the advantages of our present G plus a mandatory transponder requirement and a separation service when IMC exists.
It is a safer airspace. But is a change in the way you were taught. That’s clearly your problem. Very sad. You must be getting near to retirement. When will that be?
It is a safer airspace. But is a change in the way you were taught. That’s clearly your problem. Very sad. You must be getting near to retirement. When will that be?
Thread Starter
Captain Midnight . No proposal as yet. But more and more RAPAC members are starting to accept that the CASA change came about because CASA was attempting to get the airspace with frequency boundaries to work in an acceptable way.
That is change ICAO class E and G airspace into a type of low cost experimental ICAO D where traffic information is available on VFR aircraft.
One day with new younger RAPAC members we will easily be able to remove the unique boundaries and get closer to the simpler internationally compatible ICAO airspace.
That will assist our international flying training industry as at the present time a number of the US and Canadian schools advise potential students not to learn in Australia as the airspace is strangely different. They are smart marketeers.
That is change ICAO class E and G airspace into a type of low cost experimental ICAO D where traffic information is available on VFR aircraft.
One day with new younger RAPAC members we will easily be able to remove the unique boundaries and get closer to the simpler internationally compatible ICAO airspace.
That will assist our international flying training industry as at the present time a number of the US and Canadian schools advise potential students not to learn in Australia as the airspace is strangely different. They are smart marketeers.
Dick can you by chance supply information about the separation standards that would be applied? I haven't found them yet.
Thread Starter
Sorry. I can’t as they are detailed and complex to me as I am not an ATC.
Suffice to say they work very efficiently even without radar coverage , with no measurable difference in delays compared to our system and the service is provided by the en route ATC who does not hold an approach rating. US and some Aussie controllers claim separating aircraft in E is less workload than giving traffic information in G. We will never know unless we do a trial!
It was planned to put in the original low level terminal E in June 1993 under AMATS - some 15 years ago- but has been stopped by those who have minds set in concrete. They claim. Won’t work. To many delays. To many extra consoles required. Not safe. Didn’t do it this way before.
See the pic
Suffice to say they work very efficiently even without radar coverage , with no measurable difference in delays compared to our system and the service is provided by the en route ATC who does not hold an approach rating. US and some Aussie controllers claim separating aircraft in E is less workload than giving traffic information in G. We will never know unless we do a trial!
It was planned to put in the original low level terminal E in June 1993 under AMATS - some 15 years ago- but has been stopped by those who have minds set in concrete. They claim. Won’t work. To many delays. To many extra consoles required. Not safe. Didn’t do it this way before.
See the pic
Last edited by Dick Smith; 2nd Jan 2018 at 23:52.
No one has pure ICAO airspace. The US is different to Canada which is different to the UK which is different to ours which is different to the US etc etc. Every country has implemented variations of it (and can quite freely do so) so that it works for them. Why can't we? Sure we copied the US system, but it doesn't have to be the same. Even you Dick admit that, because you want to tack bits of ours onto it. This mantra that they don't do it that way overseas grows a bit thin when no one does it the same way. A lot of other countries have a lot more controlled airspace, but they need a lot more ATC and infrastructure to do it., Canada, probably the most similar size wise, needs twice our ATC plus 700 FS staff to run theirs. The US, 15000 ATC. I reckon ours runs pretty lean already. It doesn't seem to be raining aluminium because of it either.
Chinese cadets learning in Canada are going to go home and fly in whatever system China has. They will adapt. Same as when they learned here. It is not the airspace (or how much radio chatter you may or may not have to listen to) we have that is causing GA to struggle. Way too much energy and time is being spent on an issue that is superfluous to the big picture.
Chinese cadets learning in Canada are going to go home and fly in whatever system China has. They will adapt. Same as when they learned here. It is not the airspace (or how much radio chatter you may or may not have to listen to) we have that is causing GA to struggle. Way too much energy and time is being spent on an issue that is superfluous to the big picture.
Thread Starter
Any success I have achieved has come from going around the world ,asking advice and copying the lowest cost way of doing something that gives the required result.
I have never suggested we have to be fully ICAO compliant.
But to make fundamental changes to ICAO recommendations which add to complexity seems pretty crazy to me. Especially if it’s just about resisting change.
I have never suggested we have to be fully ICAO compliant.
But to make fundamental changes to ICAO recommendations which add to complexity seems pretty crazy to me. Especially if it’s just about resisting change.
Quick question about how this would work.
I haven't flown in the US so am curious. Apologies if this is a dumb question.
The ICAO E definition says VFR is provided traffic where possible. I assume that means if you want traffic as a VFR, you can ask for it (and if ATC can assist will be given it?). Does the US E implementation have this ability?
Also for aircraft doing a VFR entry and then wanting an IFR "pickup", how do they get the frequency?
Obviously their system works - is it as mentioned earlier, do you simply call on the nearest outlet you find on the chart? (and because most of the airspace is E there you can safely assume the nearest outlet will be the one looking after E in that area?).
I haven't flown in the US so am curious. Apologies if this is a dumb question.
The ICAO E definition says VFR is provided traffic where possible. I assume that means if you want traffic as a VFR, you can ask for it (and if ATC can assist will be given it?). Does the US E implementation have this ability?
Also for aircraft doing a VFR entry and then wanting an IFR "pickup", how do they get the frequency?
Obviously their system works - is it as mentioned earlier, do you simply call on the nearest outlet you find on the chart? (and because most of the airspace is E there you can safely assume the nearest outlet will be the one looking after E in that area?).
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic said:
Quote:
the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries
My bolding.
Quote:
the overwhelming desire of the RAPACs was to have a system where operations in Class G at low level clear of a Broadcast Area or CTAF not using the MULTICOM had a common recommended frequency for all to use that was simple to understand and use regardless of area frequency boundaries
My bolding.
So there is no proposal from the RAPACs to also delete FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from the charts.
In fact there are locations where area frequency boundaries join resulting in an option of three (3) frequencies to choose from
The position of the RAPACs was to solve (or try to) the problem that CASA created in saying that the area frequency should be used at unmarked airfields.
The previous use of the MULTICOM worked well and it was not until CASA made the change did the confusion begin. The boundaries on the charts was not a prime issue at the time, rather the priority was to try and obtain a common frequency for all to know and use at lower levels. The feedback at the time was that very few pilots used the Area Frequency and continued to use the MULTICOM, much to the frustration of those in CASA that still did not understand the issues and the obvious support of a process that had been in place for over a decade and had worked.
It is understood that the RAPACs position prior to Christmas is that there should be a return to the pre 2013 status where the MULTICOM was used at low levels in the vicinity of airfields not on a different frequency or in a BA. The issue of boundaries on or not on charts has been raised at some meetings but has not, I understand, progressed due to other matters.
The other issue that gets a mention is that we should have all these airfields marked on charts. Those of us that have been around for some time know that this is at best a dream due to chart production lead times (WACs can be four years - perhaps longer than the life of the airfield?) and the quality of information required.
Airservices as the data collection agency for airfields have recently issued an AIC H43/17 seeking data on airfields that are marked on charts for which they have no contact or sufficient info. Unless they get the data some of these well used airfields may vanish from charts!
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...up/a17-h43.pdf
If you know the person/s responsible for any of the named airfields, then perhaps it might be wise to pass the message on.
There a quite a few hospitals and helipads on the list (including YTRY) so we need to get the word out.
Thanks triadic
If there was to be a proposal to remove the FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from charts there would be quite some backlash I think, as there was in 2003 as you'd be aware. In fact, U.S. and other OS pilots I've encountered over the years love our VFR charts for the fact that they have this information depicted, considering that it would be very useful particularly in the event of difficulties.
As regards the Airservices database currency re airfields issue. I note elsewhere flack was directed towards Airservices for the AIC. Airservices was not to blame for the matter - its due to a CASA requirement imposed on Part 175 providers, as LB details here:
Airservices Australia climbs down on red-tape hurdle
If they publish out of date information and someone in an emergency goes to that location and finds it no longer exists and ploughs in, who are they subsequently going to blame ...
If there was to be a proposal to remove the FIA and Class E frequency boundaries from charts there would be quite some backlash I think, as there was in 2003 as you'd be aware. In fact, U.S. and other OS pilots I've encountered over the years love our VFR charts for the fact that they have this information depicted, considering that it would be very useful particularly in the event of difficulties.
As regards the Airservices database currency re airfields issue. I note elsewhere flack was directed towards Airservices for the AIC. Airservices was not to blame for the matter - its due to a CASA requirement imposed on Part 175 providers, as LB details here:
Airservices Australia climbs down on red-tape hurdle
If they publish out of date information and someone in an emergency goes to that location and finds it no longer exists and ploughs in, who are they subsequently going to blame ...
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part of the problem Capt M is that CASA put rules in place that they cannot manage or enforce.
Part 139 is a mess because it only addresses Reg and Cert aerodromes and does not cater in any shape or form for ALA's, and hence we have the problems of not having GNS approaches at these airfields (like we once did) and the problems associated with some control over obstacles such as wind farms.
CASA need to do something about this, but then it seems they don't care much about the problems of GA.
I should add that we need to have 'recommended' procedures and not enforceable strict liability rules which only serve to scare flying folk away. If more procedures were recommended as in other parts of the globe, then it is likely that compliance would be somewhat better and we would not have to engage the legals who known nothing about aviation. Again, that is another fight with the said 'culturelock'
Part 139 is a mess because it only addresses Reg and Cert aerodromes and does not cater in any shape or form for ALA's, and hence we have the problems of not having GNS approaches at these airfields (like we once did) and the problems associated with some control over obstacles such as wind farms.
CASA need to do something about this, but then it seems they don't care much about the problems of GA.
I should add that we need to have 'recommended' procedures and not enforceable strict liability rules which only serve to scare flying folk away. If more procedures were recommended as in other parts of the globe, then it is likely that compliance would be somewhat better and we would not have to engage the legals who known nothing about aviation. Again, that is another fight with the said 'culturelock'
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also for aircraft doing a VFR entry and then wanting an IFR "pickup", how do they get the frequency?
Obviously their system works - is it as mentioned earlier, do you simply call on the nearest outlet you find on the chart? (and because most of the airspace is E there you can safely assume the nearest outlet will be the one looking after E in that area?).
Obviously their system works - is it as mentioned earlier, do you simply call on the nearest outlet you find on the chart? (and because most of the airspace is E there you can safely assume the nearest outlet will be the one looking after E in that area?).
Thread Starter
Wow. Now that would be a good idea. Put the ATC frequencies on the charts in a small postage stamp size box. Too simple.
Wouldn’t work here. In the 60s we showed the FS frequency sector boundaries so we should never change that even if we don’t have FS anymore. Hopefully if we leave the boundaries on the charts we may be able to get full position VFR reporting and FS back again!
Wouldn’t work here. In the 60s we showed the FS frequency sector boundaries so we should never change that even if we don’t have FS anymore. Hopefully if we leave the boundaries on the charts we may be able to get full position VFR reporting and FS back again!
Thread Starter
Captain Midnight. Yair. I’ve heard that the US pilots love our cluttered charts with frequency boundaries for both E and G that US AOPA are campaigning to move to this system.
Then they won’t be forced to fly VFR en route listening to the stereo and looking out at the amazing scenery.
They’ll be like real professional pilots and have wall to wall machine gun like ATC in their ear all the time. A great move forward for the USA. Thanks Australia.
PS captain. I know you are pulling our legs. I have never found a US pilot who can fathom out why our system is so unnecessarily complex let alone want to copy it.
Then they won’t be forced to fly VFR en route listening to the stereo and looking out at the amazing scenery.
They’ll be like real professional pilots and have wall to wall machine gun like ATC in their ear all the time. A great move forward for the USA. Thanks Australia.
PS captain. I know you are pulling our legs. I have never found a US pilot who can fathom out why our system is so unnecessarily complex let alone want to copy it.
something that gives the required result.
Perhaps the result you want is at odds with the result others want. What makes yours any more or less valid than theirs?
fly VFR en route listening to the stereo and looking out at the amazing scenery.