CASA Class G Discussion Paper
TIEW: It was the claustrophobic overservicing and molly-coddling that Dick implies it was. There was no ‘choice’ above 5,000’.
Only tbe IFRs got traffic, so it didn't matter what flight rules the traffic was, it was still traffic.
Most VFR flew below 5000. So the choice was there for the majority of VFR pilots. Most didn't even bother going FULLSAR.
The taxpayer didn't pay for it. The Avgas levy did.
The hemispherical rule is great, as long as you don't mind head on traffic at your level, something that could not happen with the quadrantal rule. Still they do it overseas so it must be safer.
Most VFR flew below 5000. So the choice was there for the majority of VFR pilots. Most didn't even bother going FULLSAR.
The taxpayer didn't pay for it. The Avgas levy did.
The hemispherical rule is great, as long as you don't mind head on traffic at your level, something that could not happen with the quadrantal rule. Still they do it overseas so it must be safer.
Most VFR flew below 5000
Because of length minima: Complete Bollocks.
Thread Starter
“ only the IFRs got traffic “
That’s not true.
Most long distance enroute flying in Australia takes place above 5000’. Before the AMATs changes all aircraft above 5000’ were treated as “ in the system” and given a directed traffic information service.
Hugely expensive and a major waste of industry money. Since we changed to the ICAO 500’ VFR cruising level over 25 years ago over $1 billion has been saved by our industry and not one life lost attributed to the change.
That change was resisted at the time. Fortunately CAA has a hands on Chairman and it happened.
Now we just have to finalise the change to a modern proven system.
Are there any supporters out there? I hope so for Aussie aviation .
That’s not true.
Most long distance enroute flying in Australia takes place above 5000’. Before the AMATs changes all aircraft above 5000’ were treated as “ in the system” and given a directed traffic information service.
Hugely expensive and a major waste of industry money. Since we changed to the ICAO 500’ VFR cruising level over 25 years ago over $1 billion has been saved by our industry and not one life lost attributed to the change.
That change was resisted at the time. Fortunately CAA has a hands on Chairman and it happened.
Now we just have to finalise the change to a modern proven system.
Are there any supporters out there? I hope so for Aussie aviation .
TIEW
When I learnt to fly in the mid-80s, all navexs included legs above 5,000’. I can’t recall any trip I’ve done since that was conducted entirely below 5,000’.
How would you have known the ratio of VFR flights B050 versus VFR flights 5,000’ and above?
When I learnt to fly in the mid-80s, all navexs included legs above 5,000’. I can’t recall any trip I’ve done since that was conducted entirely below 5,000’.
Most VFR flew below 5000
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 5th Jan 2018 at 03:43.
Originally Posted by Dick
over $1 billion has been saved by our industry and not one life lost attributed to the change.
Originally Posted by Led Balloon
But you are conflating the question as to how to increase the probabilities of being able to see so as to be able to avoid, on the one hand, with the question as to the objective probabilities of circumstances that objectively require avoidance action on the other.
Originally Posted by Led Balon
What, precisely, are the airspace arrangements, avionic requirements and pilot requirements that will make you feel sufficiently ‘safe’?
Could you confirm that you are happy with state 1: no radios/no participation, the next state being state 2: Class D airspace?
I’ll try to explain my first point this way, Cap’n.
If someone fires a howitzer, the objective probabilities of you being hit by the round in the air are the same, whether you know about the round or not. However, in the case of howitzer rounds that are objectively going to hit you, your chances of avoiding being hit are increased if you are alerted to the fact that you are going to be hit.
The probablilities of you being hit by a howitzer round in the air are, objectively, infinitesimally small. However, because of the consequences to you of being hit by a howitzer round, your perception of the probabilities of being hit is many orders of magnitude higher than the objective probabilities. This is natural. Accordingly, you want a system that will alert you to every howitzer that’s fired near you.
That system doesn’t exist.
The airspace equivalent doesn’t exist and will never exist. Birds, drones, technical failure and human error will ever be thus. There are no airspace arrangements that are free of collision risk.
I’m happy with most of the current airspace and frequency arrangements. I think some of them are unjustified by the objective risks. The dimensions of the airspace in which the YPPD AFIS procedures apply is one example.
I think the greater risk is posed by change fatigue and the general resort to whatever version of the procedures with which individuals happen to be comfortable.
If someone fires a howitzer, the objective probabilities of you being hit by the round in the air are the same, whether you know about the round or not. However, in the case of howitzer rounds that are objectively going to hit you, your chances of avoiding being hit are increased if you are alerted to the fact that you are going to be hit.
The probablilities of you being hit by a howitzer round in the air are, objectively, infinitesimally small. However, because of the consequences to you of being hit by a howitzer round, your perception of the probabilities of being hit is many orders of magnitude higher than the objective probabilities. This is natural. Accordingly, you want a system that will alert you to every howitzer that’s fired near you.
That system doesn’t exist.
The airspace equivalent doesn’t exist and will never exist. Birds, drones, technical failure and human error will ever be thus. There are no airspace arrangements that are free of collision risk.
I’m happy with most of the current airspace and frequency arrangements. I think some of them are unjustified by the objective risks. The dimensions of the airspace in which the YPPD AFIS procedures apply is one example.
I think the greater risk is posed by change fatigue and the general resort to whatever version of the procedures with which individuals happen to be comfortable.
Originally Posted by Balloon
I’ll try to explain my first point this way, Cap’n.
Originally Posted by Ballooon
The dimensions of the airspace in which the YPPD AFIS procedures is one example.
Thread Starter
Bloggsie, if there is any measurable extra cost in running terminal Class E, I don’t think I would be a supporter of it. However, you would know there is airspace in Australia where the workload on air traffic controllers is not very high.
Are you suggesting that an enroute controller in this airspace wouldn’t be able to do a Class E terminal service? Especially when you consider that giving a traffic information service is not workload permitting. It has to be given at all times, which means the sector has to be manned at all time to give the traffic information service.
At least with Class E, if there is an overload, an air traffic controller could delay giving departure clearance just by saying, “Standby.”
Yes, this might mean a delay for an IFR aircraft, and I certainly wouldn’t support this if it was going to happen all the time – but if it happened occasionally and meant that we were not paying higher costs for air traffic control, but receiving a safer separation service, I think I would be a supporter.
Of course, all of these things need to be appraised and discussed. The very fact that we have not even tried any terminal Class E airspace at a non-tower airport shows the incredible resistance to change – or possibly because of the lack of people with the ability to show leadership at CASA.
Bloggsie, you seem to go to extremes at all times – i.e. because I suggest that VFR could fly enroute without monitoring an ATC frequency, that must mean I totally support unalerted see and avoid. I have made it absolutely clear that I support pilots of enroute aircraft flying in the airspace normally used for approach and departure at a non-tower airport monitoring the CTAF frequency. This was part of the NAS we were introducing before it was half wound-back.
Do you realise if I had not come along, you would probably still be flying in uncontrolled airspace with no surveillance service at all, and still being operated by flight service – who were banned from looking at a radar (or indeed ADS-B screen)?
When I became Chairman, there was a proposal to introduce a system called FISADS, which was an artificial display screen showing positions of aircraft in uncontrolled airspace, taken from dead reckoning from the flight plan. This was even to be installed where there was good radar coverage. It was total madness, which I stopped.
Bloggsie, believe it or not, there is a chance that you are a better pilot than I am – after all, you are a “professional” – but when it comes to looking around the world, asking advice and copying the best, I think I might have an edge over you.
Are you suggesting that an enroute controller in this airspace wouldn’t be able to do a Class E terminal service? Especially when you consider that giving a traffic information service is not workload permitting. It has to be given at all times, which means the sector has to be manned at all time to give the traffic information service.
At least with Class E, if there is an overload, an air traffic controller could delay giving departure clearance just by saying, “Standby.”
Yes, this might mean a delay for an IFR aircraft, and I certainly wouldn’t support this if it was going to happen all the time – but if it happened occasionally and meant that we were not paying higher costs for air traffic control, but receiving a safer separation service, I think I would be a supporter.
Of course, all of these things need to be appraised and discussed. The very fact that we have not even tried any terminal Class E airspace at a non-tower airport shows the incredible resistance to change – or possibly because of the lack of people with the ability to show leadership at CASA.
Bloggsie, you seem to go to extremes at all times – i.e. because I suggest that VFR could fly enroute without monitoring an ATC frequency, that must mean I totally support unalerted see and avoid. I have made it absolutely clear that I support pilots of enroute aircraft flying in the airspace normally used for approach and departure at a non-tower airport monitoring the CTAF frequency. This was part of the NAS we were introducing before it was half wound-back.
Do you realise if I had not come along, you would probably still be flying in uncontrolled airspace with no surveillance service at all, and still being operated by flight service – who were banned from looking at a radar (or indeed ADS-B screen)?
When I became Chairman, there was a proposal to introduce a system called FISADS, which was an artificial display screen showing positions of aircraft in uncontrolled airspace, taken from dead reckoning from the flight plan. This was even to be installed where there was good radar coverage. It was total madness, which I stopped.
Bloggsie, believe it or not, there is a chance that you are a better pilot than I am – after all, you are a “professional” – but when it comes to looking around the world, asking advice and copying the best, I think I might have an edge over you.
I believe there is also a similar system for estimating positions based on ADS-C uplinks from the aircraft, but one of the real controllers on here could probably confirm that.
Thread Starter
Bloggs. Be nice. I actually sort of gave you a compliment.
But thanks for showing us what we are up against with change.
Looks as if there are people with similar beliefs to you at CASA.
But thanks for showing us what we are up against with change.
Looks as if there are people with similar beliefs to you at CASA.
The message out of the Mildura incident depends on whether one is objective or not.
So what airspace arrangements do you want at Mildura? I’ll guarantee that they won’t result in zero collision risk.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Be nice.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Impossible to do much worthwhile on a site where dead loss losers get the same exposure as a competent and rational minded person.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
You must be complete failures in life.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
This has come about because a few really dumb people have not been prepared to ask advice and copy the best.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
That’s clearly your problem. Very sad. You must be getting near to retirement. When will that be?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Dick and more. In a workplace this would be bullying and harassment and subject to disciplinary action. Facts and sound argument are more likely to carry your cause. As I mentioned earlier play the ball, not the man.
