Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs
Yet another sleight of hand trick LB? That thread is from 2004 and your singling out of one poster Voices of Reason, who for some reason is constantly using the royal We, is just another pathetic attempt to advance a well worn argument of "the yanks do it then so should we". Don't forget that the yanks have also had light aircraft collide with 727s over built up areas and f16s colliding with 172's. So as someone said on the thread you had the link to, the problem is:
The incident in Brisbane with the 737 and Lancair supports the concern.This is what VoR wrote about transponders in E:
Some clown called Creampuff is also questioning everyones response without actually progressing the discussion.
PS I'm not sure why you want me write larger,
does this help As an ex CASA lawyer why do you think your opinion is more relevant than anyone elses?
I have no problem with class E. The sector I work has had it for years. The problem I have is with replacing C with E for no gain to anyone at all. That is the problem with NAS.
As we have stated previously, the carriage and activation of transponders is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace. Yes, it does enhance its application – but it is not a requirement. As we have also stated, the carriage and operation of transponders should only be seen as a means by which the traffic alerting characteristic of Class E airspace is better enabled – and NOT as a way to alert TCAS carrying aircraft to the presence of VFR flights.
PS I'm not sure why you want me write larger,
And there is the problem, write large.
Last edited by Lookleft; 16th Apr 2018 at 01:38.
How about you, Lookleft?
Surely a person with such strong convictions about E would never travel in a commercial aircraft in the USA, and would be urging his family and friends not to do so either.
In relation to your question: I think my opinions have a sound basis in fact and logic, which is why some people expend so much energy in trying to denigrate me.
Surely a person with such strong convictions about E would never travel in a commercial aircraft in the USA, and would be urging his family and friends not to do so either.
In relation to your question: I think my opinions have a sound basis in fact and logic, which is why some people expend so much energy in trying to denigrate me.
The vast majority in Class B airspace or on defined VFR routes.
Completely incorrect.
I suggest you get a Los Angeles/SoCal chart covering the lower levels of the Los Angeles basin.
The first thing you will find is how SMALL the low level KLAX B actually is, or put another way, how close you can be to KLAX and be in E airspace.
The VFR lanes represent only a very small proportion of the traffic. Almost all that a passenger would see, particularly at night, where aircraft lights are more visible, will be operating in E.
I support the comments of others, I hope you have the courage of your convictions, and decline to ever fly in US E (or any other E throughout the world) airspace. You couldn't permit family and friends to face such risks, could you, unless you are a complete hypocrite?? And never go anywhere near India.
As for "safe" being "slippery", you know as well as I do, or you should know, that "safe/safer/safety" is meaningless, emotional, dimensionless and of no use in practical management, and why all relevant national/international standards are for "risk management".
You know, or should know, that "risk" is never zero, but the statistical equivalent "vanishingly small" is a risk so low that for all intents and purposes, it is zero.
You know, or you should know, that all ICAO CNS/ATM principles are base on a minimum separation assurance standard, or, in "popular terms" ALL AIRSPACE is equally "safe" ---- all increasing CNS/ATM services input does is enable the handling of increasing traffic levels, while maintaining the design separation assurance standard.
But perhaps this is all too much to ask of you??
Tootle pip!!
In relation to your question: I think my opinions have a sound basis in fact and logic, which is why some people expend so much energy in trying to denigrate me.
As others have mentioned even on your 14 year old thread, I have no problems flying in the US as they have a system that works for them, very much like their political system, or do you want to see that bought over here as well?
Sunfish, as opposed to the VFR agenda of "expropriating" airspace by introducing additional threats (LT airprox) so they can fly where they want without needing to talk to pesky ATC? You can't accuse those who favour the current system of "expropriation" - they aren't getting anything more than they already have.
If people are so worried about safety of IFR in "G" then they can introduce as much "E" as they want (with appropriate ATC staffing and consoles) without touching existing "C".
Replacing "C" with "E" and "G" with "E" are two separate issues. DIck, et al won't countenance one without the other, so if I'm not concerned about safety then neither are they.
If people are so worried about safety of IFR in "G" then they can introduce as much "E" as they want (with appropriate ATC staffing and consoles) without touching existing "C".
Replacing "C" with "E" and "G" with "E" are two separate issues. DIck, et al won't countenance one without the other, so if I'm not concerned about safety then neither are they.
So is this fact, or just my opinion, Lookleft? (Or maybe it was only fact 14 years ago and is no longer true):
The reason I quoted the post from voices of reason is that it neatly summarises the splendid aviation Galapagos that Australia was then and continues to be today, precisely for the reasons identified in the post.
You seem oblivious to the irony of your ongoing personal attacks on me. I keep saying that I have no clue what I’m talking about. Why are you worried that anyone would be silly enough to consider my arguments to have any factual and logical basis?
EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.
You seem oblivious to the irony of your ongoing personal attacks on me. I keep saying that I have no clue what I’m talking about. Why are you worried that anyone would be silly enough to consider my arguments to have any factual and logical basis?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 16th Apr 2018 at 06:49.
LB, You use one quote from Voices of Reason, but if you would care to look at the numerous VOR posts, you will note the debunking of the how and why that was NAS - the importation of the American system to Australia.
Thus demonstrating VORs’ objectivity. As I recall, VOR gave Dick Smith a caning on some issues.
Are you able to identify any factual inaccuracies or errors of reasoning in the VOR post about Class E airspace I quoted at #228 above?
Are you able to identify any factual inaccuracies or errors of reasoning in the VOR post about Class E airspace I quoted at #228 above?
Are you able to identify any factual inaccuracies or errors of reasoning in the VOR post about Class E airspace I quoted at #228 above?
1. Who cares?
2. So what, it was 14 years ago. The only people still banging on about it are Dick Smith, LeadSled and you!
You seem oblivious to the irony of your ongoing personal attacks on me.
You’re a liar. ..In anticipation of my earlier post being deleted by the mods on the basis of whining from some poor pet...
Are you able to identify any factual inaccuracies or errors of reasoning in the VOR post about Class E airspace I quoted at #228 above?
Because I’m just a desk jockey looking for relevance, and a hypocrite, as well as having no clue about aviation, I’m very keen to understand where VOR got it wrong about Class E and Australian pilots and air traffic controllers.
Because I’m just a desk jockey looking for relevance, and a hypocrite, as well as having no clue about aviation, I’m very keen to understand where VOR got it wrong about Class E and Australian pilots and air traffic controllers.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh S**t, how long has that been like that? 2 way communication required turns it into FAA class D equivalent.
2 way communication means you need to be communicating with ATC, and ATC needs to be communicating with you. That was supposed to be what GAAP turned into (i.e. class D) but not for class E.
To establish 2 way communication you need to contact ATC, and at a minimum have ATC respond with your callsign - according to the class D education.
It suggests that VFR aircraft currently operating in class E without contacting ATC are operating illegally.
2 way communication means you need to be communicating with ATC, and ATC needs to be communicating with you. That was supposed to be what GAAP turned into (i.e. class D) but not for class E.
To establish 2 way communication you need to contact ATC, and at a minimum have ATC respond with your callsign - according to the class D education.
It suggests that VFR aircraft currently operating in class E without contacting ATC are operating illegally.
Oh S**t, how long has that been like that? 2 way communication required turns it into FAA class D equivalent.
2 way communication means you need to be communicating with ATC, and ATC needs to be communicating with you. That was supposed to be what GAAP turned into (i.e. class D) but not for class E.
To establish 2 way communication you need to contact ATC, and at a minimum have ATC respond with your callsign - according to the class D education.
It suggests that VFR aircraft currently operating in class E without contacting ATC are operating illegally.
2 way communication means you need to be communicating with ATC, and ATC needs to be communicating with you. That was supposed to be what GAAP turned into (i.e. class D) but not for class E.
To establish 2 way communication you need to contact ATC, and at a minimum have ATC respond with your callsign - according to the class D education.
It suggests that VFR aircraft currently operating in class E without contacting ATC are operating illegally.
Aircraft must be equipped with radio communications systems capable of continuous communications according to the flight classification and airspace category. [Systems table follows]
Doesn’t stop you saying “that’d be me” when Centre gives you as potential traffic at an unverified level for an IFR aircraft. They often appreciate verification of a previously unverified return, plus info about intentions.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ENR 1.4 table 4.1 Column Radio COM RQMNTS
Class E, VFR: Continuous 2 way
I think it's a cut and paste error or confusion about what 2 way communication means. IFR class G also lists Continuous 2 way as a requirement and that cannot always be possible.
Class E, VFR: Continuous 2 way
I think it's a cut and paste error or confusion about what 2 way communication means. IFR class G also lists Continuous 2 way as a requirement and that cannot always be possible.
ENR 1.1 38-39 says:
That’s where I got the word “monitor” from, which word gave the Cap’n an attack of the vapours.
3.2 VFR Flights in Class E Airspace
...
3.2.2. VFR entering and operating in Class E airspace should:
...
b. monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict ...
...
3.2.2. VFR entering and operating in Class E airspace should:
...
b. monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict ...
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 16th Apr 2018 at 10:10.
Lead Balloon, "you make your living out of scaring people with your 'swoosh swoosh'ing". Do I? I'm some sort of paid lobbyist am I?
As it happens I get paid to provide separation and traffic services in all airspace classifications. In case you hadn't noticed IFR in "E" still requires separation so I'll still get paid if "E" replaces chunks of "C". And I'll still get paid if "E" replaces great swathes of "G" because I'll also be separating traffic as well as giving traffic.
As it happens I get paid to provide separation and traffic services in all airspace classifications. In case you hadn't noticed IFR in "E" still requires separation so I'll still get paid if "E" replaces chunks of "C". And I'll still get paid if "E" replaces great swathes of "G" because I'll also be separating traffic as well as giving traffic.
LeP and Plaz, I read the VOR post I quoted at 228 as attributing the lack of E and the over-use of C in Australia mostly to the intransigence of Australian ATC and pilots rather than the meddling of amateurs.
LeP: What if - heaven forbid - Australia introduced real G instead of ForG and reduced the volume of Class C without replacing it entirely with E? You know - set up airspace in accordance with principle rather than perception.
LeP: What if - heaven forbid - Australia introduced real G instead of ForG and reduced the volume of Class C without replacing it entirely with E? You know - set up airspace in accordance with principle rather than perception.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts