Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Airservices Airspace Modernisation Proposal & Consultation

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Airservices Airspace Modernisation Proposal & Consultation

Old 5th May 2019, 23:49
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,042
What is the latest re industry consultation and proposed education re these proposed changes?

The proposed change of C over D to E over D will be interesting. I recall most if not all aeronautical studies involving C over D, the "why not E" aspect has been covered by words to the effect that if a higher level of service can be provided, then it should be.

I also note in the recent Aeronautical Study of Launceston:

At the time this review was being undertaken, Airservices Australia had proposed a trial of Class E airspace over Class D airspace volumes at Launceston and Hobart. There had been significant feedback from stakeholders to the OAR on this trial. This trial has been removed and replaced with the Airspace Modernisation project3. Under this project, there is no change to the airspace classification at Launceston.
Launceston Airspace Review - January 2019

And in one for Tamworth:

Class C airspace above Tamworth Class D airspace should be maintained unless a new aeronautical study using an airspace risk analysis methodology and cost benefit analysis can prove significant benefits for Class E airspace.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 06:11
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 60
At the time this review was being undertaken, Airservices Australia had proposed a trial of Class E airspace over Class D airspace volumes at Launceston and Hobart. There had been significant feedback from stakeholders to the OAR on this trial. This trial has been removed and replaced with the Airspace Modernisation project3. Under this project, there is no change to the airspace classification at Launceston.
I guess there will be an amendment to the current Tranche 3 document in due course to reflect this ....
buckshot1777 is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 06:51
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 49
For any changes to be effective on 7 November 2019, the cut-off date is early June.

Which doesn't leave much time for consultation, particularly since most of the RAPACs have already had their first round of meetings now.
Piston_Broke is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 07:59
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,701
I cannot believe that John Anderson's (how many transport minsters ago was that, 10?) Ministerial Directive to placate he who cannot be named, over 15 years ago, is still being trotted out to justify the refusal or windback of Class C above D. How about we move on, people!

"As an aside, folks, just to let you know that we will be descending into airspace where not only do VFR aeroplanes not advise us of their position, they probably cannot be seen by air traffic controllers either because there's no radar out here. My FO and I will do our darndest to spot them out the front windows because there is a law that says we must, but I can't promise anything, because, as you can imagine, it gets a bit busy up here as we approach terra-firma.".

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 6th May 2019 at 11:26. Reason: Grammar
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 08:03
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by buckshot1777 View Post
I guess there will be an amendment to the current Tranche 3 document in due course to reflect this ....


The CASA O.A.R review of LT is dated Jan 2019, and the Tranche 3 AsA change proposal is April 2019, so amendment seems unlikely as the review findings were already known when Tranche 3 was released.
10JQKA is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 08:37
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,684
Hey Cap'n,

Should 'that' be spelled 'terror-firmer'...??

Cheeerrrssss…….
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 09:00
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 60
Originally Posted by 10JQKA View Post
The CASA O.A.R review of LT is dated Jan 2019, and the Tranche 3 AsA change proposal is April 2019, so amendment seems unlikely as the review findings were already known when Tranche 3 was released.
So if the review findings were already known i.e. there will be no change to the airspace at Launceston, why does the Tranche 3 document at point 1 say:

Re-classify Class C airspace to Class E airspace at nine regional aerodromes (Albury, Alice Springs, Coffs Harbour, Hamilton Island, Hobart, Launceston, Mackay, Rockhampton and Tamworth).
And make further reference to the same at Tranche 3.1?

Unless I'm missing something -
buckshot1777 is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 10:07
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,432
Oakland Airspace, talking to NorCal, VFR flight following in Class E. Watch from 5:00 mark. Interesting situation. Imagine here, "appropriate" frequency and not talking to anyone. What happens next?
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 11:08
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by buckshot1777 View Post
So if the review findings were already known i.e. there will be no change to the airspace at Launceston, why does the Tranche 3 document at point 1 say:



And make further reference to the same at Tranche 3.1?

Unless I'm missing something -

Yes that’s the point, we are all missing something here. And it’s not just LT, if you look at the completed CASA O.A.R Airspace reviews for the various locations they all have the same findings “status quo” is “fit-for-purpose”, so what could have changed that in April 2019 AsA proposes that everything is up for grabs ?
10JQKA is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 11:18
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,574
[S]o what could have changed that in April 2019 AsA proposes that everything is up for grabs ?
My wild guess would be the looming election and the need, once again, for the coalition to try to duchess Dick Smith into believing there’ll be E over D at more airports.

But we all know that politics would never intrude into such important ‘safety’ decisions.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 15:12
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: NSW
Posts: 36
Dear Santa Claus/ Easter bunny/ Magic fairy or who ever is in charge of this stuff...
Feel free to name the airspace whatever letter of the alphabet you want. Just make it manageable so we don't have to bust our backsides trying to keep the jet in CTA.
Surely it can't be that hard. I can't think of any country in the world that has these issues.
Oh, while I'm asking for things that will never happen, a tower in Ballina. Preferably BEFORE the 200 dead bodies land on sovereign Gardens.
cLeArIcE is offline  
Old 6th May 2019, 23:32
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,696
Originally Posted by cLeArIcE View Post
Dear Santa Claus/ Easter bunny/ Magic fairy or who ever is in charge of this stuff...
Feel free to name the airspace whatever letter of the alphabet you want. Just make it manageable so we don't have to bust our backsides trying to keep the jet in CTA.
Surely it can't be that hard. I can't think of any country in the world that has these issues.
Oh, while I'm asking for things that will never happen, a tower in Ballina. Preferably BEFORE the 200 dead bodies land on sovereign Gardens.
cLeAicE,
E is CTA.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is online now  
Old 6th May 2019, 23:58
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,042
Originally Posted by OZBUSDRIVER View Post
Flight Chops Oakland Airspace, talking to NorCal, VFR flight following in Class E. Watch from 5:00 mark. Interesting situation. Imagine here, "appropriate" frequency and not talking to anyone. What happens next?
Thanks for post that - very interesting

So life isn't all beer and skittles with Class E airspace over there.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 00:16
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,574
So life isn't all beer and skittles with Class E airspace over there.
It ain’t all beer and skittles for RPT in ForG over here, either.

Someone mentioned the possibility of 200 dead bodies in Sovereign Gardens at Ballina ...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 04:15
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,701
Originally Posted by Led Balon
It ain’t all beer and skittles for RPT in ForG over here, either.

Someone mentioned the possibility of 200 dead bodies in Sovereign Gardens at Ballina ...
Glad to see you're back in your rightful spot bashing the way we do things, LB.

FOR A START, that bugsmasher and the jets would have been talking to each other.

SECONDLY, some of us have said over and over again... if Ballina is that bad and yes, it does meet the CASA criteria for a tower, PUT ONE IN!

PS: Where's the other leddie? Maybe he's updating his US safety stats...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 7th May 2019, 09:52
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,574
Pointing out patent illogicalities is not ‘bashing’. It’s pointing out patent illogicalities.

The reason there’s not a tower at Ballina is money. Someone has decided that the cost of mitigating the risks to all those RPT passengers as a consequence of exposure to unsupervised LCDs in ForG, by putting in a tower and making the surrounding airspace D or C, isn’t worth it. I think the term to describe this concept is “affordable safety” ...

Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 8th May 2019, 00:55
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,696
Bloggsie,
Re. Ballina, I agree with you about a tower ---- if the establishment criteria has been reached, then a tower it should be ----- and it looks like it will be a "virtual" tower ---- which, no doubt, will be a great disappointment to ATCs who would love a job in a nice seaside rural setting, in a very pleasant country town, cheap houses etc., but still a short drive from the "bright lights".

And it is true that, so far, it has been all about cost, with the airlines doing handstands to avoid same.

Re. stats, nope, no need, which you would understand, if you had even an elementary understanding of mathematical statistics, and, for that matter, risk management.

Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is online now  
Old 12th May 2019, 09:46
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
I cannot believe that John Anderson's (how many transport minsters ago was that, 10?) Ministerial Directive to placate he who cannot be named, over 15 years ago, is still being trotted out to justify the refusal or windback of Class C above D. How about we move on, people!

"As an aside, folks, just to let you know that we will be descending into airspace where not only do VFR aeroplanes not advise us of their position, they probably cannot be seen by air traffic controllers either because there's no radar out here. My FO and I will do our darndest to spot them out the front windows because there is a law that says we must, but I can't promise anything, because, as you can imagine, it gets a bit busy up here as we approach terra-firma.".



Yep, and this will be the case (if it is approved) at destinations as busy as HB (where there is constant talk in the media about making it a major international destination), RK (where Alliance apparently have a deal with QLD Gov to set up a base), TW (where Qantas is planning on setting up a school I think I read somewhere), also LT,MK,AS,AY and who knows where else ? And to make it even more of a burden, the Approach service will not start until A045 down from the current Class C APP service provided through A085 ! So the guy or gal on Centre (BN or ML) will be trying to keep an eye on any VFR bogies (Class E airspace) that happen to materialise until A040 before the acft can be safely transferred to the appropriate TW/APP frequency, whilst at the same time sorting out multiple conflicts and carrying out active monitoring of the whole area of responsibility which can cover 100s of nm and dozens of airports in both controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Any VFR will be able to transit over any major regional TW/APP unit at or above A045 without any restrictions, and without any charges or flight plans or anything at all whatsoever, how is this an appropriate way to manage an airways system when fare paying passengers and nav charges paying rpt airlines are exposed to this level of disruption to safe operations ? Surely a typical VFR operation would rather skirt around the outside of the current Class D & C zone & steps into major regional airports than help themselves to free overflights and risk getting in the way of RPT ops ? In the current setup with the C airspace if u get a clearance u fill yr boots and if u don’t u go around, and everyone knows what you are doing from start to finish, anything wrong with that ? What is broken here that needs to be fixed ?

Seriously who thinks this can work without major hiccups ? Why even try to do this ?







Last edited by 10JQKA; 12th May 2019 at 10:43. Reason: Added VFR comments.
10JQKA is offline  
Old 13th May 2019, 03:05
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,696
Folks,
I simply cannot understand why bodies are nor regularly raining from the skies in US (and many other countries) given the extent of E airspace in said countries.
In ICAO terms, that takes care of the risk analysis of the Airservices proposal.
And speaking of ICAO, what is it about Australia that is so different, that such well established and proven CNS/ATM management procedures as promulgated by ICAO draw so much flack for self-confessed "professional" pilots in Australia.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is online now  
Old 13th May 2019, 03:11
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,701
Leddee. You should also ask why on earth is radar required to provide a terminal C service.

that such well established and proven CNS/ATM management procedures as promulgated by ICAO draw so much flack for self-confessed "professional" pilots in Australia.
Whaat? It depends entirely on how said CNS/ATM (do I get a prize for using tekko words) is allocated! Oh I remember, A B C D E F and G are all exactly as safe as each other.
Capn Bloggs is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.