Airservices Airspace Modernisation Proposal & Consultation
A few questions for pilots who fly RPT in and out of non-towered aerodromes in Australia:
1. What is your assessment of the extent of your collision risk with other aircraft in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes, caused by the pilots of other aircraft being on the wrong frequency, not selecting the correct radio to monitor or having its volume turned down, or mis-identifying or mis-reporting their location and ETA?
2. What is your assessment of the extent of your collision risk in Class E airspace, caused by the pilots of other aircraft not having a serviceable, operating transponder and not monitoring the frequency for the airspace and not self-announcing, or giving incorrect information when self-announcing?
3. If your assessment of the collision risk in 2 is higher than in 1, what assumptions are you making about the density of traffic in each scenario and what assumptions are you making about the competence of the other pilots in each scenario?
4. If your view is that the collision risk in 1 is higher than in 2, why are you prepared to risk yourself and your passengers in 1 but not 2?
Does that imply that you believe the implementation in Australia is or would be incompetent, or that users would be incompetent to handle same??
And Yeah!!! Progress!!!
You do remember something of ICAO Risk Management based principles.
Tootle pip!!
CASA has now opened up public consultation on their website covering some of the AsA airspace modernisation proposals. And looks like AsA has had an epiphany on the Hobart airspace now looking at upgrade to full capital city surveillance Class C TWR & APP rather than the Tranche 3 downgrade to Class E down to A045 spruiked only a few weeks ago. Does the left hand actually know what the right is doing one wonders?
CASA has now opened up public consultation on their website covering some of the AsA airspace modernisation proposals. And looks like AsA has had an epiphany on the Hobart airspace now looking at upgrade to full capital city surveillance Class C TWR & APP rather than the Tranche 3 downgrade to Class E down to A045 spruiked only a few weeks ago. Does the left hand actually know what the right is doing one wonders?
This must be another part of the Australian (non) compliance with ICAO ----- C stands for Capital City "airspace"??
On this basis, here is my suggestion for new definitions: ---- for airspace classification --- clearly delineating the perceptions of "safety" in Australia, and, of course completely ignoring rational risk management.
A -- Absolutely safe.
B -- Bloody safe
C -- Capital city safe
D -- Downmarket from the Capital city safe.
E -- E is for error -- a certain group of pilots believe it should not be used in Australia, completely blind to its use world wide..
F -- Faaarrking Hell, what's this?
G -- God help us all !! But those who reject Error airspace accept G, go figure??
Tootle pip!!
PS: I do hope that you all, or at least some of you, understand that, in the ICAO scheme of things, the "separation assurance standards" is the same for all classes of airspace, and as traffic increases, airspace classification and associated CNS/ATM services are varied (increased) to maintain the standard. Put another way, airspace category is related to traffic levels and a fixed collision risk probability, not different levels of "safety" in different classes of airspace.
Last edited by LeadSled; 2nd Jun 2019 at 05:04. Reason: ps added
Originally Posted by Leddee
not different levels of "safety" in different classes of airspace.
So Leddie, at Hobart, tomorrow, Class A is just as safe as Class G, is it not, based on your theory?
Sometimes I wonder if you really are as thick as you present yourself to be.
ICAO isn't a theory.
ICAO airspace management Docs/SARPs are not a theory, to a greater or (in the AU case) lesser degree they are standards used worldwide.
There is nothing theoretical about risk management, unless, of course, you believe all the ISO standards, which underpin just about every industrial process, are just a theory (or FAA/EASA design and certification standards)---- which means that whatever aeroplane you are flying is largely designed on some basis, that is not valid -- risk management.
And yes, in the Hobart case, if the traffic levels only required G (which they don't, D is where it is) all A would do is increase costs without without improving the actual separation assurance outcomes.
Unless, of course, you believe banning VFR aircraft entirely is right and and proper ---- and, considering that proposition, you are probably unreasonable enough to believe that is reasonable.
Tootle pip!!
PS: Do some homework, and have a close look at Eurocontrol publications, they actually publish their CNS/ATMrisk targets and and achieved results, on a regular basis.
Originally Posted by Luddie
And yes, in the Hobart case, if the traffic levels only required G (which they don't, D is where it is) all A would do is increase costs without without improving the actual separation assurance outcomes.
Unless, of course, you believe banning VFR aircraft entirely is right and and proper ---- and, considering that proposition, you are probably unreasonable enough to believe that is reasonable.
I don't mind mixing it with lighties, provided there is some system in place to reduce the risk apart from me looking out the flippin' window.
And, Bloggsie, old mate, you completely ignore that Class A airspace is not intended for any kind of terminal control area, and is not used for CTA anywhere. ---- but I am not at all surprised, given you well demonstrated in-depth knowledge of all things CNS/ATM.
As for the Tobago, I hope you never have to fly (except as pax) anywhere in US/CA.
Tootle pip!!
PS: And do bone up on risk management principles, as it applies to ATM ---- you might well be surprised, despite what you fondly believe to be self -evident. truth. The clue is in exactly what the target separation assurance standard actually is, and it's relation to "ALARP" and "vanishingly small"..
As for the Tobago, I hope you never have to fly (except as pax) anywhere in US/CA.
Tootle pip!!
PS: And do bone up on risk management principles, as it applies to ATM ---- you might well be surprised, despite what you fondly believe to be self -evident. truth. The clue is in exactly what the target separation assurance standard actually is, and it's relation to "ALARP" and "vanishingly small"..
ICAO isn't a theory
ICAO airspace management Docs/SARPs are not a theory, to a greater or (in the AU case) lesser degree they are standards used worldwide.
ICAO set the theory behind how to develop an airspace concept. Using ICAO guidelines you are free to, and encouraged to, come up with your own airspace model.
ICAO do not have an airspace model. They do have a Doc on Airspace Planning Methodology (Doc9689) and a Global ATM concept document (Doc9854). I will ask again. What is the ICAO Doc/Annex, whatever, where they describe the airspace model?
I do hope that you all, or at least some of you, understand that, in the ICAO scheme of things, the "separation assurance standards" is the same for all classes of airspace, and as traffic increases, airspace classification and associated CNS/ATM services are varied (increased) to maintain the standard. Put another way, airspace category is related to traffic levels and a fixed collision risk probability, not different levels of "safety" in different classes of airspace.
In one of the documents mentioned above, there is a chapter titled "Application of Risk Analysis to Airspace Planning in Australia"...you may wish to read it.
Outside of your airline career, have you extensive experience flying within the US system?
Alpha
Alpha,
We will have to agree to disagree on interpretations as to what ICAO docs. and SARPs are, in practice, particularly as Australian legislation more or less requires us to follow ICAO ( the less being the rather silly number of differences) .
And, as we know, CASA in particular, when it suits them, use ICAO compliance as an excuse/crutch.
No, I can't, off the top of my head, give you reading references to separation assurance standards, but we spent enough time talking about it during the NAS period. Airservices collision risk probabilities amount to the same thing.
As to you question, the answer is yes, including long before I even thought about an airline job ( and add UK and most of western Europe), and throughout my airline times.
Indeed, in early days, returning to AU, the stultifying rigidity of Australian aviation came as a surprise, and flying in the UK and US from time to time over many years was always a very pleasant experience..
Of all the people I know, who have had a "flying" holiday or some such in the the US, not one single one has compared it unfavorably to AU, or compared the FAA unfavorably to CASA, and usually very enthusiastically and volubly quite the reverse.
Tootle pip!!
PS: My FAA CPL/Multi/Land/Instrument etc is a real one, (nice little plastic credit card size in the current iteration) not something issued against a "foreign" license.
PS2 I am certain your words will be music to Bloggsie's ears --even if he is tone deaf.
PS3 My "heavy" time in US and elsewhere is not confined to AU based airlines.
We will have to agree to disagree on interpretations as to what ICAO docs. and SARPs are, in practice, particularly as Australian legislation more or less requires us to follow ICAO ( the less being the rather silly number of differences) .
And, as we know, CASA in particular, when it suits them, use ICAO compliance as an excuse/crutch.
No, I can't, off the top of my head, give you reading references to separation assurance standards, but we spent enough time talking about it during the NAS period. Airservices collision risk probabilities amount to the same thing.
As to you question, the answer is yes, including long before I even thought about an airline job ( and add UK and most of western Europe), and throughout my airline times.
Indeed, in early days, returning to AU, the stultifying rigidity of Australian aviation came as a surprise, and flying in the UK and US from time to time over many years was always a very pleasant experience..
Of all the people I know, who have had a "flying" holiday or some such in the the US, not one single one has compared it unfavorably to AU, or compared the FAA unfavorably to CASA, and usually very enthusiastically and volubly quite the reverse.
Tootle pip!!
PS: My FAA CPL/Multi/Land/Instrument etc is a real one, (nice little plastic credit card size in the current iteration) not something issued against a "foreign" license.
PS2 I am certain your words will be music to Bloggsie's ears --even if he is tone deaf.
PS3 My "heavy" time in US and elsewhere is not confined to AU based airlines.
Last edited by LeadSled; 3rd Jun 2019 at 16:44. Reason: PS2 and 3 added.
Originally Posted by Ledsled
And, Bloggsie, old mate, you completely ignore that Class A airspace is not intended for any kind of terminal control area
and is not used for CTA anywhere.
I suppose you support/ed Class A above 245??
Bloggsie,
Interesting you should raise that ----- many moons ago, there was an interesting piece of research done about C versus A at high level ---- what it meant in the real world.
The outcome --- over the period studied by Airservices, 12 months or so, the only effect of A was that a number of survey flight, involving a grand total of two aircraft, had to get concessions for each series of flight, instead of just getting a suitable clearance, for a VFR flight. I doubt anything has changed.
In short, A provided no additional risk reduction versus C. There was no "safety" issue.
Do I have an issue with A at high level, not really, I just recognize that it provides no measurable risk benefit, compared to C or B.
Having said that, I do not think much of the idea that a number of countries do not have tight requirements for operation at high levels ---- indeed, last time I looked, the continual prevalence of G (or F) was, in my opinion, a serious risk management issue.
Tootle pip!!
Interesting you should raise that ----- many moons ago, there was an interesting piece of research done about C versus A at high level ---- what it meant in the real world.
The outcome --- over the period studied by Airservices, 12 months or so, the only effect of A was that a number of survey flight, involving a grand total of two aircraft, had to get concessions for each series of flight, instead of just getting a suitable clearance, for a VFR flight. I doubt anything has changed.
In short, A provided no additional risk reduction versus C. There was no "safety" issue.
Do I have an issue with A at high level, not really, I just recognize that it provides no measurable risk benefit, compared to C or B.
Having said that, I do not think much of the idea that a number of countries do not have tight requirements for operation at high levels ---- indeed, last time I looked, the continual prevalence of G (or F) was, in my opinion, a serious risk management issue.
Tootle pip!!
E over D at regional TWRs vice C or
Lowered E base to F125 from F180 in the bush or
Insertion of C F180 to F245 & lifting of A in high density areas or
All of the above ?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
USA:
'Rochester Tower, N10XT due weather request clearance to Rochester'
TOWER: 'N10XT, squawk ident'
'N10XT with ident'
TOWER: 'N10XT track direct the field, RWY 31, cleared to land'
WTF?? There's got to be a catch, too easy.
Last edited by The name is Porter; 14th Aug 2019 at 15:01.
In fairness to those running ‘the system’, there is a real difference between ANSP resources in the US and ANSP resources in Australia: The US has many more ANSP resources per square nautical mile than Australia does and, accordingly, those in the US are monitoring much smaller chunks of airspace than those in Australia.
Aircraft that are miles apart look that way on a screen set to 10 miles range. They don’t on a screen set to 100 miles range. That’s why you’ll hear Centre in Australia alerting aircraft in the vicinity of Ooglabadooga about collision risk: those dots on the screen look awfully close when you’re monitoring an area the size of some US States.
(That said, I still don’t get why Australian RPT pilots will fly in Class G but arc up at the prospect of increased Class E coverage of what was Class G....)
Aircraft that are miles apart look that way on a screen set to 10 miles range. They don’t on a screen set to 100 miles range. That’s why you’ll hear Centre in Australia alerting aircraft in the vicinity of Ooglabadooga about collision risk: those dots on the screen look awfully close when you’re monitoring an area the size of some US States.
(That said, I still don’t get why Australian RPT pilots will fly in Class G but arc up at the prospect of increased Class E coverage of what was Class G....)
Only involves some domestic RPT pilots belonging to one union.
The union that covers most of the Qantas pilots have never had a problem with E, they have been flying in it worldwide, (and it's predecessor in the US ) since QF has been flying to US.
It's "the other" union that has the problem.
Why?? Sheer bleeding anti-US prejudice.
To more or less quote the then "Technical" Director of "the other" union , in an expletive laden explanation: " I don't care how safe it is in US. we are not going f------g do what the f-------g septics do". There was no shortage of witnesses to the "technical" explanation for the rejection of Class E airspace in Australia.
Indeed, it is this attitude of flat rejection of change (and it was not limited to matters airspace) that, in the day, resulted in the creation of the AIPA in the first place.
Tootle pip!!
