Airservices Airspace Modernisation Proposal & Consultation
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices Airspace Modernisation Proposal & Consultation
Two changes currently proposed are:
1) National Standardisation of Class A and E Airspace• Class A airspace will be applied from 24,500ft (FL245) to 60,000ft (FL600).
• In medium and high density airspace, the Class C upper limit will change to FL245 and in low
density, the lower limit will be raised to FL245 (from 18,500ft (FL180)
• Class E will remain as is (in the Mildura, Tasmania and Dubbo corridors).
• In low density continental areas, Class E airspace will be lowered to 12,500ft (FL125) (excluding control areas).
• Class C airspace will be introduced underneath Class A airspace in medium and high density areas where Class A airspace has been raised.
2) Transfer of control responsibility of surveilled Class C airspace from Air Traffic Control Towers at five regional locations to an Enroute sector in either Melbourne or Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centres
Airspace Modernisation Airservices
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...E-Airspace.pdf
Feedback to airservices requested by 16 November...
1) National Standardisation of Class A and E Airspace• Class A airspace will be applied from 24,500ft (FL245) to 60,000ft (FL600).
• In medium and high density airspace, the Class C upper limit will change to FL245 and in low
density, the lower limit will be raised to FL245 (from 18,500ft (FL180)
• Class E will remain as is (in the Mildura, Tasmania and Dubbo corridors).
• In low density continental areas, Class E airspace will be lowered to 12,500ft (FL125) (excluding control areas).
• Class C airspace will be introduced underneath Class A airspace in medium and high density areas where Class A airspace has been raised.
2) Transfer of control responsibility of surveilled Class C airspace from Air Traffic Control Towers at five regional locations to an Enroute sector in either Melbourne or Brisbane Air Traffic Services Centres
Airspace Modernisation Airservices
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...E-Airspace.pdf
Feedback to airservices requested by 16 November...
Last edited by Captain Garmin; 2nd Nov 2018 at 04:32. Reason: Set out
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic,
You have been around as long as I have, you must know, by now, that in Australian aviation, life is priceless, no expenditure, no matter how large, or regulation no matter how silly, or restriction no matter how useless, is unjustified, to address a risk, no matter how small that risk, indeed to even address a "perception of a risk", even when the proponent accepts that they cannot show that the perception of risk is anything more than the product their febrile imagination.
And we can't just blame CASA or Airservices, given the "expressed views" of the ignoratie of the aviation community.
As the now retired DFO of a big Australian airline once told me: "We have to be able to tell the passengers aviation is "ABSOLUTELY SAFE". An interesting concept --- or perhaps he even believed it.
Tootle pip!!
You have been around as long as I have, you must know, by now, that in Australian aviation, life is priceless, no expenditure, no matter how large, or regulation no matter how silly, or restriction no matter how useless, is unjustified, to address a risk, no matter how small that risk, indeed to even address a "perception of a risk", even when the proponent accepts that they cannot show that the perception of risk is anything more than the product their febrile imagination.
And we can't just blame CASA or Airservices, given the "expressed views" of the ignoratie of the aviation community.
As the now retired DFO of a big Australian airline once told me: "We have to be able to tell the passengers aviation is "ABSOLUTELY SAFE". An interesting concept --- or perhaps he even believed it.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leady, can't argue with you on that one, but the suggestion above by Flava,that I referred to obviously would come at a cost and any examination of the proposal would have to pass a cost - benefit analysis and well as a risk analysis before moving forward. It may well be that some proposals have a significant risk attached and the associated cost is therefore accepted, however there is a very well established process for such proposals/changes and at the end of the day 'somebody' has to front up with the $$'s If it is judged to be acceptable by the decision makers in conjunction with industry then under the present setup, we all pay our share, one way or the other. Something that GA struggles with.
cheers
PS... I heard that LHR changed from a Class A to D airspace/tower as it gave them more flexibility.... why then should we then have Class C at those rural ports?
https://www.nats.aero/environment/co...lassification/
cheers
PS... I heard that LHR changed from a Class A to D airspace/tower as it gave them more flexibility.... why then should we then have Class C at those rural ports?
https://www.nats.aero/environment/co...lassification/
triadic,
I guess everybody has long forgotten, but we actually once had a requirement for (effectively) cost/benefit justification of any aviation legislative proposal, in the legislation.
This was in the mid-1990s.
In the midst of some major legislative reform, the (by then CASA) Legal Branch quietly arranged for its repeal to be buried in a mass of other legislative change, buried in the consequential amendments that change always brings. Of course, it is very hard to spot something being erased, as opposed to something added, without positive reference, which was also carefully buried. Even a bloke hired to scrutinize all "new" legislation missed it, so well was the statutory notification buried.
One of the many totally cynical acts I (and you) have witnessed over the years.
Of course, the re-interpretation of S. 9A of the Act followed, falsely claiming (to this day) that CASA CANNOT take cost into account.
Now we are told the GAAG (after almost 20 years) has agreement with the Department and the pollies to put us back to where we were all those years ago.
I will believe the IRON RING will accept that when I see the legislative amendment "on the books".
Tootle pip!!
I guess everybody has long forgotten, but we actually once had a requirement for (effectively) cost/benefit justification of any aviation legislative proposal, in the legislation.
This was in the mid-1990s.
In the midst of some major legislative reform, the (by then CASA) Legal Branch quietly arranged for its repeal to be buried in a mass of other legislative change, buried in the consequential amendments that change always brings. Of course, it is very hard to spot something being erased, as opposed to something added, without positive reference, which was also carefully buried. Even a bloke hired to scrutinize all "new" legislation missed it, so well was the statutory notification buried.
One of the many totally cynical acts I (and you) have witnessed over the years.
Of course, the re-interpretation of S. 9A of the Act followed, falsely claiming (to this day) that CASA CANNOT take cost into account.
Now we are told the GAAG (after almost 20 years) has agreement with the Department and the pollies to put us back to where we were all those years ago.
I will believe the IRON RING will accept that when I see the legislative amendment "on the books".
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Canberra
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the data changes etc that are required for a May 2019 implementation, I would think that it is a given that these changes will occur and ‘consultation’ is just ticking the box.
My query is what is the function of OAR? Surely CASA OAR should be constantly reviewing airspace for its suitability and determining when to instigate change. Seems as though the cart is leading the horse.
My query is what is the function of OAR? Surely CASA OAR should be constantly reviewing airspace for its suitability and determining when to instigate change. Seems as though the cart is leading the horse.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seems as though the cart is leading the horse.
- the MULTICOM - 5 years to get nowhere!
- the Melb VFR coast Route debacle
- the Wellcamp training area/s - consultation with local operators - future class D tower?
- the Hamilton Isld Navaid closure
- Rocket launching NW of Goondiwindi
Definition of 'Consultation' as described by Commissioner G Smith of the IRC in a previous FS decision
(Please excuse the large type - 'tis from a 'cut n paste'...Not intended to imply shouting.....)
Consultation
"In relation to the concept of consultation I wish to make it
clear that this involves more than a mere exchange of
information. For consultation to be effective the participants
must be contributing to the decision-making process not only
in appearance, but in fact".
Commissioner Smith, Melbourne, 12 March, 1991
Definition of 'Consultation'
Statement re: Civil Aviation Authority
Award ODN C
Cheers
(Please excuse the large type - 'tis from a 'cut n paste'...Not intended to imply shouting.....)
Consultation
"In relation to the concept of consultation I wish to make it
clear that this involves more than a mere exchange of
information. For consultation to be effective the participants
must be contributing to the decision-making process not only
in appearance, but in fact".
Commissioner Smith, Melbourne, 12 March, 1991
Definition of 'Consultation'
Statement re: Civil Aviation Authority
Award ODN C
Cheers
I thought May 2019 was a bit ambitious, given as far as I am aware the data cut-off for those charts would be mid-December this year. And if widespread consultation hasn't yet been done with all the affected parties, CASA's OAR would likely have issues approving the airspace change.
There would be a lot of Airservices internal changes required too, including systems, documentation and training.
When Airservices let most of their "back room" people go a couple of years ago, it seems that a lot of knowledge and expertise about such things and other matters went out the door.
There would be a lot of Airservices internal changes required too, including systems, documentation and training.
When Airservices let most of their "back room" people go a couple of years ago, it seems that a lot of knowledge and expertise about such things and other matters went out the door.
And if widespread consultation hasn't yet been done with all the affected parties, CASA's OAR would likely have issues approving the airspace change.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At a recent RAPAC meeting an ASA rep provided a briefing on this program, which had about 5 or 6 stages. Consultation with industry did not appear on any of the slides and when asked we were advised it was in one of the later stages. One has to ask why it was not at stage one? By the time it was briefed, it was a done deal. Not really good enough.
Tranche 3 of AsA Airspace Modenisation Project released. Can’t post URL as forum won’t allow, but it’s on the AsA website under “projects” and then “airspace modernisation sub-menu”
Class E over D at regionals in 2020.
Class E over D at regionals in 2020.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Oz
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airservices OneSKY & Airspace modernisation
"The (Airspace Modernisation) program is a key enabler for Airservices to deliver the benefits of the OneSKY Australia program "
"Over the coming years, advanced air traffic management technology will be introduced in stages to unlock more than a Billion dollars of economic benefits for Australia."
Stage 1 of OneSKY delivered a digital voice communication capable of mass frequency consolidation, I'm guessing once you have standardised airspace, controller ratings are no longer geographically bound.
Hopefully efficiencies harvested in controller:airspace and controller:aircraft ratio increases come back to the aviation industry and not completely go to Airservices' senior management bonuses or Airservices government dividend returns...
"Over the coming years, advanced air traffic management technology will be introduced in stages to unlock more than a Billion dollars of economic benefits for Australia."
Stage 1 of OneSKY delivered a digital voice communication capable of mass frequency consolidation, I'm guessing once you have standardised airspace, controller ratings are no longer geographically bound.
Hopefully efficiencies harvested in controller:airspace and controller:aircraft ratio increases come back to the aviation industry and not completely go to Airservices' senior management bonuses or Airservices government dividend returns...
Last edited by Captain Garmin; 3rd May 2019 at 06:05. Reason: grammar