Class E at Ayres Rock proposed by AsA
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E at Ayres Rock proposed by AsA
Only 4 days notice with RAPAC consultation, and not first submitting the proposal to CASA Office of Airspace Regulation says whoever is behind the proposal doesn't know the airspace change process.
I also wonder whether Ambidji were consulted, seeing as they operate the CA/GRS there.
A lot of knowledge and expertise walked out the door of Airservices 4 years ago -
I also wonder whether Ambidji were consulted, seeing as they operate the CA/GRS there.
A lot of knowledge and expertise walked out the door of Airservices 4 years ago -
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just the beginning. Wait until you hear about enroute controllers being given airspace below terrain (class C above towers) without proper training or licences to do approach. ATCs on the sectors with those towers are making a lot of noise, but it keeps charging ahead.
Airspace Modernisation | Airservices
Airspace Modernisation | Airservices
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang on... there are still VFR aircraft?
I thought GA was dead!
Ironically though, Class E down to 1200’ plus a CAGRS actually sounds better than Class D to the ground... at least Class E controllers are allowed to separate using ADSB, or are they? (genuine question)
I thought GA was dead!
Ironically though, Class E down to 1200’ plus a CAGRS actually sounds better than Class D to the ground... at least Class E controllers are allowed to separate using ADSB, or are they? (genuine question)
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just the beginning. Wait until you hear about enroute controllers being given airspace below terrain (class C above towers) without proper training or licences to do approach. ATCs on the sectors with those towers are making a lot of noise, but it keeps charging ahead.
Airspace Modernisation | Airservices
Airspace Modernisation | Airservices
Similar is about to happen at Tamworth where enroute controllers will now have to consider terrain clearance and missed approaches that come back into their airspace. Not getting any kind of approach rating though. And not considering the effect on VFR aircraft wanting to transit below A065 who won’t have ADSB and will be too low to be consistently on radar. So there will be far more clearances denied and no safety/efficiency benefit.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes we can separate using ADSB in class E, however the separation standard is 5nm. Have a look at how far from the aerodrome you have to be to get 5nm separation. Close in a tower can run things far tighter than a radar controller can.
Similar is about to happen at Tamworth where enroute controllers will now have to consider terrain clearance and missed approaches that come back into their airspace. Not getting any kind of approach rating though. And not considering the effect on VFR aircraft wanting to transit below A065 who won’t have ADSB and will be too low to be consistently on radar. So there will be far more clearances denied and no safety/efficiency benefit.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Savings? The group that runs that sector is realistically going to need two extra controllers on each day. And they have planned it assuming it will be devoid of all the CT4 traffic since BFTS is leaving, despite the fact there are several civilian flying schools in the process of moving there.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Only 4 days notice with RAPAC consultation, and not first submitting the proposal to CASA Office of Airspace Regulation says whoever is behind the proposal doesn't know the airspace change process.
I also wonder whether Ambidji were consulted, seeing as they operate the CA/GRS there.
A lot of knowledge and expertise walked out the door of Airservices 4 years ago -
I also wonder whether Ambidji were consulted, seeing as they operate the CA/GRS there.
A lot of knowledge and expertise walked out the door of Airservices 4 years ago -
RESOLUTION:
The National RAPAC convenor group by majority #1 resolves that the Airservices Out of Session paper "Trial of Class E Airspace at Ayers Rock" both Version 1 and Version 2 (14 January 2019 and 17 January 2019 #2) is unfit for the purpose of meaningful assessment and consultation feedback by RAPAC members.The paper is incomplete, inconclusive, lacks proper definition of the airspace, and requires expert assessment by CASA OAR concerning the clash of CTAF with Class E procedures and constraints.The National RAPAC group requests that CASA pass this Resolution with the strongest endorsement to the CEO Airservices.
NOTES #1 By majority as the timing of the paper is during a period of regular aviation holiday absences.
#2 Version 2 being only an extension of time and of RAPAC coverage from Version 1 after RAPAC feedback.
The National RAPAC convenor group by majority #1 resolves that the Airservices Out of Session paper "Trial of Class E Airspace at Ayers Rock" both Version 1 and Version 2 (14 January 2019 and 17 January 2019 #2) is unfit for the purpose of meaningful assessment and consultation feedback by RAPAC members.The paper is incomplete, inconclusive, lacks proper definition of the airspace, and requires expert assessment by CASA OAR concerning the clash of CTAF with Class E procedures and constraints.The National RAPAC group requests that CASA pass this Resolution with the strongest endorsement to the CEO Airservices.
NOTES #1 By majority as the timing of the paper is during a period of regular aviation holiday absences.
#2 Version 2 being only an extension of time and of RAPAC coverage from Version 1 after RAPAC feedback.
As I suggested in an earlier post, it would seem that the parties behind these proposals within Airservices have little to no knowledge or experience of the formal airspace and procedures change process, one that had been followed for many years prior to the staff exodus of some 4 years ago.
It sounds very much like someone had a thought bubble, and their manager (also not knowing any better) has told them to go ahead and put it out there.
This is just the beginning. Wait until you hear about enroute controllers being given airspace below terrain (class C above towers) without proper training or licences to do approach
Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure no one would have an issue doing it if the proper training was given. Also if money doesn't go into resectorising airspace, you could have controllers trying to manage busy traffic in a terminal area as well as 300nm away. I don't really have faith that will be the case for those affected controllers. Money makes ATC in Australia go 'round.
Originally Posted by Block Not Available
Also if money doesn't go into resectorising airspace, you could have controllers trying to manage busy traffic in a terminal area as well as 300nm away.
It seems he who cannot be named may have infltrated one of the pilot unions...
4.0.8 An Airline Pilots Representative Organisation, representing the views of airline pilots that regularly operate into Ayers Rock, advises that the CA/GRS does little to enhance safety at the airport. Instances of CA/GRS has at times detracted from safety by creating radio clutter during times of multiple arrivals and departures. The organisation would support the following: Removal of the CA/GRS, Lower Class E to 8,500 ft AMSL whilst having ATC IFR to IFR separation services. All published airways into Ayers Rock reclassified as Class E down to 2,500 ft above ground level (AGL) allowing IFR Surveillance and control services to all Initial Approach Fixes. All instrument approach procedures captured within Class E to 700 ft AGL. Allow a Rescue & Fire Fighting Services (RFFS) or current air operator on the airfield to run a Unicom service with reduced cost to industry as well as providing information “on request”.
Put in a tower!
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We (Enroute Controllers) took over the Amberley Approach airspace on weekends and at night back in the early 1990's. Plenty of routes through the airspace into Amberley, Brisbane and Archerfield where LSALT was inside Class C. We did local training for the airspace and funnily enough, none of the controllers had issues or problems with handling it. I subsequently did Approach for 20+ years and I still don't see it as a problem, though I think probably all of us did do a complete ATC course in the College - Approach, Tower and Enroute).
Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.
Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.
1. The lack of appropriate training. I am not certain yet, but I believe the “appropriate training” for the change at Tamworth has been deemed as 1 day sim. That’s not really a lot of time to get your head around things like protecting missed approaches etc. A significant amount of enroute controllers at the moment would struggle to even make sense of an approach plate. Sadly the days of doing approach and tower as well on ATC course are gone.
2. I just don’t see any actual efficiency/safety benefit to it. It doesn’t give extra safety from radar monitoring because tower can already do that with TSAD, it’s not allowing more efficient airspace use because it’s now going from an approach procedural environment to enroute radar environment which seems like a downgrade to me. Not to mention the massive increase in coordination which to just creates more chances for an error/misunderstanding. If I could see a benefit to industry I would be all for it, but at the moment it seems they are relying on the fact that pilots instantly think radar means better than procedural to look like they are improving things while actually doing nothing. Ayers Rock is slightly different, but I see similar issues.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are many issues relating to this proposal, however what the RAPAC Convenors are concerned about is the tabling of the AYE changes with little or no consultation when such changes would have national implications and everyone needs to be alerted and have the chance to provide some input. eg: There is no explanation in the AYE proposal why there is differing radius (20 and 23nm) for the proposal and how it will impose on the senic flights around the area or how the Class E will blend with the CTAF???. The OAR needs to have a close look at this prior to letting it proceed further.
Whoever was behind that "Airline Pilots Representative Organisation" submission would seem to have a lack of understanding of airspace and air routes (we don't have "airways") architecture and procedures.
Also, Ambidgi have no involvement with ARFF (which is a function licensed to Airservices under a CASR Part) nor UNICOMs, nor I suspect would they want to. In fact, when there was a trial of a UNICOM at WG (or was it DU?) one airline's submission was critical of that service.
Whether the traffic or pax numbers justify a TWR, I don't know.
The normal - and formal - procedure would be for CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation to first conduct an aeronautical study of AYE, and the outcome of that would dictate what if any change to airspace or air traffic service was required.
Also, Ambidgi have no involvement with ARFF (which is a function licensed to Airservices under a CASR Part) nor UNICOMs, nor I suspect would they want to. In fact, when there was a trial of a UNICOM at WG (or was it DU?) one airline's submission was critical of that service.
Whether the traffic or pax numbers justify a TWR, I don't know.
The normal - and formal - procedure would be for CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation to first conduct an aeronautical study of AYE, and the outcome of that would dictate what if any change to airspace or air traffic service was required.
Midnight, OAR has played straight into AsA's hands by this conclusion in the report:
Issue:
An Airline Pilot Representative organisation consider that improving levels of safety at Ayers Rock would require the following; to provide surveillance based IFR / IFR separation services to low level to expedite arrivals and departures. There is currently a lack of separation services between IFR aircraft when surveillance is available.
Finding:
Current Air Navigation Service Provider of IFR/IFR services are based on procedural separation standards. Analysis reveals no recorded instances via ATSB or safety issues. Airservices considers that there is merit in conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock. Lowering Class E airspace could enhance service delivery to IFR aircraft at no additional cost to Airservices. Airspace users (including VFR aircraft) could benefit from fitment of ADS-B avionics through the use of surveillance separation standards and surveillance information services.
Recommendation:
Airservices should investigate the benefits of conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock.
I note VFR could allegedly benefit from having ADS-B so they too could be yabbered-to by the E controller while managing the CTAF. Yeh right.
Issue:
An Airline Pilot Representative organisation consider that improving levels of safety at Ayers Rock would require the following; to provide surveillance based IFR / IFR separation services to low level to expedite arrivals and departures. There is currently a lack of separation services between IFR aircraft when surveillance is available.
Finding:
Current Air Navigation Service Provider of IFR/IFR services are based on procedural separation standards. Analysis reveals no recorded instances via ATSB or safety issues. Airservices considers that there is merit in conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock. Lowering Class E airspace could enhance service delivery to IFR aircraft at no additional cost to Airservices. Airspace users (including VFR aircraft) could benefit from fitment of ADS-B avionics through the use of surveillance separation standards and surveillance information services.
Recommendation:
Airservices should investigate the benefits of conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock.
I note VFR could allegedly benefit from having ADS-B so they too could be yabbered-to by the E controller while managing the CTAF. Yeh right.
My interpretation is that Airservices now has to do a cost-benefit analysis, HAZID & safety case, proposed industry consultation, education and an implementation plan, all for CASA OAR to assess and if they agree, exercise their regulatory authority to declare the Class E airspace.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My interpretation is that Airservices now has to do a cost-benefit analysis, HAZID & safety case, proposed industry consultation, education and an implementation plan, all for CASA OAR to assess and if they agree, exercise their regulatory authority to declare the Class E airspace.