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

Class E at Ayres Rock proposed by AsA

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

Class E at Ayres Rock proposed by AsA

Old 25th Jan 2019, 04:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 701
Class E at Ayres Rock proposed by AsA

kaz3g is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 05:15
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055
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 -

CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 07:38
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 33
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
BlockNotAvailable is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 11:19
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 891
Hang on... there are still VFR aircraft?

I thought GA was dead!

Ironically though, Class E down to 1200í 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)
Derfred is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 22:59
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by BlockNotAvailable View Post
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

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 wonít 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.
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 23:02
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by Derfred View Post
Hang on... there are still VFR aircraft?

I thought GA was dead!

Ironically though, Class E down to 1200í 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)
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.
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 23:06
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,835
Originally Posted by Ia8825 View Post
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 wonít 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.
But think of the savings to AsA, and the bigger "dividends" to the shareholders. Mr. Shorten will be most pleased, as aviation under Labor is set to become even more of a cash cow for governments than it already is!!
Tootle pip!!

LeadSled is online now  
Old 25th Jan 2019, 23:15
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
But think of the savings to AsA, and the bigger "dividends" to the shareholders. Mr. Shorten will be most pleased, as aviation under Labor is set to become even more of a cash cow for governments than it already is!!
Tootle pip!!
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.
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 04:39
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 936
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post
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 -
Over the past week the RAPAC Convenors have put forward the following resolution, perhaps the result of a number of matters that Airservices have put forward in the past year with minimal notice and/or consultation.

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.


triadic is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 05:27
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4
It's interesting that the Ayers Rock proposal has already been adjusted internally so that class E would only go down to A055. I wonder when the website will be amended?
atcnews is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 07:07
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by triadic View Post
Over the past week the RAPAC Convenors have put forward the following resolution, perhaps the result of a number of matters that Airservices have put forward in the past year with minimal notice and/or consultation.
Hmm ...

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.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 11:06
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 516
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
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.
topdrop is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 21:52
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: YXXX
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by topdrop View Post
Just make sure the safety case requires the appropriate training and you should be good to go.
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.
BlockNotAvailable is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2019, 23:47
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,734
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.
Precisely. Is AsA seriously going to try to introduce an approach service to 1200ft? It can't/won't do it at Hobart, why on earth is it going to try at a busy CTAF? There is no safety issue at Ayers Rock, nor will "efficiency" be improved. Spend a bit of money on an ADS-B aerial at Hobart and fix that shemozzle properly first.

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”.
From the latest CASA Airspace Review

Put in a tower!
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 27th Jan 2019, 03:17
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 51
Originally Posted by topdrop View Post
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.
I think the main issues that controllers have with this would be:

1. The lack of appropriate training. I am not certain yet, but I believe the ďappropriate trainingĒ for the change at Tamworth has been deemed as 1 day sim. Thatís 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 donít see any actual efficiency/safety benefit to it. It doesnít give extra safety from radar monitoring because tower can already do that with TSAD, itís not allowing more efficient airspace use because itís 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.
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 05:59
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 936
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.
triadic is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 08:36
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055
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.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 11:04
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,734
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.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 28th Jan 2019, 23:19
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,055
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Midnight, OAR has played straight into AsA's hands by this conclusion in the report:
<snip>

Recommendation:
Airservices should investigate the benefits of conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock.
I don't interpret that to mean go ahead and do it, just "investigate the benefits".

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.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2019, 00:34
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 936

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.
100% correct Capt
triadic 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.