Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down
Class E at Avalon was a political load of crap, it was implemented to appease certain people.
As I said the controllers do a remarkable job given what has been thrown at them. But the point remains that it is not Class E in reality, it has been modified and Australianised (in other words, effed up).
Put E where it will significantly improve and enhance safety, YMNG.
If Class E is not justified at YMAV, re-classify it, easy.
(I am Porter)
As I said the controllers do a remarkable job given what has been thrown at them. But the point remains that it is not Class E in reality, it has been modified and Australianised (in other words, effed up).
Put E where it will significantly improve and enhance safety, YMNG.
If Class E is not justified at YMAV, re-classify it, easy.
(I am Porter)
Last edited by Hoosten; 13th Mar 2020 at 12:06.
What service would have prevented this accident?
(I am Porter)
I challenge you to tell the families of those killed that this country can't afford to implement solutions that would 100% prevented the MNG accident.
How about posting an example of the letter you'd write to the families of the 4 people killed telling them that Australia can't afford Class E.
And how would you explain that the 4 million lost to the community was wasted and could have been spent providing probably 6 years of Class E in the sectors concerned?
****, forgot,
(I am Porter)
You can't take it can you? You can dish the trash out but when it comes to answering the hard stuff. You wilt. We have a name for people like you.
(I am Porter)
I'm not really, but whatever rocks your boat.
(I am Porter)
I'm not really, but whatever rocks your boat.
Run along Captain L,
Report to moderator.
My job here is done. People are now discussing Class E and a modern airspace system. Most of them get it, you? Keep livin' in the dark ages old son.
You are unable to discuss any points, it's your way or the highway.
Tootle Pip
(I am Leadsled)
Report to moderator.
My job here is done. People are now discussing Class E and a modern airspace system. Most of them get it, you? Keep livin' in the dark ages old son.
You are unable to discuss any points, it's your way or the highway.
Tootle Pip
(I am Leadsled)
I thought you were Lead Balloon. In any event...
One of my compatriots flew in the US on RPT CRJs. He said almost every regional airport he went to had a tower.
Yet...
That’s precisely what happens every day in Australian G. HCRPT in and out of aerodromes with no tower, while yakking on the CTAF and seeing and avoiding.
The response of some on this thread to the MNG tragedy seems in effect to be: We must retain G!
Difficult to know where to start with all that.
There is evidence about the risk of operations in Class E. Millions of cubic kilometres of it and millions of movements through it over many decades. Yes: there have been mid airs in it, just as there will eventually be a mid air in Australian C.
Most pilots I know understand how E is supposed to work. And it works as it is supposed to work in almost all of the places in Australia where it’s been designated. The Avalon dog’s breakfast is a tiny percentage of E in Australia and is the product of a combination of factors some of which have nothing to do with objective risk and cost effective risk mitigation.
Resistance to Class E from CASA and ASA? Errrrmmm...they are the only organisations which have had the power to designate airspace for the last few decades! First Airservices, now CASA.
If CASA and ASA don’t like E, why did they designate it? It wasn’t the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster that designated it.
If CASA and ASA don’t like the E at Avalon, why is it still there? Why all this pussy-footing around? Wouldn’t Airservices have already “recommended” to CASA that CASA do its job, and wouldn’t CASA have been happy to “act” on that “recommendation”?
A suggestion as to what’s going on, if I may: There are differences of opinion within Airservices about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within CASA about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within the pilot population about the risks of Class E airspace. In a sensible and coherent airspace designation system, those opinions would be disregarded in favour of what happens in the real world: There would be assessments of objective risks and the costs of the available mitigations of those risks. There would be data. Numbers. $$$ figures. But as Sunfish pointed out, there is nothing like that in the review of the Avalon airspace. Instead: waffle, and the bizarre spectacle of the regulator (CASA OAR) in effect recommending to the regulated (Airservices) that the regulated make a recommendation to the regulator. I suggest that when this kind of bizarre behavior occurs, there’s more at play than just “the safety of air navigation”. Much more.
E D A yada yada yada. Call it what you like. If you're happy with jets mixing it in VMC E doing IFR Pickups and Dropdowns, throw in a VFR or two effectively NORDO, half of them yakking on Comm 2 on the CTAF trying to organise a landing sequence, all the while Seeing And Avoiding, be my guest. All I'll say is thank God for TCAS and the Big Sky Theory.
One of my compatriots flew in the US on RPT CRJs. He said almost every regional airport he went to had a tower.
That’s precisely what happens every day in Australian G. HCRPT in and out of aerodromes with no tower, while yakking on the CTAF and seeing and avoiding.
The response of some on this thread to the MNG tragedy seems in effect to be: We must retain G!
My personal opinion is more extensive use of class E to utilise the increased surveillance available would provide a sound net increase in safety for IFR aircraft. However I have absolutely no real evidence to back that up and I have not personally seen class E utilised in the way some are suggesting here.
As for the resistance to class E in Australia, I think it may be a combination of most pilots don’t actually understand it, the obvious implementation of it (Avalon) was done quite poorly, and there is resistance to it from airlines as well as CASA and ASA. I don’t know how to solve those problems.
As for the resistance to class E in Australia, I think it may be a combination of most pilots don’t actually understand it, the obvious implementation of it (Avalon) was done quite poorly, and there is resistance to it from airlines as well as CASA and ASA. I don’t know how to solve those problems.
There is evidence about the risk of operations in Class E. Millions of cubic kilometres of it and millions of movements through it over many decades. Yes: there have been mid airs in it, just as there will eventually be a mid air in Australian C.
Most pilots I know understand how E is supposed to work. And it works as it is supposed to work in almost all of the places in Australia where it’s been designated. The Avalon dog’s breakfast is a tiny percentage of E in Australia and is the product of a combination of factors some of which have nothing to do with objective risk and cost effective risk mitigation.
Resistance to Class E from CASA and ASA? Errrrmmm...they are the only organisations which have had the power to designate airspace for the last few decades! First Airservices, now CASA.
If CASA and ASA don’t like E, why did they designate it? It wasn’t the Giant Flying Spaghetti Monster that designated it.
If CASA and ASA don’t like the E at Avalon, why is it still there? Why all this pussy-footing around? Wouldn’t Airservices have already “recommended” to CASA that CASA do its job, and wouldn’t CASA have been happy to “act” on that “recommendation”?
A suggestion as to what’s going on, if I may: There are differences of opinion within Airservices about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within CASA about the risks of Class E airspace. There are differences of opinion within the pilot population about the risks of Class E airspace. In a sensible and coherent airspace designation system, those opinions would be disregarded in favour of what happens in the real world: There would be assessments of objective risks and the costs of the available mitigations of those risks. There would be data. Numbers. $$$ figures. But as Sunfish pointed out, there is nothing like that in the review of the Avalon airspace. Instead: waffle, and the bizarre spectacle of the regulator (CASA OAR) in effect recommending to the regulated (Airservices) that the regulated make a recommendation to the regulator. I suggest that when this kind of bizarre behavior occurs, there’s more at play than just “the safety of air navigation”. Much more.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 14th Mar 2020 at 05:54. Reason: Corrected a couple of grammatical errors
What defences
are there in place to prevent a midair between a VFR and an IFR in E?
If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one pprune VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?
Balloon, Class E at Avalon was implemented to appease and shut one particular person up.
Last edited by Hoosten; 14th Mar 2020 at 08:43.
The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.
If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one pprune VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?
Balloon, Class E at Avalon was implemented to appease and shut one particular person up.
But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely.
Originally Posted by Hooson
The same defences you have in your beloved Class G, EXCEPT.......You are being positively separated with other IFR.
If you hit a VFR who happens to be in IMC (as I know one PPRuNe VFR regular who likes to boast that his home made panel is fine in IMC) then what can you do about a criminal and deliberate negligent act (VFR flying in IMC)?
Originally Posted by Balun
But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely
My job here is done
How about posting an example of the letter you'd write to the families of the 4 people killed telling them that Australia can't afford Class E.
Last edited by megan; 14th Mar 2020 at 07:17.
The 346 folks killed in the MAX's were killed by a corner-cutting aircraft manufacturer and the failure of the regulator to detect the corner-cutting. I'm not sure what that has to do with the causes of the tragedy at MNG.
Cap'n: When you talk to those VFRs in G and they talk to you, how do know they are the only VFRs in G and how do you know they are where they think and say they are? (I've never had any problem complying with the lawful commands of my superiors and the directions of ATC. What point you're trying to make is too cryptic for me.)
Cap'n: When you talk to those VFRs in G and they talk to you, how do know they are the only VFRs in G and how do you know they are where they think and say they are? (I've never had any problem complying with the lawful commands of my superiors and the directions of ATC. What point you're trying to make is too cryptic for me.)
When you talk to those VFRs in G and they talk to you,
how do you know they are where they think and say they are?
Plenty of other unknown in the system, like TCAS RAs because of controller and pilot stuffups, runway incursions and so the list goes on.
If you're so worried (although I suspect you are only asking because you have nothing better to do than annoy me) about all the potential failings of the system, put in Class A with ADS-B for VFR everywhere. Dick introduced User Pays (unlike hte USA) so it won't come out of my pocket...
I don't see an ILS being put into Lockhart River anytime soon. I wonder why...
The fact is, the current system is set up so that if the participants do the right thing, it'll work. There are defences (not including Se and Avoid). My point is that E has NO defences for VFR verses IFR. We would be knowingly introducing a system in which unalerted See and Avoid is the only defence.
I've never had any problem complying with the lawful commands of my superiors
Ahhh Cap'n, there you go mistaking administrative decision-makers for members of the military. The "lads in the OAR" who designate airspace are delegates of the power to do so, and are supposed to exercise those powers independently. The law says that an administrative decision made by a delegate under the dictation of someone else is an unlawful decision. If they don't understand this, they shouldn't be in the job. If they understand this but nonetheless capitulate, they are cowards or corrupt or both.
You obviously don't know how G works then. I talk to VFRs in G, they talk to me, and we avoid each other. That doesn't happen in E.
megan, regarding the MAX, I'm sure the lawyers involved from all party's will get the letter composition right. And I'm also sure that the regulator or Boeing won't get too many opportunities to go down that path again. That's what happens most of the time in the US.
In the case of MNG, what opportunity will there be to lawyer up? NONE, because the profit making ANSP was acting within its purview. The OAR will also sit there fat dumb and happy, nothing to see here. And CASA will simply say it was an accident.
Your talk about under resourcing, there is none when a profit is being made. Except when the resourcing is sacrificed for a return to government.
Well done you mate for your thoughtful reply that doesn't take away from the fact, your airspace is hopelessly inadequate in a number of high traffic areas.
Didn't you know
(I am Porter)
except when
(I am Leadsled)
Tootle Pip
In the case of MNG, what opportunity will there be to lawyer up? NONE, because the profit making ANSP was acting within its purview. The OAR will also sit there fat dumb and happy, nothing to see here. And CASA will simply say it was an accident.
Your talk about under resourcing, there is none when a profit is being made. Except when the resourcing is sacrificed for a return to government.
Well done you mate for your thoughtful reply that doesn't take away from the fact, your airspace is hopelessly inadequate in a number of high traffic areas.
Didn't you know
(I am Porter)
except when
(I am Leadsled)
Tootle Pip
But surely a regulator with any integrity wouldn’t designate airspace just to shut one person up? Surely.