Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down
Thank heavens that, as soon as OAR moved from Airservices to CASA, decisions about airspace designation were made on the basis of objective risk and objective cost.
Thank heavens that the removal of Class E corridors like that across Avalon and their replacement with Class C is a consequence of objective cost/benefit analyses.
Do you make any money out of airspace arrangements, CM?
PS: I should have declared, up front, that I make no money out of how airspace is arranged.
Originally Posted by Hoosten
Forget about a restriction to your movements, it won't happen. If you want to know how it works, go fly back and forth over the top of Avalon. But make sure there are no senile, ex-RAAF, B717 pilots there.
Hoosten, now now, don't get narky because your redundo has just gone down the ASX gurgler. Can't produce the cost of E goods can ya? I also see that Led Balon hasn't ripped into you for making that statement and not triple-justifying it, unlike what he's doing to others... You must be a protected species.
Originally Posted by Bloggs
It is up to no body or organisation but Houstin to justify that statement.
Originally Posted by Houstun
Your stupidity is breathtaking. Perhaps CASA should start testing for senility.
Towers everywhere? Bring it on! And connect them to the upper airspace with CONTROLLED (for all) airspace; Class D.
By the way, WHERE IS PORTER??
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 9th Mar 2020 at 13:11. Reason: Noted CM beat me to it.
The burning question. When did the outbound make first contact with ATC? Everything that happened next has a direct outcome from that point. Essentially, the pilot is responsible, not ATC! Drill down! This a circuit area procedural accident. Frequency management is an issue. Ensuring knowledge of inbound traffic you cannot see. (In the day it was FS with information of everybody reporting inbound to your aerodrome, today it is ATC with IFR reporting inbound) The telling question, did outbound follow a common procedure this day as if it were a pure VMC day? Was there a complacency to just launch rather than wait for contact knowing they would get contact before setting course for the first waypoint? Logically, if the outbound was aware of the inbound, the outbound would have stayed on the ground till inbound was visual or reported over the aid, they would have made direct contact with inbound on CTAF to organise same.
This is an accident that should never have got to the point where the question of ATC intervention or airspace classification should arise. Methinks the scene was set the instant both throttles went full power on takeoff
This is an accident that should never have got to the point where the question of ATC intervention or airspace classification should arise. Methinks the scene was set the instant both throttles went full power on takeoff
Hoosten, now now, don't get narky because your redundo has just gone down the ASX gurgler. Can't produce the cost of E goods can ya? I also see that Led Balon hasn't ripped into you for making that statement and not triple-justifying it, unlike what he's doing to others... You must be a protected species.
I don't get access to said redundancy, not in my part of the world at least. who knows, the way things are going in this part of the world I may have a little more time to do your calculations.
I can produce a cost. It would be relatively simple to calculate. To fixate on this is, what? I would say, not the highest priority.
I do not know LB but if he's pointing out the stupidity of your argument, well, that wouldn't be too difficult to be frank.
Originally Posted by Hoostun
I can produce a cost. It would be relatively simple to calculate. To fixate on this is, what? I would say, not the highest priority.
Traffic lights or roundabouts at every intersection have a cost. That's why, even though they would save lives, they are not implemented. It beggars belief that you can't see the same for airspace. Do you and every member of your family and relatives drive a big 2020-model car to ensure you have the latest safety features? Cost isn't the highest priority, is it? Or is it??
Or is it everybody can see through your posting?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 10th Mar 2020 at 04:07. Reason: Spelin.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You could start with the “Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018”, made under section 8 of the Airspace Act 2007, here: https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2018L01386
A quite creative collection of motherhood statements, weasel words and wiggle room dressed up as something important. Do a search for “should” and “opinion”.
A quite creative collection of motherhood statements, weasel words and wiggle room dressed up as something important. Do a search for “should” and “opinion”.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was a magazine article, not the review document 
The CASA review is at the link titled Avalon_Airspace_Review_2019.pdf here:
https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...im-airspace-r/
The CASA review is at the link titled Avalon_Airspace_Review_2019.pdf here:
https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...im-airspace-r/
Recommendation 1 Airservices Australia should review the airspace design and submit to CASA an Airspace Change Proposal to remove the Class E airspace in accordance with the report’s findings and to ensure the airspace classification aligns with the appropriate level of air traffic service at Avalon.
Airspace designation is either on the basis of objective risk or it isn’t.
Aren’t they going to trial class E over C over Hobart soon?
The report from OAR on Avalon highlights so many anomalies within Australian airspace that this post could be nautical miles in length, for one, the ridiculous RA3 status of restricted airspace around the tin pot little airfield at Point Cook. This place has a terrifying 68,000 movements per year, I do not know how they cope, but keeping those pesky Australian citizens outside of the airspace must help. Perhaps Bankstown and Moorabbin should make similar submissions to CASA OAR.
However sticking to the point, at no stage does CASA OAR recommend Class C airspace. Airservices, on the other hand operates the airspace as if it was Class C, in my view this is because the people running Melbourne ATC Centre (where all the senior management is located) have little-to-zero knowledge about how efficiently airspace can be run by Tower controllers.
Point 1 - CASA OAR asks Airservices (the should word) to propose an airspace plan without Class E airspace. (Which CASA OAR itself recommended some years ago)
Point 2 - CASA OAR recommends that the E airspace become Class D (not C) this would still allow the VFR operations causing the problems, but enable the tower controllers to position that VFR traffic out of the way of arriving and departing IFR traffic.
Point 3 - CASA OAR recommends that Avalon Tower manages the Class D airspace with the use of the Tower Situational Awareness Display (TSAD). This is a perfectly functional display of airborne traffic (and ground if ADS-B is incorporated) which is not able to be used for separation purely because Airservices chooses to install it that way. The system only needs some minor modifications to make it comply with ICAO Annex 10, something it has done with the Essendon installation.
It is Airservices in Melbourne that I believe wants to operate the airspace as Class C. Mainly because that fits in with the uneducated views of the radar-orientated managers at that facility. And unfortunately, as identified by Lead Balloon above, the managers that run CASA OAR (not the staff in the branch) do not want CASA to be responsible for airspace changes. They prefer to simply "approve" whatever Airservices or Defence tell them they want. It is better named the Office of Airspace Rubber-Stamping (OARS)
However sticking to the point, at no stage does CASA OAR recommend Class C airspace. Airservices, on the other hand operates the airspace as if it was Class C, in my view this is because the people running Melbourne ATC Centre (where all the senior management is located) have little-to-zero knowledge about how efficiently airspace can be run by Tower controllers.
Point 1 - CASA OAR asks Airservices (the should word) to propose an airspace plan without Class E airspace. (Which CASA OAR itself recommended some years ago)
Point 2 - CASA OAR recommends that the E airspace become Class D (not C) this would still allow the VFR operations causing the problems, but enable the tower controllers to position that VFR traffic out of the way of arriving and departing IFR traffic.
Point 3 - CASA OAR recommends that Avalon Tower manages the Class D airspace with the use of the Tower Situational Awareness Display (TSAD). This is a perfectly functional display of airborne traffic (and ground if ADS-B is incorporated) which is not able to be used for separation purely because Airservices chooses to install it that way. The system only needs some minor modifications to make it comply with ICAO Annex 10, something it has done with the Essendon installation.
It is Airservices in Melbourne that I believe wants to operate the airspace as Class C. Mainly because that fits in with the uneducated views of the radar-orientated managers at that facility. And unfortunately, as identified by Lead Balloon above, the managers that run CASA OAR (not the staff in the branch) do not want CASA to be responsible for airspace changes. They prefer to simply "approve" whatever Airservices or Defence tell them they want. It is better named the Office of Airspace Rubber-Stamping (OARS)