Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down
Spoiler
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just maybe we have got the wrong idea? Back in 2014 London/Heathrow changed from Class A to Class D. Seems to give them much added flexibility. Class E has been used for many years in the USA and pilots and controllers are used to it, whereas Class E in Oz is a much more recent addition to the airspace menu. I am still not convinced that the pilots it is designed for (VFR) know how it should work or how to participate in it. It certainly has a role, but the very small amounts and the failure of related pilot education makes it that much harder, which of course it isn't. In the US, I suspect that VFR pilots fly more in E than they do in G. Some talk to the controller, whilst others turn the music on! A very different culture!
CAA approves reclassification of airspace around London Heathrow - Airport World Magazine
CAA approves reclassification of airspace around London Heathrow - Airport World Magazine
There is no training for Ppl on operations in class E. I had to ask questions and work it out myself around Avalon. Even the instructor I used didn’t know. We got caught in the trap at Leopold where the lower level drops to 1500. You think you are clear, but aren’t.
Lets face it, would I be wrong in thinking that CASA, AsA, the airlines RAAF and local councils hate small GA and private aircraft and pilots. We should return the favour via the ballot box as well as acting legally accordingly. Where is AOPA?
To put that another way, I automatically defer to Polair and Air ambulance. RPT? Not sure I would these days unless legally required although I used to. I can’t stand the automatic superiority of the Capt. Bloggs of this world.
Lets face it, would I be wrong in thinking that CASA, AsA, the airlines RAAF and local councils hate small GA and private aircraft and pilots. We should return the favour via the ballot box as well as acting legally accordingly. Where is AOPA?
To put that another way, I automatically defer to Polair and Air ambulance. RPT? Not sure I would these days unless legally required although I used to. I can’t stand the automatic superiority of the Capt. Bloggs of this world.
Last edited by Sunfish; 10th Mar 2020 at 10:55.
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)
What fascinates (and depresses) me most is that the airspace designation system is now so busted that the people involved no longer comprehend what they are revealing in the documents they produce. It’s like the colour-coded sports grants spreadsheet that was emailed and amended so many times spanning the point at which the election was called and the caretaker period commenced. The people involved are now so disconnected from any standards of propriety that they no longer see or worry about the inappropriateness of what they are recording in writing.
So the end result will be that the airspace arrangements in the vicinity of Avalon will be changed to suit the wishes of some Airservices and CASA bureaucrats (having been originally changed to suit a political purpose that may or may not have been justified on objective risk and cost bases), in response to a “Change Proposal” from Airservices. Great. Just great.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Idlewild Peake
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"We got caught in the trap at Leopold where the lower level drops to 1500."
Please excuse the thread drift.
Does anyone else think that there should be a brown line on the VTC to indicate that there is a change in the E base from 2500 to 1500 at the 8nm arc both to the north and south of Avalon?
Please excuse the thread drift.
Does anyone else think that there should be a brown line on the VTC to indicate that there is a change in the E base from 2500 to 1500 at the 8nm arc both to the north and south of Avalon?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E is not for the benefit of VFR aircraft.
Class E provides additional services to IFR aircraft over what they would have received in G i.e. separation.
I'm not surprised if the Avalon airspace is being reviewed. It appears to have been designed to fail. It has been located to provide no benefit (or even lesser service) to IFR aircraft rather than benefits. Given the ongoing opposition to Class E as used e.g. in the USA, I suspect it was set up so they could say "Yes we tried it", without any chance of success.
(I was out flying today. With multiple IFR aircraft operating in G, ATC go on ... and on ... and on giving traffic information to everyone. It takes them so long - are you SURE it wouldn't be more efficient to give clearances?)
Class E provides additional services to IFR aircraft over what they would have received in G i.e. separation.
I'm not surprised if the Avalon airspace is being reviewed. It appears to have been designed to fail. It has been located to provide no benefit (or even lesser service) to IFR aircraft rather than benefits. Given the ongoing opposition to Class E as used e.g. in the USA, I suspect it was set up so they could say "Yes we tried it", without any chance of success.
(I was out flying today. With multiple IFR aircraft operating in G, ATC go on ... and on ... and on giving traffic information to everyone. It takes them so long - are you SURE it wouldn't be more efficient to give clearances?)
Triadic the UK CAA were as confusing with their use of the ICAO airspace classifications as Australia. The London airspace changed when the European Authority decreed that airspace, once designated as a class could not then be "modified" to suit local conventions.The then London Class A (ICAO - IFR only) was full of VFR helicopter operations flying VFR under local exemptions, this was banned by the European authorities so it had to become Class D. By the way this also occurs in the Sydney Class C where, under an exemption, police helicopters are not subject to Class C separation. This effectively makes it Class D for those operations and note that London did not become Class C. According to the CASA web site CASA intends to enshrine that exemption in changes to CASR Part 172 (Air Traffic Services) instead of following the European lead and changing the airspace classification to suit the traffic requirements. In other words Sydney Class C should be Class D the same as London, and for exactly the same reason. In fact all of our Class C Control Zones have the same helicopter problem however do not hold your breath. Once again the ICAO idea that pilots should be able to look up a chart, see and airspace class, and know exactly what service they can expect, is totally lost on the people fiddling around with regulations
Class E is a whole world of hurt for me having endured 30 years of ignorant push-back from ATS and pilots alike. I saw it work in the US and you can still see it working in many You Tube videos. Pilots would get the idea if it was everywhere, but having small blocks of it here there and everywhere makes it a foreign environment instead of the normal. To do that unfortunately would cause Airservices to have to create more sectors and therefore start losing money. Currently unlike the US, Canada, and many other countries, their service is required to make money (cost recovery) and pay a dividend to the Federal Government.
Our Government seems to have truck loads of money to spend on buildings full of public servants ensuring that old people are not claiming the old age pension when they have assets, (NZ has no such process everyone gets the OAP because it is cheaper to do it that way!) but nothing to spend on employing more ATCs (also de facto public servants) to ensure that all citizens flying in cloud are adequately separated from each other. The Federal Parliament should be embarrassed if not ashamed at such neglect.
Class E is a whole world of hurt for me having endured 30 years of ignorant push-back from ATS and pilots alike. I saw it work in the US and you can still see it working in many You Tube videos. Pilots would get the idea if it was everywhere, but having small blocks of it here there and everywhere makes it a foreign environment instead of the normal. To do that unfortunately would cause Airservices to have to create more sectors and therefore start losing money. Currently unlike the US, Canada, and many other countries, their service is required to make money (cost recovery) and pay a dividend to the Federal Government.
Our Government seems to have truck loads of money to spend on buildings full of public servants ensuring that old people are not claiming the old age pension when they have assets, (NZ has no such process everyone gets the OAP because it is cheaper to do it that way!) but nothing to spend on employing more ATCs (also de facto public servants) to ensure that all citizens flying in cloud are adequately separated from each other. The Federal Parliament should be embarrassed if not ashamed at such neglect.
Originally Posted by uncle8
Does anyone else think that there should be a brown line on the VTC to indicate that there is a change in the E base from 2500 to 1500 at the 8nm arc both to the north and south of Avalon?
Originally Posted by Andrew R
Class E is not for the benefit of VFR aircraft.
As for the "if it's not IMC, IFR don't need ATC", this is also nonsense. "OK, no clearance available? Let's go IFR-Pickup". Do some research on how many heavy-jet companies actually allow their operations to switch to VFR because a ATC clearance wasn't available. Not to mention the IFR cowboys (yes Huustan, cowboys) doing an IFR pickup with no prior coordination with the other IFR aircraft that is so close to them ATC can't/won't give them a clearance. Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right??
I'm not surprised if the Avalon airspace is being reviewed. It appears to have been designed to fail. It has been located to provide no benefit (or even lesser service) to IFR aircraft rather than benefits. Given the ongoing opposition to Class E as used e.g. in the USA, I suspect it was set up so they could say "Yes we tried it", without any chance of success.
Originally Posted by Triadic
In the US, I suspect that VFR pilots fly more in E than they do in G. Some talk to the controller, whilst others turn the music on! A very different culture!
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 10th Mar 2020 at 12:04. Reason: Lowered my Hoostenesque tone.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is significant thread drift, but with good reason I suggest.
Mr A, I agree with your post. The Heli use in some areas needs to be catered for and obviously in the LHR case, Class D best suited their need as might be the case at some zones in Oz. I do not believe that the education of airspace classifications and their use is a high priority for CASA and this shows with how many pilots tackle ops in Class E. The entrenched culture in Oz still highlights controlled and uncontrolled airspace as it was in the days of FS. What the letters mean to many pilots, especially GA is a mystery. As I said in the previous post, class E in the US is almost everywhere above 1200ft agl and the pilots there have grown up with that system. In theory it should work in a similar way here, however we need to review what locations and associated radar/adsb coverage so that ATC can do their job in that airspace and it can be targeted to those locations that justify such services. An early post stated the provision of pilot education in airspace is something that is left to the flying schools and training departments. It is not covered in an CASA exams! Not really good enough.
Mr A, I agree with your post. The Heli use in some areas needs to be catered for and obviously in the LHR case, Class D best suited their need as might be the case at some zones in Oz. I do not believe that the education of airspace classifications and their use is a high priority for CASA and this shows with how many pilots tackle ops in Class E. The entrenched culture in Oz still highlights controlled and uncontrolled airspace as it was in the days of FS. What the letters mean to many pilots, especially GA is a mystery. As I said in the previous post, class E in the US is almost everywhere above 1200ft agl and the pilots there have grown up with that system. In theory it should work in a similar way here, however we need to review what locations and associated radar/adsb coverage so that ATC can do their job in that airspace and it can be targeted to those locations that justify such services. An early post stated the provision of pilot education in airspace is something that is left to the flying schools and training departments. It is not covered in an CASA exams! Not really good enough.
Make up your mind, I thought it was Porter?
You don't know how it works, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't done an hour's flight in the US?
I've had the good fortune to fly IFR in both systems, I've had the good fortune to instruct in both systems. And I've also had the good fortune to get away from it all, VFR in both systems.
Just admit it, you hate Americans. Your hate is obvious. Your cowboy comment is ignorant and arrogant and is typical of the Austronaut. Fly's a jet overseas once a month, lands in the off peak periods and thinks they've been there and done that. Your ignorance is based on no working knowledge of what's involved in the different classes of airspace.
And please donot refer to me as Hoosten in future, I kinda like this Porter guy.
I don't hate you in return. I just think you should retire and get out of the way of pilots who can adapt to change.
You don't know how it works, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't done an hour's flight in the US?
I've had the good fortune to fly IFR in both systems, I've had the good fortune to instruct in both systems. And I've also had the good fortune to get away from it all, VFR in both systems.
Just admit it, you hate Americans. Your hate is obvious. Your cowboy comment is ignorant and arrogant and is typical of the Austronaut. Fly's a jet overseas once a month, lands in the off peak periods and thinks they've been there and done that. Your ignorance is based on no working knowledge of what's involved in the different classes of airspace.
And please donot refer to me as Hoosten in future, I kinda like this Porter guy.
I don't hate you in return. I just think you should retire and get out of the way of pilots who can adapt to change.
Join Date: Nov 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As for the "if it's not IMC, IFR don't need ATC", this is also nonsense. "OK, no clearance available? Let's go IFR-Pickup". Do some research on how many heavy-jet companies actually allow their operations to switch to VFR because a ATC clearance wasn't available. Not to mention the IFR cowboys (yes Huustan, cowboys) doing an IFR pickup with no prior coordination with the other IFR aircraft that is so close to them ATC can't/won't give them a clearance. Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right
Calling IFR pickup a cowboy manoeuvre is a pretty broad statement. As far as Class E goes in Australia, I see 2 issues. Pilots don’t actually understand how to use it, what level of service is provided and exactly what is and isn’t controlled in it. Controllers don’t fully understand the purpose of it, and don’t like not being fully in control of “their” airspace.
Class E is a whole world of hurt for me having endured 30 years of ignorant push-back from ATS and pilots alike. I saw it work in the US and you can still see it working in many You Tube videos.
Pilots would get the idea if it was everywhere, but having small blocks of it here there and everywhere makes it a foreign environment instead of the normal. To do that unfortunately would cause Airservices to have to create more sectors and therefore start losing money. Currently unlike the US, Canada, and many other countries, their service is required to make money (cost recovery) and pay a dividend to the Federal Government.
Our Government seems to have truck loads of money to spend on buildings full of public servants ensuring that old people are not claiming the old age pension when they have assets, (NZ has no such process everyone gets the OAP because it is cheaper to do it that way!) but nothing to spend on employing more ATCs (also de facto public servants) to ensure that all citizens flying in cloud are adequately separated from each other. The Federal Parliament should be embarrassed if not ashamed at such neglect.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly you haven't had a listen to 135.7 of recent times (AV APP 133.55 is often combined with 135.7).
Quite a lot of IFR training ex MB & EN combined with AWK against and inside the CTR boundaries, VFR transits and the traffic into and out of AVV itself.
Quite a lot of IFR training ex MB & EN combined with AWK against and inside the CTR boundaries, VFR transits and the traffic into and out of AVV itself.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Mangalore had class E down to 1200' it would benefit IFR because they would get ATC separation and this accident would likely have been prevented. But I don't see the benefits you are claiming for VFR aircraft?
"IFR need ATC" is basically the argument in favor of Class E.
Captain Bloggs - You ask "Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right??"
Yes - that is exactly what they do, see this You Tube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcEeKzeb5A> The Premier jet departs uncontrolled airport MIles City VFR and at 9000 feet requests an IFR clearance to Vancouver from Salt Lake (ATC) Centre. In the US it is not called an IFR pick up, as I recall Dick Smith invented that term so that Australians might understand the process. To an American pilot it is an activation of his/her filed IFR flight plan and can take place through a Tower in Class C or D airspace, as is done in Australia, or through direct contact with a Centre while on the ground if the weather is IFR at an uncontrolled airport.
In this video the Premier departs for a VFR flight from Gary Indiana for Indy Exec Airport <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITrQwsUdNbY> Gary is Class D with a VFR Tower Indy Exec is an uncontrolled airport but the Class E airspace base would be 700 feet because it has an instrument approach. The FBO is listening on the CTAF but not providing a UNICOM service.
I hope this helps
Yes - that is exactly what they do, see this You Tube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcEeKzeb5A> The Premier jet departs uncontrolled airport MIles City VFR and at 9000 feet requests an IFR clearance to Vancouver from Salt Lake (ATC) Centre. In the US it is not called an IFR pick up, as I recall Dick Smith invented that term so that Australians might understand the process. To an American pilot it is an activation of his/her filed IFR flight plan and can take place through a Tower in Class C or D airspace, as is done in Australia, or through direct contact with a Centre while on the ground if the weather is IFR at an uncontrolled airport.
In this video the Premier departs for a VFR flight from Gary Indiana for Indy Exec Airport <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITrQwsUdNbY> Gary is Class D with a VFR Tower Indy Exec is an uncontrolled airport but the Class E airspace base would be 700 feet because it has an instrument approach. The FBO is listening on the CTAF but not providing a UNICOM service.
I hope this helps
If Mangalore had class E down to 1200' it would benefit IFR because they would get ATC separation and this accident would likely have been prevented. But I don't see the benefits you are claiming for VFR aircraft?
"IFR need ATC" is basically the argument in favor of Class E.
"IFR need ATC" is basically the argument in favor of Class E.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E now defacto Class D?
I was curious about Sunfish's comment about the Class E level being a trap for VFR pilots, since VFR aircraft do not require a clearance in class E. Where is the trap?
I checked the requirements in API for VFR flight in Class E, and found this curiosity:
Class E : VFR : Radio COM RQMNTS : Continuous two way
Continuous 2 way is a definite step above monitoring the frequency.
For Class D airspace clearance is required but "For entry into Class D airspace, establishment of two way communications between the aircraft and ATC constitutes a clearance for the pilot to enter the Class D airspace"
There is also a definition of 2 way communication:
ATC Response
(aircraft callsign): Communications Established: Yes
Response to the initial radio call without using the aircraft callsign: Communications Established: No
It appears to enter Class E you need to call ATC, and have them respond with your call sign. Then you have 2 way communications. It looks very much the same as for Class D - yes you don't need a clearance for Class E, but satisfying the Class E requirements WOULD be considered a clearance in Class D.
I don't recall this being part of the original education or implementation. It is a bit awkward, effectively "You don't need a clearance, you just need something exactly the same as a clearance". It really appears there are conflicting forces at work - an overall movement to implement airspace changes, with others coming along later and making small changes to create problems.
I checked the requirements in API for VFR flight in Class E, and found this curiosity:
Class E : VFR : Radio COM RQMNTS : Continuous two way
Continuous 2 way is a definite step above monitoring the frequency.
For Class D airspace clearance is required but "For entry into Class D airspace, establishment of two way communications between the aircraft and ATC constitutes a clearance for the pilot to enter the Class D airspace"
There is also a definition of 2 way communication:
ATC Response
(aircraft callsign): Communications Established: Yes
Response to the initial radio call without using the aircraft callsign: Communications Established: No
It appears to enter Class E you need to call ATC, and have them respond with your call sign. Then you have 2 way communications. It looks very much the same as for Class D - yes you don't need a clearance for Class E, but satisfying the Class E requirements WOULD be considered a clearance in Class D.
I don't recall this being part of the original education or implementation. It is a bit awkward, effectively "You don't need a clearance, you just need something exactly the same as a clearance". It really appears there are conflicting forces at work - an overall movement to implement airspace changes, with others coming along later and making small changes to create problems.