Are commercial pilots still against Class E?

[Dick Smith]

One of the many reasons that I had difficulty in lowering Class E airspace to the circuit area is that many professional pilots were against it. They all claimed that the self-separation they had been doing for many years was satisfactory.

Now that we have had this terrible accident at Mangalore, with four fatalities, have professional pilots changed their minds? What do people think?

[gerry111]

Thank goodness the shops have plenty of popcorn..

[AerocatS2A]

I seem to recall it was E without Radar that some commercial pilots weren't keen on. Subtleties Dick, subtleties. The world is not black/white, us/them.

[Office Update]

Mangalore used to have a Control Tower and a Control Zone; re-activate the facility.

[KRviator]

But - But - everyone has ADS-B now. That'll fix everything!

[Derfred]

How does non-radar Class E assist in a VFR-VFR collision?

[Hoosten]

Covid-19 will be a significant and convenient block to airspace reform in this country. The organisations that were spending money on projects aren't anymore due to significant loss of revenue. What would be a golden opportunity to re-structure the lot in line with onesky is probably gone. On the subject of whether pilots are for or against, they don't know enough about it. Heavily tainted views from pilots with vested interests scuttled it last time. Having said that, a lot of the prior incarnation was done without the appropriate surveillance. E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

[Dick Smith]

In Australia there is a mandatory transponder requirement in class E for VFR aircraft.

Surely that adds to safety compared to class G at the same location.

[Hoosten]

Without surveillance that only helps TCAS or traffic equipped aircraft. There's not a whole lot of that in the GA fleet at the moment.

Gimme Class E any day over the pre-historic and backward Class G, but it needs the surveillance.

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Hoosten

E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

Procedural separation?

It puzzles me that pilots think they can do a better job of arranging separation via radio than ATC. When pilots do their own IFR separation in Class G it seems to be based on the principle that if no-one saw it, it never happened. Whereas if ATC are arranging separation, you know when there was a problem. You can guarantee that for every collision or known loss of separation in Class G, there were hundreds more that went unreported.

[mgahan]

Originally Posted by Hoosten View Post
E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

Not too busy this weekend so I guess I'll have time to review the report of the CASA study: RFQ 09-342: Safety Benefits of Surveillance in Airspace. International study team (US, European, UK, Australia and NZ, all with 25 years plus airspace management experience) and peer reviewed.

Don't worry trying to find it on the CASA website - they decided not to publish it because it failed to toe the party line.

MJG

[Mr Approach]

Hoosten - E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky - ALL airspace is safer with surveillance.

Mr Flappy - VFR used to be separated in Australia when we just had CTA and OCTA however a conundrum existed.
For instance, two VFR aircraft approach a control area self separating, they are then split up by ATC, before going back to self separating when they exit the control area. Where is the sense in that? Worse what if they can no longer see each other but ATC washes their hands of them anyway!

For mgahan the Coolangatta mid-air was a classic example of an airspace long overdue for surveillance - we typically waited for four people to die before putting surveillance in there. You will also remember that the RAAF took back approach control at Townsville because the CAA was still living 30 years behind the traffic.
Nothing has changed!
(PS Have you got a link for RFQ 09-342? I cannot find it)

[Hoosten]

Procedural separation?

I don't think the intent of Class E is to be non-surveillance therefore procedural sep, do-able, no probs. There are huge advances in surveillance and much cheaper than setting up radar heads all over the place.

Hoosten - E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky - ALL airspace is safer with surveillance.

I hear you, my reply above yours is probably applicable to you too I reckon?

[mgahan]

Approach - PM sent.

MJG

[Vref+5]

So, Australian pilots of IFR aircraft would prefer to arrange themselves to no particular standard. rather than have ATC apply defined separation standards , even when ATC have both aircraft identified via ADS-B ? You know? That equipment that you had to have fitted under the mandatory ADS-B requirements? You paid all that money yet don’t expect any return??

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Hoosten

I don't think the intent of Class E is to be non-surveillance therefore procedural sep

The intent of class E is to separate aircraft in IMC. Surveillance or non surveillance is secondary, and would be dependent on traffic and availability of the equipment.

[andrewr]

Originally Posted by Mr Approach

E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky

It is slow and clunky because that is what is required to ensure separation.

Separation in IMC in class G should be EVEN MORE clunky because it is being done by pilots who can't issue instructions to other aircraft and don't have an ATC-style big picture of the situation.

If it isn't more clunky than ATC procedural separation, it is because they are not applying the same safety standards.

[Hoosten]

It is slow and clunky because that is what is required to ensure separation.

Yep, I know, I did it for 18 years or so.

Separation in IMC in class G should be EVEN MORE clunky because it is being done by pilots who can't issue instructions to other aircraft and don't have an ATC-style big picture of the situation.

Yep, I know, been doing that for about 15 years, I've had the benefit of the other stuff I did for 18 years to help me out. Unfortunately a lot of IFR dudes, IFR in G, don't understand what can be provided in E.

[Hoosten]

The intent of class E is to separate aircraft in IMC. Surveillance or non surveillance is secondary, and would be dependent on traffic and availability of the equipment.

If a VFR aircraft requires a transponder in Class E airspace, I would argue that the intent of Class E airspace is for it to be survielled, Not a crack at ya, obviously Class E can be done procedurally but I don't think I'd want to be mixing it there without surveillance.

[Hoosten]

So, Australian pilots of IFR aircraft would prefer to arrange themselves to no particular standard. rather than have ATC apply defined separation standards , even when ATC have both aircraft identified via ADS-B ? You know? That equipment that you had to have fitted under the mandatory ADS-B requirements? You paid all that money yet don't expect any return??

Pretty much sums it up. Pilots need to get out a little more and see how it's done elsewhere, an open mind helps.

AOPA in the US wouldn't cop this sort of garbage, if you're mandating equipment, stump up the procedures that use it.