Class E Lowering to circuit height

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

I have heard of a proposal for Class E airspace to be lowered to 1,500AGL over the continent, but I can’t find anything on this on the wwweb. Who would be putting out the proposal? Airservices? CASA? ATSB?

[triadic]

Any such suggestion would be presented at the various national RAPAC meetings. To date it has not. This proposal seems to be similar to that in the USA. It has been raised previously (over 20 yrs ago) but the entrenched culture in Oz was not interested except in maybe some very specific locations.

[mgahan]

IT IS CALLED SURVEILLANCE COVERAGE

As with previous threads on this topic I'll watch for a while and then trot out the graphic of low level surveillance coverage in the US. Might even get a chance to mention CASA RFQ09-342.

With Christmas approaching it is probably appropriate for chestnuts to be produced.

MJG

[Capn Bloggs]

Any such suggestion would be presented at the various national RAPAC meetings.

There will be no more RAPAC meetings.

It has been raised previously (over 20 yrs ago) but the entrenched culture in Oz was not interested

Yes, I never was interested in, on the one hand being bossed about by ATC and on the other, trying to coordinate with other IFRs and VFRs actually getting onto and off the runway. It's got to be either high or on the deck with ATC controlling the runway as well, Dual-frequency comms is the biggest threat we face, IMV.

Christmas Hamspter wheel...

[triadic]

Quote:
Any such suggestion would be presented at the various national RAPAC meetings.

There will be no more RAPAC meetings.

Although CASA are trying to change the format and the name (which they don't own) the process is still in place tho' over the last 9 months it has taken a battering due to the virus. All the Convenors are still there and will continue to be there under the new CASA proposals (which have not yet been tested). Any discussion of additional Class E will go on that table whatever it is called.

[Capn Bloggs]

Triadic,

That is not the way I see it. The only "face to face" meetings will be day-long seminars, twice a year. There will be no "around the table with experts" technical discussion, as used to occur at RAPAC meetings.

Otherwise, the ONLY interaction will be via the AVSEF website, which of course allows the powers that be/proponents of a change to simply ignore any suggestion or counter view. You can't get away with that at a RAPAC meeting; you can when you are hiding behind a keyboard.

I'm sorry to say it but...RAPAC is dead.

[Dehavillanddriver]

I think you will find it is happening and Airservices are already working on implementation

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey, Come on!!

Its only 29 years since the initial deletion of F S Services to VFR traffic OCTA

12 / 12 / '91 ring a bell..???

Let it snow, let it snow, let it snow.........Just can't get that Christmas Carol outta my mind.....

Wot's another 'few' years...???

[triadic]

That is not the way I see it. The only "face to face" meetings will be day-long seminars, twice a year. There will be no "around the table with experts" technical discussion, as used to occur at RAPAC meetings.

That is the CASA proposal, but there is discussion in the background on this obvious deficiency. As proposed it is not going to work!

Otherwise, the ONLY interaction will be via the AVSEF website, which of course allows the powers that be/proponents of a change to simply ignore any suggestion or counter view. You can't get away with that at a RAPAC meeting; you can when you are hiding behind a keyboard.

Agreed, however the proof will be in how it might come together in the New Year. I don't believe the RAPACs are dead as they are not "owned" by CASA, but by Industry which CASA do not seem to appreciate. The role of CASA and its predecessors over the past 40 odd years has been to facilitate the forums, arrange specialist attendees and provide minutes etc. Much will depend on how the TOR are finalised. It is sad that these changes have been brought about in an apparent attempt to save on costs at the expense of effective two-way transparent consultation.

[Point Merge]

The more the better. If you want to go off roading, don't do it near my runway!

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Originally Posted by Dehavillanddriver

I think you will find it is happening and Airservices are already working on implementation

Ok, but I can’t find any kind of document about it. Is there industry consultation underway already?

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Point Merge from the UK

If you want to go off roading, don't do it near my runway!

Don't worry, I won't be in the UK any time soon.

[Mr Approach]

I am one of the folks who has been advocating this (Class E down to the instrument approach minima, not 1500 feet) for years, but MJGAHAN is correct when he alludes to the fact that controlling IFR aircraft in Class E is very inefficient without surveillance. One of Australia's problems, however, is that the service providor, Airservices, is actually a money-making venture for the Commonwealth Government. Hence surveillance has never been used where there is a need, only where money can be made. This can be proven by looking at the RAAF roll-out of surveillance at bases that do not support anywhere near CASA/Airservices criteria for installing surveillance. (Whatever that is, I can't find it anywhere). This money-making venture is also the reason why Australia has capital-city priorities and that well-worn phrase "Clearance not available". A service providers job is to provide a clearance not tell pilots why they cannot have one. OK, tirade 1 over!

The situation in Australia now is that if space based ADS-B surveillance is used (and it is available) then the position of every cooperative IFR aircraft in the two FIRs is known to ATC and can be displayed on a sutably set-up surveillance display. This means that the Class G traffic service so beloved of ex-FSO Griffith, and proven not to work when it was really needed at Mangalore, can now be replaced with a separation service utilising Class E airspace. Over the years I, and others have implored CASA and the ATSB to introduce/recommend this airspace but unfortunately they are both arms of the same Department that benefits from the income provided by Airservices, so the three monkey trick is always pulled out. See no evil (we do not believe there is an issue) hear no evil (What is wrong with traffic information) and speak no evil (anyone sticking their head up and speaking out of line will be shot on sight). OK tirade 2 over!

Now their are no more excuses - the ATSB will produce a report on the Mangalore crash, hopefully sooner rather than later, in which, if they do not say that a Class E control service could have saved four lives, they will have disregarded their brief. ICAO Doc 9765 Manual of Accident and Incident Investigation Para 1.1.2 (my underlining)
"An aircraft accident or incident provides evidence of hazards or deficiencies within the aviation system. A well-conducted investigation should identify all immediate and underlying systemic causes and/or contributing factors of the accident or incident. The investigation may also reveal other hazards or deficiencies within the aviation system not directly connected with the causes of the accident. The emphasis of an aircraft accident or incident investigation shall be on determining why the accident or incident happened and on recommending appropriate safety actions aimed at avoiding the hazards or eliminating the deficiencies. A properly conducted accident investigation is an important method of accident prevention."

So - if I was Airservices i would be making sure that when/if a "well-conducted invetigation" is produced they are in a position to pretend that they were ready to go before the Minister gets embarrassed.