The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Airservices Class E changes

Old 20th Feb 2021, 21:24
  #241 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 178
Perhaps they need a song to sell their new airspace model....

”Come with me.... and you’ll be..... in a world of pure imagination... “
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 00:28
  #242 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,507
Re-early retirement. Is this something more to do with "OneSky" and a means of repopulating with blue shirt controllers to maintain full rosters?
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 00:31
  #243 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,904
Outsourcing perhaps? Outsource partner doesn’t want to pick up the tab for those retiring in the next 5-10 years?
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 01:47
  #244 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,101
Originally Posted by Mr Approach View Post
If they have disingenuously circulated a proposal that they know to be unworkable then this is a political scandal of the highest order,
As I said earlier, given the choice between a conspiracy theory and a simple ignorance of process and responsibilities, I'd choose the latter.

A lot of knowledge and experience walked out the Airservices doors in 2016 when they VRed and IVRed most of their "back room" people who used to handle change management proposals, processes and procedures.

As you have indicated, responsibility for determining what class of airspace and level of service to be provided in any area rests with CASA OAR, not Airservices. OAR initiate aeronautical studies of locations, airspace and ATC groups for this reason.

Perhaps Airservices should simply sit back and continue to provide the services they already do - and by all means continue to institute efficiency improvements in their operations and organisation - and wait for CASA OAR to direct them to implement airspace and service level changes where they - CASA OAR - deem necessary.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 12:39
  #245 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,103
Originally Posted by Midnight
As you have indicated, responsibility for determining what class of airspace and level of service to be provided in any area rests with CASA OAR, not Airservices. OAR initiate aeronautical studies of locations, airspace and ATC groups for this reason.

Perhaps Airservices should simply sit back and continue to provide the services they already do - and by all means continue to institute efficiency improvements in their operations and organisation - and wait for CASA OAR to direct them to implement airspace and service level changes where they - CASA OAR - deem necessary.
A voice of reason...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 12:43
  #246 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 60
Posts: 342
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post
As you have indicated, responsibility for determining what class of airspace and level of service to be provided in any area rests with CASA OAR, not Airservices. OAR initiate aeronautical studies of locations, airspace and ATC groups for this reason.

Perhaps Airservices should simply sit back and continue to provide the services they already do - and by all means continue to institute efficiency improvements in their operations and organisation - and wait for CASA OAR to direct them to implement airspace and service level changes where they - CASA OAR - deem necessary.
Agreed CM.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 21st Feb 2021, 13:08
  #247 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 428
11. Under the Airspace Act 2007, CASA is responsible for determining when and how these classifications are to be deployed in Australian-administered airspace. CASA is to publish any changes to the classification of a volume of airspace and corresponding information through the Federal Register of Legislation (FRL) and then through the Australian AIP in a timely and accurate manner.
12. Pursuant to regulations made under section 11 of the Airspace Act 2007, CASA is responsible for the classification and designation of all Australian-administered airspace.
13. CASA has sole responsibility for the regulation of the design of all Australian-administered airspace.
This is from Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018.

Seems pretty clear to me. CASA are responsible for determining the airspace at or away from an aerodrome.
missy is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2021, 00:31
  #248 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,290
Good evidence as to CASAs responsibility.

So why in this case are they not complying with the requirements?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2021, 02:44
  #249 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,020
As it is an ASA proposal it has to go to the OAR. That is when I understand the CASA approval process will take place. On the other hand if it is a political push, which it may well be then it will be very interesting to see what the OAR have to say in order to support its justification. If ASA were serious about updating consultation, surely they would have revised the December implementation date by now?
triadic is offline  
Old 22nd Feb 2021, 21:52
  #250 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 34
I’ve changed my mind.....

I don’t think we are better than this...

4 pilots died at MNG. Dick thinks these changes are a response to that accident. AsA admits as much if you carefully read through the reasons (supposedly) for the change.

At MNG the primary method for ensuring separation of 2 IFR aircraft in G Airspace failed to the ultimate extent, many pilots and controllers had predicted this for years. This method is to be used in determining a target level of safety.

At MNG the ground based survellance safety net failed, its shortcomings have been known for years. This is NOT meant to used in determining a target level of safety. It’s a SAFETY NET.

At MNG the airborne based survellance safety net didn’t come into play as neither aircraft had TCAS/ACAS. . This is NOT meant to used in determining a target level of safety. It’s a SAFETY NET.

Surveillance whether ADSB or SSR only assists in aviation safety if we choose to use it intelligently. If the equipped aircraft makes it on a controller display only guarantees (perhaps) the authorities have a smaller area to search for the crash site.

It does not guarantee safety....Its CONFLICT DETECTION, stupid. (And resolution and monitoring) Either in the human brain or computer chip.

(Apologies to James Carville 1992, quote “It’s the economy stupid”)

Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 23rd Feb 2021 at 07:49. Reason: Spelling correction
Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 10:39
  #251 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Workload; Separation vs Traffic Information

ATC providing separation vs giving traffic information.


Once upon a long time ago, Airservices had a project named AMATS - Automation and Modernisation of Air Traffic Services.

It involved providing some automation of the flight data processing systems to take over from punched paper tape driven teletype machines, automated information for radar displays, new displays and etc etc.

But to do this kind of stuff it is necessary to analyse what is done and what is to be done and by whom - machine or human.

In those days we had a service called Flight Service and one called Air Traffic Control.

Consider the task of either one of these folk - seriously, follow this line of thought like a flowchart........

Each person has to consider every aircraft in his sector (block) of airspace and decide if their known position and their known trajectory will bring them into conflict.

No? Good, start again.

Yes? In the case of ATC make a decision on the standard form of separation to be provided (vertical, lateral, longitudinal etc) and issue instructions to achieve that - get readbacks.

In the case of FS, tell each pilot the nature of the traffic that concerns her. Each pilot independently decides what to do about it.... nothing, change level, divert, anything at all - and maybe they tell the FSO.

Now the problem starts: For each reply the FSO gets, he now has to consider every aircraft in his sector and again decide if the new level or trajectory proposed will resolve or will cause another conflict

And then advise the aircraft concerned . repeat!

In the vicinity of a busy aerodrome this process can be extensive and rather uncertain because nobody really has a good understanding of what each other is doing. The FSO had the harder and more complex job back then. You hear me Ex-FSO Griffo??


The conclusion is clear; the ATC issuing a positive instruction (or two) can ensure standard separation is achieved and the situation is resolved more rapidly and more accurately than it is by the FSO.


This analysis was NOT undertaken with the view of getting rid of the Flight Service discipline; it was undertaken to determine how to provide each ATC/FSO with the information they needed to do their job in the most efficient and accurate manner.

(New radar displays, consoles with some automation etc)


BUT the result was indeed the abolition of FS in its previous form. Management saw cost savings!


The decision was taken that in fact the ATC had the exact same traffic "picture" as the FSO and could resolve problems in either manner.

It is a great pity that Class E airspace and the full US system was not instituted at that time.


There was some discussion earlier in this forum about the statement that ATC could provide separation at least as effectively and at no greater cost than providing traffic.

The rationale above is a thumbnail description of why that statement is true. It is the rationale Dick Smith referred to and those who did the work had a great deal of ATC experience at all levels including approach and tower.

And the busier and more complex the airspace, the more true it becomes because ATC achieve separation and carry on whereas traffic info can result in a continuing changing and uncertain situation.


I support the introduction of separation for aircraft who can not separate themselves.

That means all aircraft in IMC.

That means aircraft on an instrument approach in IMC who, regardless of traffic information passed once they have commenced the approach MUST follow the lateral approach (but may climb out.)

That means aircraft on IMC departure who have to adhere to terrain clearance dictated tracks until reaching LSALT.


And for those that have not tried it, flying an aircraft in IMC especially in a terminal area does not leave you time or the ability to get out a map and figure where a VFR aircraft might be based on visual points when you are using VOR/ILS/GPS etc


Traffic information is NOT separation - it is an attempt to deflect legal responsibility when the inevitable happens.............. like Mangalore.


I support the introduction of the full USA system of airspace classification and operational procedures without any attempt to reinvent the wheel with nonsense Australianisation of the wheel.


Instrument Rated Commercial Pilot, Aircraft Owner, Air Traffic Controller.
Advance is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2021, 12:21
  #252 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 147
Instrument Rated Commercial Pilot, Aircraft Owner, Air Traffic Controller.
I think you'll be a very unpopular boy/girl with this:

I support the introduction of the full USA system of airspace classification and operational procedures without any attempt to reinvent the wheel with nonsense Australianisation of the wheel.
statement, particularly with this part:

full USA system
McLimit is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 01:43
  #253 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 34
Advance thank you for your post...

So Advance, Dick Smith or McLimit,

What are the USA system requirements for SSR transponder, ADSB and VHF in E Airspace?

So they can be compared to Australian E...

Lets start at the general requirements and slowly get to specifics...

Thanks in anticipation!

Gf

You can presumably see a certain level of doubt on passive surveillance in my post re G and MNG.

That may not apply to E airspace!
Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 02:06
  #254 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,290
Transponders are mandatory in class A, B and C airspace.
Also in E airspace above 10,000’
As well as within 30 nm of class B.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 02:45
  #255 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Gentle Flyer, Thanks for asking.
As with most things Governmental the vital information is contained in amongst a lot of stuff you don't want but try this:
Start here with the US FAA Airman's Information Manual (AIM): https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_2.html
Noting that to an IFR aircraft; Class E airspace is Controlled Airspace, radio required, clearance required.
To a VFR aircraft, Class E airspace is NOT Controlled Airspace - radio is not required and no clearance is required.
But if VFR and you have a radio you can have traffic information limited only by controller workload.
There are some superb graphics and short form explanations in the PIlots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK)
at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli..._phak_ch15.pdf

Please note that I want to see the US system of airspace classification and procedures for separation of aircraft in IMC (not those who have planned IFR but those in IMC)
Done as it is done in the USA without any "Australianisation" of the very well proven USA system - we muck it up every time we try that.


The US system allows the maximum possible use of airspace by VFR aircraft and there are many organisations such as US AOPA and EAA who work with the FAA to ensure this remains.
(Can you imagine trying to run an Oshkosh Convention here with more aircraft on one US airport than we have in the whole country??)
Advance is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 06:38
  #256 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 79
Posts: 2,893
Devil

YEP !!
"Traffic Is ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ ............................................................ .........................................
NO acknowledgements !!

No Cheers either.......

p.s. Tks again Dick.............
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 06:40
  #257 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 34
Originally Posted by Advance View Post
Gentle Flyer, Thanks for asking.
As with most things Governmental the vital information is contained in amongst a lot of stuff you don't want but try this:
Start here with the US FAA Airman's Information Manual (AIM): https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publ...section_2.html
Noting that to an IFR aircraft; Class E airspace is Controlled Airspace, radio required, clearance required.
To a VFR aircraft, Class E airspace is NOT Controlled Airspace - radio is not required and no clearance is required.
But if VFR and you have a radio you can have traffic information limited only by controller workload.
There are some superb graphics and short form explanations in the PIlots Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge (PHAK)
at: https://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli..._phak_ch15.pdf

Please note that I want to see the US system of airspace classification and procedures for separation of aircraft in IMC (not those who have planned IFR but those in IMC)
Done as it is done in the USA without any "Australianisation" of the very well proven USA system - we muck it up every time we try that.


The US system allows the maximum possible use of airspace by VFR aircraft and there are many organisations such as US AOPA and EAA who work with the FAA to ensure this remains.
(Can you imagine trying to run an Oshkosh Convention here with more aircraft on one US airport than we have in the whole country??)
Dick,

Thanks for the high level info.

Advance,

Thanks for the doc references. You know I am a sucker for a good diagram and even better simple operational concepts with short form explanations relevant to the level of detail required. I have already perused the PHAK_CH15.pdf, the perfect thing to sit down to read with a Horlicks and a Laphroaig chaser (or was that the other way round), whilst trying to get the gunk out of one’s lungs after open heart surgery.

My chest still hurts after laughing too hard at your “Australian Oshkosh” reference.

Airservices spin would assure us Avalon is just as busy. Just like their rationale for ONESKY, ie “we are as busy as the US or Europe”....

Wake me up when DANISTAN moves the same number of jets ABV FL250 as MAASTRICT UAC in a day...Roughly the same sq km.

Must have been dreaming I was watching Peter Pan, but then in the words of a United pilot, we are second best!
Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 08:45
  #258 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
Check your private mail GF
Advance is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 09:10
  #259 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 44
I think it is clear that the CASA OAR should be primarily responsible for failing to declare an appropriately safe class of airspace for IFR aircraft to operate in and hope that will become abundantly clear when the legal processes are all finalised (may I live so long), but
The Airservices Act 1985 at Part 2 sets out the powers and functions of AA and at:
8(3) says: "........the extent to which Airservices provides services and facilities is subject to AAs discretion."
and at
9(1) In exercising its powers and performing its functions, AA must regard the safety of Air Navigation as the most important consideration.

Just precisely how AA is intended to exercise that discretion when the determination of Airspace classes lies with OAR is not clear.
But I suspect Section 9(1) and consideration of what happened at Mangalore is key to understanding why AA is pushing this improvement in Airspace Classification.
Advance is offline  
Old 24th Feb 2021, 09:19
  #260 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,020
I suspect that there may be another reason that the mid-air at MNG occurred - who is responsible for the training of radio procedures? who is responsible for standardisation of same?

triadic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.