Airservices Class E changes
Interesting that this below turned up as an alert from CASA today. Perhaps the OAR is subtly telling Airservices what their process should have been or should be?
National - Information: Update to airspace change process
Also interesting in the link below that under "Who can submit an ACP" the OAR don't include themselves as a proponent i.e. it is up to someone else to do all the work and submit a proposal, and they just pontificate, assess, approve or deny.
Airspace change process
National - Information: Update to airspace change process
Also interesting in the link below that under "Who can submit an ACP" the OAR don't include themselves as a proponent i.e. it is up to someone else to do all the work and submit a proposal, and they just pontificate, assess, approve or deny.
Airspace change process
"Also interesting in the link below that under "Who can submit an ACP" the OAR don't include themselves as a proponent i.e. it is up to someone else to do all the work and submit a proposal, and they just pontificate, assess, approve or deny."
Gosh. So if, for example, the traffic levels at an already-busy aerodrome in Class G quadrupled, CASA OAR will just sit and wait for 'someone else' to submit an ACP?
Gosh. So if, for example, the traffic levels at an already-busy aerodrome in Class G quadrupled, CASA OAR will just sit and wait for 'someone else' to submit an ACP?
"Also interesting in the link below that under "Who can submit an ACP" the OAR don't include themselves as a proponent i.e. it is up to someone else to do all the work and submit a proposal, and they just pontificate, assess, approve or deny."
Gosh. So if, for example, the traffic levels at an already-busy aerodrome in Class G quadrupled, CASA OAR will just sit and wait for 'someone else' to submit an ACP?
Gosh. So if, for example, the traffic levels at an already-busy aerodrome in Class G quadrupled, CASA OAR will just sit and wait for 'someone else' to submit an ACP?
Example Avalon:
Recommendation 1
Airservices Australia should review the airspace design at Avalon and submit an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) within 12 months to remove the Class E airspace and replace it with Class D or Class C airspace as appropriate, to optimise and enhance the level of air traffic services provided at Avalon
Airservices Australia should review the airspace design at Avalon and submit an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) within 12 months to remove the Class E airspace and replace it with Class D or Class C airspace as appropriate, to optimise and enhance the level of air traffic services provided at Avalon
Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 1st Mar 2021 at 07:23.
Another example is from the current Broome/Karratha draft airspace review.
The Review makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
Airservices should submit an ACP changing the Class E airspace at Broome and Karratha to
Class D airspace from 5,500 ft AMSL to FL125.
Recommendation 2:
Airservices should submit an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to remove the Broome
Class E airspace step at 1200 ft AGL extending to 31 NM during tower hours. The ACP
should include consideration of a keyhole design of the CTR to protect instrument flight
procedures.
The Review makes the following recommendations:
Recommendation 1:
Airservices should submit an ACP changing the Class E airspace at Broome and Karratha to
Class D airspace from 5,500 ft AMSL to FL125.
Recommendation 2:
Airservices should submit an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to remove the Broome
Class E airspace step at 1200 ft AGL extending to 31 NM during tower hours. The ACP
should include consideration of a keyhole design of the CTR to protect instrument flight
procedures.
OAR Does NOT EXIST ............ or prove it!
I don't think the Office of Airspace Regulation actually exists!
The Minister's Australian Airspace Policy Statement is a legislative instrument and says:
The Office of Airspace Regulation
5 CASA will exercise its airspace authority on the advice of an Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), which will be a distinct operational unit of CASA.
So let's have a look at the CASA Corporate Structure Diagram to see if it exists and where it fits in:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...sational-chart
Funny, NO OAR on the chart.
But there is text version too............. NO, not there either.
What about in the CASA Annual Report for 2019-2020?
Lots of good stuff about what fine people the Board are but at pages 84 and 85 there is the Corporate Structure.
Guess what, NO, NO OAR.
Oh, try searching the index? Nope, still no entry for the OAR.
OK, No evidence of OAR existence, how about some evidence of somebody somewhere doing some of the things OAR is legally obliged to do?
Going back to the Ministers Policy Statement:Airspace Reporting
52 CASA will provide advice on the major initiatives and priorities of the OAR in their corporate plan including those covering the Government’s policy objectives outlined in Paragraphs 34 to 42.
This is getting boring but we can find CASA's Corporate Plan for 2020-2021 here: https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...plan-2020-2021
Nowhere in the CASA Corporate Plan does CASA provide advice on the major initiatives and priorities of the OAR, so it is a reasonable assumption that they have nothing to advise upon - or that they do not exist to provide advice?
The CASA Corporate Plan 2020-2021 dated 3rd December 2020 does not anywhere appear to mention the Office of Airspace Regulation directly but does contain the following words in the Minister’s Statement of Expectations
(Not advice from CASA as is required):
f. work with my Department and Airservices Australia on modernising airspace management, including, as the regulator, leading the development of a national strategic airspace plan which articulates a regulatory narrative on controlled airspace.
Which seems at odds with the Airspace Statement provision:
13 CASA has sole responsibility for the regulation of the design of all Australian-administered airspace.
I can only think of one other way to see if OAR exists: Is there any evidence of somebody somewhere doing the tasks laid down by the Minister for OAR to execute:
From of the Minister's Statement 5 :...... Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration and the OAR must approach the development of its advice on airspace regulation on the same basis.
34 The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.
35 The Government expects that CASA will continue to review Australia’s airspace as required and continue to move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice.
44 This legislative framework enables CASA to examine and determine future Australian airspace requirements and has established that safety of air navigation is the most important consideration.
And finally from the Minister's Statement of Expectations of CASA;
3. Regulatory Approach
I expect CASA will continue its regulatory
approach, in accordance with its regulatory philosophy, with:
a. a focus on aviation safety as the highest priority;
FACTS:
The USA and most of the developed world has an ATC service which SEPARATES all aircraft who can not separate themselves because they are in IMC. Australia does not.
Leaving aircraft who can not separate themselves because they are in IMC is NOT world's best practice nor is it regarding aviation safety as having any priority let alone highest priority.
Passenger Transport aircraft operating in IMC get no greater safety separation than any other aircraft in similar airspace contrary to 34 above.
The notion that providing an aircraft flying in IMC with traffic information on other aircraft which by definition are close enough to be in confliction in circumstances where the pilot(s) can not do anything with that information is not adding to safety, it is actually a derogation of safety by distracting the pilot from the immediate safety tasks.
A pilot flying an instrument approach is legally unable to change the track of the aircraft because of a (proper) regulation requiring such approach to be flown in accordance with the chart. Climbing but still laterally following the track may be permitted.
The notion that a pilot flying any complex instrument procedure has the ability to get out a map, evaluate traffic information, and decide a suitable avoidance manoeuvre is a nonsense; indeed most GA cockpits are too narrow to spread out a full WAC chart whilst still flying the aircraft.
Traffic information to an aircraft in IMC is not world's best practice, nor is it helpful for conflict avoidance.
CONCLUSION:
Whilst CASA documentation contains no evidence of the actual existence of an Office of Airspace Regulation,
that office if it does exist is not performing the functions laid down for it by the Minister,
nor is it reporting/providing advice on its future workload and priorities in the CASA Corporate Plan.
So CASA if you allege I am wrong, then republish your Corporate Structure to show where OAR exists, who runs it and who she reports to.
- and perhaps start doing the things you are charged with doing.
The Minister's Australian Airspace Policy Statement is a legislative instrument and says:
The Office of Airspace Regulation
5 CASA will exercise its airspace authority on the advice of an Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), which will be a distinct operational unit of CASA.
So let's have a look at the CASA Corporate Structure Diagram to see if it exists and where it fits in:
https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-pag...sational-chart
Funny, NO OAR on the chart.
But there is text version too............. NO, not there either.
What about in the CASA Annual Report for 2019-2020?
Lots of good stuff about what fine people the Board are but at pages 84 and 85 there is the Corporate Structure.
Guess what, NO, NO OAR.
Oh, try searching the index? Nope, still no entry for the OAR.
OK, No evidence of OAR existence, how about some evidence of somebody somewhere doing some of the things OAR is legally obliged to do?
Going back to the Ministers Policy Statement:Airspace Reporting
52 CASA will provide advice on the major initiatives and priorities of the OAR in their corporate plan including those covering the Government’s policy objectives outlined in Paragraphs 34 to 42.
This is getting boring but we can find CASA's Corporate Plan for 2020-2021 here: https://www.casa.gov.au/publications...plan-2020-2021
Nowhere in the CASA Corporate Plan does CASA provide advice on the major initiatives and priorities of the OAR, so it is a reasonable assumption that they have nothing to advise upon - or that they do not exist to provide advice?
The CASA Corporate Plan 2020-2021 dated 3rd December 2020 does not anywhere appear to mention the Office of Airspace Regulation directly but does contain the following words in the Minister’s Statement of Expectations
(Not advice from CASA as is required):
f. work with my Department and Airservices Australia on modernising airspace management, including, as the regulator, leading the development of a national strategic airspace plan which articulates a regulatory narrative on controlled airspace.
Which seems at odds with the Airspace Statement provision:
13 CASA has sole responsibility for the regulation of the design of all Australian-administered airspace.
I can only think of one other way to see if OAR exists: Is there any evidence of somebody somewhere doing the tasks laid down by the Minister for OAR to execute:
From of the Minister's Statement 5 :...... Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration and the OAR must approach the development of its advice on airspace regulation on the same basis.
34 The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. Airspace administration should also seek to deliver good safety outcomes to all aviation participants.
35 The Government expects that CASA will continue to review Australia’s airspace as required and continue to move towards closer alignment with the ICAO system and adoption of proven international best practice.
44 This legislative framework enables CASA to examine and determine future Australian airspace requirements and has established that safety of air navigation is the most important consideration.
And finally from the Minister's Statement of Expectations of CASA;
3. Regulatory Approach
I expect CASA will continue its regulatory
approach, in accordance with its regulatory philosophy, with:
a. a focus on aviation safety as the highest priority;
FACTS:
The USA and most of the developed world has an ATC service which SEPARATES all aircraft who can not separate themselves because they are in IMC. Australia does not.
Leaving aircraft who can not separate themselves because they are in IMC is NOT world's best practice nor is it regarding aviation safety as having any priority let alone highest priority.
Passenger Transport aircraft operating in IMC get no greater safety separation than any other aircraft in similar airspace contrary to 34 above.
The notion that providing an aircraft flying in IMC with traffic information on other aircraft which by definition are close enough to be in confliction in circumstances where the pilot(s) can not do anything with that information is not adding to safety, it is actually a derogation of safety by distracting the pilot from the immediate safety tasks.
A pilot flying an instrument approach is legally unable to change the track of the aircraft because of a (proper) regulation requiring such approach to be flown in accordance with the chart. Climbing but still laterally following the track may be permitted.
The notion that a pilot flying any complex instrument procedure has the ability to get out a map, evaluate traffic information, and decide a suitable avoidance manoeuvre is a nonsense; indeed most GA cockpits are too narrow to spread out a full WAC chart whilst still flying the aircraft.
Traffic information to an aircraft in IMC is not world's best practice, nor is it helpful for conflict avoidance.
CONCLUSION:
Whilst CASA documentation contains no evidence of the actual existence of an Office of Airspace Regulation,
that office if it does exist is not performing the functions laid down for it by the Minister,
nor is it reporting/providing advice on its future workload and priorities in the CASA Corporate Plan.
So CASA if you allege I am wrong, then republish your Corporate Structure to show where OAR exists, who runs it and who she reports to.
- and perhaps start doing the things you are charged with doing.
Last edited by Advance; 1st Mar 2021 at 08:37.
Don't know where CASA OAR appears or is meant to appear in the financial reporting papers.
However the OAR branch and it's activities are easy to find in the main menu under airspace, where info on past and present reviews and consultations is displayed.
However the OAR branch and it's activities are easy to find in the main menu under airspace, where info on past and present reviews and consultations is displayed.
10JQKA: Sure. But the web entry only says what they are meant to do.
Even the claimed workplan is currently under review not stated in the CASA Plan as legally mandated.
By CASA's own structural chart they don't exist,
They have not complied with the law in detailing their plan and priorities, and
They have not fulfilled any legal function entrusted to them.
So in practice they are non-existent.
If they do exist, CASA needs to put them on the chart, nominate who runs them and who they report to, if for no other reason than to demonstrate they are an independent unit, also as required by law.
Even the claimed workplan is currently under review not stated in the CASA Plan as legally mandated.
By CASA's own structural chart they don't exist,
They have not complied with the law in detailing their plan and priorities, and
They have not fulfilled any legal function entrusted to them.
So in practice they are non-existent.
If they do exist, CASA needs to put them on the chart, nominate who runs them and who they report to, if for no other reason than to demonstrate they are an independent unit, also as required by law.
While they are not specifically shown on the org chart, I assume they exist under the National Operations and Standards branch, Air Navigation, Airspace & Aerodromes section.
Last I dealt with the OAR - albeit some years ago - there were then only 4 staff. A manager, an airspace specialist (both ex RAAF ATC), and two others non ATC/ATS handling safety and coordination matters. There was also a RAAF person dealing with military airspace matters.
Things may have changed since. There was somewhat wider ATC/ATS experience elsewhere in the branch they were in.
I don't know that at that stage they saw themselves as airspace designers or initiators/originators of airspace changes. The fact that (at least back then) they didn't have the staff, experience or electronic airspace and air route design tools tends to suggest that they saw themselves at a higher level with oversight, and changes would be originated by others in the industry.
Again, things may have changed since I dealt with them.
Last I dealt with the OAR - albeit some years ago - there were then only 4 staff. A manager, an airspace specialist (both ex RAAF ATC), and two others non ATC/ATS handling safety and coordination matters. There was also a RAAF person dealing with military airspace matters.
Things may have changed since. There was somewhat wider ATC/ATS experience elsewhere in the branch they were in.
I don't know that at that stage they saw themselves as airspace designers or initiators/originators of airspace changes. The fact that (at least back then) they didn't have the staff, experience or electronic airspace and air route design tools tends to suggest that they saw themselves at a higher level with oversight, and changes would be originated by others in the industry.
Again, things may have changed since I dealt with them.
Someone needs to work out who is in charge as ASA have their own airspace design department too and if CASA have theirs, they will be certain to butt heads at some stage.
While they are not specifically shown on the org chart, I assume they exist under the National Operations and Standards branch, Air Navigation, Airspace & Aerodromes section.
Last I dealt with the OAR - albeit some years ago - there were then only 4 staff. A manager, an airspace specialist (both ex RAAF ATC), and two others non ATC/ATS handling safety and coordination matters. There was also a RAAF person dealing with military airspace matters.
Things may have changed since. There was somewhat wider ATC/ATS experience elsewhere in the branch they were in.
I don't know that at that stage they saw themselves as airspace designers or initiators/originators of airspace changes. The fact that (at least back then) they didn't have the staff, experience or electronic airspace and air route design tools tends to suggest that they saw themselves at a higher level with oversight, and changes would be originated by others in the industry.
Again, things may have changed since I dealt with them.
Last I dealt with the OAR - albeit some years ago - there were then only 4 staff. A manager, an airspace specialist (both ex RAAF ATC), and two others non ATC/ATS handling safety and coordination matters. There was also a RAAF person dealing with military airspace matters.
Things may have changed since. There was somewhat wider ATC/ATS experience elsewhere in the branch they were in.
I don't know that at that stage they saw themselves as airspace designers or initiators/originators of airspace changes. The fact that (at least back then) they didn't have the staff, experience or electronic airspace and air route design tools tends to suggest that they saw themselves at a higher level with oversight, and changes would be originated by others in the industry.
Again, things may have changed since I dealt with them.
Which would hardly make them " an Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), which will be a distinct operational unit of CASA " as the law requires
52 CASA will provide advice on the major initiatives and priorities of the OAR in their corporate plan including those covering the Government’s policy objectives outlined in Paragraphs 34 to 42.
The location of the Corporate Plan on the web is referenced above and the web site to which you refer says: The OAR Strategic Work Plan (currently under review) details the OAR priorities, processes and strategies over the next five years to ensure....
Do you reckon that is compliant?? I sure do not.
Vag. You are very good with quick one liners and playing the man not the ball.
I have researched and quoted a great deal of factual evidence none of which you have refuted.
I have read the annual report and quoted it above.
If you believe there is material in there which complies with the law and is contrary to what I have written then show the reference.
Now instead of trying to pick nits why not read what I DID write and demonstrate that there IS an INDEPENDENT unit, that it has complied with the law and published the details of its work plan and priorities in the required document, and above all,
THAT IT HAS CLASSIFIED AIRSPACE WITH SAFETY AS A FIRST PRIORITY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH WORLD's BEST PRACTICE.
I have researched and quoted a great deal of factual evidence none of which you have refuted.
I have read the annual report and quoted it above.
If you believe there is material in there which complies with the law and is contrary to what I have written then show the reference.
Now instead of trying to pick nits why not read what I DID write and demonstrate that there IS an INDEPENDENT unit, that it has complied with the law and published the details of its work plan and priorities in the required document, and above all,
THAT IT HAS CLASSIFIED AIRSPACE WITH SAFETY AS A FIRST PRIORITY AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH WORLD's BEST PRACTICE.
I presume everyone has read the latest ATSB report at Ballina?
As I stated on the other thread I would expect ATSB to be awake enough to know about the SAFIS proposal to include how things would have been different had SAFIS been n place?!
Wont hold my breath...
ATSB News: Ballina A320 / Jabiru
As I stated on the other thread I would expect ATSB to be awake enough to know about the SAFIS proposal to include how things would have been different had SAFIS been n place?!
Wont hold my breath...
ATSB News: Ballina A320 / Jabiru
So they got an alert, continued on as they couldn’t see anything, got another alert and continued along anyway. No talk of evasive action as you don’t want to upset the bean counters by using a little more fuel!
I fly GA out of Ballina as I now live in the area. Despite the majority of my flying previously being at an uncontrolled regional airfield, I find it's an intimidating set up with the jet traffic, especially considering there are no taxiways.
The CAGRO seems like a top bloke and clearly ex-ATC but I still can't fathom why there is no tower given the movements and pax numbers.
Wonder if the Jab was on the CTAF, and if so had the CAGRO properly advised about potential conflict with the A320? The article linked doesn't cover this point.
The CAGRO seems like a top bloke and clearly ex-ATC but I still can't fathom why there is no tower given the movements and pax numbers.
Wonder if the Jab was on the CTAF, and if so had the CAGRO properly advised about potential conflict with the A320? The article linked doesn't cover this point.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is far too early to second guess how the ASA proposed SAFIS is going to work and if indeed it might have made any difference in this incident. Significantly more detail required at this time.
Hey Griffo... How do you think a remote AFIZ would work? Would need some old FSOs as I doubt the controllers could handle not controlling!!?? Cheaper than a TWR which nobody wants!
Hey Griffo... How do you think a remote AFIZ would work? Would need some old FSOs as I doubt the controllers could handle not controlling!!?? Cheaper than a TWR which nobody wants!
If you are talking about Ballina, the CAGRO is providing more or less an AFIS service (and it's not remote - the CAGRO is there). One thing the CAGRO doesn't now have vs the old system, is actually being part of the system, so no coordination from other ATS units, flight plan info etc. You held details on planned movements, so could be looking ahead for conflicts, and aircraft had to call at 30 miles, so you had more time to assess (and pass). You already had a mental picture of what was happening or soon to happen. First becoming aware of something reasonably high performance when it calls inbound to a CTAF isn't giving the operator much time in a busy environment to assess things against the existing traffic. By the time the first exchange is over, half the distance could be covered.
