Airservices Class E changes
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
and aircraft had to call at 30 miles,
The earlier comment re having a tower at Ballina is valid to many, but the present numbers (if that is what is used as a criteria) don't get up. The tower with the lowest number of movements according to BITRE is Hamilton Island with 7584 for 2019. The 18/19 movements for Ballina was 4553, down to 3529 for 19/20 due Covid. Of course there may be other factors (like lack of a parallel taxiway and pax numbers) that might get the box ticked, but I don't think ASA or the Airlines want to pay for it(??).
As I see the proposal, the SAFIS would work the surrounding airspace but the CTAF would be the same and be on a different frequency. Other than passing traffic info, what would they be doing? Maybe some co-ord with the ATC sectors etc. Would they have direct co-ord with the CAGRO? Would it have helped with the A320/Jab incident? As the incident occurred some 12nm from Ballina, does increasing the size of the Ballina area to 15nm solve the problem? I don't believe so. There are no doubt other factors that need to be considered one of which is the standardisation of teaching of radio procedures.
ASA are obviously under pressure (Board or Minister?) post MNG to do 'something' and the E proposal was their first try, but it is a mess because they have knee jerked with a proposal that due to time constraints is flawed in its design, meaning it will not work nor be safe, not to mention the restrictions placed on many operations. How will it be covered without increasing staff numbers. ASA have lost a lot of good people over the past few years and sadly it shows.
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.
Re - 'Remote AFIZ's' - Broome was a 'remote AIFZ' operated by FS from Derby FSU when I was serving up there.
Later, when we were all transferred back to Perth FSC, on 'consolidation', ALL of the 'country' AFIZ's were 'remote' to Perth FSC via those BIG satellite dishes.
The 'redeeming' factor was that we received Flight Plans, Departure messages, and full co-ordination on all pertinent movements.
When I was 'CAGRO' in Broome, we got none of the above, so, being 'resourceful' people, a 'spare' VHF was installed 'under the desk' so that we could monitor the ATC freqs, and that, coupled with the airline time-table for the day, was how we got a 'heads-up' on who was coming, and when.
AHH...'De Good Ole Days'...formerly called 'these trying times'......
Hey Mr 'T', do ya miss it...??
Cheeerrrsss....
Later, when we were all transferred back to Perth FSC, on 'consolidation', ALL of the 'country' AFIZ's were 'remote' to Perth FSC via those BIG satellite dishes.
The 'redeeming' factor was that we received Flight Plans, Departure messages, and full co-ordination on all pertinent movements.
When I was 'CAGRO' in Broome, we got none of the above, so, being 'resourceful' people, a 'spare' VHF was installed 'under the desk' so that we could monitor the ATC freqs, and that, coupled with the airline time-table for the day, was how we got a 'heads-up' on who was coming, and when.
AHH...'De Good Ole Days'...formerly called 'these trying times'......
Hey Mr 'T', do ya miss it...??
Cheeerrrsss....
What a farce, surely a CAGRO is part of the ATS system and therefore should receive flight plan information.
Obviously the airport owner doesn't consider this a priority. Mind you there are a number of other airports around the country with jet ops that also doesn't have a taxiway to/from thresholds. Such an investment would improve safety and efficiency.
Now there was a TRUE GENTLEMAN
To give the man the respect that he deserves............
ONYA Mr 'T' !!!.
To give the man the respect that he deserves............
ONYA Mr 'T' !!!.
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 3rd Mar 2021 at 12:20. Reason: Respect
Ex FSO Griffo,
Quick question. Are there any historical industrial reasons why Oz Class G is not ICAO compliant in that DTI is not mandated in the ICAO model & it is actually more like (if not identical) to ICAO Class F ?
I was thinking along the lines of at some point the powers that be wouldn't allow FSOs to manage F but G was OK and hence got it's label from that but since Flight Service was doing DTI already then may as well include that in Oz G ?
Quick question. Are there any historical industrial reasons why Oz Class G is not ICAO compliant in that DTI is not mandated in the ICAO model & it is actually more like (if not identical) to ICAO Class F ?
I was thinking along the lines of at some point the powers that be wouldn't allow FSOs to manage F but G was OK and hence got it's label from that but since Flight Service was doing DTI already then may as well include that in Oz G ?
Last edited by 10JQKA; 3rd Mar 2021 at 07:44.
I think I can answer this to a degree.
Not sure but it may have been an AMATS proposal element in 1991 that when Flight Service ceased and functions transferred to ATC, directed traffic info to IFR RPT & military low jets in the then "OCTA" would cease (this predates going to the ICAO airspace classifications of ABCDEFG).
Naturally the Industry kicked up a fuss, and DTI continued, then when the ICAO classifications came in later it was decided to classify this "OCTA" to Class G, even though the provision of DTI (I think) is an element of Class F airspace.
As a result someone here from time to time has called our Class G "ForG".
I don't have ICAO SARPS handy but I think there is some other element of Class F airspace that means our Class G isn't fully compliant with the ICAO Class F hence it isn't called as such.
Edit: Definition of Class F & G airspace:
Not sure but it may have been an AMATS proposal element in 1991 that when Flight Service ceased and functions transferred to ATC, directed traffic info to IFR RPT & military low jets in the then "OCTA" would cease (this predates going to the ICAO airspace classifications of ABCDEFG).
Naturally the Industry kicked up a fuss, and DTI continued, then when the ICAO classifications came in later it was decided to classify this "OCTA" to Class G, even though the provision of DTI (I think) is an element of Class F airspace.
As a result someone here from time to time has called our Class G "ForG".
I don't have ICAO SARPS handy but I think there is some other element of Class F airspace that means our Class G isn't fully compliant with the ICAO Class F hence it isn't called as such.
Edit: Definition of Class F & G airspace:
Class F.
IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.
Note.— Where air traffic advisory service is implemented,this is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control.
Air traffic advisory service.
A service provided within advisory airspace to ensure separation, in so far as practical, between aircraft which are operating on IFR flight plans.
Class G.
IFR and VFR flights are permitted and receive flight information service if requested.
IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.
Note.— Where air traffic advisory service is implemented,this is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control.
Air traffic advisory service.
A service provided within advisory airspace to ensure separation, in so far as practical, between aircraft which are operating on IFR flight plans.
Class G.
IFR and VFR flights are permitted and receive flight information service if requested.
Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 3rd Mar 2021 at 08:08.
Important feature of both ICAO class F and G is that radio is not required for VFR.
They are clearly see and avoid airspace
If safety shows that radio is required for VFR you put in class D airspace.
Pretty simple!
They are clearly see and avoid airspace
If safety shows that radio is required for VFR you put in class D airspace.
Pretty simple!
Dick, an important feature of ICAO Class G is that it doesnt provide DTI to IFR/IFR. So then when it is said that Oz should adopt a US FAA NAS style airspace architecture as worlds best practice, does that mean we drop this element off to be ICAO compliant in G ?
Is it possible that with our enhanced G (with DTI) we are actually already worlds best practice and especially so with our traffic numbers ?
I think I now understand why they have only very low G airspace in US, it is because there is no ATS provided in it.
Is it possible that with our enhanced G (with DTI) we are actually already worlds best practice and especially so with our traffic numbers ?
I think I now understand why they have only very low G airspace in US, it is because there is no ATS provided in it.
2.6 Classification of airspaces
2.6.1 ATS airspaces shall be classified and designated in accordance with the following:
Class A. IFR flights only are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
Class C. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights.
Class D. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided with air traffic control service, IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of VFR flights, VFR flights receive traffic information in respect of all other flights.
Class E. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, IFR flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from other IFR flights. All flights receive traffic information as far as is practical. Class E shall not be used for control zones.
Class F. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.
Note.— Where air traffic advisory service is implemented, this is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control. (See also PANS-ATM, Chapter 9.)
Class G. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and receive flight information service if requested.
2.6.2 States shall select those airspace classes appropriate to their needs.
Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc.
2.6.1 ATS airspaces shall be classified and designated in accordance with the following:
Class A. IFR flights only are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
Class B. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from each other.
Class C. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all flights are provided with air traffic control service and IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and from VFR flights. VFR flights are separated from IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of other VFR flights.
Class D. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided with air traffic control service, IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information in respect of VFR flights, VFR flights receive traffic information in respect of all other flights.
Class E. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, IFR flights are provided with air traffic control service and are separated from other IFR flights. All flights receive traffic information as far as is practical. Class E shall not be used for control zones.
Class F. IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive flight information service if requested.
Note.— Where air traffic advisory service is implemented, this is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control. (See also PANS-ATM, Chapter 9.)
Class G. IFR and VFR flights are permitted and receive flight information service if requested.
2.6.2 States shall select those airspace classes appropriate to their needs.
Note.— Where the ATS airspaces adjoin vertically, i.e. one above the other, flights at a common level would comply with requirements of, and be given services applicable to, the less restrictive class of airspace. In applying these criteria, Class B airspace is therefore considered less restrictive than Class A airspace; Class C airspace less restrictive than Class B airspace, etc.
And, if there were individuals or groups wishing to have a low cost or a individual or groups wishing to "do their own thing", then obviously you'd choose Class G (the least restrictive airspace classification).
As anyone can submit a change to airspace classifications (and submit such a change to OAR), then why don't you do this to your desired state or status of airspace classifications?
So, I'd say that if Class F had been used then ASA/CASA would've been acknowledging that it was a temporary measure and that it would've been replaced by a higher classification (A-D) at some point.
It means that the aircraft will, along it's journey, soon be entering airspace in which air traffic control is provided. The note means that an aircraft flying from one airport to another, all in class F, won't normally be offered a traffic advisory service. An aircraft taking off from an airport in F, and climbing into class C will be offered the service in the F part of the flight as well as the C part of the flight.
This is what happens when I take off from or arrive into Inverness in the UK (in an RPT A320).
Class F Airspace
I think Canada uses Class F in the way intended by ICAO =>
Class F airspace is special use airspace.
Any Class F zone will be designated either CYR, CYD, or CYA. CYR stands for restricted, CYD means danger (usually used for CYR areas over international waters), and CYA stands for advisory. CYA zones will also have a letter identifying the type of activity in the zone: A – aerobatics, F – aircraft testing, H – hang gliding, M – military, P – parachuting, S – soaring, T – training.
The UK has not used Class F since 2014: ( https://www.nats.aero/ae-home/introduction-to-airspace/ )
Class F airspace is special use airspace.
Any Class F zone will be designated either CYR, CYD, or CYA. CYR stands for restricted, CYD means danger (usually used for CYR areas over international waters), and CYA stands for advisory. CYA zones will also have a letter identifying the type of activity in the zone: A – aerobatics, F – aircraft testing, H – hang gliding, M – military, P – parachuting, S – soaring, T – training.
- For entry into a CYR or CYD zone, an aircraft needs the permission of the operating authority. Pilots may enter CYA zones at their discretion, but are encouraged to avoid them unless taking part in the activity.
The UK has not used Class F since 2014: ( https://www.nats.aero/ae-home/introduction-to-airspace/ )
As a result someone here from time to time has called our Class G "ForG".
Have a read of this thread (out of many): Williamtown VFR Flight Planning
It's been interesting to watch the devolution of airspace 'regulation' in Australia. When the airspace regulation legislation was amended so that the function 'moved' from Airservices to CASA, so did the experts. Those experts have managed to manoeuvre themselves into splendid isolation, where everyone else is responsible for submitting airspace change proposals and the gumby Minister thinks his statement of 'expectations' has some consequence.
It is interesting how Canada treats Class F. So we are not the only country in the world that does something different. I think I prefer our PRDs.
Actually Australia has two types of Class G airspace. See AIP ENR 1.4-7 paras 3.1.3 & 3.1.4
That would be me.
Have a read of this thread (out of many): Williamtown VFR Flight Planning
It's been interesting to watch the devolution of airspace 'regulation' in Australia. When the airspace regulation legislation was amended so that the function 'moved' from Airservices to CASA, so did the experts. Those experts have managed to manoeuvre themselves into splendid isolation, where everyone else is responsible for submitting airspace change proposals and the gumby Minister thinks his statement of 'expectations' has some consequence.
Have a read of this thread (out of many): Williamtown VFR Flight Planning
It's been interesting to watch the devolution of airspace 'regulation' in Australia. When the airspace regulation legislation was amended so that the function 'moved' from Airservices to CASA, so did the experts. Those experts have managed to manoeuvre themselves into splendid isolation, where everyone else is responsible for submitting airspace change proposals and the gumby Minister thinks his statement of 'expectations' has some consequence.
Three wise monkeys!
Gf
That's not what " is considered normally as a temporary measure only until such time as it can be replaced by air traffic control." means - i.e. it doesn't mean that the class F airspace itself is temporary and will be replaced.
It means that the aircraft will, along it's journey, soon be entering airspace in which air traffic control is provided. The note means that an aircraft flying from one airport to another, all in class F, won't normally be offered a traffic advisory service. An aircraft taking off from an airport in F, and climbing into class C will be offered the service in the F part of the flight as well as the C part of the flight.
This is what happens when I take off from or arrive into Inverness in the UK (in an RPT A320).
It means that the aircraft will, along it's journey, soon be entering airspace in which air traffic control is provided. The note means that an aircraft flying from one airport to another, all in class F, won't normally be offered a traffic advisory service. An aircraft taking off from an airport in F, and climbing into class C will be offered the service in the F part of the flight as well as the C part of the flight.
This is what happens when I take off from or arrive into Inverness in the UK (in an RPT A320).
Do I understand that Inverness is a Class D Tower/CTR, with Class F airspace above it and then Class C, is this correct?
Expertise Que? What is that?
Actually the couple of experts retired after a few years, leaving those left to their own devices
It is interesting how Canada treats Class F. So we are not the only country in the world that does something different. I think I prefer our PRDs.
Actually Australia has two types of Class G airspace. See AIP ENR 1.4-7 paras 3.1.3 & 3.1.4
It is interesting how Canada treats Class F. So we are not the only country in the world that does something different. I think I prefer our PRDs.
Actually Australia has two types of Class G airspace. See AIP ENR 1.4-7 paras 3.1.3 & 3.1.4
With the separation of Airservices to be only a "service provider" they no longer have any significant Head Office staff professionally qualified and experienced driving large aircraft around the sky.
To be blunt, they can be the best ATC in the world but they no longer know what they are doing and why - they do not understand the need of the pilots and operators to whom they, nominally, provide a service.
When blokes like Merv Fowler left Airservices, the IFR pilot experience left also.
CASA used to have a core of experienced IFR pilots from both airlines and GA. Sure, there are a few left like Captain Jos**** who know precisely how an IFR flight should be conducted and what services they need but as you say, most of the expertise has vanished.
And the result is CASA OAR is not doing the legally defined job, as I have evidenced in detail here.
And therein lies a huge problem Captain Midnight!
With the separation of Airservices to be only a "service provider" they no longer have any significant Head Office staff professionally qualified and experienced driving large aircraft around the sky. To be blunt, they can be the best ATC in the world but they no longer know what they are doing and why - they do not understand the need of the pilots and operators to whom they, nominally, provide a service.
When blokes like Merv Fowler left Airservices, the IFR pilot experience left also.
With the separation of Airservices to be only a "service provider" they no longer have any significant Head Office staff professionally qualified and experienced driving large aircraft around the sky. To be blunt, they can be the best ATC in the world but they no longer know what they are doing and why - they do not understand the need of the pilots and operators to whom they, nominally, provide a service.
When blokes like Merv Fowler left Airservices, the IFR pilot experience left also.
It was the airspace regulation and design experience in CASA OAR LB and I were referring to, not Airservices.
A couple of people experienced in such matters (as well as ATC) moved from Airservices to CASA OAR when they commenced, but retired a few years later.
