Airservices Class E changes
undoubtedly the best allocation of airspace in the world!
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hardly triadic, surely the staff are there but they are just in the wrong place!!
Perhaps ASA could develop an interactive website, insert Departure aerodrome and Destination aerodrome, aircraft type, flight rules, class of operation and planned level and BINGO - website displays route in 3-D, terrain including LSALT, airspace, services to be expected including communications coverage, surveillance, and examples of correct mandatory radio calls.
Perhaps ASA could develop an interactive website, insert Departure aerodrome and Destination aerodrome, aircraft type, flight rules, class of operation and planned level and BINGO - website displays route in 3-D, terrain including LSALT, airspace, services to be expected including communications coverage, surveillance, and examples of correct mandatory radio calls.
ROTFALMAO,
Sunny, I’ll have some of those magic mushrooms!
you are now giving the impression something is changing...
2000 extra of E ABV Mangalore and Ballina. You seem to have fallen for the con.
TIME to take the car keys back from the toddlers before the handbrake gets released!
Gf
Sunny, I’ll have some of those magic mushrooms!
you are now giving the impression something is changing...
2000 extra of E ABV Mangalore and Ballina. You seem to have fallen for the con.
TIME to take the car keys back from the toddlers before the handbrake gets released!
Gf
The Minister should step in and stop this nonsense from his Government-owned ATS provider known as Airservices Australia.
The Minister provides guidelines to CASA under the Airspace Act 2007, known as the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS), the last iteration of which was on 25 Sep 2018. I provided input to the 2018 amendment, and amongst other things, pointed out that the Minister was not providing guidance on how Class E airspace should be utilised in Australia. I believe some of my input was incorporated (the Dept does not actually respond to such input) however guidance about Class E was not included. The AAPS does however include the extracts I have reproduced below:
[CASA]"shall consider adopting proven international best practice airspace systems
CASA’s risk review process should be consistent with published Australian standards for risk management, as updated.
CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
The Government’s airspace strategy will be risk-based, engendering evidence-based decision making, and supported by robust data collection and analysis, in determining Australia’s future airspace needs."
It can immediately be seen that while Airservices can propose airspace changes to CASA (anybody can) it is CASA's role to provide the proposals for public comments and include the "risk-based, engendering evidence-based decision making, and supported by robust data collection and analysis," that has led to the proposal.
I understand that CASA OAR, is understaffed and lacking in airspace specialists with knowledge of "international best practice airspace systems", they are however charged by the Minister to carry out the planning and consultation now being done by Airservices, I must say, as more of a horse-trading exercise than evidence-based decision making.
I was one of only three air traffic controllers chosen by Dick Smith to study the FAA airspace system back when ICAO was introducing the airspace alphabet denominations, and I have maintained my interest, particularly in the preparation of safety cases supporting change within the system. In the US I was struck by how user-friendly their system was, how pilots and ATCs together made it work, but above-all how it was driven by logic. Class E is there to provide protection for IFR flights, therefore, it covers all airspace where certain categories (decided by the FAA) of IFR flights operate, regardless of surveillance coverage and what particular interest groups want or do not want! The opposite seems to be the case in Australia where Airservices seems to want only to provide services where there is money to be made from existing resources. The resources should follow the traffic and the airspace class, not the other way around.
I call on the Minister and CASA DAS to stop this nonsensical process and follow Australian law as embodied in the Airspace Act and AAPS.
The Minister provides guidelines to CASA under the Airspace Act 2007, known as the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS), the last iteration of which was on 25 Sep 2018. I provided input to the 2018 amendment, and amongst other things, pointed out that the Minister was not providing guidance on how Class E airspace should be utilised in Australia. I believe some of my input was incorporated (the Dept does not actually respond to such input) however guidance about Class E was not included. The AAPS does however include the extracts I have reproduced below:
[CASA]"shall consider adopting proven international best practice airspace systems
CASA’s risk review process should be consistent with published Australian standards for risk management, as updated.
CASA will provide these proposals for public comment and, after considering these comments, make a determination to be implemented as directed by CASA, by the relevant parties.
The Government’s airspace strategy will be risk-based, engendering evidence-based decision making, and supported by robust data collection and analysis, in determining Australia’s future airspace needs."
It can immediately be seen that while Airservices can propose airspace changes to CASA (anybody can) it is CASA's role to provide the proposals for public comments and include the "risk-based, engendering evidence-based decision making, and supported by robust data collection and analysis," that has led to the proposal.
I understand that CASA OAR, is understaffed and lacking in airspace specialists with knowledge of "international best practice airspace systems", they are however charged by the Minister to carry out the planning and consultation now being done by Airservices, I must say, as more of a horse-trading exercise than evidence-based decision making.
I was one of only three air traffic controllers chosen by Dick Smith to study the FAA airspace system back when ICAO was introducing the airspace alphabet denominations, and I have maintained my interest, particularly in the preparation of safety cases supporting change within the system. In the US I was struck by how user-friendly their system was, how pilots and ATCs together made it work, but above-all how it was driven by logic. Class E is there to provide protection for IFR flights, therefore, it covers all airspace where certain categories (decided by the FAA) of IFR flights operate, regardless of surveillance coverage and what particular interest groups want or do not want! The opposite seems to be the case in Australia where Airservices seems to want only to provide services where there is money to be made from existing resources. The resources should follow the traffic and the airspace class, not the other way around.
I call on the Minister and CASA DAS to stop this nonsensical process and follow Australian law as embodied in the Airspace Act and AAPS.
The AAPS is a bunch of motherhood statements invented to divert punters and the Minister (evidently successfully).
There are heavy metal pilots in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously: There are heavy metal pilot in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously.
There are heavy metal pilots in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously: There are heavy metal pilot in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously.
The AAPS is a bunch of motherhood statements invented to divert punters and the Minister (evidently successfully).
There are heavy metal pilots in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously: There are heavy metal pilot in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously.
There are heavy metal pilots in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously: There are heavy metal pilot in Australia who prefer G instead of E.
Seriously.
I believe you, but do you want to explicitly explain why, at least from your perspective.
Thanks in anticipation.
Gf.
PS. Sometimes the truth seems incredulous to others.
Re my first observation, these policy mechanisms are typical smoke and mirrors tricks used to give the impression of activity and responsibility. If you wave all the smoke and mirrors out of the way and track the law through to section 11A of the Civil Aviation Act, the stark truth is revealed: If CASA just sits on its arse and does nothing about airspace, the AAPS has no consequences. And, more importantly, if CASA decides it wants to do something inconsistently with the AAPS, all it has to do is inform the Minister of CASA’s proposal to do so. And, finally and most importantly, if CASA does something inconsistently with the AAPS and doesn’t inform the Minister of CASA’s proposal to do so, what do you reckon is going to happen?
The Minister hasn’t been able to muster up the necessary competence and courage to appoint a new Director of Aviation Safety, notwithstanding years of notice that the previous incumbent was scarpering with his bag of taxpayer gold. What chance a muppet like that sacking someone for failing to comply with the AAPS?
Re the observation that some heavy metal pilots in Australia prefer G instead of E, hopefully Capn Bloggs will explain in terms you can understand. I’ve never been able to understand the logic.
The Minister hasn’t been able to muster up the necessary competence and courage to appoint a new Director of Aviation Safety, notwithstanding years of notice that the previous incumbent was scarpering with his bag of taxpayer gold. What chance a muppet like that sacking someone for failing to comply with the AAPS?
Re the observation that some heavy metal pilots in Australia prefer G instead of E, hopefully Capn Bloggs will explain in terms you can understand. I’ve never been able to understand the logic.
The Oz Class G hybrid provides for a higher level of service than ICAO generic G (where there is no DTI mandated), so it may well be the case that it is preferred by users over the more restrictive E. I started a thread in the ATC section on this topic to see what it's like around the world, and it looks like there are many variations of G in use, but ours appears like a higher one than most if not all ? Maybe this could be a valid reason to maintain the current easy A085 E base everyone is familiar with ?
Capt Bloggs, exactly we have G+ or F-, and for that reason we don't need E low unlike other jurisdictions like the US where u get nothing in G and have to provide E low for that reason.
Anyone agree ?
Anyone agree ?
Deja vu all over again.
So, now explain why Australian ForG is better than Australian E.
Pretty soon we’ll get back, again, to the startling revelation that VFR pilots are more incompetent in Australian E than they are in Australian ForG.
So, now explain why Australian ForG is better than Australian E.
Pretty soon we’ll get back, again, to the startling revelation that VFR pilots are more incompetent in Australian E than they are in Australian ForG.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is sad that ASA have lost many of their experienced staff over the past few years and it shows with the poor state of this E proposal
Rather than just quote letters with plus / minus that remind me of my academic exam scores 40 years ago...and then attach a country like US / CANADA / UK as if to give more credence......
Why don’t you describe what you want as a service below A100 outside C....
It is obvious we have a variety of issues but given the disingenuous Airservice Plan B “Confidence Trick” would have done nothing to prevent:
- Mangalore accident, or
- Ballina A320 / Jabiriu incident.
The change to E at Mangalore / Ballina only extend down to 6500 AMSL, well above the altitude of both accident / incident.
VH-TNP still haunts Airservices for the wrong reasons....
Mention RAM and MSAW and it elicits interesting reactions who were in the know at the time.
it would appear the Minister has been badly misled.
But then in the Canberra bubble everything is about spin and not what is safe in the cockpits or ATC consoles.
Are all the posters here fully aware of the constraints that the low level airspace controllers opoerate to at the moment?
Are all the posters that seem to have the answer with a defined simplistic name really so confident their solution would actually work?
It is incredibly arrogant of Aiservices that seems to presume an outcome from the MNG coroner’s inquiry.
‘Be curious rather than judgemental...”
Why has AsA had the capability of 3 Supplementary Air Situation Displays per console (additional to the “Main and Second Windows ASDs” ) that were specifically designed to allow a controller to have a display zoomed right in on a conflict, whilst still maintaining the Main Window covering all the airspace they are responsible for plus some (due to so called automated coordination) but never allowed the controllers to use them???
The Mangalore accident and issues surrounding it seemed perfect for the utilisation of the SUP ASD capability???
When has any G airspace controller ever received “compromised separation training” where the scenario consisted of two TAAATS Eurocat coupled tracks were in G Airspace??? ie as was the situation at MNG...?? Could the answer be never??
When did any G airspace controller get comprehensive training in the utilisation of the STCA list Window in the management of STCA alerts, where 99,9 % of the alerts are operationally false???
Lots of interesting questions to be answered....someday or maybe never like some around VH-TNP...
Could any controller list any TAAATS Eurocat enhancement specifically commissioned for low level sectors in the last 20 year after the initial G airspace commissioning?
How many AsA ADSB receivers have been commissioned to specifically cover low level sectors?
We are all being told how good ADSB is but its really a waste of time if its not used (yep a remarkable statement in itself ) but what do you expect when CASA seems to think ATC is done with situational awareness.... sorry but its done with conflict detection (stupid) and on rare occasions saved by the ground based safety net called STCA and finally another airborne based safety net called TCAS.
How good your conflict detection is dictates your target level of safety...no utilisation of safety nets allowed....
How good your total resultant level of safety in an ATM system is includes conflict detection plus the two safety nets as per above...
Does anyone in AsA, CASA or ATSB understand that??????
That is the concept in A and C airspace...
For MNG the first two concepts failed and the third wasn’t probably on either aircraft....
Ballina the first two failed and the third ie RA failed also...
Does anyone who proposes a solution for low level D, E and G airspace want to disregard the concepts that safety nets are supposed to offer?
As always I am happy to be curious AND educated on any errors on my part...
Let’s keep out of the Canberra bull*&@# and start in the cockpit and console.
And don’t assume everyone here understands everything!
it’s obvious I certainly don’t ....
Why don’t you describe what you want as a service below A100 outside C....
It is obvious we have a variety of issues but given the disingenuous Airservice Plan B “Confidence Trick” would have done nothing to prevent:
- Mangalore accident, or
- Ballina A320 / Jabiriu incident.
The change to E at Mangalore / Ballina only extend down to 6500 AMSL, well above the altitude of both accident / incident.
VH-TNP still haunts Airservices for the wrong reasons....
Mention RAM and MSAW and it elicits interesting reactions who were in the know at the time.
it would appear the Minister has been badly misled.
But then in the Canberra bubble everything is about spin and not what is safe in the cockpits or ATC consoles.
Are all the posters here fully aware of the constraints that the low level airspace controllers opoerate to at the moment?
Are all the posters that seem to have the answer with a defined simplistic name really so confident their solution would actually work?
It is incredibly arrogant of Aiservices that seems to presume an outcome from the MNG coroner’s inquiry.
‘Be curious rather than judgemental...”
Why has AsA had the capability of 3 Supplementary Air Situation Displays per console (additional to the “Main and Second Windows ASDs” ) that were specifically designed to allow a controller to have a display zoomed right in on a conflict, whilst still maintaining the Main Window covering all the airspace they are responsible for plus some (due to so called automated coordination) but never allowed the controllers to use them???
The Mangalore accident and issues surrounding it seemed perfect for the utilisation of the SUP ASD capability???
When has any G airspace controller ever received “compromised separation training” where the scenario consisted of two TAAATS Eurocat coupled tracks were in G Airspace??? ie as was the situation at MNG...?? Could the answer be never??
When did any G airspace controller get comprehensive training in the utilisation of the STCA list Window in the management of STCA alerts, where 99,9 % of the alerts are operationally false???
Lots of interesting questions to be answered....someday or maybe never like some around VH-TNP...
Could any controller list any TAAATS Eurocat enhancement specifically commissioned for low level sectors in the last 20 year after the initial G airspace commissioning?
How many AsA ADSB receivers have been commissioned to specifically cover low level sectors?
We are all being told how good ADSB is but its really a waste of time if its not used (yep a remarkable statement in itself ) but what do you expect when CASA seems to think ATC is done with situational awareness.... sorry but its done with conflict detection (stupid) and on rare occasions saved by the ground based safety net called STCA and finally another airborne based safety net called TCAS.
How good your conflict detection is dictates your target level of safety...no utilisation of safety nets allowed....
How good your total resultant level of safety in an ATM system is includes conflict detection plus the two safety nets as per above...
Does anyone in AsA, CASA or ATSB understand that??????
That is the concept in A and C airspace...
For MNG the first two concepts failed and the third wasn’t probably on either aircraft....
Ballina the first two failed and the third ie RA failed also...
Does anyone who proposes a solution for low level D, E and G airspace want to disregard the concepts that safety nets are supposed to offer?
As always I am happy to be curious AND educated on any errors on my part...
Let’s keep out of the Canberra bull*&@# and start in the cockpit and console.
And don’t assume everyone here understands everything!
it’s obvious I certainly don’t ....
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 18th Mar 2021 at 19:57.
All this trouble started with the adoption of ICAO classifications. 
Before, you would determine the service you wanted, and then call the airspace a name that reflected that service.
Now you guess a letter, and try to stuff the service you want to apply into the definition of that letter, ending up with something that is neither.
Before, you would determine the service you wanted, and then call the airspace a name that reflected that service.
Now you guess a letter, and try to stuff the service you want to apply into the definition of that letter, ending up with something that is neither.
All this trouble started with the adoption of ICAO classifications.
Before, you would determine the service you wanted, and then call the airspace a name that reflected that service.
Now you guess a letter, and try to stuff the service you want to apply into the definition of that letter, ending up with something that is neither.
Before, you would determine the service you wanted, and then call the airspace a name that reflected that service.
Now you guess a letter, and try to stuff the service you want to apply into the definition of that letter, ending up with something that is neither.
A stunning insight!
Like almost everything these days we don’t call out the bull$%@& and spin anymore.
And it’s not the only example.
Why is it that no one can tell me why we are doing ONESKY! Whoops thread drift....
Is it the Gallic forerunner of the new sub contract??
Thanks to everyone that took an interest in my post, I will try and answer the questions posed:
Triadic - Yes I believe that Airservices is reacting to a possible finding by the ATSB, but not from the Minister.
10JQKA - Class G, in the US is confined to the airspace below Class E. Variously below 1500, 1200, or 700 feet. It is therefore very limited and because US Class E does not require transponder equipment for VFR flights, indistinguishable from Class E.
Checkboard - I do not believe that Australia had the option not to use the ICAO classifications that was why we went to the US. The world-wide problem was, what you have highlighted, the proliferation of "special-use" airspace that pilots had to study as they passed from place to place and country to country. The adoption of the classes was designed to allow a pilot to know what service was being provided just by looking at the letter. That did not work completely, of course, because many countries, including Australia, have different levels of service within particular airspaces. As was mentioned in another response, our Class G is really Class F, the police in SYD Class C operate as if it was Class D, and so on. Europe had to go as far as banning individual countries from relaxing separation requirements. The best example is London where the Control Zone was Class A with VFR helicopters! It is now Class D because that was the realistic usage.
Enough for now, I hope those comments helped.
Triadic - Yes I believe that Airservices is reacting to a possible finding by the ATSB, but not from the Minister.
- Australia has a State Aviation Safety Plan with seven agencies accountable for safety, five of which are in the Minister's portfolio.
- Safety is, however, run by the Aviation Policy Group(APG), consisting of the head honchos of DIRD, CASA, Airservices, and the ADF. (Note specifically excludes ATSB) These honchos are currently a public servant, and ex-LAME, and ex-ATC, and a Pilot. I doubt that they tell the Minister anything unless:
- It involves a politician; or
- It will get in the media
- It may affect the Government's re-election (see both above)
- The APG will have discussed this proposal and CASA will have agreed that Airservices should take the lead. This is due to CASA OAR being a very junior office within CASA, managed by a fourth-level manager, which acts, in my opinion, as a rubber stamp for what the ADF and Airservices decree. (See another thread about following the law, where I have posted about the legality of R Areas outside of Territorial Waters - 12NM)
10JQKA - Class G, in the US is confined to the airspace below Class E. Variously below 1500, 1200, or 700 feet. It is therefore very limited and because US Class E does not require transponder equipment for VFR flights, indistinguishable from Class E.
Checkboard - I do not believe that Australia had the option not to use the ICAO classifications that was why we went to the US. The world-wide problem was, what you have highlighted, the proliferation of "special-use" airspace that pilots had to study as they passed from place to place and country to country. The adoption of the classes was designed to allow a pilot to know what service was being provided just by looking at the letter. That did not work completely, of course, because many countries, including Australia, have different levels of service within particular airspaces. As was mentioned in another response, our Class G is really Class F, the police in SYD Class C operate as if it was Class D, and so on. Europe had to go as far as banning individual countries from relaxing separation requirements. The best example is London where the Control Zone was Class A with VFR helicopters! It is now Class D because that was the realistic usage.
Enough for now, I hope those comments helped.
GF - OneSky or Civil-Military ATS (CMATS) was needed because the civil, so-called TAAATS, system was a Thales Eurocat system which while being kept up to date in software needed new hardware. We are upgrading to the Thales Eurocat in use in Singapore and other places around the world. The military reason was that the ADF rejected the civil system when it was installed and bought their own. I believe it did not work as advertised and of course, did not"talk" to the civil system. CMATS is supposed to be the common system we should have had 30 years ago!
Geoff thanks and re yr reply below,
"10JQKA - Class G, in the US is confined to the airspace below Class E. Variously below 1500, 1200, or 700 feet. It is therefore very limited and because US Class E does not require transponder equipment for VFR flights, indistinguishable from Class E."
Yes I understand the US G is a very thin band of G, but there is no DTI provided to IFR which may be a good reason to have lots of E in the case of the US ?
But our G has mandated DTI to IFR, a hangover I assume of the disbanded previous Flight Service functions, So could it not be possible that with our G providing a higher service level as a hybrid than of ICAO G that in fact there is no need to provide low E and is a waste of time and resources and will only cause delays compared to current G operations ?
Have always thought that if the powers that be had to tick the extra CTA box for whatever reasons it would be much smarter, neater and operationally less restrictive to instead bring the E base inland down to A085 from F125 and have a uniform base of A085 for E everywhere, surely some standardisation like that would be more valuable/efficient than a patchwork of variable E bases ? Have a look at the Hunter Valley proposed map A045 east of what used to be Point Lookout/Singleton then base A065 West of that until you run out of J-curve then F125 and 2 circular areas of base A085 one between CH and TW and other one between WLM and TW ! Good luck with situational awareness flying there and knowing what the base of CTA is at any point on your multi leg flight.
"10JQKA - Class G, in the US is confined to the airspace below Class E. Variously below 1500, 1200, or 700 feet. It is therefore very limited and because US Class E does not require transponder equipment for VFR flights, indistinguishable from Class E."
Yes I understand the US G is a very thin band of G, but there is no DTI provided to IFR which may be a good reason to have lots of E in the case of the US ?
But our G has mandated DTI to IFR, a hangover I assume of the disbanded previous Flight Service functions, So could it not be possible that with our G providing a higher service level as a hybrid than of ICAO G that in fact there is no need to provide low E and is a waste of time and resources and will only cause delays compared to current G operations ?
Have always thought that if the powers that be had to tick the extra CTA box for whatever reasons it would be much smarter, neater and operationally less restrictive to instead bring the E base inland down to A085 from F125 and have a uniform base of A085 for E everywhere, surely some standardisation like that would be more valuable/efficient than a patchwork of variable E bases ? Have a look at the Hunter Valley proposed map A045 east of what used to be Point Lookout/Singleton then base A065 West of that until you run out of J-curve then F125 and 2 circular areas of base A085 one between CH and TW and other one between WLM and TW ! Good luck with situational awareness flying there and knowing what the base of CTA is at any point on your multi leg flight.
Last edited by 10JQKA; 19th Mar 2021 at 07:45.