Airservices Class E changes

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thankyou Mr B.

I do remember that philosophy now that you have reminded me.

For some 'obscure' reason, in Derbs, we had to remain open 24/7 to effect VHF radio comms with the DC-9 operating Darwin - Hedland, then Perth.
I think he went 'down'; on Tues., and came back 'up' on Thurs., both times in the 'wee' hours.
Didn't they have HF?

For INTL flights, o/head Derbs was a HF call to Perth FSC.

Go figure.....
Cheers

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If Ballina airport/industry wants to fund a tower why can't it be privately operated under contract to Airservices?

Be interesting to see what the actual costs would work out at, (I can bet that AsA will not cover the controller cost as the FAA does, so the contract would have to include the gold-plated ATC costs that AsA would charge). I wonder if industry or the locals would be so keen then?
If contract ATC were allowed then this would make it more compelling, as it pretty much comes down to staffing costs:
Contract Vs FAA

[Geoff Fairless]

Originally Posted by Gentle_flyer

To Geoff Fairless,

Thank you for your contributions. I found them very interesting.

I was wondering whether you could explain a couple of queries on the first and last sentences of your first post as per below:

“The Minister should step in and stop this nonsense from his Government-owned ATS provider known as Airservices Australia.”

“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.”

You use the words “nonsense” and “nonsensical”. Could you explain why you have used these strong words?

Does it refer to the process and / or the changes proposed?

Your second sentence seems to imply the minister reads these posts?

Do you honesty believe that or does your statement imply you have written a letter directly to the minister using the same words as quoted?

Thanks in anticipation of your reply.

G_f.

Gf - Thanks for your questions. Although I would rather argue the core issues I will try and respond to what you describe as "strong" words.

• Nonsense - noun - something absurd or fatuous:
• Nonsensical - adjective- (of behavior, conduct, actions, etc.) foolish, senseless, fatuous, or absurd:

These are the Dictionary.com definitions of the two words, there are other meanings but I have chosen the ones pertaining to ideas/actions. So to answer your point, I am referring to both the process and the proposal.
I do not believe that they are "strong" words, in the sense that I think you mean, they are simply common English words that convey my opinion of what Airservices is doing and has proposed. They are by their very nature, words carrying an opinion, and if you do not agree with my opinion, that is your right.

My call to the Minister is what is called "rhetoric" and can be:

• (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
• the art or science of all specialized literary uses of language in prose or verse, including the figures of speech.
• the study of the effective use of language.
• the ability to use language effectively.
• the art of prose in general as opposed to verse.
• the art of making persuasive speeches; oratory.

Of course, I do not believe that the Minister reads PPrune, but perhaps someone who advises him, might. Neither have I personally written to the Minister because I do not believe that my email/letter would get past his Departmental or political minders. I have, however, written on two occasions to the ATSB using similar language, once about an incident at Maroochydore and then about the ongoing investigation into a Ballina separation breakdown. I also, as I have stated elsewhere, responded to consultation requests on the AVSef website and have previously provided input to the DIRD about the AAPS in 2018. I intend to do so again this year.

Once again, thanks, I am always happy to defend my point of view.

[missy]

About AVSEF
This website, provided by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, will enable the Australian aviation industry to consult on aviation matters, including airspace and procedures of a regional and/or national importance.

Terms of reference
Participation in the State Engagement Forum (SEF) is open to stakeholders of the Australian aviation industry, associations and organisations, or independents. The intention of the SEF is to increase the reach of the former RAPAC membership so that a wider industry view on matters can be obtained for the purposes of improving overall outcomes.

Scope of proposals
Based loosely on the former RAPAC scope, it is expected that consultations conducted through the SEF will relate to matters including:
...
Airspace classification and structure
...

Interesting that Class E changes haven't progressed through SEF processes and consultations.

[Gentle_flyer]

Geoff,

Thanks for your quick reply.

I apologise for making you write so many words that were wasted on me.

I should have tried a three letter word instead. WHY?

Throughout my 35 years in ATM asking that word has upset a lot of people because it showed me they were speaking bull#$@%.

I know that’s not you. Just my mistake not keeping it simple.

You see I like the quote by Walt Whitman: “Be curious not judgemental”. Recently so amusingly explained in the Apple TV+ comedy “Ted Lasso”. Season 1, Episode 8.

And WHY seems that word to show I’m curious.

So WHY do you think the AsA proposal is nonsense?

And WHY do you think the process is nonsense?

Do you feel the same way about Proposal A and Proposal B and if so WHY?

And yes I agree with you the mid-air accident at MNG as well as incidents Ballina and Maroochydore are very interesting.

I take it the ones you refer to are the Maroochydore ( Sunshine Coast) incident with the Aero Commander / A320 and Ballina incident with the A320 / Jabiru?

I watched the Senate Estimates today with particular interest in the ASA CEO’s answer to the CLASS E question from the Senate RRAT Committee Chair.

Strangely his answer just left me with even more questions than any specific answer...

Guess that’s why I’m curious!

Cheers, G_f.

[Geoff Fairless]

Hi Missy - If you go to the AVSef website - select National - Select Closed Consultations - you will find it there

[Geoff Fairless]

Hi G_f, I will try and keep it short:

So WHY do you think the AsA proposal is nonsense?

• The original proposal would have trapped all pilots flying aircraft with engine-driven electrical systems but no transponder below 1500 Feet AGL
• Pilots would have no way to know where 1500 feet was in space because we fly on the local or area mean sea level pressure setting (QNH)
• Surely you agree that was nonsense?

And WHY do you think the process is nonsense?

• The AAPS paragraphs 25 - 33 detail the MInister's instructions to CASA about the process for changing an airspace classification in a volume of airspace
• Para 26 allows a non-CASA proponent to "identify(ing) the volumes of airspace to be reviewed in accordance with Section 13 of the Airspace Act 2007, and be accompanied by comprehensive supporting evidence for the proposed change"
• I would accept an argument that Airservices is currently gathering comprehensive supporting evidence, however, it is the job of CASA to complete a risk assessment, publish the CASA (not the proponents) proposal for change, and request comment

Do you feel the same way about Proposal A and Proposal B and if so WHY?
I have tried to find proposals A and B but without success
If you are referring to the latest Airservices iteration then lowering the Class E base will still trap the aircraft I refer to above but at a higher altitude.
This increases the collision risk in the remaining Class G and also runs counter to the equitable access to airspace explained in the Government legislation

[10JQKA]

Originally Posted by Geoff Fairless

Hi Missy - If you go to the AVSef website - select National - Select Closed Consultations - you will find it there

Why wouldn't the revised version of the proposal appear on the AVSEF website and only the original 1500agl version does ?

[triadic]

email from CASA AvSEF

Today' (23/03/21)

Aviation State Engagement Forum

For the attention of all AvSEF members


A paper has been submitted by Airservices that seeks feedback on the revised proposal to lower the base of Class E airspace between Cairns and Melbourne.

Please see the post on the AvSEF website for further information and to provide your feedback.

[10JQKA]

That was quick !

[Gentle_flyer]

So AsA’s Plan B (Confidence Trick) no SAFIS??

Still no Class E separation at altitude of MNG accident.

So how does Plan B solve MNG or Ballina. It doesn’t.

However MNG and Ballina were the reasons for the changes as told by AsA CEO to Senate RRAT on Monday afternoon.

Hmmmm....the absolute farce continues....

Several ex AsA staff have told me they are so embarrassed to think they use to work for this organisation once....

We used to be better than this......

It’s the duplicitous and unashamed distortions of reason versus fact that amazes me.

Where is Bill Heffernan when you need him

[Lead Balloon]

Bill Heffernan and his contemporaries sat and watched the slow deterioration in the corporate competence and integrity of CASA, Airservices and ATSB. So are his successors.

Don't be fooled by the occasional dummy spit and rhetorical flourish by members of Senate Committees. Unless they legislate for substantive change, it's effectively pantomime. The bureaucracy knows this.

The Commonwealth's 'leadership' and 'brainstrust' are focused on sexual assault and masturbation, leaving CASA, Airservices and ATSB to run themselves.

[Gentle_flyer]

Lead,

You are of course quite right.

However, I did like his detector for bull$#@% and his employment advice.

Hmm, I wonder what Ian Macphee is doing?

I’m quite surprised at the shock and horror re the videod masturbation.

Metaphoric masturbation seems to be the only thing achieved inside the Canberra bubble...

[triadic]

Hansard 22/03/2021 Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee - Senate Estimates (my bolding!)

Chair: Senator Susan McDonald (Qld) Mr Harfield (CEO Airservices)

CHAIR: Just to mix it up a little bit, I might start. I won't be long. I just have a couple of questions on the changes to the class E airspace, particularly around Townsville, though, of course, this applies more broadly around the country. Can you talk me through the basis on which that decision was made?

Mr Harfield : No decision has been made yet. What we put out for consultation earlier this year was as a result of what we're seeing in the airspace as an arrangement of managing the day-to-day risk. Last year we saw a number of accidents in that type of airspace, which is currently what we would call class G airspace.

CHAIR: Specifically whereabouts?

Mr Harfield : There was an accident at Mangalore—a midair collision—in February last year. And, as well, we've seen the change in traffic profile as a result of COVID. We've seen the airspace up and down the east coast of Australia which is currently class G become busier than what it once was. To take an example, Ballina airport is now 50 per cent higher in traffic than it was pre-COVID. That changing risk type got us to looking at how we can enhance the services that we provide to better protect all of the airspace users. Earlier this year we put out a proposal to lower class E airspace up and down what we call the J curve, which ostensibly is the east coast. We put that out for consultation. During that time, we got over a thousand pieces of feedback. We've taken those on board and retuned the proposal, and last week we went out again for further consultation on the revised proposal to industry. We will do that over the next four to five weeks. After that consultation, we'll take the feedback on board and see what the proposal will be, before we submit it to CASA for approval.

CHAIR: What is the revised proposal?

Mr Harfield : The revised proposal is lowering class E, but, instead of down to above ground level, it's above mean sea level. I can refer you to a website, which we can provide on notice, which has all the details of the revisions as well as the changes, in tracking the consultation that we received and how we've addressed that consultation.

CHAIR: I've had a significant amount of contact around this—not positive—so I'll look forward to a demonstration of how this is going to maintain activity, particularly in general aviation, and what is the demonstrated safety case, because there was also another case—anyway, I have committed to not holding things up for too long. I am very interested in this topic, and I hope you'll include me in your advice as to when you are prepared to go to CASA.

Mr Harfield : Absolutely. I will admit that, as a result of the way we initially positioned some of our wording, some of the feedback that we got did give the impression a decision had been made when that was not the intention at all. That's why we are going through the process of making sure we have taken on board over 1,000 pieces of feedback. We're now back out again, and we'll make sure you see that. After that consultation, when we get to where we want to finalise it, we will put that out for comment as well.

https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo...b98c%2F0000%22

So no decision on either Plan A or Plan B makes me wonder just what their real plan is? Still no safety case?
They have now run out of time for the proposed December implementation.

[sunnySA]

Originally Posted by triadic

...makes me wonder just what their real plan is? Still no safety case?
They have now run out of time for the proposed December implementation.

It's probably in someone's Work Performance Agreement, a couple of KPIs to meet.

I will admit that, as a result of the way we initially positioned some of our wording, some of the feedback that we got did give the impression a decision had been made when that was not the intention at all.

Really!! Think back to Perth route/airspace changes, think back to Hobart route/airspace changes. Some things never change.

[Geoff Fairless]

The real plan! - If we were to project forward to an assumed outcome then the plan may be revealed.

Assuming Airservices gets minimum push-back on lowering the base of Class E to something below 8500AMSL then they will have achieved a couple of things:

1. Any suggestion from ATSB that Class E may have avoided the outcome at MNG will have been spiked by giving the industry the option of the US-based Class E to 1500AGL, and having it knocked back;
2. The cost of providing sufficient staff and equipment to provide approach control down to 1500 AGL at regional airports will have been avoided

That is, the status quo, with a small adjustment to sector workload, will have been maintained.

Note that the option to adopt the US Class E system which does not require a transponder for VFR aircraft below 10,000feet AMSL is not being proposed. (I am aware that transponder veils exist around Class B airspace airports)
Perhaps CASA should step-in here and present industry with ALL the options instead of just the Airservices version

[Gne]

Mr Fairless,

Please do not suggest there is actually some cogent strategy behind the ASA proposals or that there is sufficient experience and knowledge in CASA to present all the options. Fantasyland indeed.

Although the report is over a decade old now, CASA RFQ 09/342 had some potential to at least open the gate but never saw the light of day because, the authors tell me, CASA thought it made several of their past decisions look stupid. Probably more so now.

[triadic]

There is now enough info on the table to suggest that ASA have no real plan or strategy at all on this Class E proposal and certainly no justifiable reason for such a plan - either plan A or B.

The ASA CEO made clear at the Senate committee that no decision had been made and this is now obvious as the initial time-line for the change can no longer be met. (yet ASA continue to be silent on this aspect) Quoting the incident at Ballina and the accident at Mangalore asks even more questions as the E proposal would not have prevented either. It is now clear that ASA have lost many of their experienced staff as such a poor plan would not have seen the light of day a decade or so ago. Over the past few years it was obvious that ASA was backing out of the RAPACs and this is now evident as they obviously want to do their own thing with consultation when CASA have clearly said that all such proposals must be tabled to AvSEF.
Both industry and the OAR need to see the safety case prior to any possible movement on the proposal and possible subsequent approval. To date this is Zero, so at this time it is really going nowhere!

[Dick Smith]

By the look of it the AsA latest proposal may actually reduce safety if it is introduced.
This is because there will now be less time for IFR aircraft in non tower terminal airspace to arrange their own separation.
More chance of a Mangalore type mid air occurring I would think.

[10JQKA]

#424 from Dick is spot on +1