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

Airservices Class E changes

Old 25th Mar 2021, 01:29
  #421 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
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
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 02:15
  #422 (permalink)  
Gne
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: With the Wizard
Posts: 20
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.
Gne is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 05:25
  #423 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,036
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!
triadic is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 07:50
  #424 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
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.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 09:01
  #425 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 50
#424 from Dick is spot on +1
10JQKA is online now  
Old 25th Mar 2021, 12:17
  #426 (permalink)  
When you live....
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: 0.0221 DME Keyboard
Posts: 933
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
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.
Are there really any aircraft flying IFR today that don't have 2 radios? Even if it wasn't E to 8500' and you had only 1 radio you're back in the same position you would be today - only able to swap to the CTAF 'late' to arrange separation.

Spurious at best....

Regards
Richard

UnderneathTheRadar is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 01:03
  #427 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
No other airspace system in the world I know of is designed where two radios on different frequencies at the same time must be used to ensure safety.

Before I introduced the AMATS changes only one radio at a time was required.

This “two radio” farce could have contributed to the cause of the Mangalore 4 fatalities.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Mar 2021 at 04:43.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 06:12
  #428 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 453
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
No other airspace system in the world I know of is designed where two radios on different frequencies at the same time must be used to ensure safety.

Before I introduced the AMATS changes only one radio at a time was required.

This “two radio” farce could have contributed to the cause of the Mangalore 4 fatalities.
Dick, I might be mis-reading your post but you seem to be accepting that the crash at Mangalore was directly related to change you made, is this correct?
missy is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 07:29
  #429 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
I won’t know until the ATSB report comes out. Before the changes there were no CTAFs so aircraft remained on the FS area frequency.

I would have never believed at the time that thirty years later only half the changes would be completed.

If the 1992 AMATS changes had been completed the two aircraft would have been separated by ATC.

Less chance of a mid air I would think!

Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Mar 2021 at 07:42.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 07:53
  #430 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,951
Folks,
It appears that Qantas has told Airservices that they will not allow the Class E to be lowered unless the transponder mandate remains. At the same time, they have refused to pay the extra costs for transponders to be fitted to VFR aircraft. What’s the bet that Airservices will announce a delay from the proposed December date and then it never goes ahead?
Yet again, the aviation Galapagos will be maintained.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 08:48
  #431 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,036
The proposed December 2 intro date is now not achievable - wonder why ASA are silent on this??
triadic is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 12:27
  #432 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
Originally Posted by Dick
No other airspace system in the world I know of is designed where two radios on different frequencies at the same time must be used to ensure safety.
Surely you cannot be serious??

IFR under ATC control until 700ft AGL and at the same time talking to VFRs on the CTAF. Classic Class E!!!!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 12:31
  #433 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
It appears that Qantas has told Airservices that they will not allow the Class E to be lowered unless the transponder mandate remains.
And so it should. Any blind Freddy in the 21st century knows that mixing IFR and VFR with no protection is madness. Why are some still living in the dark ages of follow-me vehicles and friendly FBOs.

I suppose you're still towing the line of VFR not on the radio, with no transponder, swanning around in terminal jet airspace, Leddie?

Where's that head-banging emoji...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 13:22
  #434 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 79
Posts: 2,936
Snoop

And stop calling me 'Shirley'..........

xx
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 21:11
  #435 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 482
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
IFR under ATC control until 700ft AGL and at the same time talking to VFRs on the CTAF. Classic Class E!!!!
Where does the IFR approach begin? 15 miles out?

So at some point > 15 miles ATC clear you for the approach. You don't need to talk to them again until you are in the missed approach or landed. You have 15 miles to talk to the CTAF traffic without worrying about ATC.
andrewr is online now  
Old 26th Mar 2021, 23:38
  #436 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
Bloggs. Why are you and Qantas operating into airports now without a transponder mandate if it is “madness” ?

Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Mar 2021 at 10:46.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 05:08
  #437 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Suits me. Controlled or uncontrolled. Simple.
Wow, I dream of those days with very pleasant memories. Controlled, Uncontrolled, FSU's, face to face briefings, good days.
e2_c is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 06:13
  #438 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,951
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post

I suppose you're still towing the line of VFR not on the radio, with no transponder, swanning around in terminal jet airspace, Leddie?

...
Bloggsie,
Attempted putdown --- fail!! You know. as well as I do, that I have never advocated any such thing --- based, of course, on standard definitions of such things as "terminal airspace", let alone something called "terminal jet airspace"???

As you well know, for as long as I have known you and your mates, I have advocated the US/FAA system because it works, and works well and efficiently at far higher traffic densities than ever encountered in Australia, and unlikely to be here encountered in your or my lifetime.

And just to remind the general readership, ICAO airspace classification is, in reality, the long established US system , published in a suitably UN bureaucratic form, as agreed to by ALL UN member states.

Finally, before "E" in the US, what is now E was ALWAYS controlled airspace, with the addendum " VFR Exempt" --- there is a clue there.

And, don't forget, Qantas and other VH IFR aircraft have long happily operated in Class E in US airspace, and other parts of the world where E is used, without the crews shaking in their boots.

Tootle pip!!


LeadSled is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 06:33
  #439 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
Originally Posted by Leddie
And, don't forget, Qantas and other VH IFR aircraft have long happily operated in Class E in US airspace, and other parts of the world where E is used, without the crews shaking in their boots.
Examples of where Qantas operated in overseas Class E to 700ft/1200ft/1500ft/5500ft into a CTAF please.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 09:33
  #440 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
Qantas passengers flying on to Steamboat Springs and similar US non tower airports will fly in the low level non radar terminal E airspace.

Clearly Qantas would warn their passengers if they believed there was any measurable risk
Dick Smith is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

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