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 28th Mar 2021, 09:48
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
No Dick, I want Ledslead to tell us what QF aircraft fly into low level class E then a CTAF in the USA, just like you are trying to make us do.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 10:09
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
Surely you canít be so ill informed

No Qantas aircraft flies in low level class E in the USA as they only fly into Class B airports

Lead did not say or suggest that Qantas flies in low level E in the USA.

But amazingly Qantas flies in lots of low level G in Australia.When in IMC no separation standard applies!

Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Mar 2021 at 10:45.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 10:50
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
How about you let leddie speak for himself, Dick.

But amazingly Qantas flys in lots of low level G in Australia. When in IMC no separation standard applies!
Yes, it is amazing, isn't it. If you don't want it to fly in G, you tell us how much it's going to cost to provide a half-efficient ATC approach service in the bush in E. Actually, don't worry. I've asked you a hundred times but you refuse to answer.

And it's F we fly in, not G.

Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 23:05
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
You have clearly ignored the statement by our longest serving aviation minister John Anderson

ď Safety is something that has the highest priority- it is not a question of costĒ
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 28th Mar 2021, 23:41
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
I hardly think John Anderson has any credibility on the topic of airspace when he came out with that nonsense about Class C requiring a radar. A ministerial direction, no less! Sake chum, is there any hope for us all...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2021, 01:10
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Hi Dick and Bloggs,
If I read the KLAX airspace charts correctly then the airspace for a Qantas flight heading for RWY 24 or 25 might be:
  • From over Santa Catalina Island once below 18,000 feet - in Class E
    • this also is where the Mode C transponder veil starts at 30NM LAX
  • overfly Santa Ana Class C above 4400feet - in Class E + veil
    • I do not have any STAR information so
  • assuming Socal vectors QF to final either overflying Ontario Class C above 5000feet - in Class E + veil
  • or penetrate Ontario Class C on final leading into LAX Class B
So a fair amount of Class E.
I am not an airline pilot, I am just looking at a VFR hybrid chart, so if I am wrong please let me know!
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2021, 01:53
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 79
Posts: 2,936
Re today's CASA Briefing - March 2021.......
"Important VFR Equipment Survey"

Would this be a precurser for the intro of mandating Transponders in 'E' I wonder.....??

(Sorry, for some reason, unable to copy and paste the 'briefing'...)

Cheers
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2021, 02:29
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,440
Bloggsieís point is that you donít punch out of the base of that E in the vicinity of KLAX into an aerodrome in G.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 29th Mar 2021, 12:08
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,509
Mr Harfield : ..... 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.......
And the other accidents?.......Crickets?
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2021, 02:56
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 170
Geoff, you are correct, although you did miss the VFR routes that go directly over the top of KLAX, at several thousand feet. The used by the same VFR pilots that apparently canít be trusted in Australian Class E😂.

Iíve flown in the US and punched out of the E into a non towered aerodrome and towered aerodromes when the tower was closed. Got clearance for the approach, didnít have to worry about the other IFR traffic because I was being separated, so could concentrate on the approach and the VFR traffic. Simple. I did forget to advise ATC of my arrival once, but before I had the pitot covers on the local Unicom had wandered over to advise me to contact them
Vref+5 is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2021, 10:52
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,036
A good read on the ASA proposal part A

AusALPA submission on ASA Class E proposal A
triadic is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2021, 14:16
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 453
Thank you triadic.
Well worth a read. A couple of gems.
Many, if not most, of the touted benefits of this proposal are more hubris than of substance
Our previous comments about the management and direction of Airservices airspace projects remain apposite
.

Dick (Smith), I suggest you read the document, especially the sections that deal with communications and "Aligning Australia’s airspace system with the FAA system requires replication of the US CNS capability and of the related procedures."
missy is offline  
Old 30th Mar 2021, 23:14
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
So true

But why canít we align it where we have the same CNS capabilities?

Oh. I know - resistance to change and no leadership!

Also I do not understand there reference to Ayers Rock and the reason the E could not go to a low level- say 1200í agl. Can anyone elaborate?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2021, 02:39
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Originally Posted by Vref+5 View Post
Geoff, you are correct, although you did miss the VFR routes that go directly over the top of KLAX, at several thousand feet. The used by the same VFR pilots that apparently canít be trusted in Australian Class E😂.

Iíve flown in the US and punched out of the E into a non towered aerodrome and towered aerodromes when the tower was closed. Got clearance for the approach, didnít have to worry about the other IFR traffic because I was being separated, so could concentrate on the approach and the VFR traffic. Simple. I did forget to advise ATC of my arrival once, but before I had the pitot covers on the local Unicom had wandered over to advise me to contact them
Did not forget, I have flown the VFR route myself. I was only describing the route a QF flight from Australia might take. My concern with the VFR route was a possible jet go-around from medium to short final and the fact that we were talking to LA Ground not Tower. The controllers later assured me that they know the VFR traffic is there and would separate accordingly.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 31st Mar 2021, 03:36
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 42
Hi Dick,
My conversations since leaving CASA lead me to understand that the reference to 1200 feet at Ayers Rock became a sticking point because neither CASA OAR nor Airservices understands how Class E is made to work in the US.
AusAlpa is quite correct when it refers to the US Class E transition airspace down to 700 AGL or ground level as being the key. They also mention that VFR in the US is defined by the airspace, not the altitude requirements still used in Australia. (Due to us not having to deal with Class E below 8500feet) so:
  • For a VFR aircraft to be in the vicinity of an aerodrome with 700ft or ground level E, during poor visibility, requires a Special VFR clearance, this would not be issued by ATC if there was IFR traffic. If it is VMC then the CTAF procedures we currently use in Class G are still required
  • If the IFR traffic goes around from the approach minimums, whether 700 ft for an airfield approach or whatever the ILS minimum is for E ground level, the aircraft remains in Class E airspace, so a re-entry clearance is not required. The pilot simply climbs via the published missed approach, which the controller keeps available until the aircraft reports on the ground.
    • PS - when I first rated in ATC in 1972, when Rocky TWR went home, BN Sector 3 took the airspace down to 1500 feet AMSL. If the pilot reported IMC on descent we would issue a leave and re-enter CTA to the LSALT following the instrument approach (VOR/DME I think). Hence this form of operation has been used by Australian ATC in the past
A couple of other points jumped out at me about the Safety Case obtained under FOI which I have not seen:
  • It should not be a "design and Implementation" safety case (SC) as such an SC would not be possible before consultations had taken place.
  • SCs in Airservices normally follow the process Concept, Design, then Implementation; this SC should have been a Concept document. A Design SC then occurs when the details have been sorted out to ensure that the Design is acceptably safe; an Implementation SC comes last because it often involves processes, such as training and documentation, which can only be completed just prior to commissioning.
  • My last comment about the SC refers to the concentration of non-equipped VFR aircraft at the Class E lower level, highlighted by AusAlpa and being the only item in my own feedback. The reason being that the risk of the proposed change causing a collision between VFR aircraft at 1500ft AGL, an altitude, by the way, a VFR pilot cannot determine while flying on QNH, would have to be classified in the SC as very high. This is the unacceptable category in risk management and should have stopped the proposal in its tracks.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 00:31
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 50
Airservices Class E base A0?5 , Webex on now, I believe.
10JQKA is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 01:53
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
10j. I think we need more info! What do you mean?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 03:14
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 50
Was on the AsA "engage" portal.

https://engage.airservicesaustralia....s-e-east-coast

Wasn't there but heard it got turned off due out of time with much feedback still to get through and many concerns raised.
10JQKA is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 21:47
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO View Post
Re today's CASA Briefing - March 2021.......
"Important VFR Equipment Survey"

Would this be a precurser for the intro of mandating Transponders in 'E' I wonder.....??

(Sorry, for some reason, unable to copy and paste the 'briefing'...)

Cheers
transponders are already mandated in E
Pinky1987 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 22:31
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
If safety is the prime concern on this thread then why doesn't every owner of an aircraft with an engine spend a few thousand dollars an fit a transponder? I have one on my 1970s Pa28 . So ATC can see me and RPT can see me. If E is lowered to the frigging surface I won't need to worry if it is AGL because I can pop in and of E without a care in the world.
In 2021 it is the dumbest argument that owners cannot afford to fit life saving equipment on board their aircraft.
if you want to fly in the vicinity of a fast RPT aircraft like at Ballina or Wagga or Hervey Bay, use your radio, light up your aircraft, purchase and fit a transponder or ADSB and use the device to mitigate your 1960s 172 smashing into a 737 with 150 people on board.
I have flown extensively in USA and UK. The airmanship in Australia in GA is left wanting in comparison. The argument that Class E can't be lowered to separate IFR (particularly RPT) because owners of bugs smashers don't want to fit life saving transponders or ADSB , is beyond comprehension.
Coroner: "why wasn't there controlled airspace when the capability existed?" " oh we did not want to upset pilots of light aircraft by asking them to spend a few grand on a life saving device" too expensive. I would not fly without a transponder with my husband and kids on board any more than I would not fly outside VHF range without my HF radio.
time to mandate common sense.

Pinky1987 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.