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 29th Mar 2021, 01:10
  #441 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
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 online now  
Old 29th Mar 2021, 01:53
  #442 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 81
Posts: 3,072
Received 12 Likes on 8 Posts
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
  #443 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,020
Received 221 Likes on 124 Posts
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 online now  
Old 29th Mar 2021, 12:08
  #444 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 3,173
Received 110 Likes on 48 Posts
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
  #445 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #446 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #447 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 595
Received 20 Likes on 14 Posts
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
  #448 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,573
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes on 15 Posts
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
  #449 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
Originally Posted by Vref+5
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 online now  
Old 31st Mar 2021, 03:36
  #450 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 7 Likes on 2 Posts
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 online now  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 00:31
  #451 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 161
Received 23 Likes on 16 Posts
Airservices Class E base A0?5 , Webex on now, I believe.
10JQKA is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 01:53
  #452 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,573
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes on 15 Posts
10j. I think we need more info! What do you mean?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 03:14
  #453 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 161
Received 23 Likes on 16 Posts
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
  #454 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
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
  #455 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 23:04
  #456 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,573
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes on 15 Posts
You say you have flown extensively in the US and the UK.

Both of these countries have higher traffic densities but do not have an Australian type transponder mandate in class E.

Why would this be so if they were necessary for safety?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 23:11
  #457 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
You say you have flown extensively in the US and the UK.

Both of these countries have higher traffic densities but do not have an Australian type transponder mandate in class E.

Why would this be so if they were necessary for safety?
correct. So either change the rules here that transponder is not required in class E or mandate them.
most pilots I know in USA have transponders. Bit like rules around bike helmets. Not every state mandates cyclists to wear helmets, but you a bloody fool if you don't. Same for transponders
Pinky1987 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2021, 23:22
  #458 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
You say you have flown extensively in the US and the UK.

Both of these countries have higher traffic densities but do not have an Australian type transponder mandate in class E.

Why would this be so if they were necessary for safety?
also see and avoid does not always work Mr Smith. Jet approach angle, small windows, high wing low wing and miscommunication can all line up for a collision. Last line of defence is TCAS. 3000 dollar transponder and simple squawk 1200 to prevent 150 people falling out of the sky?

Last edited by Pinky1987; 1st Apr 2021 at 23:41.
Pinky1987 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2021, 02:26
  #459 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,573
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes on 15 Posts
No. If see and avoid does not give an adequate level of risk reduction you put in class D or higher airspace.

ICAO has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft in E,F and G airspace because there is no way of knowing if the radio is actually working and on the correct frequency.

Pretty simple really. Sounds as if you are putting profits in front of safety if you do not support Class D where see and avoid is not adequate.

Or do you support airline pilots looking down at the TCAS screen in the terminal area rather than remaining vigilant and keeping a good lookout?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2021, 03:01
  #460 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
No. If see and avoid does not give an adequate level of risk reduction you put in class D or higher airspace.

ICAO has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft in E,F and G airspace because there is no way of knowing if the radio is actually working and on the correct frequency.

Pretty simple really. Sounds as if you are putting profits in front of safety if you do not support Class D where see and avoid is not adequate.

Or do you support airline pilots looking down at the TCAS screen in the terminal area rather than remaining vigilant and keeping a good lookout?
I support everyone looking out the window in VMC Mr Smith. I support G airspace and I am not suggesting RPT pilots stare at their TCAS any more than I stare at my IPAD when flying. But as an inexpensive addition to my aircraft, I do support transponders in all aircraft as a last line of defence when all the holes line up. TCAS is an alerting system Mr Smith it is not intended as a situational awareness system to replace looking out the window. I am not arguing about classification of airspace I am suggesting that pilots fit transponders regardless of airspace and regulations.
bit like reversing cameras on cars and aural obstacle warnings on cars. Not legally required and if you look out the window you'll never hit a person, but sure comes in handy when all the holes line up and a life is saved.
Are you anti transponder? Would you fly around the east coast in G without a transponder and radio cause the rule says you don't have to? When I was a kid seatbelts were not required in the back-seat of cars. My mum made me wear one anyway. Saved my life in an accident mate - risk mitigation 101. Light up your aircraft, use your bloody radio, squawk 1200 look out the windows, avoid IFR routes and IAPs regardless of classification of airspace. And yes regulator should spend a bit of time working on protecting airports where RPT fly into with no tower by classifying the airspace to protect hundreds of people sitting in the back from ill-equipped aircraft being flown by pilots who are living on the dark ages.

Pinky1987 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.