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 4th Apr 2021, 01:22
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,441
AIP already has info on avoiding published IAP and routes where possible.
I’m aware of this, from ENR 1.1, which is about ops in Class E:
3.2 VFR Flights in Class E Airspace

3.2.1 VFR flights entering Class E airspace do not require a clearance, but may receive a Surveillance Information Service (SIS), where available, on request (see GEN 3.3 section 3.3).

3.2.2 VFR flights entering and operating in Class E airspace should:

a. avoid published IFR routes, where possible;

b. monitor the appropriate Class E frequency and announce if in potential conflict; and

c. take appropriate action to avoid potential conflict.

3.2.3 Pilots of VFR flights should avoid IFR holding patterns.
Are you able to quote anything about avoiding IAP waypoints in G?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2021, 08:21
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,951
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
How could you ever prove that?

For example, a 737 lands at YMML with brakes on fire. The on-site fire team puts out the fire and everyone safely escapes.

Do you have a crystal ball to tell us what would have happened if they didnít use the foam or whatever?
Squawk7700,
Prove what???
I am quoting the actual record, for aviation in Australia so far, from Year dot to the present day.
Yes, we have had brake fires --- and other airfield fires, but the ARFFS didn't make any difference to death or injury, did they,
The record is clear and unambiguous, in the history of Australian aviation, there has NOT been a survivable accident on an Australian airfield, where ARFFS made any difference to the human outcome.
The whole point of rational risk management is that human life is NOT "priceless" (the AU covid reaction is a stark example of the costs/risks being ignore, including deaths from other consequently untreated medical conditions, and we will be counting the costs for years) and back in the last century, airport fire services NOT required by ICAO were pulled from Australian airfields, saving many millions of pounds/dollars over the subsequent years.
As I said in the pervious post, and I have said many time over the years, ARFFS is a classical example of economic waste ---- and give a thought to why design criteria has evacuation time requirements ---- without external assistance.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 4th Apr 2021, 08:46
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,951
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Examples of where Qantas operated in overseas Class E to 700ft/1200ft/1500ft/5500ft into a CTAF please.
Bloggsie,
Sorry, only just picked this one up.

Not a common occurrence, I grant you, but it has happened, with totally unexpected diversions to places where the tower (if there was one) was closed at the time of arrival --- the last one I did, the S/O got a very quick education on the way you can vary approach lights intensity from the flightdeck in FAAland.

There are no shortages of "approved" diversion airfields where the tower (if there is one) is not H24, in US.

In one memorable case, a method of refueling with an engine running was worked out with Boeing over the phone, as no GPU, so an engine had to be kept running for a cross-bleed start, the phone being a payphone at the aerodrome gate --- before mobiles, of course.

But back to Class E, the simple fact, demonstrated over so many years (60 or more?) is that the US/ICAO system works, and all the "perceived" problems here, particularly from a cohort of the AFAP, are just that, perceptions of a problem. But, as one of your former Technical Directors so often demanded, "perceptions of an air safety problem" must be treated as "real" , even if no data exists.

Tootle pip!!

PS: US is not the only country that had HCPT aircraft in E and G.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2021, 10:15
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 45
After 25 pages of posts on this subject can we get back to a very simple proposition indeed:

The function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft.
Aircraft in VMC are (usually) able to see and avoid other aircraft, particularly if given relevant traffic.
Aircraft in IMC can NOT self separate under most circumstances even if they are given traffic.

Mangalore was a prime demonstration of this truth.
The aircraft were given traffic.
An aircraft on an instrument approach is legally required to fly the approach as published (or to go around, climbing but not deviating from the lateral confines of the published approach).
An aircraft on an IFR departure, particularly a training one is firstly required to have a pre-determined safe route to reach LSALT so is at least to some degree and maybe wholly constrained against lateral manoeuvering.
And is likely dealing with a simulated engine failure or such since that is what IFR training is all about.

Intelligent people responsible for safe aircraft operations in developed countries have determined that ATC must provide separation for all aircraft operating in IMC since they can not always do it themselves.
Airservices fails to grasp this simple concept.

This may be in part because Airservices no longer employ qualified, current IFR pilots who can tell the ATC staff what is required.
CASA, and OAR, as I have previously demonstrated are not compliant with their legal requirements.

I support the implementation of the US system of airspace classification and usage.... all of it.... the way they do it in the USA, not some local invention by those who do not know how to do it right.
Some folk on here like Dick, Geoff Fairless and LeadSled have the picture, fortunately.
Further, I have demonstrated why it is less costly (less workload) for ATC to provide separation than to provide traffic.

Why is the history of aviation in this country such that safety improvements only occur when there are enough dead bodies to cause an outcry?
Advance is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2021, 10:51
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,721
Originally Posted by Advance View Post
Further, I have demonstrated why it is less costly (less workload) for ATC to provide separation than to provide traffic.
Except that you've demonstrated nothing about the cost, only assumptions.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2021, 11:18
  #486 (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
Intelligent people responsible for safe aircraft operations in developed countries have determined that ATC must provide separation for all aircraft operating in IMC
Canada doesn't.
The UK doesn't.
It's theoretically possible to fly IFR in G in the USA.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2021, 13:47
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
Originally Posted by Advance
Aircraft in VMC are (usually) able to see and avoid other aircraft, particularly if given relevant traffic.
Aircraft in IMC can NOT self separate under most circumstances even if they are given traffic.
Rubbish on both counts.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 5th Apr 2021, 23:50
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Rubbish on both counts.
😁 here here Captain
Pinky1987 is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 03:05
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by triadic View Post
Did anyone here participate in the ASA web 'discussions' on plan B? I understand that some got a bit heated???
Hi Triadic - I attended the Brisbane WEBEX meeting and I will try and summarise what I heard. There was also some great input from others, very well qualified to comment, but I will not try and paraphrase what they said.
  • The meeting was run by Airservices (ASA) implementers, not the managers responsible for the proposal.
  • ASA admitted that the MNG deaths and recent BNA incident had caused ASA "to perceive the risk had changed so Airservices had to do something"
  • The first proposal (1500ft AGL) was intended to be "iterative', their word, not mine. I assume that meant they did not expect the first to be accepted.
  • The second proposal is based on feedback and the proposed Class E bases also happen to be good for their comms coverage
  • The proposed SAFIS base of 6500ft could be lower
First of all, while their first proposal could have been interpreted as "doing something", the second most certainly does nothing to address MNG or BNA unless they were referring to the SAFIS. However bear in mind that BNA already has a CA/GRS (which is an AFIS), but they use Flight Radar 24 for surveillance because ASA did not extend their surveillance feed to the private operator. (Yes I know FR24 only displays ADS-B tracks but the nearest SSR head is at the Gold Coast so ASA would not have too many low-level transponder tracks)
Secondly, the process does not comply with the Ministerial directions given in paragraphs 25 - 32 of the current Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018. ASA is quite entitled to make a proposal to CASA with supporting evidence, however, CASA is then required to carry out a risk assessment, decide whether to support or modify the proposal and then present it for public comment.
So why has the DIRD varied the Minister's policy? Does the Minister even know? Perhaps Senator MacDonald can ask him at the next RRAT estimates?
Can we expect to have to go through all of this again, or are CASA and Airservices operating as one body to provide a fair accompli that they can tell the Minister "does something"? If so, where is the safety assessment? Why is CASA allowing ASA to do their consultation work? The questions just go on.........
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 07:19
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Pinky1987 View Post
hi Geoff. Did I read that correctly? The CAGRS controller at ballina is using an app on an Ipad or phone to provide traffic? Is that even allowed? My flight radar 24 app has all sorts of lag and incorrect info? I have flown into Ballina in my 172 quite a few times and have had rpt jets passed as traffic. I was not aware they were using an app on their phones for this? Is that supported by the regulator?
Hi Pinky - When I last visited the CA/GRO position at BNA they were displaying FR24 on a desktop computer screen and using the information for situation awareness. This augmented the poor view the CA/GRO has of the aerodrome and maneuvering area caused by being positioned behind the duty fireman. The fireman's cab also faces North (the runway) so the CA/GRO has no ability to sight the circuit south of the runway. This rather poor view was initially sanctioned by a CASA exemption but is now allowed under the new CASR Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) without an exemption being required.

Is that (FR24) allowed? The CA/GRO is required to comply with the requirements of CASR 139 Section D2 Para 155-160, Chapter 22 of the Part 139 MOS, and the guidance in AC 139.D-02 V.1. The operator was not observed using FR24 to pass traffic, that information was copied from aircraft radio calls and, where possible, sighting the aircraft; FR24 just gave the operator information about the direction to look. In terms of whether FR24 is "allowed" for situation awareness, CASA has gone out of it's way to ensure that the non-ICAO compliant CA/GRS is not classified as an Air Traffic Service (ATS); it is governed solely by Part 139 and it's MOS. That legislates what the unit must have but I could not find any regulation that stated what they could not have. (An ATS, on the other hand, may only use surveillance systems approved by CASA.) It was my view at the time that it was safer for the CA/GRO to have some general information than to tell them, without any regulatory reason, to switch it off.

I hope that helps
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 07:47
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,351
And the whole US of A with its 340 million people has no such thing as a CAGRO.

How ever do they get away with it!

Virtually all airports have a Unicom which gives local weather, relevant traffic and can even pass on an IFR clearance.

No prescriptive rules at all- and it all works efficiently and safely.

But we know so much more.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 08:25
  #492 (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
Port Hedland AFIS is provided by serving AirServices personnel and is a part of the ATS system. BNA is a CA/GRS which provides some of the same services, is not part of the ATS system, operates under different legislation, and is manned by aerodrome employees or contractors.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 08:55
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,120
The refueller or baggage chucker giving "relevant traffic". Says it all, really...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 09:02
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Pinky - TIEW is correct.
Ballina and Ayers Rock CA/GRS are both operated by a Melbourne-based company, name escapes me it used to be Ambidji, whereas Port Hedland AFIS is staffed by Airservices staff with a Flight Service Officer licence. They can provide a superior service because they are part of ATS and get access to the Perth ATC Centre overlying sectors and there is no traffic information duplication as occurs in the two CA/GRS. They would not be allowed to operate FR24 as a situation awareness tool because they are an ATS.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 12:29
  #495 (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
FR24 is a commercial site founded by a couple of Swedish aerosexuals. It's basically an enthusiasts site. Anyone can contribute data, and anyone can request their data be blocked ie their aircraft don't appear on it. I'm pretty sure there would be no checks as to how accurate anything displayed on it is. We use it at work, but only for very basic information. I wouldn't base any sort of traffic info on it, as there is no way to know what it should be showing vs what it is. Stuff appears and disappears all the time.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 6th Apr 2021, 12:46
  #496 (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
The new MOS just says that one of the functions of a CA/GRS is to provide:
"advice on relevant air traffic in designated airspace or on the aerodrome",
But nowhere can I find any reference as to what constitutes "relevant" traffic. Relevant is a very subjective term. Back in the day, the old AOI (Vol II) had very concise standards to be used for assessing what constituted traffic. I bet the guys in PHD providing an AFIS work to standards. The MOS is much more precise on what other information a CA/GRO can provide but traffic seems to be "whatever you reckon".
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 00:42
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Pinky1987 View Post
thanks Geoff. Is that because it would be deemed unsafe to use to assist in traffic at Port hedland?
Not necessarily, Pinky, the system would just have to go through an approval process to be used in ATS. However, CA/GRS is not an ATS, as determined by CASA.
It would be interesting if the operator of a CA/GRS was to procure a short-range primary radar, let's say to track unmanned operations at the airport.
Would the CA/GRO then be able to use the radar information to warn an incoming Cessna pilot that a UAV was in his/her vicinity, or would CASA not approve that vital information being passed?
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 00:45
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
TIEW,
I believe that one reason for requiring a CA/GRO to be either an ex-ATC or FSO was because their original training would have included what constitutes relevant traffic.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 01:25
  #499 (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
So a guy who may not have exercised either license for maybe 20 years is expected to just remember it? Or apply what he reckons it is? Sounds pretty rubbery to me. If you are being certified by CASA, to what standard are they certifying to? Purely the fact that you once held a license? You could have worked in admin your entire career? Not every FSO held an AFIZ (AFIS) rating . That was something you did additional training for. I'd be pretty sure those Airservices guys in PHD aren't just winging it (I know they are not doing CA/GRS, but the end result is the same).
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 7th Apr 2021, 06:46
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 43
TIEW - The time limit is ten years, but I know where you are coming from.
I have watched the two FSOs at Hedland work, and I assure you they are not winging it. I'm sure you would feel quite at home!
Geoff Fairless 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.