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 27th Jan 2021, 06:46
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,901
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
where I am I need to get to about 3500ft to get ATC AND transponder interrogations. I dont think the air ambulances and the Coulson Boyz would be impressed. The change does nothing for us.
At what altitude does your ADSB kick in there with ATC?

For this to work well, everyone would ideally have ADSB-Out and the high speed IFR traffic would be able to see you, just the same as ATC would be able to.

In the situation where you are over the hill, you can self manage and save them the hassle as you will be able to see each other before they can see you... (ATC)
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 27th Jan 2021, 22:34
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 163
As I said earlier, I don't want to get involved. There are far too many who would rather stay with what we have or go back to what we had 40 years ago.

Signing off.....
Mr Approach is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 01:06
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Sydney
Age: 59
Posts: 402
So many people sucked in by the “SAFETY” bait. Enroute is not a problem in this country, stats prove mid air collisions occur within a few miles of airports. A report produced by the ATSB supports this fact, it also shows you’re most likely to have a collision in controlled airspace. A Class E arrangement as proposed would not have prevented any of the collisions in the ATSB report. Aircraft were either under ATC control or would have been on CTAF and not contactable by CEN. This is an empire building exercise, more Class E, more staff, bigger budget, greater responsibility, higher wages. Another zero benefit cost on the industry, money could be better spent elsewhere on real safety improvements.
roundsounds is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 09:25
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 855
Well said 'rounds' but this is Australia remember, you know world's best practice & all!......cough cough!-)
we are good at one thing though, extra everything it will be good for you, all under the guise of 'safety'!
machtuk is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 10:00
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 33
Has anyone who has posted here read the link in the website proposed titled: GA Industry Presentation Pack (816 KB)

Moriarty, whoops AsA has a dastardly plan!

SAFIS !!!! ?Back to the future, Groundhog Day.

Sort of counter intuitive.

In busy times we have a special G, in quiet times we have E! hmmmm

Struggling to see how this would have prevented MNG midair???

Dick, is this of your making??

Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 10:28
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,901
To have stopped the MNG midair, you’d have had to have done it at the pilot/aircraft level with ADSB-in, assuming ATC were unable to stop it from happening. Radio frequencies and calls aside, an active traffic awareness system would be the only way surely.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 10:57
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 33
S7700, I understand what you are saying....

But under the basics of the proposed E down to 1500 AGL, ATC would be required to separate IFR not just pass traffic, ie MNG scenario.

HOWEVER....

When MNG is an active SAFIS, E AIRSPACE procedures would not apply and no separation, only traffic.

Hence, my comment.

‘And I have printed out carefully read out the entire MNG midair thread.

Based on a large number of posts by PPRuNe posters recently on Separation Assurance, Mooney/Coffs, Changes to E airspace, MNG midair and AMAY near miss it appears I am not the only one gravely concerned with D, E and G airspace ops and associated GA safety.

Unfortunately the AsA 8 pager does not calm my concerns.

of course I could have read the proposed AsA document incorrectly?
Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 11:05
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,101
Has anyone who has posted here read the link in the website proposed titled: GA Industry Presentation Pack (816 KB)
MBZs. Finally and at last. 30 years wasted, total chaos and continual change for the whole period. And the minister's directive finally complied with somewhere! John Anderson will be happy.

Still no tower at Ballina. The troops will be happy with a Class E LL of 1500ft over the top and not being able to talk to the proper centre controller on the ground taxiing out to get their clearance before takeoff; change the area freq to 126.05 anybody??

Looking forward to the "enhanced surveillance" aka "approach" services provided by enroute ATC descending into the regional towers. Let's see: lots of new SIDs and STARs, increasing track miles just to make it all work.

Oh and NO mention of the transponder requirement in E for VFR (or the "continuous two-way comms with ATC" for VFR in E).

Tower's does not have a comma.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 12:08
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
My opinion is that this is a pretext for compulsory ADSB out, followed by usage charges for everyone including VFR. You can also expect automatic infringement generation as well.
Sunfish is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 18:43
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 33
Sunfish,

Understand your feelings, GA has been conned before.

The presence of surveillance, ADSB or otherwise is no guarantee of Safety.

That is the biggest confidence trick perpetrated on industry.

One has to do something with it. Class E down to !500 AGL with IFR separated from IFR is one way.

Sadly MNG the ultimate price that was waiting to happen since TAAATS commissioned and FS disbanded without a complex and detailed acknowledgement of what was happening in late 1990s.

DOES IT NOT WORRY ANYONE ELSE THAT DURING BUSY TIMES AIRSERVICES IS PROPOSING A DOWNGRADING OF AIRSPACE CLASS FROM E to G?

Seems somewhat counterintuitive and illogical against high level concepts of airspace classes.

So when MNG SAFIS active what is in place to ensure MNG midair is not repeated?

When MNG SAFIS not active MNG midair would not have happened, ie defaults from CLASS G to CLASS E and IFRs separated.

I am happy to be proven wrong as the so called Industry Briefing Package is somewhat limited in detail.

I can understand the reported concerns from the work face controllers in AsA from a variety of perspectives.
Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 28th Jan 2021, 19:35
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: moon
Posts: 0
Yep, after reading the presentation, it means compulsory ADSB for all. That also means you can’t fly if it’s broken and you can’t turn it off.

‘’In addition it creates new opportunities for micro management and micro regulation.; “please explain why your aircraft was observed diverging from xyz in contravention of CASR abc?”. this allows the regulators to establish “virtual speeding or red light cameras” anywhere and any time. You could even set it up so that CASA is alerted when you start your engine.

‘’Can CASA avoid the temptation to become a voyeur? Not likely.

Sunfish is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 03:50
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,507
I am so happy to see Lead Sled is still active. Best of health to you, Sir.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 08:26
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
At what altitude does your ADSB kick in there with ATC?
ADS-B is a broadcast system that does not require interrogation from a SSR-interrogator, so that starts sending more or less immediately when you turn it on. (What you already know)

IF Airservices are using the tools available now (satellites), they could in practice see aircraft everywhere, as well as below line of sight coverage from the ground based surveillance stations. I'm not sure about the satellite coverage over Australia though, but it's being implemented in the North Atlantic as we speak.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 08:37
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 79
Posts: 2,889
Devil

Aye Cap'n.....'tis really only 29 years wasted you know.....
12 / 12 / '91 was the FIRST 'Cut' of FS services, and the FIRST redundo pkgs followed shortly thereafter.
FIS Services to VFR acft deleted W.E.F. that date.

The second 'cut' was 11/11/93, and do you know, I cannot even recall just what it/they was/were.....And.....Does it matter now?
IFR Services were as per 'normal' - Remember the 'arse-covering' phrase 'No KNOWN Tfc' ? (vice 'no traffic')

Somewhere in the meantime, MBZ's were introduced into the Pilbara mining areas - so that 'Traffic' need not be given in these areas.
They were deemed to be 'too busy' for that....
It became a 'help yerself' area. Once a pilot announced 'Going MBZ', our Traffic responsibility finished, although we still held his SAR for arrival.
(However, a lot of FSO's at the time, continued giving the traffic info as they feared the consequences of 'Duty of Care' under commom law..)

(Or, were MBZ'z introduced PRIOR to our 'first cut'. I simply cannot remember....(Oletimers)
So, I APOLOGISE NOW...IF I have to!

I may have mentioned in another post looong ago that, in the INITIAL 'brief' of the proposed new rules to us in FS, it was proposed that a IFR category acft, flying in VMC, was to be treated as a VFR flight..!!
i.e. IFR Category Acft flying in VFR 'Procedures'.. = See and be seen.
Thank goodness this was not implemented
But, you are TOTALLY CORRECT SIR - 'Total chaos and continual change....'
And STILL NO 'satisfactory' system.

Cheers...
Ex FSO GRIFFO is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 09:09
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 420
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO View Post
And STILL NO 'satisfactory' system.
Class G airspace with a "Flight Information Centre" where IFR flight plans are mandatory and two way communication is mandatory. IFR - IFR traffic always provided. VFR flights can fly as they like, if they want they can call and get some form of alerting service. IFR - VFR and VFR - VFR may be provided.

At airports a "Traffic Information Zone" with "Aerodrome Fligth Information Service" is required for IFR operations, the zone is classified as G airspace with a requirement for two-way comm with the unit for all flights, traffic information provided between all aircraft. Most TIZ are about 20 NM radius.

That covers the entirety of Greenland below FL195, and works fine for the level of traffic there is, and have been working fine since the mid-70ties.

So I'm a little surprised Australia cut it away, cause it sounds like it was something similar you had.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 11:58
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,101
Originally Posted by Griffo
Remember the 'arse-covering' phrase 'No KNOWN Tfc' ? (vice 'no traffic')
You'll be pleased to know that that call has been further "reformed" to "No REPORTED IFR Traffic". Tightening up on the posterior covering, methinks...

Originally Posted by jmmoric
So I'm a little surprised Australia cut it away, cause it sounds like it was something similar you had.
Some of us are surprised as well!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 29th Jan 2021, 21:18
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 33
So after. 29 years and all the ideas, passion, arguments, lost friends and people killed in accidents where are we?

i’ll ask three questions:

- Aren’t we better than this?

- Can any of you who posted on the topic over the last 30 years, or Dick Smith or the current CEOs of AsA, CASA, even ATSB explain in detail how a SAFIS will work?

- Surely the families of the four people killed in the MNG midair and the controller in AsA deserve better than this, as we are all partly responsible for how they feel?

It would be easy to say MNG was just an example where 2 IFR aircraft were on a collision course ( in conflict ), given traffic, presumably a TAAATS system safety net ie STCA ( not a tool ) alarmed and the aircraft still collided.


In truth we all know the problems and issues are more complicated than this....as Ex FSO Griffo states almost 30 years it started, the world has changed a lot in that time, but we haven’t..???

We are the “lucky country”, could be a great country but we have the potential to be downright dumb, stupid and mediocre.....

Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 07:14
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by Sunfish View Post
Yep, after reading the presentation, it means compulsory ADSB for all. That also means you can’t fly if it’s broken and you can’t turn it off.

‘’In addition it creates new opportunities for micro management and micro regulation.; “please explain why your aircraft was observed diverging from xyz in contravention of CASR abc?”. this allows the regulators to establish “virtual speeding or red light cameras” anywhere and any time. You could even set it up so that CASA is alerted when you start your engine.

‘’Can CASA avoid the temptation to become a voyeur? Not likely.
I don't think it is compulsory ADSB. Read AIP. Only need mode A/C in E airspace for VFR. If you want to fly with the big boys at airports such as Ballina or any others where jets and turbos fly, spend the money on equipment that may save lives.. #TCAS can't see you if you don't squawk 1200
Pinky1987 is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 20:32
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 178
I doubt that an alarm would have occurred at Mangalore pre-collision. Circuit areas of aerodromes such as Mangalore (anywhere with reasonable traffic numbers) have defined areas, lateral and vertical, within which alarms are inhibited or they would be going off all the time
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 30th Jan 2021, 21:27
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 8
Originally Posted by TwoFiftyBelowTen View Post
I doubt that an alarm would have occurred at Mangalore pre-collision. Circuit areas of aerodromes such as Mangalore (anywhere with reasonable traffic numbers) have defined areas, lateral and vertical, within which alarms are inhibited or they would be going off all the time
if class E was 1500 at Mangalore the 2 IFR would never have collided as the would have been separated by ATC in CTA .
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.