Airservices Class E changes
Originally Posted by Sunfish
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.
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)
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.....
Signing off.....
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.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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'!
we are good at one thing though, extra everything it will be good for you, all under the guise of 'safety'!
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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??
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??
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.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Has anyone who has posted here read the link in the website proposed titled: GA Industry Presentation Pack (816 KB)
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
‘’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.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 46
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
At what altitude does your ADSB kick in there with ATC?
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.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Up The 116E, Stbd Turn at 32S...:-)
Age: 81
Posts: 3,058
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
3 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 46
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
And STILL NO 'satisfactory' system.
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.
Originally Posted by Griffo
Remember the 'arse-covering' phrase 'No KNOWN Tfc' ? (vice 'no traffic')
Originally Posted by jmmoric
So I'm a little surprised Australia cut it away, cause it sounds like it was something similar you had.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 73
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.....
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.....
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sunfish
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.
‘’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.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Short final 05
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TwoFiftyBelowTen
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
