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 2nd Feb 2021, 10:55
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Left base, RWY01
Posts: 178
And IFR will probably be required to routinely conduct instrument approaches in VMC with IFR departures instructed to expect clearance tracking initially extended runway centreline? If ATC are to apply separation so rapidly...
TwoFiftyBelowTen is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 11:01
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 355
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Lead. I believe the proposal is being driven by AsA because of the Mangalore fatalities.

It really needs to be instigated and driven by the Airspace Office at CASA.

Such major changes require an individual who has the leadership abilities and self confidence to “sell “ the need for change and the way it should take place

I believe an increase in E will only work and be safe if it closely follows the FAA proven system. This proposal does not. As an example , for E to work at low level we will need to change to FAA pilot and ATC procedures.

An FAA expert needs to be employed to advise on this.

There is no possibility,in my view, that such a major change could be introduced by December. Too risky!
Dick st right, what ASA is proposing WILL NOT WORK, for quite a number of reason apart from managing a change process that will take some time (a year or two at least). ASA have obviously working on this project for some time, however sadly what they have come up with at this point is already a total failure.

it is not fair on industry to have an unrealistic deadline for consultation forced upon them and then have the door shut on further discussions.

This proposal must be approved by the OAR. It will be interesting to see what consultation takes place then and if there is any perceived outside pressure applied.
cogwheel is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 20:41
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
It looks like Captain M is right then: Simple incompetence on Airservices' part. A 'be seen to be doing something' proposal that's doomed to fail.
“Why does not AsA publish their internal Safety Report on the accident with full voice transcripts?”
Because under the TSI Act they are ‘protected’ and under the control of ATSB, with heavy penalties for disclosure.
What provision, precisely, of the TSI Act prohibits the ATSB from publishing ATC/Centre recordings? There are 'live' feeds of ATC/Centre comms on the internet.

And if ATSB can publish partial transcripts of comms, it can publish complete transcripts. But the problem with transcripts is that you don't know whether errors in them are errors of transcription or errors of the people communicating. And a transcript can never fully convey some of the nuances in comms that provide insights into the state of mind, levels of stress etc of those communicating.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Feb 2021, 22:08
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,098
Originally Posted by cogwheel View Post
This proposal must be approved by the OAR. It will be interesting to see what consultation takes place then and if there is any perceived outside pressure applied.
OAR is not responsible for conducting consultation. That responsibility rests with the proponent of an airspace change.

OAR will assess what consultation has been conducted and the result, and if they deem necessary, direct the proponent to conduct further.

Everyone with issues re this proposal, I trust you are providing feedback either individually or via your company/association per bottom of the link below.

Low feedback numbers can be interpreted as majority agree or don't care ....

Lowering Class E on the East Coast
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 00:00
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
Captain. That is simply ridiculous.
CASA is the Safety body and it should be proposing and introducing changes that address known safety issues.

Airservices if a profit making service provider.

Looks to me as a cop out by CASA because of a lack of competent leadership.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 00:18
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,101
Originally Posted by Dick
ASA is the Safety body and it should be proposing and introducing changes that address known safety issues.
How about we wait until the report comes out? Or is this more about ideology?

Are you going to fund traffic lights at every crossroad in Australia just because somebody didn't stop at a stop sign?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 00:58
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
I would reckon that four fatalities involving professional pilots like yourself would be a known safety issue.

Any reasonable person could write the report now.

“A do it yourself collision avoidance system when in IMC close to an airport with no promulgated separation standards is not safe”

And remember 6 dead not far away at Benalla with two professional pilots in the same type of airspace. In that incident the ATC did not warn the pilots that the route monitoring alarm had triggered a number of times because the aircraft was heading towards class G.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 01:08
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,101
No more than the hundreds of road accidents caused by licenced drivers...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 01:55
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2,902
A knee-jerk reactionary change with a rushed implementation timeframe... what could possibly go wrong???
Squawk7700 is online now  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 03:29
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 33
Folks,

I’ve had several PMs requesting information of the SAFIS concept that I have mentioned in previous posts.

To be implemented at Mangalore and Ballina MAY-JUL 2021. Other aerodrones to follow in 2022.

I just want to confirm that the airspace above MNG will NOT BE E when SAFIS is active.

IT WILL BE G. No separation just traffic. So please all those who think MNG will be E - 1500AGL to A085 that is only true outside SAFIS hours of operation.

Please read specifically page 7 ( preferably all 12 pages ) of the the link GA Industry Presentation Pack
https://engage.airservicesaustralia....91723/download

Page 7 displayed below

Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 04:23
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
The SAFIS looks like complete madness to me.

I have been fortunate to have flown five times around the world and in every continent and I have never seen anything even vaguely similar to this!

Who invented this? Who is going to be held accountable when further fatalities occur? Will it be the ASA Chairman John Weber and his board?
Or will he claim he knows nothing about aviation so he could not possibly be responsible.

Of course the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation will say it wasn’t their idea!

Suggestion, why not closely copy the proven FAA system which works so well with 15 times the amount of traffic in about the same land area?

No way, the US only designed the 747 and we designed the Nomad.

Come to think of it - the SAFIS is another Nomad.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 05:17
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,101
Originally Posted by Dick
the proven FAA system which works so well with 15 times the amount of traffic in about the same land area?
Dick, you've been told over and over that this comparison is flawed. 85% of our landmass is completely uninhabited, let alone has any air traffic. The USA however, has it's traffic fairly evenly scattered over the whole continent. Have a look at it's crash stats to see the spread of traffic.

And why will you not tell us how much your 1500ft Class E will cost the industry?

SAFIS = Remote AFIZ. Remote Griffo!

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 3rd Feb 2021 at 06:45. Reason: sppeling.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 05:36
  #93 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,014
An extract from the US rules follows: Note transponder NOT required below 10,000ft outside of class A, B & C airspace.

§ 91.215 ATC transponder and altitude reporting equipment and use.
Link to an amendment published at 86 FR 4512, Jan. 15, 2021.(a) All airspace: U.S.-registered civil aircraft. For operations not conducted under part 121 or 135 of this chapter, ATC transponder equipment installed must meet the performance and environmental requirements of any class of TSO-C74b (Mode A) or any class of TSO-C74c (Mode A with altitude reporting capability) as appropriate, or the appropriate class of TSO-C112 (Mode S).

(b) All airspace. Unless otherwise authorized or directed by ATC, no person may operate an aircraft in the airspace described in paragraphs (b)(1) through (b)(5) of this section, unless that aircraft is equipped with an operable coded radar beacon transponder having either Mode 3/A 4096 code capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC, or a Mode S capability, replying to Mode 3/A interrogations with the code specified by ATC and intermode and Mode S interrogations in accordance with the applicable provisions specified in TSO C-112, and that aircraft is equipped with automatic pressure altitude reporting equipment having a Mode C capability that automatically replies to Mode C interrogations by transmitting pressure altitude information in 100-foot increments. This requirement applies -

(1) All aircraft. In Class A, Class B, and Class C airspace areas;

(2) All aircraft. In all airspace within 30 nautical miles of an airport listed in appendix D, section 1 of this part from the surface upward to 10,000 feet MSL;
refer: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text...I/subchapter-F
triadic is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 06:30
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
...unless you're within 30 nms of one of the listed airports.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 07:03
  #95 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,289
Yep. The famous class B veil at places like LA.
Very sensible because you can fly over to top VFR in class E.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 10:41
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 44
"What provision, precisely, of the TSI Act prohibits the ATSB from publishing ATC/Centre recordings? There are 'live' feeds of ATC/Centre comms on the internet."

Division 3 - RESTRICTED INFORMATION.
The VOICE recordings and ADS replays are, no doubt, important elements of both the ATSB and any AsA Investigations. Such material would be classified restricted, and protected until the ATSB releases it.
In the past, Airservices has had to request permission from ATSB to enable use of such material in their own investigations, when ATSB has established its own investigation.
Hence it is not a simple matter for Airservices to release in-house investigations, particularly when ATSB is still conducting theirs.
Let's not even consider wandering down the path of liability, privacy, etc, of a release based on an unprotected internal investigation.
40years is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 10:47
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,437
From the Airservices link in post 1
Delivery of the AMP will ensure closer alignment to the.......proven United States practice of airspace management.
Dick's favourite saying
why not closely copy the proven FAA system which works so well
I guess you are finally getting your wish Dick.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 10:54
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,368
But it's not a close copy. You know that, TIER.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 11:03
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 420
So the concept of SAFIS is that there is no service on the airport itself? Noone are able to watch traffic at and near the runways? Or are they thinking remote tower (uncontrolled)?

(For a short while I was thinking "how the hell would they handle snow removal then?"...... until I realized.....)
jmmoric is offline  
Old 3rd Feb 2021, 11:14
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 139
You only have to look at the individual that came up with the SAFIS concept to know that it is flawed and will not work.

An individual very lucky to still be employed by ASA.
McLimit 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.