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 5th Feb 2021, 22:51
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Black Panther. It was an experienced Australian ATC who gave me this information.

It all depends on having enlightened procedural separation standards following the proven US system.

If you are correct how do you think AsA will introduce all that low level E from Melbourne to Cairns by December of this year. Thatís 9 months away!

Or do you think the proposal is a giant con ?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 22:53
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,559
Received 69 Likes on 28 Posts
this becomes incredibly arduous in terms of mental capacity and workload.
Maybe some of that arduousness and workload will be taken away from the pilots.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 23:10
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Black. Your quote -ď while two aircraft safely negotiate separationĒ obviously does not refer to the Mangalore airspace.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 5th Feb 2021, 23:53
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
It all depends on having enlightened procedural separation standards following the proven US system.
I'm taking an inference from this that you agree with me that the current procedural separation required will cause this entire proposal to result in mayhem. Or in the alternative, insurmountable delays for aircraft all up and down the east coast.

Of course if we can change the kind of standards required to separate these aircraft then perhaps the proposal may work. The issue is that that's not occurring!

People can slag off ATC for being inadequate in some sense, but the facts are that ATCs are expected to do this within the CURRENT ruleset. Sorry to break it to you, but expect 30 minute delays at the holding point.

I'm not trashing this proposal. I'm saying let's slow it all down and work out the ENTIRE thing.
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 02:00
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,410
Received 37 Likes on 25 Posts
Now the reality is coming out...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 02:13
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Black Panther. It is indeed sad and a reflection on the state of our aviation industry that you have to post anonymously about such an important safety issue that has already killed 4 professional pilots.

Anonymous posts are unlikely to be as effective in forcing important safety improvements as posts with a real name on them.

I would imagine AsA ATCs believe it would be a career risking move to be honest and open about safety issues that reflect on their employer.

Thatís shocking!

Is your union going to publicly state the concerns of its members about this AsA proposal. Or will it all be kept secret?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 02:39
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I do not currently work for Airservices. I'm just a realist.
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 02:51
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
If by realist you mean something bad may happen to you if you made the same posts under your own name and credibility thatís sad.

I bet there must be many ATCs employed by Airservices who have real concerns about the terrible Mangalore fatal accident and how the lack of reforms attributed to the result.

No doubt feel too threatened to say anything.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 03:28
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
In many cases giving a separation service in E is no more labour intensive than giving traffic information in G.

So zero extra cost, or very little.
Your analysis is overly simplistic and totally flawed. Think about what happens when separation is more labour intensive. We have to provide staffing and facilities to cater for this, not just the average as it's entirely unpredictable when it will be required. Or do you seriously believe a typical call centre level of service is suitable?

If anyone genuinely believes this is going to happen in the time scale given they have a bonus riding on it.

le Pingouin is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 04:14
  #130 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,917
Likes: 0
Received 10 Likes on 7 Posts
If by realist you mean something bad may happen to you if you made the same posts under your own name and credibility thatís sad.

I bet there must be many ATCs employed by Airservices who have real concerns about the terrible Mangalore fatal accident and how the lack of reforms attributed to the result.

No doubt feel too threatened to say anything.
To be fair here not everyone is independently wealthy and can afford the blow back of open public criticism. There are avenues to voice real concerns but unfortunately these day they tend to just get buried or glossed over.

To go out publicly on the internet and to start criticising businesses and government regulators in the industry you work in will get you blackballed for life. Companies do not want trouble makers nor attention seekers.







neville_nobody is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 04:24
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 2 Posts
Ping. Itís interesting that Airservices management have proposed this huge amount of low level E without the slightest mention that it will cost a lot.

Why do you suppose they have left this important point out of the proposal?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 04:39
  #132 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Presumably they fully intend to attempt it all without providing anything in the way of adequate resourcing. As I said, bonuses and quite probably their jobs are on the line.

Last edited by le Pingouin; 6th Feb 2021 at 04:49.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 05:30
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And to think you used to work at CASA, one would have thought you would have more of an understanding of ATC, Dick.
What? By working at CASA? How's that going to give you insight?

What a ridiculous, untrue, dangerous, and insulting statement to all ATC's.
You reckon? Another ATC trying to educate us on how difficult, complex, strenuous and stressful ATC is?

I beg to differ, in some circumstances, not all, it would be far easier and less workload to just separate rather then give traffic and continually monitor an OCTA IFR traffic situation.

You clearly don't understand the complexities of providing a separation service, particularly considering that it's often going to have to be a procedural (non surveillance) solution and run over HF with no direct VHF comms until 4000 ft, at many aerodromes.
Yes, if facilities and procedures were to remain the same as they are now.

You also fail to appreciate the increased physiological demands placed on the controller with the extra airspace.
Due in part to the ridiculous sector sizes in Australian airspace.

No longer are they providing traffic and monitoring the situation passively while two aircraft safely negotiate separation (usually less than an ATC separation standard) on the CTAF or the numbers
There are 4 families and hundreds of IFR pilots that may disagree with "two aircraft safely negotiate separation." this is not a dig at ATC, but it's a stupid statement to say that what happened at MNG was safe 999 times out of 1000.

They are having to actively monitor the traffic they have issued clearances to, to ensure continual application of appropriate separation standards and solve all of these NEW conflicts. Considering the aforementioned lack of surveillance and VHF in many places this becomes incredibly arduous in terms of mental capacity and workload.
Most aviation folk who know a little of what happens inside of ASA know that you are constrained by a multitude of factors: sector sizes, facilities, liability, oh, and lets not forget "operational requirements"

Please, understand the minutae of what you're saying before posting.
And you need to get out a little more, see a bit of the world and not be blinded by the monumental ignorance that is 'we are the best in the world' it's embarrassing.
McLimit is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 06:41
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
And you wonder why no-one important in the industry actually cares about about this website, when you stick your neck out and have a position they just throw personal attacks back at you. And put dozens of words in your mouth.

If you had bothered to read my further post you would have seen my opposition to this proposal was because of the CURRENT RULESET. Of course if the sector sizes are different, radar is improved, VHF is improved, Airservices gets more staff, better training, etc - then it would be fine. But none of those things are happening! NONE!

The lunacy of your personal attack is that we actually share the same view!!!

I'm out.
BlackPanther is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 08:39
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Pinky1987
what is STCA? Surely if E was 1500 at Mangalore as proposed then the controller could have separated the aircraft vertically or 5 miles apart and they would not have hit. Both aircraft could have been fitted with collision avoidance systems if they invested in it.
STCA = Short Term Conflict Alert displayed on a controllers TAAATS/EUROCAT display. It highlights both aircraft, generates an aural and visual alarm that needs to be acknowledged (and as appropriate, the separation issue rectified) by the controller. There can be many false STCAs, there are few "real" STCAs, or at least should be very few if the system (including the controller and the pilots) operates correctly.
missy is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 08:40
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh come on, personal attack? If you call that a personal attack I question your mental stability.

Maybe if the reader was a lateral thinker or mind reader, they could have deduced your post was about facilities, sector sizes, oh, and "operational requirements"

By the way, out of interest, who are you alluding to when you mention;

no-one important in the industry
McLimit is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 08:44
  #137 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
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
Why is ASA the proponent? Surely it is CASA to determine the classification of the airspace and therefore the services to be provided. Is this a case that ASA blinked before CASA? Are there KPIs on the line for ASA management?
missy is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 08:50
  #138 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
Black Panther. It was an experienced Australian ATC who gave me this information.

It all depends on having enlightened procedural separation standards following the proven US system.

If you are correct how do you think AsA will introduce all that low level E from Melbourne to Cairns by December of this year. Thatís 9 months away!

Or do you think the proposal is a giant con ?
Enlightened procedural separation standards! What could they be?
I don't think its possible for AsA to introduce this by December this year, and probably not be December next year.
Yes, I think it's giant con.
AsA may well be arguing that the reduced traffic numbers allows their controllers to take on more responsibility and more workload with current resources.
missy is offline  
Old 6th Feb 2021, 08:52
  #139 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 541
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Gentle_flyer
Two Fifty,
We could be better than this...sigh!
.

Yes, gf, yes we could be better than this
missy is offline  
Old 7th Feb 2021, 00:28
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Quote Neville Nobody 5th Feb "From a RPT perspective they would want to change the current arrangements as they are to restrictive. If nothing changes on a separation front under this new system places like Ballina are going to have serious ground congestion problems. The current arrangements in low level Class E seem to be that no one can depart until the arrival aircraft has landed. Where as in Class G the departing aircraft can get away whilst the inbound aircraft is manoeuvring for the instrument approach. If they are just going to apply the current arrangements to a Low Level Class E then people are going to be taxiing for 30-45 mins at CTAFS waiting to multiple arrivals. There needs to be a way of aircraft departing whilst the arrivals are on the instrument approach."

I find it perplexing that Class E separation would require the departing aircraft to stay on the ground, whereas in Class G "the departing aircraft can get away whilst the inbound aircraft is manoeuvring for the instrument approach" Are you saying that in Class G you are not separating yourself, or are you in fact departing VFR, the obvious answer. This can also be done in Class E airspace and CASRs allow PT aircraft to do so pending ATC identification and onwards clerance IFR. However I am told that airline companies believe it is too dangeraous to adopt VFR proceures and I believe every company in Australia prevents their pilots from so doing.

Neville are you saying that PT pilots are actually flying under the VFR........?

Mr Approach 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.