Airservices Class E changes
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. That’s 9 months away!
Or do you think the proposal is a giant con ?
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. That’s 9 months away!
Or do you think the proposal is a giant con ?
Join Date: Oct 2019
Location: Sunny Oz
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
That’s shocking!
Is your union going to publicly state the concerns of its members about this AsA proposal. Or will it all be kept secret?
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.
That’s shocking!
Is your union going to publicly state the concerns of its members about this AsA proposal. Or will it all be kept secret?
If by realist you mean something bad may happen to you if you made the same posts under your own name and credibility that’s 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.
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.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If anyone genuinely believes this is going to happen in the time scale given they have a bonus riding on it.
If by realist you mean something bad may happen to you if you made the same posts under your own name and credibility that’s 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.
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 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.
Ping. It’s 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?
Why do you suppose they have left this important point out of the proposal?
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.
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 a ridiculous, untrue, dangerous, and insulting statement to all ATC's.
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.
You also fail to appreciate the increased physiological demands placed on the controller with the extra 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
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.
Please, understand the minutae of what you're saying before posting.
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.
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.
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;
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
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
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
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. That’s 9 months away!
Or do you think the proposal is a giant con ?
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. That’s 9 months away!
Or do you think the proposal is a giant con ?
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.
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........?
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........?
