Airservices Class E changes
Correct. It was a requirement for all aircraft to report @ 30nm inbound.
When the remote Flight Service units closed and responsibility for their airspace transferred to the centres the AFIZ service continued, with the consoles providing that service having the remote aerodrome's met info (wind speed, direction, temp, QNH) displayed. I think the centres also provided an ATIS on the remote aerodrome's NDB & VOR where equipped.
When FS disappeared and responsibility for their airspace was taken over by ATC, the remote AFIZ function ceased.
It does sound like this SAFIS proposal recreates this i.e. an AFIS provided at remote aerodromes from BN & ML centres, this time with the benefit of ADS-B or SSR surveillance.
When the remote Flight Service units closed and responsibility for their airspace transferred to the centres the AFIZ service continued, with the consoles providing that service having the remote aerodrome's met info (wind speed, direction, temp, QNH) displayed. I think the centres also provided an ATIS on the remote aerodrome's NDB & VOR where equipped.
When FS disappeared and responsibility for their airspace was taken over by ATC, the remote AFIZ function ceased.
It does sound like this SAFIS proposal recreates this i.e. an AFIS provided at remote aerodromes from BN & ML centres, this time with the benefit of ADS-B or SSR surveillance.
Last edited by CaptainMidnight; 9th Feb 2021 at 03:04.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could you just focus your enviable brainpower for 15 minutes and educate everyone on this thread as to the problems/issues of the implementation of SAFIS by AsA in April 2021.
For those who like a little 'nostalgia'.....like the intro of MTAFs etc.......
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/761362...f_airspace.pdf
Dec. '93.......
AFIZ...nope...MTAF....nope.... Aha..'SAFIS'....
Have FUN
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/761362...f_airspace.pdf
Dec. '93.......
AFIZ...nope...MTAF....nope.... Aha..'SAFIS'....
Have FUN
Yes you are correct Lead B and Capt M. I remember now it was a 15 mile radius with inbound call at 30mile. Wish I had kept my old orange colour covered VFG from back in the day. I would be able to predict the next policy change at bullsh*t palace.
I am staggered. If we didn't need AFIZ's back then ,why do we now with all the electronic surveillance we have today? Some young authority on everything coming up with a new invention to replace the wheel.
But then maybe I'm a grumpy old fa*t !
I am staggered. If we didn't need AFIZ's back then ,why do we now with all the electronic surveillance we have today? Some young authority on everything coming up with a new invention to replace the wheel.
But then maybe I'm a grumpy old fa*t !
Thanks Griffo 
"In the AMATS changes of 12 December 1991, AFIZs ceased to exist and were replaced with MTAFs".
These days to remove an ATS-originated service, I assume CASA would require a HAZID and safety case demonstrating that there would be no reduction in safety.
"In the AMATS changes of 12 December 1991, AFIZs ceased to exist and were replaced with MTAFs".
These days to remove an ATS-originated service, I assume CASA would require a HAZID and safety case demonstrating that there would be no reduction in safety.
And the great news is that the National Library still has copies of VECs: https://nla.gov.au/nla.obj-233405215/view
We can dust those off, and: job done!
Let's call it: 'Airspace Jurassic Park'.
We can dust those off, and: job done!
Let's call it: 'Airspace Jurassic Park'.
Hi Capt. thankyou.
The 'Mantra' / Sales Pitch / Slogan of the day was
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less".
Did It ? Is it ?
The 'Mantra' / Sales Pitch / Slogan of the day was
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less".
Did It ? Is it ?
I have always maintained (as has Dick) that a graduated stepup in services is the logical thing to do.
Nothing>Flight Service/Radio>Tower. He and I diverge when he wants a baggage-chucker Unicom to do the middle bit.
The achillies heel of the current system is the small CTAF, encouraging close-in changes to frequencies, which reduces time to establish SA. As I have said before, I reckon this will be a big player in the Mangalore prang. Had those two aircraft been operating unhindered on the CTAF from further out (for the incoming) I have no doubt they would have known about each other.
We changed from 15nm AFIZ to 5nm because that's the way the yanks do it. I reckon it was political. CASA couldn't say No because there was a vague resemblance to the US system to justify the change.
Now, put Griffo in an office (preferably with a view of the field), give him a official screen with ADS-B traffic on it and Bob's your uncle ~ SAFIS. This looks like an admission that low level E without a tower will be a pain in the @rse and that pilot to pilot segregation is more efficient, but with a monitoring backstop in place. Obviously this would be even better if VFR had...
Low level Class E might have prevented the MNG midair, but it will introduce a major risk elsewhere: that of VFR mixing it with IFR at the field. And as Dick says, the closer you get to the field, the higher the collision risk. The SAFIS goes a long way towards reducing that risk, with everybody being on the same frequency and being watched if not controlled.
The elephant in the room? One controller working only that location and not his overlying 500nm x 500nm sector as well? $$$$
Nothing>Flight Service/Radio>Tower. He and I diverge when he wants a baggage-chucker Unicom to do the middle bit.
The achillies heel of the current system is the small CTAF, encouraging close-in changes to frequencies, which reduces time to establish SA. As I have said before, I reckon this will be a big player in the Mangalore prang. Had those two aircraft been operating unhindered on the CTAF from further out (for the incoming) I have no doubt they would have known about each other.
We changed from 15nm AFIZ to 5nm because that's the way the yanks do it. I reckon it was political. CASA couldn't say No because there was a vague resemblance to the US system to justify the change.
Now, put Griffo in an office (preferably with a view of the field), give him a official screen with ADS-B traffic on it and Bob's your uncle ~ SAFIS. This looks like an admission that low level E without a tower will be a pain in the @rse and that pilot to pilot segregation is more efficient, but with a monitoring backstop in place. Obviously this would be even better if VFR had...
Low level Class E might have prevented the MNG midair, but it will introduce a major risk elsewhere: that of VFR mixing it with IFR at the field. And as Dick says, the closer you get to the field, the higher the collision risk. The SAFIS goes a long way towards reducing that risk, with everybody being on the same frequency and being watched if not controlled.
The elephant in the room? One controller working only that location and not his overlying 500nm x 500nm sector as well? $$$$
Aye Cap'n, I think an 'inbound'or 'transiting' call at 30nm would be the more 'efficient' way to go.
As I pointed out in the 'Ballina' thread, for acft the speeds of say, Fk-100 types, that gives around 7 minutes to Circuit Area....For 180 kt acft, = 10 mins.....and 150 kt (C210) around 12 mins....
other 'bug smashers (100kt) = 18 mins or so.....
Time to 'See and be Seen' and to develop 'Situation Awareness'..??
HOPE SO.... Rotsa Ruck.....
As I pointed out in the 'Ballina' thread, for acft the speeds of say, Fk-100 types, that gives around 7 minutes to Circuit Area....For 180 kt acft, = 10 mins.....and 150 kt (C210) around 12 mins....
other 'bug smashers (100kt) = 18 mins or so.....
Time to 'See and be Seen' and to develop 'Situation Awareness'..??
HOPE SO.... Rotsa Ruck.....
Join Date: May 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WRT the MNG incident, interestingly "back in the day" before FSUs were closed and FS sectors were consolidated, in the ML FSC one FSO worked the 122.4 FIA surface to the base of CTA. The sector was "FS7", usually a reasonably busy sector.
Generally a FS sector consisted of one or more FIAs, depending on traffic levels. Sectors were consolidated (combined) when the traffic levels permitted.
Back then the FSO working the 122.4 area would have had all traffic on that frequency (no CTAF/MTAF/MBZ then), and traffic info would be given by FS to IFRs when first aware of their movements, e.g. when the second reported taxying (there is on ground VHF coverage on 122.4).
However time and technology have moved on, and we wait and see how ASA proposes low level ATC sectors to manage their Class G and E airspace with a SAFIS.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
However time and technology have moved on, and we wait and see how ASA proposes low level ATC sectors to manage their Class G and E airspace with a SAFIS.
Not laughing at you. The logistics are ridiculous and impossible by December..............2023 that is.
But the top of the tree thinks it can be done. Lots of nav charges going to that tree by the way. Wouldn't be so bad if there was any level of competence there.
When I consider my loathsome voice procedure and manners today, a heap more education is needed. Apologies to the gentleman in the RV, I should have hung back and let you pass and land first. RPT? Thankfully no, I would have fled and crawled back after you landed. Its amazing how fast you forget stuff.
"Back in the day".....When our consoles were 'on combine'....like 'tea time' - work permitting - and night time, when the 'bug smashers' had all gone sleepy-byes,
the Console I supervised, and sat at, had 13 (THIRTEEN) VHF's and 4 (Four) HF's to monitor, all at the same time.
When we were 'busy' we opened the other 4 consoles and 'managed' the workload..
We did have the 'luxury' of being able to 'select' re-Tx facilities 'On' / 'Off'', select the 1 freq only. to the exclusion of ALL other freqs, / transmit out on the one freq only, so as not to annoy everybody from Kununnurra to Esperance, Tx on ALL freqs so the the guy in Kunners KNEW we were busy with the bloke in ESP, and would he please shut up for a few seconds, and MANY other combinations of the above.....
NOT to mention the HF,,,noisy, crappy with Asian traffic in the earlyevenings.....and 'Space Noise' - ALL the time.....
I think that's how it was.......now, where ARE those car keys...??
'Twas like playing a organ at times.........
(NOTE - I did NOT say playing 'with'....)
(Just thought I'd get in first, Cap'n......)
the Console I supervised, and sat at, had 13 (THIRTEEN) VHF's and 4 (Four) HF's to monitor, all at the same time.
When we were 'busy' we opened the other 4 consoles and 'managed' the workload..
We did have the 'luxury' of being able to 'select' re-Tx facilities 'On' / 'Off'', select the 1 freq only. to the exclusion of ALL other freqs, / transmit out on the one freq only, so as not to annoy everybody from Kununnurra to Esperance, Tx on ALL freqs so the the guy in Kunners KNEW we were busy with the bloke in ESP, and would he please shut up for a few seconds, and MANY other combinations of the above.....
NOT to mention the HF,,,noisy, crappy with Asian traffic in the earlyevenings.....and 'Space Noise' - ALL the time.....
I think that's how it was.......now, where ARE those car keys...??
'Twas like playing a organ at times.........
(NOTE - I did NOT say playing 'with'....)
(Just thought I'd get in first, Cap'n......)
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After reading this, I would be surprised if it is not withdrawn - all the points are covered.
https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/raaus...l-response.pdf
https://www.raa.asn.au/storage/raaus...l-response.pdf