Airservices Class E changes
So, they are taken from the respective organisations web sites.
How are they incorrect?
How are they incorrect?
Originally Posted by McLimit/Porter
We put **** on other countries, one in particular for being insular, ignorant and arrogant. The same crap that comes out of this country, particularly in regards to aviation. I used to believe all of that crap when I was a young whipper-snapper. There is no excuse for this rot when you're older and have been around a bit. Grab yourself a camp chair and esky, sit on the grass along Runway 27 on the Sunday before the show at OSH and listen to ATC. Not just the controlling, but at the busiest airport in the world for the day there's still 'have a good day'
If GA doesn't rock your boat, head to The Proud Bird in LA, have dinner so you can see the lights of the constant vectoring and processing of aircraft onto base and final. You won't see a prettier thing. Then get yourself into a Seneca or VLJ and fly into and out of a corporate airport up to the sticks in Minnesota and experience the controlling into a non-towered E-Base 1200ft. Oh yeah, how about being able to own a hangar on an international airport and park your RV in it. Even fly in and out of that airport amongst 73's, 777's etc and the controllers get just as big a kick out of it as you.
If GA doesn't rock your boat, head to The Proud Bird in LA, have dinner so you can see the lights of the constant vectoring and processing of aircraft onto base and final. You won't see a prettier thing. Then get yourself into a Seneca or VLJ and fly into and out of a corporate airport up to the sticks in Minnesota and experience the controlling into a non-towered E-Base 1200ft. Oh yeah, how about being able to own a hangar on an international airport and park your RV in it. Even fly in and out of that airport amongst 73's, 777's etc and the controllers get just as big a kick out of it as you.
None of which has the slightest bit of relevance to this thread apart from "Then get yourself into a Seneca or VLJ and fly into and out of a corporate airport up to the sticks in Minnesota and experience the controlling into a non-towered E-Base 1200ft." What airport is this?
Hey Mr Advance,
A 'Favour' per favor.....
Being in ATC, I wonder if you could please decipher the acronyms mentioned in post #268 by Mr 'GF'??
I can only relate to those 'OCTA' ones... ....you know......the .'Controlled Restricted Airspace Program'....or the acronym for it .......
I rekon he's havin' a 'loan' of me.... And, I can only remember the 'BAM BLAM' thankyou etc etc.......
Cheeerrrsss...and Thanks in advance....(Pun intended...)
A 'Favour' per favor.....
Being in ATC, I wonder if you could please decipher the acronyms mentioned in post #268 by Mr 'GF'??
I can only relate to those 'OCTA' ones... ....you know......the .'Controlled Restricted Airspace Program'....or the acronym for it .......
I rekon he's havin' a 'loan' of me.... And, I can only remember the 'BAM BLAM' thankyou etc etc.......
Cheeerrrsss...and Thanks in advance....(Pun intended...)
Ex FSO GRIFFO,
Your starting to look like a useless troll and then I realised the redundancy for you only could afford a modem that allowed you access to PPRUNE and not the greater WWW.
A simple search of the internet would have decoded the commonly used acronyms for you but seeing your “genuine question” has been.exposed as a lie and you are too lazy here they are:
STCA - Short Term Conflict Alert
MSAW - Minimum Safe Altitude Warning
DAIW - Danger Area Infringement Warning
RAM - Route Adherence Monitor
CLAM - Cleared Level Adherence Monitor
Now tell me how I am having a lend of you or is it just typical abuse of a troll.
These safety nets, alerts, warnings are often disliked and hated by controllers, justifiably so, as the false operational positive rate can be very high as I’ve stated in other posts, inducing a cry wolf syndrome in the controllers’ minds. The only trouble is when there is really a wolf...
I could have used a more sophisticated analogy but I’m never sure of the lowest common denominator on this forum.
The general PPRUNE community would no doubt remember the BLA accident with the ATSB / Coroners Inquiry and the role of the RAM alert in that accident.
I am happy to discuss the role of the ground system based safety net in the 3 step safety process in A airspace ie controller/STCA/TCAS heirarchy and some of the difficulties / traps in its applications in E/G airspace if readers did not get my more subtle comments.
So GRIFFO, prove to me you are not a useless troll.
I personally do not find anything funny about pilots, passengers, or even controllers dying in any circumstances, especially when they could have been prevented, whether it was Zagreb, Uberlingen, Benalla or Mangalore.
Hopefully, one day we are better than this???
-
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 26th Feb 2021 at 14:28.
FAA - Air Traffic by the Numbers
211200 + approx 7600 Commercial Aircraft = 218800 divided by 14000 ATC = 15.6 aircraft per US ATC
BITRE report
22265 aircraft in Aus divided by 1000 ATC = 22.3 aircraft per AUS ATC
FAA- Air Traffic by the Numbers
16405000 flights a year = 45000 flights per day divided by 14000 ATC = 3.2 flights per US ATC per day
Airservices - by the numbers
4000000 flights a year = 11000 flights per day divided by 1000 ATC = 11 flights per AUS ATC per day
FAA Budget requests 2021
FAA Operations $11 Billion USD.(Air Traffic $8.2 Billion USD)
This is where the argument falls down. That "proven safe US system" needs 14 times more ATC and a ton of money to make it work. It's utter BS that our system can be like theirs for "no cost".
211200 + approx 7600 Commercial Aircraft = 218800 divided by 14000 ATC = 15.6 aircraft per US ATC
BITRE report
22265 aircraft in Aus divided by 1000 ATC = 22.3 aircraft per AUS ATC
FAA- Air Traffic by the Numbers
16405000 flights a year = 45000 flights per day divided by 14000 ATC = 3.2 flights per US ATC per day
Airservices - by the numbers
4000000 flights a year = 11000 flights per day divided by 1000 ATC = 11 flights per AUS ATC per day
FAA Budget requests 2021
FAA Operations $11 Billion USD.(Air Traffic $8.2 Billion USD)
This is where the argument falls down. That "proven safe US system" needs 14 times more ATC and a ton of money to make it work. It's utter BS that our system can be like theirs for "no cost".
‘’Thank you for the reply.
””Lies, damn lies and statistics” popularised by Mark Twain and apparently wrongly attributed to Benjamin Disraeli....
just goes to show the danger of disfactual analysis and lack of common sense was around way long before the ‘Fake News’ of Donald Trump and the ‘Alternative Facts’ of Kellyanne Conway.
The saying “apples with oranges” in this debate IS irrelevant to the E Airspace discussions but since you unquestionly posted numbers without analysis then I will have to challenge....and it’s not a mere comparison of Granny Smith to Golden Delicious it more single grape to cart of watermelons.
Didnt you question the “facts’” that a country 13 times the population only had 4 times the flights?
That must mean aviation is booming beyond belief in Australia yet I’m not sensing that. That should have triggered an “a ha” moment in your thinking.
in 2007 I was in Eurocontrol Maastricht Upper Airspace Centre and in Skyguide’s Geneva Centre. MUAC ABV FL 250 roughly the same order of magnitude in sq/kms as Victoria moves 5000 flights a day. Airspace analysis of high level sectors in ML centre Alice Springs, Woomera and Bourke in early 2010s had a 24hr total of 250 individual flights, total. Just have a think about the size of those three sectors that contain a hell of a lot of International flights between midnight and six.
So why get in a pissing contest you can’t win?
What Australian controllers should be highlighting instead is the Tyranny of Distance.
No I’m not talking about the Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey’s book or even The line in the song “Six months in a leaky boat’ by Split Enz. I’m talking about the lateral geographic size of sector/sectors that controllers have to manage and further expanded by that wonderful project SDE.
This issue is far more relevant to E airspace to 1500 AGL than a pissing contest on “pushing tin.”
REFER Miissy’s post for more info re SDE. It started in 2005 and it showed Airservices had started to go silly by placing more importance on PRspin than ATC. Sadly Airservices has never recovered!
And please don’t quote how SY-ML route is the ? 1st / 2nd / 3rd busiest route in the world or I’ll ROTFALMAO!!
Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.....
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 26th Feb 2021 at 22:47.
FAA - Air Traffic by the Numbers
211200 + approx 7600 Commercial Aircraft = 218800 divided by 14000 ATC = 15.6 aircraft per US ATC
BITRE report
22265 aircraft in Aus divided by 1000 ATC = 22.3 aircraft per AUS ATC
FAA- Air Traffic by the Numbers
16405000 flights a year = 45000 flights per day divided by 14000 ATC = 3.2 flights per US ATC per day
Airservices - by the numbers
4000000 flights a year = 11000 flights per day divided by 1000 ATC = 11 flights per AUS ATC per day
FAA Budget requests 2021
FAA Operations $11 Billion USD.(Air Traffic $8.2 Billion USD)
This is where the argument falls down. That "proven safe US system" needs 14 times more ATC and a ton of money to make it work. It's utter BS that our system can be like theirs for "no cost".
211200 + approx 7600 Commercial Aircraft = 218800 divided by 14000 ATC = 15.6 aircraft per US ATC
BITRE report
22265 aircraft in Aus divided by 1000 ATC = 22.3 aircraft per AUS ATC
FAA- Air Traffic by the Numbers
16405000 flights a year = 45000 flights per day divided by 14000 ATC = 3.2 flights per US ATC per day
Airservices - by the numbers
4000000 flights a year = 11000 flights per day divided by 1000 ATC = 11 flights per AUS ATC per day
FAA Budget requests 2021
FAA Operations $11 Billion USD.(Air Traffic $8.2 Billion USD)
This is where the argument falls down. That "proven safe US system" needs 14 times more ATC and a ton of money to make it work. It's utter BS that our system can be like theirs for "no cost".
We aren't comparing apples with apples, grapes and watermelons anyone.
I agree that there is a cost to make "our" system like "their" system, I don't think anyone who is honest and transparent is suggesting otherwise.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of which has the slightest bit of relevance to this thread apart from "Then get yourself into a Seneca or VLJ and fly into and out of a corporate airport up to the sticks in Minnesota and experience the controlling into a non-towered E-Base 1200ft." What airport is this?
It was some years back, I will have to dig out the sectional.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, they are taken from the respective organisations web sites.
How are they incorrect?
How are they incorrect?
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who advocate for adopting the US system completely - fine. Who pays for it?
The taxpayer pays for it, like they pay for hospitals, roads, rail and any other infrastructure that protects them.
Griffo, I am glad Gentle Flyer answered your question re acronyms - for myself to quote a certain Premier: "Don't know, can't remember."
Traffic is etc: Let's not get confused in statistics which truly are apples with elephants.
Australian figures for aircraft include those with self administering organisations (gyros, ultralights etc) which in the main do not use Controlled airspace; US figures are diffferent.
ATC numbers depend on who you count. Those on a service provider payroll (Here one plus RAAF, There many providers) -and
are you counting console workforce or those with a licence...... EG I have an ATC licence but I have not sat at a console for some years now. Even here AA have many licensed controllers doing administrative jobs not separating aircraft.
Example: Their CEO holds (or has held) an ATC licence but I'll bet he has not sat at a console for a while!!!!
DROPS and Missy: I made the point earlier and provided the rationale, that it is cheaper to provide separation than it is to provide traffic, then when a pilot adjusts course, level, intentions etc to update the traffic - it is also way, way safer.
There will be a training and implementation cost but it is a logical error to assume a better service means more people - a more efficient provision of service means fewer people.
McLimit: It Does not matter if it is a remote airport in Northern Minnesota where there is probably ATC radar coverage or one in western Arizona where there is not radar coverage like Lake Havasu, ATC can (and in the USA do) provide separation to aircraft who can not do it themselves because they are in IMC.
Addendum: You suggested I would be very unpopular for advocating the full US System - with whom? I would bet the poor controller who was on the console doing the job he/she was directed to do when the MNG mid air occurred would not see it that way - nor would the partners and children of the deceased, nor would the operators or insurers of the aircraft. And I am darn sure any pilot in IMC getting no separation but aware there is traffic about with no option except to continue is not going to agree with you!
THe Office of Airspace Regulation is required to:
5 CASA will exercise its airspace authority on the advice of an Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), which will be a distinct operational unit of CASA.
Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration and the OAR must approach the development of its advice on airspace regulation on the same basis.
(Ministerial Direction made under the Airspace Act)
I suggest that CASA OAR has not done as directed under the Act and the Mangalore mid air that cost four lives is just the latest accident that proves this.
Aircraft in IMC can not self separate no matter how much traffic is passed to them.
Their ability to analyse the traffic situation described is greatly hampered by the other cockpit activities and the over riding demands of safely flying the aircraft, and
Their ability to deviate from certain tracks (IE Instrument Procedures) is prohibited by law and by safety considerations.
Traffic information is NOT a form of separation; it is a legal pretence at providing a non existent capability to self separate.
Traffic is etc: Let's not get confused in statistics which truly are apples with elephants.
Australian figures for aircraft include those with self administering organisations (gyros, ultralights etc) which in the main do not use Controlled airspace; US figures are diffferent.
ATC numbers depend on who you count. Those on a service provider payroll (Here one plus RAAF, There many providers) -and
are you counting console workforce or those with a licence...... EG I have an ATC licence but I have not sat at a console for some years now. Even here AA have many licensed controllers doing administrative jobs not separating aircraft.
Example: Their CEO holds (or has held) an ATC licence but I'll bet he has not sat at a console for a while!!!!
DROPS and Missy: I made the point earlier and provided the rationale, that it is cheaper to provide separation than it is to provide traffic, then when a pilot adjusts course, level, intentions etc to update the traffic - it is also way, way safer.
There will be a training and implementation cost but it is a logical error to assume a better service means more people - a more efficient provision of service means fewer people.
McLimit: It Does not matter if it is a remote airport in Northern Minnesota where there is probably ATC radar coverage or one in western Arizona where there is not radar coverage like Lake Havasu, ATC can (and in the USA do) provide separation to aircraft who can not do it themselves because they are in IMC.
Addendum: You suggested I would be very unpopular for advocating the full US System - with whom? I would bet the poor controller who was on the console doing the job he/she was directed to do when the MNG mid air occurred would not see it that way - nor would the partners and children of the deceased, nor would the operators or insurers of the aircraft. And I am darn sure any pilot in IMC getting no separation but aware there is traffic about with no option except to continue is not going to agree with you!
THe Office of Airspace Regulation is required to:
5 CASA will exercise its airspace authority on the advice of an Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), which will be a distinct operational unit of CASA.
Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration and the OAR must approach the development of its advice on airspace regulation on the same basis.
(Ministerial Direction made under the Airspace Act)
I suggest that CASA OAR has not done as directed under the Act and the Mangalore mid air that cost four lives is just the latest accident that proves this.
Aircraft in IMC can not self separate no matter how much traffic is passed to them.
Their ability to analyse the traffic situation described is greatly hampered by the other cockpit activities and the over riding demands of safely flying the aircraft, and
Their ability to deviate from certain tracks (IE Instrument Procedures) is prohibited by law and by safety considerations.
Traffic information is NOT a form of separation; it is a legal pretence at providing a non existent capability to self separate.
Last edited by Advance; 27th Feb 2021 at 01:11.
Didnt you question the “facts’” that a country 13 times the population only had 4 times the flights?
That must mean aviation is booming beyond belief in Australia yet I’m not sensing that.
That must mean aviation is booming beyond belief in Australia yet I’m not sensing that.
So for the hell of it, lets triple the flights the FAA handles. Make it 50M flights a year vs our 4M. Of course there is no proof for this and goes against what the FAA actually tells us, but sh*ts and giggles heh? 50M flights a year is 137k flights a day, handled by a staff of 14000 ATC. That's 9.8 flights per ATC per day. They also do it from nearly 700 locations.
If you think 4M is too much for AUS, lets just look at published movements at Airservices manned airports for 2019 (to November)- just a smidge over 3M. So using 3M flights a year in the country, that's still 8.2 flights per ATC per day (done from 31 locations)
Airport movements
It's not a pissing contest. It's just numbers. All it shows is that the US system is fundamentally different to the AUS one. If anything, it backs up the argument that AUS ATC are not going to be able to unilaterally expand E and take on more functions/responsibilities without a major increase in resourcing (=cost).
The taxpayer pays for it,
Let's not get confused in statistics which truly are apples with elephants.
Australian figures for aircraft include those with self administering organisations (gyros, ultralights etc) which in the main do not use Controlled airspace; US figures are diffferent.
ATC numbers depend on who you count. Those on a service provider payroll (Here one plus RAAF, There many providers) -and
are you counting console workforce or those with a licence...... EG I have an ATC licence but I have not sat at a console for some years now. Even here AA have many licensed controllers doing administrative jobs not separating aircraft.
Example: Their CEO holds (or has held) an ATC licence but I'll bet he has not sat at a console for a while!!!!
are you counting console workforce or those with a licence...... EG I have an ATC licence but I have not sat at a console for some years now. Even here AA have many licensed controllers doing administrative jobs not separating aircraft.
Example: Their CEO holds (or has held) an ATC licence but I'll bet he has not sat at a console for a while!!!!
US Experimental aircraft include homebuilt aircraft like Vans, Rutan etc designs.
Here those are VH registered and included on the CASA register.
But the gyrocopters, hang-gliders, ultralights etc here counted in the BITRE numbers are not counted in the FAA numbers - and there are a mighty lot of such aircraft here.
BUT the point remains:
Providing a MORE EFFICIENT SERVICE means fewer people / less cost than a less efficient service.
The argument here is not about comparable statistics but about the provision of a safe separation service to aircraft who are unable to separate themselves.
US ATC separates all aircraft in IMC. Australia does not.
Here those are VH registered and included on the CASA register.
But the gyrocopters, hang-gliders, ultralights etc here counted in the BITRE numbers are not counted in the FAA numbers - and there are a mighty lot of such aircraft here.
BUT the point remains:
Providing a MORE EFFICIENT SERVICE means fewer people / less cost than a less efficient service.
The argument here is not about comparable statistics but about the provision of a safe separation service to aircraft who are unable to separate themselves.
US ATC separates all aircraft in IMC. Australia does not.
Thankyou Mr GF,
I'm starting to look a bit 'older' also.....and I really don't have to 'prove' anything to you.
So, all of the quoted 'acronyms' are simply 'features' of the u-beaut Eurocat system then?
i.e. Used only for those acft operating in CTA......and obviously to 'assist' the ATC person sitting at the screen in providing separation etc .....
Nothing at all to do with / for the 'great unwashed' aviators operating OCTA...'G' or VFR 'E', or GAAP Towers etc etc ... you know the places where most GA acft operate....
p.s. Your 'your' should be 'you're'.........
I'm starting to look a bit 'older' also.....and I really don't have to 'prove' anything to you.
So, all of the quoted 'acronyms' are simply 'features' of the u-beaut Eurocat system then?
i.e. Used only for those acft operating in CTA......and obviously to 'assist' the ATC person sitting at the screen in providing separation etc .....
Nothing at all to do with / for the 'great unwashed' aviators operating OCTA...'G' or VFR 'E', or GAAP Towers etc etc ... you know the places where most GA acft operate....
p.s. Your 'your' should be 'you're'.........
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 27th Feb 2021 at 01:33.
If an aircraft at AF, BK, CN, JT, MB, PF do 10 circuits then this is counted as 22 or maybe in the range between 22 or say 30.
Join Date: Jan 2021
Location: McLimitVille
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
McLimit: It Does not matter if it is a remote airport in Northern Minnesota where there is probably ATC radar coverage or one in western Arizona where there is not radar coverage like Lake Havasu, ATC can (and in the USA do) provide separation to aircraft who can not do it themselves because they are in IMC.
Addendum: You suggested I would be very unpopular for advocating the full US System - with whom?
I would bet the poor controller who was on the console doing the job he/she was directed to do when the MNG mid air occurred would not see it that way - nor would the partners and children of the deceased, nor would the operators or insurers of the aircraft. And I am darn sure any pilot in IMC getting no separation but aware there is traffic about with no option except to continue is not going to agree with you!
I'll just let you know my position again, the full US airspace system in Australia. Why, because it is the best fit for what we are trying to achieve here, is it perfect? Of course it's not but it's better than the crap we have now and the half arsed system proposed.
]
I am happy to discuss the role of the ground system based safety net in the 3 step safety process in A airspace ie controller/STCA/TCAS heirarchy and some of the difficulties / traps in its applications in E/G airspace if readers did not get my more subtle comments.
I am happy to discuss the role of the ground system based safety net in the 3 step safety process in A airspace ie controller/STCA/TCAS heirarchy and some of the difficulties / traps in its applications in E/G airspace if readers did not get my more subtle comments.
Go gently.
OK then McLimit if you want the full US system in Australia then we are on the same side. I hesitate to say "Me too" in the present environment.
No, we do not need any local "improvements" on the US system - they have never yet been genuine improvements.
No re-inventing the wheel and making it a triangle as so often happens here.
My only reservation is that any aircraft equipment has to be not only US but also ICAO compliant.
So the US 978 MHZ transponder would not work here - we can only use the common US/ICAO 1020 MHz unit.
And to be clear; don't just give the airspace the same name - use it in precisely the same way - ATC and Pilots.
No, we do not need any local "improvements" on the US system - they have never yet been genuine improvements.
No re-inventing the wheel and making it a triangle as so often happens here.
My only reservation is that any aircraft equipment has to be not only US but also ICAO compliant.
So the US 978 MHZ transponder would not work here - we can only use the common US/ICAO 1020 MHz unit.
And to be clear; don't just give the airspace the same name - use it in precisely the same way - ATC and Pilots.
Sunny SA, okay, I’ll give it a go. It will be posted tomorrow. It will be very simple, as my stroke affected brain does not do complex anymore but the bull**** detector still works!
I’m just going to spend sometime explaining to GRIFFO the issues we had when we commissions TAAATS Eurocat in 1998 and all the software changes we had to make to shoehorn the the FIS square peg into the TAAATS Eurocat round hole.
I am probably assuming no one has ever done it before for him. And it will at the very least put a wry smile on his face! Here’s hoping 🤞
Gf
I’m just going to spend sometime explaining to GRIFFO the issues we had when we commissions TAAATS Eurocat in 1998 and all the software changes we had to make to shoehorn the the FIS square peg into the TAAATS Eurocat round hole.
I am probably assuming no one has ever done it before for him. And it will at the very least put a wry smile on his face! Here’s hoping 🤞
Gf