Airservices Class E changes
When you live....
By the look of it the AsA latest proposal may actually reduce safety if it is introduced.
This is because there will now be less time for IFR aircraft in non tower terminal airspace to arrange their own separation.
More chance of a Mangalore type mid air occurring I would think.
This is because there will now be less time for IFR aircraft in non tower terminal airspace to arrange their own separation.
More chance of a Mangalore type mid air occurring I would think.
Spurious at best....
Regards
Richard
No other airspace system in the world I know of is designed where two radios on different frequencies at the same time must be used to ensure safety.
Before I introduced the AMATS changes only one radio at a time was required.
This “two radio” farce could have contributed to the cause of the Mangalore 4 fatalities.
Before I introduced the AMATS changes only one radio at a time was required.
This “two radio” farce could have contributed to the cause of the Mangalore 4 fatalities.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Mar 2021 at 04:43.
No other airspace system in the world I know of is designed where two radios on different frequencies at the same time must be used to ensure safety.
Before I introduced the AMATS changes only one radio at a time was required.
This “two radio” farce could have contributed to the cause of the Mangalore 4 fatalities.
Before I introduced the AMATS changes only one radio at a time was required.
This “two radio” farce could have contributed to the cause of the Mangalore 4 fatalities.
I won’t know until the ATSB report comes out. Before the changes there were no CTAFs so aircraft remained on the FS area frequency.
I would have never believed at the time that thirty years later only half the changes would be completed.
If the 1992 AMATS changes had been completed the two aircraft would have been separated by ATC.
Less chance of a mid air I would think!
I would have never believed at the time that thirty years later only half the changes would be completed.
If the 1992 AMATS changes had been completed the two aircraft would have been separated by ATC.
Less chance of a mid air I would think!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 26th Mar 2021 at 07:42.
Folks,
It appears that Qantas has told Airservices that they will not allow the Class E to be lowered unless the transponder mandate remains. At the same time, they have refused to pay the extra costs for transponders to be fitted to VFR aircraft. What’s the bet that Airservices will announce a delay from the proposed December date and then it never goes ahead?
Yet again, the aviation Galapagos will be maintained.
Tootle pip!!
It appears that Qantas has told Airservices that they will not allow the Class E to be lowered unless the transponder mandate remains. At the same time, they have refused to pay the extra costs for transponders to be fitted to VFR aircraft. What’s the bet that Airservices will announce a delay from the proposed December date and then it never goes ahead?
Yet again, the aviation Galapagos will be maintained.
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Dick
No other airspace system in the world I know of is designed where two radios on different frequencies at the same time must be used to ensure safety.
IFR under ATC control until 700ft AGL and at the same time talking to VFRs on the CTAF. Classic Class E!!!!
It appears that Qantas has told Airservices that they will not allow the Class E to be lowered unless the transponder mandate remains.
I suppose you're still towing the line of VFR not on the radio, with no transponder, swanning around in terminal jet airspace, Leddie?
Where's that head-banging emoji...
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So at some point > 15 miles ATC clear you for the approach. You don't need to talk to them again until you are in the missed approach or landed. You have 15 miles to talk to the CTAF traffic without worrying about ATC.
Attempted putdown --- fail!! You know. as well as I do, that I have never advocated any such thing --- based, of course, on standard definitions of such things as "terminal airspace", let alone something called "terminal jet airspace"???
As you well know, for as long as I have known you and your mates, I have advocated the US/FAA system because it works, and works well and efficiently at far higher traffic densities than ever encountered in Australia, and unlikely to be here encountered in your or my lifetime.
And just to remind the general readership, ICAO airspace classification is, in reality, the long established US system , published in a suitably UN bureaucratic form, as agreed to by ALL UN member states.
Finally, before "E" in the US, what is now E was ALWAYS controlled airspace, with the addendum " VFR Exempt" --- there is a clue there.
And, don't forget, Qantas and other VH IFR aircraft have long happily operated in Class E in US airspace, and other parts of the world where E is used, without the crews shaking in their boots.
Tootle pip!!
Originally Posted by Leddie
And, don't forget, Qantas and other VH IFR aircraft have long happily operated in Class E in US airspace, and other parts of the world where E is used, without the crews shaking in their boots.
Qantas passengers flying on to Steamboat Springs and similar US non tower airports will fly in the low level non radar terminal E airspace.
Clearly Qantas would warn their passengers if they believed there was any measurable risk
Clearly Qantas would warn their passengers if they believed there was any measurable risk
Surely you can’t be so ill informed
No Qantas aircraft flies in low level class E in the USA as they only fly into Class B airports
Lead did not say or suggest that Qantas flies in low level E in the USA.
But amazingly Qantas flies in lots of low level G in Australia.When in IMC no separation standard applies!
No Qantas aircraft flies in low level class E in the USA as they only fly into Class B airports
Lead did not say or suggest that Qantas flies in low level E in the USA.
But amazingly Qantas flies in lots of low level G in Australia.When in IMC no separation standard applies!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th Mar 2021 at 10:45.
How about you let leddie speak for himself, Dick.
Yes, it is amazing, isn't it. If you don't want it to fly in G, you tell us how much it's going to cost to provide a half-efficient ATC approach service in the bush in E. Actually, don't worry. I've asked you a hundred times but you refuse to answer.
And it's F we fly in, not G.
But amazingly Qantas flys in lots of low level G in Australia. When in IMC no separation standard applies!
And it's F we fly in, not G.
You have clearly ignored the statement by our longest serving aviation minister John Anderson
“ Safety is something that has the highest priority- it is not a question of cost”
“ Safety is something that has the highest priority- it is not a question of cost”
I hardly think John Anderson has any credibility on the topic of airspace when he came out with that nonsense about Class C requiring a radar. A ministerial direction, no less! 
Sake chum, is there any hope for us all...
Sake chum, is there any hope for us all...