Airservices Class E changes

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Intelligent people responsible for safe aircraft operations in developed countries have determined that ATC must provide separation for all aircraft operating in IMC

Canada doesn't.
The UK doesn't.
It's theoretically possible to fly IFR in G in the USA.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Advance

Aircraft in VMC are (usually) able to see and avoid other aircraft, particularly if given relevant traffic.
Aircraft in IMC can NOT self separate under most circumstances even if they are given traffic.

Rubbish on both counts.

[Pinky1987]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

Rubbish on both counts.

😁 here here Captain

[Geoff Fairless]

Originally Posted by triadic

Did anyone here participate in the ASA web 'discussions' on plan B? I understand that some got a bit heated???

Hi Triadic - I attended the Brisbane WEBEX meeting and I will try and summarise what I heard. There was also some great input from others, very well qualified to comment, but I will not try and paraphrase what they said.

• The meeting was run by Airservices (ASA) implementers, not the managers responsible for the proposal.
• ASA admitted that the MNG deaths and recent BNA incident had caused ASA "to perceive the risk had changed so Airservices had to do something"
• The first proposal (1500ft AGL) was intended to be "iterative', their word, not mine. I assume that meant they did not expect the first to be accepted.
• The second proposal is based on feedback and the proposed Class E bases also happen to be good for their comms coverage
• The proposed SAFIS base of 6500ft could be lower

First of all, while their first proposal could have been interpreted as "doing something", the second most certainly does nothing to address MNG or BNA unless they were referring to the SAFIS. However bear in mind that BNA already has a CA/GRS (which is an AFIS), but they use Flight Radar 24 for surveillance because ASA did not extend their surveillance feed to the private operator. (Yes I know FR24 only displays ADS-B tracks but the nearest SSR head is at the Gold Coast so ASA would not have too many low-level transponder tracks)
Secondly, the process does not comply with the Ministerial directions given in paragraphs 25 - 32 of the current Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018. ASA is quite entitled to make a proposal to CASA with supporting evidence, however, CASA is then required to carry out a risk assessment, decide whether to support or modify the proposal and then present it for public comment.
So why has the DIRD varied the Minister's policy? Does the Minister even know? Perhaps Senator MacDonald can ask him at the next RRAT estimates?
Can we expect to have to go through all of this again, or are CASA and Airservices operating as one body to provide a fair accompli that they can tell the Minister "does something"? If so, where is the safety assessment? Why is CASA allowing ASA to do their consultation work? The questions just go on.........

[Geoff Fairless]

Originally Posted by Pinky1987

hi Geoff. Did I read that correctly? The CAGRS controller at ballina is using an app on an Ipad or phone to provide traffic? Is that even allowed? My flight radar 24 app has all sorts of lag and incorrect info? I have flown into Ballina in my 172 quite a few times and have had rpt jets passed as traffic. I was not aware they were using an app on their phones for this? Is that supported by the regulator?

Hi Pinky - When I last visited the CA/GRO position at BNA they were displaying FR24 on a desktop computer screen and using the information for situation awareness. This augmented the poor view the CA/GRO has of the aerodrome and maneuvering area caused by being positioned behind the duty fireman. The fireman's cab also faces North (the runway) so the CA/GRO has no ability to sight the circuit south of the runway. This rather poor view was initially sanctioned by a CASA exemption but is now allowed under the new CASR Part 139 Manual of Standards (MOS) without an exemption being required.

Is that (FR24) allowed? The CA/GRO is required to comply with the requirements of CASR 139 Section D2 Para 155-160, Chapter 22 of the Part 139 MOS, and the guidance in AC 139.D-02 V.1. The operator was not observed using FR24 to pass traffic, that information was copied from aircraft radio calls and, where possible, sighting the aircraft; FR24 just gave the operator information about the direction to look. In terms of whether FR24 is "allowed" for situation awareness, CASA has gone out of it's way to ensure that the non-ICAO compliant CA/GRS is not classified as an Air Traffic Service (ATS); it is governed solely by Part 139 and it's MOS. That legislates what the unit must have but I could not find any regulation that stated what they could not have. (An ATS, on the other hand, may only use surveillance systems approved by CASA.) It was my view at the time that it was safer for the CA/GRO to have some general information than to tell them, without any regulatory reason, to switch it off.

I hope that helps

[Dick Smith]

And the whole US of A with its 340 million people has no such thing as a CAGRO.

How ever do they get away with it!

Virtually all airports have a Unicom which gives local weather, relevant traffic and can even pass on an IFR clearance.

No prescriptive rules at all- and it all works efficiently and safely.

But we know so much more.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Port Hedland AFIS is provided by serving AirServices personnel and is a part of the ATS system. BNA is a CA/GRS which provides some of the same services, is not part of the ATS system, operates under different legislation, and is manned by aerodrome employees or contractors.

[Capn Bloggs]

The refueller or baggage chucker giving "relevant traffic". Says it all, really...

[Geoff Fairless]

Pinky - TIEW is correct.
Ballina and Ayers Rock CA/GRS are both operated by a Melbourne-based company, name escapes me it used to be Ambidji, whereas Port Hedland AFIS is staffed by Airservices staff with a Flight Service Officer licence. They can provide a superior service because they are part of ATS and get access to the Perth ATC Centre overlying sectors and there is no traffic information duplication as occurs in the two CA/GRS. They would not be allowed to operate FR24 as a situation awareness tool because they are an ATS.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

FR24 is a commercial site founded by a couple of Swedish aerosexuals. It's basically an enthusiasts site. Anyone can contribute data, and anyone can request their data be blocked ie their aircraft don't appear on it. I'm pretty sure there would be no checks as to how accurate anything displayed on it is. We use it at work, but only for very basic information. I wouldn't base any sort of traffic info on it, as there is no way to know what it should be showing vs what it is. Stuff appears and disappears all the time.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The new MOS just says that one of the functions of a CA/GRS is to provide:
"advice on relevant air traffic in designated airspace or on the aerodrome",
But nowhere can I find any reference as to what constitutes "relevant" traffic. Relevant is a very subjective term. Back in the day, the old AOI (Vol II) had very concise standards to be used for assessing what constituted traffic. I bet the guys in PHD providing an AFIS work to standards. The MOS is much more precise on what other information a CA/GRO can provide but traffic seems to be "whatever you reckon".

[Geoff Fairless]

Originally Posted by Pinky1987

thanks Geoff. Is that because it would be deemed unsafe to use to assist in traffic at Port hedland?

Not necessarily, Pinky, the system would just have to go through an approval process to be used in ATS. However, CA/GRS is not an ATS, as determined by CASA.
It would be interesting if the operator of a CA/GRS was to procure a short-range primary radar, let's say to track unmanned operations at the airport.
Would the CA/GRO then be able to use the radar information to warn an incoming Cessna pilot that a UAV was in his/her vicinity, or would CASA not approve that vital information being passed?

[Geoff Fairless]

TIEW,
I believe that one reason for requiring a CA/GRO to be either an ex-ATC or FSO was because their original training would have included what constitutes relevant traffic.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So a guy who may not have exercised either license for maybe 20 years is expected to just remember it? Or apply what he reckons it is? Sounds pretty rubbery to me. If you are being certified by CASA, to what standard are they certifying to? Purely the fact that you once held a license? You could have worked in admin your entire career? Not every FSO held an AFIZ (AFIS) rating . That was something you did additional training for. I'd be pretty sure those Airservices guys in PHD aren't just winging it (I know they are not doing CA/GRS, but the end result is the same).

[Geoff Fairless]

TIEW - The time limit is ten years, but I know where you are coming from.
I have watched the two FSOs at Hedland work, and I assure you they are not winging it. I'm sure you would feel quite at home!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The time limit is ten years,

Not any more.

[Geoff Fairless]

TIEW - My mistake, did not realise they had taken that out as well

[pistonpuffer]

Originally Posted by Look Mum - no hands

So eastbound, VFR, cloud base 4000', the highest legal level I will be able to fly is 1500ft? How is that enhancing safety?

You will have to get ADS-b. Just do it. Prices are dropping. Your probably already have a radio.

[Geoff Fairless]

If anyone wants to comment, the Airservices consultation on their Class E proposal closes on 30th April, the link is below
https://engage.airservicesaustralia....s-e-east-coast

[Dick Smith]

Unfortunately this plan will force many aircraft to fly en route in the turbulence at lower levels than they would normally plan.

I have been around the world studying airspace and I haven’t seen anything even vaguely similar or as complicated as this proposal.

Showing the airspace boundaries on the charts is going to be a nightmare.