The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Voices of Reason and Class E

Old 15th Apr 2021, 13:45
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
This gives ATC a responsibility to warn a VFR pilot if he or she gets close to another aircraft.
You cannot deduce that ATC gets any responsibility just because pilots have to monitor a frequency. You'll have to find the rule stating so before claiming it.....
jmmoric is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 00:52
  #42 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,352
I suggest you look up the judgment from the Navair Bankstown mid air.

The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.

For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.

I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 03:43
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 2,638
I suggest you look up the judgment from the Navair Bankstown mid air.

The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.

For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.

I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
Well it certainly doesn't work like that anymore!! IFR are given traffic on known VFR, same as VFR to VFR. It's up to the PIC to ensure their own separation, which is then the Achilles heal of Class E airspace. In reality Class E is Controlled Class G. Ultimately the PIC is still responsible for VFR separation. Too bad for you if you are in the outback and wipe out someone on descent who is not "known".

It only takes one instance of avoidance action by a IFR aircraft to totally unravel Class E. They have to avoid a VFR aircraft, this means taking action, yet they need a clearance to take action so then a 4+ way radio conference has to take place, between the VFR traffic, other VFR traffic, the IFR traffic and ATC.

In reality Class G is safer and easier to operate in as everyone knows where they stand. Class E only really works if everyone is identified and ATC can actually give avoidance guidance. The current arrangement where jets are cleared through overlying Class E and have to self separate from VFR traffic is a nonsense at the speeds they operate at with no radar coverage.
neville_nobody is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 05:17
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 459
...industry said if they got FAA E access rules they would be on board.
An edited quote from another website.

Be careful what you wish for. Surely technology has advanced such over the past decades to make improvements on Alphabet Airspace. Just consider car technologies: cars currently on the market vs the first car you drove vs the first car you rode in as a passenger (probably on the drive home from the hospital where you were born). Surely we can do better.
missy is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 05:22
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 61
For those who feel having small sections of Class C around regional TWRs creates roadblock airspace for VFRs, imagine the roadblocks for IFRs that will be created in the event of low level Class E. And this will be over the whole J-curve, thousands of sq miles as opposed to tiny bits around large country towns which only affects the odd VFR flight.
10JQKA is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 08:15
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by neville_nobody View Post
Well it certainly doesn't work like that anymore!! IFR are given traffic on known VFR, same as VFR to VFR. It's up to the PIC to ensure their own separation, which is then the Achilles heal of Class E airspace. In reality Class E is Controlled Class G. Ultimately the PIC is still responsible for VFR separation. Too bad for you if you are in the outback and wipe out someone on descent who is not "known".

It only takes one instance of avoidance action by a IFR aircraft to totally unravel Class E. They have to avoid a VFR aircraft, this means taking action, yet they need a clearance to take action so then a 4+ way radio conference has to take place, between the VFR traffic, other VFR traffic, the IFR traffic and ATC.

In reality Class G is safer and easier to operate in as everyone knows where they stand. Class E only really works if everyone is identified and ATC can actually give avoidance guidance. The current arrangement where jets are cleared through overlying Class E and have to self separate from VFR traffic is a nonsense at the speeds they operate at with no radar coverage.
A few noteworthy mentions here.

You do NOT need a clearance to avoid another aircraft....

Speed in class E is restricted below 10,000 feet to a maximum 250 knots, and the reason is traffic avoidance. I do agree that a few VFR flights venture higher than that, but most stay below.

Flying IFR in class G you'll meet IFR flights when IMC and both IFR and VFR flights while VMC, whereas you'll only meet VFR flights while VMC in class E. So no, in reality class E is the safer airspace....

Class E works fine when pilots are aware of the airspace classification, and the amount of VFR traffic is relatively low.
jmmoric is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 08:29
  #47 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,352
Yep. And when the traffic gets too much a higher class of airspace is allocated!

Really simple.
Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 08:48
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
I suggest you look up the judgment from the Navair Bankstown mid air.

The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.

For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.

I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
Are you asking me to look at a report from 1974? 2 years before I was born?

"The cause of the accident was that, whilst operating in an environment where the maintenance of separation between aircraft was a pilot responsibility, neither the pilot-in-command of the Twin Comanche nor the pilot-in-command of the Dove ensured that a watch for other aircraft, adequate for the avoidance of collision, was maintained."

Nonetheless, if a judge then comes to another conclusion, why wouldn't controllers start separating aircraft according to IFR rules?
jmmoric is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 11:29
  #49 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,352
Yes. And thatís why our unique system of forcing by the rule of law that VFR aircraft en route must monitor and announce on the ATC sector frequency gives the ATC a special responsibility.

Dick Smith is online now  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 12:18
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by UnderneathTheRadar View Post
The objective is to consider the requirements to use airspace and all of the controls available - airspace type, procedures, technology (radar, ADSB receivers, ADSB-in, ADSB-out, TCAS, GPWS, EGPWS, CATI, CATIIIB) etc - and determine which combination provides 'about the same' residual risk as the next location. For practical reasons this is limited to a few different systems - generally we think of Oceanic, A, C, D, E & G in Oz but with special procedures in areas where an increase in procedure/cost to the next level up isn't justifiable but 'something' should be done - that's where an alternative airspace system may be used - CA/GRS or VFR LOEs.
UTR, some of these are safety nets - GPWS, EGPWS, TCAS and shouldn't be used to determine available controls.

In the case of TCAS - "TCAS does not substitute for air traffic control, but acts as a defence against a breakdown of the air traffic control system". "Australian aircraft that is a turbine-powered commercial aeroplane must not, except in certain limited circumstances, begin a flight unless it is fitted with an approved TCAS II that is serviceable".

The ATS Flight Notification doesn't have any reference to TCAS, there is no abbreviation for TCAS, there is no reference on an ATC display to indicate that an aircraft has or doesn't have TCAS, there is no reference on an ATC paper flight progress strip (most Towers) that the aircraft has or doesn't have TCAS, there are no procedures in MATS to indicate what an ATC should do if a pilot advises that TCAS is inoperable. TCAS is a pilot safety net and as indicated above, acts as a defence against a breakdown of the air traffic control system.

Same for GPWS, EGPWS etc.

Same for MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning), an ATC Safety Net for defined portions of airspace for defined flight procedures (IFR).

Same for CLAM (Cleared Level Adherence Monitoring), an ATC Safety Net based on defined parameters.

Same for STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert), an ATC Safety Net based on defined parameters. The fact that there are numerous (100's daily) false alerts has meant that "true alerts are not responded to and all alerts are delayed in their response."
False alerts

Technology is important however Safety Nets have been developed for when the human has failed.
missy is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 12:19
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Yes. And thatís why our unique system of forcing by the rule of law that VFR aircraft en route must monitor and announce on the ATC sector frequency gives the ATC a special responsibility.
Did that work at Ballina?
missy is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 12:45
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Because in Australia it is mandatory ($5000 fine) for VFR to monitor the ATC area frequency as marked on our charts.

This gives ATC a responsibility to warn a VFR pilot if he or she gets close to another aircraft.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Yes. And thatís why our unique system of forcing by the rule of law that VFR aircraft en route must monitor and announce on the ATC sector frequency gives the ATC a special responsibility.
You bastard, you changed the reasons that was the foundation of my first answer

Ofcourse, once ATC knows you're there, we'll have to provide traffic information as far as is practical
jmmoric is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 12:50
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 60
Posts: 356
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
Yep. And when the traffic gets too much a higher class of airspace is allocated!
Really simple.
I'm not aware of any data that could be used to make an objective decision to upgrade airspace either at an aerodrome or en-route.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 12:55
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by jmmoric View Post
You bastard, you changed the reasons that was the foundation of my first answer

Ofcourse, once ATC knows you're there, we'll have to provide traffic information as far as is practical
Did that work at Ballina? And what do you mean by "as far as is practical" with such an EMOJI ? Sounds like passing traffic is optional.
missy is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 12:59
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,537
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.

I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
That accident happened in a Control Zone, ie in controlled airspace. It was just that it was under the then Secondary Control Zone procedures where VFR to VFR provided their own separation in the circuit. Outside that zone, in other controlled airspace, ATC would normally have provided separation between VFRs . Sure, maybe they got a little zealous (or more careful) but that was their job. Outside controlled airspace, you were on your own, as you well know. I bet ATC never separated you from anyone to any standards when you were OCTA.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 13:19
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 44
Posts: 477
Originally Posted by missy View Post
Did that work at Ballina? And what do you mean by "as far as is practical" with such an EMOJI ? Sounds like passing traffic is optional.
The emoji was supposed to soften up the previous emoji.

You know as well as I do, that it says as far as is practical, not optional. Which is practice would mean that if you know they are there, you'll give it.... whereas, if you have no clue they are there, you cannot give it.

What Ballina?

Okay, think I found the Ballina.

It was in G airspace, one aircraft forgot to turn on "ALT" on the transponder, the airspace was "broadcast" airspace.... so I'm a little confused why ATC is dragged into it?

Though you normally don't broadcast on ATC frequencies, they are a worktool for the controllers and they'll be pissed. You communicate with ATC on that frequency.

Last edited by jmmoric; 16th Apr 2021 at 14:04. Reason: Found ballina
jmmoric is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 13:33
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,537
VFR aircraft en route must monitor and announce on the ATC sector frequency
You mean listen out and broadcast on the area frequency? Because if it was a requirement under rule of law for ATC to be able to hear all your announcements, there would be VHF to the ground everywhere, or you would have to announce on HF, but then that would be full reporting, and someone got rid of that.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 13:41
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,537
Did that work at Ballina?
The two aircraft were on CTAF and didn't hear each other. In the real world, if two aircraft broadcasting on the same frequency don't hear each other, what makes you think an ATC might hear it. People miss transmissions directed at them, let alone broadcasts.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 14:58
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by jmmoric View Post
The emoji was supposed to soften up the previous emoji.

You know as well as I do, that it says as far as is practical, not optional. Which is practice would mean that if you know they are there, you'll give it.... whereas, if you have no clue they are there, you cannot give it.

What Ballina?

Okay, think I found the Ballina.

It was in G airspace, one aircraft forgot to turn on "ALT" on the transponder, the airspace was "broadcast" airspace.... so I'm a little confused why ATC is dragged into it?

Though you normally don't broadcast on ATC frequencies, they are a worktool for the controllers and they'll be pissed. You communicate with ATC on that frequency.
I understand that the IFR was not passed traffic on the VFR...
missy is offline  
Old 16th Apr 2021, 14:59
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 459
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was View Post
The two aircraft were on CTAF and didn't hear each other. In the real world, if two aircraft broadcasting on the same frequency don't hear each other, what makes you think an ATC might hear it. People miss transmissions directed at them, let alone broadcasts.
See previous post regarding traffic.
missy is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.