Voices of Reason and Class E
I think we are aiming for the same risk level in all airspace.
Thread Starter
I believe you will find that the FAA has not completed a “ cost of life” study for the different categories of airspace.
The airspace has simply evolved over a hundred years of experience with a lot of aircraft, high mountains and extreme weather conditions.
Also a wealthy and quite litigious society where no one wants to die in an aircraft accident.
The end result in the view of many people is a very safe and affordable system that encourages high participation levels.
And the VOR post is clearly as valid today as it was when it was written.
The airspace has simply evolved over a hundred years of experience with a lot of aircraft, high mountains and extreme weather conditions.
Also a wealthy and quite litigious society where no one wants to die in an aircraft accident.
The end result in the view of many people is a very safe and affordable system that encourages high participation levels.
And the VOR post is clearly as valid today as it was when it was written.
When you live....
I think we are aiming for the same risk level in all airspace. What will vary is the surveillance, the communications, the procedures but surely the target level of safety should be the same. There may be some ATC equipment that is installed for efficiency, examples being PRM at Sydney, Ground Radar at Sydney (and Brisbane, Melbourne, Perth).
A properly constituted risk framework would identify the hazards and their likelihoods & consequences (i.e. the risk) of each part of the country (and beyond) and apply the correct mitigations for each. The underlying risk level around YSSY is massively different to the underlying risk level at YSBK - mainly due to the number of people on each flight - despite the higher number of aircraft in closer proxmity at YSBK. Each control placed to mitigate the risk has a cost - and they can generally all be boiled down to a $$$ figure. That's why we don't have Class C (or B) at YSBK - the cost to industry would be huge - both in cost of additional controllers and costs to operators to operate and would achieve a reduction in risk to a level significantly less than existed at YSSY - which sounds wonderful but isn't warranted.
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.
It's all an exercise in managing risk - there should be a targeted level of acceptable risk (from collision into aircraft or terra-firma) for anyone/anywhere in the air in Australian airspace - and Airservices and the regulators should be using the tools at their disposal to level it out. In theory the level of residual risk at YSBK and YSSY should be about the same - and one might say that the occasional fatality at YSBK might take '00s of years to add up to the same number of facilities that would occur if 2 x 737s collided at YSSY - its just that we don't want that to ever happen but are conditioned (value of lives vs value of life) to accept that the occasional mid-air collision is ok. Given there is a non-zero chance of the 2 737's hitting I would argue that to a member of the general public, flying into YSBK is less risky than flying into YSSY.
Ol'mate in his 152 flying into eastern bumblef*ck should be exposed to the same level of risk as a passenger on a 787 arriving into Sydney. Until there is a risk framework that spells out what an acceptable level of risk is then we'll keep getting knee-jerk reactions like E to 1000' AGL or continue to 'accept' that unalerted see-and-avoid for VFR is a genuine control as opposed to a residual risk level.
And we can then do all of this without resorting to arguments around SFARP......
UTR
Last edited by UnderneathTheRadar; 13th Apr 2021 at 14:42.
The FAA have this: Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria For Airport Traffic Control Towers https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...s_APO-90-7.pdf
Missy, you make a fair point. Perhaps that is what we dont currently have? When I wrote the post I had Class G airspace at Ballina, Dubbo, West Archerfield and Wellcamp in mind. All the same classes of airspace, all have different levels of, accepted, associated risk. (They are accepted because they are published. Someone must have accepted that risk, right?)
I think your point is they should all have the same target risk level. We need to establish what that is, and provide the enabling technologies to achieve it.
I think your point is they should all have the same target risk level. We need to establish what that is, and provide the enabling technologies to achieve it.
No ATC can look after myself better than I can.
I hope the outcome of this (and similar) researches will result in manufacturing a portable primary radar for GA.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0239892
I hope the outcome of this (and similar) researches will result in manufacturing a portable primary radar for GA.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0239892
Thread Starter
Vagg. When I was the chairman of CAA we introduced that FAA formula.
It resulted in towers at places like Wagga and Mt Isa being closed. Tens of millions has been saved by the industry since then.
Of course the airspace was to be changed to class E and run from the centre. That never happened!
It resulted in towers at places like Wagga and Mt Isa being closed. Tens of millions has been saved by the industry since then.
Of course the airspace was to be changed to class E and run from the centre. That never happened!
That never happened!
- Airservices still would not have provided the CNS infrastructure to go with it and operate it like 'the US does'
- Which means we would have had procedural 'E'
a) an extremely inefficient lower airspace system that would have prevented Mangalore, but would be a nightmare to use for eveybody else, (thus creating its own residual risks that would need to be resolved) and;
b) Ballina still would have happened and would still be a risk we would need to mitigate.
Leading to the result, we would still be looking for a new airspace system, as I described, for efficiency and access as well as increased safety. Guaranteed we would still be here arguing for a better system.
And just for the record, the FAA have admited that NAS is in its twilight years, and is not suitable for their future concept of operations. They are preparing for another system 'NextGEN'. Might want to have a read of where they going.....because it isn't Class E and NAS.
And the VOR post is clearly as valid today as it was when it was written.
α
Ballina - hasn't happened yet but lets assume that sometime in the next 90 years - call it a 1 in 100 year event given we've gotten through the last 10 unscathed. At a cost of, say, $5m * 120 people plus a new airbus plus etc gets you close to $700m. What could you do at Ballina for $7m per year? Quite a bit I imagine. Extend the model to all similar airports in Oz and say its a 1 in 50 year incident and you have $14m/pa to spend across all similar airports. Going to pay for several new ATC positions plus increased radar coverage where required?
Thread Starter
Alpha. I can see why you post anonymously.
That old furphy about radar coverage has been used now for over 20 years to stop us from moving to the safer NAS system.
Our radar coverage in the J curve is similar to the US coverage across most of their country.
So why not bring the E down in the J curve?
I know- resist copying the best from around the world. I am sure you would support a Nomad over a 747 any day.
Resist change in every way you can.
And never have the self confidence to post openly under your own name!
And by the way. I heard that claim about the FAA moving to a new system over 20 years ago!
That old furphy about radar coverage has been used now for over 20 years to stop us from moving to the safer NAS system.
Our radar coverage in the J curve is similar to the US coverage across most of their country.
So why not bring the E down in the J curve?
I know- resist copying the best from around the world. I am sure you would support a Nomad over a 747 any day.
Resist change in every way you can.
And never have the self confidence to post openly under your own name!
And by the way. I heard that claim about the FAA moving to a new system over 20 years ago!
VOR posted anonymously too. Why do you not question their credibility? By the way, where in any of my posts have I given the impression that I am resisting change? Im just resisting your change.
I heard the claim about Australia transitioning to NAS about the same time ago......and thats when we needed to do it. But now, we need to skip NAS and go to the next thing. Can you see that we are actually in fierce agreeance about the need to change? I just think we should be looking forward for solutions, not backward.
I think we can be better than US NAS.
α
I heard that claim about the FAA moving to a new system over 20 years ago!
I think we can be better than US NAS.
α
NextGen is ALL about the NAS, however NAS as a term is a bit misleading. Whatever airspace system the US has will be the NAS, whether it is the current or future. There isn't a lot in the NextGen docs about fundamental changes to airspace classification per se, more about a lot of technology enhancements to better manage what they have. Apparently they are halfway there.
Thread Starter
Let’s see
The US NAS allocates airspace from - G all uncontrolled to A - everything fully controlled.
How can this be improved upon?
Are you suggesting that the FAA are planning to add to these ICAO categories?
The US NAS allocates airspace from - G all uncontrolled to A - everything fully controlled.
How can this be improved upon?
Are you suggesting that the FAA are planning to add to these ICAO categories?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a controller working class E CTA, and class D TMA/CTR (radar and procedural), it works really well in less densely populated airspaces. So outdated? No. Unsafer than class B and A, sure..... Still usable, definately.
Oh, and some of the new separation rules for procedural control are actually pretty "efficient".
Did aircraft change much over the past 30 years? Performance-wise..... no, not really.... Equipment-wise, definately. So with an increase in onboard "surveillance" and other safety systems, I don't see why E should be worse now than it used to be.
You could argue some IFR pilots may rely too much on their precious TCAS and forget they have to look out..... but that's another story.
Oh, and some of the new separation rules for procedural control are actually pretty "efficient".
Did aircraft change much over the past 30 years? Performance-wise..... no, not really.... Equipment-wise, definately. So with an increase in onboard "surveillance" and other safety systems, I don't see why E should be worse now than it used to be.
You could argue some IFR pilots may rely too much on their precious TCAS and forget they have to look out..... but that's another story.
Thread Starter
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.
This gives ATC a responsibility to warn a VFR pilot if he or she gets close to another aircraft.