Voices of Reason and Class E
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....
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.
Thread Starter
Neville. Are you claiming that E does not work without radar coverage but G does?
This fiction has prevented us moving forward with E at low levels for over 20 years.
The USA has dozens of airports with IFR approach’s but no radar coverage at the IAF.
Using their enlightened procedural standards the delays are minimal.
This fiction has prevented us moving forward with E at low levels for over 20 years.
The USA has dozens of airports with IFR approach’s but no radar coverage at the IAF.
Using their enlightened procedural standards the delays are minimal.
You have two problems without radar:
One being unknown unknowns.
The other being what is Class E Airspace? As I said before it is neither controlled nor is it uncontrolled.
At least with Radar you eliminate the unknowns and some direction can be given to IFR aircraft on the best course of action.
I would suggest that in the US the vast majority of Class E is under radar coverage and whilst the parts without it would be pretty quiet.
I am personally not so bothered by having non Radar Class E at higher levels but to have Class E to low level without some sort of radar coverage is downright dangerous.
One being unknown unknowns.
The other being what is Class E Airspace? As I said before it is neither controlled nor is it uncontrolled.
At least with Radar you eliminate the unknowns and some direction can be given to IFR aircraft on the best course of action.
I would suggest that in the US the vast majority of Class E is under radar coverage and whilst the parts without it would be pretty quiet.
I am personally not so bothered by having non Radar Class E at higher levels but to have Class E to low level without some sort of radar coverage is downright dangerous.
What exactly are these "enlightened procedural standards"? Please explain.
That will require a clearance and a radio conference.
"enlightened procedural standards" - the IFR service one gets when ATC realise that you dont know how the airspace system works.
Its the same as the level of service you get when you announce you are 'unfamiliar' at a metro Class D aerodrome.
Its the same as the level of service you get when you announce you are 'unfamiliar' at a metro Class D aerodrome.
I don’t see why. In cruise you are separated from VFR levels, so no conflict. That means you are only going to conflict with VFR in climb or descent, so you just stop/slow climb or descent until you are visually clear. That wouldn’t conflict with your clearance, so no talking to Air Traffic required.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I recall, in the US there is no 'chat' between aircraft in Class E and it is not encouraged by ATC.
If Oz is to have a US style class E, then the mandatory transponder requirement needs to be revoked.
You need to remember that descending in G there is no assurance that any VFR traffic that might be of interest is even on the area frequency, so what is the difference in descending in E other than being provided with separation with other IFR traffic?
Not really... the rate of climb or descent is at the pilots discretion unless otherwise stated in a clearance - if that means slowing down for a bit, I don't see the need or requirement to seek ATC approval. Some just talk too much it seems!
As I recall, in the US there is no 'chat' between aircraft in Class E and it is not encouraged by ATC.
If Oz is to have a US style class E, then the mandatory transponder requirement needs to be revoked.
You need to remember that descending in G there is no assurance that any VFR traffic that might be of interest is even on the area frequency, so what is the difference in descending in E other than being provided with separation with other IFR traffic?
As I recall, in the US there is no 'chat' between aircraft in Class E and it is not encouraged by ATC.
If Oz is to have a US style class E, then the mandatory transponder requirement needs to be revoked.
You need to remember that descending in G there is no assurance that any VFR traffic that might be of interest is even on the area frequency, so what is the difference in descending in E other than being provided with separation with other IFR traffic?
TIEW,
If I may be so bold I think Missy is asking if:
A/ Were both aircraft on SSR radar prior to the intersection of tracks,
B/ If so for how long?
C/.Did the ENR Sector controller issue traffic to the A320?
D/. If not, why not?
E/. Did the ground based system safety net (STCA) activate for the two aircraft?
F/. Was it displayed at the relevant controllers position?
All seemingly logical questions to ask....I’ll go back and check again ?but nothing was mentioned in the prelim investigation..
If I may be so bold I think Missy is asking if:
A/ Were both aircraft on SSR radar prior to the intersection of tracks,
B/ If so for how long?
C/.Did the ENR Sector controller issue traffic to the A320?
D/. If not, why not?
E/. Did the ground based system safety net (STCA) activate for the two aircraft?
F/. Was it displayed at the relevant controllers position?
All seemingly logical questions to ask....I’ll go back and check again ?but nothing was mentioned in the prelim investigation..
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 18th Apr 2021 at 07:42.
GF - I do not have any inside information but as I recall there is no SSR coverage at low level in the Ballina area, only ADS-B. Hence:
A/ No only the A 320
B/ Not applicable
C/ I would think no
D/ The ENR controller would not have detected the Jab
E/ No because the system did not know about the Jab
F/ See E
More importantly, from the ATSB website, the Jab reported 4NM east of Lismore, which would make it 11NM west of Ballina, arguably not in the broadcast area of 10NM. (CASA - Now expanded to 15NM, always mopping up the last debacle; never looking for the next)
That should however have alerted the CA/GRO that the Jab was crossing the track of the A320, both on descent. In my view, that should have warranted a traffic alert to both aircraft.
But therein lies the rub, the A320 had already detected the Jab on TCAS, albeit without ALT information. (Jab ALT not selected), so detection was made, the A320 crew looked for but did not sight the Jab, so any involvement by the CA/GRO, at this stage, was superfluous
This Australia, is what CASA OAR thinks about paragraph 34 of the Airspace Policy Statement 2018 (AAPS) "34. The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. ....." This is the airspace configuration chosen by CASA to operate Jetstar, Virgin and now Qantas jet operations into a rapidly expanding airport. Clearly there have been many "leading" safety indicators of separation issues at Ballina. (By leading, in this context, I mean when incidents occur that do not kill anybody, a lagging safety indicator is, therefore, one where deaths do occur.) How Jetstar's safety management system (SMS) does not classify operations at Ballina as an extreme risk, I cannot imagine. I know CASA does not have a functioning SMS so their inactivity does not surprise me. Perhaps Virgin and Qantas could apply their SMS and start kicking down doors at CASA.
Who else is there; Airservices and the ATSB? Airservices seems to have woken up to a deteriorating problem in the lower altitudes, they must be amazed that CASA OAR has done nothing. Class E to 1500 AGL, as proposed, would help but surveillance is required where needed and the US Class E rules are the only workable ones.
ATSB? Yes, I wrote to them a few months ago about the nonsensical arrangement at Sunshine Coast airport. There CASA requires a control tower because the airport falls within the Ministerial guidelines for Class D airspace (AAPS Table 1). CASA then allows Jetstar to operate outside of the Tower hours, presumably to save a few dollars of ATC costs. An Aero Commander (Incident AO-2019-62) took off at 6am using the into wind runway direction, only to find a Jetstar A320 turning on to final for a downwind landing; they just missed! ATSB claimed in the report that it was a simple matter of the pilots not communicating efficiently on the CTAF. In their response to me they said that if they saw any latent safety issues they would certainly act upon them. Well if an airline electing not to have the Tower on duty, no Class E airspace and not even a UNICOM operating constitutes no latent safety issues, then I came from another planet!
A/ No only the A 320
B/ Not applicable
C/ I would think no
D/ The ENR controller would not have detected the Jab
E/ No because the system did not know about the Jab
F/ See E
More importantly, from the ATSB website, the Jab reported 4NM east of Lismore, which would make it 11NM west of Ballina, arguably not in the broadcast area of 10NM. (CASA - Now expanded to 15NM, always mopping up the last debacle; never looking for the next)
That should however have alerted the CA/GRO that the Jab was crossing the track of the A320, both on descent. In my view, that should have warranted a traffic alert to both aircraft.
But therein lies the rub, the A320 had already detected the Jab on TCAS, albeit without ALT information. (Jab ALT not selected), so detection was made, the A320 crew looked for but did not sight the Jab, so any involvement by the CA/GRO, at this stage, was superfluous
This Australia, is what CASA OAR thinks about paragraph 34 of the Airspace Policy Statement 2018 (AAPS) "34. The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations. ....." This is the airspace configuration chosen by CASA to operate Jetstar, Virgin and now Qantas jet operations into a rapidly expanding airport. Clearly there have been many "leading" safety indicators of separation issues at Ballina. (By leading, in this context, I mean when incidents occur that do not kill anybody, a lagging safety indicator is, therefore, one where deaths do occur.) How Jetstar's safety management system (SMS) does not classify operations at Ballina as an extreme risk, I cannot imagine. I know CASA does not have a functioning SMS so their inactivity does not surprise me. Perhaps Virgin and Qantas could apply their SMS and start kicking down doors at CASA.
Who else is there; Airservices and the ATSB? Airservices seems to have woken up to a deteriorating problem in the lower altitudes, they must be amazed that CASA OAR has done nothing. Class E to 1500 AGL, as proposed, would help but surveillance is required where needed and the US Class E rules are the only workable ones.
ATSB? Yes, I wrote to them a few months ago about the nonsensical arrangement at Sunshine Coast airport. There CASA requires a control tower because the airport falls within the Ministerial guidelines for Class D airspace (AAPS Table 1). CASA then allows Jetstar to operate outside of the Tower hours, presumably to save a few dollars of ATC costs. An Aero Commander (Incident AO-2019-62) took off at 6am using the into wind runway direction, only to find a Jetstar A320 turning on to final for a downwind landing; they just missed! ATSB claimed in the report that it was a simple matter of the pilots not communicating efficiently on the CTAF. In their response to me they said that if they saw any latent safety issues they would certainly act upon them. Well if an airline electing not to have the Tower on duty, no Class E airspace and not even a UNICOM operating constitutes no latent safety issues, then I came from another planet!
Ballina has an RFFS, Geoff. Just hose down all the charred bodies with PFAS substitute. Job done!
How Jetstar's safety management system (SMS) does not classify operations at Ballina as an extreme risk, I cannot imagine.
Ballina has an RFFS, Geoff
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the CAA deems it safe.... then the airline is fine with it. Though there are a few airlines around the world that require ATC to operate.
If the CAA deems it safe...
Do you know what ‘deems’ means in legal parlance? Making true in law that which is untrue in fact.
What’s true in fact determines whether an accident happens or not.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety management is about eliminating risks, or mitigating them to an acceptable level. the last means that we know there is a risk, but the cost of removing it is way beyond the actual gain from doing so, or it may not even be possible. We come up with the best assessments, which still contains the risks. That assessment is then forwarded to the management, they'll approve it... and the risk with it.
So yes, we all know that accidents may happen, though the risk is so low it is deemed almost non-existent, but since it's still there, noone on the ground level in the company can ever be the ones signing off the papers.
And on top of this comes the question of the users.... changing airspace structure and classification will always have pilots complain (VFR pilots feeling their "rights" to the airspace is taken away, or IFR pilots feeling their "rigth to decide themselves are taken away).
Noone is going to pick any holes in that, jmmoric. I hope you are enjoying, or are aspiring to, a career in OAR.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
