ASA wants Class E to 6500 on East Coast
Yep, it’s every man/woman/child for themselves in class G. A mandatory ADSB-out in all airspace and aircraft types would be a step forward and give operators the ability to see other aircraft, assuming a suitable IN device is fitted. Then we wouldn’t need to rely on the false hope that ATC will proactively keep an eye out for an imminent collision.
Yep it's great for en-route if you have surveillance to ground level. But my issue is when class E interacts with busy CTAFs, where does class E start, where does CTAF begin, are you controlled all the way into the CTAF as an IFR. A big issue right now is lack of radar/adsb to ground level. So that will defeat any traffic information and early clearances and track deviations to comply. There's also the cohort of 'I don't want a transponder' cavalry that will oppose class E to that low level that it makes any sense. That is most collisions occur within sight of the aerodrome at low level, and generally in the circuit, so adding more en-route CTA does only marginally improve safety for an increase in cost to operators.
IFR pickup does not work for at least half the IFR flights as they are RPT above 5700kg and CAN NOT operate VFR. That means ATS will most likely shelve other IFR flights to facilitate RPT, which then means big delays for other users as well as RPT. Think trying to get clearances through ML or SY airspace in peak times, and then expand that to the entire east coast. "you want clearance there now, but there's a jet within 200nm of you, sorry not enough resourses to make it happen, you'll have to remain below 500' while you cross the ranges buddy"
And lets get back to reality here, how many IFR on IFR occurrences are there compared to IFR and VFR around airports. I can think of numerous go-rounds in circuits or from approaches for RPT vs VFR traffic, I've witnessed 5 this year all but one with TCAS being the prompt for the RPT to query the VFRs position. Almost all of which were improper or late radio calls leading to confusion.
IFR pickup does not work for at least half the IFR flights as they are RPT above 5700kg and CAN NOT operate VFR. That means ATS will most likely shelve other IFR flights to facilitate RPT, which then means big delays for other users as well as RPT. Think trying to get clearances through ML or SY airspace in peak times, and then expand that to the entire east coast. "you want clearance there now, but there's a jet within 200nm of you, sorry not enough resourses to make it happen, you'll have to remain below 500' while you cross the ranges buddy"
And lets get back to reality here, how many IFR on IFR occurrences are there compared to IFR and VFR around airports. I can think of numerous go-rounds in circuits or from approaches for RPT vs VFR traffic, I've witnessed 5 this year all but one with TCAS being the prompt for the RPT to query the VFRs position. Almost all of which were improper or late radio calls leading to confusion.
Last edited by 43Inches; 12th Jul 2022 at 00:27.
How many accidents have happened in G where an acft has hit a non transponder equipped VFR ?
The AsA "case for safety" attached to the AVSEF consultation page has a PWC benefit analysis saying the risk of collision goes from 1 in 700 years current airspace to 1 in 25000 years in proposed !
I have absolutely no clue as to how any human or computer could actually work something like that out ? And don't believe any of it.
And more to the point I think we can all happily live with a 1 in 700 years risk of collision !
The AsA "case for safety" attached to the AVSEF consultation page has a PWC benefit analysis saying the risk of collision goes from 1 in 700 years current airspace to 1 in 25000 years in proposed !
I have absolutely no clue as to how any human or computer could actually work something like that out ? And don't believe any of it.
And more to the point I think we can all happily live with a 1 in 700 years risk of collision !
Only in Australia could ForG be considered 'safer' than E. But I get the efficiency of movements argument (which smells suspiciously like an affordable safety argument - trading off the safety benefits of E so as to keep the freedom of ForG).
How many accidents gave happened in G where an acft has hit a non transponder equipped VFR ?
The AsA "case for safety" attached to the AVSEF consultation page has a PWC benefit analysis saying the risk of collision goes from 1 in 700 years current airspace to 1 in 25000 years in proposed !
I have absolutely no clue as to how any human or computer could actually work something like that out ? And don't believe any of it.
And more to the point I think we can all happily live with a 1 in 700 years risk of collision !
The AsA "case for safety" attached to the AVSEF consultation page has a PWC benefit analysis saying the risk of collision goes from 1 in 700 years current airspace to 1 in 25000 years in proposed !
I have absolutely no clue as to how any human or computer could actually work something like that out ? And don't believe any of it.
And more to the point I think we can all happily live with a 1 in 700 years risk of collision !
If 1 in 700 years is the risk threshold, then so be it. And as with Mangalore, when that RPT smacks into a non transponder equipped aircraft in G, I assume ATSB will simply say it is the 1 in 700 year event that is the 'payoff' for the efficiency of ForG. Every one will just shrug and move on.
IFR pickup does not work for at least half the IFR flights as they are RPT above 5700kg and CAN NOT operate VFR.
They cannot operate VFR but they can operate in and out of airspace and aerodromes without any ATC, mixing it with VFR non-transponder aircraft in VFR conditions, which conditions result in the pilots of the RPT aircraft having to operate 'see and avoid' (hopefully alerted but not guaranteed alerted).
The collisions in E in the USA are often trotted out by Australian ATCers to scare people about E.
They cannot operate VFR but they can operate in and out of airspace and aerodromes without any ATC, mixing it with VFR non-transponder aircraft in VFR conditions, which conditions result in the pilots of the RPT aircraft having to operate 'see and avoid' (hopefully alerted but not guaranteed alerted).
Last edited by 43Inches; 12th Jul 2022 at 00:42.
Dash 8 D departs PMQ YSSY. It is more efficient and expeditious to say climb to F200 and expedite through to A080, on current hdg & speed u will pass 5nm in front of crossing IFR tfc at A070 L to R, then to bend the A070 guy around on a vector to avoid what was an easily fixed confliction OCTA in E base A085.
Bend the fast one, it's over a lot quicker, has minimal impact on time. Bend the slow one and sit there forever waiting for it to be resolved. But then, the fast one will whine longer than a ten pound pom along the lines of 'we're RPT (sorry, Part 121), we should never be delayed'
IFR pick-up is pointless unless you are using it from departure on a gin clear day.
These discussions are kinda fun, Class E will never be implemented in Australia without Australians fcuking it up like they fcuk everything else up they touch. And E base 6500 is proof of that.
As was said above about GAAP aerodromes, they were 'changed' to Class D to standardise tower operations, to run them how a towered aerodrome should be run, but guess what, somehow, GAAP approach points remained. Try calling a Class D metro with an inbound radial. They'll **** the bed and tell you you should be tracking via an inbound approach point.
These discussions are kinda fun, Class E will never be implemented in Australia without Australians fcuking it up like they fcuk everything else up they touch. And E base 6500 is proof of that.
As was said above about GAAP aerodromes, they were 'changed' to Class D to standardise tower operations, to run them how a towered aerodrome should be run, but guess what, somehow, GAAP approach points remained. Try calling a Class D metro with an inbound radial. They'll **** the bed and tell you you should be tracking via an inbound approach point.
IFR Pickup is pointless as in the PMQ or CFS situation its almost entirely IFR RPT above 5700kg, so none can use IFR pickup. And currently out of CFS towards SY whoever departs first will block the airspace until through about 8000 ft anyway, and that's with a tower, there's no bending until they reach a minimum altitude which might mean 10 minutes separation depending on what aircraft went first. There is safety there, maybe, any extra safety, nope, just frustration and delays, which might lead to other safety issues if you have the wrong personality types in the LH seat (any FOs that have sat next to them when they get delayed will understand).
As I always say in these situations....What problem is the ASA proposal trying to fix?
If its just changing the risk from 700years to a gazillion years....is it really worth creating all the other problems highlighted above?
If its just changing the risk from 700years to a gazillion years....is it really worth creating all the other problems highlighted above?
