ASA wants Class E to 6500 on East Coast
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASA wants Class E to 6500 on East Coast
Following just sent out by CASA:
For the attention of AvSEF members
A paper has been submitted by Airservices Australia which seeks feedback on a proposal to lower the base of Class E airspace from 8,500ft to 6,500ft AMSL along the east coast between Melbourne and Cairns where terrain permits.
Please see the post on the AvSEF website for further information and to provide your feedback.
A paper has been submitted by Airservices Australia which seeks feedback on a proposal to lower the base of Class E airspace from 8,500ft to 6,500ft AMSL along the east coast between Melbourne and Cairns where terrain permits.
Please see the post on the AvSEF website for further information and to provide your feedback.
The problem I see with pushing lower class E is the increased workload for IFR getting clearance whilst trying to separate from VFR traffic in that narrow gap. Negotiating clearance and maintaining lookout and so on, you will start to need to get clearance prior to take-off and when not available because of multiple inbounds what then. Departing Armidale you will have 3000 ft to get clearance, or have issues like Coffs where you cant get airborne until all traffic in a certain direction is clear. And then trying to negotiate clearances while a flyaway of multiple VFR is converging on the same location and you need to manuvre to avoid RAs, but ATS won't give you clearance to manuvre because of multiple IFR in the area. Class E works well at altitude because the amount of VFR transits are low. I suppose within the class E at least they must have a transponder. This will affect RPT mostly that can not operate VFR so IFR pickup is not an option.
Class E effect at low altitude without supporting controlled towers to coordinate traffic you have to delay all departures until departing traffic has reached a minimum safe altitude. And all arriving traffic gets the same treatment. Especially if radar is not available to ground level they have to place large restrictions on movement and 20nm separation etc. Good examples is other class E entries at 8.5/12.5 where radar is not available you will not get clearance until radar identified if there is any traffic inbound within 100nm. The whole point of class E is to coordinate IFR en-route traffic, it only provides traffic on known VFR. VFR are uncontrolled so class E will not effect them at all other than they carry a transponder above 5000ft. At some places I've had aircraft departing in opposite directions and ATS will still not clear you until both are identified if you are the second aircraft.
Class E effect at low altitude without supporting controlled towers to coordinate traffic you have to delay all departures until departing traffic has reached a minimum safe altitude.
Class E also doesn't require surveillance, although, it makes it a stack easier both from an ATC and pilot perspective.
Class E at 8500 base is ridiculous, it may as well be Class C, same resources required.
Australian ATC's haven't been taught how to use Class E, but having said that, at the levels it's at in Aus, there's no point knowing because it's useless.
Yes, it's a well known point that it's one in one out without a tower. You CAN do Class E without surveillance with a little better than one in, one out. The other point is that you CAN'T have a tower at every airport but you CAN have Class E.
I'll say it again, Aus controllers, through no fault of their own have not been instructed or educated in how to use Class E effectively. The liability laws as they stand in Aus will NOT support Class E.
Half arsed Class E is pointless. Either E base 700ft or leave it Class G. E Base 6500 is dip****tery.
I'll say it again, Aus controllers, through no fault of their own have not been instructed or educated in how to use Class E effectively. The liability laws as they stand in Aus will NOT support Class E.
Half arsed Class E is pointless. Either E base 700ft or leave it Class G. E Base 6500 is dip****tery.
E base A065 means IFRs that happily operate OCTA now at A080 & A070 in the best G that exists in the world (no other has DTI in G) are now going to be forced to lower levels and mixing it with tons more other airspace users.
if you can track point A to point B direct without clearance and are happy with the DTI service why would you want a clearance with 10 waypoints and turns between A & B and the chance of having yr level changed or heading changed for separation/delaying action ? Makes no sense.
This makes lower level airspace much more dangerous I think ?
if you can track point A to point B direct without clearance and are happy with the DTI service why would you want a clearance with 10 waypoints and turns between A & B and the chance of having yr level changed or heading changed for separation/delaying action ? Makes no sense.
This makes lower level airspace much more dangerous I think ?
tossbag, how do controllers "use Class E effectively"? If you want to depart IFR I can't give you a clearance until I can separate you with the inbound IFR. If you can use IFR pick-up then fill your boots otherwise you ain't going nowhere.
I think there's some big misconception about class E here. It's en-route controlled airspace for IFR aircraft that's it, it's not designed for terminal airspace around an Aerodrome, and therefore is not suitable for this purpose. One of the major reasons it's not suitable for terminal areas is that VFR can operate how the hell they want and the closer you get to an airfield the more erratic and dense traffic gets, which means clearing IFR on strict routes no longer works when they have to constantly change course or altitude profiles to fit in with other traffic. This is also the reason Class E gets dicey at lower altitudes depending on the density of traffic in an area. Imagine setting departure paths for three or four IFR aircraft and then find a tribe of VFR trainers blocking the path, because they departed at the same time or just ahead of the IFRs and are now in the way. The radio traffic and workload is now through the roof. And IFR pickup will not work for RPT above 5700kg, as they are not allowed to operate VFR, so you'd have to write a new rule for them to depart with some sort of schedule.
At present if I arrive at an airport with high VFR in class G I'm passed traffic and manuvre as required to fit in with it, very simple communication over the CTAF, make it class E and I need approval to deviate from cleared routes, doubling the radio traffic and requiring talking on two frequencies and if there's any IFR traffic blocking ATC margins I won't get clearance.
I also agree with the statement above regarding those that want to remain OCTA for direct tracking, less delays or whatever.
At present if I arrive at an airport with high VFR in class G I'm passed traffic and manuvre as required to fit in with it, very simple communication over the CTAF, make it class E and I need approval to deviate from cleared routes, doubling the radio traffic and requiring talking on two frequencies and if there's any IFR traffic blocking ATC margins I won't get clearance.
I also agree with the statement above regarding those that want to remain OCTA for direct tracking, less delays or whatever.
tossbag, how do controllers "use Class E effectively"? If you want to depart IFR I can't give you a clearance until I can separate you with the inbound IFR. If you can use IFR pick-up then fill your boots otherwise you ain't going nowhere.
Either E base 700ft, or leave it Class G, stop ******* around with this stupid hybrid E rubbish.
I reckon what will happen if you make class E that low. Clearance not available for decent, expecting (insert RPT here) taxi shortly and we have to expedite their departure. Or (insert RPT here) is within 100nm inbound clearance not available for 30 minutes until they are clear 200nm if its a jet. Doubt the RAAF would agree to it anyway, their no coms low level would not be allowed to trundle around in E.
I think there's some big misconception about class E here. It's en-route controlled airspace for IFR aircraft that's it, it's not designed for terminal airspace around an Aerodrome, and therefore is not suitable for this purpose.
Class E airspace is meant to capture IFR as soon as possible after airborne from non towered aerodromes that don't qualify for a tower. It would be ridiculous to have a tower at Kingaroy but it makes 100% sense to get IFR aircraft into CTA ASAP from Kingaroy. IFR airworking at Kingaroy do not need to be IFR in VMC.
One of the major reasons it's not suitable for terminal areas is that VFR can operate how the hell they want and the closer you get to an airfield the more erratic and dense traffic gets, which means clearing IFR on strict routes no longer works when they have to constantly change course or altitude profiles to fit in with other traffic.
So hands up anybody that wants Class E associated with a high density control zone?? Anyone?? Beuller?? Beuller?? E over D will work in some circumstances, C over D will be more appropriate in others.
This is also the reason Class E gets dicey at lower altitudes depending on the density of traffic in an area. Imagine setting departure paths for three or four IFR aircraft and then find a tribe of VFR trainers blocking the path, because they departed at the same time or just ahead of the IFRs and are now in the way.
The radio traffic and workload is now through the roof. (at Ballina maybe) And IFR pickup will not work for RPT above 5700kg, as they are not allowed to operate VFR, so you'd have to write a new rule for them to depart with some sort of schedule.
At present if I arrive at an airport with high VFR in class G I'm passed traffic and manuvre as required to fit in with it, very simple communication over the CTAF, make it class E and I need approval to deviate from cleared routes, doubling the radio traffic and requiring talking on two frequencies and if there's any IFR traffic blocking ATC margins I won't get clearance.
I also agree with the statement above regarding those that want to remain OCTA for direct tracking, less delays or whatever.
I think from your statements you don't operate to many of the busy CTAFs at all. Especially where the larger flying schools are operating from, then you would understand what its like to negotiate your position in traffic. If you are in CTA (class E), you would then have to negotiate clearance to achieve your negotiated path with the VFR. And class E wont do squat, because generally when there's too many VFRs ATS gives up and just says "multiple VFR paints in the area (good luck you're on your own!)" and won't provide any more details as it would congest the frequency to pass on all of them. And I've been given that phrase quite a few times on descent into a busy field.
I think from your statements you don't operate to many of the busy CTAFs at all.
No I don't, but if you're talking about Ballina, I believe it should be a Class D tower with Class C airspace.
Especially where the larger flying schools are operating from, then you would understand what its like to negotiate your position in traffic.
If you are talking about Ballina, C over D.
If you are in CTA (class E), you would then have to negotiate clearance to achieve your negotiated path with the VFR.
You should see the work of art that happens when a Controller vectors an IFR aircraft around the VFR and the IFR aircraft doesn't whinge because they remember when they were 'that' VFR. And the Controller is not subject to ridiculous liability laws.
And class E wont do squat, because generally when there's too many VFRs ATS gives up and just says "multiple VFR paints in the area (good luck you're on your own!)" and won't provide any more details as it would congest the frequency to pass on all of them. And I've been given that phrase quite a few times on descent into a busy field.
tossbag, from memory I've handled an IFR pick-up only once, way back when.
IFR pickup is never used because there is no need with current E base A085. IFR get DTI on other IFR and any observed VFR tfc and never get delayed for clearance into E. Why change a system that works ?
Bring E base down to A065 and there maybe more IFR pickups used and that means no seperation on climb just tfc info which is the same as now ! So why bother with it at all ?
Over complicates both pilot and ATC work procedures and adds operational risk for no benefit and I argue a far less safe system.
Bring E base down to A065 and there maybe more IFR pickups used and that means no seperation on climb just tfc info which is the same as now ! So why bother with it at all ?
Over complicates both pilot and ATC work procedures and adds operational risk for no benefit and I argue a far less safe system.
Aren't there transponder requirements for VFR aircraft in E? Don't transponders provide some safety benefit?
In ForG (what Australia calls 'G') IFR aircraft are mixing it with aircraft that are not fitted with and are not required to be fitted with a transponder.
In ForG (what Australia calls 'G') IFR aircraft are mixing it with aircraft that are not fitted with and are not required to be fitted with a transponder.