Airliners in E airspace
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airliners in E airspace
In my ATC sector (north of YMML) west/south bound long haul flights (YBBN-YMML, YSSY-YPPH) regularly fly at levels down to F220 to get out of the winter winds. This is the lowest standard level in CTA.
From November 27th F200, F220 & F240 will be available levels across the country in CTA, in E airspace. Are you pilots intending to use them? Has any thought been put into whether you will use E airspace routinely in the cruise?
In case you haven't caught the John & Martha show, in E airspace you are separated from other IFR, unless the other guy (or yourself) has requested one of a variety of VFR procedures where you would get traffic information. You would also get traffic information on any known VFR flights.
From November 27th F200, F220 & F240 will be available levels across the country in CTA, in E airspace. Are you pilots intending to use them? Has any thought been put into whether you will use E airspace routinely in the cruise?
In case you haven't caught the John & Martha show, in E airspace you are separated from other IFR, unless the other guy (or yourself) has requested one of a variety of VFR procedures where you would get traffic information. You would also get traffic information on any known VFR flights.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oztrailea
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spodman,
I believe the important part of your post was the "known VFR" traffic.
According to the John & Martha show VFR guys can plow straight into E airspace - particularly at the lower levels - and not even talk to anyone. Hell they may as leave that radio behind and save some weight for payload (bibles may be good as there is going have to be a lot of praying
)
Yes apparently the saviour of GA and aviation as we know it - yes NAS - wants you to all stop using the radios for what they were designed ie: talking to each other and practice 100% see and avoid.
Logic: Yanks have it so it must be good.......
me they have left hand drive and 10's of thousands of gun deaths every year does that mean that we have to have that crap as well.......
Praise be to Dick Smith....
I believe the important part of your post was the "known VFR" traffic.
According to the John & Martha show VFR guys can plow straight into E airspace - particularly at the lower levels - and not even talk to anyone. Hell they may as leave that radio behind and save some weight for payload (bibles may be good as there is going have to be a lot of praying
)Yes apparently the saviour of GA and aviation as we know it - yes NAS - wants you to all stop using the radios for what they were designed ie: talking to each other and practice 100% see and avoid.
Logic: Yanks have it so it must be good.......
me they have left hand drive and 10's of thousands of gun deaths every year does that mean that we have to have that crap as well....... Praise be to Dick Smith....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep, I know all about the issues involved, there are plenty of other links bagging the sh*t out of E airspace. On the other hand people fly in it every day.
What I'm after is intentions
Will any of you airliner types make the bold venture into the E airspace bits, or stay in A while in the cruise, giving up the option of operating at the lower levels that are now C airspace?
What I'm after is intentions
Will any of you airliner types make the bold venture into the E airspace bits, or stay in A while in the cruise, giving up the option of operating at the lower levels that are now C airspace?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm more concerned about the design issues rather than the category of airspace. If the RPTs want to saty out of E; it is just about impossible because they have to stay above FL180 to 36 ML, 30 CB, 45 SY etc. Almost impossible when you consider the STAR height requirements, or an almost straight in approach, e.g. RWY 07 from Rivet track in SY.
This has been done on purpose, to ensure that they fly in E; thus enabling further role out without problems as they will use it every day.
AIPA AFAP seem to have issues with the design; more information is needed from RPT Jet pilots here; I think most haven't yet looked at it, with the exception of some QFA linkers; because there is an underlying belief in the 'open mic' story that there won't be any change for the ML-SY, CB-SY, ML-BN etc. routes, which isn't exactly factual.
Bottle of Rum
This has been done on purpose, to ensure that they fly in E; thus enabling further role out without problems as they will use it every day.
AIPA AFAP seem to have issues with the design; more information is needed from RPT Jet pilots here; I think most haven't yet looked at it, with the exception of some QFA linkers; because there is an underlying belief in the 'open mic' story that there won't be any change for the ML-SY, CB-SY, ML-BN etc. routes, which isn't exactly factual.
Bottle of Rum
Ignorance?
I have to ask what may be a bit ignorant on my part as I missed Martha and Johns visit,
You mean to say that this whole implementaion of E airspace has been without speaking to the respective people who will be using/paying for the system itself?
Somebody who knows, pleeeeeeease tell me that they thought of and consulted the primary targets of this airspace before it was implemented!
GA Driver
You mean to say that this whole implementaion of E airspace has been without speaking to the respective people who will be using/paying for the system itself?
Somebody who knows, pleeeeeeease tell me that they thought of and consulted the primary targets of this airspace before it was implemented!
GA Driver
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We consistently fly down around 240/250. 220 if heading the long way west. So i can say that yes, we will be down in class E alot. I suppose the good thing is that 1) there are not that many VFR aircraft that can make 220 and above 2) across the centre of the country there won't be many VFR pilots (not that much to see compared to the eastern seaboard!!). Personally, if we do go along the eastern coast i would prefer to be above FL245. It will be interesting to see how it goes. But guaranteed, at MTOW on a long leg, we will have to be down at 240 in some instances, dicing with death.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 725
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, I would.
Just about all my flying is DRW/ASP/PER/CNS stuff and as someone pointed out earlier, there are very few VFR flights at all over the victoria desert, let alone ones that crz above A100.
That said, I think that any system that relies on un-alerted see and avoid has hair on it.
Just about all my flying is DRW/ASP/PER/CNS stuff and as someone pointed out earlier, there are very few VFR flights at all over the victoria desert, let alone ones that crz above A100.
That said, I think that any system that relies on un-alerted see and avoid has hair on it.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Oz
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After having a good hard think about it and also looking at the banter on the "250KTS in class E airspace" thread, I am a tad concerned with the whole 'see and avoid' concept as ITCZ stated. So lets say i am IFR down at FL220 heading west and some VFR Citation or even pressurised twin is flying around in similar areas. Of course i will be at IFR crusing levels and he will be at VFR so there is 500' split, but technically he can climb and descend as he likes, and it is MY responsibility as well as his to see and avoid?? So for 8 hours SY-PH (yes we go slow), i have to spend that 8 hours with my head outside the cockpit etc. This concerns me with respect to fatigue and workload (ie both guys can't be doing fuel calcs cos someones head has to be out of the cockpit all the time). I possibly may not be able to climb to FL260 to get into C airspace due to my heavy weight with a full payload. ATC won't be able to pass me radar info as there is of course no radar coverage over 80% of the country!! Am i reading into this correctly? Any comments?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cougar,
Your concerns are justified. Outside radar coverage in E its up to you to watch out for VFRs, we cant help.
Additionally there are 3 new procedures that allow IFR aircraft to assume responsibility for separation in VMC. In these circumstances you will be passed traffic by ATC.
I am not comfortable with the situation where a Ba146 or 737 cruising at F240, which has heretofore been class C, will now have to accept responsibility for their own separation. You do not get a say if another aircraft chooses to use one of the VMC procedures and climb through your level. If the captain is taking a leak and you are doing fuel calculations you will have drop everything and switch on when the citation below decides he can see and avoid and goes for it.
Your concerns are justified. Outside radar coverage in E its up to you to watch out for VFRs, we cant help.
Additionally there are 3 new procedures that allow IFR aircraft to assume responsibility for separation in VMC. In these circumstances you will be passed traffic by ATC.
I am not comfortable with the situation where a Ba146 or 737 cruising at F240, which has heretofore been class C, will now have to accept responsibility for their own separation. You do not get a say if another aircraft chooses to use one of the VMC procedures and climb through your level. If the captain is taking a leak and you are doing fuel calculations you will have drop everything and switch on when the citation below decides he can see and avoid and goes for it.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW
The flexibility in the US was demonstrated to me beyond any doubt some moons ago in a United DC10 LAX to O'Hare, Channel whatever on the entertainment system, gin clear Sunday morning, FL 300 something (not E of course), Capt trapped behind preceding Company B737 aircraft at the same level going in the same direction asks for and gets permission to go visual and pass.
Capt comes up in about 20 minutes or so and tells pax to look out the window and there is the other United ship floating in space, with the sun sparkling off it, drifting slowly backwards.
In fact I could see no less than a half dozen other aircraft all going about their business more or less in the same direction.
The flexibility in the US was demonstrated to me beyond any doubt some moons ago in a United DC10 LAX to O'Hare, Channel whatever on the entertainment system, gin clear Sunday morning, FL 300 something (not E of course), Capt trapped behind preceding Company B737 aircraft at the same level going in the same direction asks for and gets permission to go visual and pass.
Capt comes up in about 20 minutes or so and tells pax to look out the window and there is the other United ship floating in space, with the sun sparkling off it, drifting slowly backwards.
In fact I could see no less than a half dozen other aircraft all going about their business more or less in the same direction.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am not comfortable with the situation where a Ba146 or 737 cruising at F240.......will now have to accept responsibility for their own separation.
In fact, if anybody is less comfortable, its the ones without TCAS installed. Now listen up..get your traffic info, monitor your TCAS (if you got one), and lookout at that big blue sky out there. WWT, get a different job, make yourself useful..
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wow Cougar! A rare thing these days is on-topic discussion
I think that 2B is coming, whether the prospect is known about, feared, or not an issue, doesn't seem widely known. The editorial in the new issue of flying basically says wow! there's this thing called NAS a'comin'. Don't know what it is but it involves short Americans...
Looking at the real risk, it seems obvious pilots will have their eyeballs out on stalks on climb and descent in the new arrivals E airspace, but they HAVE to use it to meet STAR requirements and their own profiles. Whether B737/B767 use it in the cruise is a matter of choice, fly at FL220 to get out of the wind, or F250 with more wind and more security. Thanks, Cougar, for voicing an opinion. Winstun, you are a disgrace.
I remember one of the findings in the old Zagreb investigation was the BEA FO could probably have been doing something more valuable than the crossword, like looking for traffic. And that was in "real" CTA.
I think that 2B is coming, whether the prospect is known about, feared, or not an issue, doesn't seem widely known. The editorial in the new issue of flying basically says wow! there's this thing called NAS a'comin'. Don't know what it is but it involves short Americans...
Looking at the real risk, it seems obvious pilots will have their eyeballs out on stalks on climb and descent in the new arrivals E airspace, but they HAVE to use it to meet STAR requirements and their own profiles. Whether B737/B767 use it in the cruise is a matter of choice, fly at FL220 to get out of the wind, or F250 with more wind and more security. Thanks, Cougar, for voicing an opinion. Winstun, you are a disgrace.
I remember one of the findings in the old Zagreb investigation was the BEA FO could probably have been doing something more valuable than the crossword, like looking for traffic. And that was in "real" CTA.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Oztrailea
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned on several occasions above there are issues for aircraft in cruise, and as rightly stated not many VFR guys can get up to FL180 - some but not many.
But what about the fact that the Class C CTA step used to extend from Class D aerodromes to the lower limit of Class C. This too will now become Class E. So in the more congested areas - ie: around airports - there is going to more of chance of a conflict. It would seem that the cruise phase is the least of our worries.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that Class E will extend down to 8,500ft in Radar areas. Am I the only one that see's a contradiction between the fact that the VFR guy has to carry a radio when going above 5,000 yet in Class E he does not have to use it to talk to ATC? From where I sit this seems to reduce the Situational Awareness of the ATC.
Sure he can see the guy on Radar but if he can't talk to him because the VFR is monitoring 121.5 - or some other frequency that the Kings' suggested - isn't that reducing the options available for separation???
And don't forget that this is the 'initial' plan. The 'longer term' plan is for Class E to extend down to as low as 700 ft AGL and across the top of exisiting Class C airports.....
Tell me why were following this path again......???? Who benefits???
But what about the fact that the Class C CTA step used to extend from Class D aerodromes to the lower limit of Class C. This too will now become Class E. So in the more congested areas - ie: around airports - there is going to more of chance of a conflict. It would seem that the cruise phase is the least of our worries.
Also worth mentioning is the fact that Class E will extend down to 8,500ft in Radar areas. Am I the only one that see's a contradiction between the fact that the VFR guy has to carry a radio when going above 5,000 yet in Class E he does not have to use it to talk to ATC? From where I sit this seems to reduce the Situational Awareness of the ATC.
Sure he can see the guy on Radar but if he can't talk to him because the VFR is monitoring 121.5 - or some other frequency that the Kings' suggested
- isn't that reducing the options available for separation??? And don't forget that this is the 'initial' plan. The 'longer term' plan is for Class E to extend down to as low as 700 ft AGL and across the top of exisiting Class C airports.....
Tell me why were following this path again......???? Who benefits???
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Gate 69
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let us not forget that the 500' separation is based on the IFR and VFR pilots being at the correct level. An example of this not being the case:
Inbound to a MBZ the other day. Spoke to a light twin dept the aerodrome in the opposite direction (East) that was on climb to 10,000. Asked if he was IFR (wondering why he had not been given as traffic from Centre). "No VFR". Asked why he was going to 10,000 when heading east. "Now on climb 9,000". Said that that was a IFR level and he should be at Odds + 500. "OK, now on climb 9,500".
Now just think if he had no radio....
Inbound to a MBZ the other day. Spoke to a light twin dept the aerodrome in the opposite direction (East) that was on climb to 10,000. Asked if he was IFR (wondering why he had not been given as traffic from Centre). "No VFR". Asked why he was going to 10,000 when heading east. "Now on climb 9,000". Said that that was a IFR level and he should be at Odds + 500. "OK, now on climb 9,500".
Now just think if he had no radio....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, FlightFocus, most would agree there will be less risk in the cruise, thats why I imagine pilots would be fairly serene with the concept. Any repressed rage out there for the low level E is understandable, but my question is fairly specific.
Will airliners cruise in E airspace?
Will airliners cruise in E airspace?
