Class E down to 4500ft overhead YWLM?
 

Can anyone tell me why, on the 19th November this year, the base of Class E airspace overhead Williamtown is being dropped from 8500ft to 4500ft? When the RAAF aren't staffing tower/approach/centre on Friday arvos, weekends and the month around Christmas, Brisbane Centre will control that airspace. It will be a semi-approach environment with less time for arriving aircraft to sort out traffic OCTA and less flexibility for the controller to separate.

And any reason why it could at least not be made C airspace, like Tamworth or Coffs Harbour which do not have the same amount of RPT traffic?

From my understanding, the TRA that existed successfully last Christmas stand down will not be reimplemented because certain parties do not want mandatory transponder coverage for VFRs transitting the areas.

What Dick Wants, Dick gets. Sounds like he's got into Boorie's ear. :{

Another Class E fiasco in the making!

Folks,

Didn't anybody tell you, NAS is Government airspace policy, and now we have a CASA Director of Aviation Safety who has very publicly expressed his support for NAS.

Dick Smith didn't invent Class E airpace, widely used throughout the aviation world, both with and without any radar coverage.

Tootle pip!!

"Sold" to the gummit by Dick. :=

NAS for how much longer?
 

Bollocks, future NAS reforms are to be subject to cost-benefit analysis and the CRMF. Given the glacial progress to date I can't see any NAS characterisitcs lasting until the next edition of the Airspace Policy Statement that will remove NAS. No doubt that will have the support of the CASA CEO too!

As an aside I note the latest OAR review of Hamilton Island categorically rejected the use of Class E airspace to the circuit area without proper surveillance! That could make NAS expensive.

Leadsled...I wonder if you remember this quote-

Non-radar E?..VFR does not need a clearance...transponder?...but...that means you wish to use the TCAS as a traffic managment device....non-radar E...wonderful idea, isn't it...but then again you have seen all this before...anyway, it's a shame that new directors do not learn a little bit of history so they do not go off and repeat it.

I'm with Mr Gnu....NO E without surveillance! It is still controlled airspace with UN-Controlled aircraft just waltzing through minding their own business.

Ozbusdriver. CASA responded to the BASI See and Avoid report in 2001.

....and should ensure that unalerted see-an-avoid is never the sole means of separation for aircraft providing scheduled services."

CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. The wording of the recommendation reflected its time and was prior to the 1995 Standards Australia AS/NZS4360 Risk Management Standard. CASA also understands that the use of the absolute "never" is not consistent with current ATSB practice.

To accept the absolute form of the recommendation would require the allocation of Class D or higher airspace wherever scheduled services operate. This would result in an allocation of resources that is not commensurate with risk.

ICAO Class E and G airspace specifically has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft. ICAO has introduced both of these classifications with the full knowledge of the limitations of see-and-avoid. ICAO makes no recommendation in relation to scheduled services not operating in these airspace classifications.

Overly discounting the effectiveness of see-and-avoid and devising unique procedures has itself led to unintended consequences that are unresolved. Pilots may scan significantly less and become over reliant on radio alerting through a concept known as diffusion of responsibility. The BASI report RP/93/01 (December 1993) and the continuing incident reports that are being filed listing near misses in mandatory radio Class E and G airspace may support this concern. CASA believes that radio alerting is only effective when the alerting area is small with readily identifiable reporting points so that the alert is specific.

The ATSB status? Closed - Accepted.

SCE to Aux,

There you go with more theory. Most of that stuff from CASA was written by MS, I well-known DS supporter. I simply cannot believe CASA thinks no radio is better than radio because people get lulled into a false sense of security. Actually, MS thought a few years ago. He's gone. I wonder what CASA today thinks?

ICAO also has no transponder requirement in E. If you reckon that is a good idea, you're crazy in my view. This is the same organisation (Euro centric) that has only just started to realise (after prodding from the Scandinavians) that 3000ft TL in Europe may not be a good thing. Der. Their airspace classifications belong in a bygone era, if you ask me. E was good for DC-3s and the occasional Cessna. Nowadays? CTA or OCTA+DTI+CTAF Rs. That's all it needs to be. A,C,D,E G? Alphabet soup!

SCE to Aux,

Well done, the anti see and avoid brigade love quoting the rather dated BASI report, but carefully avoid any qualification, including the ATSB acceptance of AS/NZ 4360, in the settlement of the recommendation, more than 10 years ago.

News really travels fast in aviation circles, doesn't it.

We all know, or should know, the limitations of see and avoid, and we all know, or should know, the range of techniques that are mitigators for the limitations of see and avoid, so that the resultant hazard level is acceptable.

Radio alerting is one, and only one, of many.

I never cease to be amazed (as illustrated in a previous post here) that people who quite happily accept IFR in G, with "known traffic", reject E as somehow less satisfactory. ---- Unless radar is available. As if VFR (with transponder)traffic "swanning about" in E were a greater hazard than if the same airspace is G, and there is no separation between IFR aircraft, and the same VFR aircraft are "swanning about", without any mandatory transponder.

Folks, re. the new airspace policy, many of us have seen the anodyne nonsense that was the first draft of a new policy. Being totally bereft of anything approaching a basic standard ( other than totally undefined "world's best practice"), or any coherence direction as a "policy", a "policy free policy", and all references to risk and safety having been excised. I rather think you will find it is the Minister/Secretary who were less than impressed.

The Minister does understand that the US has a lower collision rate than Australia,a lower ATC error rate, and TIBA is unknown in US, and therefore the US must be doing something right, that we are not. All this before the arrival of Mr. McCormick and the new CASA Chairman, Dr. Hawke.

Those who thought this was an opportunity to slip in the flavour of the month, a two class "managed/unmanaged" airspace system, and dump A thro' G, are going to be disappointed.

I would hazard a guess that this has only been reinforced by the new Director of Aviation Safety, a vocal supporter of the US way of committing aviation, based on his public statements, and testimony to the Senate RRA&T Standing Committee.

Tootle pip!!!

PS 1: It will be interesting to see what happens with the Albury tower review, last I heard the number were coming up to close it, and therefor the D and C airspace. This time, due to the GFC, encouragement from airlines, not resistance.

PS 11: Bloggs, nobody inside or outside CASA thinks/suggests/recommends "no radio" is better than "radio (alerted see and avoid)", and there is no suggestion to that end. What those of us who prefer facts do know, is that dropping in the word "mandatory" does not improve compliance with required/recommended radio usage.

Public vs Otherwise
 

LeadSled,

I think you will find the real objection is to the replacement on Class C (Not G) with Non-surveillance Class E.

You may be correct about your assertions regarding the Draft AAPS. However, this is policy and is strictly the domain of politicians. Prior to its election the ALP stated its determination to axe inapropriate airspace reforms. I suppose we will see where this policy ends up very soon. If i recall correctly the ALP Senators and MHRs responsible for this policy area made their objection to the NAS and its proponents very clear. The current ALP government may have its faults but it appears resolute in pursiung its policy objectives.


My rather sarcastic remark about the CASA CEO (Director of Aviation Safety) was based only on the common observation that a public servant will always back the published government policy. If you think Mr McCormick will do otherwise please expand on your remarks. (And yes I do acknowledge that the position we are discussing has a degree of statutory independence- as ably demonstrated by Mr Toller during the the NAS 2c debacle)

Given the risk based philosophies of the OAR and the published Albury review would they really redesignate all terminal airspace there as Class G and declare a CTAF (R)?

Leadsled,

Have you ever thought why (on my estimations) the majority of pilots and controllers on this board have a different view to you on this issue?

You appear to treat everyone as idiots. You speak down to other pilots and controllers and we get the feeling you believe we are criminals.

One can quote as many international standards, treaties or mathematical formulas as one likes ... however, the majority of pilots and controllers have a real problems with "see and avoid" and "Class E in non surveillance airspace".That is a fact.

These pilots and controllers operate in the airspace everyday, and have built up a fair evaluation of the psyche of the flying community. Now, they don't feel comfortable. That is a fact.

Their understanding of what goes on is not going to change because you quote an international standard to them. That is a fact.

You, and the Regulators, have to find another way to convince those whose lives are dependent on the success of the airways system that your way will be an improvement.

Hitting us over the head with a baseball bat will not work.Telling us we are idiots will not work. Telling us that we don't understand will not work.

Find another way.

leadSled
 

Care to state the source of your collision statistics ?, because I read in "Review of Midair Collisions Involving General Aviation Aircraft in Australia between 1961 and 2003" http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36828/R...midair_col.pdf that TIBA is a problem caused by short-sighted and bonus-driven ASA management who haven't provided enough actual working ATCOs.

I'd be surprised if any of the airlines were encouraging closure of AY TWR and the associated C & D airspace.

They know that the hang gliding fraternity have submitted a number of proposals over the last couple of years to reduce the steps there to facillitate their access. North east Victoria is a prime hang gliding and other sports aviation types area, with activity regularly up to A100 in G and E.

Changing the Albury airspace to G or E gives these types unrestricted access, not something I think the airlines and other IFR operators would be happy with.

SCE to AUX
CASA understands the intent of this recommendation but does not agree with its absolute form. And that, my friend is legalise BS duck and weave.

Funny, aviation ONLY deals in ABSOLUTES. Either there is minima or there is not...either you see the runway environs or not. CLearance or no clearance!
We fly like computers if =1 then or if not = 1then. There is no statistical subroutine of probability that justifies whether a flight is within the rules or not.

Leadsled...two airspace??? now why would THAT come up?

My point being that if the then CAA did follow BASIs recommendations, a whole lot of airspace changes would not occur...no wonder it came down to not recognising "Absolutes"...

I don't condone the closing of Albury tower but I reckon Ballina and Port Mcquarie would have more traffic movements than Albury and there not controlled.


The Dog;)

Folks,

Similar is not the same as "the same". The figures quoted by John McCormick are about the same as other and I have, which is about 30% fewer mid-airs in the US, compared to Australia.

The difference is big enough and consistent enough that it cannot be written off as a statistical error.

It's all public information.

As for the "problems" with Class E, and the preference for G as, somehow, safer, it simply makes no logical sense.If that is me "talking down", I'll have to wear that criticism, but the fact remains, it is unsupportable on any logical risk grounds.

True, the luxury of opposition, but being the responsible Minister certainly changes the perspective. After nearly two years of a three year Government, work has barely started on a "real" new airspace policy, and all of a sudden, the actual words of the present policy (which did NOT owe much to input from Dick Smith, amazing as it may seem, but did have the active support of QF mainline) don't seem to read too badly.

By and large, all the right words are in there, "safety", "risk management", "cost/benefit justified", "ICAO compliant" etc., it will, indeed, be interesting.

My guess (and it is only a guess) is that the biggest influence on the final "new" policy will be the CASA CEO.

Tootle pip!!

LedSled et al,
You know, all the stats and "proof" and "logic" and academic argument really don't impact on the topic of this thead. It is about Williamtown airspace in particular. There are other active threads about NAS/E/See and Avoid.

Comments specifically about whether or not, or how this airpace will work more safely after the Defence designed/CASA imposed airspace are most welcome.

To my mind, the lowering of E to 4500 from 8500 (replacing existing G) reduces the flexibility that IFR RPT have in determining their own separation with other aircraft by limiting their tracking/frequency options until 4000ft lower than they can today.

E in this situation does not protect the aircraft from VFR any more than G does. In both cases, IFR is given traffic on VFR, but in one case IFR can manoeuvre as desired/required after an appropriate traffic statement and in the other, the IFR must get a new clearance from ATC to avoid the traffic. The time and space available for this, in the WLM area, is quitre limited. At least if the airspace was C, like over TW, CFS, and WLM when the RAAF are active, there would be positive separation between VFR and IFR.

The controller has less flexibility. Given that Brisbane Centre is not Approach rated, the tools for separation they have are limited (eg cannot vector below lower safe, cannot use 3nm radar separation etc). This, and the limited time/space to afford clearances without delay will result in increasing workload and restrictions to IFR aircraft where no such restrictions occur today in G.

The time available for departing aircraft to get a clearance above A040 is shortened compared to A080 and makes frequency congestion even more critical in ensuring that departing aircraft can manage their own separation with terrain and each other. Bear in mind that Brisbane Centre is also managing airspace in the Port Macquarie area.

This airspace will serve to make operations more restrictive for IFR aircraft, for controllers and increases the risk associated with increasing pilot/controller workload and frequency congestion.

Complications????
 

No-one likes more restrictions and complications, particularly when they are not necessary do they?
The same applies to the pilots of smaller smaller VFR?IFR aircraft that are carrying transponders around birdsville and Oodnadatta and hardly ever get within radar range of anything. They do not want to be loaded up with more expensive gear that is irrelevent.

No one does, bushy, but we are not talking about Birdsville or Oodnadatta, and I can't comment on those areas because I know nothing of them. Williamtown does have radar coverage and in such airspace, a transponder is not irrelevant.

Leadsled, Those are pretty broad statments of fact. Care to share withn the rest of us unwashed on how you arrived at Aus being 30% more dangerous than the US. Simple ask, just a link to the website or publish some figures here that can be verifiable.

A list to make it easier-

Show us the stats, where, what website?

Then show the breakdown (separately for Australia and the US) of Mid-airs (and Airprox/NMAC's) by:-

1. Airspace category/service level
2. Collision pairs (IFR/IFR, and IFR/VFR, and VFR/VFR)

Simple answers to simple questions. Otherwise, Lies , Damn Lies and Statistics!:suspect:

OZ,
Without wanting to sound smart---s, NTSB/ATSB raw data and set to work, including reviewing the ATSB report already mentioned. See if you can get the minutes of ACF meetings over recent years (by whatever name it went by at the time). McCormick wasn't shooting in the dark.

One has to be careful, one relatively recent "publication" claimed "comparable" traffic counts between YSSY-YMML and the reference route in US. When we looked a little further, the US route a five times the traffic count. I wish my bank manager would accept the proposition that five time over my OD limit was "comparable" with my limit.

Likewise, another Australian produced report on en-route mid-airs in US assumed airports were at or near MSL, all the "en-route" mid airs in the US mid-west were, in fact, collisions in the circuit or arrival/departure areas of airports, even though they were 7000' +/-or so amsl.

Start from the raw data, fortunately mid-airs are relatively rare, this is not too onerous a task.

Tootle pip!!

PS: A tip, the US operating hours/sector operated are good to something like +/- 2%, ours are far more rubbery. Rubbery to the degree that you need to do rates at the limits of the Australian data accuracy, it changes the results. Australia still comes out unfavorably, it is a matter of degree.

After tower hours, overhead Rockhampton base of Class C is also down to 4500'. Nightly DHC8s, E-Jets and King Airs are given limited time to negotiate traffic, depart and ask for clearance prior to entering controlled airspace.

It probably causes more of a drama for ATC than the aircraft, but still the practice is non-standard and causes unnecessary problems.

Rumour has it that this is talk of changing it back to the standard J curve base of class E ie 8500', but it is yet to happen.

Disturb' With the safer FAA NAS system when a D tower closes the airspace becomes E and the Centre controllers provide the IFR separation service- very often in a non radar enviroment.

Now I know that this must seem an impossibility to you - with the E down to 700agl-simply cannot work!.

Imagine en -route ATC's who are also approach rated!

No- lets get more G so airline pilots become the ATC er- more profits and bonuses for AsA that way!

Forget the safety aspect.

The problem with Wiliamtown is that "after tower hours" is after 3-4pm each Friday and all weekend, and from mid-December to mid-January the tower and control zone isn't even there. There will not even be the assistance of the TRA that existed last year.

The mix of traffic will ensure that RPT aircraft will experience more restrictions on their arrivals and departures as controllers with only Enroute ratings will run airspace that is effective half Approach and half DTI.

Flexibility enjoyed coming into WLM outside tower/approach hours will be curtailed.

I'm glad you entered this thread Mr Smith. I would like to know your opinion about a projected loss of flexibility in the WLM airspace with E down to A045 due to controllers without appropriate ratings/tools, and with this loss of flexibility there being a possible drop in safety as IFR aircraft are limited in the approaches they can make at certain times of the day, and limited in the levels above route LSA they can initally climb to without clearance from ATC. Bear in mind also that these controllers are also working the PMQ and YMND/YCNK area with alot of frequency congestion and screen scale problems.

Also, would you personally prefer the WLM airspace to be tower/approach during the military Christmas stand down and on weekends and Friday afternoons?

I was of the opinion that Wlm was moving towards being open (Class C TWR/APP ) from 6am to 10 pm everyday including X-mas stand down as TVL does ?

If this is the case, it will be interesting to see how much airspace the TWR takes after military flying has finished. Maybe Class C to 4500 then E, etc.

Thats what used to be done on weekends for out of hours moves during the 90's exept it was higher. WLM would take up to FL120.

The RAAF will probably only take up to A045 for extended hours if BN CEN do take over the airspace, and it will be interesting to see how that approach environment meshes with the overlying enroute environment - 3nm sep vs 5nm, vectoring with a radar terrain clearance chart vs vectoring above the grid LSA (which is 6600ft for most of the airspace) etc.

It will also be interesting to see how a VFR overflying C airspace in E at A045 without a clearance is handled in such an enviroment.

Only a guess but if they do extend hours I reckon they would take higher than 4500 because of the reasons you mention. If they took say 8500 and it was a Mil Restriced airspace, then class c applies, with E starting at 8500.

Also another possible problem for E to 4500 is the radar feed for BN centre, unless they get the WLM feed.

I remember that being a stumbling block during the famous 98 class "G" trial. Bn centre sent an enroute ATC down to have a look at the old SURAD to use for DTI and poor buggar nearly had a heart attack and left.

Finally some common sense prevailing.

As an airline pilot I whole wholeheartedly welcome Class E.

Now for Launy, Maroochydore, Proserpine, Hamilton Island and many more.

mjbow2 - do you/will you fly into the Williamtown area?
As an airline pilot, how will E down to A045 at WLM make it better?

Coral

Re your Post 35

I’ve been told many times that the airspace between Melbourne and Brisbane is as busy as any airspace in the USA. In that case, I can’t see why the sector sizes are dramatically different to the U.S. Of course, enroute controllers will have to be trained to do approach work. That’s a basic part of NAS.

Sometimes I fly for up to fifteen minutes in complete silence when IFR. Would you agree at those times that controllers may be able to have a little more workload?

To me, we have what is like a third-world system, ie. in the enroute environment below 8,500 feet even in radar covered airspace we give no air traffic control at all. In other modern aviation countries you get superb air traffic control which uses the radar right to the lower limit of its coverage.

Dick,
You talk of approach rated Enroute controllers, which is fine, however the WLM airspace in question will be introduced on the 19th of November which is not enough time to actually give the controllers involved an approach rating, even if ASA did have the training capacity and staff numbers to do so (which they don't). Are you suggesting that E down to A045 requires an approach rating?

As I have outlined above, there are some major restrictions in the controller tools available to process traffic in and out of WLM. The Office of Airspace Regulation has imposed the airspace on Airservices full well knowing that an Approach rating is necessary to run the airspace for the phases of flight encountered, but they have set a date that will not allow it to happen.

My question that is the subject of this thread is "why?"

It is not, Dick. Hence, the remainder of your post is incorrect.
Some of the city-pairs are quite busy eg. Melb/SY, SY/Bris, but that's it. The US has many more city-pairs in the same volume of airspace. A common misunderstanding, and an excellent demonstration of how statistics can be used to baffle the uninformed.

Ferris, every IFR approach in the USA under NAS is in a minimum of class E controlled airspace.

There are many places in the US that have similar traffic densities, or even less, than our east coast city pairs.

Yet they provide a class E approach service using en route controllers.

But of course it's not possible to provide this safer service in Australia because your closed mind says so.

Make up as many excuses and cop outs as you like. I happen to know that you are wrong and there are plans in train to provide such a safer service.

Mr Smith,
Plans? presumably through the required processes of consideration and consultation?

If there are 'plans in train', in the interests of open and transparent review, you should outline them here as there are large numbers of industry participants who have a right to know how they might be impacted.

Mr Smith
 

from Testimony (FAA FY 2008 Budget ) and from Airservices Australia So I'm not surprised that you can stateandAs has been explained to you many times before, it can be done if there are enough ATCOs available to do the job, but ASA doesn't have enough ATCOs and its' a profession that requires a long training time.

Not because my closed mind says so- because the FACTS/REALITIES of the density of Australian ATCs says so. As pointed out over and over, and again on this thread, the US can provide a different service because it has already got a gazillion controllers looking at tiny pieces of sky each. Is that lay-man enough for you?
In order to provide this same service would either mean a dramatic change in the way ATC is done, in a manner specifically recommended against in reports such as the Uberlingen report (switching between approach/enroute modes with screen scale changes) or hiring an enormous number of ATCs who will sit around totally under-utilised (affordable safety???).
Of course so what good does experts telling you different mean?
Closed mind? I know exactly who possesses it.

Dick, do you have any idea how much training it will require? Have you even considered that? Do you know how thin those training resources currently are? Resources, resources, resources. For the 53rd million & whatever time. Resources.
Care to explain where that's all going to come from? You can wish all you want but that won't make them miraculously appear. This has been explained in copious detail repeatedly & all you do is chant back "closed minds" & "change resistant".

Someone is feeding you a line they know you want to hear.