Class C, D, E, whatever is seperate from a fundamental question:

Staffed how?

Towers and sectors will need more staff. The system is barely coping as it is.:hmm:

Regarding Broome............

I think I'll either get a float plane or land on the racecourse - remaining well clear of the ad. and not tell anyone.......and stay below 500'.

There.....that should be OK....:}:}

Oz, I support the present system of priorities, and I alway's give RPT priority in a CTAF .

Peuce, class F has no radio requirement for VFR and as most of you are obsessed with mandatory radio requirements it would not be a suitable airspace classification

Didn't a DJ737 and a Tobago go head to head when they had E airspace over the top of YMLT or YMHB a few year's back?

Didn't Slaters and Gordon offer to take class action against ASA on behalf of the B737 passengers?

It is CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation's responsibility to determine the class of airspace at Broome, including what overlies the CTR.

While they would be aware that ASA can provide Class C services for the same cost as E as has been the case elsewhere, presumably the OAR safety analysis for Broome has indicated that Class E is sufficient.

Naturally that safety analysis would be subject to close scrutiny in the event of an incident :)

What makes Dick Smith an expert on airspace design anyway?

Does the gentleman hold any formal qualifications that are recognised by the airspace regulators in this country?

"As was pointed out earlier, what is more important ... VFRs not hitting RPTs, or VFRs not getting delayed?"

Surely if these guys are such kamikazee's just leave it as a CTAF and they should crash each other out of existence..

you RPT guys must all be ex fighter pilots to keep getting in and out alive..!!

Dick,

You got me, but I was being a bit facetious .... we already, in effect, have Class F (no way it's Class G)

The obvious solution is class D.

At the moment OAR only use class D airspace for regional Towers, but there is no reason why Class D steps, administered from the centres up to the base of Class C cannot be used. This would give the safety for RPT's and flexibility for VFR's.

Non surveillance Class E, not so good.

I don't believe D is suitable for other than TWR ops. and I think (I could be wrong) that it is only used for that purpose elsewhere.

I don't have the books handy, but doesn't it use in part separation involving VFR by reference to visual features i.e. "track north of the xxx Highway"? Something difficult for an enroute centre to handle, and another class of airspace (in addition to A/C/E/G) for them to manage.

Class D airspace ( minimum provided)

Separation IFR - IFR; IFR - Special VFR; Special VFR - Special VFR if vis < VMC

Traffic info VFR - VFR; IFR - VFR, separation not required.

Could work in en-route steps I think.

Latest info I have from my source in that part of the world is that the proposed steps are Class D up to A045 controlled by the tower. Above A045 Class E controlled by ML/BN centres and these will be active H24 instead of reverting to G when the tower controller goes home as they do at YBAS. Everyone needs to brush up on there class E procedures or there is going to be a lot of "clearance not available" when the tower goes home. I feel for you guys left on West Proc and Tops. The world's largest ATC sector now gets a procedural approach function and the guys on Tops get to do procedural approach without a VOR.

That's the irony of the whole stupid idea. No clearance? Just go IFR Pickup like we used to in G but without coordinating with the other aircraft or indeed with his permission. The asylum run by loonies. I cannot believe anybody who has half a brain would advocate such a system, risk management quack quack or not. :yuk:

A045? So there could be a VFR transiting over the top of the zone and not talking to anyone? That doesn't happen at present, this would be a backward step in some ways.

Class E Airspace outside of radar coverage is a very big backward step fullstop!

CASA have just released the Airspace Change Proposal Form detailing the airspace changes.

The airspace design will be

• Class D CTR surface to 2600' (2500' AGL)
• Class E airspace steps shall contain the 2.5 degree descent profile from existing Class E airspace (currently F180) down to 3000' then 3.0 degrees to touchdown
• The Class E airspace steps shall contain the RNAV holds
• Lowest Class E airspace base at 700' AGL
• The steps beyond approx 30 nm shall be laterally limited to contain published ATS routes with applicable navigation tolerances

Interesting statement
The Class E under the jurisdiction of the Tower shall be on a different frequency to the Class E airspace controlled by BN CEN (and may be the TWR frequency - the Class D CTR).

Oh what fun, multiple frequency changes close to the ground whilst trying to conduct an approach, maintain seperation from the unknown VFR traffic, which could be on any one of three frequencies.

Understand there was a meeting between operators and Airservices last week in Broome. Any one care to comment?

So when is this happening? Will it be done at the same time the GAAPs change?

November this year is the plan

Could time to contact Mr Albenese's office and express one's concern.

Sounds like a bigger cockup than the bald ones roof insulation scheme.

E Airspace!!!!!

So, the ideologues who still live in the dark ages have got their way (for the moment).

That won't work, Dick. :=

Dog, do you have a link to the ACP?