What about deviations for weather or manouevring for IFR approaches?
E for exciting airspace. |
Sorry Capt, but no I have only a faxed copy which has the email address unreadable. search around the CASA website, and goto the OAR site. You should be able to get them to email you a copy.
|
Stationair8 I think you are correct. Watch the Broome airspace model be extended Australia wide. Back to the NAS2b errors, unnecessary & unsubstantiated change.
If we want more flexibility in airspace, Class D zones and Class D steps and en-route would be worth a look. Class E over Class D, no radar or in busy areas cannot be supported by any safety case. Talk to the pollies. |
Dick's original child, Airspace 2000 (in the 90's) had E corridors everywhere. Then in the mid 2000s the LLAMP group looked extensively at E corridors and concluded they were unworkable.
|
Watch the Broome airspace model be extended Australia wide Sounds like someone's plan all along. It will be interesting to see how "E" goes as "high performance" VFR becomes more prevalent. I believe their is already a light business jet operating that likes to zip around VFR occasionally. |
Justice Gibbs quoted in the CASA Alice Airspace study Jan2010:
Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent. |
Playing Devil's advocate ....
Could you not say that the current Airspace (Class G) above Broome will be made safer by installing Class E ... in that IFRs will be seperated from themselves? Now with White hat back on ... Could you then not say that, for a small, if any, increase in cost ... it could be made Class C above Broome and remove most of the residual risk? |
Originally Posted by peuce
Playing Devil's advocate ....
Could you not say that the current Airspace (Class G) above Broome will be made safer by installing Class E ... in that IFRs will be seperated from themselves? *Edit: That's not quite true, I mean that separation from IFR and VFR is both problematic, but the safety concern relating to the lack of VFR information in the new airspace will not be offset by the increased safety provided by the IFR to IFR separation. |
And a point I've made many times, Class E can - and does - have many no radio no transponder types operating therein, completely unknown to all.
|
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight
And a point I've made many times, Class E can - and does - have many no radio no transponder types operating therein, completely unknown to all.
|
Bloggs and AerocatS2A,
You may be interested in this little gem from the 2008 Avalon Aeronautical Study (original study on Avalon). The quote is direct from the Executive Summary under 'Findings' (elaborated on in the body of the study). If you tie this up with the previous quote you posted here Bloggs, from Justice Gibbs regarding negligence, one has to wonder why. Anyone can access this stuff and the quote appears to have been made without any qualification. Here it is, and make of it what you will, when read in conjunction with the Gibbs' statement. Maybe there's some logic at work here, but it's outside my orbit. 1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D and Class E. |
Justice Gibbs quoted in the CASA Alice Airspace study Jan2010: Quote: Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though perhaps not great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent. Quote re Avalon airspace: 1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D and Class E. |
So, considering those findings on face value, and in the context given, if they go ahead with E over D ... it would be fair to assume that there must be some other very significant forces or issues at play ... that we aren't privy to ....
|
1.4.3 The cost of the provision of a Class C air traffic control service is the same as that of a Class D or E service. However, the Class C service provides significantly greater risk mitigation to passenger transport aircraft against VFR aircraft threats than that provided by Class D and Class E. |
so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E. Radar is not an issue. Alice does not have radar C, along with other places. C clearly provides greater protection than E, hence the findings and quotes. |
but Broome does not have a radar anywhere near by, so to provide Class C service would certainly cost a lot more initially than providing Class E. All the radar in C does is increase capacity over non-radar C. Given capacity isn't an issue and KTA and BME, the C cost will be the same as E. Think outside the square, Dick. := |
Yes that's true. My thinking has been coloured a little by an IRT question I was once asked, "What's the difference between Class C and Class D airspace?" I rattled off the differences in separation services provided and was told, "No, Class C is Radar and Class D isn't." I knew that this was technically wrong, but couldn't be bothered arguing the point.
Sure, if CASA will put non radar Class C in place, that would be best. And as more and more aircraft get ADSB, the radar-like services will come. |
The big difference between C & D is capacity in VMC.
In C VFR must be positively separated from IFR. This means a technical separation standard must be applied by ATC (can an ATC help me here) - which I believe effectively means no other aircraft in the circuit area whilst an IFR aircraft is taking off or landing. In D the ATC has a lot more options to segregate traffic (including sight and follow, hold in circuit). Whilst radar is not essential in C, it does reduce the separation standards drastically and therefore increases capacity. Where an aircraft is operating to SVFR procedures it has to be separated from IFR aircraft irrespective of whether it is Class C or D. |
Sorry werbil - not even close! :)
Ill let a current Class C Procedural controller go into detail - it's been awhile -but quite often a procedural standard is less restrictive than radar - lateral, visual, etc. Nowhere near one at a time. |
In C VFR must be positively separated from IFR. This means a technical separation standard must be applied by ATC (can an ATC help me here) - which I believe effectively means no other aircraft in the circuit area whilst an IFR aircraft is taking off or landing. In D the ATC has a lot more options to segregate traffic (including sight and follow, hold in circuit). Whilst radar is not essential in C, it does reduce the separation standards drastically and therefore increases capacity. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:31. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.