Dick,
It's got nothing to do with the type of airspace. For goodness sake, the aeroplanes are still there, and what's worse, if it was E, the RPT would probably have to clog up the ATC airwaves self segregating with the VFRs buzzing about the place just outside the zone.

Have a go at AsA's airspace management; don't use this as a excuse to justify your beloved E. Make the C controller not release aircraft into the zone until the tower is ready for them.

You obviously think that E will magically make the VFR traffic go away. Well it won't, and how do you expect me to keep clear of it? Look out the window like some of the clowns above suggest? I really do not understand how people (they can't be pilots) honestly think that See and Avoid is still an option for RPT jets these days.

Gee Dick..........

"In other countries the airspace reforms have been made after there are accidents. I reckon it would be a good idea to look at these accidents in other countries and then make changes here before they happen"..........

Isn't THAT precisely HOW good ole' Air Traffic Services (ATC & FS) in OZ was EVOLVED?????

We all agree - I think - that some of the more 'bureaucratic' impositions were just that - impositions.
But, in my opinion, it was all a waaay lot better - and safer - than now.

Now I can fly in "E" and don't talk to anybody...just turn on the tranny and hope its working and doing its job OK.....and try and look behind me when I'm changing level. (For o/taking tfc....)

That's ONE of the reasons I decline to use "E".......
WHOOOOSH!!! :}:}

This thread seems to be turning into discusssion about C over D v E over D. Let us go back to the specific airports. Obviously the ones in question have met the requirement for D Towers. I see absoolutely no need for anything other than G over the top of them. The E discusssion especially from Mr Smith's position is purely from a fundamental stand point of wanting E all the way down to any approach anywhere. Now THAT is something this country neither needs or wants.

Mr Smith,

Emotive headlines such as Will not change airspace. Aerostudies will.

Not that I condone using emotive threat lines, but why are you not also saying something like I be guessing but I suspect version B is more likely to occur!
Second time you have used this example. Were phraseologies, experience, interpretations of the traffic disposition part of this 'thing' at YBHM? who knows, where is the report? Or is it more sensational commentary like your assessment of the 2RN collision? That report is released, the causal factors are telling and arguably not related to airspace or ATC procedures.
Your sensational unsupported claims regarding overloaded D controllers takes no account of the fact that over many years at many locations errors and/or misunderstandings very rarely occur. When they do, it comes under that often used phrase - '**** happens'! No system is going to be 100% effective 100% of the time. Thankfully rarely used 'last line' mitigators [such as ACAS] save the day when all else fails. Far better to have a back-up last line of defence sitting in reserve, than expecting a 'last line back-up defence' to be the ONLY defence i.e. EVERY VFR/VFR and IFR/VFR pair in non-radar Class E!

tobzalp Agreed! I've had my 2c on that, so will take my leave on his fundamentalist side issue/s!

Exactly. The problems at the specific locations are at and in the vicinity of the airodromes, hence the need for Class D zones. I'm yet to see any justification to apply more restrictive airspace above them. The people qualified to comment re ATC workload and whether such airspace management is unsafe are ATCs, not pilots. Over the many years of such operation, I'm yet to hear any ATCs comment that the current practices at places like LT HB AY etc. are unworkable and unsafe.

Why then were we not told about the problems at Hamilton Island before the serious incident occurred.

YBHM Incident
 

200402648

- No ACAS RA
- Pilot to Pilot Vis Sep [read the part regarding phraseologies and ATC assignment of Pilot Vis Sep]
- 4 aircraft on frequency [including the 2 jets]

Other contributors

- Phraseologies
- Newly rated Controller on duty

Read the report Mr Smith, it is vastly different to your 'interpretation' as you put above! :=

Disgrace
 

Dick Smith - you should be ashamed of yourself

I suggest that people like you would know better than to say something like this.

That is a totally unfounded statement and I would think could be considered libellous at best if not offensive.

TT

Moderators?

ARFOR

Note the blatant dishonesty in the ATSB Report you have given us a link to.

If you look at Appendix A, you will notice in relation to radio transmissions it says, “only radio transmissions pertinent to the occurrence are included”.

This entirely depends on the subjective judgement of what is “pertinent to the occurrence”.

I, and many other people, believe that additional calls which have been deleted from this log do have an effect on loading the Air Traffic Controller. That’s the reason non-radar tower airspace has small dimensions in countries such as the UK, France, New Zealand, America and Canada – so the Controller does not have a barrage of transmissions that are not relevant in the particular case.

I have heard that propellars are old technology and that a Cessna Caravan had an accident once. Going to sell the Caravan based on that Dick? Sydney TMA had a breakdown of separation between two RPT aircraft a while back - let's make it Class E then?

Horses for courses. One incident in one tower does not mean a trend.

Arigato,

Showa Cho.

Mr Smith,

This really is of concern. You say
That is a very serious allegation! :=

The italics above the ‘incident transcript’? will only include the ‘pertinent [to the incident] RT’ in that table!

If you read the ‘Factual Information’ it clearly says:-
Are you suggesting investigators did not review the tapes? Or are you accusing them of something else?
4 Aircraft on frequency?

Back on the thread topic. What safety work has been done on the airspace classifications and design for Broome and Karratha?

The design of the zones will be interesting. If the controller has to be shielded from C airspace and no doubt E airspace as well so that he can concentrate on the circuit traffic so that they do not collide, what happens when the jets arrive, sometimes three arrivals in 5 mins, the C208 floatplanes are coming home to roost, and other VFR aircraft arriving at the same time, plus the odd helicopter, all calling up inbound at around 10 miles inbound. Because its E airspace above and around the zone, there will not be flight plans for the VFR aircraft, Centre would probably be able to help with the jet eta's and any other IFR traffic, but I can see lots of problems at certain times of the day, especially in the middle of the dry. BRM CTAF is currently 30nm and this allows time for the CAGRO to give the traffice information and for the inbound jet crew to assess the traffic. It would be interesting to watch all this work in a zone the size of Hamilton Island.

DogOne,

Are you seriously suggesting that ATC should control VFR traffic 29nm away from Broome at 1,000 feet?

Class D steps make for more sense. The million dollar question is what you put above the Class D, and at what height you put the boundary.

At Hammo 98% of the arriving VFR traffic would call with inbound / transit details a couple of miles before the boundary. If ATC is busy you either have to hold outside the zone or if with a bit of altitude descend below the steps whilst waiting for a clearance.

CASA and AsA have agreed that it will be E over the D. The boundary will be at 2500'

That upgrades the link airspace from G, so how could anyone claim that safety would not be improved?

Yes , I know , a small number of ATC's including ARFOR want to provide class C as they want to take on more responsibility and liability without any extra income for AsA. They are actually charitable workers and don't really want their salaries linked in any way with the actual income they produce for their employer!

The cargo cult is alive and well.

See post no. 25!

Dick,

Oh dear ... I give up ... :ugh:

BTW, CASA(OAR) regulates Airspace Classification, ASA is not in a position to "agree", or otherwise, with airspace matters.

Rubbish! CASA can tell AsA what type of airspace is required and AsA can agree to put it in.

Rubbish back atcha ...

So, are you saying that ASA can say .. "No, we won't put it in" ?

If you think that E is a safety improvement over G for RPT jets then you must believe in Santa Claus too. No one on this forum has yet to come up with any real data to prove the claim that E is safer than G in this area.

With the amount of traffic mix involved, I can see a "Launceston" happening and hopefully only a near miss will occur. The whole context of having Safety Management Systems is blown out the window when the safety of 180 pax and crew is all down to TCAS!

Broome Aerostudy
 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...oome_may09.pdf

Very interesting!

Have a look at the 'options', then look at the errrmm basis for the 'decision'! There are some assumptions made in there that are questionable!

Dog One, your concerns are valid!

And who, pray tell, will be providing the E service? The same poor sap who is currently providing the G, that's who. Extra work in same sector equals more risk.

Cargo cult yourself. You're the one worshipping the foreign sky god!