Australian Class E article – the full text
 

In The Australian newspaper this morning my article headed ‘Controlled Airspace Remains under a Cloud’ was edited due to space limitations.

Here is the full version:

http://rosiereunion.com/file/25years...hallofdoom.pdf

Once they edited all the bs out of that, it obviously only needed a little bit of space.

Haha. Good one Dick! Happy April Fools.

What's the "proven safety standard" between VFR and IFR in Class E? Less than 1nm and less than 200ft? :rolleyes:

If you are in IMC there is a full ICAO safe separation standard. When IMC exists it's equivalent to class A airspace.

If you are in VMC it's the existing system we have proven over 50 years plus the important safety feature of a zero extra cost NAS type Unicom that at a minimum confirms your radio is on the correct frequency and working correctly to increase the chance of alerted see and avoid working.

Bloggs you appear to be one of those pilots who is convinced you are superior and won't make errors similar to those that happened at Benalla that killed everyone on board.

And no doubt you would never dial up the wrong frequency!

We are not all as " top gun" as you believe you are.

Say what??

The "existing proven" (1950s) system had BOTH aircraft on freq talking to one another so that the didn't hit each other. That is NOT what your famed Class E is all about. To plagiarise, "The Launy pilot wasn't as "top gun" as he believed he was...." The lowest common denominator now has total control over the outcome of a conflict with an 100+ pax jet. In your words, "rediculous".

I said a few days ago: there was a third-party at Launy: it was the tower! But the VFR decided not to use it.

On to the unicoms: you demolished a quite satisfactory third-party radio system at our busy airports on the premise that we'd all jump at the chance of follow-me girls giving us amateur ATC. Fail.

You if want Class E, where's your cost-benefit analysis (don't forget to include the cost of transponders for VFR). Do we have traffic lights at every intersection? Do we all drive around at 50kph on the freeway because someone exceeded their capabilities and pranged, killing others? Aviation is not a risk-free activity. On the one hand you're quite happy to allow a bugsmasher to wiz past a 737 unannounced but on the other, demand full ATC to the ground all over the country just because a GPS system went haywire and caused a single-aircraft accident. It's irrational.

Come on, Dick, let's have it! This issue has been festering, and you have been asked, for years. Surely you have your numbers in a row by now??

Precisely, Bloggs,

As both of us have said, repeatedly, positive change comes down to credible cost/benefit and risk analyses.

Otherwise, change is at the mercy of inordinate influence on dumb pollies, 'my opinion,' and 'I want.'

I am sure you will agree!!!

Dick, if you could just put the effort you pointlessly expend into crunching the numbers, as opposed to countless words based solely on opinion, you might get somewhere!

Regardless of my previous, I intuitively feel that you may have a case. But intuition just doesn't wash.

Haven't you learned anything from the division in the industry caused by several of your 'airspace initiatives?'

Give people a credible, facts-based argument, underpinned by credible cost/benefit and risk analyses, and you've got a good chance of gaining broad support and bringing people along.

IMHO, your accusations as regards 'intransigence' just don't fly when it comes to 'airspace reform.' It was all 'I want, foot stamping stuff.' And you seem to have not changed.

People will listen to cogent analyses in this industry, Dick. Not opinion nor 'I want.'

Howabout et all,
It was all done, long ago, for NAS, particularly the NAS 2b part of the plan, and all in accordance with ICAO SARPs and standards for risk analysis, both ICAO and AS/NZS.

It was/is the biggest risk analysis exercise conducted in Australian aviation history. Indeed, no changes before or since have been as extensively canvasses and consulted as the then Government's NAS policy and implementation program.

As we see here, more or less the same people opposed change in general, and in airspace management arrangements in particular then, as oppose change now.

Contrary to continual claims on pprune, the "roll back" after 12 months of successful operation had nothing to do with any general problems in the trial period, which were minimal by any measure. or the Launceston incident, (and another broadly similar north of Brisbane) no matter how sincerely some of you believe this to be the case. It was "industrial", not operational.

Mick Toller was spot on when he described Australia as: "An aviation Galapagos, where all sorts of strange mutations have developed in splendid isolation from the rest of the aviation world".

Tootle pip!!

Industrial was it? I'd call the whole thing political and foot stamping from the start. It's still going on.

Leady,

As much as I respect your views and experience, the NAS 2b Safety Case was 'implementation-based,' not 'system-based.'

This has been argued to death in respect of 2b.

The transposition of the American model to Australia did not fit a 'like for like' argument in respect of radar coverage, frequency access, sector size, controllers 'per-capita,' etc, etc. It was just not 'like for like' as regards fundamental ICAO requirements when it comes to importing another system and relying solely on an 'Implementation Safety Case.'

Given the glaring anomalies, a 'System Safety Case' should have been mandatory to comply with your beloved ICAO SARPS.

The 'Implementation Safety Case' was an attempted short-cut that did not take account of inherent system differences. It was nothing more than an attempt to 'pull the wool' and ram through a flawed agenda when a few zealots thought they had the political momentum.

Had a 'System Safety Case' been done, you'd have got a lot further old fruit!

A number of Aussie ATCs have told me that at some airports they could provide a class E separation service at no extra cost.

Six deaths at Benalla and you say the existing system is ok?

What's the problem with doing a trial at just one airport ?

A single pilot high performance charter aircraft on approach being given traffic on three other IFR aircraft in IMC is certainly a very high workload situation. Then the separation has to be organised by the individual pilots with no prescribed separation standard.

What's wrong with highly skilled Controllers actually " controlling " airline aircraft "

Some sectors I fly in are so quite I have to sometimes give a call to ATC to check my radio is still working - would it not be possible to provide a class E terminal service in those areas?

It works superbly in the USA and Canada.. Canada has huge areas of low density airspace and they can provide an E terminal service at many non tower airports. Why can't we?

Dick, what's the point of doing a trial at just one aerodrome? It tells you nothing about the requirements for a busier aerodrome in a busier sector. Give me the resources, the training and a properly sized sector and I'll do it. Doing it half arsed doesn't cut it.

How many aerodromes have reliable comms down to the ground?

This is fact, Dick.

If you want to 'import' the US system, you have to import the US system in whole.

Too right it was industrial (not involving ATC) ---- the circumstances of CASA pulling the plug, one the eve of the system going "permanent".

I'm not going into any more detail, because when I do, I get in strife.

Maybe Dick might like to fill in the gaps, he has deeper pockets than me, and he knows the whole deal, warts and all.

NAS 2b was NOT pulled on safety grounds. That is a simple fact.

Whether any of you want to believe that is now immaterial, as all those directly involved have left the industry, it really is "history", just one more example of how hard it is, achieving any change and modernization in current day Australia, not confined to the aviation sector.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I see that a 50% blowout is already forecast for OneSky --- is anybody surprised??

Many class E airports in the USA and Canada do not have reliable comes to the ground. Pilots get the clearance by phone or from the Unicom. Horror Shock. How can an un qualified Unicom operator pass on a clearance? We are all going to die!

A trial at just one airport. Say Ballina would be a good test . Many were against CTAFs when they were introduced. But they seem to work.

Many were against the removal of full position reporting for VFR. Now only Bloggs wants to go back.

Search the world and copy the best is what I tell school groups who are looking for success.

And you don't have to import the full US system. That's a myth used to stop change. All their IFR approaches are in a minimum of class E. We don't need to do that at Birdsville. But maybe worth trying at Bainsdale!

I vaguely recall a conversation I had with a friend who had just returned from Canada after 2 years of Medical flying over there. I will be upfront and say that I can't recall all the specifics of it, so I am presuming that a few of the more worldly operators here can perhaps correct or clarify any of the following.

I seem to recall him saying that there was a bit of an unwritten rule that in VMC on approach there was an expectation of cancelling IFR and proceeding VFR so the next departure could get away into the class E. So it was a one in one out type scenario with the controller being remotely located in a tower elsewhere (I think).

Firstly, does that sound about right to anyone?

Secondly, if so, do our airlines have the scope/desire to cancel IFR on descent to make this work? Otherwise I can't see how E will be better than 1 in 1 out in IMC or VMC even with the US standards (which from memory aren't signficantly different to ours).

Why should 'deeper pockets' matter, Leady, if your argument is credible? You are entitled to your view as I am to mine. This would be a damned boring forum if we all agreed!

But, please, get the facts straight in respect of 2b:

CASA did not pull 2b; that was AsA after the Launy incident. AsA instituted 'Rollback,' not CASA. 'Rollback' was predicated on safety concerns, not the threat of 'industrial action.'

As regards CASA/CAA 'pulling' anything, that was the G Airspace Trial when Mick Toller (good bloke, IMHO) cancelled the 'trial' when Dick was in NZ.

As you rightly pointed out previously, Mick was the guy that accused us of having that 'Galapagos system.' He was a rational, experienced operator. I don't presume to read what was in his mind at the time, but maybe his unilateral (gutsy) decision came from a conviction that the proposed G Airspace regime was worse than 'Galapagos!'

I forgot to add that in my opinion a decent, professional bloke was sacrificed on the altar of spite, envy and payback for having the courage of his convictions.

I still regard Mick Toller's removal at the time as a bloody disgrace!

I was there!

So when he pulled the G airspace radar trial he gave the low level airspace between Canberra and Brisbane back to Flight Service who didn't have radar and therefore couldn't beat up incidents.

It was AsA who refused to allow the controllers from the airspace above the G to give traffic down to the limit of radar coverage . They then quietly did this a few years later .

I won!

How about. I find this really mysterious. You have obviously been involved for many years
In Airspace and attempting to stop the changes I have wanted by copying the best in the world.

Yet you post anonymously on this site and have never phoned me to have a discussion .

Who are you? Why are you secret? What's going on? Are you Voices of Reason?

Why would you do this? Is it how you run your life ?

I thought it was about safety. Safety shouldn't have outcomes expressed as winning/losing.

A bit of paranoia creeping in.

Love it, love it, love it!! :D

Pointless, Dick, as you are only ever on Tx.

'We' wonder what makes you come to that conclusion, Dick.

Nah, Dick, I've been retired for four years, have a few wines every afternoon, read this forum and can't let people be sucked into believing that 'airspace reform' can be grounded on anything other than rigorous cost/benefit and risk analysis. That never happened with NAS and all the other previous bungles.

Once again, opinion and 'I want' just doesn't wash.

If you persist with what 'we' regard as re-writing history, 'we' will rebut.

Howabout. What would you then do with the present " half wound back" situation if you were in Mr Skidmores position? Or do you think the present airspace is satisfactory and needs no change?

Not at all, Dick.

Given my past, my intuition tells me that the pure US CTAF model is the way to go (and I've always felt that way); and that Class E down to 700 AGL makes sense. But that is just MY OPINION!

My opinion, like yours, doesn't count for squat. Change must be predicated on analyses and facts: cost/benefit and risk analysis are the only rational determinants; not opinion!

Ok. We should be working together as we do have something in common.

Personally I don't believe we could afford to have every airport with an IFR approach with class E to 700 agl.

I prefer the Canadian system ( which parts of our NAS decision was based on) where low density airports remain with class G.

No need for low level E at places like Bourke and Birdsville.

And my opinion , like yours does count. How do you think I made the original changes? Those at CASA have no stated view on Airspace design if it involves change. Or if they have they are not game to be open about that view. Really sad.

That's why we can have an effect.

Howabout,
Simple, really, truth is not an absolute defence to an accusation of libel.
Better than years ago, but still not absolute, according to one of the busiest defo. SCs at the Sydney bar.
Tootle pip!!

You do realise that if I give you a clearance on the ground then I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish separation? Same as if I clear you for an instrument approach I can't clear anyone else in or out until I can positively establish you've either landed or are clear of the area of conflict

Yes. Just like operating from Coffs.

That is if you are allowed to use proper proven procedural separation standards like they do in Canada and the USA.

And at a non tower airport it won't effect any competent pilot because they wait on the ground if someone else is shooting an approach in IMC. Once VMC exists the NAS operates like our class G airspace.

I have flown IFR in lots of terminal E in the USA. Most has zero radar coverage from the IAF. Delays are no measurably different than in Australia. Same in Canada

Open up your mind. Le Pin

Leady, that's real sorry crap. You've never posted anything libelous IMHO. We've had many combative disagreements, and you're views don't align with mine; but this has always been healthy debate.

How anyone could threaten you, from a 'legal' perspective, totally disgusts me. Just can't figure the motive for such a venal threat.

No! The only way E works like Class G is if one or both aircraft change to VFR, so waiving all "benefit". You just don't get the concept of self-segregation do you? Just because it's sky blue, doesn't mean that all we do is look out in the direction of the other aeroplane and we don't hit them. So now we have ex'IFR aeroplanes operating in a dirt-road category (VFR), clogging up the airwaves with their self-separation calls.

The other significant issue is managing CTAF traffic at the same time. I have been in the multi-aircraft scenario numerous times, where Class E would be a total embuggerance: being controlled by ATC on one radio and having to negotiate separation with a VFR on the other radio on the CTAF. That is an accident just waiting to happen.

I asked this on page one and it has been glossed over. Is this a reasonable summation of how it works in Canada? Because if everyone is going to downgrade to VFR we don't have a problem.

I love it! So the only reason it works is because they downgrade to VFR and use the same dirt road rules we use.

I can't separate the arriving aircraft from you if I don't know where you are, so they get to wait.

Unless they have changed their position from some years ago, the answer is probably no ........

And thus descend into the lowest category airspace established even in third world countries.

Must be a better way ... :(

Perfectly correct, Awol57. They can cancel IFR to avoid the 'one-in-one-out' scenario in remote places and facilitate departures as 'good neighbors.' But none of these guys have a 'death wish,' and it's not an 'expectation' in all scenarios. It's PIC judgement as to whether one cancels, has a handle on the traffic, and can make the decision in respect of safe pilot-to-pilot separation.

Something we should import with E down to 700 AGL in very selected locations. But that is just my opinion and cost/benefit and risk analysis must take primacy.

You all win.( other than Howabout) You have convinced me that the class E terminal airspace that's used in just about every other leading aviation country in the world can't possibly work here.

Just a hint of how it works overseas. When you cancel IFR in E in VMC it then works like our class G. When you are in IMC class E works exactly like class A.

But it could not possibly work here so make sure it's not even tried at even one airport- say Benalla where our present system allowed five or was it six fatalities?

Resist resist resist any change in every way you can - you and others have stopped it so far for 25 years. Wait for another serious accident with more fatalities for a Royal Commission to bring in the international proven safer system.

And our airlines already fly around in Class G now. That's just like E after the pilot has cancelled IFR. But our airlines couldn't possibly do that ! Are they that dopey?

hey Dick,

Have a look at the AOPA letter released today.....

9 recommendations.....

You'll 'lurve it'..!!

Cheers