|
Heathrow changed to Class D to save the industry money,Williamtown what's happening?
Not many know but Heathrow Airport – one of the airports with the highest traffic levels in the world has now changed its low level terminal airspace to Class D.
I spoke to one of the air traffic controllers and he told me, “Dick, it’s all about empowering air traffic controllers so we can get VFR traffic – mostly helicopters through the area without unnecessary delays.” I explained how in Australia, the military controllers at Williamtown were totally opposed to a CASA proposal that Williamtown be Class D because the controllers thought they were being down-graded. He said, “That’s pathetically childish. With Class D a controller can still hold a VFR aircraft outside the zone if required for safety reasons however the most controllers realise this is going to cost money so they don’t hold VFR aircraft unless necessary for safety” Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown. Wouldn’t you think they would be happy to follow Heathrow and put in some modern airspace so the good controllers could simply give traffic information when it was safe to do so and allow VFR aircraft to fly along the beach at 500’? |
Dick. 30 seconds googling revealed that Heathrow was changed to Class D because Class A had been redefined such that it excluded VFR and special VFR.
|
Looking at the map, if the Heathrow concept were adopted at Williamtown, the Inner Area which protects the RWY centrelines would extend well over the water and not help coastal aircraft.
The following NATS restrictions also apply: 4. Access to the airspace immediately around Heathrow Airport – referred to as the ‘Inner Area’ – will be restricted via PPR (Prior Permission Required) by telephone. Unless you really need to fly inside the ‘Inner Area’, you should plan to route around it. 5. The London CTR will be a Transponder Mandatory Zone (TMZ) with Mode S required. It appears that if Williamtown did implement similar procedures, an inner area would be more restrictive than the current Class C zone and both the coastal and overhead routes would be unavailable. With the nature of Williamtown operations, telephone approval probably wouldn't work either. Then there is the cost of a Mode S transponder. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 9443142)
Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown. |
. I am trying to prevent unnecessary fatalities.
Please don't judge me on what you would do under similar circumstances . There is a real risk . When small single engined aircraft are held orbiting over the ocean at Anna Bay it's clear that an engine failure would likely result in a ditching. |
So why not just say that? Why introduce the emotive language? it just gets in the way of the point you are trying to make.
|
Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes holding out over the ocean, quite often with young families on board, knowing if there is an engine failure it’s most likely everyone will drown. According to you Dick and a lot of others GA is dead ,apparently that's why you are selling your Citation. If that is the case, and I have no evidence to prove otherwise, then the chances of an aircraft holding for 30 minutes with a young family are next to nothing. I think most families with young children are simply too busy working and trying to pay off a mortgage to have the disposable income to afford to fly a light aircraft. From where I sit most young families with children fly up and down the coast squashed up in the fuselage of Tiger or Jetstar. As Aerocat, stated take your emotive language out of your posts and also do your research as others have done. |
What we need is a system based on sound reason and logic not based on emotional reaction and fear. In this sense Dick is as bad as his opponents, however...
In the USA they don't teach you how to fly through Williamtown or transit Avalon or land at Bankstown. They teach you how to deal with each of the different classes airspace. This then means that every bit of class C(or D) airspace is exactly like the other in what you have to do, who you have to talk to and how and if you will get access. Even the Class B zones the have are very similar and it doesn't take long to work out the minor differences. This consistency is what we should aspire to. Also in the USA they have clear logic to their airspace. For instance you never find a class D tower with radar in the tower. If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition. This simple logic helps in making decisions about upgrading and downgrading airspace classes as traffic volumes change. If an airport becomes busy enough to warrant radar then it becomes class C. If the radar becomes unserviceable and there isn't the traffic to justify upgrade/replacement then the airspace becomes class D. We should aspire to this too. Generally, the FAA has allocated its resources to areas where there is the greatest risk. The greatest risk of collision is in close to the airport and at lower levels and hence this is where they control VFR traffic and further away or directly overhead they do not. Directly overhead a regional airport, 6000 feet above is a location that has a very low collision risk and so they do not bother to control this area. For some reason in Australia we do. Why do we have class C at say Tamworth that goes all the way to the base of the class A? Unless you ave unlimited resources you need to focus your efforts on where they will do the greatest good. This is a principle we should also aspire to. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 9443142)
I explained how in Australia, the military controllers at Williamtown were totally opposed to a CASA proposal that Williamtown be Class D because the controllers thought they were being down-graded. He said, “That’s pathetically childish. With Class D a controller can still hold a VFR aircraft outside the zone if required for safety reasons however the most controllers realise this is going to cost money so they don’t hold VFR aircraft unless necessary for safety”
Now I wonder, if they can do it at Heathrow wouldn’t you think they could do it at Williamtown? Instead of having to hold aircraft for up to 30 minutes [insert dramatic think of the children dribble] |
Originally Posted by No one
If the tower has access to radar then the airspace will be class C, this is per the definition.
|
Interestingly, I can fly over Orlando, Tampa, Miami etc at >10'000 VFR without talking to anyone. No issues, no worries.
Now that I live & fly in the US, in retrospect the Oz system is ludicrous. |
Captain Bloggs, no need to shout.
I obviously wasn't making myself clear that I was talking about the system in the USA and its definitions and not the system in use in Australia. I have included the definitions from the FAA AIM below but have added the underlining. FAA AIM: 3−2−4. Class C Airspace a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a 5 NM radius core surface area that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation 3−2−5. Class D Airspace a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 2,500 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower. The configuration of each Class D airspace area is individually tailored and when instrument procedures are published, the airspace will normally be designed to contain the procedures. |
I'll shout when I get tired of reading the diatribes of the Yank sympathisers, No one.
AS I said... It's just the way the yanks do it |
You can fly over the top of Chicago at 10,000 ft without a 'clearance' and not speak to anyone let alone listen to a control frequency. Yet again Australians' thinking they are the best at everything and trying to preach it to the world. It's not only ludicrous it's embarrassing. The nanny state has brainwashed every Australian into thinking a rule is required to scratch your arse, after paying the appropriate fee to do so.
|
Fuji
Not true, I regularly fly across the London Zone in a single Cessna. For example Ascot- BUR. No PPR required just a call on Thames Radar. If traffic permits get the clearance no problem. |
The general approach in business to product development, product improvement, innovation and quality control is firstly to copy what works for other people.
It is only when you are: (a) Already copying worlds best practice. (b) Producing a world class internationally competitive product. © Have run out of competitors processes to copy. That you actually strike out into the unknown and through research and development come up with new and better ways of doing things. Those observations explain why China and so called "Tiger Economies" can post 5+ percent GDP growth for decades….until the day they have exhausted ideas to copy and find themselves doing worlds best practice…then they have to chip away at the R & D coalface with the rest of us developed economies and be satisfied with 3.5% GDP growth if they are lucky. The idea that CASA meets any of conditions (a), (b) or © is laughably ludicrous. We have **** people using and building **** processes based on **** ideas to produce **** regulations that have no possible basis in international norms that produce **** outcomes. To put that another way, we should be doing stuff exactly like no_one suggests! I forget who said it: "The Galapagos islands of aviation regulation." The obvious thing to do is to sit down with the NZ regulations and adopt them with as little change as is humanly possible. This is equivalent to the number one rule of software systems implementation ; "use an international standard package and change your systems to match the software, not the other way around". |
Yaawwwwnnnnnnn.........
Oh look, another Dick Smith military bashing thread/post. |
Cessnapete, the procedures start on 18th September. Phone PPR required for the inner zone
|
Fujji. Gatwick - slightly more movements than Williamtown and its D without any special phone calls.
As I said. It's about empowering ATCs to make professional decisions to save holding delays and cost. |
Dick,
Maybe so but this thread you initiated cited Heathrow procedures which, if introduced at Williamtown, would make transit more difficult with an inner area to deal with. I have been held when transitting Williamtown waiting for an RPT jet to depart so if the airspace can be made more accessible well and good but Heathrow is not a good example to use. P.s. Yesterday I happened to come across the old documentary of you and James Randi taking on the dividers. That was good work. |
Captain bloggs,
Don't get bogged down in the minutiae. The three points that I think an airspace system should be designed around are: 1. Be consistent. 2. Be logical. 3. Focus your resources where they will do the most good. I used examples from the US airspace system to illustrate how these principles have been applied. In Australia we have an airspace system( and broader regulation set) that is inconsistent, illogical and fails to focus on key risks. It is inefficient and if it doesn't cost you directly (as it costs dick) it will cost you in lost future employment opportunities or freedom to fly for pleasure. |
So using your example of a young family...
They are totally safe except if they get holding waiting to fly thru the centreline at willy town as that is the only time the engine might fail? Really, that's what you are using? |
I explained how in Australia, the military controllers at Williamtown were totally opposed to a CASA proposal that Williamtown be Class D because the controllers thought they were being down-graded. How do you know the military controllers at Willy are opposed to Class D? Do you have reliable information that it's because they don't want to be 'down-graded', or are you relying on third-party gossip? |
As one who has to use the LHR zone very regularly (and land in it), I'd say be careful of what you wish for.
To land at a private helicopter site now, in the "inner area", not only does one have to obtain the landowner's permission, but also one has to pay the CAA for a written permission (takes up to 28 days to obtain - so forget any short notice requests). Then, on the day the ATC supervisor has to be contacted to discuss entry permission and to obtain a slot time. Ten minutes leeway is you are allowed. Then of course, once in flight the usual radio calls must be made but you can expect no priority over IFR traffic. A separate departure clearance has to be negotiated by phone before starting up. Not easy on the individual when the passengers turn up early and unannounced and want to go immediately. Overall, a very much retrograde step from a pilot's point of view. Aviation in UK gets more difficult every day. The rules are never for the pilots' convenience and they seem to change far too often to keep up. |
Dick, if you want to compare with the UK then how about comparing with MATZ airspace rather than Heathrow.
I've never understood why the military need such massive areas of restricted airspace here, perhaps someone can explain. I seem to remember Gatwick being Class D when I was flying there over 20 years ago. |
I've never understood why the military need such massive areas of restricted airspace here, perhaps someone can explain. |
And there it is, right on cue.
I'm trying to think of the aviation safety debate version of Godwin's Law. Instead of a Hitler or Nazi analogy inevitably arising, it's the overblown risk that relies on cognitive bias. I'll call it LB's law: Sooner or later some infinitesimally small risk will be overblown and used as a justification in Australia for something that has been demonstrated as unjustified in other places where the same risk is greater. ShyTorque: If all the fast jets in the Australian military took off at the same time and flew for their endurance trying deliberately to collide with a light aircraft in the air, the chances one of them achieving that outcome are lower than one of them being hit by a meteor. That's why nations with fast jet fleets a hundred times bigger than Australia's have military airspace volumes one thousandth the size (and less) than Australia's. |
Fujii
Was it on YouTube. ? Thread drift! |
Yes, YouTube. I was going through some James Randi posts and that was amongst them. All the scary stuff, clothes, hair.
|
For lead balloon
July 26 USAF F16 collides with a C150, two dead Took 1 Google search Didn't take a meteor Take 30 seconds and you can find a list of meteors...I mean civil vs military mid airs. Notice I didn't mention Nazis...doh |
Yep. In countries that have real air forces and real traffic densities, there are higher probabilities of mid airs. And those countries have decided that the costs of trying to reduce the probabilities of mid airs between military aircraft and civilian aircraft to zero are unjustified and just plain silly.
Australia, on the other hand, continues to regulate to put more and more cotton wool around everything and everybody, in the belief that the world can eventually be made risk free. And the threat of mid-airs is such a rich vein of fear to mine for those engaged in the busy and lucrative work of making more laws and putting more cotton wool around everything and every body. Let's hope the C150 pilot had CVD, so that there's more 'evidence' to justify cleansing the skies of the danger posed by CVD. |
In countries that have real air forces Better tell the guys and girls doing 9 hour + missions over the Middle East to come on home, apparently they aren't part of a real Air Force now. |
For those who may be interested, here are some findings from the JOINT CASA AND RAAF AERONAUTICAL STUDY OF WILLIAMTOWN AIRSPACE October 2015:
"The unique circumstances of Williamtown prohibit the safe use of Class D services due to: military flying operations, geographical position of the aerodrome close to coastal VFR traffic, and lack of separation services. The annual number of passengers already meets the thresholds for at least considering Class C airspace and services. Under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration." "The study considered all operations in the vicinity of Williamtown and the current and projected passenger numbers and concluded that Class C airspace would provide the safest and most efficient service for Williamtown." "A coastal VFR route will be required with any airspace design due to the proximity of the aerodrome and its CTR and the need to protect aircraft in controlled airspace and RAs. The study team concluded that a VFR procedure such as Sydney Victor One is not compatible with an ICAO based CTR design for Williamtown." |
A few other snippets from the joint review:
"The main difference between Class C and Class D airspace is ATC are not required to separate IFR and VFR aircraft. This could provide a certain level of flexibility for both the military and civil operators. Class D is utilised at aerodromes where the majority of aircraft are of a similar type and speed range. This is the case at aerodromes with a high proportion of GA VFR aircraft such as Bankstown and Camden. The purpose of Class D procedures is to address the risk without major impact on the efficiency of aviation activities which is beneficial at high-density traffic locations. Critical to Class D operations is the principle of see and avoid which has several limitations14. Class D procedures provide assisted traffic de-confliction to enhance see and avoid between IFR and VFR aircraft. The main users of Williamtown airspace are high speed low visibility military aircraft operating in large numbers, quite often in formation, with limited ability to be sighted and avoided in a timely manner by civil aircraft." "Class D airspace has reduced VFR horizontal distance and altitude below cloud requirements compared to Class C airspace. This factor combined with low visibility paint schemes and higher speeds of military aircraft further limit the ability for civil aircraft to see and avoid traffic. The geographical position and runway orientation often puts terminal traffic in conflict with the popular coastal route. This circumstance is exacerbated by the critical stage of flight for arriving and departing aircraft which will put VFR aircraft in conflict with PT and military aircraft. Many of the PT aircraft at Williamtown are of a medium wake turbulence category which may create an unrecoverable hazard for light aircraft in a near miss situation. Therefore, the geographical proximity of the aerodrome relative to the coast creates risks that require some form of additional control measures. However, considering that the annual number of passengers already exceeds the AAPS threshold for consideration of Class C airspace and under the Civil Aviation Act 1988, CASA must regard the safety of air navigation as the most important consideration, it would be difficult to justify Class D airspace given the number of PT passengers and potential issues of see and avoid." "When military aircraft are operating Williamtown can be one of the busiest and most complex volumes of airspace in Australia due to the diverse types of aircraft and differing operations that must be managed by ABATS. The Class C service provides clear instruction to ABATS on the processing of PT and other civil operations. Additionally, Class C airspace allows the RAAF to tailor separation standards for its use while still affording an acceptable level of safety to PT aircraft. The only sector of the aviation community that was dissatisfied with the current Class C service was a small number of GA pilots. The main source of dissatisfaction was perceived unreasonable delays due to the need for ABATS to separate them in accordance with Class C procedures. During observations covering a period of several weeks at Williamtown the team observed only minor delays to GA aircraft all of which were justifiable as a result of arriving or departing PT aircraft not military traffic. Of note, stepped airspace would also resolve some of the need to apply restrictive separation standards as some transit aircraft could remain in Class G airspace." |
BuzzBox, Thanks for posting the link to that report. Hopefully some of the recommendations get implemented.
The Western LFA is a large area, which is as big as the Williamtown terminal area, larger than Sydney’s airspace and comparable in size to RAAF Pearce. Figure 09-01 shows the Western LFA. The Western LFA is mainly used by Hawk and PC9 aircraft and is activated by NOTAM, typically in one week blocks. The study team observed the activation of this airspace for only one aircraft operating in the NE corner of the area and the resultant level restrictions and additional tracking by a civil aircraft to avoid the LFA. The civil aircraft was 25 nm from the military aircraft actual area of operation. Further, PT aircraft on the W223 route from NICLA to Taree can be held up in descent because the Western LFA is active to 9,000 ft AMSL. ABATS and ATC reported that this was not an unusual occurrence and that they had no visibility or control of the LFA operations. A segmented redesign of the LFAs combined with slight route changes could improve the descent options for PT aircraft. Another aspect that requires investigation is the actual need for RA airspace for Defence Low Flying operations. In accordance with the Act, the decision to use RA airspace for low flying needs to be based on safety. Therefore, a risk based assessment and justification is required for the RA airspace. Such an assessment may indicate a lower level type of mitigation of the risk, such as a DA may be suitable. |
Another interesting section
9.3.12 Ship Transfer Area of Operation The Ship Transfer Area of Operation, known as Marine 1 airspace, is a local procedure for the processing of helicopters used for ship to shore transfers. The area was introduced because radar coverage in the area wasn’t sufficient to provide a surveillance based separation service. A radar map of the area of operation is now displayed on the controller’s screen which enables the controller to provide radar separation between Williamtown traffic and the Marine 1 airspace. The issue with using a system radar map is that the required separation from the boundary creates a funnelling effect on Williamtown traffic. This is made worse when R596 Salt Ash becomes active. When Marine 1 and R596 are active only one track (runway heading) is available to the controller. It was found that the helicopters operating in the Marine 1 airspace are typically below 500 ft AMSL and approximately 6.5 nm from the airfield. It seems excessive when considering that if the Marine 1 area was a known obstacle below 500 ft AMSL it would be accounted for (avoided) in the ATC traffic management of flight operations but ignored in regards to having to separate from it as if it was an aircraft. This is another example of a problem being created by the lack of stepped airspace and the application of Class C procedures. While this report cannot recommend a change to separation standards it is likely that with CTA steps and CTR redesign the Marine 1 area could be removed from future controlled airspace thereby avoiding the need to apply separation standards. Finding 27 Marine 1 airspace protects aircraft from a perceived risk, rather than an actual risk. The airspace creates new risks that must be managed by ABATS. Current MATS and MOS Part 172 separation standards do not provide a suitable solution. Recommendation 27 Marine 1 airspace should be reviewed in the context of a stepped airspace design. |
I love it. It's all about keeping the status quo re the classification so no change has to be made.
That's because it's clear on the ATC side of the RAAF there is a shocking lack of personnel with leadership abilities who can make change, Note the double mention of the discredited safety "as the most important consideration" That's rubbish as safety is always limited be the resources available if aviation is to be affordable . As I have stated elsewhere Australia is the only country that has such a statement in the act. It's used to stop cost reductions and allow a one way ratchet if more expensive regulations . Class D simply gives ATCs more flexibility to safely move aircraft . They can provide the same separation as C if they so choose . Most of the delays in the lane are caused by civil aircraft arriving from the west. Compare Williamtown movements with Gatwick which has always been D. |
When the first ditching fatalities occur I and others will make sure those who have prevented this commonsense change over many decades are held responsible.
The reason the team did not see a lot of VFR holding is that many pilots like myself don't go that way anymore . |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 9445034)
When the first ditching fatalities occur I and others will make sure those who have prevented this commonsense change over many decades are held responsible.
Only for single engine? Twins too? Only VFR or all? |
Flydive 1 says:-
Are you advocating that flying over water should be prohibited? Only for single engine? Twins too? Only VFR or all? Dick is saying the military should stop being selfish dogs in the manger. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 14:44. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.