|
So how do you and others explain the existence of Class E airspace in e.g. the USA?
Is it just that yanks are not as smart as Australians? Is it just that yank don’t perceive risk properly - the Australians way? The comparative contributions to and track records on aerospace technology and safety would strongly suggest otherwise. |
Their system evolved with it and ours didn't. Their pilots learned to fly in it, ours did not. If you want their system you need to reproduce it, training and all. You can't simply ask pilots to read some literature and say they're good to go.
The safety of the end state says very little about the safety of the interim stages - that needs to be addressed properly and thoroughly, not rushed through to meet an agenda as happened 15 years ago. |
But how do “our pilots” manage to fly in Class E airspace when flying into, within, and out of the USA?
Do they and their aircraft magically ‘learn’ the risks and ‘recalibrate’ their risk perception and tolerance? What about their passengers? |
Is it just that yank don’t perceive risk properly - the Australians way? The comparative contributions to and track records on aerospace technology and safety would strongly suggest otherwise. |
And there is the problem, write large.
Yep Lookleft: Let us continue to try to build an Australia in which accidents never happen. Any world in which accidents continue occurs requires more regulation. :ugh: |
Yep. That three mile island was a disaster. We should stop being one of the largest sellers of uranium in the world.
Those French with 70% nuclear power are a worry! No. Not thread drift. Right on the point. Don’t use rational judgement to make decisions. Resist change in every way. Le Ping. You are also a sad example of the problems we have in this country. You have never understood the advantage of having an open mind and copying the best. How come the two recent teenage Aussie pilots could fly across the USA in E after reading the information? It’s indeed amazing they are alive. |
There is a class of pr1ck in this world that deliberately manufactures "incidents" by rigid application of rules far beyond what is reasonable.
Examples include pelletons of bicycle riders on main roads who deliberately obstruct traffic, goons who take advantage of the fact that there are no minimum speed limits to block traffic, and on the water, "power gives way to sail" yachting idiots who go out of their way to inconvenience powerboats. It sounds to me from the tone of these discussions that there is also a class of commercial airline captains who think they have pre eminent rights to the sky and are not above manufacturing incidents with bug smashers in support of that belief. Anyone who has flown into LAX in daylight who looks out the window can attest to the huge mix of aircraft from B747 to C172 on all sorts of convergent tracks going about their daily business without a care. Bloggs, you are full of it. |
And Dick, you've never understood the problem that we aren't actually copying an integrated system. We're copying chunks of it. i.e. it's an unknown.
Well hello, they're flying as part of a mature system where everyone else is part of it, as opposed to a frankensystem where that everyone is new to. The chances of something serious going wrong for those two particular individuals - small. The chances of something serious going wrong amongst all the pilots new to the frankensystem - much much higher. If our systems is soooooo dangerous why are you and the vast majority of pilots still alive having flown through it for decades? |
Sunfish, why are you believing the two on here who have pushed the hardest for their obsession? The ones who oh so clearly have an agenda - they're so desperately trying to introduce a system.
The 737/Tobago incident near Launy wasn't manufactured - they were simply on descent and received an RA. The 737/Lancair incident near Brisbane wasn't manufactured - the 737 didn't sight the Lancair so how could they possibly have deliberately manoeuvred to generate an RA. And for heaven's sake do you honestly think anyone would be that f'ing stupid with a load of passengers?!? The 737/C421 incident near CANTY, north of Melbourne wasn't manufactured either. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
(Post 10119118)
It sounds to me from the tone of these discussions that there is also a class of commercial airline captains who think they have pre eminent rights to the sky and are not above manufacturing incidents with bug smashers in support of that belief. It happens. As for manufacturing incidents, that's a big call. No matter which side of the fence it started. |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 10116568)
Absolut.
Why would you bother? Simple systems work everywhere else in the world. A complete overhaul of useless rubbish. I really can't understand at least 25-50% of the transmissions I hear enroute in WA anyway - at least if there's a system that filters out superfluous radio transmissions + visual cues on-screen for those that are relevant to me + playback capabilities + high fidelity recordings, I have have a chance of understanding them. Here's a challenge - try listening to a liveatc for any given location and let me know your comprehension rate for a given 5-10 minute period. Try the same en-route. You're listening to so much irrelevant unintelligible transmission that it's back to see-and-avoid because you don't really know if any of the unintelligible stuff is relevant to you. |
You're hardly a balanced and impartial observer here either. You are certainly correct about impartial, I have been a long and consistent advocate of the US iteration of ICAO CNS/ATM, as opposed to the homegrown nonsense that is too much of a feature of local operations, with a particular objection to "do it yourself" amateur ATC in Class G that should be E. Nowhere else in the world would you have a pilot union, over many years, consistently claiming G is "safer" than E, and in the same breath demanding that "perceptions of risk" must have a regulatory response, even if there is precisely zero (vanishingly small) demonstrated risk. Tootle pip!! |
And the fact you're willing to entertain the idea that a 737 crew deliberately manoeuvred to trigger an RA without talking to the 737 crew shows you clearly lack balance.
Why the need to replace so much "C" with "E", other than for the sake of following the US model? Where's your justification? That's your problem. Convincing we "non-believers" that there is actually any real justification other than "I's wants it". P.S. What about all the amateur ATC in "E"? Or do pilots in the US just rely on big sky swoosh swoosh? |
Le Ping. You are also a sad example of the problems we have in this country. You have never understood the advantage of having an open mind and copying the best.
Dick, a couple of months back on another thread you apologised for personal attacks. The above and similar posts show you haven’t changed. |
Australia’s ForG is patently clearly safer than E.
All VFR aircraft in E must have a serviceable transponder and VHF monitoring (and - for the Cap’n - capable of two way comms on) the Centre frequency. Not all VFR aircraft in ForG have to have a serviceable transponder and VHF. LeP: You’re not impartial either. You make your living out of scaring people with your “swoosh swoosh”ing. I do hope the strength of your convictions is such that you’d never travel as a passenger on a commercial aircraft in the USA, and that you’re constantly urging your family and friends never to do so either. Australia can get on with regulating to a risk-free aviation Nirvana. |
Ramrod:
Would you be willing to admit the opposite, where private pilots willingly get in the way of commercial operators? It happens. As for manufacturing incidents, that's a big call. No matter which side of the fence it started. In areas with radar coverage what would be unsafe about running E airspace over C such as over YSY and YMML? Apart from the emotional unpleasantness of the skygods having to share some airspace with "only" PPLs? In my own occasional interactions with regional airliners, I always defer, extending my circuit to let them get on the ground quicker for example because its their livelihood vs my pastime. I suppose I could instead become a PITA if I was pushed. |
Originally Posted by Leddie Sleddy
consistently claiming G is "safer" than E
Originally Posted by Led Balon
and - for the Cap’n - capable of two way comms on) the Centre frequency.
|
How about you, Bloggsie?
Surely a person with such strong convictions about E would never travel in a commercial aircraft in the USA, and would be urging his family and friends not to do so either. |
Originally Posted by Sunfish
Anyone who has flown into LAX in daylight who looks out the window can attest to the huge mix of aircraft from B747 to C172 on all sorts of convergent tracks going about their daily business without a care.
|
Class E Airspace and United States Practice
A post by Voices of Reason, here: https://www.pprune.org/australia-new...pace-safe.html
We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe. EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception. There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day. There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe. There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other. We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights. Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation. NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas. Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business. Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years. NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas. We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.