If Dick’s and other’s utopian airspace were to be introduced, how would currently licensed pilots be educated. For the 900 odd Air Traffic Controllers there would be hours of classroom and simulator lessons with written exams. ATC would be ready. What would be done to bring thousands of private pilots up to standard?
I suspect that many would just stop flying.

Yep. Could the enthusiast amateur posts be referring to me?

Just like when I started DSE and AG and made a fortune. I had no training in retailing or publishing but used a simple formula. Ask then act on the correct advice and surround yourself with capable people and motivate them to perform.

The half wound back airspace you are using now has come about because of the changes I instigated. It’s a fact!

Fuji. You would do it bit by bit.

Allocating E to low level at Ballina would be a start. Would be very similar for the pilot to operating out of Coffs when IMC exists.

Educating VFR pilots to operate without unique Australian frequency boundaries on charts would be simple. It worked for 3 months without incident.

Just monitor the ctaf if in approach and departure airspace otherwise relax and look out!

B from 10,000 down to the ground in most places where the jets operate.

Bugsmashers at KLAX are in B (or in one of those VFR corridors). Stop this nonsense about willy nilly do what you like I will just look out the window and avoid that A380 or I'll go for a fly and cruise over Lax aren't I a hero and geez this airspace is so free unlike those useless Ozzies.

https://s26.postimg.cc/xuedwx0rd/KLAX_B.jpg

I do what AIP ENR 1.1 38-39 says.

I do not hear VFRs in E unilaterally contacting Centre to establish 2 way communications just for the sake of it.

I do not hear Centre trying to contact all unverified returns in E to estalish 2 way communications just for the sake of it.

So I guess that Centre and lots of VFR pilots like me do not take the same view as you do about what “Continous 2 way” means so far as VFR aircraft in E airspace are concerned.

Bloggsie,
Have you had your eyes checked lately, or maybe you cannot read the chart.
(1) Have a look at, say, some STARS.
(2) Have a look at the B boundaries.
(3) Then understand that there is plenty of "jets" in other than the B.

Hint: There is only one area (a segment to the west of KLAX) which is shown as B, Ground to 10,000, but there is another sector covering the last few miles of the approaches from the east.
And what happens above 10,000'??
Tootle pip!!

PS: Bear in mid I know the area like the back of my hand, both from the vantage point of the view from Upper Left 1, and also various light aircraft.

Bloggs

If you look to the immediate southeast of LAX, you will see that the base of the B is 5,000’, not ground level. If you look to the immediate northwest of LAX, you will see that the base of the B is also 5,000’, not ground level.

You can see it much better on the actual chart, available from the FAA here: http://aeronav.faa.gov/content/aeron...s_TAC_76_P.pdf

I draw your attention specifically to the “Los Angeles Special Flight Rules Area” chartlet and description. You will see that the B airspace immediately above LAX is only a couple of miles wide.

You will also see that VFR aircraft can fly northwest at 4,500’, from outside B, directly overhead LAX in B without ATC authorization. You will also see that VFR aircraft can fly southeast at 3,500’, from outside B, directly overhead LAX in B without ATC authorization. (Transponder code, speed restrictions and other conditions apply.)

What do you consider all those blue numbers with (E) brackets mean on the chart you posted? What class of airspace do you consider there is above the Class B?

The overenthusiastic amateurs are the ones tripping themselves up as they don't know how to negotiate. "My way or the highway" is the style seen time and again.

I'd still be separating traffic. What pray tell would you replace the "C" with? Most of what I deal with it is there for RPT jets to remain in CTA. And don't forget Dick wants to introduce "E" down to low level for instrument approaches and that won't come without the ATC bodies to staff the consoles.

There's just the small matter of suitable airmanship to go with the it. The Tobago pilot near Launy failed miserably as did the C421 pilot near CANTY - both flying IFR routes when the clear instruction was to avoid them.

It was a recommendation. Not an instruction. In each case the chance of a mid air was far less than the chance of an airbus having a dual engine failure over a remote ocean.

No one is suggesting we should stop twin jets from operating!

It’s as if you don’t understand proper scientifically based risk management.

I can understand you would not be taught that as an ATC.

Thank you, you validate my point exactly. The ONLY way a bugsmasher can fly over the top of LAX is with an ATC clearance, not willy nilly flying in Yanksville is great because I can go where I want when I want.

The fact is that, as shown on your FAA chart, the approach corridors into LAX below 10,000 are Class B.

The reason that B is only a few miles wide is because jets can't land across a runway; the reason that not all CTRs are round eg YBAS or YPPH.

So that'd be less of a chance of "almost" 3 midairs (actually happened) under your famed Class E (in only three months, mind you) verses the "almost" chance of a double engine failure over a remote ocean (never happened)...

And it's still called airmanship to avoid them :ugh::ugh::ugh:

You don't understand empirical evidence! Three airproxes........

Not correct. Once again, you fail written comprehension.

Read the information on the chartlet and what I posted. The Los Angeles Special Flight Rule Area procedures allow flight through the B airspace above LAX without an ATC clearance.

And there we have it.

The designation of airspace in Australia is not on the basis of objective principle, but on the basis of “negotiation”. Private citizens “negotiating” with the Department of Defence for a reduction in the amount of airspace tied up as defence Romeos. (Heck, it would be great if they were reduced to just triple the size of what the US Defence Force considers necessary for an equivalent amount of military aircraft and operations.) Private citizens “negotiating” with bureaucracies who couldn’t care less about private citizens who, after all, exist merely to be regulated.

You ask what to replace C with. As I’ve linked the LAX chart, let’s compare the airspace around e.g. Long Beach Daugherty (LGB) with e.g Albury Australia.

Wikipedia says LGB had 1,451,404 “passenger boardings” in 2010.

Wikipedia says Albury had 285,353 “passenger numbers” in 2009-10.

Although this may not be an exact apples with apples comparison, you may safely assume that LGB is quite a bit busier than Albury.

Now compare the dimensions and classes of airspace around LGB and Albury. Try Coffs and many more...

The air must be different in the USA, or the aircraft built differently or the pilots trained differently, such that the yanks manage to move more aircraft around with ‘lower’ classes of airspace with smaller dimensions than Australia does, without it raining aluminium as frequently as you scaremongers predict.

Or above 10,000, which I have seen a number of people recommend when someone asks about transiting LAX VFR.

So what LB! As far as I can tell there are only 3 people banging on about how great the American airspace experience is. Other than "thats the way the yanks do it" as an argument what would be the purpose of upending the current airspace system in Australia? It works and from what I can tell most of the Ppruners out there are happy with the way it works. The counter argument is just based on ego and a desire for bragging rights.:ugh:

Yes, I know that is what everyone does. What I am wondering is what the rules actually say.

What is your interpretation of "two way communication" as required for classes A, C, D, E and IFR in G? Is it different to monitoring, or "VHF radio
required" as for for class G above 5000?

I think it's an error, but Australian aviation has a few too many examples of the rules saying one thing but everyone knowing to ignore them and do something different.

And when people start quoting them at you...

Have you read any USA based pilot forums, or even checked out some of the flying videos people are creating? If you have you will realize how far behind we are in Australia. The people happy with the status quo in Australia are mainly:

• RPT pilots
• military pilots
• ATC
• or just pining for the good old days when they were young

It would be nice if Australian aviation was larger than that.

Andrewr. I agree 100% with your second last paragraph of post 266.

Written rules in an attempt to get the half wind back system to work.

From time to time I hear atc calling un identified VFR traffic in E and G. What an amateur system.

Nowhere else in the world does this happen. ATCs are clearly worried about being held responsible for a collision. They most likely will be as VFR are obliged to monitor the ATC frequency and it’s on the chart with boundaries shown.

Incompetence at the extreme. Amazing Civil Air accepts this.