The pollies aren't that dumb. Let's face it, within 30nm it's controlled airspace or it's not. This nonsense about the fine differences of C verses D is really just nitpicking codswallop.

If you want to invent an airspace type that allows you to swan, VFR, over the top of YSSY at 1500ft no-radio, then fine, call it E. But please stop this incessant C verses D argument.

As in the rampant use of 126.7 and discrete CTAF areas above the published levels for traffic broadcasts by VFR pilots?

I guess, in my ignorance, I may have made CTAF calls at the wrong level, not knowing there were published levels I had to meet. What are the published levels for traffic broadcasts by VFR pilots?

I meant enroute traffic calls. Whitsundays, Kimberley and Arnhem Land CTAFs have published upper limits on ERC (but don't appear appear on Jepp electronic charts).

Bloggsie,

I will translate that for you as follows: " ICAO airspace management principles based on separation assurance risk management principles and appropriate CNS/ATM resources is really just nitpicking codswallop".

Just the balanced and considered "professional" opinion we have come to expect.

Tootle pip!!

PS: You should have a look at the whole Los Angeles basin, not just the little bit a few miles around KLAX, you ought to be surprised. After all, it only about the size of the Sydney Basin/County of Cumberland.

LS, ICAO requires ATS providers to provide separation, not separation assurance. The US abides by provide separation as do a number of countries. Australia, along with others, uses separation assurance.

fujii,
I suggest you do a little more homework.

Of course ATC provides a separation service, but it is the standard of the service, the CNS/ATM resources devoted to the job, that is determined by the separation assurance standard.

One of the worst things that was ever done was to name airspace designation categories Class A through G airspace, because almost universally, and very self-servingly by domestic airline pilots in Australia, A through G are treated as "safety" levels, which they are not.

The ICAO risk management approach is that ALL airspace is equally "safe", ie: the risk doesn't materially change. The separation assurance standard is maintained at at least the generally quoted minimum level of 5 in 10 to the minus 9.

As traffic goes up, separation services have to go up, to maintain the standard.

Put another way, you have to increase ATC resources to handle greater traffic, that is what ATC really does, enable greater traffic levels in a given volume of airspace.

If you care to delve into the Eurocontrol web sites (lets get away from US for a bit) you will find their target separation assurance standards, and unlike Australia, they publish quarterly reports of the actual results achieved --- that is, they reduce loss of separation events to present an achieved result (probability) to compare with the target separation standard.

It goes without saying, but few domestic pilots in Australia accept it, but providing more than the required resources (ie C over D rather than E over D) is economic waste, as the separation assurance standard is already so high, the probability is so low, that the additional resources do not decrease the collision risk probability. C over D means you are increasing ATC resources as the risk decrease, ie: the traffic spreads out away from an airfield.

But they do give a certain cohort of pilots the warm and fuzzies.

While I disagree with the CASA methodology for doing airspace assessments, they are aiming at a risk management process that is intended to achieve the above result ---- are more or less ATC resources needed at a particular place, or put another way, does the airspace categorization go up or down or remain the same, based in current traffic levels, each time a review is triggered.

I would also suggest the above constitutes fact, its existence is not a matter of opinion.

Tootle pip!!

Yawn. Is Class A safer at YBAS or is Class G-?

What was the separation assurance at Launy and Brissie with those VFRs in E? Would they appear in the Eurocontrol reports as 'just missed so no problem"? No, hang on, there's no separation standard for VFR in Class E, is there Dick? Press on, wot ho, what was that that went past?

Please explain?? Oh yes, it's the radar, bloggs, you idiot. You can't have Class C without a radar service!

fujii,
As I said in my last post:
Our old mate Bloggsie is like a a cracked record. Apparently all those silly sods at Eurocontrol/UK NATS/ NavCanada/ FAA/etc don't have a clue.
Tootle pip!!

How does "E" require fewer resources than "C"? Particularly when the vast majority of traffic using it is IFR. You still need a controller sitting in the seat. The economic waste is precisely zero.

Le ping. Come on

Go and tell the FAA that they can run C at the same cost as E.

ATC does it here by saying “ clearance not available “ to VFR.

You don’t hear that overseas.

You are totally out of touch with modern efficient airspace allocation. C at the same cost as E - crazy!

LS could you please define what you consider a "domestic" pilot to be. I understand that your thought processes might be stuck in the last century where "domestic" pilots flew for TAA and Ansett and "international" pilots flew for Qantas but things have changed old chap toodle pip and up the Khyber. All QF pilots start out as 'international" pilots and even "international' pilots regularly fly on "domestic"sectors. So your obvious distate for "domestic" pilots is pathetic and puts a bias on all your posts that just makes them meaningless.

This article in Plane and Pilot Magazine confirms what’s written on the LAX chart (no ATC clearance required to transit the Special Flight Rules Area above LAX) and provides some insight into why e.g. Class C airspace requires more ATC resources than airspace in which VFR’s don’t need clearance: https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/art.../#.WtWbGIquahA

How is that it’s not raining aluminium in the LA basin?

LeP: You’ve steadfastly refused to answer the question whether you refuse to fly commercially in the USA, and urge your family and friends to likewise refuse. We can guess the answer.

Lookleft,
I would have thought it was pretty clear, as it has developed over the years, as to my meaning of "domestic", but as you aim is just to discredit what I have said, regardless, I will leave it up to others to take whatever they wish to from my views on this subject.
However, if it help you, in the current era, as it was all those years ago, it is pilots who are AFAP, who follow the "not invented here troglodyte" mindset and their fellow travelers.
Tootle pip!!

https://s26.postimg.cc/qc5uprfkp/LAX_VFR_Routes.jpg
Of course not... "ATC Clearance Required", ""ATC Clearance Required", "ATC Clearance Required", "ATC Clearance Required".

Because:
and
Class G anyone? :ok:

VFR require a clearance in C. https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/...on_of_Airspace

I’m seriously concerned about your written comprehension skills, Cap’n. Unless you are simply being disengenuous, you seem unable to read and comprehend what’s printed in the “Special Flight Rules Area” chartlet. And I suppose you would dismiss the extract from Plane and Pilot Magazine as ‘fake news’?

VFR require a clearance in C? Wow! I’ll write that down. Oh wait, that’s what I wrote already.

Australia doesn’t have Class G. It has - in typical Galapagos fashion - ForG.

Yair, fair enough, the mighty LAX Special Flight Rules Area, less than the size of a small CTAF. Keep it up.

I didn't say we did.

Yair, fair enough, but give me a break. Trying to decipher your rediculous goobledigook is pretty hard. You a lawyer by any chance?

Well, when it says "no ATC services required" but splattered all over the FAA chart is ""ATC Clearance Required" for the "Los Angeles has a VFR corridor similar to New York’s" one does have to wonder... FAKE NEWS!

Dick, if the only service being provided is to IFRs then the cost of "C" and "E" is identical. If the controller says "clearance not available" the cost is the same as they're only providing a service to IFR. If the controller provides a clearance to a VFR because they're able to the cost is the same as they're still the same controller servicing the airspace.

Now how about you and Leadsled justify your stance that "C" is more expensive than "E". Just saying "FAA" or "USA" doesn't amount to an argument in any way or form.

You're totally out of touch with reality.

Balloon, I've never been to the US. Some of the family has been once. There's a very big difference between the entire integrated US system and what we'd be having. You need to look deeper than just airspace. That doesn't even address the risks during the transition.

Le ping. How sad. When I was CAA Chairman we arranged for ATCs to go on visits to the USA and look at the airspace system. The only requirement was that they write a report covering what was done better there and what we did better.

I still have some of those reports.

Re the Class C. It is more expensive because it requires an approach radar system with primary and secondary radar to operate safely.

Otherwise the controller would quite often not know the exact location of the VFR traffic.

Let’s say a VFR aircraft flew across the approach airspace 20 miles north of Launy. How would the controller ever know?

How would a controller know the position of a VFR aircraft crossing at 6500’ from East to west 20 miles north of Albury?

“Keep left of that farm in front of you”. What a joke.

VFR aircraft can fly straight through to approach airspace of these non radar class C airports and the tower controller would most likely never know.

The airspace is upside down. It is a pathetic reflection on Australian airspace management.

The ministers directive still remains for terminal radar to be installed at all C airports so controllers can do their job

I don’t know why you support this lower standard. Would you be game to meet with me?