Avalon Tower controllers do Essendon as well, so unlikely the one controller would be current on the procedural and radar towers as you’re suggesting. They would have to have either sole Avalon staff or rotate through with Moorabbin tower

Just maybe we have got the wrong idea? Back in 2014 London/Heathrow changed from Class A to Class D. Seems to give them much added flexibility. Class E has been used for many years in the USA and pilots and controllers are used to it, whereas Class E in Oz is a much more recent addition to the airspace menu. I am still not convinced that the pilots it is designed for (VFR) know how it should work or how to participate in it. It certainly has a role, but the very small amounts and the failure of related pilot education makes it that much harder, which of course it isn't. In the US, I suspect that VFR pilots fly more in E than they do in G. Some talk to the controller, whilst others turn the music on! A very different culture!

CAA approves reclassification of airspace around London Heathrow - Airport World Magazine

There is no training for Ppl on operations in class E. I had to ask questions and work it out myself around Avalon. Even the instructor I used didn’t know. We got caught in the trap at Leopold where the lower level drops to 1500. You think you are clear, but aren’t.

Lets face it, would I be wrong in thinking that CASA, AsA, the airlines RAAF and local councils hate small GA and private aircraft and pilots. We should return the favour via the ballot box as well as acting legally accordingly. Where is AOPA?

To put that another way, I automatically defer to Polair and Air ambulance. RPT? Not sure I would these days unless legally required although I used to. I can’t stand the automatic superiority of the Capt. Bloggs of this world.

C’mon, Mr A: The move of OAR into CASA has resulted in airspace designation being on the basis of frank and fearless independent analysis!

What fascinates (and depresses) me most is that the airspace designation system is now so busted that the people involved no longer comprehend what they are revealing in the documents they produce. It’s like the colour-coded sports grants spreadsheet that was emailed and amended so many times spanning the point at which the election was called and the caretaker period commenced. The people involved are now so disconnected from any standards of propriety that they no longer see or worry about the inappropriateness of what they are recording in writing.

So the end result will be that the airspace arrangements in the vicinity of Avalon will be changed to suit the wishes of some Airservices and CASA bureaucrats (having been originally changed to suit a political purpose that may or may not have been justified on objective risk and cost bases), in response to a “Change Proposal” from Airservices. Great. Just great.

"We got caught in the trap at Leopold where the lower level drops to 1500."
Please excuse the thread drift.
Does anyone else think that there should be a brown line on the VTC to indicate that there is a change in the E base from 2500 to 1500 at the 8nm arc both to the north and south of Avalon?

Class E is not for the benefit of VFR aircraft.

Class E provides additional services to IFR aircraft over what they would have received in G i.e. separation.

I'm not surprised if the Avalon airspace is being reviewed. It appears to have been designed to fail. It has been located to provide no benefit (or even lesser service) to IFR aircraft rather than benefits. Given the ongoing opposition to Class E as used e.g. in the USA, I suspect it was set up so they could say "Yes we tried it", without any chance of success.

(I was out flying today. With multiple IFR aircraft operating in G, ATC go on ... and on ... and on giving traffic information to everyone. It takes them so long - are you SURE it wouldn't be more efficient to give clearances?)

Triadic the UK CAA were as confusing with their use of the ICAO airspace classifications as Australia. The London airspace changed when the European Authority decreed that airspace, once designated as a class could not then be "modified" to suit local conventions.The then London Class A (ICAO - IFR only) was full of VFR helicopter operations flying VFR under local exemptions, this was banned by the European authorities so it had to become Class D. By the way this also occurs in the Sydney Class C where, under an exemption, police helicopters are not subject to Class C separation. This effectively makes it Class D for those operations and note that London did not become Class C. According to the CASA web site CASA intends to enshrine that exemption in changes to CASR Part 172 (Air Traffic Services) instead of following the European lead and changing the airspace classification to suit the traffic requirements. In other words Sydney Class C should be Class D the same as London, and for exactly the same reason. In fact all of our Class C Control Zones have the same helicopter problem however do not hold your breath. Once again the ICAO idea that pilots should be able to look up a chart, see and airspace class, and know exactly what service they can expect, is totally lost on the people fiddling around with regulations

Class E is a whole world of hurt for me having endured 30 years of ignorant push-back from ATS and pilots alike. I saw it work in the US and you can still see it working in many You Tube videos. Pilots would get the idea if it was everywhere, but having small blocks of it here there and everywhere makes it a foreign environment instead of the normal. To do that unfortunately would cause Airservices to have to create more sectors and therefore start losing money. Currently unlike the US, Canada, and many other countries, their service is required to make money (cost recovery) and pay a dividend to the Federal Government.

Our Government seems to have truck loads of money to spend on buildings full of public servants ensuring that old people are not claiming the old age pension when they have assets, (NZ has no such process everyone gets the OAP because it is cheaper to do it that way!) but nothing to spend on employing more ATCs (also de facto public servants) to ensure that all citizens flying in cloud are adequately separated from each other. The Federal Parliament should be embarrassed if not ashamed at such neglect.

Sounds fair, Uncle. :ok:

No it's not. It ONLY exists to benefit VFR (John and Martha said so, all those years ago on their Airspace 2000 sellathon). Otherwise, if any "controlling" was required (for the only other participants, IFR), it would be "Controlled Airspace", period. It was invented by the yanks to allow VFR, off-radio and no DTI, to fly wherever they wanted.

As for the "if it's not IMC, IFR don't need ATC", this is also nonsense. "OK, no clearance available? Let's go IFR-Pickup". Do some research on how many heavy-jet companies actually allow their operations to switch to VFR because a ATC clearance wasn't available. Not to mention the IFR cowboys (yes Huustan, cowboys) doing an IFR pickup with no prior coordination with the other IFR aircraft that is so close to them ATC can't/won't give them a clearance. Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right??

It failed because you can't mix uncontrolled VFR with IFR, especially jets, at a busy airport like AVV. E at Avalon is no longer "fit for purpose" (may have been when they who shall not be named got it installed there, but not now).

Says it all, really.

This is significant thread drift, but with good reason I suggest.
Mr A, I agree with your post. The Heli use in some areas needs to be catered for and obviously in the LHR case, Class D best suited their need as might be the case at some zones in Oz. I do not believe that the education of airspace classifications and their use is a high priority for CASA and this shows with how many pilots tackle ops in Class E. The entrenched culture in Oz still highlights controlled and uncontrolled airspace as it was in the days of FS. What the letters mean to many pilots, especially GA is a mystery. As I said in the previous post, class E in the US is almost everywhere above 1200ft agl and the pilots there have grown up with that system. In theory it should work in a similar way here, however we need to review what locations and associated radar/adsb coverage so that ATC can do their job in that airspace and it can be targeted to those locations that justify such services. An early post stated the provision of pilot education in airspace is something that is left to the flying schools and training departments. It is not covered in an CASA exams! Not really good enough.

Make up your mind, I thought it was Porter?

You don't know how it works, I'd hazard a guess that you haven't done an hour's flight in the US?

I've had the good fortune to fly IFR in both systems, I've had the good fortune to instruct in both systems. And I've also had the good fortune to get away from it all, VFR in both systems.

Just admit it, you hate Americans. Your hate is obvious. Your cowboy comment is ignorant and arrogant and is typical of the Austronaut. Fly's a jet overseas once a month, lands in the off peak periods and thinks they've been there and done that. Your ignorance is based on no working knowledge of what's involved in the different classes of airspace.

And please donot refer to me as Hoosten in future, I kinda like this Porter guy.

I don't hate you in return. I just think you should retire and get out of the way of pilots who can adapt to change.

Finally, finally.........the debate is moving to airspace classification. Reasoned, apart from the senile one of course.

Avalon is busy? Compared to what? Bullshyte.

Generally you and I are on a sort of similar page, but I’m going to disagree with you on this one. There are a lot of reasons why ATC can’t give a clearance, primary of which is that if you aren’t on surveillance then you will have to be procedurally separated. The procedural separation standards are quite massive, been as high as 10 minutes. In this case if it was VMC an IFR pickup would absolutely be a smart manoeuvre, and then as soon as you’re on ADSB then ATC will separate you anyway.

Calling IFR pickup a cowboy manoeuvre is a pretty broad statement. As far as Class E goes in Australia, I see 2 issues. Pilots don’t actually understand how to use it, what level of service is provided and exactly what is and isn’t controlled in it. Controllers don’t fully understand the purpose of it, and don’t like not being fully in control of “their” airspace.

Like I said, he's never seen it work, hates Americans and is an ignorant Austronaut.

(I am Porter)

Or in the case of MNG, spilt the sectors and staff the damn things.

I would say it's a case of soft corruption. I don't know people in this country don't see 'user pays' for what it is. You already pay a truckload of tax then get stung with 'user pays' on top.

Clearly you haven't had a listen to 135.7 of recent times (AV APP 133.55 is often combined with 135.7).

Quite a lot of IFR training ex MB & EN combined with AWK against and inside the CTR boundaries, VFR transits and the traffic into and out of AVV itself.

If Mangalore had class E down to 1200' it would benefit IFR because they would get ATC separation and this accident would likely have been prevented. But I don't see the benefits you are claiming for VFR aircraft?

"IFR need ATC" is basically the argument in favor of Class E.

Captain Bloggs - You ask "Did the inventors of IFR Pickups actually think sane pilots would just go VFR, look out the front and hope that she'll be right??"

Yes - that is exactly what they do, see this You Tube video <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uJcEeKzeb5A> The Premier jet departs uncontrolled airport MIles City VFR and at 9000 feet requests an IFR clearance to Vancouver from Salt Lake (ATC) Centre. In the US it is not called an IFR pick up, as I recall Dick Smith invented that term so that Australians might understand the process. To an American pilot it is an activation of his/her filed IFR flight plan and can take place through a Tower in Class C or D airspace, as is done in Australia, or through direct contact with a Centre while on the ground if the weather is IFR at an uncontrolled airport.

In this video the Premier departs for a VFR flight from Gary Indiana for Indy Exec Airport <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITrQwsUdNbY> Gary is Class D with a VFR Tower Indy Exec is an uncontrolled airport but the Class E airspace base would be 700 feet because it has an instrument approach. The FBO is listening on the CTAF but not providing a UNICOM service.
I hope this helps

Class E now defacto Class D?
 

I was curious about Sunfish's comment about the Class E level being a trap for VFR pilots, since VFR aircraft do not require a clearance in class E. Where is the trap?

I checked the requirements in API for VFR flight in Class E, and found this curiosity:
Class E : VFR : Radio COM RQMNTS : Continuous two way

Continuous 2 way is a definite step above monitoring the frequency.

For Class D airspace clearance is required but "For entry into Class D airspace, establishment of two way communications between the aircraft and ATC constitutes a clearance for the pilot to enter the Class D airspace"

There is also a definition of 2 way communication:
ATC Response
(aircraft callsign): Communications Established: Yes
Response to the initial radio call without using the aircraft callsign: Communications Established: No

It appears to enter Class E you need to call ATC, and have them respond with your call sign. Then you have 2 way communications. It looks very much the same as for Class D - yes you don't need a clearance for Class E, but satisfying the Class E requirements WOULD be considered a clearance in Class D.

I don't recall this being part of the original education or implementation. It is a bit awkward, effectively "You don't need a clearance, you just need something exactly the same as a clearance". It really appears there are conflicting forces at work - an overall movement to implement airspace changes, with others coming along later and making small changes to create problems.

Gawd, Andrew. This has been done to death many times.

VFR aircraft entering Class E do not have to contact Centre. VFR entering and operating in Class E must be able to communicate on the Class E frequency.

The trap Andrew is at the Southern end of the Avalon airspace where the lower level changes from 2500 to 1500 where you least expect it.

That's what I would have said. But then I looked it up in AIP and it didn't say what I expected and now I don't understand. AIP ENR page 1.4-9 says VFR in Class E requires continuous 2 way communication.

What is "Continuous 2 way" radio communication? I fly around in Class G listening on Area, but I would not call that 2 way. My understanding of 2 way is that ATC must be able to direct communication to you specifically via your call sign and know you are listening i.e. it requires a check in. That is spelled out explicitly for Class D.

Or are different definitions of 2 way communication used for Class E and Class D, and e.g. IFR in Class G?

That CTA base 1500FT step to the south - and the one north - have been there since CTA was established at AVV (30-40 years ago??).

A CTA base 1500FT (or thereabouts) step is common adjacent to most CTRs, to contain aircraft in CTA on descent and climbout.

Its a matter of reading the charts.

Continuous two-way comms for Class E means capable of continuous two-way comms, but don't ask me where the distinction is in AIP.

FWIW almost all aircraft call AVV APP transiting the Class E there, probably not a bad thing due to the amount of PTO and IFR training aircraft.

I can see the airspace, but I'm not sure what was the effect. Was there something you did or didn't do that was different than what you were supposed to do? Theoretically there should not be much difference for VFR - aside from which frequency you should be listening on. What additional training do you think VFR pilots need?

Is that different to VFR Class G above 5000 feet?
VHF radio required for OPS above 5,000FT AMSL and at aerodromes where carriage and use of radio is required
Presumably that also means a radio capable of 2 way comms but the requirement is worded very differently.

If you were accused of entering Class E without contacting ATC and establishing 2 way communications what evidence would you use to argue that it wasn't required?

I think that there should be a brown line along the 8nm Avalon arc, on the VTC, to emphasise that there is a change to the E airspace. There are green and blue lines for G and C/D, why not brown?

I see what you mean. I think they have made life difficult for themselves by making an E-G-E sandwich which is difficult to represent on a 2D chart. There is E from 1500/2500-4500, and from FL180-FL245. Whatever boundaries they depict are going to be wrong for one or the other but the lower level is more important. E at FL180 seems to be another example of implementing it where it is no use to anybody.

Re ‘continuous 2-way comms’ for VFR in E, I spend quite a bit of time VFR in E and have yet to be ‘chipped’ by Centre for not establishing comms before entry. However, I’ve ‘piped up’ when contacted or I consider it may help turn me from ‘unverified’ altitude traffic to ‘verified’. But you could give it a go, Andrew, if you are worried you won’t be able to prove you weren’t required to establish two way comms.

ABC: “Centre this is Alpha Bravo Charlie”
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie”
[chirping crickets]
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie?”
ABC: “Centre this is Alpha Bravo Charlie”
Centre: “Alpha Bravo Charlie, what do you want?”
ABC: “To establish two-way communications”.
Centre: “Mission accomplished, Alpha Bravo Charlie”.

Re Avalon, ERSA used to say contact APP (or was it TWR?) before transitting the E VFR, but I guess someone pointed out that it’s either E or it isn’t. (Make up your mind OAR....) The charting of the E boundaries (or more accurately, the gaps in and the missing brown lines) are bound to confuse. Why does Point Cook justify a Romeo?

That is not what I was getting at at all. That bloke didn't even make any calls on "Area"/the Class E freq until he was through 6000ft, creating a Mangalore-type scenario. But that's beside the point. My issue, and what an IFR Pickup procedure is, is when you ask ATC for a clearance, they so "not available" (obviously due to traffic in the proximity) and the pilot then changes to VFR so they can continue in E. It's as if, magically, all the separation problems go away and the other traffic disappears when they switch to VFR. This is of course nonsense, and the other aircraft (with the clearance) has now been put in a potentially threatening and certainly unknown situation because of the IFR Pickup pilot, until and if ATC hop in and start providing DTI to both parties so they (the pilots) can sort it out.

There is of course the airspace label there specifying the LL & UL and the CASA airspace review does mention clarifying the airspace information

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...eview_2019.pdf

If/when it goes from E to D I guess the matter will be sorted anyway.

The restricted areas at PCK activated by NOTAM are there for the RAAF Museum displays.

Seriously??

What about "Centre, Alpha Bravo Charlie, Radio check"
"Loud and Clear"
"ABC".

There you go, Andrew. The Cap’n has solved your problem.

Is it really “activated” by NOTAM?

ERSA says R330A is “TUE,THU,SUN 0315-0345 (1HR EARLIER HDS) or as amended by NOTAM“.

Looks to me like there’s a “default” period which applies unless amended by NOTAM.

(Three half-hour displays each week must be exciting!)

Yep, my bad. The areas are active via published times.

There is no requirement to call ATC prior to operating in Class E as a VFR aircraft. The expectation is that you are equipped with a radio capable of maintaining continuous 2 way comms and you are monitoring the appropriate area frequency.

On my PPL flight test Avalon ATC advised me that I hadn't established comms upon entry to their Class E. Back on the ground, the examiner (thankfully) disagreed with ATC's advice.

I now call up Avalon App with my intentions, if just for good practice.

That may have been back in the day when there was a requirement (or maybe a ‘recommendation’) in ERSA to make contact before entering the Avalon E?

It was 2018...

Hmmmm. Someone in Airservices must have missed the memo...