No you're not, jonkster.

The pilots who oppose E replacing some G in Australia are essentially saying that - somehow - VFR pilots are more incompetent in E than they are in G.

The passengers carried on RPT in G are very lucky the sky is very big. That some of the pilots of those RPT aircraft actually believe that they'd be less safe if some of that G airspace were instead E just goes to show why they are generally their own worst enemies.

Secondhand story only - CASA told local VFR operaters at an airport where Class E to 1200 AGL was proposed that the IFR aircraft in Class E would be on the ATC area frequency until reach 1200 AGL. Only then would ATC transfer them to the CTAF !!!!

Mr Approach, describe to us then how you think it should work in the Mangalore scenario. Coffees will be provided to pilots holding at the holding point (or on the parking bay if there's only one taxiway) for more than 10 minutes.

Hey Leddee, essentially, it looks like Hoosten is his own worst enemy...:ouch:

So Bloggs prescribes efficiency over safety!! Don’t want the safety improvements that class E provides for IFR aircraft, because it might delay a departure. Of course if it’s VMC the departing aircraft could decide to depart VFR with an IFR pickup thus removing the need for ATC to hold the aircraft, but that’s too difficult for some.
The main excuse given all those years ago, why US style class E wouldn’t work here was because we didn’t have the surveillance at low level. We were the first country to mandate ADSB, there is suitable low level coverage at Mangalore, but it’s still class G as per industry’s demands all those years ago.
Result? 2 IFR aircraft equipped with ADSB and being observed by ATC had a mid air collision in class G.

Capn Bloggs - it would work like any other controlled airspace, let's say a D Tower like Albury, but without the "cleared for take-off" bit. There are always many variables so I will only explain one:
A is on ground, has advised taxiing and requested IFR clearance. ATC acknowledge with "will advise".
B is in the air and is requesting clearance for whatever instrument approach.
Controller then makes an assessment of the relative positions and times and does one of the following:
- B is to hold at 4000 - A is cleared to 3000 but on an outbound track that will, after a few minutes, provide lateral separation (This is very easy if there is surveillance), or
- B has already been cleared for the instrument approach so no clearance is available for A until [time calculated by ATC]
- A can wait of depart VFR, weather permitting, with traffic advisories from ATC, or wait;
ATC then manages the two aircraft in turn through the IFR approaches.
It is very easy for a competent controller and requires far less R/T than traffic information. The pilots can also concentrate on flying instaed of trying to separate themselves.
If the trainee pilots are destined for jobs overseas than we will also be training them for what happens in advanced aviation countries.

See and Avoid DOESN'T WORK. Comprehendi??

Quote:

---

So Bloggs prescribes efficiency over safety!!

---

I see your point. I'll put in a suggestion the roundabout up the road gets changed to a set of traffic lights. Hasn't been a crash there for 30 years. Could be one just around the corner, so to speak.

Quote:

---

Sure if people do not follow the requirements that is a different matter

---

How about we wait for the report...

See and avoid works for VFR traffic in VMC. Which is why, in the scenario described above, your IFR pickup could only be delivered while you're in VMC.

And, if your argument is valid (that see and avoid doesn't work), why are you arguing against class E, which can provide both IFR separation, and a traffic service to VFR, like it does elsewhere in the world?

That is my point. If there's no surveillance available, then ATC won't know about the VFR TFC. Some ports I frequent, we're not ADSB identified till around 8000' or so.
It's great we'd get procedural separation from other IFR TFC, but we're no better than G when it comes to VFR.

There's no radar coverage, VFR don't have ADS-B so no "surveillance", and Dick Smith can't stand inter-pilot talking on the Class E freq because we should be "Seeing and Avoiding". It's a conundrum, isn't it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AVF

See and avoid works for VFR traffic in VMC. Which is why, in the scenario described above, your IFR pickup could only be delivered while you're in VMC.

---

I'm in a 100+ pax jet. Could somebody explain to me why, without my agreement, I should be faced with somebody coming at me, who is going to be so close that ATC can't give him a clearance? And so the segregation radio chatter commences... Was that on the CTAF or the ATC freq?

Class E is transponder airspace. Ergo, if a VFR is in there without ADS-B, they are not supposed to be there.

I don't think anyone is saying that class E should be done with no surveillance. What a lot of people are saying is that, by design (and given historical precedent for ADS-B implementation), ADS-B should be sufficient for class E to be implemented, and for proper ATC control of IFR.



In your scenario, your clearance would be limited to an altitude at which the conditions are 100% IFR (because, remember, you're actually getting clearances until you're out, or on your way out of, E). Again, as others have mentioned, it works in other countries (that conflicting traffic will be given an instruction to remain clear of class E, or to remain VFR).

Notably, how is your scenario any different than what happens right now? With class E, you will have a) ATC notice of departing traffic, and b) clearances, in addition to all the tools you have today in case those fail.

(Also, RE: CTAF/ATC frequencies - this is where the airspace design comes in. At busier fields, have E down to 0 AGL. At quiet ones? You could probably get away with 3000' AGL, plenty to make your inbound calls, coordinate with traffic, and get the hand-off from ATC.)

I have heard that a lot of operators are not allowed by their insurance company to depart VFR and then change to IFR when traffic allows an ATC clearance (IFR pickup). Is it correct that some are not allowed IFR pickup for insurance reasons and if so, how prevalent is it?

AVF
VFR aircraft are required to have a transponder, NOT ADSB. Not the same thing.

The 2 northwest towers had procedural E back in 2011 so it is certainly being done. That was pre ADS-B as well. I think that is all gone now (beneath the D steps to 1200AGL LL).

In Canada you might have that, if a difference has been registered with ICAO.

ICAO airspace design says CTA (control areas) can't extend down to ground level.

I also make the point that in Australia transponders are not mandatory for VFR in Class E for all aircraft types. Many are exempt that are unable to power one.

In Canada, those would be called "MF" (Mandatory Frequency"), and are a kind of control zone lite. I mentioned in another thread that something along those lines might be a solution appropriate for Australia, but, for the discussion in this thread, that level of detail seemed too much.

Not mandating transponders in non-G class airspace is very strange, except for situations where class E needs to be transited (ie: your track requires you to cross an airway). Which, if that's the case, at least explains some of the arguments against class E.

RPT aircraft must continue to operate in G in Australia. It's in the interests of the safety of air navigation.

Everyone knows why two IFR aircraft collide: Pilot error.

Move on. Nothing to see here.

I've been following this thread for a long time, and I still don't understand how Oz Class E differs from USA Class E. In the USA, Class E is predicated on having some sort of surveilance (radar, etc.) available. That's why almost all of the Class G airspace above 1200 feet has been changed to Class E over the years. There is no requirement for transponders or ADS-B except above 10,000'. There is no requirement for VFR traffic to have a clearance or to be in communication with anyone. The primary difference from Class G is the increased visibility (3 miles vs. 1 mile) and cloud clearance requirements. IFR traffic is separated by ATC in Class E and traffic advisories are given to IFR traffic, where it is not in Class G. That's because surveilance is possible in Class E. For certain airports that do not have a tower, Class E can extend to the surface in order to protect IFR operations. For VFR aircraft in good visibility, there is no diffeence between E and G.

Seems to work pretty well, here. What is there about the traffic situation in Australia that makes it not work, there?

Just remember, there are no separation standards in Class G, pilot to pilot sorting it out IS NOT a defined separation standard. You in your 100+seat jet-tell your passengers that you’re just going to use the MIUAWGA standard. Any argument raised about IFR/VFR issues in Class E also apply in G. And if you raise delays for IFR aircraft as another reason, you’re putting efficiency before safety.

Is this not a 'no brainer?'

At the moment, in Class G as an IFR you get Directed Traffic Information on other IFR and known traffic on VFR (observed by ATC on radar and in contact with ATC).

ASA are offering IFR an 'upgrade' from DTI to Separation. Where there was G, now we'll give you E. Now where there's info, we'll separate you. But not only that, we'll mandate transponders for VFR in E, unlike the US where there's no requirement for a transponder.

Why is IFR against an upgrade to their safety?

I don't get it.

Marck - there is no difference between Class E in Australia and Class E in the US except for it's application and a requirement for VFR aircraft to operate a transponder. VMC is the same but applied to both E and G below 10,000 feet. We do not have any E below 3000 feet where G VMC still requires 5000 metres visibility but only clear of cloud. We also have CTAF's following the US model and we allow UNICOM-type radio operations but there is no low level Class E airspace, even around airports that support jet airliner movements.

My oft stated view is that ATC in Australia is a money-making enterprise managed by our Federal Government, not a service provided on the basis of need. Hence the Federal Government's ATC organisation, known misleadingly as Airservices Australia, simply cannot provide loss making ATC services. Now this is important, unless the Federal Government tells it to! Now why would they do that - purely because of political pressure! Mainly from airlines but also through the news media. Unfortunately the four pilots who died at Mangalore are not getting much media attention.

I am sure that the US suffers from this also and I am equally sure there would be a different airspace plan if it was run at the whim of your airlines. Instead you have a very sophisticated lobby working on behalf of GA that, through Congress, insures that current practices continue.