So far as I can tell, the ‘logic’ of the pilot detractors is:

(1). They don’t ‘know’ whether and where VFRs are in E because the VFRs don’t have to tell anybody they are in E.

(2). They do ‘know’ whether and where the VFRs are in G - or at least when the VFRs are in the vicinity of an aerodrome where carriage of VHF is mandatory.

It’s a combination of a fear of a known unknown (I know there are VFRs in E but I don’t know where they are because they don’t have to tell me) and a mistaken belief that VFRs in G are a known known (the VFRs have to tell me where they are when in the vicinity of the aerodrome I’m doing my IFR procedure in/out of).

In this ‘logic’, VFR pilots are somehow more incompetent in E than they are in G. Apparently they can manage to have the radio tuned the correct frequency more often in G than when they are in E, manage to get their position and estimates correct more often in G than when they are in E, and manage to make better judgments about when to speak up in G than when they are in E. Go figure!

And then there’s the weird and whacky world of the internal politics of Air ‘Services’ and the Office of Airspace ‘Regulation’.

Quote:

---

And then there’s the weird and whacky world of the internal politics of Air ‘Services’ and the Office of Airspace ‘Regulation’.

---

I'm led to believe that ASA don't have a problem with implementing more G, that the real sticking points (organisations) are CASA and airspace groups that 'supposedly' represent airspace users.

As a professional pilot and one that has used class E on a regular basis, I am of the belief that much of this discussion is associated with a lack of understanding of how E should work, together with our Oz culture of not wanting to embrace any change, especially when the education is poor to non existent and is certainly not standardised. E has its place, but like other parts of pilot education, to date I believe airspace design and procedures has been lacking somewhat. To my knowledge it is still not subject to many/any questions in the various licence exams(??).
The MNG accident shows that even experienced instructors can get it wrong. I have been there many times on training flights with sometimes lots of traffic about, but it all seems to have worked out ok in my time.
The way that class E is viewed by current VFR and IFR pilots is sometimes very different and this in my view unfortunately relates to the above mentioned poor education and lack of standardisation.

Mention of how they do it in the States, reminds me of a chap I spoke to once on this matter and he said that once clear of the airfield of departure in Class E (which in most of the US has a base of 1500ft) he turns the radio down and the music up!!

I agree (though I think you’re a tiny bit premature in asserting that the instructors in the MNG accident got it wrong).

Me Lead Balloon, you described it perfectly, congratulations.

it was this logic that Air Services used to identify E over D as so dangerous. Firstly by increasing the error rate of VFR pilots operating in this airspace to unrealistically high numbers, but when that didn’t do it, they then increased the numbers of flights until they rang the ALARP bell. Justification for increasing the numbers? It’s a new procedure, pilots need retraining in it...

What’s that word? That’s it: “corrupt”.

Hi Dick,

I'm sure if you contacted the Safety and Technical Officers at AusALPA you would be able to get an update on what professional pilots think. But I'm sure a man of your experience in aviation knew that already...

I have written a post on this subject a few times, but then decided against submitting.
But i think it is time.
Not being an IFR pilot, I don't know what half the people are talking about on this subject. ( I suspect the other half don't either, but thats another issue!).
I was at Wahring on the morning of the accident, horrible weather, so no flying for me. I spent my time trying to adjust an attachment mechanism to a powered tractor to pull the plane out of the hangar.
The following day, I was discussing the incident with an IFR rated instructor/chopper pilot.
He noted that when an IFR aircraft entered a non towered aerodrome, they switched to the local freq to communicate their intentions.
Most IFR aircraft are fitted with a second radio to enable them to monitor ATC while communicating on local freq.
He said, it was "common practice" to turn the ATC radio down so that the pilot could hear the response from any other local traffic in the area.
Myv aircraft has two radios, and although only ever VFR, I usually have ATC monitored on the second radio, especially if I use flight following.
I myself turn the secondary radio off when communicating to local Frequency, getting ATS etc, so I can see where this would be practical.
Now what I next have to say is heresay via a third party, and I have no way of verifying it.
He said that there was at least one and possibly two other aircraft on the same ATC freq following the Travellair towards YSHT.
One of them heard a frantic ATC controller trying to contact both aircraft on ATC freq warning them of a serious conflict, but got no response.
His calls became increasingly frantic until there was silence and a new operator came on.
My immediate thought was why didn't the other following aircraft switch to the mang local and try to warn the aircraft, but perhaps they did not have time, or did switch to the local freq but the mid air had already occurred.
Could the turn down the second radio "standard procedure" be one of the root causes here?

Mick

Dick - I think, from reading AusALPA's correspondence on their web site, they oppose the replacement of D and C airspace with E, but a spokesperson told OAR that they would prefer E to G over Ayres Rock:

Issue: An Airline Pilot Representative organisation consider that improving levels of safety at Ayers Rock would require the following; to provide surveillance based IFR / IFR separation services to low level to expedite arrivals and departures.There is currently a lack of separation services between IFR aircraft when surveillance is available.
Finding: Current Air Navigation Service Provider of IFR/IFR services are based on procedural separation standards. Analysis reveals no recorded instances via ATSB or safety issues.Airservices considers that there is merit in conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock. Lowering Class E airspace could enhance service delivery to IFR aircraft at no additional cost to Airservices.Airspace users (including VFR aircraft) could benefit from fitment of ADS-B avionics through the use of surveillance separation standards and surveillance information services.
Recommendation: Airservices should investigate the benefits of conducting a trial of lowering Class E airspace in the vicinity of Ayers Rock

• The Preliminary review of December 2018, that contains the above reference does not seem to have been finalised.
• However Airservices has a fact sheet on their web site for a "trial" that was supposed to commence in November 2019 <https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Fact-Sheet-Trial-of-Class-E-Airspace-at-Ayers-Rock.pdf>
• But will commence on 21 May 2020 according to AIC H26/20. Unfortunately traffic at Ayers Rock is down by about 90% so I imagine it will be deferred.
• IFR aircraft will have 4000 feet of G airspace in which to become identified before being cleared into E.

CASA OAR also has the following on their web site:
Strategic - Assessment of options to enhance Class E airspace (AAPS 29-32AAPS 40-41) Collaborate with Airservices Australia to identify opportunities to enhance controlled airspace by increasing Class E airspace. Started September 2017 - Ongoing
Strategic - Australian Airspace Concept (AAPS 37) Deliver a concept for the future implementation of airspace architecture and solutions in Australian administered airspace (including Performance Based Navigation) Started October 2017 to be finished by June2020

Mullo, an interesting post. Thanks for the contribution. The devil is in the detail...