Are commercial pilots still against Class E?
 

One of the many reasons that I had difficulty in lowering Class E airspace to the circuit area is that many professional pilots were against it. They all claimed that the self-separation they had been doing for many years was satisfactory.

Now that we have had this terrible accident at Mangalore, with four fatalities, have professional pilots changed their minds? What do people think?

Thank goodness the shops have plenty of popcorn..

I seem to recall it was E without Radar that some commercial pilots weren't keen on. Subtleties Dick, subtleties. The world is not black/white, us/them.

Mangalore used to have a Control Tower and a Control Zone; re-activate the facility.

But - But - everyone has ADS-B now. That'll fix everything! :}

How does non-radar Class E assist in a VFR-VFR collision?

The incident was IFR-IFR, VFR will visually seperate regardless of class of airspace

Covid-19 will be a significant and convenient block to airspace reform in this country. The organisations that were spending money on projects aren't anymore due to significant loss of revenue. What would be a golden opportunity to re-structure the lot in line with onesky is probably gone. On the subject of whether pilots are for or against, they don't know enough about it. Heavily tainted views from pilots with vested interests scuttled it last time. Having said that, a lot of the prior incarnation was done without the appropriate surveillance. E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

In Australia there is a mandatory transponder requirement in class E for VFR aircraft.

Surely that adds to safety compared to class G at the same location.

Without surveillance that only helps TCAS or traffic equipped aircraft. There's not a whole lot of that in the GA fleet at the moment.

Gimme Class E any day over the pre-historic and backward Class G, but it needs the surveillance.

Procedural separation?

It puzzles me that pilots think they can do a better job of arranging separation via radio than ATC. When pilots do their own IFR separation in Class G it seems to be based on the principle that if no-one saw it, it never happened. Whereas if ATC are arranging separation, you know when there was a problem. You can guarantee that for every collision or known loss of separation in Class G, there were hundreds more that went unreported.

Originally Posted by Hoosten View Post
E without surveillance is a recipe for you know what.

Not too busy this weekend so I guess I'll have time to review the report of the CASA study: RFQ 09-342: Safety Benefits of Surveillance in Airspace. International study team (US, European, UK, Australia and NZ, all with 25 years plus airspace management experience) and peer reviewed.

Don't worry trying to find it on the CASA website - they decided not to publish it because it failed to toe the party line.

MJG

Hoosten - E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky - ALL airspace is safer with surveillance.

Mr Flappy - VFR used to be separated in Australia when we just had CTA and OCTA however a conundrum existed.
For instance, two VFR aircraft approach a control area self separating, they are then split up by ATC, before going back to self separating when they exit the control area. Where is the sense in that? Worse what if they can no longer see each other but ATC washes their hands of them anyway!

For mgahan the Coolangatta mid-air was a classic example of an airspace long overdue for surveillance - we typically waited for four people to die before putting surveillance in there. You will also remember that the RAAF took back approach control at Townsville because the CAA was still living 30 years behind the traffic.
Nothing has changed!
(PS Have you got a link for RFQ 09-342? I cannot find it)

Quote:

---

Procedural separation?

---

I don't think the intent of Class E is to be non-surveillance therefore procedural sep, do-able, no probs. There are huge advances in surveillance and much cheaper than setting up radar heads all over the place.

Quote:

---

Hoosten - E without surveillance can work but like all procedural separation it is very slow and clunky - ALL airspace is safer with surveillance.

---

I hear you, my reply above yours is probably applicable to you too I reckon?

Approach - PM sent.

MJG

So, Australian pilots of IFR aircraft would prefer to arrange themselves to no particular standard. rather than have ATC apply defined separation standards , even when ATC have both aircraft identified via ADS-B ? You know? That equipment that you had to have fitted under the mandatory ADS-B requirements? You paid all that money yet don’t expect any return??

The intent of class E is to separate aircraft in IMC. Surveillance or non surveillance is secondary, and would be dependent on traffic and availability of the equipment.

It is slow and clunky because that is what is required to ensure separation.

Separation in IMC in class G should be EVEN MORE clunky because it is being done by pilots who can't issue instructions to other aircraft and don't have an ATC-style big picture of the situation.

If it isn't more clunky than ATC procedural separation, it is because they are not applying the same safety standards.

Quote:

---

It is slow and clunky because that is what is required to ensure separation.

---

Yep, I know, I did it for 18 years or so.

Quote:

---

Separation in IMC in class G should be EVEN MORE clunky because it is being done by pilots who can't issue instructions to other aircraft and don't have an ATC-style big picture of the situation.

---

Yep, I know, been doing that for about 15 years, I've had the benefit of the other stuff I did for 18 years to help me out. Unfortunately a lot of IFR dudes, IFR in G, don't understand what can be provided in E.

Quote:

---

The intent of class E is to separate aircraft in IMC. Surveillance or non surveillance is secondary, and would be dependent on traffic and availability of the equipment.

---

If a VFR aircraft requires a transponder in Class E airspace, I would argue that the intent of Class E airspace is for it to be survielled, Not a crack at ya, obviously Class E can be done procedurally but I don't think I'd want to be mixing it there without surveillance.

Quote:

---

So, Australian pilots of IFR aircraft would prefer to arrange themselves to no particular standard. rather than have ATC apply defined separation standards , even when ATC have both aircraft identified via ADS-B ? You know? That equipment that you had to have fitted under the mandatory ADS-B requirements? You paid all that money yet don't expect any return??

---

Pretty much sums it up. Pilots need to get out a little more and see how it's done elsewhere, an open mind helps.

AOPA in the US wouldn't cop this sort of garbage, if you're mandating equipment, stump up the procedures that use it.

I think that's an Australianism, as I understand it a transponder is not required e.g. in the USA. I assumed it was for TCAS purposes rather than ATC, which is reasonable given the locations and small quantities of E in Australia.

If E was used more extensively as it is in the USA, you would have to allow non-transponder aircraft.

Class E only benefits the VFR pilot. Otherwise, if the surveillance is there to make it a Class E airspace, you'd make it Class C or similar, but no, the VFR pilot would need a clearance in that....

fixa 24. What an extraordinary statement. Are you suggesting class E at Mangalore would not have likely saved 4 lives? Both aircraft were operating under the IFR and would have been separated by ATC to a written standard if in E.

Andrewr. I introduced the mandatory transponder for VFR as part of the deal to remove the “road block “ class C above D

Yes the same roadblock that forced the Mooney pilot to a low level at Coffs Harbour.

Another 2 dead.

I like the idea of lowering E, it’ll obviously make separation safer as the big guy behind the scope has bigger and broader picture of what’s happening. I do however think VFR should require a clearance to enter E.

wouldn't that just make it C?

Probably, so make it Class C.

Class E is HUGE in this country. The radar coverage would simply not be there to cover it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fixa 24

Class E only benefits the VFR pilot. Otherwise, if the surveillance is there to make it a Class E airspace, you'd make it Class C or similar, but no, the VFR pilot would need a clearance in that....

---

No, they are not suggesting that, obviously. Read it again.

Quote:

---

Class E is HUGE in this country. The radar coverage would simply not be there to cover it.

---

There are huge advances being made in ADSB surveillance, satellite even. Radar will be for very specific use, around major aerodromes where primary surveillance is required.

Quote:

---

What’s the advantage to VFR aircraft in not requiring an airways clearance? Does it save money?

---

A broad practice behind Class E airspace if it is being used in the spirit it is meant to operate as, is that if the conditions are VMC that arriving IFR aircraft will cancel IFR and look after their own separation. An assumption is that if IMC conditions exist, there won't be any VFR operating in IMC in the airspace. Assumptions aren't cool in ATC or in a cockpit.

Just say 2 IFR aircraft are operating in Class E in a layer of cloud, between 6000 and 2000ft, the aircraft will be subject to positive separation from an ATC. Just say a VFR aircraft can operate legally in VMC at 75000ft in that Class E airspace. The airspace allows the VFR aircraft access to that airspace without a clearance. It frees the ATC from providing that clearance service, more time spent allocated to separating IFR aircraft. Less hassle to the VFR aircraft. If there is surveillance in this airspace, the ATC will 'see' the VFR and pass traffic to the IFR if required. The controller may even attempt to contact the VFR to gain it's intentions so they can be passed on. Hell, the VFR can also ask for a radar service whilst in this, or any other class of airspace.

VFR aircraft avoid controlled airspace in this country like the plague. For good reason, it is virtually impossible in some scenarios to get a clearance. VFR pilots (especially if they're low experience pilots) are intimidated by ATC. There are other reasons why but it upsets some people's sensibilities to hear these reasons.

The Class E airspace allows more access to airspace to VFR than they are getting now.

Class E is not meant to and never will replace Class C.

Class E has it's place. It is an upgrade to Class G airspace when traffic densities justify it. Class E is much cheaper to operate than Class C.

Hi Dick.
I'm not suggesting that at all, theoretically that wouldn't have happened if it was E, or C, or D. Any kind of controlled airspace will give IFR aircraft that form of protection. But Class E allows VFR's in there that no-one knows about. So if you are going to go to the expense ( and have sufficient surveillance to do this) of making it E, then make it C and you can know about all the aircraft in there. If you make it E, then you still have an unknown factor.. I don't subscribe to the theory that E is cheaper than C, where would be the cost saving? Still needs equipment (Surveillance, comms, procedures) and a human looking at the screen, so there's no saving there.

And if it is [much!] cheaper, it can only be because ATC don't have to separate VFR from anybody else. Which is obviously a copout because they are still there, it's just that nobody knows about them (Houston). That sometimes leads to midair collisions.

At least in E airspace, VFR aircraft are required to have a transponder and monitor area frequency, how is that not much better for IFR aircraft than what happens in G currently?

It is much cheaper if it is used as it is intended to be. i.e. arriving IFR cancelling IFR in severe blue. The service gets used in full anger when it's needed, in IMC.

Bloggs, they ARE known about. You don't want to acknowledge the example I gave above. Trust the controller, whenever they see the VFR paint and it affects the IFR it MUST be advised to the IFR as traffic.

I have never known any Australian ATC to try find a cop out clause. They do what the airspace mandates, give them E and they will use it appropriately. Give them C and if they're busy they'll knock back the VFR clearance every time.

It appears to me that you've never experienced Class E in its real form, either as a VFR or an IFR?

I used to get annoyed when I’d hear pilots specifically request any IFR traffic and you’d hear a reply from ATC saying that there was perhaps one or none. Then the pilot would ask separately for any VFR traffic and the controller would come back with 5-10 more.

I feel like coverage and procedure have improved significantly in the last 10 years as you don’t hear those types of things these days. I’ve also started getting a lot more of the “unidentified aircraft 15 miles east of Romsey, you’ve got another aircraft converging at your 2 o’clock.

Thumbs up for that ATC’ers.

I am not really getting the problem with E.

In VMC, VFR aircraft must have transponders and must be monitoring the frequency, they will be operating at VFR levels and will be using see and avoid for other VFR aircraft, just like G (and D).

IFR aircraft will be operating at IFR levels, separated from other IFR and also will be given traffic info on VFR

When it is IMC there won't be VFR aircraft there.

Sure if people do not follow the requirements that is a different matter but wouldn't that be the same problem no matter what airspace category it was?
ie: if someone blundered into E with no transponder and on the wrong frequency and at an IFR level they would be a big hazard but wouldn't they be the same hazard if we made it C and they blundered into it in the same way?

How often have there been midairs between IFR and VFR in E - and when it has happened, how many of those would have been avoided if it was class C?

Am I missing something?

jonkster, no, you're not missing anything.