Hi Dick and Bloggs,
If I read the KLAX airspace charts correctly then the airspace for a Qantas flight heading for RWY 24 or 25 might be:
I am not an airline pilot, I am just looking at a VFR hybrid chart, so if I am wrong please let me know!:) |
Re today's CASA Briefing - March 2021.......
"Important VFR Equipment Survey" Would this be a precurser for the intro of mandating Transponders in 'E' I wonder.....?? (Sorry, for some reason, unable to copy and paste the 'briefing'...) Cheers |
Bloggsie’s point is that you don’t punch out of the base of that E in the vicinity of KLAX into an aerodrome in G.
|
Mr Harfield : ..... Last year we saw a number of accidents in that type of airspace, which is currently what we would call class G airspace. CHAIR: Specifically whereabouts? Mr Harfield : There was an accident at Mangalore....... |
Geoff, you are correct, although you did miss the VFR routes that go directly over the top of KLAX, at several thousand feet. The used by the same VFR pilots that apparently can’t be trusted in Australian Class E😂.
I’ve flown in the US and punched out of the E into a non towered aerodrome and towered aerodromes when the tower was closed. Got clearance for the approach, didn’t have to worry about the other IFR traffic because I was being separated, so could concentrate on the approach and the VFR traffic. Simple. I did forget to advise ATC of my arrival once, but before I had the pitot covers on the local Unicom had wandered over to advise me to contact them |
A good read on the ASA proposal part A
|
Thank you triadic.
Well worth a read. A couple of gems. Many, if not most, of the touted benefits of this proposal are more hubris than of substance Our previous comments about the management and direction of Airservices airspace projects remain apposite Dick (Smith), I suggest you read the document, especially the sections that deal with communications and "Aligning Australia’s airspace system with the FAA system requires replication of the US CNS capability and of the related procedures." |
So true
But why can’t we align it where we have the same CNS capabilities? Oh. I know - resistance to change and no leadership! Also I do not understand there reference to Ayers Rock and the reason the E could not go to a low level- say 1200’ agl. Can anyone elaborate? |
Originally Posted by Vref+5
(Post 11018925)
Geoff, you are correct, although you did miss the VFR routes that go directly over the top of KLAX, at several thousand feet. The used by the same VFR pilots that apparently can’t be trusted in Australian Class E😂.
I’ve flown in the US and punched out of the E into a non towered aerodrome and towered aerodromes when the tower was closed. Got clearance for the approach, didn’t have to worry about the other IFR traffic because I was being separated, so could concentrate on the approach and the VFR traffic. Simple. I did forget to advise ATC of my arrival once, but before I had the pitot covers on the local Unicom had wandered over to advise me to contact them |
Hi Dick,
My conversations since leaving CASA lead me to understand that the reference to 1200 feet at Ayers Rock became a sticking point because neither CASA OAR nor Airservices understands how Class E is made to work in the US. AusAlpa is quite correct when it refers to the US Class E transition airspace down to 700 AGL or ground level as being the key. They also mention that VFR in the US is defined by the airspace, not the altitude requirements still used in Australia. (Due to us not having to deal with Class E below 8500feet) so:
|
Airservices Class E base A0?5 , Webex on now, I believe.
|
10j. I think we need more info! What do you mean?
|
Was on the AsA "engage" portal.
https://engage.airservicesaustralia....s-e-east-coast Wasn't there but heard it got turned off due out of time with much feedback still to get through and many concerns raised. |
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
(Post 11018305)
Re today's CASA Briefing - March 2021.......
"Important VFR Equipment Survey" Would this be a precurser for the intro of mandating Transponders in 'E' I wonder.....?? (Sorry, for some reason, unable to copy and paste the 'briefing'...) Cheers |
If safety is the prime concern on this thread then why doesn't every owner of an aircraft with an engine spend a few thousand dollars an fit a transponder? I have one on my 1970s Pa28 . So ATC can see me and RPT can see me. If E is lowered to the frigging surface I won't need to worry if it is AGL because I can pop in and of E without a care in the world.
In 2021 it is the dumbest argument that owners cannot afford to fit life saving equipment on board their aircraft. if you want to fly in the vicinity of a fast RPT aircraft like at Ballina or Wagga or Hervey Bay, use your radio, light up your aircraft, purchase and fit a transponder or ADSB and use the device to mitigate your 1960s 172 smashing into a 737 with 150 people on board. I have flown extensively in USA and UK. The airmanship in Australia in GA is left wanting in comparison. The argument that Class E can't be lowered to separate IFR (particularly RPT) because owners of bugs smashers don't want to fit life saving transponders or ADSB , is beyond comprehension. Coroner: "why wasn't there controlled airspace when the capability existed?" " oh we did not want to upset pilots of light aircraft by asking them to spend a few grand on a life saving device" too expensive. I would not fly without a transponder with my husband and kids on board any more than I would not fly outside VHF range without my HF radio. time to mandate common sense. |
You say you have flown extensively in the US and the UK.
Both of these countries have higher traffic densities but do not have an Australian type transponder mandate in class E. Why would this be so if they were necessary for safety? |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 11020793)
You say you have flown extensively in the US and the UK.
Both of these countries have higher traffic densities but do not have an Australian type transponder mandate in class E. Why would this be so if they were necessary for safety? most pilots I know in USA have transponders. Bit like rules around bike helmets. Not every state mandates cyclists to wear helmets, but you a bloody fool if you don't. Same for transponders |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 11020793)
You say you have flown extensively in the US and the UK.
Both of these countries have higher traffic densities but do not have an Australian type transponder mandate in class E. Why would this be so if they were necessary for safety? |
No. If see and avoid does not give an adequate level of risk reduction you put in class D or higher airspace.
ICAO has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft in E,F and G airspace because there is no way of knowing if the radio is actually working and on the correct frequency. Pretty simple really. Sounds as if you are putting profits in front of safety if you do not support Class D where see and avoid is not adequate. Or do you support airline pilots looking down at the TCAS screen in the terminal area rather than remaining vigilant and keeping a good lookout? |
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
(Post 11020845)
No. If see and avoid does not give an adequate level of risk reduction you put in class D or higher airspace.
ICAO has no radio requirement for VFR aircraft in E,F and G airspace because there is no way of knowing if the radio is actually working and on the correct frequency. Pretty simple really. Sounds as if you are putting profits in front of safety if you do not support Class D where see and avoid is not adequate. Or do you support airline pilots looking down at the TCAS screen in the terminal area rather than remaining vigilant and keeping a good lookout? bit like reversing cameras on cars and aural obstacle warnings on cars. Not legally required and if you look out the window you'll never hit a person, but sure comes in handy when all the holes line up and a life is saved. Are you anti transponder? Would you fly around the east coast in G without a transponder and radio cause the rule says you don't have to? When I was a kid seatbelts were not required in the back-seat of cars. My mum made me wear one anyway. Saved my life in an accident mate - risk mitigation 101. Light up your aircraft, use your bloody radio, squawk 1200 look out the windows, avoid IFR routes and IAPs regardless of classification of airspace. And yes regulator should spend a bit of time working on protecting airports where RPT fly into with no tower by classifying the airspace to protect hundreds of people sitting in the back from ill-equipped aircraft being flown by pilots who are living on the dark ages. |
All times are GMT. The time now is 13:30. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.