Airservices consultation period closes today (30th). Have your say and help save GA.

Cogwheel,

I write this on May 1st so seemingly this could be academic for some who believe Airservices engagement with industry is genuine...?

Regardless your post “Have your say and help save GA.. “ implies that a certain decision by AsA regarding airspace threatens GA “

Would you care to expand on what that is?

Thanks in anticipation.

G_f

G_f.... I assume that you would be aware that the state of GA at this time is not real flash. The number of GA and RAaus aircraft that do not have more than one VHF or a transponder is significant. Various sources suggest that the cost to the GA industry will be upwards of $17M plus on going costs to maintain and service. ASA have not yet demonstrated the problem that this proposal is designed to fix nor have they provided any sort of safety case or risk analysis and the maps of the proposed area/s are very poor. Without any other changes (such as removing the transponder requirement in E below ten) then the amount of Class G airspace will be significantly reduced and there will be less altitudes available for VFR to cruise at especially over high terrain. There are other options available for airspace management which ASA don't seem to have considered and in fact the whole process has been far from transparent and the consultation process has been very poor. I could go on, but you should get my drift.

Well said Leady. It is also evidence that over the past 5 or 6 years ASA have lost a lot of their experienced controllers and have nobody to now fill the gap....Otherwise why would we see such cr*p.... poor management and too much concentration on income!

Beautiful response to AsA from RAA.

The USA system:

Checkboard - regardless of what people think, I love the basic simplicity of the US system coupled with the philosophy behind it.
If I can try and put that in a few simple phrases:
1. They believe in the see and avoid principle of aircraft separation in VMC, they believe IFR flights and associated procedures should always be conducted in controlled airspace'
2. They, therefore, start with a big "bath" of Class E airspace, controlled for IFR but not for VFR, but with weather requirements for VFR pilots that enable all pilots to have a good chance of seeing each other in VMC
3. If the traffic gets too dense around a particular aerodrome they add Class D airspace - a controller then assists pilots to separate by sequencing in the circuit and along the runway(s)
4. If the traffic needs sequencing beyond ATC Tower visual range they add Class C airspace - but note that they then also require surveillance. This enables the vectoring of IFR flights while VFR flights are still able to self-separate. This works well where there is a main instrument runway (Vectored IFR aircraft) and secondary runways for VFR flights (handled by the Tower ATCs)
5. Class B airspace may then be needed where VFR aircraft need to be vectored for sequencing with IFR aircraft due to runway saturation - VFR flyways or corridors are generally incorporated to allow the free flow of VFR aircraft not using the aerodrome
6. I doubt that the US would ever contemplate Class A airspace where VFR flight is possible, and even Europe has now given that idea away.
So the airspace type is not dictated by RPT movements or passenger enplanements, as it is in Australia, the airspace is determined by the type of ATC needed to efficiently and safely manage the airspace; as the risk of collision increases so does the degree of ATC assistance.
Simple really but first you need some design principles - our airspace is designed by a committee, the same one that created a camel out of a racehorse!

'May The Forth' Be With Yas...................


('Forth'...Deliberate...)

Thank you for your lucid explanation Mr Fairless.

Latest on SAFIS (BNA/MNG), now called SFIS ! Meeting in BNA today at 12 + online WEBEXs later.

https://engage.airservicesaustralia....qanda#tool_tab

From what I hear, even controllers have submitted comment that was not in favour of the proposal!
I have yet to see any proposal that supports the proposal other than the proponent.

For those keen to see ADSB in anything flyable have a read of this article.
ADSB and Enforcement by FAA

Wow, I thought the U.S and the FAA were .... Nirvana ..... Camelot.

I hope they do something soon for the “towers” using FlightRadar24 because I noticed this week that VicPol have been removed from displaying on FR24. Either that or their transponders have been turned off!

I wonder how many other operators are blocked from ADSB that could be flying into these places with FR24 and limited coverage.

Flight Radar 24?
So that’s how ATC keep their costs down! :E

That article is pretty broad in scope and generalisation. If you follow the link to the article FAAs Use of ADSB, one of the incidents quoted and subject to FAAs enforcement policy, is flying under a bridge!

Since FR24 is basically a very large hobby group, I think anyone can request of them that their ADSB details don't appear on it. There's a lot of corporate stuff that don't show, almost all military, and more than a few charter operators. If you fly around blissfully thinking FR24 is giving you the complete picture, you are sadly mistaken.

Hence why the airports tower/-advisories using it in any form of official separation is playing with fire!

I don't think there are any Towers or advisories using it for "official" separation. Only AsA provide a separation service, and they don't use FR24. The BNA CAGRO is said to use it for situational awareness. If so, he is not aware of the full situation.