To be fair what I see is an understanding of airspace issue, the VFRs just think class E is uncontrolled airspace and treat it as such. Which it is for them, but there is also a requirement to be more vigilant of IFR operations. WRT to some of the comments in that note, of course Airlines don't want higher ATS levels, why, because it's user pays system now. It's quite easy to see in GA whereRPT/Charter below 5700kg opt to go VFR to avoid airservices costs sometimes in what I would call marginal conditions. The age old cost vs safety always errs to cost reduction. WRT controllers, Australia has so many issues with airservices at the moment, no one is going to stick their neck out to complain about it. Luckily in most situations so far our traffic levels are low enough that the spread thin controllers can monitor both class E and G to some amount. Will class E stop a A320 from getting too close to light aircraft in Ballina, nope, but the automated TCAS and such will stop it from hitting it.

Anyway moving away from the point that class E airspace does not offer any real tangible improvement in safety over what aircraft based situational awareness tools do. Looking at the last few that happened in the USA, one was at a controlled airport in the circuit, another was two floatplanes where both had the equipment to have warned each other however one had its transponder output turned off, so neutralised the automatic warning it should have received, which would have prevented the event. Basically everything flying should have a working operating transponder if it flies above 1000ft agl.

"As for class D in Australia is a complete joke, install ADSB, radar scopes, train them and make it class C. One IFR aircraft doing an approach blocking out 6000ft x 30nm of airspace is just silly."

Except that's incorrect. The procedure is used in "D" associated with aeordromes such as Bankstown and Moorabbin which are far smaller in dimension than that - 2500ft x 3NM for YMMB.

I'm more referring to class D like Albury. However Moorabbin and Bankstown are no different where a class G airport would handle more IFR movements in IMC and safely. I'm pretty sure the powers at be have no idea what happens OCTA these days, the restrictiveness of some CTA especially when unidentified is just silly. And the controllers seem to sound completely aghast when we choose to go OCTA to self separate because it's easier than trying to deal with their rules.

If you believe that the ‘close call’ risk for an A320 in E is the same as it would be in G, 43, you’re in the just the right country to practise your religion. Ditto your prayer beads gadgets.

Bless your heart.

I actually don't see any difference between class E and G when it comes to separating VFR and IFR, like I said, what I've seen in practice gives me this concept, not what is written on paper. I just see more flexibility for an IFR aircraft to deal with the issue in class G than in class E, where it's restricted to it's clearance limits. If you believe that some guy 1000 miles away watching you on a 2d flat panel, with maybe 20 other things going on telling you what to do is making you safer, yes ,maybe it is religious, sounds like faith to me.

If you implement class E in ballina it would not make a shred of difference to the IFR vs VFR situation, why, because the VFR will do the exact same thing it does currently, because that's what class E allows. The controller can not tell the VFR what to do, it's uncontrolled, and being a CTAF, it wont be listening to class E frequencies most likely.

The class of the controlled airspace has nothing to do with the "one in, one out" processing, it's the lack of surveillance facilities available to the controllers meaning they use procedural separation. Don't conflate the two.

That's what class D is, procedural separation, is it not? Or do we have a radar controlled class D in operation somewhere?

Airspace rules and separation rules are two entirely separate things - the airspace rules tell you who to separate and the separation rules tell you how. Procedural separation is used where no surveillance coverage or it's not assured - it is used in all controlled airspace classifications.

I have spoken to the people at Airservices and they are going to look at changing the coding and the plate so a coupled approach will descend early enough so the aircraft does not enter the class C 2500' step.

In the meantime I suggest any pilot wanting to do a fully A/P coupled approach using Garmin equipment specifically requests a clearance to enter the class C step.

That should be the principle applied anywhere, if you think you might need a clearance, ask! And the controllers should be proactive and offer one if they can if there's a chance you'll clip a step on the way down.

I think Dick's point is that it's counter-intuitive that a clearance would be required on that approach in the first place. Counter-intuitive = room for confusion = risk.

It should not be up to the pilot to 'request' a clearance on this type of approach. In fact, this approach should be either in CTA or OCTA, no ambiguity. SP-IFR in IMC, you have got enough to do without managing a sub standard airspace system.

LB, then why doesn't he come out and say that at the start?

TB, be that as it may, that's what the situation is. Why wouldn't you plan for it and ask early while you aren't busy?

LP, yes, that is the situation. In my experience ATC push aircraft OCTA, particularly in the Sydney basin. It's a case of easing the controllers workload over what is best for the aircraft. I'm more commenting on the way it should be rather than the way it is.

Dicks move in mysterious ways.

Did this approach in IMC a few days back.
Dogs breakfast.
Got “cleared” for the approach at RAKSO and dialed in VS to hit WI at 2500.
I was half expecting it so wasn’t surprised 2 minutes later to get a terse remain OCTA.
ceilings were about 2000 so the SY CEN controller spent the next 3-4 minutes giving me multiple VFR (probably only just) traffic which I couldn’t see anyway!
would have been infinitely simpler to just be in the C for a few miles of descent prior to WI. There’s obviously no traffic inside CTA at 3000’ within 20miles of that route.
So between being relatively unstable/dive and drive/button pushing and loads of unnecessary radio chat it was quite a painful procedure. Unnecessary.

Good point. It's clearly safer to stay higher and in controlled airspace for as long as possible.

Well, well, well...............

Airspace management at its best, where else in the world do you get forced OCTA on an instrument approach?

got the bill in the mail today too. Awesome 👏