Voices of Reason and Class E
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
I suggest you look up the judgment from the Navair Bankstown mid air.
The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
I suggest you look up the judgment from the Navair Bankstown mid air.
The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
It only takes one instance of avoidance action by a IFR aircraft to totally unravel Class E. They have to avoid a VFR aircraft, this means taking action, yet they need a clearance to take action so then a 4+ way radio conference has to take place, between the VFR traffic, other VFR traffic, the IFR traffic and ATC.
In reality Class G is safer and easier to operate in as everyone knows where they stand. Class E only really works if everyone is identified and ATC can actually give avoidance guidance. The current arrangement where jets are cleared through overlying Class E and have to self separate from VFR traffic is a nonsense at the speeds they operate at with no radar coverage.
...industry said if they got FAA E access rules they would be on board.
Be careful what you wish for. Surely technology has advanced such over the past decades to make improvements on Alphabet Airspace. Just consider car technologies: cars currently on the market vs the first car you drove vs the first car you rode in as a passenger (probably on the drive home from the hospital where you were born). Surely we can do better.
For those who feel having small sections of Class C around regional TWRs creates roadblock airspace for VFRs, imagine the roadblocks for IFRs that will be created in the event of low level Class E. And this will be over the whole J-curve, thousands of sq miles as opposed to tiny bits around large country towns which only affects the odd VFR flight.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well it certainly doesn't work like that anymore!! IFR are given traffic on known VFR, same as VFR to VFR. It's up to the PIC to ensure their own separation, which is then the Achilles heal of Class E airspace. In reality Class E is Controlled Class G. Ultimately the PIC is still responsible for VFR separation. Too bad for you if you are in the outback and wipe out someone on descent who is not "known".
It only takes one instance of avoidance action by a IFR aircraft to totally unravel Class E. They have to avoid a VFR aircraft, this means taking action, yet they need a clearance to take action so then a 4+ way radio conference has to take place, between the VFR traffic, other VFR traffic, the IFR traffic and ATC.
In reality Class G is safer and easier to operate in as everyone knows where they stand. Class E only really works if everyone is identified and ATC can actually give avoidance guidance. The current arrangement where jets are cleared through overlying Class E and have to self separate from VFR traffic is a nonsense at the speeds they operate at with no radar coverage.
It only takes one instance of avoidance action by a IFR aircraft to totally unravel Class E. They have to avoid a VFR aircraft, this means taking action, yet they need a clearance to take action so then a 4+ way radio conference has to take place, between the VFR traffic, other VFR traffic, the IFR traffic and ATC.
In reality Class G is safer and easier to operate in as everyone knows where they stand. Class E only really works if everyone is identified and ATC can actually give avoidance guidance. The current arrangement where jets are cleared through overlying Class E and have to self separate from VFR traffic is a nonsense at the speeds they operate at with no radar coverage.
You do NOT need a clearance to avoid another aircraft....
Speed in class E is restricted below 10,000 feet to a maximum 250 knots, and the reason is traffic avoidance. I do agree that a few VFR flights venture higher than that, but most stay below.
Flying IFR in class G you'll meet IFR flights when IMC and both IFR and VFR flights while VMC, whereas you'll only meet VFR flights while VMC in class E. So no, in reality class E is the safer airspace....
Class E works fine when pilots are aware of the airspace classification, and the amount of VFR traffic is relatively low.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you look up the judgment from the Navair Bankstown mid air.
The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
The ATCs where given 30% of the blame because the judge said ATC could see the two aircraft and therefore had a duty of care.
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
"The cause of the accident was that, whilst operating in an environment where the maintenance of separation between aircraft was a pilot responsibility, neither the pilot-in-command of the Twin Comanche nor the pilot-in-command of the Dove ensured that a watch for other aircraft, adequate for the avoidance of collision, was maintained."
Nonetheless, if a judge then comes to another conclusion, why wouldn't controllers start separating aircraft according to IFR rules?
Thread Starter
Yes. And that’s why our unique system of forcing by the rule of law that VFR aircraft en route must monitor and announce on the ATC sector frequency gives the ATC a special responsibility.
The objective is to consider the requirements to use airspace and all of the controls available - airspace type, procedures, technology (radar, ADSB receivers, ADSB-in, ADSB-out, TCAS, GPWS, EGPWS, CATI, CATIIIB) etc - and determine which combination provides 'about the same' residual risk as the next location. For practical reasons this is limited to a few different systems - generally we think of Oceanic, A, C, D, E & G in Oz but with special procedures in areas where an increase in procedure/cost to the next level up isn't justifiable but 'something' should be done - that's where an alternative airspace system may be used - CA/GRS or VFR LOEs.
In the case of TCAS - "TCAS does not substitute for air traffic control, but acts as a defence against a breakdown of the air traffic control system". "Australian aircraft that is a turbine-powered commercial aeroplane must not, except in certain limited circumstances, begin a flight unless it is fitted with an approved TCAS II that is serviceable".
The ATS Flight Notification doesn't have any reference to TCAS, there is no abbreviation for TCAS, there is no reference on an ATC display to indicate that an aircraft has or doesn't have TCAS, there is no reference on an ATC paper flight progress strip (most Towers) that the aircraft has or doesn't have TCAS, there are no procedures in MATS to indicate what an ATC should do if a pilot advises that TCAS is inoperable. TCAS is a pilot safety net and as indicated above, acts as a defence against a breakdown of the air traffic control system.
Same for GPWS, EGPWS etc.
Same for MSAW (Minimum Safe Altitude Warning), an ATC Safety Net for defined portions of airspace for defined flight procedures (IFR).
Same for CLAM (Cleared Level Adherence Monitoring), an ATC Safety Net based on defined parameters.
Same for STCA (Short Term Conflict Alert), an ATC Safety Net based on defined parameters. The fact that there are numerous (100's daily) false alerts has meant that "true alerts are not responded to and all alerts are delayed in their response."
False alerts
Technology is important however Safety Nets have been developed for when the human has failed.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ofcourse, once ATC knows you're there, we'll have to provide traffic information as far as is practical
For a decade after, ATC separated VFR from VFR to IFR standards in Sydney.
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
I would have to orbit at Hornsby for ten minutes while they separated my helicopter from the channel ten chopper with IFR standards!
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know as well as I do, that it says as far as is practical, not optional. Which is practice would mean that if you know they are there, you'll give it.... whereas, if you have no clue they are there, you cannot give it.
What Ballina?
Okay, think I found the Ballina.
It was in G airspace, one aircraft forgot to turn on "ALT" on the transponder, the airspace was "broadcast" airspace.... so I'm a little confused why ATC is dragged into it?
Though you normally don't broadcast on ATC frequencies, they are a worktool for the controllers and they'll be pissed. You communicate with ATC on that frequency.
Last edited by jmmoric; 16th Apr 2021 at 14:04. Reason: Found ballina
VFR aircraft en route must monitor and announce on the ATC sector frequency
Did that work at Ballina?
The emoji was supposed to soften up the previous emoji.
You know as well as I do, that it says as far as is practical, not optional. Which is practice would mean that if you know they are there, you'll give it.... whereas, if you have no clue they are there, you cannot give it.
What Ballina?
Okay, think I found the Ballina.
It was in G airspace, one aircraft forgot to turn on "ALT" on the transponder, the airspace was "broadcast" airspace.... so I'm a little confused why ATC is dragged into it?
Though you normally don't broadcast on ATC frequencies, they are a worktool for the controllers and they'll be pissed. You communicate with ATC on that frequency.
You know as well as I do, that it says as far as is practical, not optional. Which is practice would mean that if you know they are there, you'll give it.... whereas, if you have no clue they are there, you cannot give it.
What Ballina?
Okay, think I found the Ballina.
It was in G airspace, one aircraft forgot to turn on "ALT" on the transponder, the airspace was "broadcast" airspace.... so I'm a little confused why ATC is dragged into it?
Though you normally don't broadcast on ATC frequencies, they are a worktool for the controllers and they'll be pissed. You communicate with ATC on that frequency.