Clearly you fly your ‘Boeing’ much more than your ‘Bonanza’ or you would have discovered that the ‘service’ being offered is way below acceptable standards for even a third world country.

That is unless you ‘live’ in controlled airspace all the time such as when you are in a ‘Boeing’ where the service must be first class ( at the expense of everyone else )

We are the ONLY country in the world that uses the phrase ‘REMAIN OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE’ and where it is a HASSLE to get a clearance. I know because I fly there a lot and it is such an INCONVENIENCE for them to have to actually let people through.

Our system has traffic cops and their job is not to assist the flow of traffic unless it suits them!

Get real Charles a lot of us don’t fly ‘Boeings’ and therefore in the eyes of the powers-that-be we are second class citizens and the sad fact is that this IS A FACT.

Thanks for that, but my confusion has not been extinguished. This statement is from the CASA press release of 15 July.

“The Director of Aviation Safety has also announced CASA will require that all GAAP aerodromes will be moving towards Class D air traffic control, by 21 April 2010, better harmonising arrangements in Australia with the current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) airspace classification system.”

I think CASA had better sort out their own contradictions first before they go hunting heads at Airservices.

Maurice Waugh

Editor’s comment – A final word

The statement quoted above closely resembles the one published in the AIC on July 24, which said in part:

The CASA Director of Aviation Safety has directed that the following actions be undertaken by 21 April 2010:
a. The implementation of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Class D airspace where GAAP Control zones currently exist.
(i) Implementation will enhance safety by standardising Class D procedures nationally and aligning Australia with ICAO requirements.

I think the sorting out of contradictions is happening in various appropriate places as we speak.

AviationAdvertiser has been busy obtaining some clarification and all will be revealed in a follow-up article which will on this site tomorrow and will also reflect the experiences of flying school operators since all this hit the fan.

Ed

Positive separation is not provided between VFR aircraft in a GAAP

Oooops, I guess I meant “procedural separation.” I can’t actually find a definition of “positive separation but I’d have thought clearances to takeoff and land, or instructions to do a go-around, would qualify.” Fixed, anyway.

Ed

“Mr McCormick has also made it clear that the proposed Class D airspace will be based not on the ICAO version but on the model adopted in the USA.”

Quote from AIC H09/09:

“5.1a The implementation of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Class D airspace where GAAP control zones currently exist.”

Quote from Maurice Waugh:

“Well, I’m confused.”

Maurice Waugh

Editor’s comment

Well Maurice, the confusion arises not from the Director’s comments and assurances which reflect exactly what we’ve said, but from an Aeronautical Information Circular originated by Airservices Australia, which is no longer the regulator. I think you’ll find that this contradiction if being resolved as we speak.

Ed

How about … ummm … GAAP!

Maurice Waugh

How many have we had in Australia in the last 10 years?

Maybe 2 or 3?

So to quote Dick ‘the US has 15 times the aviation activity in a roughly similar geographical area but DOES NOT have 15 times the midairs?’

Gee I don’t know but 1/15th the US rate would be 4.7. I feel sure we would have noticed that many.

So if the agenda here is not intellectual honesty what is it?

I think, no in fact I am bloody certain, we have a right to know.

If it happens in the next 10 years will that mean that ‘Australian’ Class D is 4 time more dangerous than the GAAP it replaced?

Only six aircraft in the Class D airspace at one time? Well that is 3 potential midair collisions right there – I think it behooves us to allow no more than 1 aircraft within the Class D airspace at any one time – zero midair risk.

I am being silly?

Well I am not the only one.

I fly all over the world on long haul operations and that would have to be the silliest thing I have ever read. When I fly in Australia, whether in my Boeing or Bonanza, I feel a cloak of safety and comfort that I experience in few other places.

Dick didn’t say that anyway – in fact he said that after only 1 midair (near YSBK) in 40 years that Australian GAAP is ‘the safest busy airspace in the world’. So we should change that airspace?

What people seem unwilling to come to terms with is that AT SOME POINT aircraft will converge because they are ALL heading for the same runway. Its like the myth that new enroute technology will save the airlines money – hey Australia’s airspace is near empty – its not called the GAFA for no reason – but we are all heading for 34L at YSSY and arriving just after 0600LT.

So clearly the answer is close airports, don’t build more runways and have everyone (including low time students) at YSBK et al converging from 360 different directions rather than 3 – obvious isn’t it – why didn’t I think of that?

Combining that with the AsA location specific charging model, and their profit before service mentality (just look at the cost cutting result in coal face ATC staff numbers as an example) I think that we will potentially end up with a hybrid that does nothing to foster GA in the capital city GAAP/Class D airports.

We currently pay a great deal of tax on every litre of avgas, hour of LAME labour, $ of spare parts as well as for every regulatory function from CASA and AsA charges. The part of ‘the US system’ we are NOT getting and that NO ONE seems willing to talk about is the charging regime.

US pilots don’t pay landing fees, Terminal/Enroute fees or fees to do instrument approaches/circuits etc. US pilots don’t face the same privatisation of what were Govt monopolies (airports) that we do.

They pay a small, 4 or 5 cents/litre, fuel tax and then use the ENTIRE US system, essentially, AT NO FURTHER COST.

By all means bring in ‘the US system’ – but bring in ALL of it!

Somehow I don’t think the 20 odd cents a litre I pay in sundry avgas taxes is going deemed enough.

Chuck