Here's hoping the airline pilots and air controllers union slowdown
backfires in their faces:


-------------------------------------------------------------------
AVflash Volume 9, Issue 48b — November 27, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S.-LIKE SYSTEM BRINGS AIRSPACE ANGST TO OZ
Today might not be the best for traveling in Australia. The nation's
airline pilots were threatening to throttle back near airports,
ostensibly to prevent colliding with light aircraft they claim have
been thrown into their airspace by new airspace designations and
regulations, which, incidentally, are modeled after the U.S. system.
"People who are probably the least experienced operators of aircraft
are being allowed unfettered access to commercial airspace," Ted Lang,
president of the air controllers union, said in a statement. The
slowdown was expected to throw airline schedules into chaos, and
further indignities awaited passengers unlucky enough to be on board
the pokey airliners. Increased cabin checks were planned and
passengers were to be buckled up below 10,000 feet in case the crew
had to take "evasive action."
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/159-full.html#186164

Larry Dighera > wrote:

>U.S.-LIKE SYSTEM BRINGS AIRSPACE ANGST TO OZ
>Today might not be the best for traveling in Australia. The nation's
>airline pilots were threatening to throttle back near airports,
>ostensibly to prevent colliding with light aircraft they claim have
>been thrown into their airspace by new airspace designations and
>regulations, which, incidentally, are modeled after the U.S. system.
>"People who are probably the least experienced operators of aircraft
>are being allowed unfettered access to commercial airspace," Ted Lang,
>president of the air controllers union, said in a statement. The
>slowdown was expected to throw airline schedules into chaos, and
>further indignities awaited passengers unlucky enough to be on board
>the pokey airliners. Increased cabin checks were planned and
>passengers were to be buckled up below 10,000 feet in case the crew
>had to take "evasive action."
>http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/159-full.html#186164

As a basic summary of the changes, much of the Class C airspace is
changing to class E. For example the class C airspace steps associated
with Melbourne used to extend out to 90nm and FL125 (Yes, 180nm from
one side to the other.) The steps from 40nm-90nm with lower levels of
7500, 8500 and FL125 have been replaced with class E based at 8500.

There was also C airspace at FL125 all the way from Melbourne to
Sydney (380nm). This has also been replaced with class E based at
8500.

My understanding is that our class C is basically equivalent to US
class B.

We have had very little class E up until now, and ATC and airline
pilots are very negative about it - they don't like the idea of
uncontrolled VFR in "their" airspace.

On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:25:33 +1100, Andrew Rowley
> wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>they don't like the idea of uncontrolled VFR in "their" airspace.

Why? Are they unaccustomed to keeping a visual watch for conflicting
aircraft? Don't they possess the qualifications of US pilots and
controllers who seem to manage without difficulty? I don't get it.
It seems to reveal some sort of elitist thinking.

> On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 18:25:33 +1100, Andrew Rowley
> > wrote in Message-Id:
> >:
>
> >they don't like the idea of uncontrolled VFR in "their" airspace.

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>
> Why? Are they unaccustomed to keeping a visual watch for conflicting
> aircraft? Don't they possess the qualifications of US pilots and
> controllers who seem to manage without difficulty? I don't get it.
> It seems to reveal some sort of elitist thinking.

The concept of class E airspace is based on the premise that see-and-avoid
is an effective means of separation in VMC.

However, that effectiveness is bound to vary with aircraft speed, and most
models of visual acquisition indicate that the effectiveness falls
dramatically as speed increases. The FAA evidently acknowledged that with
its introduction of TCAs (now class B) and PCA (now class A above FL180).
To external observers it does seem odd that the FAA forces transport
aircraft to share its airspace with uncontrolled VFR from the base of class
A to the top or lateral boundaries of class B.

The justification for having class E rather than class A or B is that the
traffic density is sufficiently low that the probability of conflicts is
very small, not that pilots are able to overcome the limitations of human
perception with some sort of 'visual acquisition qualification'.
See-and-avoid is clearly not considered to be good enough in the higher
traffic-density airspace.

Whether the Australian commercial pilots' gripes are justified would seem to
revolve around the details -- the traffic density in the airspace that has
been downgraded -- not a judgement of whether the principle of wanting a
more controlled class of airspace is 'elitist'.

Julian Scarfe