brian may

<URL:http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mediainfo/custnewsflash/archive/custnewsarc2004/2004_2_19.htm>

Its not a "roll-back" or an "incremental improvement" anymore, but
"temporary options" for "5 years" when "we harmonise with the US
[airspace] model".
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>

paul repacholi

Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> writes:

Good bye over 12500' All class C now it would appear.
Wonder what is going to happen with the tin hat 2C?

--
Paul Repacholi 1 Crescent Rd.,
+61 (08) 9257-1001 Kalamunda.
West Australia 6076
comp.os.vms,- The Older, Grumpier Slashdot
Raw, Cooked or Well-done, it's all half baked.
EPIC, The Architecture of the future, always has been, always will be.

alan

tnewsarc2004/2004_2_19.htm>


I can do the the cost benefit analysis of the end state now. There will be
very little benefit at great cost.
Alan

peter creswick

(a) the reclassification of portions of Class E airspace around Class C and
Class D towers to ensure the 3 degree aircraft flight profile for approach to
these aerodromes is captured as Class C Airspace.
(b) the reclassification of Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C,
in addition to (a) above.


Well, (b) is interesting. Taken literally, since E covers all of Aus at various
bases, that effectively means that all of Aus is now minimum of C-LL-F125 if any
E exists above F125. Out in the back blocks, where E is currently LL180 to the
base of A-LL245, presumably, there will (initially) be no C. BUT, subsequent
NAS stages were to lower the E base nation wide. If that basic intention
remains, it presumably means we are eventually in for a nation wide C-LL-F125.
How F**** ridiculous.

Presumably the effect of (a) will be to give 1500 foot C steps every 5 miles
outside 7nm for C and D towers to 30nm or thereabouts. Given the design of
existing sectors, adding in the requirement "to ensure the 3 degree aircraft
flight profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C
Airspace", to me, basically means anything within 60nm has a C step out of the
C-LL125 base, ie, it seems to look like this:-
Class D Towers Class C Towers ILS Sectors (34 YSSY)
0 to 7nm LL= SFC 0 to 7nm LL= SFC 0 to 7nm LL= SFC
7 to 12nm LL= 1500 7 to 12nm LL= 1000 7 to 12nm LL= 1000
12 to 17nm LL= 3000 12 to 20nm LL= 2500
17 to 22nm LL= 4500 12 to 25nm LL= 1500
22 to 27nm LL= 6000 20 to 30nm LL= 4500
30 to 45nm LL= 7500
45 to 60nm LL=10500

thogard

: Class D towers to ensure the 3 degree aircraft flight profile for approach to
: these aerodromes is captured as Class C Airspace.
Sounds like they want to lock up the 99% of lower airspace that
comercial planes don't need to use into Class-C which requires
expensive ATC which is counter to the point of getting the small
planes out of the ATC system to reduce costs (without increasing
risk of course)


: (b) the reclassification of Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C,
: in addition to (a) above.
What does (b) do? What are the odds of a C-152 at 16,000 ft running into
a 737?

If they are going to do that, why not call it class-A and get over it?

-tim
http://web.abnormal.com

alan

No it's not 152's, it's acft flown by the likes of that twit in Victoria -
flying his pressurised acft round at 18500 - VFR with transponder off (or
perhaps alt off) - he nearly managed to run into Virgin.
Alan
Alan