Airspace Changes Update

Claims that the proposed system was not ‘pure’ ICAO and as such Australia would be introducing an untried system;

IFR traffic was not to be provided with directed IFR/IFR traffic information in Class G airspace;

Frequency segregation of VFR and IFR traffic in Class E airspace;

No alerted see and avoid in many areas of airspace;

Claims that the use of MTAFs without third party involvement was unsafe.

In October 1993 an Airspace Advisory Team including representatives from Canada, the USA, and the CAA was established to identify options and to address the concerns raised. This was followed by the establishment of an Airspace Analysis Team in November of that year to assess each model against:

safety analysis;

pilot training and charting requirements;

ATC sectorisation and training;

impact on other projects;

costs.

The team determined that no option could provide the cost benefits of the 11/11 model and address the safety concerns with it. In doing so the team highlighted the need for a set of principles and criteria for establishing various classes of airspace. These were developed and formed the basis of a consultation programme in March and April 1994. Industry responses were used to modify these criteria and industry also raised the issues of target levels of safety and risk analysis.

At the same time, the CAA laid down its Minimum Airspace Safety Criteria and policy issues relating to managing changes which would impact on safety; vis:

Professional judgement alone cannot be relied upon to justify change;

The philosophy of ‘other countries do it, therefore it must be safe’ is unacceptable as a sole basis for change;

The CAA must consider a community acceptable level of risk;

There will be no acceptance of unanalysed risk;

The CAA will seek continuous improvements in aviation safety.

In November 1994 the CAA Board endorsed a recommended model and the brochure ‘Airspace: A strategic approach’ was distributed to approximately 60,000 recipients. Representatives of key industry organisations met in January this year to consider the proposed model and at a meeting with the CAA in February, the Australian Aviation Industry Association (AAIC) presented an alternate proposal for an airspace model. It is significant that this was the first proposal to be presented with the unanimous support of all major industry representative organisations.

Following further discussion amongst the AAIC representatives, the CAA in taking cognisance of its final proposal, agreed to carry out a comprehensive and objective analysis and to advise the outcome.

Finally, in April the CAA board after considering the latest input agreed that the Australian airspace classification system should be based on the 11/11 proposal with modifications to meet DASR (CASA after July 1 1995) requirements and some industry proposals, and have the following characteristics:

Class A – Oceanic airspace between flight levels 245 and 460.

Class B – Continental airspace from flight level 200 to 600

Class C – Stepped airspace around major airports with radar towers to flight 200

Class D – Airspace around airports with non radar towers

Class E – Airspace between flight levels 100 and 200 over the continent where there is not a higher class of airspace, or in corridors down to ground level, as traffic justifies or as required by DASR (CASA after July 1)

Class F – Not used.

Class G – All other airspace with services to be provided including:

A radar advisory service within designated radar areas.

IFR/IFR traffic advisory services within terminal areas.

IFR/IFR advisory services en route subject to further discussions with DASR and industry.

Designated mandatory broadcast zones (MBZ)

GAAP – GAAP towers as currently marked on charts.

The New System

The CAA intends to introduce ICAO classifications to the timetable as follows (refer also to accompanying diagrams):

December 7 1995

Class A Airspace: From FL 245 to FL 460 in existing Oceanic Controlled Airspace (OCA). From FL 200 to FL 600 in the airspace not currently designated OCA.

Class C Airspace: From the surface to FL 200 in all existing airspace designated as Controlled Airspace (CTR or CTA) except GAAP aerodromes.

Class G Airspace: From the surface to the horizontal or vertical boundary of adjoining Class A, Class C or GAAP Airspace.

GAAP: Will be retained and the difference filed with ICAO as at present.

Mandatory Broadcast Zones: Existing MTAF areas will be redesignated as MBZ. Existing MTAF procedures will be unchanged.

June 20 1996

Amend classification as follows:

Class B Airspace: Replaces Class A from FL 200 to FL 600 in the airspace not currently designated OCA.

Class D Airspace: Replaces Class C Airspace associated with non radar control towers

The CAA maintains that the model developed permits the application of the ICAO Airspace Classification System in Australia consistent with the maintenance of appropriate safety levels. The first step on December 7 will essentially be a renaming of the existing airspace. The June 20 1996 changes will see the introduction of Class B above FL200 which will permit VFR operations above this level (with charges yet to be determined) on a routine basis for the first time; and the reclassification of country non radar towers from Class C to Class D. As a side issue, the CAA admits that at present the standard of service provided by country towers varies depending on the tower and there is a need to ensure greater uniformity.

There is no Class E airspace in the present model but it will be introduced at some time in the future after appropriate analysis of the need. It will be provided down to 5000ft under radar coverage and above 10,000ft elsewhere as appropriate. The introduction of corridors down to ground level, as traffic justifies is envisaged. This was one of the major points of contention with the 11/11 system where opponents of the proposed E airspace coverage saw it as providing an expensive service that wasn’t needed, mainly a question of Class G airspace and the services to be provided in it. It is understood that the current AOPA view is that Class G as proposed is not ‘pure’ ICAO and that it should remain as per the old OCTA or ‘outside controlled airspace’. It is maintained that no other country provides an IFR/IFR traffic information service in G airspace and that it will cost the industry millions of dollars. The CAA refutes this argument, stating that it is IAW ICAO Annexe 11 requirements and that the service will be provided at no cost to avgas and mogas fuelled operators. IFR aircraft must advise their activities and hence being known to the system are required to be provided with such a service. A strong point made by the CAA is that the service is being retained at present to protect the fare paying passenger, and this must remain so until a safety analysis assessment has been carried out.

The Australian Airspace Classification System To Be Implemented On 20 June 1996

The CAA is well aware that in implementing the universally accepted practice of the ‘safety jury’ or collective ‘professional experience and judgement’ to do this. The CAA states that while this has been acceptable in the past, modern techniques of risk assessment in other high risk industries have evolved. The traditional approach by itself is no longer adequate. Risk assessment will apply both to demands for increased service or for a reduction of a service on cost grounds.

Comment

It is clear that the CAA has learnt a hard lesson from the 11/11 debacle in that it now recognises “the need for a disciplined, visible and reviewable risk analysis process appropriate to airspace classification. This is being developed with the assistance of experts in the field and input from CAA and industry representatives from the full spectrum of operations”.

This is an important development and should be borne in mind by all who seek to oppose what the CAA has put forward, or its successor may put forward in the future.

Those in the industry who are constantly and loudly calling for ‘greater freedom in the skies’, to meet their own particular requirements, or political agenda, have had their say and should now can it, and let the CAA get on with what it is charged by law to do.

The skies must be regulated for the common good, and particularly for the fare paying passenger who has no control over his or her destiny once embarked in an RPT aircraft.

To coin a phrase, that really is the bottom line.