View Full Version : CASA Proposed Rule Changes for Non-Tower Aerodromes
Came upon CASA Notice of proposed rule making 09080S today,
Main changes outlined as:
Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (2)(d) and subregulation (4) - base-leg circuit join no longer prohibited.
Amend CAR 166 paragraph (2)(f) to allow for non-into wind runway use when the AFM permits.
Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (2)(g) - 500m minimum length of the final approach leg no longer mandated.
Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(a) – carriage of a serviceable VHF radio when conducting a straight-in approach no longer required (other than at certified, registered and other designated aerodromes).
Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(b) – specific mandated broadcast for straight-in approaches deleted (although still recommended in CAAPs/AIP).
Amendment of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(d) - reduction in the minimum distance from the threshold by which an aircraft making a straight-in approach must be aligned with the runway, from at least 5 miles to not less than 3 miles.
Any thoughts anyone. Personally I think being able to join on base would be a good thing, especially with a left hand circuit since I can see everyone.
J
tmpffisch
29th Sep 2009, 07:04
Gets a bit tough to see the runway when making a straight in approach at 5nm. 3nm is more workable.
VH-XXX
29th Sep 2009, 07:13
Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (2)(d) and subregulation (4) - base-leg circuit join no longer prohibited.
Yay, thanks Dick!
Amend CAR 166 paragraph (2)(f) to allow for non-into wind runway use when the AFM permits.
Way cool. Finally I can do this without people having a whinge about it!
Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (2)(g) - 500m minimum length of the final approach leg no longer mandated.
Great! Better looking go-arounds (beat-ups).
Withdrawal of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(a) – carriage of a serviceable VHF radio when conducting a straight-in approach no longer required (other than at certified, registered and other designated aerodromes).
Not good, but with the other NPRM out there for the mandatory carriage of VHF it's not going to matter soon probably.
Amendment of CAR 166 paragraph (3)(d) - reduction in the minimum distance from the threshold by which an aircraft making a straight-in approach must be aligned with the runway, from at least 5 miles to not less than 3 miles.
Whilst I don't agree with this one 100%, it's more practical as it's what everyone does already. As long as 3 miles doesn't become 1 mile, but likely less of a problem with the ability to join on base.
j3pipercub
29th Sep 2009, 07:15
Qlink are already doin it, I heard one at Mt Isa the other day joining an 'oblique' 5 mile final. Laughed hard.
ForkTailedDrKiller
29th Sep 2009, 07:39
- base-leg circuit join no longer prohibited.
- allow for non-into wind runway use when the AFM permits.
- 500m minimum length of the final approach leg no longer mandated.
– carriage of a serviceable VHF radio when conducting a straight-in approach no longer required
– specific mandated broadcast for straight-in approaches deleted
- reduction in the minimum distance from the threshold by which an aircraft making a straight-in approach must be aligned with the runway, from at least 5 miles to not less than 3 miles
Hmmm! - is CASA gonna pay me a fee for copying ForkAir's SOPs? :E
Dr :8
maverick22
29th Sep 2009, 11:23
Qlink are already doin it, I heard one at Mt Isa the other day joining an 'oblique' 5 mile final. Laughed hard.
Haven't been out there much but wouldn't that be due to the Final Approach Course on the RNAV approach not being aligned with the runway at Isa?
So if tracking via the RNAV, technically you would be on an "oblique final" in laymans terms? Just a thought
I think all these changes seem pretty good, especially the base leg join.
Howabout
29th Sep 2009, 11:24
I have a feeling that Dick, for all his faults, might have been a prime-mover in bashing some sense in when it comes to joining on base.
So, Dick, if you had a hand in this, take a deserved bow!
Doesn't offset the terminal E BS argument, but that's another debate.
FTDrK, Seems your SOPs have been way ahead of the pack. Maybe you should offer your services as a GA consultant! I understand the going rate is around 1700 a day.
By the way, I often wonder whether you hear the ghosts of BE35s-past. There can't be too many aircraft left for Buddy, Ritchie and the Big Bopper to hitch a ride on when the weather is sh@t!
Beautiful little aircraft!
j3pipercub
29th Sep 2009, 11:51
So if tracking via the RNAV, technically you would be on an "oblique final" in laymans terms? Just a thought
True, but I have never heard of Q-link talking in laymans terms in my experience, always tracking via the waypoints on the RNAV. Just the call was good, almost like the 'joining a late 5 mile final' call I heard the other day from another bloke.
Well done to Dick Smith for the change with the base leg join (assuming the new rules are implemented that is). Just a thought when it comes to Q-Link and other RPT, I much prefer when they talk in layman's terms, ie. I am XX miles to the N/S/E/W etc. I don't carry an approach plate around with me thank you very much. I also try to give those blokes as much room as necessary, hard enough trying to bring a dash 8 into a small airport let alone when every man and his dog is in the circuit. Thats why I can understand when they get the s*(ts and act like portable control towers. Personally I believe its an accident waiting to happen:ugh:, but hey that's a matter for another thread and another day.