172/04 - Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures,

[QJB]

http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/newrules/parts/172/download/npc172-04.pdf

Don't know if this has been posted already. CASA notice of proposed rule making 172/04 - Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures

[muffman]

In some circumstances this may be alleviated by the ability for aircraft to fly closer,
horizontally, to cloud under the new VMC criteria – 600 m as compared to the current
1,500 m.

Isn't the current GAAP requirement just to be clear of cloud?

[ravan]

You're right, but they are talking about the change in VMC criteria between the current Class "D" rules and the new Class "D" rules (ICAO versus FAA).

[mostlytossas]

I think CASA for once have got it about right. I particularly like the recommended approach points not mandatory part. I along with others have long held the view that everyone converging on one point at the same altitude is asking for mid air collisions to happen.
So I for one am happy with it.

[werbil]

My quick read is that SVFR will be separated from all SVFR. So with less than a 1500 ft base the operations in the zones will all but stop. IMO the 600m reduced horizontal distance from cloud will not help.

Currently GAAP is clear of cloud, and in "standard D" SVFR is only separated from other SVFR if it is due to reduced visibility.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Something doesn't jell...

The Argus Consulting Group study for Launceston Aerodrome, December 2009 doesn't agree with any of the NPRM as per the proposed changes to FAA class D

In addition to the modelling discussed above a comprehensive a qualitative airspace risk assessment was undertaken including AS/NZS 4360:2004 assessment with comparative risk ratings applied.

In consideration of the input from all stakeholders and their respective replies to structured and unstructured questions on specific areas of potential risk, it is arguable that the airspace contained with 35 nm of Launceston is acceptable from both an operational (efficiency) and a risk perspective. This would appear consistent with the application of a limited quantitative assessment as set out at Section 3.2 and indeed supported by the
absence of any discernable pattern of incidents or accidents. Again, this is not inconsistent with previous findings and reports.

An argument could be made that, in an attempt to overcome inefficiencies, safety can be compromised inadvertently. Consequently this review raises a number of issues that either directly impact upon the safety of operations, or indirectly have the potential to impact on the safety of operations within the airspace.

[ravan]

Werbil is pretty well on the money. Talking to an ATCer from YBAF and he was saying that with the size of Archerfield's airspace there will not be enough room to apply the required Class D separation standards, ergo, one movement at a time in the zone?
Doesn't sound like an improvement in efficiency to me.

[Sunfish]

YMMB often has a winter stratus cloud base at 1000 -1200 and we seem to do OK. 500 clear vertically seems a little excessive.

[Area QNH is...]

Sunfish and Werbil raise very good points re the Wx.
During marginal weather days (ie: cloud below 1500') say goodbye to circuit training and dep/arr will need special VFR clearances. 1 in/out at a time.
Fewer aircraft airborne, less chance of a collision? :suspect:

[2b2]

I along with others have long held the view that everyone converging on one point at the same altitude is asking for mid air collisions to happen.


not sure about everywhere else but it is certainly NOT a requirement to be "at the same altitude" at an inbound point at Archerfield. It is a requirement to enter the CTR at A015, NOT to be AT A015 at the inbound reporting point. A very common misconception, that makes a huge difference to any "risk modelling".

One of the other purposes of the inbound point is to segregate inbound flight paths from the outbound traffic - not sure how that works now.

Good luck!

[peuce]

Am I just being cynical, or would a good QC make you pay for NOT using RECOMMENDED entry points ?

[BrazDriver]

Worse than having aircraft merging at the same altitude is aircraft descending on the same track to a common altitude. Aircraft A flying between point X and Y at 1500ft and Aircraft B on the same track descending to 1500ft on top of Aircraft A. This has caused many a midair previously worldwide!

[Dizzy Llama]

Worse than having aircraft merging at the same altitude is aircraft descending on the same track to a common altitude. Aircraft A flying between point X and Y at 1500ft and Aircraft B on the same track descending to 1500ft on top of Aircraft A. This has caused many a midair previously worldwide!

Never seen a problem at GAAPs when it is happening inside the reporting point and everyone is communicating and has accurate traffic information on each other.

[werbil]

If the changes are implemented as proposed I think that all D zones (not just GAAP) will effectively become 1 in 1 out for low base situations (including up to 1,500 AAL) where SVFR is required to operate because of their relatively small physical size of the zones (only about 6 - 7nm at 1,000').

This change will result in aircraft flying lower to comply with VFR - I can't see anyone being happy with training aircraft conducting low level circuits over built up areas.

Please respond to the NPRM - otherwise we'll get stuck with the proposal.

[mostlytossas]

Clinton,
No downwind is not the same,as this is within the control zone and under the instructions and guidance with separation issues if required from the tower. The problem with reporting points as they currently stand is that it is all self separation with little or no help at all,due to them being outside the zone.

[mostlytossas]

Clinton, You have described exactly how it will work ( as it does now at non radar primaries in the old term) with less risk of collision because all inbound aircaft are at different points until told to merge with the assistance of the tower. Outbound traffic would be at 1000' ( or something simular) again with the assistance of the tower until well clear of the zone. I don't see where there is any greater collision risk in this. As for Bankstown who knows what they have planned as it is not a true GAAP and may need to change. Most GAAPs now do not have procedures like BK where you have all arrivals and departures using the same runway and all circuit traffic using the other. Ask CASA or ASA what they plan to do for the finer details not me.
Cheers

[Dizzy Llama]

Mostly - I suggest a bit of time in Parafield Tower when it is really busy.



as it does now at non radar primaries

these don't have 30,000+ movements per month.


until told to merge with the assistance of the tower
again with the assistance of the tower

Just what is a tower controller suppose to do with 6 inbound and 6 outbound (speaking marginal English - SW, SE?? 3 miles, 5 miles?? 80kt, 180kt) while he is providing Runway Separation? I think you over rate just what is possible.


Outbound traffic would be at 1000' ( or something simular)

it makes sense to do that now until clear of inbound points - plenty don't, get to 3 miles - up we go. Just how far do you go - 3 miles, 5, 10?


Ask CASA or ASA what they plan to do for the finer details not me

if only anyone knew!



Alot of this stuff sounds good in theory with only 2 or 3 aeroplanes in a perfect world - unfortunately, when it involves 8 or more aircraft, not quite sure where they are, speaking limited English, throw in an SR22 going 180kt - IT WILL NOT WORK!

That is why special procedures were developed - borrowed from FAA VFR D - we just called it GAAP.

No mention yet of how SMC is suppose to work!! :sad:

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Dizzy LlamaNo mention yet of how SMC is suppose to work!! The closest that I can find amongst all the strikeouts in Annex A, is on page A32 where a 'Ready to Taxi' report is to be given to 'ATC'.

[mostlytossas]

Dizzy, You fail to acknowledge that the GAAP's as we have them mostly are parralell runways with 2 controllers working them so your example would be 3 aircaft/ controller. Also in other countries they have much greater traffic numbers/population than our paltry 20 million could ever achieve,yet seem to handle them quite well. Unless you think our ATC'ers are somehow inferior. I don't and reckon it will all settle down soon after it is implemented. Just as metric measures, and decimal currency did and yes I'm old enough to remember how it was.:)
It never ceases to amaze me that whenever change is proposed the nay sayers all come up with reasons it won't work never reasons it will.
I happen to think it will and be a better and safer system than the current one where we pilots do ATC's work at GAAP's by self sequencing then telling them the order of arrival( and therefore normally the landing sequence) which is in my view is the most dangerous part of the whole flight.
I'll have a friendly bet with you that after 12months we will all wonder what the fuss was all about and few if any will want to return to the old system. As an example ask around and see how many VFR pilots want to go back to full reporting, or the days of Flight service and the odd Hitler refusing to accept your flight plan.
Cheers

[Biggles_in_Oz]

mostlytossas...the GAAP's as we have them mostly are parralell runways with 2 controllers working them... the keyword in there is mostly.
I've experienced many instances of only one, (very busy), GAAP controller handling circuits and arrivals and departures on all runways.
I just hope that the ASA staffing at the new class D's will be adequate and permanent.

[Dizzy Llama]

Dizzy, You fail to acknowledge that the GAAP's as we have them mostly are parralell runways with 2 controllers working them so your example would be 3 aircaft/ controller.

I'm well aware of how many people are in the tower! - I'm talking about that many aircraft per side - happens regularly. Just how many aircraft do you think are in/leaving/entering a GAAP CTR when it is busy? So even in that example - add 3 or 4 doing circuits and maybe another 3 coming/going in the other direction - the problem will never be when there are a 2 or 3 aircraft - any system will cope with that. A few in the circuit, a gaggle of 5 or 6 inbound and a few outbound - that's when the system has to function

Also in other countries they have much greater traffic numbers

I remember reading this argument awhile ago - never saw an answer then either. There are very, very few places that have 35,000 + movements per month anywhere (and thats just when the tower is open). When someone previously asked for some examples, particularly without a radar or reporting points, the silence was deafening.


Unless you think our ATC'ers are somehow inferior

I know quite a few ....:}

[SayAgainSlowly]

it will and be a better and safer system than the current one where we pilots do ATC's work at GAAP's by self sequencing then telling them the order of arrival( and therefore normally the landing sequence)


For someone who doesn't think our ATC's are inferior that is an ill educated comment. Not sure where you fly mate but it sure as hell wasn't BK yesterday - with a string of PA28's, a couple of 152's, a 414 and an unfamiliar Gulfstream 4 entering the zone at >220kts , I can guarantee it wasn't the pilots who were self sequencing and organising the order of arrival.

[Benjamin James]

And to think that CTAF's cope just fine with 3 aeroplanes doing circuits, 2 helicopters doing a circuit inside that (or contra circuits), and some aircraft departing and arriving in between - all on the same runway :ok:

GAAP's as they are work fine, it's the pilot's that don't.

[QJB]

Hi all,

I thought I'd chip in a few thoughts. I am still undecided on whether I like the idea of GAAP aerodromes switching to D and I certainly haven't been following this debate as long as many people. However I thought rather than becoming a hive of negativity this forum might provide some opportunity for those that operate at GAAP aerodromes to provide some educated and specific suggestions for how to improve the current system. I have done a fair amount of flying at Bankstown airport and also Archerfield. I must admit that on the whole I am impressed with how well the current system works. That being said, I have had several tense moments, one particular instance at YSBK when about 20 aircraft decided to return from the training area simultaneously due to weather. I was very impressed with how calm the controllers were and how well everything was handled but being surrounded on all sides by other aircraft was daunting non the less. I also always get a little uneasy at the approach points as I know how hard it can be to see other aircraft until it is too late. Anyway on to a few ideas:

1/ At GAAP's such as YSBK a discrete radio frequency for the training area "all stations bankstown, MMG, cessna 182, on descent to 1500, northen end of training area (etc), 2RN at 24"

2/ If everyone is worrying about controller workload, perhaps borrowing some tricks from overseas might help. I was reading up on the proceedures for arriving at Oshkosh in the states. Due to the number of arriving aircraft they mandate a speed as well as an altitude for approaching aircraft. 90 knots at 1800 ft or 135 knots at 2300 ft. Could a similar speed requirement help controlers sequence aircraft that are arriving from non specific points in Australia.

3/ Not so much an idea as an observation, I notice in the proposed changes that controllers can require aircraft to report at standard inbound points, I assume that this could be broadcasted on the atis for inbound aircraft, reducing controller workload during busy time periods.

If you have any ideas please post them, it's better than just being negative. :ok:

J

[notaplanegeek]

A step in the right direction, but I wish they could just stick to one either FAA or ICAO.

[Jabawocky]

I am going to Oshkosh and a few other places.....hope you have it sorted by the time I get back!:rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

DNS

In ya dreams

[Josh Cox]

Clinton,

Whilst I believe what you are saying is quite true, for example, ( correct me if I misunderstand ), without approach points, how will we safely have departures, especially IFR on a SID ?.

I have recently been flying out of Jandakot, lots of GA aircraft, from my experience, when departing I have always been vertically seperated ( having climbed above )from inbound traffic by the time I have left the circuit area.

Whilst it could be argued that not having VFR GAAP approach points may make IFR departures slightly more risky, IMHO it will certainly considerably reduce these "funnelling" type problems with VFR GAAP approach points ( basically reducing chances of approach point mid air collisions ).

In the case of all the GAAP's I've flown in, you are in CTA at 1500 AGL, so I do not think it is really that much of an issue.

As far as the proposed distance changes etc etc, I see no problem with that.

I can not see how we can have it both ways on this topic.

Whilst I am not a member of the Captain Smith fan club, I believe he is quite correct WRT to closed minded attitudes some here have, particularly WRT looking at the way other countries operate and how so often people resist change purely for the sake of resisting change.

IMHO we are far from worlds best practice in many ways.

Disclaimer: All ASA controllers / Tower Staff I have dealt with have been fantastic.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Having set aside a couple of hours to get stuck into this and formulate some choice responses, I see the deadline is 19 March 2010 :bored:

[cbradio]

If you are IFR capable, plan in Class C, insist on stayong there, and insist on an IAL. Otherwise you will be spinning in G awaiting clearance.

as was mentioned somewhere else - weather permitting -

Outbound - "VFR Departure"

Inbound - "Cancel IFR"

should work the same as now!

[cbradio]

having said that, with the Pilot/ATC Education Program done so far, i.e. NOTHING, it is time to defer or even better scrap the whole debacle.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Dick Smith says BK has had 40 years - 40 years - of operation with only one mid air.

Bull****!!!

[Jabawocky]

Well Mr MacK has sent me a post card inviting us all along to "Workshops" at various locations around the country between 10th and 20th of May!

Should be a hoot!:ok:

Anyone else get one?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Sent off the request for the PM show for MB and still haven't got a reply..as the same for new education material..big no show...even guys learning at MB give blank expressions when I ask about it.:bored:

[LeadSled]

Bull****!!!

Atlas,
Actually, I think (from memory) it's two, can anybody remember more? In the zone, not in the training area. The Dove/Twin Comanche and the AFTS v. Clambacks Warrior.
Given the movement rate we used to have, still not a bad record.
Certainly a lot better than the roads around YSBK.
Tootle pip

[QSK?]

Leadsled:Actually, I think (from memory) it's two, can anybody remember more?
In the last 40 years there have been exactly 5 instances of MACs at Bankstown airport or Bankstown airspace, viz:

1971: C182/C150 (non fatal)
1974: DH104/PA30 (fatal)
1975: PA30/C182 collision (non-fatal)
2002 : PA28/TB9 (fatal)
2008 : C152/Liberty XL (fatal)

[2b2]

Leadsled (correct quote)

Actually, I think (from memory) it's two, can anybody remember more? In the zone, not in the training area.

so that would be one in 35 years - Dick was pretty close.

[Atlas Shrugged]

Dick was pretty close.

Mate, "pretty close" just doesn't cut it with Aviation I'm afraid!

:ugh::ugh:

[QSK?]

2b2:

My understanding is all the above collisions occurred either in the circuit or at, or near, an IRP.