The Great Adelaide GA Airspace Shutdown of 2010

[baswell]

The current NOTAM contains something they "forgot" to add to the June 3rd ERSA:

AMD ERSA DATED 03 JUNE 2010 FLIGHT PROCEDURES
ADD:
VFR HJ DO NOT PLAN TO TRANSIT OR OVER-FLY THE AD CTR BLW A060 WHERE
AN ALTN RTE IN CLASS G AIRSPACE IS AVBL. WHERE AN ALTN RTE IN CLASS G
IS NOT AVBL, PLAN
- COT FM D213 TO PNL
- COT PNL TO D213
- HOPE VALLEY VFR RTE
VFR HJ DEP FM YPAD TO YPPF, PLAN VIA PAL
FROM 06 021600 TO PERM

WTF!? No more 500ft coastal on a CAVOK day or overflying the CBD on the way south? (without getting in RPT's way!) No more CTA training flights for students?

We're all scratching our heads. When AsA planned to move Adelaide Approach to Melbourne, the GA community got behind them and petitioned for AsA to reconsider, which they did.

Now they pull this crap on us.

Not happy Jan.

Any of these being pulled on GA flyers in other capital cities?

[Natit]

COT FM D213 TO PNL

That is coastal to Port Noarlunga...

Just try departing out of YPPF IFR these days :mad:

I don't think the guy in Rossair's 441 at the holding point today for 20 mins was too happy...

[eocvictim]

I'm sorry but since when did "do not plan" mean "do not enter"?

I also fail to see how you cant train students on CTA procedures when this is a block on planning directly over the CTR below A060?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Any of these being pulled on GA flyers in other capital cities?

Well! - You could try flying VFR into Brisbane when converging runway ops are the go!

Dr :8

[strim]

The whole situation is completely ridiculous.

What kind of air traffic system can't vector a lightie across a control zone.

IFR being 'strongly encouraged' to depart/arrive VFR, or wait half a day for your clearance.

ATC won't issue the 'VFR departure'.

PF is a unique bit of airspace and the Class D procedures really don't suit it, certainly for IFR anyway with ED and the AD LOC so close.

All VFR still converging to the same points, same level. Solved nothing.

[Lodown]

Get used to it. VFR and IFR are getting separated more and more. The CASA doesn't care; safety cases speak for themselves, and there's no one left who has any concern for the future of GA. AsA doesn't care; it's a lot, lot easier dealing with IFR (airline) aircraft on TAAATS, and it's a whole lot cheaper, requiring less manual interaction than comparable services for VFR aircraft. Cost recovery taken to its logical conclusion. Some loud voices just wanted GA to be left alone without unnecessary costs. It works nicely if you don't plan on interacting much with IFR aircraft...and there lies the problem.

Eventually, the commercial aspect of GA will be a shadow of what it was/is now. Access to routes is going to be paramount for survival for many in the commercial GA sector in the coming decade or two. It is now. Commercial GA is getting regulated and routed out of profitable markets and the industry doesn't realise it. (Maybe it does, but doesn't care.) Australia's a big country with wide, open spaces right; how could one or two route restrictions possibly affect aviation right? Demand support from your local ATC's. You petitioned for them and this is how you get repaid?

[triadic]

20 yrs ago, VFR transits over AMML were not likely to get a cnce below A060 and most of the locals knew that. It was always a ATC workload issue for ops at a lower level, so it was either over the top above A060 or down the lanes (as they were) to MB or wherever.

Agree 100% with Lodown's comments on the status of GA. It is bad now and getting worse. Only us old fella's that have been around for a bit know how good it used to be.... makes one want to cry!!:{:{

ASA have no customer service ethic whatsoever and the ATC training these days is all about having aircraft on rails - vectors mean more workload and many controllers these days have never been in the world many of us used to know. Makes one wonder how our mates in North America handle this sort of thing??

Yes, sadly, we have to get used to it. If it's not ASA, then it's CASA or Security or airport charges that get's GA in the neck. :ugh::ugh:

Yes GA is almost dead, certainly near the major cities!! :(:(

The value of many GA aircraft has leveled off and it wont be long before it starts to slide......:ugh::ugh::{:{

[peuce]

Maybe Dick Smith is right ... ( cough, splutter :eek: )

Maybe we need all CTA to be changed to Class E .... that's the only way VFRs can be guaranteed airspace access.

[The Chaser]

Demand support from your local ATC's. You petitioned for them and this is how you get repaid?
WTF?
Maybe Dick Smith is right
This would be the same Dick Smith that said GAAP for GA was dangerous and needed changing? :ugh:The same Dick Smith that remains suspiciously silent on Class E that isn't. :hmm:

[peuce]

Maybe my wife IS right ... "I'm just not that funny!"
My humour is obviously too subtle.

[The Chaser]

:E I prolly should have acknowledged the 'subtle' piss take :ok:

[peuce]

However, having said that, I do think that Class E has a place in our menu of airspace services.... if allocated appropriately.

And the first test of appropriateness is the availability of SURVEILLANCE.
There is no place in our airspace toolkit for non-surveillance Class E ... no matter how beneficial to VFRs it is.

[Clare Prop]

Read the Perth entry in ERSA. We haven't been able to transit the CTR VFR for quite some time. Instead we have two little slices of airspace V65 and V66 that we can get a tiny amount of exposure to Class C. It's not the end of the world.