Class D IFR Departure Reports

[HotPete]

If an IFR aircraft is departing one of the ex-GAAP Class Ds, say YSBK, into Class G, and the pilot cant get a word in edgeways due frequency overload is it so that pilots are eventually omitting the departure report and transferring to Sydney Radar of their own volition? Does this cause angst with ATC?

[das Uber Soldat]

The guys in the tower literally don't do a single thing with your departure report, and don't want to hear it.

You are however, required to give one. In day to day ops however, the dep report at BK at least has reduced to the point where most people simply say "departed 29", and are then transferred to radar.

The whole thing is stupid.

[Ted D Bear]

Someone showed me an email he sent to someone at CASA asking the same question (and lots of others) before Class D was implemented at the ex-GAAPs. Last time I asked, he's still waiting for an answer :ugh:

One of the problems is AIP hasn't been amended properly to reflect what they're doing at the ex-GAAP Class Ds

Ted

[HotPete]

It raises another question. What if you lodge an IFR plan then opt for "VFR Departure"?

[Ted D Bear]

I regularly depart BK IFR in VMC on the SID, and have seldom had a delay (probably 'coz no-one else is doing it then!). I reckon the delays are roughly the same as they were in the GAAP days for departures, FWIW

[das Uber Soldat]

For departures in IMC the delays haven't changed much, but for departures in VMC its slowed down proceedings. But as you say, depart VFR and resume IFR outside the zone, its not a big drama.

My only real wah is the inbound procedures. If you remain IFR, you don't get a clearance (in the situation where there is another IFR aircraft with a similar estimate. If you downgrade VFR, well, now the collision risk is gone! So a clearance you receive to do exactly the same thing you would have done otherwise. How does that work?!

[Ted D Bear]

That's true, DuS - but it's what we used to do in the GAAP days, anyway - IFR self-separated from IFR, because we had to operate VFR in the zone if it was VMC.

So - again - lots of change in order to get us back where we were in the first place :ugh:

Ted

[muffman]

hey shouldn't be transferring without being told to do so

That would have been my thought, too. although, from memory, the BK-6 SID does say to contact departures when advised, or approaching base of class C

[Clearedtoreenter]

I reckon the delays are roughly the same as they were in the GAAP days for departures, FWIW

Nuff said!

If you downgrade VFR, well, now the collision risk is gone! So a clearance you receive to do exactly the same thing you would have done otherwise. How does that work?!

Too right! Risk is exactly the same but it does make sure the responsibility for not bumping into someone remains firmly with the pilot. Otherwise, ASA might have to assume repsonsibility for air traffic control or something;) and there's only one way to be sure of separation in a tiny GAAP - one in one out. If they had proper radar and airspace to actually separate folk in, things might work a bit better. GAAP's were designed to be GAAP's. Class D should be designed to be Class D. We seem to think the two are interchangeable and so have ended up with Class D airspace that is really just a GAAP, with everything still the pilot's repsonsibility when things go a bit pear-shaped in VMC.

[Ted D Bear]

I think the instruction to contact departures approaching Class C is to cater for a departure on the SID when the TWR is closed.

When the zone is active, TWR always tells you when to change when you're on the SID. And it happens 500+ feet after you've climbed into Class C.