WATL5 YSBK STAR gone "ON CASA DIRECTION"?

[CaptainMidnight]

YMMM C5687/14
AIP DEP AND APCH (DAP) EAST YSBK AMD
STANDARD ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR) WATLE FIVE ARRIVAL -
ON CIVIL AVIATION SAFTEY AUTHORITY DIRECTION PROCEDURE WITHDRAWN

AIRCRAFT ARRIVING TO BANKSTOWN (YSBK) VIA WATLE PLAN WATLE DCT BK NDB.
LOWEST SAFE ALTITUDE BETWEEN WATLE BK 4500FT DISTANCE 28NM BEARING 079M.
FROM 08 191300 TO PERM

Anyone know why this procedure was suddenly withdrawn late last night "ON CIVIL AVIATION SAFTEY AUTHORITY DIRECTION"?

I recall the procedure first going in some 10 years ago, I think designed by CASA staff when instrument procedure design was with them. The design function was later transferred to AirServices.

From industry briefings the procedure was due to be deleted and replaced by an RNAV air route at the end of this year anyway, due to the SY VOR being shut down next year.

So what caused the sudden action?

[Dick Smith]

It's interesting how AsA make it very clear that they are acting by CASA command. Interesting that they don't explain the reason.

[Vag277]

CASA have never designed instrument approach procedures. It has always been an Airservices Australia task or the task of a CASR Part 173 Certificate holder. In this case Airservices were/are the responsible design organisation. Why not ask CASA why it was withdrawn?

[cowl flaps]

Vag277, good to see you sticking up for your employer. ;)

[CaptainMidnight]

CASA have never designed instrument approach procedures. It has always been an Airservices Australia task or the task of a CASR Part 173 Certificate holder. I was told that in the mid 90's the function did indeed transfer to the then newly minted CASA from the CAA (part of DASR?), although the people involved didn't physically move. The function was later transferred back to Airservices. CASRs didn't come in till the late 90's, so maybe that's when.

Anyway, minor point.

CASA tend to not produce their safety assessments/cases to explain a directive - they are the Regulator, of course :)

[Dick Smith]

Come on. Surely by now someone must have found out the reason for this urgent change?

[alphacentauri]

1. Do I know the reasons? Yes (well I know what CASA presented as their reasons)
2. Can I tell you what they are? I probably shouldn't.
3. If I told you what they are, would you consider them to be valid? Probably not.
4. Do Airservices think they are valid? The hint in the notam should answer that.
5. Was this an unwarranted knee jerk reaction? CASA says no. (not all agree)
6. Was there any safety work done on the withdrawal of the SID? CASA says yes, but it is evident that there wasn't. If there was it was far from comprehensive as Atc had no idea it was coming. Regardless, refer previous comments regarding safety assessments of our regulator.

Dick, from what I hear the local BK FOI's are also driving this in conjunction with people in the OAR. You might get some I formation from them.

Alpha.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Dick Smith]

Alpha. This is getting even more mysterious! Why should you keep the reason for a basic safety decision secret?

Could this be a struggle for power decision?

Normally the reason a safety change is made is well communicated to those effected- just plane commonsense and basic leadership.

[porch monkey]

"Just plain common sense and basic leadership". Your answer in a nutshell.:hmm:

[alphacentauri]

Dick, as the decision came from from CASA it should be them that communicate the reasons.

I'm not communicating the reasons not because I want to keep a secret, but because a) it's not my responsibility and b) I don't fully understand/agree with the reasons presented so far. At the moment promulgating all the information on a public forum would not be very professional.

Besides that, it's gone, and it's not coming back. The WATLE5 was to be withdrawn in Nov anyway with the removal of SY VOR. The STAR is being replaced by an air route from WATLE to BK....same with Richmond STAR. The issue is not so much the removal of the STAR as it was going anyway.....it's the timing.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Will the air routes WATTLE BK and RIC BIK offer descents under the CTA steps to the same LSALTS? Or is GA screwed again?

[Capt Fathom]

with the removal of the syd vor, will there still be dme?

Current Sydney NOTAM:

C1792/14 review C1556/14
Experimental DME 'SY' 117.3/120x. Ident XP not avbl due test
do not use. False indication possible.
Location: (s33 56.6 e151 11.0)
from 08 180751 to 09 300800

[alphacentauri]

The DME at SY is staying.

The air routes offer low lsalt, so as to be usable by GA and ATC


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[underfire]

They dont want anyone to see all of the USMC equipment being brought in!

[NZScion]

Excuse me for asking an obviously stupid question, but why on earth would they retain a DME and not a VOR?

To allow suitably equipped aircraft to continue using DME/DME navigation and position updating.

[Username here]

1. Do I know the reasons? Yes (well I know what CASA presented as their reasons)
2. Can I tell you what they are? I probably shouldn't.

I'm not communicating the reasons not because I want to keep a secret, but because a) it's not my responsibility and b) I don't fully understand/agree with the reasons presented so far. At the moment promulgating all the information on a public forum would not be very professional.


Then why even draw attention to yourself "being in the know?" Why not keep it to yourself? The cloke and dagger bit isn't value adding squat to this thread....

Willy waving me thinks....:rolleyes:

[CaptainMidnight]

Then why even draw attention to yourself "being in the know?" Why not keep it to yourself? The cloke and dagger bit isn't value adding squat to this thread....

Willy waving me thinks.... What rot.

alphacentauri is clearly "in the know" but unable to say more, and saying that adds to the validation of the rest of what he's posted, which is valuable info re the thread.

What does your post add to the thread?

[Dick Smith]

I have managed to get a sort of answer fromAsA. As follows;

"Airservices received a request from CASA last week to withdraw the procedure immediately following an internal CASA safety analysis, which indicated various concerns regarding the safety of the procedure."

It appears the " concerns" are to be kept secret! I will give a jar of OzEnuts to the first person to expose the real reason.

[thunderbird five]

Assuming there were not squadrons of near misses on that Star, maybe there's another reason - maybe someone with friends in very high places lives under that flight path, and wanted the planes GONE?
Maybe its time for an FOI request Dick. Something VERY fishy is going on there in FF.
How big is this jar of nuts?

[morno]

maybe someone with friends in very high places lives under that flight path, and wanted the planes GONE?

Unlikely, if they're just replacing the STAR with an air route.

I'm still struggling to understand why everyone is up in arms over this....

[Jack Ranga]

For a ride in the Citation I'll find out why.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm still struggling to understand why everyone is up in arms over this.... Because


from what we've learnt here, CASA directed Airservices to pull it now, instead of waiting for 13 November when an RNAV route with new waypoints comes in;
it seems without CASA detailing exactly why i.e. their safety case, what safety issues have suddenly occurred, was there an incident etc.;
so between now and 13 November there is no STAR, just a published by NOTAM track and distance, which at night isn't quite as useful.

[morno]

from what we've learnt here, CASA directed Airservices to pull it now, instead of waiting for 13 November when an RNAV route with new waypoints comes in;


Yes, it appears they did.

it seems without CASA detailing exactly why i.e. their safety case, what safety issues have suddenly occurred, was there an incident etc.;


Do they need to?

so between now and 13 November there is no STAR, just a published by NOTAM track and distance, which at night isn't quite as useful.


I guess it wouldn't be if Sydney ATC was at home in bed. But you'd be under RADAR Control. Problem lies where?

[Bladeangle]

I'd hardly call it a useful star anyway, it uses BK 25 and 15nm MSA's, you can do the same tracking inbound from KAT octa, or any track from the west.

The new notam track will work the same.

Keep requesting a clearance into cta above BK at night until in circling area, if 11 in use, track via the rnav.

[Philthy]

I guess it wouldn't be if Sydney ATC was at home in bed. But you'd be under RADAR Control. Problem lies where?

With your understanding…

Do you think ATC just make up lowest safes? Unless there is an MVA, ATC is restricted to the same lowest safe as are pilots - i.e. route LSALT (there isn't one, apparently), Grid LSALT or MSA (inside 25NM obviously).

Hint: There isn't an MVA outside the SY TMA.

[morno]

Not being an expert in ATC Philthy, I can't say I knew that there wasn't an MVA out there.

But after years of IFR in remote area's along routes that aren't even on a map, let alone a STAR, I can tell you now there are other ways to assertain a LSALT.

morno

[Dick Smith]

Could a knowledgeable expert post the NOTAM here
and explain the differences?

Also when OCTA isn't it the pilots responsibility re LSA ? ATC simply says " cleared to leave controlled airspace on descent"

[thorn bird]

Morno,

I agree.
Back in the distant past, the very few Instrument rated pilots who operated from BK worked out LSALT's for a variety of routes into BK because there were no instrument approaches. These were used largely for cloud break and visual approaches.

[fujii]

Actually Dick, it is "leave control area descending"

[CaptainMidnight]

Could a knowledgeable expert post the NOTAM here
and explain the differences?

YSBK C207/14
AIP DEP AND APCH (DAP) EAST YSBK AMD
STANDARD ARRIVAL ROUTE (STAR)
WATLE FIVE ARRIVAL - ON CASA DIRECTION PROCEDURE WITHDRAWN

AIRCRAFT ARRIVING TO YSBK VIA WATLE PLAN WATLE DCT BK NDB. LSALT
BETWEEN WATLE BK 4500FT DISTANCE 28NM BEARING 079M.
FROM 08 191300 TO PERMSo the LSALT now is 4500, whereas the STAR provided 2300 from 20 DME SY to BK.

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/dap/SBKSR03-130.pdf

After 13 November the RNAV-only air route I'm told has a couple of intermediate waypoints that progressively provide LSALTs that emulate the WATL5 STAR.

[thorn bird]

Is there anything to prevent pilots plotting positions along the Watle-BK track and working out their own LSALT's?

[alphacentauri]

Captain Midnight you are correct. We couldn't implement the air routes early as the waypoints take 56 days to get through the publication cycle and into the rnav systems for use.

4500ft was best we could do at such short notice. The new air routes offer 2000ft in the final segment. They should be usable enough


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Dick Smith]

However no one is explaining the reason for the deletion of the STAR.

What was the problem?

[thorn bird]

God moves in mysterious ways Dick.

[Bladeangle]

So the LSALT now is 4500, whereas the STAR provided 2300 from 20 DME SY to BK.

You can still get down to 2300' referencing RIC 25nm MSA SE quadrant.

The star did nothing you couldn't do without it...

[CaptainMidnight]

However no one is explaining the reason for the deletion of the STAR.Perhaps call the first gent you called re Multicom - it appears the OAR is part of his Airspace and Aerodromes office:
Dick, from what I hear the local BK FOI's are also driving this in conjunction with people in the OAR. You might get some I formation from them.

Alpha.

[Sarcs]

Not normally big on the current practice of the ATSB publishing some of the REPCONs received by them but in this case I will definitely make an exception because the REPCON team..:D..have reached the pinnacle of their stated purpose...

"..REPCON reports can serve as a powerful reminder that, despite the best of intentions, well-trained and well-meaning people are still capable of making mistakes. The de-identified stories arising from these reports may serve to reinforce the message that we must remain vigilant to ensure the ongoing safety of ourselves and others..."

More is the pity that the following REPCON, as is evident from this thread, has not been disseminated across a wider section of the industry, perhaps the following may help to fill in the gaps in this thread, although the FF response does not really make it any clearer why the STAR was promptly pulled?? Maybe the REPCON itself was a strong motivation??
Reporter's concern

The reporter expressed a safety concern in regards to when ATC issue the clearance to descend when flying the Sydney / Bankstown WATTLE FIVE STAR [standard arrival route].

The reporter advised that they are regularly advised to ‘leave controlled area on descent’ before they reach the 20 DME limit. This is the point where ATC should be issuing a descent, as described in the published procedure. This leaves pilots unsure of what is expected of them as the LSALT [lowest safety altitude] is 4700 ft and the lowest level of controlled airspace is 4,500 ft.

The controller does not check if the aircraft is visual before the descent clearance is issued.

Reporter comment: There is potential for an unfamiliar (or low time) pilot to just start a descent in this situation without having any assigned level to descend to. This occurs right over the high terrain of the Blue Mountains, with possible disastrous consequences.

Operator's response (Operator 1)

Airservices Australia (Airservices) appreciates the opportunity to respond to the reported concern regarding the issue of clearances by ATC to descend when flying the Sydney / Bankstown (SY / BK) WATLE FIVE standard arrival route (STAR).

Airservices would like to provide the following clarifications to assist with the interpretation regarding how the WATLE FIVE procedure should be flown.

Airservices clarifies that aircraft approaching an aerodrome must not descend below the lowest safe altitude (LSALT) for the route segment being flown, or the published minimum sector altitude (MSA) in accordance with paragraph 1.4 of the Aeronautical Publication (AIP) - ENR 1.5.

With reference to the reporter's statement that they were advised by ATC to ‘leave controlled area on descent’, Airservices confirms that the LSALT for the WATLE FIVE route is 4700 FT.



However, MSAs are available for lower descent indicated on the WATLE FIVE STAR procedure as the following:

At 25 NM BK (34 DME SY}, the MSA is 3700 FT
At 15 NM BK (24 DME SY), the MSA is 2500 FT.
Following the receipt of the ATC instruction, aircraft are required to descend in accordance with the MSA which was designed to ensure aircraft remain clear of terrain and below Class C steps.

Airservices notes that the WATLE FIVE STAR procedure will be cancelled on 13 November 2014 when the Sydney VOR is decommissioned. An alternative route will be published featuring a LSALT of 2000 FT at 21 DME Sydney (refer to Attachment 1 for more information).

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)

CASA has reviewed the concerns raised in the REPCON and wishes to advise that the WATLE FIVE STAR has been withdrawn.

ATSB comment

In response to these responses the reporter advised the following:
Thanks for the response, and I note the WATLE FIVE STAR has been withdrawn.

I do have a further comment in relation to the response from Airservices, and this should be relevant for any further approach designs:
Airservices states: ‘Following the receipt of the ATC instruction, aircraft are required to descend in accordance with the MSA which was designed to ensure aircraft remain clear of terrain and below Class C steps.’ This is not stated on the approach plate. It is only ‘assumed’ the pilot is to interpret the MSAs for that purpose. Anyone who has flown would design an approach to be clear, unambiguous and not open to interpretation.

The 25nm and 15nm BK MSAs listed on the WATLE FIVE chart are not a part of the approach. Nowhere in the STAR text did it refer to those MSAs. It is not acceptable for ATC to expect a pilot to have to ‘interpret’ anything other than what is stated in the approach.

If the STAR was to require a pilot to use those MSAs then I would have thought it prudent for Airservices to explicitly state that in the approach, rather than expecting the pilot to ‘work out’ what was expected.

For example - the STAR text could have easily said something along the lines of ‘If cleared to leave CTA on descent to YSBK then at 34DME SY (25nm BK) descend to 3700 ft and then at 24DME SY (15nm BK) descend to 2500 ft. If not visual at 2500 ft then conduct ….’.

I don’t think it is very smart approach design to expect pilots to have to work beyond the specific text that is listed on the approach. Workloads are high in bad weather and basic human factors considerations would preclude any such approach designs.

While local pilots were aware of these ‘expectations’ my concern is all about pilots unfamiliar with the airspace being given a confusing and ambiguous clearance without guidelines from the approach plate. I recently flew with a pilot not from the Sydney area (he had 15000+ hours flying experience, mix of airline and GA) and he had absolutely no idea what ATC were expecting him to do when they gave this clearance. It is not theoretical - people were genuinely confused as to the expectations.
Thanks for following this up. I would like the think Airservices will be more practical in their approach design in future to consider the workloads that pilots (particularly in single pilot operations) are under in situations of bad weather where these approaches/STARs are critical.

Airservices provided the following response in relation to these comments:
Airservices notes the CASA response and confirms that the WATLE FIVE procedure has been withdrawn, effective 19 August 2014.

Furthermore, Airservices appreciates the additional feedback provided by the reporter which been provided to Airservices instrument flight procedures design team for reference.

Attachment 1: New route structure on VTC (http://atsb.gov.au/media/5294755/Attachment%201%20-%20New%20route%20structure%20on%20VTC.PDF) Kudos to the reporter & bureau REPCON team job well done..:D:D

ps Anyone know if this REPCON was published in the latest FF FSA online publication?? If it wasn't it bloody well should be..:ok:

[GTang]

Good work.

I remember doing my instrument rating initial a few years ago trying to work it out and asking around, "so how do you do the wattle 5?" I got a few different answers.

[Dick Smith]

Amazing! In the interest of safety and good communication techniques why wouldn't CASA explain the reason for this decision in the first place.

Big problems with leadership I would say.

[CaptainMidnight]

Given the brevity of CASA's response, perhaps the expertise in the matter rested with the reporter and Airservices :)

Thanks sarcs - well done.

[Mail-man]

Perhaps they should have a closer look at NVFR. All ATC need to do is say "clear to leave AND RE-ENTER"

[Mail-man]

Call me a sook, I'm just not a fan of dropping 1000ft in 1.2nm....

[UnderneathTheRadar]

? I'm not a sydney regular but when using the Watle 5 I was always given a clearance.

Maybe they're worried about the way i Fly:}

UTR