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ON CIVIL AVIATION SAFTEY AUTHORITY DIRECTION PROCEDURE WITHDRAWN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Anyone know why this procedure was suddenly withdrawn late last night "ON CIVIL AVIATION SAFTEY AUTHORITY DIRECTION"?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 Why not ask CASA why it was withdrawn?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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Clearedtoreenter

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....

[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....