Originally Posted by
alphacentauri
Um, there isnt a proposed CTA/ Airspace model yet. The only proposed model that i know of is in the Dept original report from 20 years ago. Flight paths are still being established, and until that is finalised, airspace models will follow.
No such thing as CATI or better GNSS approaches.
Would you be so kind as to point us in the direction of this manual on ICAO compliant airspace design? (Its ok Ill wait)
Alpha,
Wrong, I am afraid, the initial design was presented to an industry meeting in the "Terminal" at YSBK by a combined team from the "Department", CASA and Airservices quite some time ago. And I do have comprehensive contemporaneous notes of the meeting and plenty of witnesses, there were about 50 present, including the current AOPA President.
One of the PP slides showed the extent of the planned CTA boundary ----- although it went over the heads of most at the meeting ---- airspace design matters are not generally a riveting conversation piece.
Subsequent to the meeting, I had quite a long conversation about the "plans" with one of the 'Department" persons, it was quite enlightening --- about all I can say about that conversation is that there is not 100% internal support for what is proposed ---- which is freely admitted will seriously disrupt any GA VFR and kybosh any IFR at YSBK. Indeed, one "Department" person at that meeting made it quite clear that both CASA and Airservices intended to disregard GA in practice, GA would get whatever was left after this huge
and completely unnecessary zone was established for Sydney West, and it would not be much more than VFR lanes in and out of the two GA airfields.
That person did not agree with the approach, but there was little he could do about it, as CASA and Airservices were "the experts". Indeed, CASA and Airservices both seem to be quite sanguine about YSBK closing completely, GA is regarded as dispensable, and ambulance, rescue, police, National Parks etc can move to the new airport.
Since then, there have been all sorts of denials, the present "policy" is to present a fait acompli, close to the opening, with a "it's too late to change it now" defense to demands for real consultation, and the denial of any IFR in and out of YSBK is accepted as a given.
The fact is, that it is quite possible to design a CTA for Sydney West that, whilst it will be quite disruptive, compared to now, would still allow VFR and IFR at YSBK, and have Camden well outside the new zone.
Some investigation was commissioned by AOPA, the result was that the zone depicted is based on a 1960s DCA draft "Australian" standard, which was adopted from the UK, EGLL zone is an example. Work the size out for yourself, based on the ICAO standards, and add the separation of the two runways to work out the width. Hint: The reference speed for circling for Cat.E is 250 kts, with what that means for radius of turn.
As to CAT 1 minima for GNSS approaches, the standard certainly exists for GNSS with SBAS or GBAS, and both Sydney and Melbourne areas have GBAS right now, it has been there for a while..At least some QF aircraft are equipped to use GBAS.
Light Reading>
https://www.icao.int/MID/Documents/2...tus%20ACAC.pdf
Tootle pip!!
PS: Much like certain flightpaths into YSSY, little attention seems to be given to the use of current aircraft equipment to minimize noise ---- not even the "low noise" procedures that are common elsewhere. Such flightpaths would further reduce the impact on GA, as well as noise impact on western Sydney.