Originally Posted by
CaptainMidnight
Correct, they don't design procedures but have procedures designers in their Flight Standards section.
Airservices would have designed the airspace to contain the procedures, missed approach procedures, holding areas etc. with buffers in accordance with CASA MOS Part 173, chapter 8 specifically. That's how it's done i.e design the procedures etc. then design the airspace around them.
CapatinMidnight,
Precisely!!
Including a visual circling segment for an approach cat E aircraft, no such civil aircraft exists, nor will one ever.
Then add the protective area around said circling area, to give the gargantuan zone proposed for Sydney West. With the total disruption to GA around Australia's largest city that the proposal clearly admits.
Given a more sensible recognition of the real world in 2020+, a much more compact zone should be the end result, not some fanciful nonsense, because the "only standard" they could dig up ( literally, as in disinter) was a "draft" standard from the middle of the last century.
One of those present at the meeting I have mentioned was very familiar with the New York/New Jersey area --- he got no answer to his question of the what and why of the Sydney area, when a similar area can accommodate Kennedy, Newark, LaGardia, Teberboro, White Plains and a number of smaller aerodromes in the general area. like Long Island MacArthur, with conflicting runway directions (unlike the Los Angeles basin) ----- with movement rates that absolutely dwarf anything that happens in Australia.
It is ludicrous in the extreme, to contemplate a situation where Australia's largest city and business center has no General Aviation airport worth the name, when all that is need is a planning approach that starts with the proposition: HOW do we integrate H24 IFR GA at YSBK with the two HCPT airports in the area.
HOW we do it, not can we do it!!
Tootle pip!!