Cleared Visual Approach....

[Shitsu_Tonka]

..whilst on a STAR.

How/Where are you now authorised to Track?

[Keg]

If the STAR joins up with the approach then you follow the star until you intercept final and then fly the approach from there!

Why do you ask Two dogs?

[jack red]

Tracking requirements (visual app): ATC AU-705 (1.7.5.4) Jepp reference.

Visual approach in CTA

a) maintain track/heading on route authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome; or
(2) by night.
- IFR flight, within the prescribed circling area.
- VFR flight, within 3NM of aerodrome and aerodrome in sight.
b) From this position the circuit must be joined as directed by ATC for
approach to nominated R/W.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Sorry to thread-hijack but something I overheard recently made me wonder.

On a fine night, Melbourne Approach and an Eastern -8 spent a long and laborious process negotiating a visual approach to 09.

I think the crew requested "Request visual approach once established in the circling area"

Melbourne: "Confirm requesting visual approach once established in the circling aread"

-8: "affirm"

Mel: "Eastern... Once established in the circling area cleared visual approach runway 09"

-8: "once established in the circling area, visual approach 09"

My question/point is: Why all the malarky about 'once established in the circling area'? It was night time so the only time descent is allowed below MSA/MVA is inside the circling area - why go to so much trouble to spell it out again and again?

UTR

[jack red]

......why go to so much trouble to spell it out again and again?


It's called "covering your ass" and is practiced widely in this litigation mad society we live in these days ! :mad:

[morno]

But you are already covering your ass if you follow the AIP and remain above the relevant LSALT/MSA, or DME step, and join a 5nm final (7nm's on an ILS equipped runway, and 10nm's established not below the on-slope indication and less than full scale deflection of the azimuth from the ILS) provided the runway has a T-VASIS or PAPI.

So why make it harder for yourself, when you could have still covered your ass and made it easier??

morno

[APMR]

It's called "covering your ass" and is practiced widely in this litigation mad society we live in these days !
But ATCs arse is already covered as the AIP clearly spells out the circumstances under which a visual approach at night may be conducted.

ATC are creating a rod for their own backs by including the phrase "when established in the circling area", IMHO - they are assuming some of the pilot's responsibilities.

In the case of the Dash 8, the controllers instruction should just have been "make visual approach".

[UFB]

But ATCs arse is already covered as the AIP clearly spells out the circumstances under which a visual approach at night may be conducted.

ATC are creating a rod for their own backs by including the phrase "when established in the circling area",

Unfortunately, ATC's have to cover their arse and your arse, because most have learned from long experience that just because "its obvious" and clearly spelled out in AIP doesn't mean that pilots will follow the correct procedures.

[Counter-rotation]

I would hope that an Eastern crew would know what's expected/required of them WRT AIPs etc.

APMR - I nearly agree, there might need to be a CCT joining instruction following "cleared visual approach" (and I assume that a runway has been specified already - if not that's required also, and will come with the CCT join instruction, unless it is bleeding obvious like one runway etc.).

Now back to the original question...

As I understand it -
"Cleared visual approch" has tracking and descent considerations.

WRT to tracking, you are expected to continue on cleared track (in this example, the STAR) until 5nm by day, or until inside the circling area by night. Remember there may be circling restrictions...

All that stuff about aligned w/ centreline within 5nm (7nm ILS Rwy) and above slope on the visual slope aids, or 10nm established LLZ indicating not below GS (14nm SY) etc. etc. tells you when you're allowed to continue descent through MSA or last radar level or DME/GPS step or approach minima etc. at night. You can of course overfly and circle, in the circling area, descending with normal rates of descent at normal circuit spacing for the a/c (this is circling, by definition). By day you can run your descent much less rigourously (but a good pilot wouldn't). You are allowed to go as low as you want without committing "low-flying" (there is a CAR ref. for that). So that covers descent on a visual approach...

If you get "cancel STAR" with your visual approach you will get a subsequent tracking instruction (if you don't, I'd certainly ask for one, unless it was exceedingly obvious - this can be the case).

Happy to be corrected!
CR.

[No Further Requirements]

Regards Visual Approaches at night, it is clearly spelt out in AIP?MATS that we, as ATC, must use the 'once established in the circling area/on the VASIS cleared visual approach.' Not an option for us not to use it, it's there in black and white.

APMR - not to be picky, but you are saying that the pilots should know what to do for a VSA at night, and you then get the R/T incorrect (cleared visual approach not make visual approach). Small error, I know, but can the crew not make a small error in their conduct of a visual approach? We all make mistakes, but to try and prevent one is a good thing.

A visual approach durng the day can be authorised inside 30NM. One of the aircrew responsibilities is to maintain the aircraft above the CTA steps. The amount of times I have, as an approach controller, seen all manner of aircraft descend under the steps would amaze you. For me, the added arse covering of 'once established in the circling area' gives me a bit more of a warm-fuzzy when it comes to terrain and night time. These two items have been the cause of much grief to ATC and aircrew alike.

I wonder how how bretheren in other parts of the world do it?
Cheers all,
NFR.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Thanks for your replies - my question was somewhat rhetorical however.

I have noticed of late various operators when cleared VSA manouevring off the STAR track. I assume this was interpreting the AIP extract as shown above by Jack Red:

Tracking requirements (visual app): ATC AU-705 (1.7.5.4) Jepp reference.

Visual approach in CTA

a) maintain track/heading on route authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome; or
(2) by night.
- IFR flight, within the prescribed circling area.
- VFR flight, within 3NM of aerodrome and aerodrome in sight.
b) From this position the circuit must be joined as directed by ATC for
approach to nominated R/W.

The emphasis in the replies seems to be on para a).

However, re-read para b).

"As directed by ATC" means as directed by the STAR as best I can interpret - in many STARS there are circuit joining instructions .e.g. Track 275 for a 3.5NM Final.

Any comments?

[NIMFLT]

Underneath the Radar,

When being vectored at night, an IFR aircraft ... may be assigned a visual approach at any distance from an aerodrome if:
a.the aircraft has been assigned the MVA; and
b.the aircraft is given heading instructions to intercept final or to position the aircraft within the circling area of the aerodrome; and
c.the following phraseology is used to assign the visual approach:
1.“WHEN ESTABLISHED IN THE CIRCLING AREA CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH”; or
2.“WHEN ESTABLISHED ON THE VASIS/GLIDEPATH CLEARED VISUAL APPROACH”.

The circling area RT is only required when the aircraft is vectored at night. Otherwise it's business as usual. Unless the Eastern crew were under vectors, there is no need for the extra RT. AIP spells out the additional pilot requirements at night but ATC only have different requirements if they have vectored the aircraft.

[NIMFLT]

I have noticed of late various operators when cleared VSA manouevring off the STAR track.

The STAR is the track authorised by ATC and should be maintained until within 5nm then a VSA made as directed. If the STAR doesn't take the aircraft to a position within 5nm, then ATC should provide tracking instructions.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

NIMFLT,

I would take it further - if the STAR directs you how to join a VSA within 5nm, you continue to follow the STAR.

The clearance for the VSA infers descent, not Carte Blanche traking when within 5nm.

Sounds like nitpicking - but it is often the difference between a separation standard or not.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I am at somewhat of a loss to see the problem here.

The AIP is excrutiatingly clear on the requirements THAT MUST BE MET for an IFR RPT aircraft to carry out a visual approach in CTA at night.:ugh:

If someone decides to criss cross christiandom at night having been cleared for a visual approach he should expect the last thing he hears from ATC before shutdown is "the captain is required to call ATC on...."

"hello this is captain xyz"

"Ahh yes...do you understand the phrase 'maintain the track progressively authorised by ATC?"

"uhh yes"

"So you think it doesn't apply to you?"

"uhhh no"

"so you are incapable of meeting the requirements?"

"well no..."

"well I am afraid a report is going into your CP over your reluctance to follow clearly laid down requirements...that ok is it?"

"ummm"

"Have a good night sir"

How long do you think it would be before it stopped happening?

If you sit behind your console shaking your head nothing will change...get the CPs involved and they will get the C&Ting staff involved...they put out a memo to all aircrew and it becomes an item to be addressed at the next C&Ting meeting and then an excercise in the next recurrent sim cyclic.

Simple really.:hmm:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Chuck - the thread got hijacked a bit, as I was not talking about night vsa's.

Just tracking on a STAR.

Seeing quite regulalry different companies leaving the STAR when cleared VSA - thats why a brought it up for discussion.

The point being that a) and b) apply in the Jepp/AIP reference.

[pakeha-boy]

CC ...just like you said mate..."Simple really".....talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.....:confused:

[No Further Requirements]

One I have seen used in YMML is 'cleared VSA tracking via the STAR'. I think this gives the ATC tracking requirements laterally, and then it's up to the pilot to descend accordingly.

Cheers,

NFR.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

NFR - superfluous and ambiguous.

You are already cleared via the STAR. That just confuses someone when they DON'T get "via the STAR".

If it is so siimple pakeha-boy why are there 1/2 a dozen interpretations, and why do I see aircraft leaving the STAR?

[pakeha-boy]

****s....it is really quite simple mate as I fly them every day,and if you only see a few leaving the STAR after cleared for the visual app,which they are entilted to do and as I do often ,whilst maintaining VFR rules then it not a problem,it is not a complicated venture...I dont make the rules ..I just follow them.......and the rules are fairly well in black and white......like all lawyers,they dont ask questions they dont know the answers too...personally I believe you understand fully what you are asking here...maybe just trying to stir the pot ay???????.......PB

[Shitsu_Tonka]

<sighs>

:{

[pakeha-boy]

..exackery!!!

fly a couple, they are designed for idiots....you being a smarty type bloke will have it figured out in no time'

****s...by the way ,the correct terminology is ...."you are cleared to decend via the ABC star"

[Shitsu_Tonka]

the correct terminology is ...."you are cleared to decend via the ABC star"

Oh, really?

<sighs even louder>

Glad we are not confusing this issue in any way now. As I recall from your posts on packing heat in the cockpits of America, you generally fly in the land of the free.

My question was in the DG forum - this refers to the land of the.... <insert parochial phrase>.

We don't use that nice phrase that you have so eloquently "quoted" above.

<sighs once again for good luck>

[Chimbu chuckles]

****su you're right...I only used night because that was the example du jour.

The requirements for an IFR aircraft to accept and fly a visual approach are some of the most black and white in aviation...in fact they make a nice change...there is just no excuse for ad-libbing.

If the pilot thinks he can save 30 seconds by not complying with the star it is equally easy...ask for a vector direct 5 mile finals.

Either way a clearance to make visual approach while flying a star does not mean 'manouver as required' it simply removes the need for ATC to continue 'progressively clearing' the aircraft. The PIC can then track via the star and descend as required (wihin the night/day constraints) until he is on finals where he will be turned over to tower for a landing clearance.

Simple?

My recomendation stands...file reports...sitting behind your console muttering vague epithets about the pilots parentage achieve nothing. If you like they can be 'depersonalised'...just a a/c type and date. It won't be long before you see an improvement once the company C&Ting staff are made aware.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Thanks Chuck - we probably log 20-30 failures to comply each week just in our small bit of airspace.


I still believe talking personally with the pilot after landing or some such does more for the education process.

[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]

Some of the Management types seem to disagree.

[But I guess thats why I ain't a manager.]

[Chimbu chuckles]

[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]

I figured that:ok:

If you don't get the support you need from the C&Ting system the answer is equally simple...stop allowing that operator's pilots to fly visual approaches.

Sooner rather than later you'll be contacted by someone up the food chain asking why.."because they are not capable of doing them":ugh::E :ok:

[topdrop]

Thanks Chuck - we probably log 20-30 failures to comply each week just in our small bit of airspace.


I still believe talking personally with the pilot after landing or some such does more for the education process.

[It's actually the reason I started the thread.]

Some of the Management types seem to disagree.

[But I guess thats why I ain't a manager.]

You're logging 20+ failures to comply per week and think talking to individual pilots is going to help.
I agree with CC, the incident system will solve it much quicker. The majors receive ESIRs on their aircraft's operations very quickly and ain't going to sit around twiddling their thumbs after the first couple come in.
I'm surprised your supervisors haven't had the gumption to submit the ESIRs (if you've told them about it).

[bushy]

Maybe they do not want to upset the C&T people by complaining??

[Cloud Cutter]

Can someone please explain to me why you have this requirement to track via the STAR on a visual approach (have I understood correctly?). Possible reason would be traffic density and R/T congestion, but we don't seem to have a problem at Wellington for example.

I'm also interested in how it's done in other countries if anyone could fill me in.

It also really annoys me when ATC are intent on informing you of something you are required to already know.

[haughtney1]

Cloud ya bugger..you stole my question:sad:

I can understand having to follow the STAR to the initial fix, then through the intermediate section, but why (in Daylight VMC, not night as previously discussed) the requirement;a) maintain track/heading on route authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome;

When for example you are visual with the field/runway/terrain?

Are you guys suggesting that ATC wont authorize a daytime visual unless you are inside 5 miles? again bearing in mind that my understanding is that a VFR flight needs 5K horizontal vis (or is that 8k's...which is 5 miles)

If so they are costing airlines tens of thousands of dollars in wasted fuel:ok:

Can someone clarify this?

[Awol57]

My understanding was that a STAR was a lateral clearance, whereas initially cleared visual approach removes any vertical restrictions. Therefore I would imagine that you would need the STAR cancelled and either radar vectors to a say, 5nm final, or resume on navigation track direct to...

I am still on learning this stuff and don't fly them, but my view from the cheap seats. I'm sure there is someone more learned who can shoot holes in that theory.

[Cloud Cutter]

The reason I ask is that in NZ, a visual approach clearance means you are unrestricted in both tracking and descent unless specifically stated.

At busy airports where you have been previously cleared for a STAR, you may be told the visual is not yet available or 'cleared visual approach tracking via ......... maintain ....... ft'. Seems to work.

[haughtney1]

The reason I ask is that in NZ, a visual approach clearance means you are unrestricted in both tracking and descent unless specifically stated.

At busy airports where you have been previously cleared for a STAR, you may be told the visual is not yet available or 'cleared visual approach tracking via ......... maintain ....... ft'. Seems to work.

Its the same in about 98% of ICAO countries in daylight....Is Oz different?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

..whilst on a STAR.
How/Where are you now authorised to Track?

11.5.4 Tracking requirements..as per CC's post So the STAR would be classified as " the route progressively authorised by ATC"

So this is a bit cute, isn't it? ( I am studying for CIR so I need to understand if I have this right) IF you give me a STAR then I have a clearance to follow that arrival procedure as published. A visual approach should be a separate procedure. However, the way it is written I am still under active guidance from ATC as to direction whilst I am obliged to maintain visual conditions on descent until established on the cleared approach or circuit position.

If I remember right, the old system (Pre-STAR,1978) was once you were cleared visual approch you were authorised to make a "visual approach" by the most direct route to within 5nm of the field, descending as required to remain within CTA till circuit entry height. Only thought this was available traffic permitting.

[Shitsu_Tonka]

(Might I suggest some of you read back through the thread before posting the same questions over again?)

Can someone please explain to me why you have this requirement to track via the STAR on a visual approach (have I understood correctly?). Possible reason would be traffic density and R/T congestion, but we don't seem to have a problem at Wellington for example.

Thats exactly why STARS are promulgated - see AIP:

12.1.2 STARs satisfy the requirements of:
a. noise abatement procedure tracks;
b. airspace segregation for ATC purposes;
c. maximum traffic handling capacity; and
d. reduction in pilot/controller workload and air/ground communication
requirements.

Tracking Requirments:

Tracking requirements (visual app): ATC AU-705 (1.7.5.4) Jepp reference.

Visual approach in CTA

a) maintain track/heading on route authorised by ATC until:
(1) by day, within 5NM of the aerodrome; or
(2) by night.
- IFR flight, within the prescribed circling area.
- VFR flight, within 3NM of aerodrome and aerodrome in sight.
b) From this position the circuit must be joined as directed by ATC for
approach to nominated R/W (The STAR does this).

Example:
para b) above refers to the instructions from KOUPA and LISSA below. That is your instruction. It does not say track as you like. The Visual Approach is the descent.

http://i12.tinypic.com/4dcxwqt.jpg

[Cloud Cutter]

I was just asking for clarification because it seems like such a crazy way of doing things. What you are in effect doing is tracking via the STAR, with own terrain clearance visually, it's not really a visual approach (by the rest of the worlds standards). When I'm cleared for a visual approach, I head straight for the threshold unless told otherwise.

Once again, Australia reinvents the aviation wheel.

[haughtney1]

****su, reading the rules that you have posted beggs a question in my mind, why bother calling it a visual approach?
The pilot has no discretion to self position, no discretion to deviate (until inside the magic 5 miles), and seemingly no flexibilty built into the implementation (if I'm understanding your explaination correctly) which is the general point of a visual approach.

To be honest this is all a bit of an eye opener, I had no idea that flying IFR air transport in Oz was so restrictive. Whats the point of it all? everywhere else I've flown if your are visual with the field and terrain (whether thats at 5 or 15 miles in daylight) and can be reasonably assured of maintaining it, you can ask for and get a visual approach (if traffic permits:)) Is airspace in Oz that congested?

[Cloud Cutter]

why bother calling it a visual approach?

That is exactly the bit I'm having trouble with. It is just the STAR, it's not a visual approach. :ugh:

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Haughtney - I can't honestly say I know why, but I am yet to hear someone with authority say I have completely got this wrong.

As far as manouevring as you like, I can not imagine that at any reasonably busy airport you are going to be too far from established on final at 5nm anyway.

I can assure you however that carte blanche manouevring at 5nm from a base position at the airports I am familiar with, can (and does) lead to a technical breakdown of separation standards with either departure paths or missed approach / final approach of converging runways - so that is one answer for you as to why I guess.

Frankly I am not arguing as to whether it is a good idea or not - just trying to make sure we are all dancing to the same tune.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... hey ****s, .... you should know by now these things are 'grey' for a reason! :ooh: :\ .. this sort of stuff did my head in years ago! ... cuckoo cuckoo :} :E ... blue pills please nurse :8
.
.. besides, as Chuck mentioned .... until grey becomes crystal .. there is always the vitriolic statements regarding parentage :p .. works for me! :E

[NIMFLT]

****su, reading the rules that you have posted beggs a question in my mind, why bother calling it a visual approach?


It's not an instrument approach. The main point is that unless the STAR is cancelled, follow the STAR. The STAR is the tracking authorised by ATC. ATC may cancel the STAR if traffic disposition permits.

[Duff Man]

Where else is there a STAR that specifically joins a visual approach, one that is defined differently to AIP (ie, 4 or 3.5 NM final)? Why doesn't the final approach/STAR fix have a waypoint if it is so crucial to be a fly-over? What is the nature of the 20-30 weekly failure-to-comply incidents? Evenly distributed between 01 and 19? What tolerence do you apply to a "4 NM final" before 225'ing?

that was the sound of a can of worms being opened :uhoh:

[Chimbu chuckles]

The point many here seem to be missing, or unaware of, is that in many parts of the world ATC will not issue IFR RPT a visual approach. Asia, ME and EU/UK spring to mind, at least as far as high capacity RPT is concerned...and in many parts of the world that is the only type of aviation that exists.

The ability for ATC to issue and IFR RPT aircrew to accept a visual approach in CTA in Australia is an extra bit of flexibility which should be lauded not slated as 'yet another Ozzie difference' to the way the rest of the world 'does it'....with the unwriten assumption that the rest of the world does it better.:hmm:

That flexibility comes with some responsibility for the crews who avail themselves of this added flexibility...KNOWING what is expected when issued the clearance:ugh:

This is why many foriegn airlines don't permit their aircrews to do visual approaches and why ATC in Australia are not permitted to offer them to aircrews of foriegn registered aircraft, even if the crew is quite obviously Ozzie...allegedly:ok:

The requirements ARE black and white and very detailed...there is just no excuse for not complying.:=

[Tempo]

Wow, I am a bit lost here. My 2 cents worth (which will probably be off the mark) is as follows:

-ATC clears you for a particular STAR before TOPD (generally 99.9% of the time)
-On the way down you report 'visual' (i.e requesting a visual approach)
-ATC clears you for a visual approach

You must continue to follow the STAR until within 5nm (day) or circling area/5nm on VASIS/10nm ILS etc (Night) but can descend at your discretion provided you maintain 500' above CTA and above MSA (night)

So essentially, the purpose really is to remove the vertical responsibility from ATC. THe clearance authorised by ATC is the STAR so that becomes the lateral tracking requirement.

Of course, if you request direct to a 5nm final and request a visual approach then that is a different story.

[pakeha-boy]

****s...so have you figured this fing out yet?????

[haughtney1]

The point many here seem to be missing, or unaware of, is that in many parts of the world ATC will not issue IFR RPT a visual approach. Asia, ME and EU/UK spring to mind, at least as far as high capacity RPT is concerned
Chimbu, thats only true of a few large airports in Europe. i.e. FRA, LHR, CDG..etc...
I've asked for and got visuals into LGW, MAN, EDI, Malaga, BCN, Athens, plus quite a few more that I cant think of just now (brain fade as usual:ooh: )
As for other parts, well my experience is a little more limited to Instrument procedures...(my company has a published list of approved visual airports)
Personally I cant see the point or the flexibility, it is IMHO an instrument approach in all but name...with a small visual component. No doubt it works, and works well, but given the tracking restrictions with speed and altitude constraints on the plate ****su has posted.....its certainly more restrictive than any visual clearence I've seen elsewhere:ok:
I guess its an Ozzie perspective on what works:8

[Shitsu_Tonka]

Chuck - Agreed, I like the way you think!

Tempo - Agreed

Pakeha-Boy - I always had it squared away bro.

Haughtney - Actually the Visual STARS do save a few track miles compared to flying the instrument approach, so they do provide flexibility in that regard.

Duff Man - if I didn't know you better I would say you are stirring the possum!

[320/20]

The reason I ask is that in NZ, a visual approach clearance means you are unrestricted in both tracking and descent unless specifically stated.
At busy airports where you have been previously cleared for a STAR, you may be told the visual is not yet available or 'cleared visual approach tracking via ......... maintain ....... ft'. Seems to work.

Cloud, in OZ ATC cant give you a VSA AND a height restriction (at least they shouldnt). Its either Cleared VSA or track via yyyyy maint xxxxFT, then cleared VSA when the poop has left the platform.

This whole thread is rather interesting.

There are 3 ways to terminate a STAR:

At the IAF for an INstrument approach
Radar vectors OR
a visual termination.

The first two are obvious.

The visual termination has a few ways of ending (happily or otherwise)

If the VSA track is charted (as in the River Track at Brisbane) then follow it and eventually the wheels should touch about 1000FT in from the threshold RW01.

If the VSA is not charted then ATC should give you tracking instructions from the termination point of the STAR to a point where you can land.

Simple no? yes? especially if ATC can give it and pilots can fly it. :p

The STAR is a lateral clearance with vertical being given as available by ATC until the magic words, cleared VSA or cleared for the approach.

More tea vicar? ;)

[capt_nicholson]

wht diff between visual approach and visual clearance ?

[Skynews]

Talk about mountain and mole hills!

In Aus, not sure about the rest of the world there are stars that involve either a visual segment or and instrument procedure.

On a STAR with an instrument procedure, say an ILS, to complete the StAR you can either be cleared for the ILS or if you prefer and make your preference known, by reporting visual, cleared VSA.

At civilized airports where track miles can be reduced by producing a STAR with a visual procedure at the end of the STAR, such as Brisbane, Cairns, Perth and so they have these stars.

What instruction would you expect ATC to give you to remove any altitude limitations whilst carrying out either of these type of StARs.
I suggest either cleared for the instrument approach if the STAR terminates with an instrument approach OR ( as I flew in to Perth yesterday and the Gosnal 3 I think was our STAR) on the Gosnal example which terminates with a visual procedure we were cleared for a visual approach.
.

[AerocatS2A]

To make matters worse, the military controllers in Darwin expect you to track as required when cleared for a visual approach but they don't say so, they just act confused when you don't. (At least they did a couple for years ago, I haven't flown in there for a while.)

[waren9]

Once again, Australia reinvents the aviation wheel


Cloud Clutter, you got it in one, mate.

They are only 1500nm away but flying IFR RPT over here you might as well be on another planet.

[AerocatS2A]

Even the concept of "RPT" is uniquely Australian.