Reporting point 2RN

[Dick Smith]

The other thread was closed, however it was important for me to answer some of the points.

Unhinged, you state:

What I objected to, and still do, is that his first response to someone else's tragedy was to use it to promote his own controversial position. It was inappropriate and insensitive

For over 20 years I have been attempting to move our airspace so we copy the best in the world. This is to improve safety and reduce inefficiencies.

According to the advice of the FAA experts who were brought out to advise on NAS, to have two reporting points for a busy airport such as Bankstown is quite risky. At the time I was concerned about this advice. That is why as part of NAS we stated that we would change the unique GAAP procedures, with their reporting points, to FAA Class D procedures. The FAA has over 300 Class D towers – some with similar traffic densities to Bankstown – however I cannot find at one location a reporting point similar to 2RN or Prospect.

My position is hardly “controversial” – it is simply a position that follows the best advice from around the world.

I don’t believe it is “inappropriate and insensitive” to bring these important points out at a time when we may be able to make some changes that may save lives.

Avicon, you state:

I do not agree with Dick's suggestion that more reporting points would ease the congestion and move traffic away from one single point.

I have made no such suggestion. I have only said we should follow proven procedures from overseas, where they have between 15 and 20 times the amount of traffic. Therefore, as the risk of a collision goes up by the square of the traffic density, they have more experience on preventing this type of accident.

The US NAS does not in fact have “more reporting points.” It specifically does not list reporting points to enter a Class D airport. Under the US NAS, a normal report would be, “Bankstown Tower, Kilo Tango Kilo, five miles north west inbound with Bravo.”

I have found in life there are always advantages in looking around the world to see if things can be done in a better way. Sometimes we do them in a better way in Australia and we should keep that. But if we can learn from the mistakes of others, we should also do this.

[chief wiggum]

Are you the same Dick Smith who instigated the "free in G" airspace? the horrendously dangerous "class G trial airspace" in the busiest airspace in Australia? the same Dick Smith who used to fly around monitoring radio calls in he BK lane, and having a go at anyone who dared use their radio in the interests of safety?

It sickens me to see you on the news after every tragic event in Oz Aviation pushing YOUR agenda. The way that you reject any proposal from people who fly in this airspce every day as "ill informed", but as soon as you find ONE person who agrees with you,with any type of aviation credential, they are touted as "experts", and their views is expounded at the cost of any other advice you may receive.

Part of being a pilot, Dick, is to assess, and reassess the situation, then make decisions based on ALL the information at hand.... not just the information that suits you!

[coke drinker]

Mr Smith, Mr Smith, Mr Smith. So you are proposing that a busy training airport does away with entry points and just has aircraft going every which way? Dumbest idea I have heard in months.

[mostlytossas]

We have the same problem over here at Parafield approaching OCTA. Only 2 inbound approach points Outer Harbour to the west and the Substation to the NE. OHB in particular can get quiet busy at times with the college and the other 3 or so flying schools all out at the training area west of Edinburgh as well as the LOE down the coast all feeding into it.
We have in the past year had 2 midairs approaching GAAP's I don't want a 3rd here at PF thanks.
So based on the current evidence I find myself agreeing with Dick.

[Crosshair]

I'm with Dick. The system of VFR inbound points for GAAP fields is a very stupid design. It should be changed.

[chief wiggum]

Don't get me wrong. I am not saying I dont agree that the two inbound points is dangerous. I am saying that The way Dick uses the media after every fatal accident is so sickeningly wrong it is not funny. and the way he already knows the cause of the crassh before anyone else is just plain wrong.

[Delta_7]

Spot on, Chief Wiggum.

Dick has lost ALL my respect with his continuous complaining. In case you missed it, he is always right on matters of aviation safety, everyone else is always wrong, and he abuses his public profile and terrible accidents to push his agenda.

:mad: disgraceful, Dick.

[VH-XXX]

It's the same group of problems as Moorabbin with everyone funneling in via Carrum and GMH approach points when coming in from anywhere including the training area.

It's not uncommon to see half a dozen aircraft over Carrum all reporting their position as Carrum with anything up to 2 miles or more between them. If the radio is busy you may not get a call in until the 3 mile mark if you aren't quick on the PTT.

The problems then continue as the tower often tries to work out who is actually number one.

Tower: XXX, you are number one.
VH-ZZZ: But tower, we are ahead of XXX
XXX: We just paseed ZZZ
Tower: Ok XXX you are now number one
and it goes on from there... half the time you might never even see the aircraft.

If it's proven experience in the US that this problem can be solved by eliminating approach points, then it is worth considering and CASA is obliged to do this.

[Dick Smith]

Delta, amazing post, could it be that I am trying to save needless loss of life and you are resisting change?

I was supporting Ray Clamback- a very experienced pilot wha has given me a lot of advice and knowledge.

[VH-XXX]

Delta_7, your 17 anonomous posts hardly entitle you to such an opinion!

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Problem at Jandakot, particularly ADWD, is people saying they are at reporting points when they are actually a couple of miles away, overtaking on the left and even orbiting overhead inbound points! :eek:

This often occurs inbound in G outside the CTR so although I agree with Dick that Class D could be preferable to GAAP, these problems are not IMHO ATC or airspace related.

[Dick Smith]

Chief Wiggum, the “free in G” airspace never happened – we still have to pay. The Class G trial airspace was instigated to use radar for the first time between Canberra and Ballina. Remember, a flight service officer standing behind the radar controller reported an incident, and that was used to reverse the trial and give back the airspace to the flight service officers with their paper strips and quill pens. I kid you not, this is what happened.

Amazingly, about 2 years later, Airservices arranged for the airspace to go to the radar controllers – as I had proposed – and that is how the system exists today.

Of course, Airservices has never written proper procedures for air traffic controllers to use radar in “flight service airspace” so we ended up with the horrendous 6 fatalities at Benalla.

Yes, I was against random radio calls in the light aircraft lane, as this had pilots concentrating their attention on those giving the calls and not being vigilant for everyone. I made it very clear that I would support radio calls as long as an education program took place so that everyone had an equal chance of operating in an alerted see and avoid environment. Personally I couldn’t see how this system could work, but it would surely be better than random calls from 2% or 3% of the aircraft, which didn’t comply with any rules or even recommended practices.

[By George]

Whats dumb about keeping aircraft apart in non controlled airspace. I still remember the Moorabbin collision between a Beech 50 and a Bell-47 due to the same sort of airspace design. Peter Stone and Brian Cruckshank would be alive today with a better designed system. Instead we are still killing people. Today we have better Nav equipment and can handle multiple entry points. I have had two close misses in light aircraft 'lanes', we need to change the system. Dick Smith is right.

[Critical Reynolds No]

Mr Smuth, please go back to Terry Hills and close the hanger doors.

[mostlytossas]

Dick this, Dick that blah ,blah. Look for safety's sake we should all stick with the issues and not play the man. What amazes me soon as he says anything people jump in with nothing about the topic to say just to tell him he's a ********. I reckon he has the message by now ( I would) but I will give him this he takes it day in day out. Who else would not me?
Could I just say this, some of what he says is crap, some is spot on, but most is swiped from overseas and is seen as worlds best practice by countries with far greater population and traffic than little OL OZ.
So long as it is best practice I have no problem with it.
Now before I'm called a Dick apolagist I remember and was a member of AOPA when he became President along with his mate Boyd Munroe. The pair of them wrecked that in my opinion and I have never been a member since but that is not to say if the points (like this one about GAAP's) he may raise is right in my opinion I won't agree with it.

[Awol57]

Problem at Jandakot, particularly ADWD, is people saying they are at reporting points when they are actually a couple of miles away, overtaking on the left and even orbiting overhead inbound points!

This often occurs inbound in G outside the CTR so although I agree with Dick that Class D could be preferable to GAAP, these problems are not IMHO ATC or airspace related.

Luckily we can actually see you at ADWD so we know if you are there or not :) But yes, ADWD is actually a massive place apparently. My advice for anyone unable to report at ADWD is to make a left turn and depart out to Fremantle and try again. I like to make the point, do you really want to enter the CTR when its so busy you can't fit a radio call in? I am not hugely familar with BK but I think 2RN is the equivilant of SIXS or SHIP/POWR.

[chief wiggum]

The Class G trial airspace was instigated to use radar for the first time between Canberra and Ballina


Fine in theory - except that EVERYONE in that huge amount of airspace was on the SAME frequency, hence the overtransmitting and danger in the situation;which WAS conveyed to YOU before you implemented it.
The problem with the radar was that MOST of the traffic using the class G airspace couldn't effectively cruise at or above 8500' to be in the radar area.

I am all for using/copying the best airspace model we can get however we also need the same tools as they have their. ie radar over more than 25% of the country, radar coverage to the ground, access to affordable avionic upgrades, and sensible regulation and taxation.

[Dick Smith]

Clinton, surely you don't believe it is sensible to force aircraft coming down the light aircraft lane to track an extra 5 miles west and mix with all the traffic coming from the west at Prospect? For that's what they have to do.

Or do you?

[Dick Smith]

chief wiggum,

Not the radar furphy again. The radar coverage between Canberra and Ballina is as good as any radar coverage in the world – surely you know that. There is no such thing as “radar coverage to the ground”, it doesn’t exist in all en route airspace in any country in the world.

The reason everyone was on the same frequency – it was called the National Advisory Frequency is that Airservices refused to allow pilots to be on the ATC frequency as happens in the USA the UK and just about every other country I know.

It was completely undermined by people who were so stubborn and fundamentalist in their views that nothing should change i.e. “we had used flight service with paper strips and no radar and full position reporting for 50 years and that is the way it must remain forever.”

We can make up every excuse you can for not using the radar properly, one day presumably after an airline goes in killing 100 people, we will move to the proven NAS procedures, I guarantee it.

[jportzer]

(In another thread, an ostensibly experienced pilot whinged about the fact that he'd reported at 2RN, and someone else reported at the same time at 2RN and was nowhere to be seen. The second aircraft was eventually spotted south of the radio mast, well behind the first aircraft. The second aircraft had, in fact, reported at the correct reporting point. The first pilot was not at the reporting point, but thought he was. Why on earth the radio mast can't be the actual reporting point, so as to remove any confusion, is one of the many mysteries of GA.)I am a student pilot (at Basair, though I didn't know the deceased), and this whole discussion makes me ask what must be the obvious to you - where IS the reporting point exactly? IIRC, there is a flashing beacon on the ground, adjacent to the tower - since this beacon is shown on the VTC, I'd assumed this was supposed to be the reporting point (my instructor wasn't quite clear on this either). This is within a half mile, if not much closer, to the radio mast. It's definitely not 2 miles south.

How is an itinerant pilot expected to figure this out given the ERSA just says "STH of TWRN" or whatever?

[Scion]

Forgive me if I am wrong but were there not 3 reporting points some years ago before the Richmond airspace got more space west of the inbound lane and the olympics had a fobidden area?

[CKJ]

Long time lurker, occasional poster but I have to speak out on this one in support of Dick's views, which I share.

GAAP inbound reporting points are simply an insane idea. It doesn't take a huge leap of cognition to realise that when you funnel a high density of aircraft movements through narrow points in space that you are creating a recipe for disaster. It's a "failure mode", plain and simple, and it needs to be addressed.

It's not to stay that a mid-air collision would never occur in the absence of fixed inbound points, but clearly the probability of airspace conflicts leading to collision would be far reduced relative to the current model. It's a basic probability density function argument (note: you could build a random model simulation using monte carlo methods and easily demonstrate this to be the case). The "safety case" for fixed inbound points is simply flawed. There is no safety case, in the modern traffic environment.

We really do seem to have a NIH (not invented here) attitude to airspace management in Australia and in my view it's high time it changed. The US may not have the perfect model, but they do manage many more movements in their airspace than we do here, and I think we should be looking to draw best practice ideas from other airspace systems. Ditching fixed inbound points for GAAP airports would be a good start.

I'm flying out of BK over the Christmas break. Safe travels all.

[CKJ]

(Direct.no.speed): You've got to be kidding me. You can "guarantee it", can you? Get real mate.

The US works their system this way every day of the year. *I* can guarantee that you're not reading about midairs every couple of weeks, because they are not happening.

What part of concentrating movements through narrow points in space not leading to increased probability of collision do you object to, exactly? Let's have an engineering discussion. (Yes, I am an engineer as it happens).

And I should just point out that the primary "segregation" in the BK GAAP between arriving and departing traffic is the 500 ft of altitude separating them - not the tracks they take over the ground!

[hoss]

If your a low wing fly and report at 1400'QNH, if your a high wing fly and report at 1600'QNH. In addition could there be a 'local rule' that high wings report west of the mast and low wings to the east or something to that effect.

Hope it helps to avoid yesterdays tragedy.

[soseg]

I'd have to agree with what Dick is proposing.

I've been to Bankstown once and found it quite cramp and the frequencies always in use to the point where I struggled to make my inbound call at the radio mast.

I gotta say from memory the way you had to go from the radio mast to Warwick racecourse and then hitch that right turn over any incoming/departing traffic on the west side was pretty weird.

I've got mates who when they were doing their training (I'm from Melb) they flew to Bankstown in not the best weather... one set of mates struggled to find the radio mast as it was their first time there... It does seem quite bottle necked in comparison to Moorabbin (only other GAAP I've flown into).

Moorabbin personally I havent had any issues with it (I dont fly regularly) except for the cramp circuits especially on a few occasions at night with a twin up my behind which I'm sure was over the RW threshold a few times before I even took off again on the same RW.

Just looking at the approach point design of the GAAPs does seem a bit obvious it could be designed more efficiently.

[Chimbu chuckles]

So all you clever people got an answer for what will happen when the 4 or 5 or 7 aircraft all inbound to YSBK, as an example, from random tracks arrive at the beginning of downwind 29 or finals 11?

Given the (constantly) demonstrated lack of general skill, airmanship, recency and radio discipline displayed by the average PPL do you really want them to be all converging from random directions at that point...at the same time as an IFR Baron, Metro or Citation?

Think people:ugh:

[Beached_As_Brew]

Stop giving the man a hard time, im quite sure he has achieved alot more in 10 years than you will in a lifetime. Your no better than the little men in brown suits at CASA

Mr Smith done nothing but good work. Whats so wrong with trying to implement reforms in order to save mine, his and YOUR life.

If you have a hard time comprehending how precious life is then your obviously to stupid to be flying.

Beached

[nick2007]

Chimbu,
They way I see it - in a CTAF you effectively have people coming from random directions and then joining a circuit.
One could also argue that the circuit entry points are like "reporting points", but as they are not precisely defined locations on the ground, you don't tend to get two aircraft trying to occupy the same airspace - not as often anyway.

[hoss]

wouldn't it be best for any IFR movements to be totally procedural and via a STAR/GNSS/NDB or whatever to the field everytime CAVOK or IMC but always procedural and away from VFR traffic.

[Awol57]

What CTAF has 10 aircraft in the circuit on one runway and up to another 10 inbound for the other runway? Having everyone come from certain directions makes it much easier to see people and then sequence them.

[Ovation]

Of the many comments about TWRN as an approach point, one thing is patently clear. The reference to report "S of TWRN radio mast" is ambiguous - how long is a piece of string?

My post in the (now) locked thread brought out the blowtorch by those unable to make positive inputs to the current debate about safety of GAAP approach points. They seemed to gain some perverse kind of satisfaction by criticizing reporting exactly at TWRN. If my aircraft was 5 metres SOUTH of the mast I would have complied. If I was 1 metre SOUTH I would have been compliant. As it turned out, using GARMIN MapSource and the GPS track log for that flight, I approached 0.1 NM SOUTH of TWRN.

It's logical too - entry from the WEST via TWRN driving from the pilot's seat and maintaining visual contact with TWRN until turning towards YSBK, would put the aircraft S of TWRN i.e. COMPLIANT with ENTRY PROCEDURES.

Now someone who calls TWRN inbound needs to be somewhat closer than 2 miles otherwise (and this is my entire point) you have to scan a lot more sky to acquire the traffic, and the bum pucker factor increases significantly if you don't see them, which is more than likely. Alternatively if they say they are 2 miles SOUTH then you know where to look.

Another point is frequency congestion (common at BK), where with the best of intentions, you don't get to call until you've passed TWRN. The reason for the inbound call is twofold - (1) to announce to BK TWR you are coming and (2) to alert other pilots who might be conflicting traffic.

This makes interesting reading on the subject of "see and avoid":

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/1991/pdf/limit_see_avoid.pdf

[Freewheel]

...just down the road Camden, without the restrictive airspace around it, manages to do quite well with 5 approach points, which provides some certainty for traffic and ATC, without pushing everybody to 2 points.

No doubt the recent closure of YHOX will test the effectiveness of this approach.

Perhaps Bankstown could be helped by reducing the Richmond CTA to more common dimensions?

[flight.level.250]

Isn't the whole problem about two or more aircrafts at the same reporting point and not seeing each other... or maybe even not hearing each other because of radio congestion? How do you stop that from happening - visual separation/see & avoid? Well we know see & avoid is not 100%, because if it was they'd be all alive now. It's not easy trying to spot a plane that is so close to you, above, below, screaming past you because they are faster - such a highly stressful thing to be doing.

Its almost 2009, yet our aircraft equipment, airspace, towers etc, don't have technology that could perhaps be very well available that would make our flying less stressful around such reporting points and safer for everyone.

Why can't we somehow, have the information/knowledge of where other aircrafts are in the sky with respect to where I maybe flying - this does not mean one does not do look outs. Use technology to our advantage. Why do you think there is controlled airspace in the first place? Piece of mind, protection, real separation!

The sad thing is Sydney saw all this on RADAR (it was recorded on the tracking website - but later removed for obvious reaons), but it's not their space to monitor. Why can't YSBK be equipment with RADAR equipment, that would alert controllers to potential fatal hazard such as this event on Thursday.

With regards to Dick smith, there is no point battering the guy, he is trying to come up with ideas, whether or not some people think that he has an huge ego and is trying to gain credit for himself is not really important - we all have our different personalities. Dick, I'm very keen to know what are the ideas you alluded to? What is the US doing that we could benefit from - I feel that the posts have been very vague with no real detail?

[Disco Stu]

Irrespective of how many 'approach' points you have, there is still one spot everyone is aiming for and eventually ends up at. Yep, the landing threshold.

This is usually right slap bang in front of those supposably providing a separation service to those flying, instead of some neferous point many km's/nm's away and most probably unsighted from the tower.

GAAP has served us for the last 30 years, maybe it's time to revisit the process and see if it is still applicable, suitable and safe given the changes that have taken place at all the current GAAP airfields over the intervening years.

[bluesky300]

I'm 100% with Dick Smith on this.
The only part of flying that ever worries me is the 4 minutes when I am in the vicinity of 2RN or prospect in and out of bankstown - it is lunacy to be funneled into a piece of sky at exactly the same height as an unknown number of other aircraft of differing speeds and configurations. Note the emphasis on "unknown". Why can we not give a call on either twr or syd frequency when "approaching 2rn/prospect" to give a fair chance of sequencing into the funnel?

[Squawk7700]

This may sound really stupid, but imagine if there was an alarm that automtically played over the Radar frequency where if two aircraft passed close together (like really close) that you heard it on the radio and straight away looked out the window around you. I realise if someone is using the radio it's not going to work very well. The system could be automatic or instigated by a radar operator. I know if I heard it I'd be looking all around me straight away as best as I could. Same goes for GAAP, the tower guys could press it. It could work for a wheels up, near miss or emergency etc.

[Howabout]

A question: I am not taking sides here as I am not qualified to comment on the airspace setup or the reporting points and, therefore, can't voice an opinion one way or the other.

However, in looking at the VTC, and the proximity to SY terminal airspace, I am wondering how many readily identifiable visual cues are there to guarantee that there wouldn't be an increased number of VCAs if there weren't mandated inbound/outbound routes. OK, two seems to be (intuitively) too few, but I wonder about the risk of a lighty, and BK is also a training location, misidentifying their location and inadvertantly getting in the way of heavy metal.

We have VCAs all over the place, primarily (I believe) because there are not enough visual cues, for the VFR pilot, to determine where G ends and C starts.

I am just looking at this from a different perspective and would appreciate the take of others on the practicality of doing away with routes that are identifiable (OK, I gather there's confusion with the 2RN position), which may, possibly, have other unforseen consequences.

Once again, this is a question, not a comment.

[chief wiggum]

Again.... I am not denouncing the man for his views.... I am disgusted at the man for both his timing and his tactics!

[DickyPearse]

It sickens me to see you on the news after every tragic event in Oz Aviation pushing YOUR agenda.

Wiggum - when do you expect mainstream media to give airtime to general aviation matters?

And why is it DICK's agenda - if it wasn't for Dick putting himself out there, there would be little debate about the appropriateness of our air service arrangements.

I don't agree with everything he puts forward, but I would expect the counter-arguments to be more sophisticated than the drivel you contribute

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Someone mentioned this on another thread. Ask yourselves how the controllers do Oskosh every year.

[Howabout]

I asked a question, three or four posts ago. No agendas, just a question. And no villification.

Can someone give me a view?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Ozbusdriver VERY good point!

The arrival to Oshkosh is essentially identical to arriving at a GAAP. You arrive visually over RIPON and follow a railway line VISUALLY until the tower calls you and then you follow EXACTLY the instructions issued without any back chatter.

This article was the result of pilots that turned up at Oshkosh unprepared/lacking the discipline/skill to follow the NOTAMed visual procedure and caused a fatal accident as a result.

I take the same view about the recent midairs at Oz GAAPS. I learned to fly at YSBK near 30 years ago when it really WAS busy...todays traffic levels are a pale shadow of what they were then. I think the difference is the quality of instruction received...as one student poster alluded above even his/her instructor was unsure about the exact procedure at 2RN (2FC in my day). Every time Rick Durden mentions Oshkosh in the linked article read Bankstown/Morrabbin/Parafield/Archerfield/Jandakot. The GAAP procedures were devised back when these places were actually BUSY airports.

The Pilot's Lounge #38:<br>Yes, Pogo, the Enemy Is Us (http://www.avweb.com/news/pilotlounge/182691-1.html)

So once again Dick is being disingenuous...when it gets REALLY busy in the US they use a system of visual reporting points...and not 5 or 6 or 12...1.

[soseg]

Chimbu Chuckles (above) you put up a good point.
I've gotta say even with the ERSA and my little booklet - visual pilot guide for the sydney basin which shows how to get in and out of Bankstown with clear pictures was a tad confusing and I had to go over it more than once with hesitation when I first flew in.

Moorabbin has a good 4 if not 5 approach points with less airpsace restrictions around it... It's a lot easier to fly in and out of there than Bankstown imo.

[Howabout]

Sheesh!!! How hard is it to get an answer on this forum? I thought I asked a reasonable one.

[Seabreeze]

First and foremost: Condolences to the families of the C152 pilots. This is an intensely emotional time for them.

For the rest of us, reflection on our own look-out capabilities comes first, followed in some cases by deeper thinking about the why's and how's and if procedures can be improved.

So let's use our brains here rather than our egos. In some cases egos seem to far exceed professional knowledge, however, there have also been a number of thoughtful posts made here. But the issues are complex and any new system of inbound reporting points (and outbound tracks) will have other safety implications, including VCA's head-on's etc. The existing system or a slightly modified one may or may not be the safest!

What is needed initially is the professional efforts of the ATSB. This should be followed perhaps a dispassionate review of other possibilities for inbound/outbound tracks. Pilots will make errors as they are human, and the main idea is to mitigate the risks as far as possible. This can often involve simplicity, and considerations of human factors and ergonomics.

In many areas of research, teams of people with complementary expertise can provide sound and objective solutions to complex problems. The same would be true here.

What is needed then is not an argument by clash of egos or the dictatorial view of some individual "expert", but an objective assessment made by a team of people (having a wide combination of backgrounds) looking at the practical possibilities. This is a challenge to both CASA and Airservices, who between them should be able to rub two sticks together and compile a team who would be respected by all.

I suggest that this is the only way forward. Bruce Byron and Greg Russell - over to you. Can I suggest that you ask the aviation industry for nominations for such a team, and some universities or research organisations for nominations of human factors experts with aviation knowledge. A statistician might be useful. Whatever you do, bring in outside expertise. This group needs to be able to operate objectively and as a team, so it would be wise to have the team attack the issues with an open mind. This issue is not about an individual proving he or she is right, it is all about getting the right answer.


Seabreeze

[Alex 009]

Was flying at Bankstown today, and for a Friday, the place was dormant. Flew back in through 2RN, and was really quite angry and disappointed that a fixed wing aircraft was circling close to the crash site at roughly 1500ft.

Made the entry call at 2000ft descending just to be safe. My condolances to the families of both victims; a very sad day for GA aviation. As for Ken, I really hope that he continues flying. Would anybody else agree that he is probably still one of the best pilots in Australia. I had him for my CPL flight test a few years ago, and when he took control to place the aircraft in 'unusual attitudes', I was amazed by how smooth he was.

[sms777]

I used to be a fast twin driver in and out of BK and every time i was inbound via 2RN my transmission used to start with " approaching 2RN " to give me heads-up what is happening ahead and behind me. This usually prompted a request from BK twr to flash my landing lights and gave me some sort of comfort that i am being noticed by not only the tower but all the bugsmashers around the area. It still gives me chills to think back the occassion 152 calling inbound just a split second after my call giving me a sore neck for days to come.
So... whats is the solution?
To install radar equipment at GAAP's?...who's going to pay for it?
To seperate high wing and low wing aircraft by 200'?...complicate even more of our already overcomplicated airspace system? :confused:

[Chimbu chuckles]

In my view NOTHING will reduce the chances of an accident like this to zero...unless you wanna close YSBK.

We really need to accept that sometimes the ONLY logical answer is to realise that accidents will happen and that the system in place is as good as it can be.

No one expects drastic changes to the road rules every time there is a fatal car accident...in fact even the modest 'safety' enhancements we have seen over the years, like round abouts, have had virtually no effect...why do people expect a different outcome for a fatal aircraft accident?

ADSB may be the only logical mitigator for this type of accident, and even then not 100% of the time...but guess who helped kill that idea off for the time being?

[gettin' there]

By removing the "inbound reporting points" at GAAP fields your are by default "creating" another point where traffic will be arriving and converging - the circuit.

As has been mentioned there is ambiguity as to "exactly" where the reporting point is. Due to this and the other issue of frequency congestion (not getting call in until you are passed 2RN) you consequently have an "area" where people will be reporting inbound that would be roughgly the same size as the circuit.

All you would be doing by removing the inbound points is making aircraft arrive in a similar size area of airspace (the circuit) at the same altitude only then they could be coming from any direction. At least with Prospect and 2RN both the ATC and other aircraft know where the traffic is coming from.

The above is my opinion only and i am no expert, however i find it personaly sickening when certian high profile individuals use a tragedy like this to push a personal agenda when they are more than capable of making headlines on their own terms without having to exploit a tragdic loss of life. Its no differnet to the "air safety activist" who gets on the 9 news a says "we should close the airport now."

Agree or disagree is irrelevant. I am not attacking anyones opinion or far superior knowledge of the issues at play, however the wagon used to convey the message is in my opinion wrong.

RIP to those who perrished.

[GeorgeB]

Certainly wouldn't be that hard to considerably reduce the chances of collisions like this one, using a device called a Portable Collision Avoidance System.
A PCAS system is not that expensive. They warn of nearby aircraft where the transponder is responding to a radar signal, as we have around our busier GA fields
See review
Zaon MRX Portable Collision Avoidance System - DigitalReviews Network :: Reviewing Your Digital World (http://www.digitalreviews.net/reviews/navigation/zaon-mrx-portable-collision-avoidance-system.html)
Surprised they aren't more commonly used.
Ask the good Dr.

[VH-XXX]

Valid point 'gettin there, but don't you feel that the circuit is such a large area compared to a single approach point? As in the downwind leg alone might be a couple of miles long, versus a single point of approach.

It would be interesting to see how the US system works in real life.

Where are our US posters?

[Roger Greendeck]

A few of points to add.

The first regards the actual position of the inbound point. The ERSA lists TWRN as S 33 56.2 E 150 53.3 and has a position for 2RN (in the NAV/COMM section) as S 33 56' 38" E 150 53' 10". The first thing to note is that radio transmitters in the NAV/COMM section are, rather unhandily, in AGD66 not WGS84. From my calculations that makes it S 33 56.5 E 150 53.2 which would put the radio mast south of the promulgated position for TWRN! I don't have access to a certified conversion program at home so I am more than happy to be corrected if someone can run the radio mast position through one. Either way they do not seem to be the same point which I find a little bizarre.

My second point regards the utility of the current reporting point system. In a CTAF you make an airmanship decision where to call depending on a range of factors such as speed, altitude, intentions. Thus in a high performance IFR aircraft I will call a long way from the airfield to give time for me and others to arrange separation. In the case of GAAPS the reporting points seem to be for ATC purposes. Not a bad thing in an of itself but it does not give any chance for establishing separation before reaching the choke point. In my opinion the inbound reports are too late for pilots to separate themselves based on listenout.

Thirdly electronic aids are available, but we need to find a way to get them on the street. TCAS, ADS-B, and PCAS all offer possible solutions to improving our SA in busy airspace where ATC are not providing separation. Sadly the plan to cross-subsidise ADS-B did not come to fruition so that is not an option in the near term but PCAS may be a value for money option. An earlier post suggested that TCAS cannot work in such a busy environment but I have been very pleased to have TCAS I in these circumstances and TCAS II with RA off will do the same.

Finally, Howabout, sensible question. Defined routes do reduce the chance of VCAs, particularly for those not familiar with the area as topo maps don't always show the most identifiable features in an urban area. This will have to be considered if any changes are made but it does not prevent changes being made to GAAP procedures.

[Chimbu chuckles]

So XXX where do you usually join downwind...surely not anywhere that takes your fancy between crosswind and base?

All life has risk.

Several 100 people in Australia fall over and die in their baths every year...how worried were you this morning as you awoke as to whether you would survive long enough to walk out your front door?

The ONLY way to reduce to zero the risks you take merely existing is to be dead already.

Have pool fences stopped kids drowning in fenced back yard pools?

Has traffic calming devices stopped people being run over in suburban back streets?

Have gun laws stopped accidental shooting deaths?

Have shark nets stopped all shark attacks?

Seabreeze three people died in 12 months in mid air collisions and you want the next best thing to a royal commission...you have got to be joking?

The ONLY logical conclusion ATSB/CASA can come to is "Hey..we publish all sorts of guidance and sometimes **** happens...move on, nothing else to see here."

No technology exists, no procedures could be promulgated that could guarantee next year, or the one after, that the exact same accident would not happen...because it was an accident....**** happens.

[Kickatinalong]

I'm NOT blaming anyone, but I have noticed due to lack of staff all 3 runways are under the control of 1 Air Traffic Controller which makes it hard to get your inbound calls out sometimes or even your D/W calls in the CCT area, I know it's money related but really don't we need to be seperated all the time?
How many were working at the time?
Kickatinalong.

[gettin' there]

XXX,

In principle the single approach point SHOULD be a small area but by the time you factor in the people that call inbound:

- 2 miles away "approaching 2RN"
-1 mile away "approaching 2RN"
- overhead "2RN"
- up to 2 miles passed 2RN becuase the frequency was congested and they couldnt get the call in so they call "just passed 2RN"

and the fact that the aircraft is travelling anywhere from 80 - 140+ kt as they are making the call you have an area that its at a guestimate nearly as wide and as long as a circuit and so the area where traffic arrives is of a similar size.

[Matt-YSBK]

Ch Ch:
You make a point that only one incident does not make a Royal commission. Life is risky However.

We had one guy crash at Hamilton Island with pot from a few days ago in his system after he had a non related engine failure and the result is

Random Drug Testing for all.

We had one Guy in a cave organizes a few other guys to fly some airliners like they were missiles in another country and the result is

ASIC's for all and a razor wire fence around birdsville.

Surly from a Mid are collision we could come up with something worth wile.
;)

If nothing is done based on this clearly we should roll back the securty and drug testing tomorrow.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day 'Howabout',

Be patient. Someone, sometime, will take the time to actually read and understand your question......we trust.

As I remember from a ' l o n g ' time ago, flashing beacons were installed to assist in the VISUALLY identifying some reporting or Guide points.

The Hornsby water tower was painted in 'checker-board' pattern for this reason.
In my BK days it was 2FC. And, there was lots of traffic, more than now I would imagine.

I do not know what is in place to identify this particular Reporting point - I guess the real solution may lie somewhere as 'Chuckles' suggests, an EASY READILY Identifyable POINT, like a flashing beacon or this radio mast with a strobe on it perhaps, and that all traffic be ESTABLISHED at a particular altitude prior to this beacon, and at a 'compatible speed' - common to most aircraft, i.e. say slow to 90 kts or so, but even that may not have prevented this high wing vs low wing event.

No doubt, more 'expert' discussion will follow, with all sorts of 'suggestions', some of them might even be polite, but nothing will prevent what has occurred, and as the visibility in some aircraft in relation to others is 'not good', this event is a classic case.

Very sad, 'tis true, but 'life goes on', and we will all learn from this, and perhaps the high wing drivers out there will learn to 'lift the wings' and check, and the low wing might yaw and roll a little to check, much like some of us 'oldies' were taught to.
It may not save us in ALL occasions, but it might work just that once..

I am very much aware of the mid-air between the Twin Comanche and the Dove over Bass Hill - The Dove pilot being a very special friend / working colleague. He was hit from behind...

So nothing is 'guaranteed'. All we can do is to exercise what used to be called 'Good Airmanship' and hopefully avoid the 'dramas' as much as we can.

Sorry this is so long winded, but you deserved a response, even if it is from what has been described 'elsewhere', as 'an OLD retired FSO'....Still manage to hold that CPL though, and actually manage to use it occasionally.

Cheers:ok::ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

You'll get no argument from me Matt:ok:

[KittyKatKaper]

VH-XXX... but don't you feel that the circuit is such a large area compared to a single approach point? As in the downwind leg alone might be a couple of miles long, versus a single point of approach.Dunno about you, but I'm not comfortable with the idea of doing pre-landing checks, and keeping my head swivelling to see who's about to merge with me from the sides or rear. I find it very comforting to know that inside a GAAP the traffic is almost always in front of me.
As others have stated, we're all heading for the same piece of terra-firma, and it's less stressfull if we're all nicely organised well before we get to that point.
At CTAFs the traffic density suits a relatively relaxed approach, but with GAAPs more time is needed to get the traffic into a more boring pattern.
I agree that the visual reporting points are a funnel, but you have more options out there than inside the busy GAAP circuit area. (eg. you can do an orbit relatively safely to let faster traffic pass you)

[KittyKatKaper]

Roger Greendeck. Regarding the lat/lon for TWRN and the 2RN mast, I get the same figures that you do !
ie. the reporting point is about 0.5nm north of the mast.
Maybe this is a byproduct or oversight when Australia adopted the WGS84 system for aviation ?

[sms777]

Wally...
Relax...... The mods still trying to figure out if you were the wally from BK or the wally from MB. :E

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I am very much aware of the mid-air between the Twin Comanche and the Dove over Bass Hill

So am I. If my memory serves me correctly the pilot under instruction in the Twin Comanche was a young family man from Toowoomba, Qld.

Aviation in Oz is a very small world.

Dr :8

[Flyer517]

I'll join the ranks of long time lurker, first time poster.

Using Oshkosh as an example of why a small and discreet number of inbound reporting points is safe just doesn't cut it. Everyone flying in to that event knows the volume of traffic they will be dealing with, the very real chances of something catastrophic happening if they don't pay attention, and that it is a special occasion for which they need to be on their toes. It isn't an every day situation and everyone involved is well aware of that fact.

On the other hand, 2RN and Prospect are used day in day out by the same pilots, many of which just want to get back on the ground ASAP (ever been there when the bank runners arrive?). Toss a few low time students and a large propotion of people for whom english is a second language in to the mix and you get a very different situation than Oshkosh.

Based on the individual mindsets of the crews involved (hightened awareness versus indifference), these situations are not even remotely similar and can't be used to justify an opinion.

I am not saying that Dick has the answers but he has valid points and if he does nothing more than generate discussion he has made a valid contribution.

My own impression from the best part of 20 years flying in to and out of BK is that very little attention from instructors to teaching basic airmanship is a contributing factor. The emphasis seems to be on teaching the mechanical and technical skills involved in flying; get the fees and get them out the door. I think very few students ever get it drummed in to their heads that flying is a dangerous activity for those who do not pay it the utmost respect. The end result is people barrelling in to 2RN, and calling inbound 5 miles to the west in the hope they get sequenced first. Although as noted elsewhere here, you don't get sequenced until joining downwind or over Warwick Farm. Again, this is a lack of understanding that leads to real danger.

[mostlytossas]

I agree with you there 517. The other important item to note is at Osh no students are allowed in and everyone is to track in at the one speed.
That is not possible at the GAAP's as they are afterall the main training airfields in the country.Also what is so hard about finding 2RN? Doesn't anyone have an ADF anymore? When I used to fly in from the Riverinia years ago I would tune to then 2 FC over Warragamba listen to the ABC news and there it was straight in front. Before you all get on your bikes the volume was down so I could still hear the traffic on R/T.:)

[splinter11]

Having trained at Bankstown a couple of years back, I always had the opinion that when joining at 2RN it is a very dangerous procedure so i think Dick is right. My solution is that you have a 10 mile circle around 2RN and pilots must make a mandatory call on a seperate frequency giving an estimated time and level of when they arrive at 2RN. So in effect you are treating 2RN for example like a CTAf in itself. This way pilots will have a heads up of who is around them when approaching these inbound reporting points such as 2RN, and bankstown tower can still keep the system of reporting points in place. It seems common sense to me because prior to reaching 2RN and contacting the tower is the greatest danger and it is brought about by complete uncertainty as to who is around you, so let the pilots talk to each other on a seperate frequency...couldnt be easier

[bentleg]

I do not know what is in place to identify this particular Reporting point - I guess the real solution may lie somewhere as 'Chuckles' suggests, an EASY READILY Identifyable POINT, like a flashing beacon or this radio mast with a strobe on it perhaps


There is a flashing beacon on an adjacent mast at 2RN (and SY VTC shows there is a beacon at the 2RN location).

I agree that the coordinates for 2RN (wherever you get them from) are in VERY close proximity to the mast and the beacon, not some indeterminate distance south. So I for one call 2 RN just as I am about to go over the top. I also keep a VERY good lookout for some time prior to that (and afterwards).

[mostlytossas]

That wouldn't work Splinter. A 10nm circle around 2RN takes it over CN and well into the flying training areas. You can imagine the chaos that would cause, Pilots on different frequencies going to different airports, others changing to Tower freq's after contacting the Tower but still well inside the 10nm circle. I think we need to either have more reporting points or go to a D tower and have none. My main concern with the D tower though is where ever they are already they seem to move traffic much slower than at a GAAP. I am concerned at the prospect of endless waiting to depart or holding to enter.

[erkal]

The issue is not 2RN, we all need to have input into the root cause.

Check out the Los Angeles Basin procedures. Similar weather (though often poor viz) massive aircraft population and seven, that's SEVEN major airports in an area equivalent to that bounded by Gosford, Katoomba and Wollongong. SoCal App/Deps (Southern California Radar) runs it all, plenty of Class C, D overlay and military interaction too. Many VFRs and IFRs and much wider range of aircraft. But more importantly - everyone has access and is given access to the system.

To fellow pilots I say get a TCAS or an extra set of eyes, because until the work practices are reformed by Public Sector Unions in Sydney (and elsewhere) where pay, conditions and procedures are all reviewed, expect the same in the future. If you're 1200 or on a VFR plan, continue to be treated like second class citizens where you're denied access to basic services to which you're entitled and for which you already pay, one way or another.

The fact that the radar traces of the accident were published on Thursday is an insult to our industry and at best insensitive to those effected by this tragedy. (Just like a cop standing on a street corner watching a hold-up and doing nothing).

The intransigent attitutes of some, and archaic practices institutionalised in pro-airline/anti-GA Air Services and CASA (what's the 'S' stand for again?) are preventing any progress or real reform, in what is a critical piece of national infrastructure, which needs urgent and tangible reform.

Access to privatised airports and fair dealings with tenants at these airports in the Sydney basin and elsewhere is critical, but airspace access and sound flight services airborne, are equally so.

[Dick Smith]

I have asked for, and received, radar flight following when flying VFR in the LA basin. All but useless because you are given so much traffic that it is simply not possible to absorb it all.

I will say again, they do not focus VFR and IFR aircraft on one or two points when going into a non radar class D tower.

I think it is called commonsense.

You can ask for flight following from Sydney radar when heading VFR towards 2RN. The most likely information will be "multiple traffic at 2RN". - so this does not really help.

If other countries can spread the traffic out a bit it seems likely that we can too.

Look around the world and copy the best proven procedures I would suggest.

[coke drinker]

TCAS isn't the solution. From some experience in an aircraft equipped with a G1000, it was horribly inaccurate.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Flyer517,Everyone flying in to that event knows the volume of traffic they will be dealing with, the very real chances of something catastrophic happening if they don't pay attention,

AND what difference is there in flying into a GAAP?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just had to check a couple of things. Aircraft coming into BK on DCT tracks can only come DCT between 360 and 020 from the north and 220 and 284 from the west.(WOW a 20 splay and a 64 degree splay!) There is no possibility from the south because of SY CTR and from the NW because of RIC MIL airspace. To faciliate a safe passage for outbound to the Nth inbounds are moved to the west of the corridor between SY and RIC zones. What logical reason is there to allow multiple dct tracks into BK? Aircraft coming back from Camden and the adjoining training area get funneled in by RIC zone and the inbound track from the Nth and the little dog leg of SY CTR. Allowing for outbounds to the west and things get a bit congested. Only two directions NTH and WEST inbound and outbound. I would like to see someone come up with something better than what is already in place. Unless you can make RIC disappear and push SY ops up and away from BK you are just watering yourself.

Dick in the LA basin there are VFR routes that allow VFR aircraft to traverse a very complicated airspace withouty a clearance. These routes go from aerodrome to aerodrome as well as transitting around major aerodromes. I would say these routes funnel aircraft into certain points. I would like to hear from anyone who has experience in flying out of Oakland or Van Nuys to ask them of how they operate.

[Flyer517]

Ozbus you can't take that line from my post in isolation. My point is that for any pilot flying in to Oshkosh, their state of mind, and therefore their level of attention to the task at hand, is bound to be different than someone motoring in from a scenic over the Gong on a Saturday morning and calling inbound at a GAAP reporting point.

If you REALLY want to compare apples with apples, then you would have to operate the GAAP inbound points exacty like those at OSH; the whole waggle your wings, no RT chatter, big red arrows on the ground, land long / land short, same IAS, etc, etc, situation. Like this:

EAA AirVenture Oshkosh - The World's Greatest Aviation Celebration (http://www.airventure.org/atc/vfr_tips.html)

I seem to recall, and will stand corrected if I have it wrong, that there are also controllers virtually at the inbound reporting point for OSH in addition to the controllers on the field. In the context of BK that would mean ATC staff at Prospect and 2RN in addition to the existing tower.

Again, I am not saying any point of view is right or wrong; although I stated that Dick was doing a service for generating discussion, there is also an argument that one fatal accident at 2RN in how long (at least 15 years from memory) does not constitute a huge safety issue given the number of movements in and out of BK.

I can think of at least 2 road accidents in the past 10 years where people were fatally injured by a car leaving the road and plowing in to a home / business or sidewalk. There was no outcry for car-proof barriers on all roadsides after that was there?

I am just saying that using OSH as justification for minimal reporting inbound reporting points for GAAP fields is not valid.

We owe it to those involved in this accident to argue the case for a better system if one exists. Aviation's current level of safety was built on learning from these instances. But let's at least use sensible comparisons.

[Ovation]

coke drinker wrote:

TCAS isn't the solution. From some experience in an aircraft equipped with a G1000, it was horribly inaccurate.

Sorry but I beg to differ - half the time I'm driving a G1000 Mooney equipped with the Avidyne TAS-610 TCAD, and I can assure you it's way in front of the MK1 eyeball. The first flight with it amazed me at the traffic out there that otherwise you wouldn't have a clue existed. I recently avoided a VFR target where both he and I were in IMC. I had no choice but to trust the ALERT - it would be ironic however, if it was inaccurate and directed me into a midair.

The following is a contribution (in part) to another newsgroup, by a Mooney pilot and eye specialist based in Melbourne: The link is a must read.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/1991/pdf/limit_see_avoid.pdf


The limits of the visual system in the 3 dimensional fast moving aviation environment means that under certain circumstances it is impossible for 2 planes to be visible to each other. We all have our war stories of near misses. There but for the grace of God go I.

The conclusion from this 1991 report was that see and avoid should not form any part of future air traffic management systems. In 2008 nothing has changed. (my highlighting)

Over the last 30 years there is on average 1 mid air collision per year in Australia. The vast majority are in this exact same situation of aircraft converging on bottleneck approach points around airports and in circuit patterns. There have been no IMC collisions. In cloud is the safest place to be.

[coke drinker]

Ovation...on four consecutive flights in a fleet of G1000 equipped aircraft, I encountered traffic warnings from the completely wrong side of the aircraft. This was confirmed visually AND by ATC. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was the inaccuracy of the system.

[Ovation]

coke drinker wrote:

Ovation...on four consecutive flights in a fleet of G1000 equipped aircraft, I encountered traffic warnings from the completely wrong side of the aircraft. This was confirmed visually AND by ATC. There was nothing wrong with the aircraft, it was the inaccuracy of the system.

Not good at all - does this fleet have Avidyne TAS-6xx or a different brand? Also do they have dual or single aerial installations, and what type of a/c are they fitted to?

I did have one problem with traffic behind moving side to side at UFO speed, but traced to a poor earth on one aerial and it's never come back.

It's pretty hard (for my eyes anyway) to see traffic greater than 3 NM, however the MK1 eyeball and the Avidyne TCAD always agree with bearing/distance/altitude above/below as far as I'm able to judge.

Before we drift too far towards TCAD reliability, maybe we should start another thread or discuss by pm. I feel the 2RN thread needs to stay on course. Also, check you pm's for an earlier link.

[nomorecatering]

A few years ago I spent some time flying around California over a few weeks. Airports I landed at include Torrance, Santa Monica, Santa catalina Island, Sandiego, Santa barbara, Van Nys, Oakland, San Louis Obispo,Sacremento, Palo Alto, and Long Beach.

While they dont officially have inbound reporting points, they DO have local customs as to where to report inbound. Where they have some very busy airports that you can call inbound from any point on the compass, the locals frequently worry about departures, as there are arrivals everywhere, there are really no safe routes for departures, especially if altitude separation cannot be obtained due to airspace constraints.

Inbound points DO work. 1 million + arrivals at BK in the last 20 years and only 1 or 2 midairs. You still have a higher statistical risk of being knocked over by a piece of space junk.

[Annihilannic]

I am a Basair student who has flown under Joanne's instruction on two occasions, once in VH-FMG.

I don't understand the vilification towards those that are saying that change should at least be considered. I admire Dick Smith for stating his opinion in a sensible and public fashion, and don't in any way think that this is the wrong time for him or anyone to be asking these questions. Any allusion to his motives for doing so are irrelevant. Let's take the opportunity to at least consider improvements, if indeed such improvements can be made.

I don't have the flying experience to argue the pros and cons of the various technical or procedural solutions that have been discussed, but I do find it difficult seeing the radar data so readily available that in my opinion would have been more than sufficient to generate some kind of alarm of an impending collision, without requiring any additional equipment. I realise that the additional cost is the manpower required to react to these alarms, and hope that is something that would be considered.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Flyer517, as you pointed out and I am not trying to selectively quote you. I do treat any approach to a control zone reporting point with caution. It is a choke point. However, if you look at the layout of airspace leading into BK from the west, there is no room to be cute with multiple entry points and conversly multiple exit points over a splay of sixty degrees of azimuth.

Ovation, there is a very good reason why TCAS gives only vertical resolutions.

[Roger Greendeck]

TCAS does have limitations, particularly in azzimuth. Modes S transmissions with GPS data improve this but it is still a limit. ADS-B in will be better but there is a significant cost across the industry for this to be effective.

As for something that can be implimented now with no cost and minimal procedural change, perhaps requiring the inbound call to be made 5nm before the point would be an improvement. It would provide traffic information before we reach the actual point without increasing the radio call as Twr can still give clearance and sequence inbound traffic based on the call.

[Capcom]

1. The OSH argument is valid! ... the fact that inbound acft rock wings vice a call is only a frequency management issue

2. The VAP's list a position prior to the geographical fix (mast) to build in a small amount of lateral displacement freedom to avoid everyone flying over 'exactly' one position i.e. the feckin arrows such as OSH

3. If anyone thinks arriving and departing traffic should not be segregated into same direction flow patterns i.e. avoiding high speed opposite direction conflict, in favour of random free for all (including nose to nose) conflict opportunities .. then they are talking out of their augmenters!

4. As has been pointed out, the number of fatal accidents verses the number of aircraft that have operated through the VAP's over the years, supports the above conclusions

5. Forget ATC and radar (OCTA) for all the reasons mentioned in this place and others. Think about this, what would be the cost to industry of a dedicated (not combined with other ATC functions) radar advisory service to OCTA traffic approaching YSBK? ... not in our lifetimes even if we had the ATC's. However, compare that cost against funded ADS-B!

6. PCAS, TCAS etc will NOT give you accurate azimuth position on A/C targets, only mode C relative alt and distance ... there is no positional data in the TXPDR ping to confirm azimuth .. that is why triangulation is required for non-radar positional A/C TXPDR surveillance

7. ADS-B provides azimuth, alt, distance to target and FMS vector prediction!

8. If what R.H.S says is true about his predictive fear this would happen, who, how and when did he raise this dire safety hazard regarding VAP's? .. and what follow up occurred?

9. R.H.S is an ambulance chasing media tart with no real idea of what he is interfering with. Which I might add is a long standing and less than distinguished practice!!! :=

[mostlytossas]

Capcom mate,the OSH scenario is not even remotely simular to a GAAP.Read posts #46 Link to pilot lounge and post #77 link to OSH.
It is quite obvious even the yanks are not 100% happy with it but is the best they can come up with for the huge influx of arrivals in one go. I bet also it would be like here at any airshow departures would be virtually non existant during the morning and vice versa in the evening.
Note the notam for the event,No solo students allowed and what they are really saying is unless you are current and can hold an accurate speed and altitude plus stay on track please do not enter. We would end up loosing our GAAPs if students couldn't use them. In addition to that they have controllers giving instructions half way down the entry lane.
You also raise concerns about head to head traffic. Nothing would change as there is still 500' separation as is the case now.
Your main agenda is to have a go at Dick Smith it appears to me, after your final 2 points. Please leave it alone or at least find some other insignificant thread to do it so we don't have to read the drivel.
We have had 2 mid airs this year alone entering GAAPs a previously unheard of amount. The vast majority of posters here want to explore and debate if there is a better way of doing things. It is not all about 2RN either as there is another 5 GAAPs in the counrty with simular problems.

[Awol57]

Whilst the ATSB report isn't out on either of the mid air collisions, I think you will find the MB happened in the Circuit area, the other OCTA. Not quite apples and apples.

Looking at the movements for the five GAAPs, year to date 08 there has been 1 230 262 movements, for 2007 there was 1 395 932 movements. I do not recall any mid air collisions in 2007, and 2 in 2008 (one not in the GAAP zone). If you had those stats for road vehicles (pretty close to 1:1250000) would we be complaining?

Perhaps the road stuff is close, thats not where my interest lies so I am not really sure. To me, whilst it is tragic, the current way appears to be working. It is already hard work sequencing aircraft when they are inbound from 2 or 3 positions. It would be significantly worse if they were coming from say a 180 arc, particularly with training aircraft where more often than not the pilot doesn't know the difference between left and right downwind.

I am not against change, but I don't want to see it as a reaction to a tragic accident rather than study and research.

[Chimbu chuckles]

For those arguing in favour of 'change' based on this accident please point out where you want the choke point to be...because no choke point is not an available option. It can be anywhere you would like between the threshold and Katoomba/Mittagong/Hawkesbury River Bridge but a choke point there WILL be.

This is like the VFR version of the moronic, vacuous WOFTAM that is the endless airspace musical chairs game at YSSY, YBBN, YPPH etc. All this disingenuous political drivel from The Minister, AsA et al about enhanced airspace utilisation enabling technology when the sad fact is everyone is arriving at the same point in space and only 1 aircraft can exist in that point in space at any one time.

No matter the technology installed or the pretty manouvers you fly between 10000' and the ground at some point you have to land on the runway.

For those musing about radar and ATC providing some level of service in the approach phase to GAAPS (like they have the manpower for that:rolleyes:...well how long do you suppose it will be, under this radar safety umbrella, before a Cherokee gets vectored into a Piper Cub that is transiting just west of YSBK sans transponder while the Cherokee pilot looks in the other direction for traffic he has been given by ATC?

What will you cry out for then?

OsH and GAAP is different...you gotta be ****ting me? :ugh::{

Lots of VFR light aircraft arriving via visual reporting points at a runway on an airport with a manned tower. The only difference between OSH and YSBK is the rate of arrivals. You're not really going to suggest that what works for 100s of aircraft/hour won't work for 30?

Those suggesting long time aviation professionals, be they pilot or ATC, are 'change resistant' (Dick's favorite phrase) are profoundly ignorant of the nature of this industry. We do 'change' constantly...you'd be hard pressed finding a section of society that experiences as much change as those involved with aviation do. An enormous percentage of the changes in the last 30+ years have been as a direct result of Dick Smith's time as CAA CEO/AOPA President or part time ambulance chaser/full time self promoter. I have 'changed' everytime it has been required of me to do so...but I struggle mightily to think of a single operational change, whether instigated by RHS or some transient bonus chasing meddler at AsA/CASA, that was an improvement over what we did before.

I am not change resistant...but after 30 years I am most assuredly idiot resistant.:hmm:

[Gerry Hattrick]

I'm with chimbu on this one.You have to ask how many midairs have we had at 2rn and Prospect as opposed to in the circuit areas of BK and Hox. Dicks plan is simply moving the accident closer to the airport.:confused:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

6. PCAS, TCAS etc will NOT give you accurate azimuth position on A/C targets, only mode C relative alt and distance ...

My experience with the Zaon XRX PCAS in the Bo does not support that statement. The azimuth position may not be accurate to the nearest 5 or even 10 degrees, but it does generally give you a pretty good idea of where to look for the conflicting aircraft.

The XRX is a bit suss in detecting with aircraft that are behind you - but that is only an issue if they are faster than you and closing. This is not a big problem for the Bonza as its generally doing the overtaking - not the other way round. :O

The Avidyne gear that Ovation referred to is a quantum leap up from the XRX!

Dr :8

[Duke16]

I have GA, military, and RPT experience in the US and globally and now fly regularly out of SBK in a number of capacities. The recent midair near SBK is sad and my condolences go to the families and people involved. Discussions like this do not denigrate the lost lives but honor them by seeking to find ways to prevent these accidents in the future.

I have always had difficulty with the over focus in Aus on prescription and mandation in airspace and procedural flying arrangements not for philosophical reasons but because incident and accident statistics demonstrate these arrangements don't work the best.

A large number of accidents occur below 3000' ft AGL within 10 NM of airports. Driving everyone into this airspace vertically and then having them fly over the same tracks into a few reporting points may appeal to a person's sense of order, but it is not a good safety practice. Ops at OSH Air Venture and Ops at SBK are so different in scope and detail that to compare them is not particularly helpful to this discussion. I have experienced both. I embrace technology, but both locations do share one thing in common: They are both predominantly see and avoid environments.

My experience with busy Class D towers in the US is that they move aircraft in and out from all quadrants very safely and efficiently. I believe SBK could be operated very safely and efficiently as a Class D tower if US NAS procedures were used. The US NAS Class D airspace is quite small and the active tower sequencing takes place close to the airport.
The fact that aircraft arrive from various quadrants and pilots are actively searching for other traffic adds to safety. This very pilot unease and sense of need to actively clear for other aircraft that you are aware of and also for aircraft who may not be where you expect them is a good thing. Some posters have stated they like the funnel and choke system at the GAAP reporting points because "all the traffic is in front of me" is just plainly incorrect.
This is a similar mindset that falsely lures pilots at CTAF (R) airports where the lack of broadcasts means nobody else is flying in the airspace. I try not to ever make these assumptions.

I have flown all over the world and admit my bias, but I have not flown anywhere that moves more aircraft safely than in the US NAS. Some posters have suggested that with a Class D tower and aircraft arriving from multiple quadrants, you are just moving the choke point closer to the airport. This is correct but the advantage closer to the airport is you have the assistance of the tower controller to help in sequencing and the tower controller can in most cases see you. This is not the case at 2RN at SBK.

It is unfortunate that Aus pilots have such a low regard for their fellow pilots and for ATC. This alone should point to the need for pilots and ATC to constantly look for ways to improve operational safety. Think about it, if we feel so good about the way we do things today and don't want to change, why do we have such a low regard for the other pilots and ATC'ers we are doing it with?

We will never achieve a zero accident rate, but we should continually strive to improve safety and forums like this are an excellent way to bring forth good ideas.

[Capcom]

mostlytossas

In relation to OSH and organising traffic into same/similar direction arrival and departure tracking, of course it is similar to the GAAP procedures, and more than remotely! I am glad you raised the issue of airshows, as more often than not a random arrival and departure (CTAF) arrangement provides for a very interesting discussion with operating pilots after the event. Yes there are arrival and departure peaks, but during events (outside the display times) the number of itinerant local/demonstration flights mixing with arrivals and departures is often huge. The number of 'high' speed (as opposed to slow speed same direction) conflicts that occur is of concern, moreover, it is not a procedure that would/could operate for more than those types of events given the natural arrival and departure peaks!

That option compared with segregated arrival and departure GAAP VAP’s (having worked both) .. I know with certainty which reduces fatal collision opportunities, and it isn’t the former. You would loose your money if you did take a bet!

The requirements at OSH i.e. for experience (pilot), speed, altitude and track are for exactly the reasons being discussed here, to ensure minimal crossing or opposite direction conflict. It is not rocket science!

In the GAAP context, students (and all others) are to some extent protected by the procedures. Are you suggesting students are advanced enough with SA skills developed to a point of being able to operate at a scan level sufficient to identify conflicts in a free for all? The traffic management enhancements put in place at OHS recognise the volume. GAAP by comparison does not have that traffic level to contend with every day! So from a student pilot acces point of view, lets compare apples with apples!

You think 500ft separation in the CTR will mean nothing will change if random arrivals were the order of the day. That is probably indicative of the simplistic view most have of the whys and where’s. A couple of scenario’s

RWY 11

So where would you call, and at what altitude?

Returning from the training area, you might decide to track inbound from the west, you must be at A015 over populated areas so let’s say you call at 7nm YSBK on the extended centreline to the WNW.

Departures to the W and SW off 11L go left downwind to say A015 (they would/could not stay at A010 dues final traffic and flight over populated areas, unless in the aerodrome traffic procedures listed), so they get to 3nm and go where?, left right or straight ahead, straight at you opposite direction (give or take), whilst you on the extend centreline at the same of similar altitude descending, and every other arrival from 7nm is converging from your left and right whilst on descent to Warwick Farm area. The high speed conflictions will now occur well outside tower visual range.

In fact if you consider any inbound direction from the SW through NW and LoE from 7nm at or on descent to A015 verses, departures within the same area being in much the place at much the same altitudes climbing, the picture is starting to look pretty grim. Add to this the fact that sequencing arrivals to final for 11 become that much more difficult due to the random convergence from the left and right rather than two specific flight path directions for you to look for converging arriving aircraft.

RWY 29

Arrivals from any of the above SW through NW and Nth now descend to A015 at 7nm and hold that until downwind abeam the upwind threshold. Departures will maintain A010 on upwind or right crosswind (LoE) to 3nm then turn and/or climb on track …. What happens between 3nm and 7+nm ….. hmmm

Yes there would still be 500ft vert within the zone, what then between 3nm and 7+nm in any and all OCTA areas around the zone ….. NO VERT, NO LATERAL and plenty of OPPOSITE DIRECTION conflicts!

My main agenda (as you put it) is not to have a go at R.H.S ..my (and others it would appear) main agenda is to put the realities and practicalities to ensure folks have the full picture. The relevance of the closing comments in my last post is to highlight that this is just another case of ‘opportunity’ for one to gain profile with little offer from him of how a change as he (and you) propose would work more efficiently and safely, then lets have the practical application realities rather than soap box one liners.

I have no problem with him if he were to be raising legitimate concerns in a legitimate way through the legitimate channels. If that has/had been done, and the answer received was inadequate, or concerns still apparent, then again, why have we not heard of it before this accident, and I might add with the same level of gusto?

The above systemic realities (in similar forms) apply at most GAAP’s, So besides my drivel (as you put it), have you any ideas on a better way of doing it that validates his claim that what has been done for years is fundamentally flawed and needs changing?

If there are US D's with similar traffic, proximities to CTA (around and above) etc etc with lesser accident rates, lets look at their 'specifics' .. I say again THE SPECIFICS!!!

[mostlytossas]

Capcom I think Duke 16 has answered your points better than I could and thanks Duke for your input which is much appreciated. The important point he made was the "choke point" as people are saying would be closer in but as he says under the assistance and sight of the tower controller whereas now it is all self separation. So how would it work? inbound would stay at 1500' until instructed to decend and outbound would be at 1000' for 10miles if necessary but at least until well clear of the zone. To my knowledge the 1500' over built up areas changed some years ago ( according to my CAR157) to 1000' but even if I'm wrong it certainly is in many other parts of the globe so can easily be changed. Sure some minor changes will need to be made to restricted zone upper levels and the SYD CTA to get full benefit but if that makes it safer for all go for it I say. The other problem they have at BK is that it is not operated as a true GAAP. One runway is used exclusively for arrivals and departures the other for circuit training. That I suggest would need to change but the debate is bigger than just Bankstown as there is another 5 GAAP's in OZ.

[Matt-YSBK]

Just to exclude our US friends for the time being. Are there any other countries in the world that have GAAP's (or like) procedures. Or is it uniquely Australian. ?

[mostlytossas]

I believe it to be uniquely OZZIE. Invented in the rag&tube days when aircraft were both slower generally compared to simular catergories today and because many aircraft in those days never had radio( a very rare event now even though non radio can still get in even today). Back then it made sense. Aircraft would enter as today from a known point so the controllers would know where to look for them. If one didn't reply to the "radio telegragh" he would be given light signals to land or take off. I've been told at times even coloured flags were used. In some ways it was invented for benefit of the controllers not pilots.The system has just stayed with us mainly because it seemed to work just fine and the resistance to change has always been with us. If you think the above is funny I used to know a bloke(dec) who learnt to fly in Moths at Mascot when Smithy and Co were around but that is another story.

[tipsy2]

mostlytossas

GAAP precedures were introduced in the late '70's and the carriage and use of radio was well and truely the norm by then. For your information, the same training aircraft are still in use today as were being used in the '70's, Cessna's 150, 152, 172, PA28-140, 151 and 161's. There are a number of later technology aircraft (plastic) now used as well but all them, then and now exhibit similar performance numbers.

Never had flags waved at me (whilst civil flying) but have certainly responded to light signals (following a radio failure). Infact no-radio circuits were practised as part of civil pre solo training.

Have a chat with Nancy Bird if you want to find out what it was really like learning to fly at Mascot from Charles Kingsford-Smith.

Your reasoning for GAAP procedures is alittle off the mark, perhaps even fanciful. GAAP procedures were introduced in responce to increasing traffic volumes and an attempt to provide additional runway capacity from the exsiting infrastructure. I seem to recall the introduction of contra-circuits happened at the same time.

tipsy

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Tipsy2 - you beat me to it. Your recollections agree with mine.

I learned to fly at Archerfield in 1973. I don't remember what the procedures were called but it was not GAAP - that came in later with the introduction of contra-direction circuits off parallel runways.

The training aircraft in use at that time were C150/172, PA28 and Beech Mousekateers! They were all radio equipped - probably with the same radios they have today.

I have been in and out of Archerfield a few times since, both VFR and IFR, and it all seemed to work pretty well. I went into Jandakot last year in the Bonza. Thought I would be cunning and go IFR, but I made the mistake of saying "visual" and immediately got told to track via some lake that I had never heard of and arrived in the Jandakot circuit with about 16 other aircraft - but that all worked out OK as well.

Never been to Bankstown, and if I ever do I won't say "visual" until on final approach (!), but I do wonder where the general view comes from that aircraft are being funnelled over a precise spot on the map as a reporting point. My Jepps say, "Arriving aircraft shall track via, and report at, one of the following CTR approach points ........b. 2RN (south of 2RN radio mast)".

If it were me, even with my std 3 x GPSs, I would aiming to fly somewhere through the gap between the 2RN mast and the north-western corner of R555A.

Dr :8

[mostlytossas]

Ok I stand corrected on when GAAP was introduced. My info comes from aviation history type books and talking to some old pilots. I learnt to fly early 80's and they were about then. I think however the entry point issue you will find goes back to the rag& tube days. ( not to be confused with rag & plywood days). PS I have met Nancy Bird also got her book:)

[jportzer]

I received a pm that suggested the 2RN mast can't be the approach point because it's a hazard to navigation due to its height. If that's correct, that may explain why the actual approach point is south of the mast. (Anyone out there able to provide some authoritative input to that question?) If that's the correct explanation, it just shows that someone needs to reinforce the importance of complying with the procedure in ERSA.Clinton,

First thanks for mentioning the bit about the arrow being the preferred location for inbound flights - while this seems to make sense, I haven't ever heard anyone mention that before when discussing how far "south" of 2RN the inbound track should be made. Where is this kind of information prescribed? As I mentioned earlier even my flight instructor wasn't quite sure on this, and he's definitely had me fly much closer to the mast/beacon than the arrow on the VTC would indicate.

I've also been told that the quarry at the corner of Prospect resevoir is the inbound point there, but the arrow doesn't seem to quite match up with the location of the quarry?

For 2RN, I do avoid flying over the mast directly, but as it is 870 feet high (VTC), and the altitude should be 1500 ft, this would seem to meet the 500-ft obstacle clearance limitation. However the arrow is shown at least 600m away from the mast so this would give you appropriate obstacle clearance both laterally and vertically. This is assuming that 500 ft vertically or 600m horizontally are indeed the correct obstacle minima - perhaps it really should be 1000ft vertically if this is considered a "populated area?"

[By George]

At last, 'Duke 16' says it all, "if you move the choke point to the airport at least you have the assistance of ATC who can see you". After reading all the other posts I cannot believe nobody else can see that.

[Chimbu chuckles]

How will that stop an identical accident in the vicinity of 2RN/Prospect as aircraft track to the airfield?

[By George]

Increase the number of entry/departure points, or eliminate them altogether.

[Ultralights]

that was my suggestion, now with Hoxton gone, why cant a 3rd inbound point be created overhead YHOX??

[mostlytossas]

CC.. It won't stop it entirely no system will but it will reduce the likelyhood dramatically simply because the aircraft are not all aiming for 1 or 2 approach points.
C McK..Agree entirely you have no choice but to enter via an approach point at a GAAP whereas at a Dtower you can track in pretty well anywhere ( outside CTA restriced zones ofcourse)
Duke16's post should be mandatory reading.

[VH-XXX]

I've been reading this thread over the last few days, wondering and thinking about what the solution may be and I'm still not sure if there is one.

Fresh in my mind thinking about how "dangerous" GAAP is with approach points, I cruise into Moorabbin to drop off the beast for the biennial Rad47.

I approach at about 135 knots into the Carrum approach point. Doing the right thing looking all around like an astute pilot would.

Notice to my right in a rapid descent a 152, no more than 100 metres away, heading in the same direction towards the Carrum approach point.

Speaking with pilot on the ground, he tells me that he saw me from about half a mile when I was behind at a similar altitude (he was in my pillar position to the right of my windscreen) getting closer to him. His plan was to veer right if I got too close, but the problem was that he also had a Warrior on his right converging towards him on track to the approach point - so he dives down a couple of hundred feet to keep clear of us. Thanks mate.

All good, land and do my thing. Depart coastal to the south, on climb over the water south bound, do the nose over check, spot one coming towards me on my left, keep to the right and pass him with good clearance, only to have my passenger spot another one that was parallel to the one coming towards me slightly lower. Pass these guys, turn left to my intended destination, look out below to the left and notice a Warrior passing under me from right to left, 100ft below.

Coming back in again later in the day, cruise descent from 3,500ft to 1,500ft to hit the approach point. On my way down, notice a 172 appear next to me. I must have been descending on a parallel track to him and he appeared next to me, same altitude. How do I look under my nose with assurity?

Why didn't I see these guys? It was bl**dy busy, probably the busiest day I've ever seen at Moorabbin in the areas surrounding.

What else could I have done, on a day of perfect visibility?

5 "near" misses in 1 day, closer in proximity to all of my near misses in my my 9 years of flying. 1 of which was at an approach point, but all of them approaching the approach point.

[mostlytossas]

What you describe XXX is why we really have to come up with a better way of doing things. The US nas system so far is the best I have heard from Duke. I hope other Americans or at least Aussies that fly in the US will share there views/ experiances. I remain open minded and open to any better way.

[HarleyD]

I have flown into OSH and I can assure you it is nothing like a GAAP.

I have flown in the LA basin and been into Van Nuys, San bernadino and Burbank on several occaisions, and flown into heaps of other D class airports throughout the US. I have flown into really busy GA airports in Argentina and Chile that are D class without the type of approach points that we have. Moorabbin is very busy, but at least there are a few VAP's, and the trick is to stay away from CARRUM. (completely agree with XXX). I have flown into every Oz GAAP and they are ALL fraught with peril. It doesn't matter if You are familiar with all the entry points and procedures there are plenty who aren't and the added issues of frequency congestion at critical times/places.

I regularly fly into BK VFR and IFR and my blood runs cold very time I get near 2RN. I flew in the day before the accident and did my best to call at the exact right time (S of the Radio Mast) but got trod on by two others inbound who were actually behind me, (how far south is south) at least they must have been cos they both tracked and landed behind me. I usually include the words approaching, at or past, in my inbound call dependent on my actual position when i get the chance to make the call.

If two experienced instructors who are completely familiar with the place are involved in an incident like this, then surely the system is what's broken.

Dick, I agree with you on this matter, and do not believe that it is inappropriate to comment at this time. if discussion is stimulated and safety is improved this must be some good to come from this tragedy. In flight test the 'lessons learned' from any test flight, successful or not, are considered to be most precious.

I cannot understand why there is such intransigence and nay saying against the consideration of any other way of doing things and such a chorus of support for our inbred GAAP procedures, as pilots it is your moral resposibility to consider such things at times like this, it may be your family that is the ultimate beneficiary of an improved system.

HD

[Wally Mk2]

It may very well take 1 or 2 more mid-airs over these GAAP inbound points before something is done about it from the law makers.
At times I am tracked (under rdr ctrl)via one of these points into MB when visual & am also asked to track via these same points when I've just broken out of cloud & can remain in VMC to the field, this can be quite difficult when yr scooting along a fair bit quicker (say on average 160kts min) than most inbound VFR A/C which I might add have an advantage of tracking in VMC for a while therefore having a better situational awareness than myself initially.
Small helio's are probably my worst fav craft to have close by 'cause they appear to blend in more to the backgorund due the slow speed.
Just 'cause it's written in our rule books doesn't mean it's safe!
I'm all for removing the 'funnel' effect of GAAP reporting points & spreading out inbound A/C as they do in places OS far busier than here in OZ. Trouble is my opening line may be the straw that breaks the law makers backs!
Well posted 'Duke'

As a side note & to perhaps add a little light relief here some years ago whilst inbound to BK riding my regular steed I was asked to track via 2RN into BK for a ldg. I figured this might be the case because I was vis for a while b4 hand & ATC knew this so I added that point via the GPS. When I got to 2RN I was asked by the twr to continue tracking straight to the field (BK) This I did also 'till I was @ 1500' with only a couple of miles to run & the rwys where getting bigger in the window when I said I was 2 miles & closing the twr guy said clear to the intersection heli pad (or something like that) & report landed !!!!!!...........not an easy thing to do for a B200 !!:) I guess what I am trying to say here & this is by noway a reflection on the great ATC guys they (twr blokes) don't look too hard for inbound A/C, ya can't miss our KFC heaps!:}

Wmk2

[KittyKatKaper]

Duke16Some posters have stated they like the funnel and choke system at the GAAP reporting points because "all the traffic is in front of me" is just plainly incorrect.
This is a similar mindset that falsely lures pilots at CTAF (R) airports where the lack of broadcasts means nobody else is flying in the airspace. I try not to ever make these assumptions.
In a GAAP (if you follow the procedures) the traffic is mostly in front.
eg. at YSBK, after reporting at TWRN the only traffic in front should be whoever just reported before you did, or someone who's inbound from the north via the VRP at PSP., either way, the tower should assist in any possible conflict by assigning different runways or sequencing or whatever is required at that point in time.

In a CTAF there is nowhere as much traffic as in a GAAP and definitely no ATC, which is why people should be more vigilant and do the )(*&#%@ broadcasts if able.

Just because I haven't heard a broadcast in a CTAF can mean that
1) there is no traffic, or
2) there is NORAD traffic, or
3) I'm not a problem to someone already in the circuit, or
4) I've got some sort of radio problem.

[ratso]

Went for two flights out of AF in brisbane recently and was impressed with these devices.
One I believe sells for arond 1200 dollars.
This model does not point to the nearest aircraft it just informs you of height above or below and distance horizontal, starting at 5 nm.

They are not flawless but at least they inform you that something is close by with a transponder.

Everybodies comments appreciated.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

the twr guy said clear to the intersection heli pad (or something like that) & report landed !!!!!!...........not an easy thing to do for a B200 !!http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/smile.gif

Ah Wally, ya big girl! You'll never do anything if you don't at least TRY!

Dr :8

[VH-XXX]

A Warrior reported inbound at Carrum today but overtransmitted another aircraft. This happened 3 times in a row. By the time the tower got his transmission from the Warrior he was at the 3 mile mark. This happened to an RV that came in also. The RV was probably 130-140 knots minimum and by the time their call got to the tower and the tower told them to report at 3 miles, they replied with "we are already at 3 miles," which in the end caused a go-around.

There must be a better way!

Maybe a bigger control zone?

[Awol57]

Not really. The pilot really had a VCA then didn't he. If you don't have a clearance to enter the zone (of which a circuit entry or overfly instructions (or takeoff clearance) constitutes the clearance) then you should turn around and have another go. Reporting at the boundry means you are inside. ESIR time.

Do you really want to go flogging in there unannounced if its that busy you can't get your call in. I can never figure that one out, when people come barrelling in without an acknowledgement.

[webins]

Having read through the blog on this accident I think that we should all remember two points.

1. Flying is dangerous. It is very enjoyable, but still dangerous. The more you fly the easier it becomes and the more relaxed the pilot becomes and the more likely he or she is to adopt a casual attitude to his or her situation, and to forget that flying is dangerous. Have respect for flying.

2. The system is the system. Warts and all. Whatever it is, a pilot has a duty to understand the system and deal with it. It is a big part of flying.

I do not imagine that either of the two surviving pilots can put their hands on their hearts and say that they did everything they could have done to ensure no accident occurred. I would imagine they are going though hell right now. I bet they are saying "if only I had done...... ". They may not consider that they caused the accident but they still may think they could have avoided it. My heart goes out to them.

Both planes had pilots under instruction and it would not surprise me if they were each talking about some other point that needed clarification at a time where really thought, concentration and situational awareness all needed to be at a maximum. This maximum should be at it's peek well before 2RN or Prospect.

Changing the system will make little difference to the chances of a mid air accident. It might move it somewhere else but I doubt it will change it. Ensuring pilots appreciate the dangers of flying and the need for maximum attention is the best remedy.

Is that likely to occur? I think not. Mainly because pilots are human beings and as long as human beings are in the equation, accident will happen, But let's try anyway. Remember flying is dangerous and needs to be treated with a great deal of respect and needs maximum concentration.

My heart also goes out to the relatives of the deceased.

[bentleg]

Both planes had pilots under instruction and it would not surprise me if they were each talking about some other point that needed clarification


I agree (but we will never know). The essence is keep a VERY good lookout - and even then accidents will happen.

I also agree that moving the reporting point or abandoning all the points just moves the problem somewhere else. I will be very interested to hear what ATSB says about it.

[Ovation]

AWOL57 wrote:

Not really. The pilot really had a VCA then didn't he. If you don't have a clearance to enter the zone (of which a circuit entry or overfly instructions (or takeoff clearance) constitutes the clearance) then you should turn around and have another go. Reporting at the boundary means you are inside. ESIR time.

Do you really want to go flogging in there unannounced if its that busy you can't get your call in. I can never figure that one out, when people come barrelling in without an acknowledgment.

Either way, you increase your risk of making the headlines and another thread on Pprune . If, due to frequency congestion you are unable to report before, at or after TWRN, then to remain outside of BK would then mandate a 360 turn (L or R) “somewhere in the between”. Anybody converging on TWRN will have "expectation" of being able to make an inbound call, so I'd guess any turn would commence right at the boundary.

Turning might make you more visible to inbound traffic but I know my bum would pucker in the process, and if there is other inbound traffic they may not appreciate it.

After my recent experience inbound at TWRN ( in the locked thread) I landed, composed myself, and rang BK tower and related my experience. If I’d done something wrong, I wanted to know. If the guy in the twin had done something wrong, I wanted them to know. There was no suggestion from TWR I remain outside of the BK zone – he suggested I overfly at 1,500’ and join upwind for 11L. At some stage you would be able to announce yourself.

Given the choice what would others do – explain yourself in an ESIR or do a 360 somewhere between TWRN and BK zone at 1,500’ ?

[bentleg]

AWOL57 says - The pilot really had a VCA then didn't he That comment applied to Carrum on approach to Moorabin.

Ovation then relates it to Bankstown??? - If, due to frequency congestion you are unable to report before, at or after TWRN, then to remain outside of BK would then mandate a 360 turn “somewhere in the between”. Anybody converging on TWRN will have "expectation" of being able to make an inbound call, so I'd guess any turn would commence right at the boundary.

In most cases when reporting at TWRN you are told to report again at Warwick Farm, another 3 nm (say 2 mins flying time) further on. Warwick Farm is right on the edge of the zone and you can fly there without entering the zone. I think it sensible to continue to Warwick Farm and if you still can't get your call in then turn left 90 degrees (at a location where you are in low risk of meeting inbound traffic from Prospect or 2RN) and have another go via Prospect or 2RN. I have never found this necessary. A 360 at 2RN is unneccessary and fraught with danger.

[Awol57]

I don't work at BK, I work at JT so I don't really know the options there as I am not familiar with the airspace. At JT, the common issue for us is ADWD, I tell people they should make a left turn and head out as that is back out towards an outbound point.

The issue is however still the same. Its a VCA either way you look at it. I certainly wouldn't advise making an orbit at the reporting point.

As to whether or not an ESIR is done is another matter, it is after all a training aerodrome. Often we educate and note it as an event. It really depends on the situation.

And as Bentleg points out I was speaking about MB in that instance.

[spinKing]

I fly in and out of BK to the training area daily.
As a relatively new instructor I have received a heads-up on the new Threat And Error Management (TEM) components during my training that we will be teaching in the new year. Even though it has not yet been introduced, I ALWAYS ask my students to identify threats and WHY they are threats and HOW we can avoid them.

I talk about not flying near the inbound points and choosing altitudes that would best avoid opposing traffic depending on where we are at the time. Also I tell them to consider that the other guy might get it wrong (i.e. enters at the 1500' from PSP or 2RN for RWY 11 rather than at 1000', which does happen all the time), so in that case why fly outbound at 1500' when you have the choice to fly at 2500 for example to avoid these guys. Anticipating errors of others much like a motorcyclist does. Not flying west along the pipeline and where to look for converging traffic around the inbound points etc. TRAINEES NEED SITUATIONAL AWARENESS DRILLED INTO THEM FROM DAY 1 UNTIL ONE DAY IT FINALLY SINKS IN. :ugh:

I also ask them to obtain the ATIS whilst were in the training area, then listen to BK TWR several miles before approaching an inbound point. Then to keep a good lookout and where to look, rather than tuning radios or chatting etc.

DESPITE all this, I've had 2 close calls near 2RN over the last few months. Not happy :( .

I believe that it is risky to depend solely on your LOOKOUT around inbound points. I'm very cautious and yet you sometimes just cant see the traffic, especially against the backdrop of houses.

1/ WE NEED A FREQUENCY THAT WE CAN USE AROUND INBOUND POINTS.
A buffer frequency. We can simply dial up the frequency and say "ABC is 5 miles west of 2RN, inbound for Bankstown". Stay on that frequency until over 2RN where we can then call BK TWR. Put a great big orange circle around these points on the maps with the freq. DONE. EASY.

Why depend on sight alone when we can use the radio to help with our situational awareness.

2/ We could try to address the blind-spot issue with high-wing and low-wing a/c by suggesting all high wing a/c approach the inbound points a little higher than the low wing a/c. Why not?

3/ A third inbound point over YHOX seems like a good idea at first but, I can tell you that most students have a hard enough time tracking outbound as it is without asking them to avoid YHOX as well. Sounds good for the pro-pilots but not a good idea for inexperienced students. The idea of no inbound points won't work. Students just don't have the situational awareness that comes with experience. They are still focused on flying the a/c and they generally feel invulnerable like most young people do.

If four people could not see and avoid each other then see and avoid around inbound points just isn't enough.

We need new procedures ASAP.

[Matt-YSBK]

Awol/Bentleg.

Are GAAP's really "Control Zones" Like "C" and "D" an the old "E" class airspace. If they were writing people up for entering the control zone at BK without entry instructions they sure would be doing a lot of paperwork. It happens daily. Quite often you go to key the mike and cant well past the reporting point. This is mostly because they have the frequency's joined between the training circuit runway and the in/outbound r/w. I have never known anyone to have any sort of problem with requesting entry instructions late if the frequency is busy.

See i thought you were requesting entry instructions not a "Clearance" as you would into say D Class airspace. If it is the case that you need a clearance then should they not say.

Alpha Bravo Charlie Cleared 2RN track direct to join right cross wind for Runway 29 right. maintain 1500 till established right down wind.

With the emphasis on the word "Cleared" ???

If it's the case that you cant pass the TWRN strobe or PSP without entry instruction's myself and most pilot i know that operate out of Bankstown should have tone of explaining to do.

[Matt-YSBK]

C Mk,
Yea i cant say i have ever made it right inside the boundary i did state in my post some distance past the reporting point. Yes i do know where the control zone starts. By my reckoning there is about 2 miles from the reporting point to the control zone boundary.

Our discussion is about TWRN here isnt it ?

Another thought So i guess the change in phraseology is just to distinguish the GAAP from the more ICAO type C&D airspace.

Just as an slightly off topic question then If the frequency is packed with 10 students in a row calling down wind touch and go. and another guy calling ready in broken english and your late with the call do you hang a left just before warwick farm or do you sit orbiting at the reporting point. I have never made it to warwick farm before gaining entry instructions so i have never had to make the decision I would never sit orbiting at TWRN (all though i have sat at PSP when the control zone was restricted VFR and an IFR aircraft was in an approach)

[Awol57]

You are correct, it is incredibly time consuming on our part to enter an ESIR. As I said earlier we tend to educate and event report rather than ESIR. The discussion had altered path along the way to include other GAAP's. At the end of the day the reporting point (more often than not) is not the CTR boundary, its a warning that you are coming. I am not familar with YSBK but from what I can gather TWRN is not on the boundary edge, so you can go past that point without reporting without having a VCA. However you need to have a plan if you reach 3nm (or the boundary) as to what you are going to do. Perhaps it is safest to proceed and join upwind at 1500. Perhaps you can turn out and have another go. I don't know what YSBK is like.

[Matt-YSBK]

I guess if i was inbound a twrn and could not get a call in by the boundary i would head for psp and try again there. Sounds like a plan.

I guess one could always count a few Heterodyne's in a row as a radio problem squak 7600 and start lookng for lights :ugh:

<disclaimer> For anyone who cant see through my dry sense of humor the above should not be taken seriously. </disclaimer>

[Ovation]

Bentleg: The thread is about TWRN, although it's reasonable to suggest the same traffic conflict applies whether it's CARRUM or ADWD (unfamiliar with both). This thread has drifted to all GAAP approach points which is a good thing IMHO. I'm sure some of the folks who plan our airspace will be reading these posts, and I hope they take our input on board.

Here is a suggested "fix" posted on a Mooney discussion group by a US pilot living in Sydney who has his N registered Mooney here (I've only posted one of his 6 points).


I hesitate to post yet another idea. (#6) In no way do I want to create the impression that just because I have most of my flying experience in the USA that I therefore think it is the "only" way to do things. It isn't (!) and I could list a few things done here in Australia that I wish would be adopted over there. So I hope that my comments will be taken only as a desire to find a safe and workable solution to a complex and entrenched problem at GAAP airports. (The cynic in me has now renamed GAAP to mean General Aviation Accident Point.)

#6.

Given that CTAF-R exists and is designed to give situational awareness to traffic converging towards a point (an airport) would it not make sense to adopt a CTAF-R procedure for aircraft converging towards an inbound reporting point?

A common frequency for inbound and outbound VFR traffic could be established and mandated to be used from some (to be determined) distance from YSBK. Aircraft would then report distance, altitude and ETA to the inbound reporting fix. After that point aircraft would go to the tower frequency. Inbound aircraft would squawk 1201, and outbound 1202.

A potential issue with this idea is that aircraft on the special freq would not be listening to SYD Radar, but having the squawk of 1201 or 1202 would inform the controller of the aircraft's intentions. Aircraft with 2 radios could monitor SYD Radar in any case. I don't see this costing much, and it would allow inbound planes the ability to communicate directly with each other without impinging on SYD Radar freq - just as we do at any uncontrolled airport.

What I am proposing is very similar to a procedure in the LA basin where it is possible to fly - in a VFR corridor - directly over LAX without speaking to any controller. Northwest and southeast bound traffic squawk 1201 and fly specific altitudes based on direction, and there is a requirement to broadcast entering and exiting the corridor on a specific common frequency. I've flown the corridor probably 50+ times with never a problem, and it links two major GA airports....Santa Monica and Torrance.

[Annihilannic]

I also agree that moving the reporting point or abandoning all the points just moves the problem somewhere else. I will be very interested to hear what ATSB says about it.

As Duke16 said, moving the point (and the problem) closer to ATC probably makes sense.

In an interview the day after the incident Ken Andrews mentioned (my paraphrasing) that they weren't aware of another aircraft being nearby, and had heard no radio calls to indicate that there were. Isn't that the main problem with the current procedure? Shouldn't the tracking point at TWRN and the radio reporting point be in different places... it's quite possible that the pilots of both aircraft were "just about" to reach for the PTT to make their calls... both following the current procedure.

spinKing's suggestion sounds like one possible solution to this problem.

[Clarie]

I completely disagree. The last thing we need is yet another frequency change with people looking down at the radio. Remember under the new CTAF rules we are also supposed to be making a CTAF call to Holsworthy and whatever else happens to be within 8 minutes flying time, while getting an ATIS, changing to BK - and now you are talking about yet another frequency?

Don't forget somewhere in there the student is supposed to be flying the aeroplane, getting their head around radio calls and looking out the window for the other traffic.

We need a less complicated system, not more complicated :rolleyes:

You can't regulate against mistakes either. Put in 10,000 frequency changes by law if you like. Put in huge fines for those that don't comply. But who here hasn't dialled up a wrong frequency or stuffed up the radio selection? Radio is great but we can't all rely on every other pilot being on frequency and making the right call at the right time.

So why not make the system simpler and more random to reduce the impact of people making mistakes? It's plain stupid to have aircraft at exactly the same place at the same altitude.

I'm with Dick on this one. Let's have inbound calls more like "5 miles to the west inbound" rather than over a defined point on the ground, and let them get closer to the airport where controllers can see them for sequencing.

Some seem to think that is too complicated for students. Well how do they cope with making such calls at CTAF airports now? Or in other countries? I would hope our instructors would be able to teach how to read a compass/DG before sending students on area solos. It's not rocket science.

[pa60ops]

After being in and out of BK for almost 20 years, i have had my share of close calls - but I still think PSP is worse - you can get traffic from ahead, behind, left or right.

I hope that at least higher performance a/c they will see fit to let us simply drop out of class c straight into the GAAP rather than go via the approach points. At least when I go to BK, inbound at 200 plus kts I figure not much will get me from behind, but in the usual training a/c these problems are real and of course beacuse the different a/c are at the same sort of speeds (relative to each other) they dont appear to be moving at all.:eek:

Radio alerted see and avoid is great - but you cant rely on ATC to give a heads up even with their collision algorithims on the radar. Good lookout is our only answer i fear, and that has to be taught correctly too.

Remember, lookout is hard work if you are doing it right.

[Wally Mk2]

Have to agree with you there 'Clarie' more isn't always best (as in another radio freq) That would just complicate matters even more. To fiddle with the radio even more than needed at this critical time is crazy! Maybe we have reached (or fast getting there) the saturation point from a safety aspect with regards GAAP AD's the way we do it here in Oz. From the words written here there seems no real fix for this current situation.

'pa60ops' do you really arrive at BK or it's reporting points @ 200kts+? Gee I would have thougt at that speed the sky would appear clear to you 'cause everything would be a blur! You don't need to be at that speed, even a Learjet can fly at the same speeds as most larger piston twins.

Wmk2

[pa60ops]

Hi Capt W - profile dec in the old BE44 is around the 200 kts, unless you start down quite early. With no ailerons, you really dont want to be back around 150kts as if a suddden turn is needed on the spoilers you can get into more trouble!!!

[Wally Mk2]

ok 'pa60ops' you will have to enlighten us (me) to more of this BE44
Is this type of A/C an Mu2?

Wmk2

[DIVINE WIND]

I'm an ex-pat who has flown in both countries. I have not read all the replies.
This could have happened anywhere. Sorry Oz, but we don't cut for efficiency. In making that comment I place no blame on ATC for the accident, but simply point out that busy environments are sustainable in GA. I know Bansktown is busy.
Are bankstown controllers able to provide radar seperation? I don't know.
VFR advisories are a great thing. I know you probably do not have the same radar saturation at home.
The US is busy, crazy compared to Oz actually and makes for an easy target for verbal assaults, but if you look at the movements that contollers make, the record here is good.
If I get flack for this fine, but critics note: How is it in The Northeast USA you can get three Class B airports within 20nm of each other with at least half a dozen Class D & C airports within another 20nm while handling VFR jollies squeezed betwen three Class B airports all worked into the system.
I hope user pays never happens in the USA, but I feel it is inevitable.
Why have so many been so stubborn in preventing the change in Australian airspace?
Webins has made points I agree with. Two Instructors who were busy at the time, tough job.
We need to more open minded about this in Oz. we have been wrapped up in our "safe record" for years. It is safe, I don't deny this, we are well trained pilots in Oz. But combine the Training in Oz with the USA's airspace, the exposure in pricless. How many pilots in Oz are encourged to get IFR rated, not as many as the USA! Pilots here are encouraged to use technology, especially with G1000 equipment becoming standard. Training should be a mixture of both. We are multi-taskers.
There is no shame in having technology save your life because your eyeballs missed something. Otherwise what is the point of progress?

[muffman]

When I return to work in the new year I'll be making three recommendations to my pilots when they operate at Bankstown.


1) You don't have to call inbound at 1500ftThere is a misconception that you must be at 1500ft at PSP/TWRN. That's not true. The only altitude requirement is to be at the correct height entering the control zone. Better to make this the 'funnel point'.


By the time you arrive at the control zone boundary, you've already called inbound and will have directed traffic information. So when you're funnelled into the one position/altitude as other traffic, hopefully you'll already have them sighted.


So my recommendation will be call inbound at whatever height you happen to reach the GAAP approach point at. Preferably make it something other than 1500ft.
2) Monitor the TWR frequency for at least 2nm before the GAAP approach point to start building a mental picture


3) Whenever the TWR frequency is selected, enforce a sterile cockpit All conversation to be operational in nature to assist in developing a clear mental picture of the traffic around you both from a good lookout, and a listening watch.

These recommendation stem from years of operating there and giving some thought to the recent accident. If the ATSB recommend it, there might be procedural changes coming, but in the meantime we have to avoid another accident.

I'd be interested in thoughts on the above

[mostlytossas]

Problem you have with crossing the approach point at a higher altitude (say 1800') then descending to 1500' by the boundary is that you can't see beneath you so you run the real risk of running over some poor soul not unlike that accident at Moorabin on final some time ago.
I still reckon the best way is the D tower nas system they use in the US.
If you imagine a GAAP being like a bicycle wheel with the hub as the airport the safest way in is for aircraft to approach along random spokes all at different distances from the hub until in sight of the controllers who can then assist with your seperation for descent into the circuit.
Unlike now where everyone is channeled into 2 or 3 spokes line astern, and the seperation and descent part (the most risky bit ) is done outside the zone away from any assistance whatsoever.

[Spodman]

If you imagine a GAAP being like a bicycle wheel with the hub as the airport the safest way in is for aircraft to approach along random spokes all at different distances from the hub until in sight of the controllers who can then assist with your seperation for descent into the circuit.I am no expert here, I'm not a Tower ATC, and I have only limited experience flying GAAP, but really think you are on the wrong track. When I pick a bicycle spoke to depart on I kinda like the concept that if I pick a spoke that isn't an inbound spoke I am much less likely to encounter inbound traffic, the worst case for conflictions, with the smallest visual cross section and the fastest closing speeds. When it is time to cross the inbound track I'm at a different level, and am usually surprised at how many I see.

The current plan seems to segregate opposite direction conflictions, at the cost of compressing the inbound conflictions. Not so much of a problem at MB with 4 commonly used inbound points, more so it seems for BK.

Should consideration of such things be part of the investigation or subsequent recommendations - Go for it! Put the teeth back in ATSB!

[mostlytossas]

Spodman. You misunderstand me, my fault as I should have elaborated more. Departures would still be as you say outbound on different spokes but 500' seperated. It is no different to what occurs now at places like Albury, Alice Springs etc only the traffic volume would be far greater and the majority VFR from OCTA. This will no doubt require some modification to the radio procedure as is the current situation. ie no readback of clearance as an acknowledgment by the tower of your inbound call is clearance to enter, no taxi clearance required etc ( otherwise I can see many delays waiting to depart / enter )
So what would happen as I see it: inbound ..Report at the rim after copying the ATIS at 1500' fly direct to airfield (tower would probably tell you to report again )at 2 mile out or at some point like Warwick Farm, salt pan, etc so they can get a visual on you. You would then be instructed to join base, downwind etc on descent pretty much as of now.
Outbound... Same as now only track out direct at 1000' until well past the rim before climbing.
Approach points would still be on the VTC but only used as a means to let the tower know roughly from where you are coming from. ie with your inbound report you would say : BK tower warrior ABC 2mile east of Prospect inbound 1500' with Bravo.

[Awol57]

This sounds a lot like procedural separation to me. Whilst I have been out of the college for 18months, most radials had a point about 8nm out where you lose lateral separation. I really can't see that specific example helping with the traffic flows, if we can't see you then we can't visually separate you.

I see where you are coming from but the problem is when you have 300000+ movements a year its going to be quite hard to manage it that way. We do have a TSAD but we can't use that for separation.

I am just not yet sold on the inbound radial method. What happens when 2 people report inbound on the same radial at the same height. We are back at the same problem all over again.

[mostlytossas]

Awol57,ATC don't separate now at 8nm out only give an advisory that someone else has just reported inbound at your location and sight a follow. This is the crux of the problem. It is not until the second report somewhere like Warwick Farm that the real control comes in usually in the form of join on base, make visual approach for runway...etc, with you are number 3 or so on (as if we can't see that by then). All the GAAP zones are between 4nm and 8nmin diameter and as the tower is about in the middle the furthest you would have to see is 4nm. As in the above example all the climbing and decending occurs in that airspace.
As for what about 2 aircraft on the same radial heading in the same direction,yes that can happen but that is a minor problem (as the tower can advise this fact to the second aircraft)whereas now you can have anything up to a dozen aircraft all line astern tracking down the same radial. In fact that is how the system has been setup in the first place. Might be convienient for ATC but as Duke16 said earlier it does not make good safety practice.
Some posters might consider 2008 to have been an unlucky year. I rather think it is the year our luck ran out.

[Awol57]

I realise we don't separate you now, but it sounds to me like some people are suggesting that we should. I am just saying that unless people are well separated when inbound (ie from different quadrants) we can't do that if we can't see you. Some days when its a bit hazy its very hard to even see aircraft in the circuit and spotting someone at 6nm is near on impossible.

At the end of the day we will still be relying on chance and traffic information, just that you can report inbound from anywhere. I would have thought from a pilots perspective that being told "Traffic is a C172 approaching ADWD from SHIP" would have more meaning than "Traffic is a C172 out to your right tracking inbound from the SW on the 235 radial". Without me getting a radar rating I can't give you a distance or other information so it comes down to you seeing the other aircraft, or me sighting both of you and then doing something about it. At the moment GAAP and Class D towers are very similar in terms of what separation ATC provide.

[Plazbot]

The Class G trial airspace was instigated to use radar for the first time between Canberra and Ballina. Remember, a flight service officer standing behind the radar controller reported an incident


That is an absolute load of bull****. I was sitting at the very next radar screen, which just so happened to be the vertical split airspace with the one where the 'show stopper' occured so this happened right smack bang in the centre of my display.

The incident was a Jetsream going through a King Air with just about nothing between them in complete silence and the controller, against all procedures to the contrary, spoke up about what he knew was going to happen to the aircraft and they took unsighted avoiding action in cloud. Radar plots point towards a very probable hit had they not done something. Where on earth you came up with this fantasy about a Smelly standing behind and pointing something out I don't know:=

Interestingly enough Dick, the exact same controller who was sitting there was also sitting in when the Impulse 717 nearly got collected by the Jet War Bird off 12 at Willy which then lead (eventually) to the extension of tower hours. The War Bird was on 'the appropriate frequency':rolleyes:

[mostlytossas]

Awol57, I'm not familular with Perth/Jandakot airspace so you have me at a disadvantage there but I have managed to find an old 2001 VTC. I see over there you have 2 VFR routes following the coast, one northern and one southern, each has it's own approach point in POW and SHIP then they both head to the one tracking point ADWD merge then into the GAAP zone. In my view that is even worse than Bankstown and it is only a matter of time before there is a midair at ADWD not if.
What I would rather see is this, we will assume runway 24 is in use.
Traffic from SHIP would report inbound at 1500' and track direct to the field ( because approaching from the south would be using 24L) and would be told to report approaching or over Kwinana Freeway. At this point the tower could get a visual on him and he would be instructed to descend and join downwind.
Traffic from POW would do likewise but would be using 24R.
Lets say at the same time an aircraft was approaching the zone from the south and had been told to report at the prison and had arrived the same time as the one from SHIP was at the freeway. Then normal rules of the air apply. The aircraft at the freeway is instructed to maintain 1500' sight then follow the aircraft over the prison who has been told to make visual approach to join base24L.
I can't see the problem here. It removes the risk of collision as much as possible and the point of most risk is where you have the assistance of the tower.
Anyway all good debate.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Except that traffic from SHIP and POWR are both going to 24R. 24L is used for circuits and departures via ARE. Only used for arrivals if the arrivals, normaly from FDL, wants to do circuits on arrival.

Aircraft at SHIP and POWR will hopefully hear each other's call, and if at the same speed, the rule of give way to the right should apply. However there are some at JT who think that right of way goes to whoever gets the call in first, regardless of where they actually are when they make the call; some who think it is OK to orbit at ADWD :mad:, and many who think it is OK to overtake on the left.

In other words, it is a lack of basic airmanship or knowlege of the rights of way HAVING SIGHTED TRAFFIC, as much as those who seem to fly around with their eyes and ears shut that causes near misses, plus a lack of understanding of the part of many pilots of the actual role and responsibilities of our ATC.

Its in the syllabus, units C6 and C7, it's not rocket science.

[Awol57]

CFI you beat me to it. I agree all a discussion in good fun as I am not familar with YSBK. As CFI mentioned, we use 24L as circuit runway and departures to the E/SE via ARE. Runway 24R is for all arrivals and other depatures. People inbound from the South overfly at 1500 and from ADWD join downwind (or as instructed runway dependant). With up to 10 aircraft and helicopters on 24L it is generally not possible to sequence traffic in from the south.

There is a difference in time for people inbound from POWR/SHIP so one aircraft or both normally hear the others calls.

We can tell from the tower when someone is trying to call early to get in first (though it is sometimes hard from our perspective) but generally people try and do the right thing. We have a pretty good idea where ADWD is so when people call early (normally up to about 1nm prior to ADWD) we will try and sequence them to follow the aircraft that is ahead. Of course it is dependant on speeds and the like.

An orbit is the worst thing we see people do there, if you are ever caught there and not able to make a call the safest option is to make a left turn and track out to fremantle and then come back for another shot.

Mostlytossas do you fly at YMMB by any chance? That sounds familar to what I experienced when I flew there.

[mostlytossas]

Ok so YPJT is simular to YSBK in so far as 1 runway is used for circuit training 29L/11R and the other 29R/11L for arrivals/departures. This requires pilots to overfly depending on which runway is in use. As I said in my post #94 this would have to change to get full benifit from less congestion. By halving the amount of traffic aiming for the same runway you should half the risk. Circuit training is shared between the active runways. That is how a true GAAP operates and most of them do this. My home airfield is Parafield and does this as does Moorabin and on memory Archfield also (though at YPPF they do prefer to get the circuit traffic on 03R/21L if possible due traffic amounts). Here at YPPF we also have just 2 inbound reporting points (just like Bankstown) OHB to the west and the SUB to the north. As we have a college here plus Uni and 3 or so flying schools all out at the training area along with a lane of entry all feeding into OHB it can get a bit hairy on occasions and I hold my breath at times waiting for the inevitable.
I am open to a way to prevent this and as I said previously the US nas is the best I've heard so far. These type of discussions can only help to improve the system even if by only making pilots aware of the dangers. I have a brother who fly's and now a son in addition to myself. If one of us ever went down in a collision at a GAAP I would like to think others would discuss the issue and try and come up with a safer way to do things so it would never be repeated.

[Chimbu chuckles]

a safer way to do things so it would never be repeated.

Emotive claptrap...short of closing the airport that is impossible.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Mostly, the other issue is noise abatement which is why the crcuits at Jandakot are to the south and east to be over less populated areas.

[inxs]

If your a low wing fly and report at 1400'QNH, if your a high wing fly and report at 1600'QNH. In addition could there be a 'local rule' that high wings report west of the mast and low wings to the east or something to that effect.

What a great idea! VFR points or no VFR points......I have always maintained that hi wing and lo wing just don't mix in high traffic areas, no matter what spin you put on it. Dick is at least seeking out a change for the better here. We have had far too many mid-airs and near-misses in and around GAAP aerodromes that CASA and AA must do something here instead of just sitting on their hands.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

INXS, why not ban everything with different specs to what your flying at the moment.

"Sorry, you cannot fly your A36 in here, Sir. The speed differential and your low wing flying near my C150 makes your aircraft an unaccepatble risk to my flying into this aerodrome."

Really thought that one out:cool:

Mr Smith is being somewhat hypocritical ...again... in this instance.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And the SY flight guide is STILL offline!

[bentleg]

ATSB have issued a Preliminary Report (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008081_prelim.pdf)

[bluesky300]

This was on-line yesterday but thankfully seems to have been pulled this morning. Presumably someone spoke to the reporter.

Mid-air crash: pilots' wrong calls revealed | smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/national/midair-crash-pilots-wrong-calls-revealed-20090224-8gh1.html)