CASA's revised GAAP procedures.

[SayAgainSlowly]

Gday
Took this from the CASA website:

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, has given notice of his intention to issue legal directions to pilots and Airservices Australia in relation to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) used at Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield aerodromes.
The proposed directions are part of CASA’s ongoing efforts to improve safety at GAAP aerodromes and complement the education and awareness campaign currently being undertaken by CASA regarding safety and procedures at these aerodromes.
“The action we are taking is the result of extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis undertaken by CASA in recent months, including surveillance activity of Air Traffic Services (ATS) at GAAP aerodromes. This is also consistent with the findings of a review of airspace management recently commissioned by CASA (‘the Ambidji Report’) which has highlighted the need for immediate action to improve airspace management at GAAP aerodromes,” Mr McCormick said.
“GAAP aerodromes are busy hubs of Australian general aviation and are home to numerous flying schools, charter operators, aircraft maintenance businesses, and private aircraft. The safety of all airspace users and of people on the ground is CASA’s primary concern,” said Mr McCormick.
Effective Tuesday 21 July 2009, the proposed directions would require:

An immediate limitation on the number of aeroplanes in the circuit for one runway, controlled by one Air Traffic Controller, to six. If two runways and two controllers are available then the total number of aeroplanes in the circuit would be limited to 12. An additional departure may be permitted at the discretion of the controller having given due consideration to all relevant safety factors.
An immediate requirement for all aircraft to obtain an Air Traffic Control clearance to enter, cross or taxi along any runway.
The provision (within 9 months) of aerodrome ATS daily for the hours of daylight without any reduction in the service currently provided during the hours of darkness.The Director of Aviation Safety has also announced CASA will require that all GAAP aerodromes will be moving towards Class D air traffic control, by 21 April 2010, better harmonising arrangements in Australia with the current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) airspace classification system.
“These proposed directions are an appropriate, measured and justifiable response to the safety requirements at and in the vicinity of GAAP aerodromes,” Mr McCormick said.
Aviation Safety Advisors and other CASA staff will commence briefing operators on the changes at each of the six aerodromes from today. Further information on the proposed directions and a copy of the Ambidji Report (http://casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1753238728:pc=PC_93356) is now available.




Is anyone else concerned with the possible implications of these procedures?, such as :
-the prospect of increased numbers of aircraft in a holding pattern at GAAP approach points while they wait for the controller to work his/her traffic down to just 6 aircraft?
-the obvious delays and subsequent cost to indusrty?
Im sure there is plenty more.

The prospect of holding people out of the zone until they become one of the 6 lucky ones seems to be contradictory to the mid-air collision propaganda mailed out last week.

Any thoughts?

-P.S Be gentle, 1st post.....

[Frank Burden]

Interesting, next thing CASA will be asking is for all sports and rec aircraft to carry radios and use them!!:eek:

[CitationJet]

The NOTAM has just appeared this evening -

C0033/09
GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES - (GAAP) CONTROL ZONES
A PILOT IN COMMAND MUST REQ AND OBTAIN ATC CLEARANCE BEFORE ENTERING, CROSSING OR TAXIING ALONG ANY RWY WHILE AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ARE IN OPERATION

REFERENCE AIP BOOK A/L 59 EFFECTIVE 4 JUNE 09

AMD AIP ENR 1.1-50 PARA 27.1.1 B. TO READ:
B. TAXIING ACROSS OR ALONG ANY RUNWAY
FROM 07 201400 TO PERM

[eeper23]

am I missing something here?

since when did you not need a clearance at a GAAP to enter a runway, cross a runway, or taxi on a runway???????

have the rules been ammended to include runways which arent active?? e.g. 04/22 at ybaf when 10/28 is in use??

[Diversion90]

An immediate requirement for all aircraft to obtain an Air Traffic Control clearance to enter, cross or taxi along any runway.

But hasn't this always been the case?

[tmpffisch]

No, clearance has only been required for active runways.

[triton140]

But hasn't this always been the case?

Previously active runways at GAAP.

[mostlytossas]

The important part of this announcement is the move to Class D next April. This I assume(and hope) will be the end to the risky practise of approach points outside ATC where traffic is funnelled into one point all at the same altitude and all tracking to the same base/ downwind/crosswind leg. This has been the subject of much debate on prune for some time. Could it be someone is finally listening?

[KRUSTY 34]

Oh Crap!

Will that mean a requirement to state distance, inbound radial, altitude, inflight conditions, and ATIS?

That'll be interseting!:confused:

[Zoomy]

As will the increase in cost!:ok:

[b_sta]

And the safety, ideally. Dick will be happy with this one :ok:

[Lodown]

I hope there's more to it. The part I'd like to see is pilots approaching Class D's/GAAP get equal treatment with clearance through Class C and not stuffed down below the steps because clearance is not available. But then, that might require changing all those noise abatement spaghetti tracks and I can't see that happening. So Class D will ameliorate one issue and just create another one. Controlled airspace will be a little better managed in the immediate vicinity of the airports and it'll be a bigger fustercluck in Class G just outside the boundaries. At least this might be one way for the CASA to force staffing issues to the forefront in AsA.

[Unhinged]

Info is on the CASA website at: CASA - Proposal for revised procedures at GAAP aerodromes (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1162751249:pc=PC_93356) Some interesting issues here.

Class D services will have to be provided at all GAAP aerodromes during the hours of daylight. So Camden is going to have to have full-time ATC, not just on weekends after 9am, as at present.

There's going to be a huge spike in night-time runway incursion incidents, as pilots accidentally taxi across inactive unlit runways.

There's no discussion of traffic management with three active runways (the normal arrangement at Bankstown), and it isn't clear what CASA's intention is for this situation.

There's no mention of the status of helipads. Will they be treated as an additional runway for traffic management purposes ? What happens when helicopters arrive and depart direct to/from company pads or taxiways ? Nor any mention of helicopter traffic, who will hopefully just continue to do what they always do and stay out of the way of everyone else !

It looks like this is CASA's way of forcing the issue with Airservices on staffing levels and service provision. Unless Airservices ramp up staffing to adequately address current service obligations, plus the extra obligations imposed by these directions, GA at GAAP aerodromes will be completely stuffed due to a complete inability to actually get airborne.

[Starts with P]

I don't know where they are going to get all this staff from. All the extra staff for the extra positions that need to be opened (SMC) and the extra opening hours (think daylight savings in Moorabin and ANY day in Camden).

The plan has to be delivered to CASA by August this year, so that will be an interesting read.

[flog]

So how many planes are in the circuit now at YMMB and YBSK?

The new rules limit it to 6, INCLUDING arrivals and departures...

[b_sta]

And what happens when you've got, say, 6 students in the circuit, and an RPT inbound? Make the RPT wait until the students are done with their T&G's? Force one of the circuit-goers to make a full stop?

[flog]

The plan has some leeway for outbound traffic but mentions nothing about arrivals getting into the mix.

[Another Number]

:rolleyes:

Can someone explain what CASA call "the circuit"?

6 planes in "the circuit" with 1 RWY & 1 controller, but 12 in "the circuit" if there are 2 RWYs & 2 controllers... is this supposed to mean that with the two duty RWYs and two controllers on duty, one circuit can have 12 planes, or do they mean 12 spread over both RWYs (what I'd call both circuits, not "the circuit")?

Specifically in regard to Singapore Southern International Aerodrome (aka YPJT) - where its not unusual to have the circuit saturated with SQ students as it is (without extra limitations) ... does this mean the "circuit training circuit" will be cut to no more than 6 a/c at a time (great for reducing the problems with the SQ 160nm wide circuits @ 85 kts, but bad for congestion - esp. departures to the East).

Even without this, I've had to wait 45 mins from startup to T/O clearance for Armadale departure (in 35C ambient) early afternoon on a weekday ... I can just imagine if there's now a queue of 18 SQ + 12 other planes awaiting depature! It'll cost students $150 just idling on the ground for their circuits! :ugh:

[VH-XXX]

6 planes in "the circuit" with 1 RWY & 1 controller, but 12 in "the circuit" if there are 2 RWYs & 2 controllers... is this supposed to mean that with the two duty RWYs and two controllers on duty, one circuit can have 12 planes, or do they mean 12 spread over both RWYs (what I'd call both circuits, not "the circuit")?


6 PER circuit. I'd like to see 12 in a circuit at Moorabbin that's for sure :bored:

[cbradio]

The plan has some leeway for outbound traffic but mentions nothing about arrivals getting into the mix.

the press release is a bit vague but the legal instrument is very specific

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/papers/direction_airservices.pdf


7. Airservices must ensure that, at any given time, the maximum number of aeroplanes in the circuit (including arriving and departing aeroplanes) for any 1 runway controlled by an ATC, is 6.

additional notes

8. For clause 7, an additional departure may be permitted at the discretion of the controlling ATC, having taken into account any relevant considerations relating to the interests of safety.

note 1 For clauses 7 and 8, the maximum number of aeroplanes in a circuit must not at any given time exceed 7 when 1 runway is used or 13 when 2 runways are used

[flog]

So does anyone have clarity on where the circuit starts and ends?

Take YMMB - reporting at Brighton or GMH or Carum - am I in the circuit yet as it implies with the 'arriving and departing aircraft' clause?
Or is it once I've physically joined and called downwind/upwind/oblique long slightly dog-legged in the pike position base?

Flog.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Given the size of the average civvy circuit, I'm not surprised at the concern!:}

[Ando1Bar]

A discussion with someone from AsA revealed the other considerations.

Basically the change means the controller can only handle six (possibly seven) on their frequency. Who knows what will happen, but that is their current interpretation. If six are 'in the circuit', which can include some inbound and outbound, and then someone extra calls inbound, they will be required to hold at the inbound reporting point - they cannot enter the control zone. This is a crazy situation making the whole situation far more dangerous.

It is not uncommon for two even three aircraft to arrive within 2 mins of each other at an inbound reporting point. Now will they be required to orbit OCTA awaiting a clearance? Very very poor situation increasing the risk of a collision. CASA, you will have blood on your hands.

Furthermore, consider the VMC criteria required when GAAPs become Class D aerodromes. Being clear of cloud will not be enough, you will now require 1000ft vertical sep from cloud. On days when a 1500ft cloud base would have easily allowed flying (maybe restricted VFR) we will all be kept on the ground.

Yes, CASA went to the industry to find the problems. But did they talk to the stakeholders about these changes - pilots, flying schools and AsA?

It may please the smaller operators, but don't be surprised if a number of medium to larger schools walk away from the GAAPs.

[cbradio]

The important part of this announcement is the move to Class D next April. This I assume(and hope) will be the end to the risky practise of approach points outside ATC where traffic is funnelled into one point all at the same altitude and all tracking to the same base/ downwind/crosswind leg. This has been the subject of much debate on prune for some time. Could it be someone is finally listening?

any busy Class D airspace will still have VFR Approach Points and VFR Inbound and Outbound Routes. It can't possibly be a free for all!

If you look at the GAAP Review Report (Ambidji Report) - all 320 pages!

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/papers/gaapfull_june09.pdf

on pages 64 and 65 it shows John Wayne and Montreal/St Hubert with VFR routes and states the majority of GA aerodromes utilise mandatory VFR inbound and outbound routes (p 64) and refers to the USA/Canadian practise of a single departure track - runway heading until clear of the zone, anyone?

Class D does not change the theory of inbound points (and if you think there will be a radar controller sequencing aircraft to these points in G airspace you are dreaming (staffing/costs).

[Ando1Bar]

GAAPs are there these days mostly for flight training. Sure, other GA has its place at some airports, but student pilots account for the majority of aircraft movements.

In the training world the inbound and outbound tracks make life easier for ATC and the pilots. Can you imagine the problems that will occur if a bearing and distance is required when making the inbound call (if reporting points are not used). Commerical pilots can handle it, but student pilots or the inexperienced? Three scenarios:
- modern aircraft with GPS information, possibly a glass cockpit. A lot of eyes-inside flying, making see-and-avoid less effective.
- older aircraft, no GPS or tracking data readily available. Unless stong SOPs or educational material are made available, pilots make incorrect assessments of position, leading to ATC confusion in an environment where radar cannot be used to 'officially' identify aircraft.
- people flock to positions they already know and use, therefore conflicts are not reduced.

Back to circuit traffic - of the three collisions recently only one was in the circuit during tower hours. The accidents that have occurred are tragic, but the unfortunate reality is accidents will occur again, no matter the rules. I'm sure I'm also not the only one to have been cut off by another aircraft, during tower hours, when there have been a lot less that six aircraft on frequency.

I don't have the answers but, in my eyes, CASA's knee-jerk reaction is not correct. I'm off to a meeting with CASA tomorrow, maybe I'll be convinced otherwise.

The new rules will further strangle operators when schedules are affected and flights cancelled because the pattern is full. It will be bad enough for the larger schools, what impact will it have on the smaller operators if even an average of one flight a day is cancelled?

CASA, the mailout last week was a joke, as is your involvement with the real stakeholders.

On a positive note this has been the fastest piece of legislation I've ever seen pumped out by CASA.

Rant over, looking forward to other's thoughts.

[tmpffisch]

I'm confused (only slightly) by this NOTAM.

The AIP change is effective from 07 160244 TO PERM, but elsewhere it says at the top of the NOTAM WITH EFFECT FM 0907201400.

So with the AIP in effect, but the NOTAM not.....which do we do?

Is it simply a matter of the NOTAM cancelling out the AIP? Until 201400, which then the AIP comes into effect, but backdated?

[Unhinged]

AFAIK Class D airspace = non-radar. Don't know about other places, but at Bankstown the tower has a radar feed but it is slightly delayed and cannot be used for separation. No safety gain.

Of course with non-radar control zones come Departure Reports, plus the requirements to advise tower when maintaining assigned levels. So increased pilot workload in what is already a high traffic environment where they should not be distracted from looking for other traffic. Safety reduction.

Inbound reporting points are still used and important. The restrictions on aircraft per controller mean that we're going to have more pilots told "Remain outside Class D airspace" than before. So now there'll be more aircraft orbiting at inbound reporting points awaiting clearance. Safety reduction.

Can't find it just now, but someone said that helicopters use different inbound points at Bankstown. Not true. ERSA requires them to use the same reporting points as aeroplanes. It's just that they are then directed to track via helicopter waypoints after calling inbound at 2RN and Prospect (Of course, heli's inbound from R405 will usually use Olympic Park because it makes sense, but it isn't a published procedure)

The lack of any mention of helicopters or three-runway operations in the directives suggests to me that these documents have been published without any significant internal or external consultation. You'd only have to show the draft to any flight school at Bankstown or Camden to get reminded about that !

Ando1Bar, Special VFR is still available in Class D. Same requirements as GAAP zones and Class C.

I'd still like to think this is more about CASA putting pressure on Airservices to sort out their staffing levels and service delivery so that flight safety is increased eventually, rather than any direct policy to increase safety.

A less charitable interpretation, would be that John McCormick is under pressure to be seen to be doing something, anything. If there is a belief that this action could directly increase overall aviation safety, then it might suggest that Mr McCormick does not have an operational understanding of how GAAP zones work in practice; There is nothing in his published bio (CASA's Director) (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1908545167:pc=PC_91668) which would contradict that.

[mostlytossas]

Just a couple of points here.
cb radio, They may have inbound and outbound routes at busy GA airports in the USA but I bet they don't have them at the same altitude like here. My next trip over there I will ask again.
A..1bar..Maybe where you fly might be only training but at Parafield most of the states maintenance for GA plus numerous private aircraft are also based here, and with only 2 app/dep points for aircaft OCTA it can get very close and chummy at times. I would much rather see multiple app/dep tracks at various altitudes thanks, where you do not desend until under instruction and sight of the tower ie class D.
Why not wait until we all know what is being proposed before flying off at the handle with all this doom and gloom, it will never work jargon.

[SayAgainSlowly]

Airspace constraints in and around GAAP zones ( e.g abutting Class C airspace in alot of cases) would require certain dispensations to convert them to Class D control zones, otherwise the demise of GA at those airports would be a matter of when not if.

Dispensations such as :
-a reduction in met minima to allow for continued flow of traffic into and out of the CTR during times approaching marginal VMC.
-Differing sep standards being applied to aircraft operating within the CTR, i.e IFR treated as VFR. - try applying 1000ft sep IFR to IFR when the vertical limit of the zone is 1500ft
-Anticipation of runway standards so as to allow for efficient movement of traffic.

These are just to name a few. If you put these into place in a Calss D environment you would have, um..., hang on.... GAAP.



GAAP zones used to effectively be Class D CTR's. It was realised that something needed to be done to improve the system to cater for the increasing numbers of aircraft movements and operations, hence GAAP was born.

GAAP works.

It is the very small minority who enter the zone at the wrong altitude, who dont have any sense of airmanship whatsoever, who cant follow to save their lives, that puts doubts and pressure on the system. Instead of penalising the good pilots and operators CASA should do their job as regulator and crack down on the few instructors and students who cause GAAP zones to be unneccesarily hazardous.

Rant over.

[mostlytossas]

Say Again, Dispensations as you call them are common place at airports all over the country from the simple right hand circuits due terrain to the more complex. So there should be no fear in that if required.
GAAPS were born in the late 70's due mainly to the introduction of parallel runways and as such "Australian unique" procedures invented to handle them. At 28 you weren't even born then but I was and started flying just after their introduction so trust me. In those days there was no International student flying schools so traffic was much less although private flying was more common.
At the time the system was set up for the benifit of ATC as we would /still do organise ourselves OCTA at an approach point line astern and report inbound all at the same altitude. ATC would only have to note the callsign, usually have you report when closer to confirm the order of arrival, then clear you to land. Problem is they are of no real assistance to anyone at the approach point where they are needed most as this is where the most risk of a midair is. I'm not saying this was an intentsional plan way back then it was just the way the powers that be thought about the system (an ATC view). Remember few ATC's have pilots licences so looking at it from a pilots point of view didn't enter the equasion. With the increase in flying activity over the years this flaw is now coming home to roost.
Yes GAAPS work. But they can be so much better and safer for all.
I say again lets wait and see what is proposed before condemning any change.

[ReverseFlight]

I commend CASA for taking the initiative to increase safety in GAAP airports. My greatest concern however is how the new rules against runway incursion are going to work in practice. It's all very well at Bankstown and other GAAPs where they have parallel runways (correct me if I am wrong) but Moorabbin is facing a real challenge.

Quite often on a full stop landing pilots use the cris-crossing non-active runways for vacating the active runway at MB eg. when landing on 17L, runoff to 22, when landing on 35R, runoff to 31L or 31R, or when landing on 13/31, runoff to a combination of 04/22 and crossing 17L/R. If the pilot is still on TWR frequency, is TWR expected to such taxi clearances ? Normally such clearances are given by GRD after you have vacated the active runway - now you're already on another runway before you can contact GRD (!) The problem is if you missed the exit say to a non-active runway, you may have to roll a long way to the next available taxiway or even right through to the end before vacating, and given TWR's reluctance to clear the one behind from landing or touch n' go until you have vacated, are we going to witness a lot of go-arounds ? Or should we make every full stop landing a short field and vacate ASAP knowing that some else is following close behind ?

Maybe this problem is peculiar to MB. My suggestion is (now the Tiger Moth enthusiasts are going to shoot me down in flames) to consider de-commissioning 04/22, otherwise there will be a lot of runway incursions every day, as 04/22 is hardly used anyway.

I agree that no amount of regulation is going to prevent accidents caused by the individual pilot who departs (for one reason or another) from the rules. Yes we need better regulation and supervision but the parameters drawn up by CASA does not necessary work at every GAAP aerodrome (not without substantial local modification and/or sacrifice). With limitations on the number of aircraft in the circuit, I dare not even start to think how other aircraft will be sequenced at VFR entry points as that seems to me to be the real reason for a substantial proportion of accidents.

[Ando1Bar]

A..1bar..Maybe where you fly might be only training but at Parafield most of the states maintenance for GA plus numerous private aircraft are also based here, and with only 2 app/dep points for aircaft OCTA it can get very close and chummy at times. I would much rather see multiple app/dep tracks at various altitudes thanks, where you do not desend until under instruction and sight of the tower ie class D.

Fair point, couldn't agree more. I'm lucky in that 4 inbound reporting point are available at YBAF.

Two inbound points at airports like Bankstown and Parafield are a far more hazardous situation than restricting aircraft to 6 in the circuit. Also, how will you feel next week when ATC are holding aircraft at these two inbound reporting points?

A lot needs to be considered, SayAgainSlowly summed up the Class D situation nicely.

[cbradio]

They may have inbound and outbound routes at busy GA airports in the USA but I bet they don't have them at the same altitude like here.

if you have a CTR up to A015 with CTA above (big jets!) with outbound routes at A010 and inbound routes at A015, what other inbound levels can you have?

In those days there was no International student flying schools so traffic was much less

maybe (?) at PF and JT, not BK, AF and MB.


Remember few ATC's have pilots licences so looking at it from a pilots point of view didn't enter the equasion

A large number (particularly back then) of GAAP ATC hold/held pilots licences - that's what attracted them to GAAP in the first place.

[mcgrath50]

RE: The Runway clearances, at BK at least the runway is owned by the tower (you get permission from them to cross). Is this the case at MB? If so this will increase work hugely for the tower if what ReverseFlight says is true.

[Unhinged]

Tower always owns the runways. The difference at Bankstown is that Tower also owns the taxiways between the runways.

One thing that's not clear with the new rules is who owns an inactive runway at Bankstown. In practice it's just a taxiway, but the new rules have elevated it to an undefined sub-class that is more than a taxiway (since you need a clearance to use it) but less than a runway (because it's inactive, and is outside the runway in use)

[Awol57]

The ADC (or "tower") will own all the runways, same as at other controlled aerodrome types. They will simply tell you to vacate left or right into the runway and presto there is your clearance.

Internally the runway can be released to SMC so he can give you clearances to cross as well on ground.

[ReverseFlight]

I hope pilots can comply with clearances vacating runways because if you can't slow down enough in time for exiting onto a non-active, the only option is to roll through, possibly to the annoyance of the aircraft trying to land behind you. In any case, the TWR is going to be a lot busier in future.

[goin'flyin]

An interesting one will be (in the case of YSBK) you come in at night and Rwy Centre is the only one operational, yet when you vacate you have to hold short of the inactive (and UNLIT) runway at a holding point that is also UNLIT.

Are they going to have ALL runways, whether active or inactive, lit at night? Only way i can see to attempt to minimise runway incursions.

Next thing it will cost us $100 per movement at YSBK due to the airport's increased electricity bill.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Perhaps it would have been a good idea to consult with industry. Some of the things brought up here are clear to those of us who work in the GAAP environment every day but seem to have been overlooked.

Agreed that it is the approach points outside the CTR that are the most hazardous areas. Particularly when you have people who either don't know the rights of way or are apparently flying with their eyes shut. Overtaking on the left is one of my pet hates, people reporting at a point when they are in fact a couple of miles away from it is another. And orbiting at a GAAP approach point :eek::eek: I think we might see more of that with these proposed changes!

These proposed changes won't make any difference to safety for as long as the people who do the above and the orgnaisations they come from see no consequences for their actions. Perhaps if people thought that CASA might actually invite them over for tea and biccies to explain themselves we might see better airmanship. Until then there will always be those who behave this way, and the students will think that it's OK, and as CASA left Jandakot years ago to look after the fare paying pax at Perth there's no enforcement.

[Staticport]

\Given the size of the average civvy circuit, I'm not surprised at the concern!http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Yes, you see some very "creative" circuits flown by particular training organizations these days

Just wait for the next set of runway incursion statistics

[bentleg]

Camden has a concern that when the circuit fills up with the overflow from Bankstown, the locals won't be able to do circuits or arrive. I note one departure is allowed but no mention about arrivals. I just hope ASA continues to look after us (as they do now). If arrivals want to do circuits, make them to do a full stop first and join the queue!

On the positive side, the extra tower hours should improve safety. The operation of two circuits (not parallel) has got a bit scary at times since YHOX closed. Probably means only six planes altogether across both circuits, unless ASA can find another frequency and another controller.

[goin'flyin]

From the telephone conversation i had with CASA yesterday regarding these proposed changes, the advise i was given is, if there are 6 in the circuit when you call inbound, one of those aircraft in the circuit would be made to do a full stop and taxi back to rejoin the circuit after you land. They couldn't tell me how the tower will pick who gets to do the fullstop. Words to the effect of "thats not our decision".

When i downloaded my NOTAMs (copied below) this morning, i love the way the GAAP procedures notam is followed by the staff shortages notam. Well done. Can see these changes being very well accepted by all. NOT.:ugh:

C317/09 REVIEW C315/09
WITH EFFECT FM 0907201400
GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES - (GAAP) CONTROL ZONES A PILOT IN COMMAND MUST REQ AND OBTAIN ATC CLEARANCE BEFORE ENTERING, CROSSING OR TAXIING ALONG ANY RWY WHILE AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ARE IN OPERATION

REFERENCE AIP BOOK A/L 59 EFFECTIVE 4 JUNE 09
AMD AIP ENR 1.1-50 PARA 27.1.1 B. TO READ:
B. TAXIING ACROSS OR ALONG ANY RUNWAY
FROM 07 160248 TO PERM

C319/09 REVIEW C318/09
ATS IN CTR REDUCED DUE AVAILABILITY OF ATC STAFF POSSIBLE RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS.
START CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT.
FROM 07 180600 TO 07 181000

[kimwestt]

To begin with, I agree with those who comment on when was there not a requirement (in living memory) to use the active runway, other than with a clearance. Should the rest of the arrival/departure procedures follow these illogical statements, then heaven help us. Mention has been made that one result may well be less operators on the GAAP airports, that, might I suggest, would suit the airport owners down to a tee. Yippee, rub hands together, more land and facilities to rip (money gouge) more lucrative tenants off with!!
Personally, trying to land at night in higher performance aircraft, especially at YSBK, with the circuits full of training aircraft, is well nigh impossible. If you in a Metro, you get -"Sight and follow a Tecnam or (or similar) on mid down wind. You are at the required alt, 500 feet higher, (at which the lights of the preceeding aircraft are well and truly lost in the city lights, you have your aircraft back to Vref on early down wind, and you still cannot fit into the circuit. The tower used to require the preceeding a/c to extend the downwind leg, or similar, to fix the situation. Even at 105 kts, I am still catching the preceeding aircraft as if they were standing still. Are some of the training aircraft doing downwind legs full flap, and 65 kts or summat??
Even better, there used to be a ban on circuit aircraft during the times of bank runners dep and arr.:confused::confused::ugh:

[Ando1Bar]

goin'flying, a meeting I attended with CASA yesterday had a similar tone. Bascially they read the press release and wouldn't offer any real assistance. We were told to sort it out with ATC regarding the circuit procedures. Also told it was our responsibility to now work with the other flying schools to prevent more than six needing the runway. Easier said than done.

The direct question was asked whether it was now a more dangerous situation to have traffic holding at inbound reporting points. They wouldn't really answer our question, although the body language seemed to agree with the statement. We were just told to keep a good lookout and perhaps ATC will give us a new procedure.

CFI, interesting to hear others in the industry weren't consulted. I thought for some reason our heads had been in the sand in recent months. It's rather sad, but not suprising, that CASA invoke the new rules and leave it up to us - ATC, business and pilots - to sort it out. Less than a week's notice makes it worse.

I'm still considering whether an incident notification form should be submitted everytime aircraft from our organisation are held at the inbound points and another aircraft arrives within our vacinity.

[training wheels]

All of a sudden, going back to fly from Essendon's Class C seems an attractive option again, despite the higher landing fees.

And if 6 aircraft in the circuit is considered too many at a Class D aerodrome, what about those non-towered CTAF aerodromes? Pt Cook sometimes has as many as 6 or more aircraft doing circuits plus the odd aircraft or two doing practice NDB approaches. And it will probably attract even more when YMMB becomes a Class D.

[YPJT]

In the case of Jandakot, I think exiting at tango or victor off rwy 30 might be interesting as it puts you immediately inside the flight strip for rwy 06/24 L&R. Any controllers care to comment?

[Awol57]

We already tell you to cross the threshold of 06L when you vacate there on tower frquency so it won't be an issue. We will just do the same for 06R as well.

[PlankBlender]

Anyone in the know how this will work at YBAF with the (almost always) inactive grass strips 04/22 that one normally taxies across the threshold of to get to the 10 runways? Will you have to call up tower or ground for clearance across every time you taxi down Bravo? :confused: I suppose you could always just use Alpha..

Agree this all sounds like ill-thought out buerocratic !diocy whatever the reasons behind it, the suspicion about AsA staffing levels makes sense in a twisted way:ugh::mad: especially holding at/around the inbound reporting point sounds downright dangerous, I know I'll be getting out of the way quickly and by a wide margin if I am requested to hold OCTA, but judging from traffic levels at YBAF over the last six months this should normally not be an issue..

[Ando1Bar]

Anyone in the know how this will work at YBAF with the (almost always) inactive grass strips 04/22 that one normally taxies across the threshold of to get to the 10 runways? Will you have to call up tower or ground every time you taxi down Bravo?


PB, yes. Tower confirmed it when I spoke to them last week.

[PlankBlender]

Cheers Ando, probably less hassle just to use the 28 runup bays and taxi down Alpha when 10's are in use..

[Ultralights]

that would explain YSBK being restricted VFR today despite perfect clear CAVOK conditions, and the expect extended delays for circuit training even when there was only 2 aircraft in the circuit i could see. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

[Backdraft5]

I was at CN too.

:=

"They proceeded to have to tell one or two planes to remain outside the control zone (resulting in, as expected, orbits around inbound points"
I do believe it was 1 and they were not at the inbound point. I saw the aircraft just south of the township.

"spent at least another minute at least nonstop over the frequency confirming the location of every other plane in or near the control zone"
They do this each saturday and sunday when they open.

"so as to ensure the limit of 6 was not breached"
By reading the CASA information, this hasn't started yet.

"How very messy"
Did you see what was going on at 8.55am (5min before they opened)

Give them a break!!!! The bloke seemed to be working to regain order than make it a certain number.

[TonKat]

Might be a tad cynical - this would be a way for the relevant airport corporations to rid themselves of more traffic and pave the way for selling off valuable aviation related infrastructure?:ugh:

reduced traffic = no need for extensive airport:mad:

[YPJT]

TonKat, I believe you are 100% spot on with your comments. You just have to look at the Bankstown debacle and now our mates from accross the Indian Ocean who operate Jandakot are pushing to have substantial development on the extended centreline of the existing rwy 30 and proposed 30R. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their agenda. It appears though that the Dept of Infrastrucure (formerly DOTARS) are now realising that our secondary airports are in fact key resources that need to be protected. There IS NO land available within reasonable striking distances of the capital cities to have them moved.

[Ted D Bear]

I remember in the early '80s having to phone the tower at BK and book a slot for night circuits. Worked fine - but then they had enough staff back then to run the booking system as well as the TWR!

A rather ominous NOTAM just promulgated for BK:

C322/09
START APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT OPERATIONS
FROM 07 200052 TO PERM

Note it is effective permanently. :\

[tmpffisch]

The requirement now exists at all GAAP's NOTAMs.

[telephonenumber]

If inbound in CTA on IFR plan how would one go requesting (requiring) to stay in controlled airspace until overhead the GAAP? This is sometimes offered by Arrivals controller/s.

[bentleg]

If inbound in CTA on IFR plan how would one go requesting (requiring) to stay in controlled airspace until overhead the GAAP? This is sometimes offered by Arrivals controller/s.


Ask the arrivals/area controller. Who else could you ask?

[peuce]

If the circuit quota is full .... "Clearance not available ... remain INSIDE controlled airspace !"

[Walrus 7]

Please allow me to be a tad cynical.

Although the CASA press release alluded to the actions being "consistent" with the Ambidji report, none of the recommendations in the report said anything about killing off GAAP. However, Recommendation 9 did say this:

That the need for enhanced ATC separation services be considered prior to the introduction of future Passenger Transport Service (PTS) operations at GAAP aerodromes.

IFR in VMC is not allowed in GAAP because pilots on instruments cannot separate themselves from other traffic. We know that most RPT like to go IFR all the way down, and so therefore RPT in GAAP was never going to be possible.

This may not be about safety after all.

Walrus

[Zoomy]

This was never and will never be about safety and is not safe, or should I say any safer than what it was. It is totally about money/air traffic controllers (or lack of them) and an instrument air services will use in the near future to better their agreement.

:confused:

[VH-XXX]

I can't see things changing much at Moorabbin. That NOTAM posted earlier for Bankstown is the norm at Moorabbin on the weekend (whether or not it's actually Notamed. It would seem that if 35 was in use, 35R gets used for circuits and 35L for those that come and go. Seemed to work ok until someone smashed into someone else.

[KRUSTY 34]

IFR into and out of GAAP's (regardless of Met conditions) has been going on since Adam was a boy Walrus.

Don't confuse IMC with IFR. Once visual an IFR flight (including RPT) can and are, given instructions to sight, follow, avoid etc... These flights continue to retain their IFR status however untill such time as their sarwatch is cancelled automatically after landing.

[training wheels]

I'm not sure what Walrus means by no IFR in VMC at GAAPs. I've done a few practice NDB approaches and practice circle to land at YMMB when the circuit wasn't busy. No probs at all with tower approval.. and as Krusty says, you're asked to just follow the traffic pattern as you would if you're flying VFR. I even recall a few years ago that YMMB had standard IFR departures in the DAPs.

As for how the new changes will affect IFR training at MB, that would be interesting. What happens during a practice NDB approach, when you call the tower after turning inbound, only to hear the circuit is full? Cancel IFR and track to a VFR approach point and join the queue?

[cessna_89]

Did anybody have trouble today at any of the GAAP aerodromes with the new procedure change??

You would also think that now that these changes have come into effect, CASA could change their website and all correspondence from stating Proposed changes, They still are even calling the changes draft :ugh:

[fixa24]

What diference will class d make for VFR? I'm really confused, and i work class D everyday! The only change will be wx related.. No change for IFR either really. Until another IFR comes in the zone, then the vertical limits will get blown... So what's the big deal?
Seems to be CASA forcing ASA to get more controllers.

I'm all for it though, GAAP is scary, and yes, i have flown in it.

[Walrus 7]

Training Wheels,

ENR1.1 24 makes it clear that IFR is allowed in GAAP, but have to operate visually and provide own separation if the conditions are VMC. You can plan IFR into and out of GAAP, but the tower will instruct you to track visually and you are responsible for separation, based on traffic information. Only if conditions are IMC will separation be provided.

Since my post, my contention that this will benefit RPT has crumbled somewhat: there is no separation between IFR and VFR in Class D either.

There goes that conclusion, which has served only to add more mud to the puddle. Why make a change that will change nothing?

Walrus

[training wheels]

You can plan IFR into and out of GAAP, but the tower will instruct you to track visually and you are responsible for separation, based on traffic information.

Well, that's exactly what I said in my post, Walrus. :) As I said, IFR flights can and have been operating in GAAPs in VMC.

And it appears IFR flights get better protection from VFR flights in GAAPs than in Class D. According to the AIP (effective 27 AUG 09) ENR 1.4-9 (http://www.airservices.gov.au/publications/pending/aip/enr/1_4_1-18.pdf), for GAAPs , in IMC IFR will be separated from IFR and VFR but in Class D, separation is only provided between IFR and IFR and IFR and Special VFR. :confused: Go figure.

[GADRIVR]

....or how about getting rid of foreign non english speaking lazy students?:D
Hey Presto.........collision risk brought down to reasonable level again.

INCOMING !!!!(tin hat on!):E

[djpil]

Did anybody have trouble today at any of the GAAP aerodromes with the new procedure change??Very windy at Moorabbin so not much traffic the last couple of days. Called inbound at GMH and was told #1 for 35R. Twice, after landing, requested clearance to exit 35R on to 31L. First time I thought I detected a surprised tone from the tower. Second time he said a lot more, not sure if that was meant to be a more general explanation of what to do in that situation or not - I meant to ring and ask, will do that.

[VH DSJ]

Second time he said a lot more

So what did the tower say? Did they allow you to enter and taxi along 31L back to the apron?

[djpil]

Did they allow you to enter and taxi along 31L back to the apron? Yes, called ground as usual after vacating 35R.

[peuce]

Training Wheels ... from reading the docs, this is how I see it:

GAAP in IMC

Everyone is separated from everyone (IFR/Special VFR) There are no VFR aircraft in IMC

GAAP in VMC

No one gets separated. All get traffic info.

Class D in IMC

Everyone is separated from everyone (IFR/Special VFR) There are no VFR aircraft in IMC

Class D in VMC

IFRs get separated from each other.
IFRs get traffic on VFRs
VFRs get traffic on everyone

Besides the requirement for a clearance, the only real difference is that IFRs are protected from each other in VMC.

[Walrus 7]

in IMC IFR will be separated from IFR and VFR

Training Wheels, can I have some more time to consider the concept of VFR in IMC?

Peuce's summary is pretty much what I had arrived at after a lot of anlysis and crunching. There is no advantage to going D-class. So why do it?

Walrus

[Ando1Bar]

From what I've heard a move to Class D could kill parallel runway operations due to their close proximity. Maybe someone from ASA could back this up?

Unless today's GAAP aerodromes get some sort of concession, the airport owners will be very happy about the new real estate for sale.

[goin'flyin]

Tamworth has been Class D for donkeys years and it has parallel runways.

[Walrus 7]

I suspect the runways at TW are much further apart than the runways at any of the existing GAAPS, certainly MB or BK.

Walrus

[Joker 10]

Spot on Walrus, the GAAP airfields were not designed to Class D criteria and the implementation of Class D will cripple them.

Really uninspired thinking on behalf of CASA and ultimately the end of high dennsity VFR traffic at GAAP.

[training wheels]

Training Wheels, can I have some more time to consider the concept of VFR in IMC?

Well, Walrus, I quoted that directly from the AIP thus my use of :confused: emotion. But I'll give you time to grasp the concept of IFR operations in GAAPs, though.. that one seems to take a little while to sink in for you. :rolleyes:

[Ando1Bar]

I suspect the runways at TW are much further apart than the runways at any of the existing GAAPS, certainly MB or BK.

Correct. The short distance between the runways at most GAAPs is the problem.

[Walrus 7]

Training Wheels,

I think I understand the concept of IFR in GAAP quite well. It is summed-up nicely in the ENR.

24.2 To aid in the provision of separation, ATC will determine the status
of operations in the GAAP CTR as follows:
a. Unrestricted VFR Operations
There are no weather related restrictions to aircraft operations.
IFR aircraft must operate to the VFR within the GAAP CTR.
b. Restricted VFR Operations
ATC may apply weather‐related restrictions to VFR operations
to facilitate the movement and separation of IFR aircraft. ATC
will then broadcast on the ATIS, “RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS”.
The actual restriction imposed may be specified individually
to aircraft, although general restrictions may be notified
on the ATIS; eg, “START APPROVAL REQUIRED”.
24.3 Arriving IFR aircraft which are visual outside the GAAP CTR, and
can continue visually, must operate VFR within the CTR (see para
31.5). IFR aircraft operating visually will only receive a traffic information
and sequencing service.
24.4 Arriving IFR aircraft which are not visual outside the GAAP CTR
may operate IFR within the CTR and separation will be provided
until the aircraft becomes visual.
24.5 Departing IFR aircraft must operate VFR within the GAAP CTR
until encountering IMC or leaving the GAAP CTR, whichever is the
sooner.
24.6 When aircraft are operating in conditions less than VMC, ATC will
provide separation within the GAAP CTR.

Walrus

[training wheels]

Walrus, I don't want to get in to a pissing contest with you but this is what you originally posted.

IFR in VMC is not allowed in GAAP because pilots on instruments cannot separate themselves from other traffic.

You're confusing VMC with VFR. As I said in my previous posts, I have flown on an IFR flightplan into GAAPs doing practice circling approaches in VMC so it can be done. And of course you're going to separate yourself with other VFR by VFR rules. How else would you do it? Jeez! :ugh:

[werbil]

The big difference between operating in straight D as opposed to GAAP D is caused by the VMC criteria.

In GAAP - clear of cloud.
In Straight D - 1,500m horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically from cloud.

This means with a base below 2,000 feet in straight D over a built up area all VFR flights are effectively required to obtain a Special VFR clearance. Whilst positive separation is not required between two special VFR aircraft (only due cloud and only in D), it is required between a special VFR aircraft and an IFR aircraft. Traffic advice (sight and avoid) is not an option where an IFR aircraft and a special VFR aircraft are involved, and given the physical size of the zones I think you'll be able to work out where this is will lead when the weather is a bit average.

[Staticport]

The new procedures really made a show at Moorabin today with 31 active...."Clear to cross 35, taxiway echo, 22".. ", "Clear to cross 35 L, A4 35R"...something along those lines anyway...really clogged up ground frequency..not to mention confused me!

[Ultralights]

so who do i thank for the 1 hr start delays at YSBK? then followed by 45 wait in the run up bay? at this rate we will be lucky to get 2 hrs of circuits in a day! :hmm:

[Awol57]

Who do you thank... CASA.

[mingalababya]

at this rate we will be lucky to get 2 hrs of circuits in a day! :hmm:

That's about as efficient as what we got in China. If this trend continues, it will be a big step backwards for GA in this country.

[Sunfish]

I'm thinking about giving the game away completely. First we have hordes of foreign students that the instructors just want to make money out of, then when they clog the system, I get elbowed out of the way. Between AsA, CASA and the property developers, we are in a total mess.

[Dick Smith]

Looks to me as if CASA is following the NAS policy. If you look at Page 7 of the NAS document (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_42.php)) paragraph 2.5, it clearly states:

"and if necessary, a difference lodged with ICAO with respect to VMC minima…

Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.

While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.”

If, indeed, CASA is moving to NAS Class D I commend them. It will mean that the non-GAAP Class D towers will have simpler entry procedures and no need for a VFR departure call.

The frequency will be less cluttered at these airports, and safety will be improved.

[Ultralights]

Dick you don't have to live with this s***.
exactly, last weekend was my first experience with the new procedures, ill be fcukde if im going to book a student for 3 hrs per just to get 1 hr of circuits, and then to be told after 40 mins in the air, to make your last circuit a full stop due to traffic.

fcukin disgraceful :mad:.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

non-GAAP Class D towers There's the rub!

Silly question..how often do you end up with 6 a side ops at MB?

[SayAgainSlowly]

It will mean that the non-GAAP Class D towers will have simpler entry procedures and no need for a VFR departure call.




Thats great news for the non-GAAP Class D towers (who make up a small proportion of movements Australia wide and from whom I dont think there has been alot of concern raised regarding this issue). But what about the GAAP Class D-in-waiting towers/zones that have the most movements, the most flight training and who have raised legitimate concerns regarding this issue on this thread?
Can someone please substantiate and/or explain the CASA logic that it is safer for me to hold OCTA around a GAAP approach point than to be the 7th or 8th aircraft allowed into the circuit (which includes people departing often on a segregated track, e.g BK, JT).



The frequency will be less cluttered at these airports, and safety will be improved.


The last time I flew into Albury or Tamworth (after operating out of GAAP) frequency congestion was the least of my worries.

Im all for safety, as Im sure every other reader of this thread is, but CASA seems to have an agenda and at the moment it appears to involve shafting GA.

[peuce]

Dick,

What about in that great aviation nation that we should be aspiring to copy (that's the USA, in case you were wondering) ... do they limit the number of aircraft in a circuit? ... do they forbid aircraft to enter their GA Control Zones? How DO they handle their large numbers of GA aircraft at busy airports (and I'm sure there are a few)?

[Dick Smith]

Peuce - you have brought up a good point.

A week ago I checked with my contacts in the FAA in the United States, and they did not know of any Class D airport which had a limit on the number of aircraft in the circuit. In the States, it appears it is left up to the professionalism of the Air Traffic Controllers to make the decision.

For those who are concerned about going to the US system, let me point out that the GAAP procedures were copied from the Class D procedures at Van Nuys Airport in the USA. Unfortunately, rather than copy these procedures exactly, they were changed here in Australia - and that’s one of our problems.

By the way, before the abuse starts, I do not believe we should copy everything from the USA. I believe we should look around the world, take what is best and proven – especially if it adds to efficiencies – and combine that with what we already do which is better. After all, that’s what I did in my business career and it certainly worked.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The problem? FAA NAS ClassD is NOT ICAO ClassD.

This is going to be a can of worms if ICAO Class D is implimented. Our GAAP parrallel runways may as well be ONE runway!:eek:

[Sunfish]

My experience at YMMB is that Seven is about the most you can fit, That's one on the runway, one on climbout, one on crosswind, Two on Downwind, one on base and one on final. Even Six can be a handful.

All it then takes is One or Two very new students to stretch out their circuits and Two announced arrivals from Academy and GMH, perhaps requesting circuits on arrival, and the poor bloody controller can get very busy very quickly.

Add in some poor "Engrish" and one starts hearing things like "which Cessna are you? Waggle your wings" or "You will not orbit in the circuit unless I tell you to. Do you understand?". It's at that point, when I hear the controller beginning to struggle a little to maintain situational awareness, let alone myself, that I stop my own practice and make a full stop to get out of the way.

To be fair, this only seems to happen in the first few weeks of a major schools "New Intake", and after a while they get the hang of things, as we all had to, and life settles down until the next course starts.

What I'm going to try next time is asking for the Western circuit, which seems to be kept a little quieter and seems to take some of the arriving traffic from the East when there is not conflicting traffic arriving from Carrum or Brighton.

As for orbiting at waypoints, I'm assuming orbiting to the left (don't know the AIP reference), and people are going to have to have eyes in the back of their heads to make that work.

[VH-XXX]

Silly question..how often do you end up with 6 a side ops at MB?

I only usually go there on the weekends when I assume it's very busy and I've NEVER seen this happen. The east side gets used for circuits and the west side generally for arrivals and departures. When it gets busy a start clearance is required for circuits. Not to say that circuits don't happen on west side, generally they happen on the east. Can only assume this is also due to noise issues.

[Dick Smith]

OZ, I agree ICAO Class D will not work. That's why CASA policy is FAA class D.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Going back through the NASIG stuff and seeing we had a change of Secondary procedures to GAAP after a non fatal mid air at BK in 76 and we started getting GAAP in 1978. Basic change was to enshrine pilot responsibility for separation.

This change is going to revert the responsibility back on controllers. So if the tower is responsible that means we are going to have to fly within the visual limitations of a view point from within a point in space in the tower cab.

VFR limits are set down quite explicitly. We are going to need the acerage at our GAAPs as big a layout as found at SY to facilitate two runway ops. I can see that happening, NOT!

NASIG just wanted a NAME CHANGE from GAAP to ClassD, the same procedures were to be kept in place. There isn't much difference from GAAP to US ClassD Our guys must receive instructions to enter where the US guys are expected to follow whatever procedures as set in their ATIS or aerodrome procedures...same thing just said differently.....in this case it is another argument.

I would prefer to keep the GAAP procedures as present...It is still the responsibilty of the PIC to maintain separation!

Operations within the GAAP need to be cleaned up as far as circuit procedures and the like but as Sunfish put it...we all have to start somewhere and things fall into place as soon as the newbs catch the beat.

Glad you agree with me, Dick.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

A few years ago CASA decided that Jandakot, despite being the busiest in Australia, wasn't worth the effort; packed their bongos and went away to Perth to look after their beloved fare paying passengers. So I find it hard to believe that they really give a rats about safety here.

Their ignorance of how things work here was displayed at a meeting of CFIs yesterday in regards to a simple airspace issue re the space between the training area and the GAAP zone. So...hardly experts in GAAP procedures :ugh: Perhaps asking the pilots and ATC who make a living here might have been an idea before this change was made at the stroke of a pen. But hey, what do we know.

In the Ambidji report, on p234 it identifies an "unacceptable" (thier wording) risk at the SIXS/FDL inbound point. So..they bring in a procedure that will increase congestion there when aircraft are denied a clearance into the zone to keep within the cap. :confused::confused: I hear this has already been happening.

[ReverseFlight]

Sunfish on YMMB:

What I'm going to try next time is asking for the Western circuit, which seems to be kept a little quieter and seems to take some of the arriving traffic from the East when there is not conflicting traffic arriving from Carrum or Brighton.

This afternoon (0330Z) the controller was telling aircraft to go around on 35L twice in succession and the circuit wasn't even busy - he was just trying to get a couple of sitting aircraft away. However, I agree I wouldn't dream of going on the eastern circuit unless I had absolutely no other choice.

[airag]

ozbusdriver to answer your question re how often we have 6 in the cct , mon-fri on good wx days it has been not unusual to have 8-10 in Eastern cct, this reflects the international students whereas weekends are mainly local pilots so not nearly as busy.

Remember MB used to only allow around 5-6 in each cct in the 80s and 90s and both ccts were quite busy until the recession hit in early 90s and MB became ghostly quiet.

After almost 2 weeks of operation I have witnessed and been involved in 4 less than desirable t'off/landing clearances which should not have occured and i put down to controller workload associated with the new procedure.

Having all runways requiring clearance to cross adds zero to efficiency , has a measurable negative safety outcome as mentioned above and requires an additional controller to operate SMC.

Thanks for the consultation CASA....

[VH-XXX]

At least the circuit won't be full of RAA now after the rejection on CTA today!

[superdimona]

We should impose a $50 fee per take-off in GAAP's. That'll keep even more of the great unwashed out.

[PlankBlender]

superdimona, you may think you're kidding, but at Archerfield I pay almost 30 bucks for every landing already! Do circuits and it's another charge on top just for grins. That's on top of monthly airport usage/parking charges of $120+, and of course on top of any ASA enroute charges..

Charges at YBAF increase at CPI +5% every year just to make sure there's no growth and in due time everyone just p!sses off and the whole thing can be turned into warehouses :yuk: I've not seen a more delinquent abuse and neglect of public infrastructure anywhere, and I though some of the Europeans had got it badly wrong, but they pale in comparison to what they get away with here :ugh:

Great unwashed? Haven't seen many of them airside lately. They couldn't afford to go anywhere near a GA outfit, which is why you mostly see foreign sponsored students around GAAP's -- and the bogan racism that is shockingly ubiquitous in this supposedly friendly and relaxed country and with it in the aviation industry is making sure that market is drying up quickly too: Indian student market collapsing | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25855642-12332,00.html)

All this talk about where GAAP's are and should be going is a little inconsequential methinks, in time the developers and local resident groups and pollies will get their wish and training will be banished to remote areas, and the slow death of the aviation industry in a country that has all the prerequisites to be a leader in the region in flying training and GA will continue :{

Rant over :yuk:

[Unhinged]

WEF 0908070800 FLIGHT PROCEDURES YSBK AMD ERSA
FREQUENCY MANAGEMENT NEAR BK CTR TO ENSURE ALL RDO EQPT ACFT ARE ON SAME FREQ (BK TWR) IN VICINITY OF 2RN AND PSP
DEPARTURES: ACFT DEP TO CLASS G AIRSPACE SHALL NOT CHANGE FREQ UNTIL 5NM FM BK CTR BDY
ARRIVALS: ACFT ARRIVING VIA TWRN (S OF 2RN RADIO MAST) AND PSP (NE SHORE PROSPECT RESERVOIR) GAAP APP POINTS MUST CTC BK TWR TWO MINUTES PRIOR WITH EST FOR THE APP POINT

Well, that's just doubled the frequency congestion at Bankstown. Now we'll all have to call the tower 2 minutes before the approach point to tell them that we're (ahem ...) 2 minutes from the approach point. Then we'll get to call them again 2 minutes later to tell them that we're there. Genius !! That'll really help things along nicely :-((

Has anyone writing these notams drawn a line 5 nm from the boundary (not the AD, btw) and seen what it encompasses ? Good grief ...

Does anyone who's writing these things actually fly in Sydney ? or at all ?

[tmpffisch]

Did I read that right? Got to call 2 minutes prior to the approach point to advise you're 2 minutes from the approach point? (roughly 3-4nm from 2RN/Prospect)

Can only hope the tower will realise it's ridiculous and will issue you with your clearance right there and then.

[Masif Eego]

settle down dudes,

the notam is only saying to call prior to, and with an est o/h the app point

it's not saying you have to call twice

[training wheels]

so, better make sure you have an accurate time piece showing minutes and seconds, next time you venture out to the training area. what's the world coming to?

[Unregistered1]

settle down dudes,

the notam is only saying to call prior to, and with an est o/h the app point

it's not saying you have to call twice

I think you will find you are expected to call twice, the first time is so they can put someone on the ground to fit you in.

[maverick22]

so, better make sure you have an accurate time piece showing minutes and seconds, next time you venture out to the training area. what's the world coming to?

Isn't that a requirement anyway:\

[training wheels]

Isn't that a requirement anyway:\

.. being sarcastic there. I never used to checked the accuracy of my watch when going to the training area. ;)

[tmpffisch]

NOTAM says to report two minutes prior to the app point, then AIP ENR
31.4 says to make the inbound report at the app point. = 2 radio calls.

[Awol57]

The NOTAM might be the towers doing, but the restrictions aren't. We just have to deal with it as best we can.


I believe there have been similar issues at JT with people being told a clearance isn't available.

Our (ATC) rules are we can NOT have more than six in the circuit (both arrivals and departures). So that's what we have to do.

[Unhinged]

The first call is only to give them an estimate for arriving at the inbound reporting point. It doesn't require a location, altitude or intentions - other than "estimating PSP at 34" Unless the rules are changed further, the second call will still be required to give location, altitude, intentions, atis, etc

[Staticport]

I suppose the initial call will help give better traffic awareness for pilots coming inbound anyway

[KittyKatKaper]

Clinton M
The underlying problem is CASA, who in their manifest wisdom, have decreed that an ATCO will only handle 6 aircraft (see post #1 at http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/381361-casas-revised-gaap-procedures.html#post5061824)

[andrewr]

Calling prior to the reporting point sounds like a giant leap forward to me. I could never figure out why we need to call 10 miles out from a CTAF, yet we put aircraft at a precisely defined point and altitude inbound to the busiest airports with no prior call at all! It amazes me that there haven't been more collisions at GAAP reporting points.

As far as 6 aircraft in the circuit goes, the simplest way may be to require the next aircraft to do a full stop and taxi back when someone calls inbound if the circuit is full (and require a full stop from the inbound aircraft).

The general principle should be to give priority to aircraft that will only be in the circuit for a short time.

[KittyKatKaper]

andrewr As far as 6 aircraft in the circuit goes, the simplest way may be to require the next aircraft to do a full stop and taxi back when someone calls inbound if the circuit is full (and require a full stop from the inbound aircraft).Please make sure that you tell the upper management in ASA to change their fee structure. At the moment, in GAAP, each full-stop is charged around $14/tonne.

[goin'flyin]

So can someone tell me about this 2 minutes prior to inbound point call requirement.

If i'm on an IFR plan, on descent into Bankstown from inside CTA, do i have to call the TWR 2 minutes prior to the inbound point?

Half the time on descent into Bankstown coming down the Watle4 arrival at 220kts, we're lucky to get below 3000ft by 2RN, and then get flicked straight to the TWR as we go over the top of the mast.

If there is a hefty westerly blowing, 2 minutes prior to 2RN could be anything up to 10-15NM west of the mast, and still up at around 6-7,000ft (which puts us well inside CTA). I'm sure Sydney Departures are going to be happy if i change freq to BK TWR to give this approaching 2RN call. :ugh::ugh:

[KittyKatKaper]

Sorry Clinton M, I misunderstood your question.

It seems that CASA have reacted to some bits of the the recent Ambidgi "UTILITY OF GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES TO AUSTRALIAN-ADMINISTERED AIRSPACE" report. http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/papers/gaapfull_june09.pdf
(note that you can comment on it until 1-Sep-09)
Recommendation 1
That an expert panel of strategic General Aviation (GA) stakeholders be established, chaired by the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), to provide advice and guidance to the OAR in the implementation of these recommendations.

Recommendation 2
That GAAP-related material within the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) suite of documents be reviewed to achieve consistency, clarity and accuracy of data in a standardised and controlled format.

Recommendation 3
That site-specific mechanisms be determined through the collaboration of all GAAP stakeholders at Bankstown, Jandakot and Moorabbin to limit peak traffic movements to the available capacity dictated by ATC surveillance, aerodrome infrastructure, pilot competencies and airspace volumes.

Recommendation 4
That any such mechanisms determined at Recommendation 3 be subjected to formal risk assessment, regulatory oversight and extensive promulgation to ensure that additional hazards are not introduced into adjacent aerodromes as a consequence of any change.

Recommendation 5
That any future material changes to GAAP should take into account the impact of change on operations outside GAAP hours.

Recommendation 6
That the effectiveness of existing safety occurrence reporting mechanisms be reviewed to generate corrective actions and safety promotion to ensure ease and speed of reporting, as well as the provision of formal and adequate feedback to stakeholders to facilitate analysis of contributory factors.

Recommendation 7
That the existing open safety recommendations made by ATSB to both CASA and Airservices in 2004 be addressed as a priority to provide a sound basis for further comparative analysis.

Recommendation 8
That the potential of site-specific internet websites relating to each GAAP aerodrome be reviewed, consistent with contemporary practices in the USA.

Recommendation 9
That the need for enhanced ATC separation services be considered prior to the introduction of future Passenger Transport Service (PTS) operations at GAAP aerodromes.

Recommendation 10
That the position of SMC is re-introduced on a discrete frequency and that taxi calls be re-introduced at GAAP aerodromes. In addition, the operating concept that enables the crossing of ‘non-active’ runways be reconsidered in light of the increased threat of Runway Incursions (RI).

Recommendation 11
That segregated inbound and outbound routes be published for each GAAP aerodrome, with inbound tracking information linked to circuit (CCT) entry procedures.

Recommendation 12
That the processing of arriving traffic from Class C airspace into GAAP Control Zones (CTRs) be reviewed to maximise segregation from other traffic.

Recommendation 13
That a methodology be promulgated that ensures the ongoing effectiveness of Inbound Reporting Points (IRPs) for GAAP aerodromes.

Recommendation 14
That MAC contributory factors at GAAP aerodromes be minimised through:
a) Improve IRPs through a review of their location and, if deemed necessary, the installation of strobe lights or high visibility markers;
b) Reduction in ADC frequency congestion to enable accurate and timely inbound reports;
c) Traffic segregation assurance associated with the publication of consistent inbound and outbound procedures for GAAP aerodromes; and
d) Publication of specific procedures – including actions prior to arrival and at the IRPs, including actions to take if an inbound report cannot be made.

Recommendation 15
That a review is undertaken of airspace in the vicinity of Bankstown with a view to increasing the number of IRPs.

Recommendation 16
That the feasibility of implementing traffic alert technology in GA aircraft operating at GAAP aerodromes be investigated.

Recommendation 17
That a training and development package be developed, consistent with CASA’s GAAP Training Review 2009 to address perceived declining levels of airmanship and flight training competencies.

Recommendation 18
That a consistent methodology for interpretation, collation and publication of air traffic movement data at GAAP aerodromes be determined to enable comparative safety analysis.

Recommendation 19
That documentation associated with the nomination, utilisation and promulgation of preferred runways at GAAP aerodromes be standardised.

Recommendation 20
That the potential of Airservices’ Global Environmental Management System (GEMS)-derived data be investigated in the ongoing surveillance of traffic patterns and densities in the GAAP environment.

Recommendation 21
That a formal monthly meeting program be initiated between operational ATC and Flying Operations Inspectors (FOIs)/Air Safety Advisors (ASA)s (both fixed and rotary wing) in order to monitor safety trends and developing hazards, with each meeting to include a period of time in the tower by an FOI/ASA.

Recommendation 22
That the requirement for transponder deactivation for aircraft operating wholly within GAAP CTRs be reassessed to ensure maximum safety value is derived from existing equipment.

Recommendation 23
That site-specific Standard Operating Envelopes and Design Standards for GAAP aerodromes be established, consistent with principles of contemporary change-management that would consider potential impacts on adjacent GA aerodromes and the mitigation of “change fatigue” amongst stakeholders.

Recommendation 24
That a regular analysis of traffic levels and potential collision risks is undertaken at Camden to enable a timely intervention with safety actions in the event that traffic levels increase beyond current levels of capacity.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Amazing innit? 100+ pages of pretty graphs and management speak and all they could come up with was this sh!t.

Anyone left in any doubt that we are dealing with morons?

[SayAgainSlowly]

The NOTAM might be the towers doing

Strongly doubt that. Why would they care if your 2 minutes from the app. point? Heard some people at BK making the 2 min report yesterday and the reply from tower was 'report again at PSP'. And when they did they were processed the same as last week - if you were lucky to be one of the 6 you were given clearance. If not you were told to hold outside. Some people dont even know the correct position to report at (e.g NE shore of PSP reservoir) - let alone how to pass an accurate estimate on a position that they make up to suit their own flying. A valid point was made a few posts ago re: IFR flights descending from CTA. What about a jet on descent through class C at 300+ kts - 2 min ETA to Prospect is almost at Katoomba. I dont think Sy departures will be happy ( and I dont think it is all that legal) to be in their airspace, under their jusisdiction, yet on someones elses frequency who probably doesnt want you there anyway.

"BK tower, SAS estimating PSP 2 mins"

How is that helping other peoples' situational awareness when I could be between 2 and 10 miles away and tracking to PSP from any direction?
It will only succeed in adding to frequency congestion and confusion.

The remark that the tower had a hand in this NOTAM I think would be insulting to the guys up there (in the tower) having to be the ones implementing this s#@t. They are qualified and licenced to provide a service but are being restricted by an imcompetent regulator.

I cannot see any improvement to safety from any of the directives/NOTAMs issued.

SAS

[Unregistered1]

If i'm on an IFR plan, on descent into Bankstown from inside CTA, do i have to call the TWR 2 minutes prior to the inbound point?

If you are IFR they already know you are coming. Doesn't SYD arrivals hand you off to the tower anyway?

[SayAgainSlowly]

If you are IFR they already know you are coming. Doesn't SYD arrivals hand you off to the tower anyway?

Yes they do - tower gets an estimate for IFR arrivals, but the NOTAM makes no distinction to flight category. IFR or VFR, arriving from Class G or Class C, all aircraft must CTC TWR 2 mins prior with an estimate for the APP point.
What will happen if I turn up at 2RN or PSP and didnt give an estimate 2 mins ago? Will an incident report be put in on me?
Maybe I didnt get in my estimate because the frequency was too congested with people trying to figure out where other people are...

'..estimating PSP 2 mins'
'...Im also 2 mins from PSP, I dont see you. Im a metro, 10 miles out'
'...Im an R22, 2 miles out'
'...Im to the north west'
'...Im to the south'

:ugh: Its happening already

[Unhinged]

8.3 A. (I) ARR ACFT SHALL TR VIA GAAP APP POINTS PROSPECT (PSP)( NE SHORE OF PROSPECT RESERVOIR) OR 2 RN (TWRN)(S OF 2RN RADIO MAST)

Currently, helicopters also arrive from Parramatta, Rosehill, and Olympic Park thereby spreading the load. Are these now banned ? After so much noise about reducing the risk by having more inbound reporting points, removing these three will concentrate the inbound traffic even more at PSP & TWRN. Has anyone thought this through for even a moment ? It's bloody frightening

[goin'flyin]

Last night i came in Via the RIC4 ARR, Approach never said anything about calling the TWR with an estimate, so i didn't bother, TWR never said anything when i called them inbound.

So i'll be continuing as normal until i'm told otherwise.

But what a bloody shambles it was when i departed earlier on with everyman and his dog trying to get there estimates in, at the same time as the kaos with the temporary restricted area at Cabramatta.

From the tone of the tower voices, i don't think they are enjoying these ridiculous procedures either.

[Unhinged]

"... i'll be continuing as normal until i'm told otherwise."

Good call. The notam isn't active yet.

WEF 0908070800 FLIGHT PROCEDURES YSBK AMD ERSA ...

The whole thing is a smelly pile of poo, handed down from b*llsh!t castle to the significant distress of controllers, pilots and operators. But pilots who are already making the calls are adding weight to the "pilots-need-to-be-babied" argument, by showing that they don't even understand the basics.

[Awol57]

Quote:
The NOTAM might be the towers doing
Strongly doubt that. Why would they care if your 2 minutes from the app. point? Heard some people at BK making the 2 min report yesterday and the reply from tower was 'report again at PSP'. And when they did they were processed the same as last week - if you were lucky to be one of the 6 you were given clearance. If not you were told to hold outside. Some people dont even know the correct position to report at (e.g NE shore of PSP reservoir) - let alone how to pass an accurate estimate on a position that they make up to suit their own flying. A valid point was made a few posts ago re: IFR flights descending from CTA. What about a jet on descent through class C at 300+ kts - 2 min ETA to Prospect is almost at Katoomba. I dont think Sy departures will be happy ( and I dont think it is all that legal) to be in their airspace, under their jusisdiction, yet on someones elses frequency who probably doesnt want you there anyway.

"BK tower, SAS estimating PSP 2 mins"

How is that helping other peoples' situational awareness when I could be between 2 and 10 miles away and tracking to PSP from any direction?
It will only succeed in adding to frequency congestion and confusion.

The remark that the tower had a hand in this NOTAM I think would be insulting to the guys up there (in the tower) having to be the ones implementing this s#@t. They are qualified and licenced to provide a service but are being restricted by an imcompetent regulator.

I cannot see any improvement to safety from any of the directives/NOTAMs issued.

SAS

That's why I said the NOTAM MIGHT be the towers doing, not that it was. I have no idea who the originator was.

I am a GAAP controller as well so I am sure my comrades over east won't be too offended by my speculation.

The estimate could assist in planning from our perspective, mainly in managing the 6 aircraft we can have. If a lot call, it's quite simple to not launch any until we can have the six. That would be my guess.

We are all doing our best to deal with a situation forced upon us.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

Meeting at Jandakot on Wednesday evening for operators to discuss this. PM me for details.

CFI

[le Pingouin]

Last night i came in Via the RIC4 ARR, Approach never said anything about calling the TWR with an estimate, so i didn't bother, TWR never said anything when i called them inboundI don't know about BK but at MB an estimate is passed by Radar for IFRs inbound. The whole point is to provide the tower with a warning, allowing them to plan.

[PlankBlender]

No such 2 min pre-approach point call NOTAM for YBAF yet, IMHO they don't have the traffic density to require it.

A big pile of poo indeed, and sadly only a matter of time if it's kept as is until two planes barrel into each other holding at one of these approach points. :eek:

I think the best we can do in the meantime is get well away from the actual approach point and altitude when requested to stay clear, even if that does add time (then again, it's also time in the book, look at the bright side ;))

Just another reason to desert the GAAP (apart from exorbitant usage fees and all the other BS) :sad:

[goin'flyin]

Awol57, maybe you can answer a question for me. Not sure whether the same applies where you are, as i fly from Bankstown, maybe you can help.

It relates to the allowance of only 6 aircraft at a time. The pile of poo says "6 in the circuit". Is it open to interpretation from your part as a ATC to work out what is "in the circuit". At bankstown (and most GAAP zones i know of), the inbound points are approx 5nm from the aerodrome, yet aircraft are being held at inbound points which are nowhere near "the circuit".

So if an aircraft departs, when is it classified as no longer in the circuit?
Likewise on arrival, for the little C152 it could take them 6-8 minutes to get from the inbound point to the circuit, that allows for a significant number of movements.

Is it up to the controller to say 3 aircraft will land from within the circuit, so i'll let 3 more start to come inbound?

I have the greatest respect for you guys (ATC in general, but specifically YSBK as that's who i deal with most) who have to manage everything from beginners in C152's to professional pilots in corporate jets.

You do a fantastic job - especially at the moment while having one hand tied behind your back and one eye covered by the bullsh@t castles poo list.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Has anyone actually read this report?

Gotta love the references of cost cutting. Reducing services to enable staffing cuts to reduce costs. The removal of the briefing office and the biggy to me, curtailment of free pubs...it pops up pretty regularly that a lot of GAAP infringments are doc related...pilots freely admit they do not carry current docs.....Hilmer/Bosch reviews have come home to roost as far as I am concerned...Bosch said SAFETY related issues NO CHARGE or cutting. PUBS are a safety issue if pilots refuse to carry updated docs on cost grounds...even if the threat of the FOI detection exists.

You reap what you sow!

Site Specific Charging, I reckon this is where the rot started. Stakeholders start bitching about charging. Start tinkering around the edges to reduce services and directly..costs and before you know it..well it did take nearly two decades and an upturn in movments and we find that we have cut the service to below what is considered safe....well if the CASA talked to any pre 92 professional pilot/atc they could have got that in a free spray!

Now? the Casa wishes to go to ICAO class D which will be an unmitigated disaster for GAAP. They may as well tell the airport owners to rip up all but one single runway in each direction...and we know where that will lead..because ICAO Class D SARPS will NOT allow parrallel runway ops with all current GAAP aerodrome layouts.

Funnily, Ambidji recommended NO CHANGE TO GAAP PROCEDURES!
Ambidji does not see any demonstrable safety benefit in attempting to replace GAAP
with an alternative process in the short to medium term.

[Awol57]

Goin'flying

I am actually not at my GAAP tower at the moment, but will be soon. My understanding (which may change once I am back there) is that the six aircraft includes inbound and outbound aircraft. I think that essentially limits us to the number of aircraft in the CTR. I could be wrong, there may be other current GAAP controllers that can confirm that for us.

We do have the ability to go +1 on one frequency so we can have 13 aircraft in total.

[cbradio]

here's my take - fwiw!!

The estimate could assist in planning from our perspective, mainly in managing the 6 aircraft we can have. If a lot call, it's quite simple to not launch any until we can have the six. That would be my guess.


I think the estimate is a direct reaction to the 2RN mid-air. Aircraft can hear each other approaching the reporting point from different directions rather than running into each other just as they make a call (I think that's the theory). Nothing to do with ATC managing the cap - plenty of time for that from the inbound call - see below:

My understanding (which may change once I am back there) is that the six aircraft includes inbound and outbound aircraft. I think that essentially limits us to the number of aircraft in the CTR

it certainly says "in the circuit" - open to a little bit of interpretation. Number 7 departing leaves "the circuit" (late crosswind etc) - number 8 can go.

You could have more than 6 inbound as long as the first couple land before the last ones reach "the circuit".

I think you could in theory have 8 or 9 on frequency on each side.

[Big_Binocs]

CASA has given no clear direction on their interpretation of "in the circuit".

However the important part of the CASA directive to ASA is 7(b):

"No ATC may assume control responsibility for more than 6 aeroplanes......" My italics/underline.

Once you have cleared an aircraft into the CTR/circuit you have effectively "assumed control responsibility", regardless of whether the aircraft is in the "circuit" yet or not, and until that aircraft is on the ground or has left the CTR.

Also you have to allow for the potential go around, so effectively you have to wait for a landing aircraft to have definitely landed or a departing to be established outside the CTR before clearing another aircraft in or out if you have already "capped out".

Thankfully we have TSAD ( a feed off the Sydney Radar ) otherwise we'd have to get aircraft to report established outside the CTR too....and hence more frequency congestion.

And to clarify the matter of who is responsible for these Notams I can definitely assure you it is not us Tower Guys but probably some boffin:8 in CASA H.O. Canberra who wouldn't know GAAP from a Skim Cappucino.

You will be happy to note though that at about 12.09pm today the "2 minute warning" Notam was cancelled. :D Of course that doesn't preclude CASA coming up with yet another even more cunning plan.:*

IMHO I think you will find that most GAAP controllers would much rather have it back the way it was. It certainly is very frustrating from a professional aspect to be limited by this arbitrary, one-hat-fits-all directive and not be able to provide the level of service that you are capable of delivering. "One hand tied behind your back" does not even begin to cover it.:ugh:

The management of the "Cap" has become a distracting safety/workload issue i.e. monitoring, counting, manipulating displays etc that takes attention away from the real job of looking out the window and providing a control service. In the context of the YSBK GAAP Tower environment, counting to six is not as simple a task as it may seem on paper!:uhoh:

Unfortunately ATC are as much passengers on this as you pilots, and we too are learning as we go. We are trying our best to work within the limitations imposed and try to accommodate all requests but inevitably there will be times where pilots may incur a significant delay for their operations or they may not be available.

Hopefully this has been a little informative for you all, however these are just my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues or employer.(Ask 3 controllers the same question and you'll get 6 opinions! My disclaimer!:E)

[alphacentauri]

No more requirement to broadcast 2 min prior to inbound point. NOTAM cancelled yesterday afternoon, and some very happy controllers I hear.

Seems like sanity has prevailed......for now :E

[peuce]

Dick,

If ever your influence was needed and appreciated, this is the time.
You have been unnaturally quiet on this topic ... which really does have the potential to hurt/wound/kill GA industry.

Your E over D or G over A, or whatever issues, will never have the disastrous potential that these "lucky dip" decisions from CASA have.

Do you really think we are moving in the right direction with these on again/off again decisions?

[D-J]

Now? the Casa wishes to go to ICAO class D which will be an unmitigated disaster for GAAP. They may as well tell the airport owners to rip up all but one single runway in each direction...and we know where that will lead..because ICAO Class D SARPS will NOT allow parrallel runway ops with all current GAAP aerodrome layouts.

OZ

this is exactly what those wa#kers at BAL want, they've happily just keep 29L/11R & build shopping centers right upto the rwy edge...

[Staticport]

What an exciting day...
I recieved my first "clearance not yet available, remain clear of the zone" at a GAAP
Mind you, I was allready 3 miles past the inbound point with my initial transmission blocked by the aircraft calling half a mile before the inbound point
I think i busted GAAP!

[Ultralights]

just wait until a nil wind CAVOK saturday morning at YSBK, getting a 1 hr delay start if your lucky! oh, and the average 30 min wait in the runup bay for circuits now. and 50% of my entries back into the zone now are met with, clearance not available.

i have heard rumours already of 2 reputable small schools seriously considering throwing in the towel altogether as it not even worth moving interstate now.

IMO GA in OZ is already dead, its no longer self sustainable. in a few yrs YSBk will be back to its self again, not due to traffic leaving, but businesses simply walking away.

[Jabawocky]

Yep!!! UL

Had this discussion with Scurvy D Dog the other day in fact........ between your scenario and the current OWNERS of these GAAP fields...... they will ALL be a CTAF without the R in a year or two!:uhoh:

J:ugh:

[b_sta]

just wait until a nil wind CAVOK saturday morning at YSBK, getting a 1 hr delay start if your lucky! oh, and the average 30 min wait in the runup bay for circuits now. and 50% of my entries back into the zone now are met with, clearance not available.

How can schools possibly have reliable bookings if there's such a high likelihood of delayed starts or lack of clearance into the control zone. This is not only bad for pilots but bad for business.

[YPJT]

How can schools possibly have reliable bookings if there's such a high likelihood of delayed starts or lack of clearance into the control zone. This is not only bad for pilots but bad for business.
It's already started to happen. No start clearance for circuits yesterday so called twr on phone to see if they can give an idea of the delay. They weren't sure but said at least one hour. This may have been partly due also to the fact that the single rwy was in use. Student couldn't wait and went home. .

If it wasn't bad enough doing battle with property developers, I mean aerodrome operators, now we have the regulator squeezing the last breaths of life out of the GA training industry.

[bluesky300]

I can only speak for bankstown, but I have never had a problem with traffic when arriving for a full stop on, say, 29R while the circuit was buzzing around on 29L. There is never such a swarm of aircraft arriving for full stops that there is any difficulty sorting out that traffic. The only serious issue is the possibility of the training circuit getting over full- and that is relatively easily managed by the tower. I am not altogether opposed to the idea of limiting the traffic in the training circuit to a manageable number at any one time. The idea that the total GAAP area can only take six aeroplanes in both independent circuits is ludicrous. Perhaps we should be pushing the regulator to make a sensible regulation specific to YSBK. I am sure that other fields would be able to develop their own versions instead of this crazy one size fits all approach that is obviously unworkable for the industry and for those of us who enjoy being up there.

[Ted D Bear]

BK ATC Management used to apply its own limit: 8 in the training circuit at any one time. If you've ever flown with 7 others in the training circuit - especially at night, and even more especially if there was a mix of types - you'd have to agree that 8 was a big number. Led to a few stressed pilots and controllers - especially when you add a stream of high performance bank-runners arriving.

Personally, I think 6 in the training circuit is a reasonable limit. For arrivals and departures, I think it will only be a problem if both circuits have been combined with one ADC - then it'll be 6 in total (+ 1 discretionary departure). (That, of course, will be every night.)

They do need to get on with writing a published procedure if you're at an IRP and either can't get a word in on frequency or the TWR won't let you into the zone because of too many already in the air. The last midair at BK was at an IRP, and orbiting at TWRN or PSP is a recipe for disaster.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Regardless of the circuit issue, how many new pilots has this new procedure caught out? Coming back from the training area and then refused entry. This either turns into a crash course in what to do when asked to hold OCTA with other approaching aircraft...what do you do? Take a number? or worse..the pilot not knowing what to do, starts to panic about new found concern on fuel and bank balance levels leading to...well...panic! As well as the rest of the day's schedule for the aircraft.

granted a worse case scenario but would be totally unexpected for a training regime...this is NOT class C.

Hoping the CASA boffins are taking note....this has not been correctly thought through.(...and I cannot blame Smith!:}) OAR was supposed to smooth this stuff out but this is turning into a bigger stuff-up than Airspace2000...when are you guys going to step in and arrest your own stuff-up?

[peuce]

At least there will be some winners out of all this. The flying schools at Lilydale, Redcliffe, Bacchus Marsh, Caboolture etc

[Unhinged]

Indeed, although perhaps a different story south of the border. Hoxton Park's gone, and Camden is going to suffer the same indignities as Bankstown, so that leaves only Wedderburn and The Oaks that I know of in the Sydney basin. Are there GA flying schools at those ? Otherwise students will be off to Warnervale, Wollongong or even further. It's a long way for a flying lesson.

[kookabat]

How much work would the old Schofields site need to get it fired up again?? :}

[Ultralights]

just a good mow, and removal of concrete blocks across the taxiways and runways.

oh, and a few hangars might help as well.

[Metal Fatigued]

CASA have just posted a designated GAAP information page on their website which outlines the new changes to procedures for pilots as well as a downloadable information booklet on the GAAP changes.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - GAAP (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:2099678995:pc=PC_93379)

There is also a page on general FAQs

[b_sta]

That GAAP changes booklet doesn't actually list any of the changes! But I sure am glad it let me know that I need clearance to land on a runway in a GAAP CTR :ugh:

[SayAgainSlowly]

The following is a quote from the answer to question 4 from CASA's GAAP Changes FAQ's :

The cap on the number of aircraft in the circuit will also lower the risk of collisions at reporting points on approach to these aerodromes, as many of the aircraft outside controlled airspace originate from the GAAP aerodrome itself.


Am I missing something?

How will limiting the number allowed entry to the circuit to 6 (i.e entry into the zone) lower the risk of collisions at the reporting points? I can only see it doing the opposite, significantly.

[bluesky300]

SayAgain,

I think that is CASA speak for "There will be hardly any aeroplanes in the sky because no-one is allowed to take off any more, so there will be reduced risk of collision at the inbound points too..."

[b_sta]

No planes = no plane crashes? Sounds like winning logic to me :ok:

[triton140]

No planes = no plane crashes? Sounds like winning logic to me

Could turn it into a series of Yes Minister :ugh:

[Ando1Bar]

Love the GAAP quiz, you patronizing bunch of %^&*s.

:hmm:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

WATCH THIS SPACE (http://www.aviationadvertiser.com.au/2009/08/watch-this-air-space/)

Warm the Barbie people, It's Showtime!

What we are getting and what the director is saying and what Smith is commenting on are ALL different....someone is going to get egg for a facial.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vs9zTEKedb0&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Vs9zTEKedb0&rel=0&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Ando1Bar]

The article states:


The moves are widely applauded by general aviation pilots and operators but are expected to be opposed by some interest groups. AOPA President Phillip Reiss however describes the moves as “a breath of fresh air.”


I haven't seen one GA pilot applaude the changes in this forum.


At an Industry Consultative Committee meeting on July 29 he made no apologies for the rapid adoption of the measures, saying he had two reports indicating unacceptable safety situations and that he had absolutely no choice but to take immediate positive action.


So who sits on the Industry Consultative Committe? Clearly no one from Airservices Australia, nor any pilots or operators affected by the changes. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it is hardly industry consultative.

[triton140]

The "rapid adoption" (almost a panic response) to me always smelt a bit of ass covering, even more so when the new Director says he had "two reports indicating unacceptable safety situations and that he had absolutely no choice but to take immediate positive action". Ass covering has unfortunately become rampant in the Canberra bureaucracy, not just in CASA.

The fundamental problem with these knee-jerk reactions is that they fail to take into account the bigger picture and may well make things worse instead of better, as potentially in this case.

Together with his other knee-jerk reaction re RA-Aus and CTA, methinks we might have a difficult time ahead of all of us with this Director. Last thing we need is a panic merchant at the helm.

BTW - to avoid flaming, I actually don't disagree with his stance on RA-Aus and CTA - I just express surprise at the sudden and unexplained reversal of direction under the new leader and express my concern at what both situations say about his management style.

[Track5milefinal]

Loving YPPF at the moment, clearance required to cross undershoot of 26R and L when 03 is in use.....

Makes sense to me:}

[OZBUSDRIVER]

http://images.pilotage.com/airports/images/t_vbw048.jpg

Just in case no one has ever seen the aerodrome in which or own GAAP procedures where copied..VNY Van Nuys in all it's glory. Note the requirments to contact Class C As well as adjoining classB airspace as well as high terrain and the limited availability of VFR approach and we have something very similar to BK...How can a VFR approach VNY from 360 degrees and any altitude?

VNY

Fees: (Varies) $3.00/single to $15.00+/twins.
Op Hours: continuous
Approaches: 1. Monitor ATIS prior to calling Approach, Tower or Ground.
2. Call SoCal Approach prior to entering Class C.
3. Call Tower prior to entering Class D.
4. Remain on Tower freq. 'till instructed to change to GND.
5. Don't forget to close your flight plan.
Departures: 1. Monitor ATIS prior to calling Clearance or Ground.
2. Call Clearance @ 126.6 for IFR or Class C clearances.
3. Call Ground when ready to Taxi.
3. Call Tower when for take-off.
4. Call SoCal Departure for VFR advisories or flight following.
5. Call Hawthorne FSS to open flight plan.
Hmmm, Reads the same as our GAAP procedures

Notes: Caution:Reported to be the busiest GA airport in the US.
Caution: VNY lies beneath BUR Class C airspace. Pilots must contact SoCal Approach prior to entering Class C.
Caution: Eastbound traffic to BUR overflies VNY as low as 2,800' MSL.
Caution: VNY lies in a valley surrounded by higher terrain.
Caution: Extensive helicopter traffic.

NOTE- reporting points-FREEWAY
-SAN FERNANDO RESERVOIR
-CONTROL BASIN
-TANK
-SEPULVIDA PASS nice little flags everywhere.

EDIT- I am sure readers can find lots more...even the odd VFR route to VNY:E

[YPJT]

Word is there may be a case to take to the AAT.

Possibly a case to sue for loss of business.

So far some businesses at Jandakot are reportedly losing 20% of thier business due to the delays, and the schools trying to turn out cadets at a set rate will get further and further behind. We are all limited by daylight, duty times, circuit curfews etc. We are being denied access to infrastructure that we have paid for over and over again. And which belongs to all the people of Australia. Should we cap the number of cars on the taxpayer funded roads because someone over east had a car crash? OR try to imporve driver education?

Clearance denials are becoming rife particularly on 12/30 ops. Someone was orbiting at Powerhouse yesterday afternoon!

In weather like today a clearance denial could result in a VFR aircraft into IMC incident.

Had they bothered to follow recommendation 1 of the Ambidji report then we could have told them this.

I wonder if McCormick is so sure his instrument is safe that is is prepared to take personal responsibility if someone is killed at an IRP following a clearnace denial?

[Howabout]

Sadly YPJT,

I think that the 'knee-jerk,' as some have described it, has been a result of the constant pressure and scare-tactics over years and years, which has included media manipulation and half truths (in my opinion) that the regular dumb-ass just sucks up as fact.

The need to 'do something' has overridden some form of measured response, because the regulator has been hounded by those with access to both the media and the (ignorant) pollies.

A previous transport minister is a case in point. Not a clue, but swallowed rubbish from a few vested interests. My opinion is that this put intolerable pressure on the regulator, diverted resources and, ultimately, delayed the regulatory reform program.

New boy comes in and has to 'do something.' And gets it wrong.

Personally, I wouldn't like his job. Expected to get instant results in an industry that is replete with egos, influence and political ignorance.

I feel sorry for the bloke.

[goin'flyin]

There were clearance denials at Bankstown this afternoon as i was departing. Someone called inbound and got the "Clearance not available, remain outside the Bankstown control zone, call again at Prospect in 2 minutes"

Love this new system..:ugh::ugh:
Improved safety holding at the inbound points. :uhoh:
Thanks CASA :mad:

[CaptainMidnight]

I think the main impediment to the implementation of NAS-related changes over the years has been industry consultation and agreement. In fact early in the piece, the NAS Implementation Group stated at a meeting that the time for consultation was over, and their intention was only to inform the industry of changes, not seek agreement. Naturally there was industry resistance to this stance.

Now it seems the inform rather than consult, seek input and agreement method might be on again.

The regional RAPAC forums don't commence again until September/October, but any input should be directed to either your industry association or the regional RAPAC convener at the following link. There is also a list of RAPAC dates on the same page:

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - RAPAC (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD:1440328323:pc=PC_90463)

[triton140]

I feel sorry for the bloke

Yeah, so do I - it is not an enviable job.

But I also think that his background might be leading him (understandably) to making snap decisions rather than arriving at a considered view. While I agree that we can become too bound up in process rather than actions, some things need some thought before we act. And this is one of them.

From all I can make out, AirServices was caught by surprise on this (lack of consultation) - they are the guys who have to implement it, surely you need to consult to make sure they have the resources? I wouldn't be surprised if the whole Class D GAAP thing has to be deferred for some time because of this lack of consultation (just like aspects of the alcohol/drug testing regime had to be deferred because some of our largest operators allegedly weren't ready for it).

Same thing with the RAA/CTA thing - this had been debated at length and agreed and it was with Parliamentary Counsel to do the final drafting, all done and dusted. Then suddenly the whole process is unilaterally short-circuited, with no reasons given.

Not the way to run a regulator in my view. It seems to me we can look forward to a much tougher, more macho, "my way or the highway", autocratic CASA - and time will tell whether that improves or weakens safety.

[Howabout]

CaptainM,

Maybe that was also due to the political imperative to 'do something.' I'd argue that the 'do something' was fuelled by the sort of influence that seems to persist today. Use one's influence in the press, scare the crap out of the pollie, and get the (ignorant) pollie to insist on 'action.'

IMHO, NAS was just that. A hopeless dork (who happened to be the transport minister) signing up to something he knew nothing about.

I think that CASA does want to consult, but you are never going to get consensus. CTAF/CTAF(R) is a case in point - absolute polarisation with no chance of consensus.

For instance, while I thought NAS was a bucket of poo, my personal view, with respect to CTAF/CTAF(R), is that you've got more chance of hitting a radio-equipped aircraft with a radio fail than you have of hitting a no-radio aircraft.

So, on the one hand, I won't be swayed by Leady's arguments about NAS in general, but agree with him 100% on the CTAF issue.

In short, someone has to make a decision in a fractured industry. Unfortunately, this one was done in haste - but haste fuelled by undue pressure from vested interests.

[Jabawocky]

The previously very vocal NAS supporters on this forum seem to have gone a bit quiet.Thats because the folk at YBSK said...... Remain OCTA, clearance not available next 296,568,945 minutes :ok: :}:}:}:}:}

J:E:E:E

PS I hope he has lots of holding fuel! :ooh:

[Lodown]

Don't hold your breath waiting for consultation. CASA and AsA lost almost all ability to consult effectively about 10-15 years ago when all the experienced people who knew what they were doing were encouraged to depart (read: pushed) so that NAS could keep flailing with its head just above water. It's becoming apparent that NAS should have been left to drown. The faster the better.
There is very little real aviation knowledge left in the regions that can make a difference in CASA and AsA. They hear the words, but not the implications. The professional management of CASA and AsA has assumed a purely political function waiting for the day a minister grows some balls or gets the guts to kick some.

[Stikybeke]

OK....

I think I got it.....

* 2 x aircraft collide whilst taxying at YSBK with nil injuries resulting = 2 x electronic billboards positioned at respective vehicle entries into YSBK advising new GAAP procedures in place, aircraft require clearance to cross runways...

* 2 x aircraft collide whilst approaching YSBK from an inbound point with loss of 2 lives resulting = ?

Oh hang on....I ain't got it....

For a moment there I thought something proactive was happening...:suspect:

Sorry all......

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Stikybeke.....you may be on to something here....I vote the CASA put in an heliostat at the reporting points of our GAAP aerodromes with a lighted billboard showing the number of the next customer....We could call it the "DICK BLIMP" It would serve the dual purpose of notifying who is next without any unneccessary chatter on the controller frequency and give a fixed point in space so pilots can see who is around them so they can organise an orderly que (holding pattern) whilst they wait their turn.....[/humour]

:suspect:Reality is fast approaching with a very nasty outcome. The OAR needs to step in and put a hold on this change and revert back to GAAP procedures.

[goin'flyin]

Hey, now there's an idea. No more CASA.
Create a 'safety' board made up of people who actually participate in day to day operation of aircraft, gotta work better than this current system.

[Stikybeke]

I see (I think) that David Copperfield, the Master of Illusion, is in touring Australia at the moment......(except he doesn't do BBQ's)....perhaps he could be of some assistance?

:rolleyes:

[goin'flyin]

And still the endless pile of rubbish continues to be delivered by CASA. In today's mail, the next lovely glossy brochure regarding the changes to GAAP procedures. More of our hard earned tax-payer money well spent.
Filed in the appropriate yellow lid filing cabinet. :ugh:

[Dick Smith]

etrust -

Why wouldn’t you connect the people at Airservices Australia with NAS? Surely you understand that in the original NAS implementation group, the Airservices representative and strong supporter of NAS was Mr Stephen Angus?

Mr Angus would still be one of the strongest supporters of following the Government NAS policy.

Perhaps someone can point out what Mr Angus’ present job in the senior management hierarchy at Airservices is?

[Starts with P]

Finance? Or is it ARFF? Either way: sideways.

[Dick Smith]

Nup, It's General Manager SAFETY and Enviroment!

The push for NAS and FAA style class D is clearly being driven by AsA management.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

From the CASA mailout-

Transition to Class D airspace
On or before 21 April 2010, Airservices must provide at
each GAAP aerodrome air traffic services (ATS) applicable
to Class D airspace. This will harmonise Australia with
international standards. More information on the transition to
Class D will be made available in the coming months.

Must one hopes that AirServices understands....whats the wording...ah yes...."Its absolute form"....certainly sounds like AirServices DRIVING this agenda....NOT!

This will harmonise Australia with international standards. Still sounds like ICAO ClassD to me.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Just received my 'little blue book' re GAAP changes in the mail, and am surprised at the max speed limitation of...250KIAS.

As I usually never have the opportunity to do 250 IAS, can anybody advise the acft type(s) which may have to do these speeds in a GAAP, where the 'average bugsmasher' is plodding along at 100 or so?

He'd either be doing a wide circuit to maintain separation behind, or he could have it all to himself.....(?) :hmm:

I've shared the circuit with a Vampire at BK back in the 'good ole days'...with me in a Chippie (90kts flat out..), however I don't know what IAS he would have been doing, and there was plenty of 'warning' from the excellent controllers of the time. (Mirro? don't know how he spelt his name, but the man was VERY good).
We agreed that I should just let him 'go past'.....:}

[Stikybeke]

Uh oh......

A quote from inside the front page of the little blue book....

"...CASA makes no representations or warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this document.....CASA assumes no liability for any loss or damage caused as a result of reliance on this document...."

I think I've just been hypnotized again.......:ouch:

[Jabawocky]

Gooday Griffo!

At YBAF the Metro might be a contender for some speedy entries, but I doubt they do 250! :eek: Nightmode or j3 may be able to shed some light on that one!

Now how about this little Gem, this is from the booklet and the online quiz (yes I am bored).


Q11 Must you contact ATC if transiting within the proximity of a GAAP aerodrome?

Now from their material............
Pilots of aircraft tracking within 5nm of a GAAP control zone
boundary (or at a distance as specified in the ERSA) but
not entering the control zone must obtain the Automatic
Terminal Information Service (ATIS), then broadcast their
position, altitude and intentions. Pilots must comply with any
instructions issued by the tower and maintain a listening
watch on the tower frequency while in the area. Pilots must
maintain a vigilant look out.

Now this says you should broadcast and listen.....just like a CTAF R..... it does not say MUST CONTACT ATC.

So what do you think the quick wanted as an answer.......... :ugh:

Go check it out for yourself!

J :E

[goin'flyin]

No way would the Metro's be doing 250KIAS into the circuit, maybe 220KIAS on Descent.

There are a few contenders at YSBK - Citation X, a few other from the Citation family, a couple of Beechjets, and the occassional visiting Bizjet.

[nohumbug]

another quality item in the letterbox. Straight to the bin with the spotlight catalogue.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just in case....ATSB can be contacted on 1800 011 034. Online incident reports are here (https://www.atsb.gov.au/mandatory/asair.aspx)

If anyone does witness any incident caused by changed procedures at GAAP reporting points...PLEASE make that call. The more incident reports, the more weight to remove these changes.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Nup, they just run away and start another thread in the hope they can string along an argument that develops into a NASdebate.:ugh:

JK and BK? Situation is looking more grim. Methinks an all round case of "I told you so" to the OAR at the CASA....as for Smith???? AIrServices??? He killed off that dog three years ago:suspect: Thats why the OAR was set up...to remove airspace design from the guys who manage it....and still Smith keeps flogging his horse.......It's DEAD, Dick!

[Dick Smith]

OZ, Why then have CASA directed AsA to move GAAP to Class D ?

You may not have noticed that moving GAAP to Class D was an important part of the NAS proposal that was approved by cabinet.

Love to hear your explanation !!

And the reason Airspace was moved from AsA to CASA was because my Unsafe Skies publication was read by important people who understood conflict of interest.

[Dick Smith]

Etrust, my comment re AsA supporting NAS was tongue in cheek.

I am amazed that I would have to explain that to anyone.

NAS will clearly result in more responsibility being placed on AsA-especially re CFIT in a radar enviroment.

Why would they want this when it will be difficult to charge extra for a safety service that should have been provided anyway.

And by the way , AsA successfully fought for over 10 years to keep hold of Airspace regulation.

That's why there were no measurable safety improvements during that time.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Got ahead of yourself, Dick. I do not think classD for GAAP was ever part of the mix...You are the only guy I know that pushes for FAA D. This current iteration is for ICAO D to be implimented...you agree on that, it will be an unmitigated disaster!

All the NAS characteristics have been either modified or dumped, excepting for classE all over the place.....itself a leftover of airspace2000...funny how a lot of people did not realise what the two bits out to DU and MIA were really about. Changes of procedures got changed themselves...nothing I can think of from the original NAS has gone through without changes...And why would that be? Simple, lack of forthought, lack of planning for implimentation, lack of consultation with industry figures OTHER then the Q and a small part of the RAAF...You know? the guys down at the coalface..lack of training BEFORE implimentation, Someone got to the minister with a "Good Idea" to make Australia the TRAINING CAPITAL OF THE WORLD...right now, all it is trying to do is make for very dangerous airspace for training anyone lower than a CPL.

Dick I do not know you, I am sure you are very frank and earnest with what YOU wish to do. But, mate....there is no difference between you and me, we are both pilots, granted I am a PPL but even I can see that some of these changes have done zero to improve and mostly have sent aviation backwards.

Howabout using your vast experience with access to Ministers of the realm and get the OAR to reverse this change before someone gets killed.

[Dick Smith]

Oz , You delude yourself.

The airspace you fly in today with it's FAA style semicircular rule was introduced by me.

If you want to go back to the Quadrantal rule you will have to go back to full position reporting for VFR- because VFR and IFR then fly at the same levels.

But of course you don't.

The stuff ups that you talk about were the responsibility of the AsA and CASA management who would not stand up to those who insisted on changing anything that was proven to a hotch potch of ignorance.

But I will tell you one thing- that is if we don't go ahead and complete the NAS changes I believe we must go back to the pre AMATS system with it's AFIZ's , no CTAF's and huge costs'.

Don't worry, I'll still be flying!

[Dick Smith]

BY the way OZ I was responsible for the two class E corridors to Broken Hill.

They were violently opposed by the so called professional pilots who flew the route.

Five years later they were so loved that when they were removed with the NAS2b changes that the same group of pilots insisted that they be re -introduced- which they were.

You may be right about ICAO D. But I am sure you will agree that it will only go this way because those involved in the OAR are either grossely incompetent or are intentionally wanting to undermine their superiors.

Which one do you think it is.

And you kid yourself- there are other differences between you and me- for one I have the guts to post under my own name.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, you can jam AFIZ where the sun don't shine. We both know why that little gem was created.

AND which part of NAS implimentation was the hemispherical rule....That was done to separate IFR from VFR in non-controlled airspace. I loved arguing the foibles of hemispherical rules with my instructors when it first came out...Especially the little bit that you could have aircraft at exactly the same cruise level at almost 180D closure angles...Thank god for big sky theory.

who would not stand up to those who insisted on changing anything that was proven to a hotch potch of ignorance.????? Can you say that again in English please?

It appears to me that you are upset because ASA and the CASA did not stand up to YOU...???? Now I am confused:ugh:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, sorry over posted...missed my point about the two wedges...those who did not fly in that airspace knew squat about it...so much for education...I even picked up instructors about this NEW classE....education severly lacking!

[Dick Smith]

You are so badly informed, the semi-circular rule was introduced in 1991 when I was chairman of CAA -it was the start of the move to the FAA airspace system - even though we called it AMATS. I suggest you get out your old documentation.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

WHO Guards The Public Interest in Civil Aviation Safety (http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/uploads/approved/adt-QGU20090116.165333/public/08Chapter7.pdf) Part of a Doctorial Thesis by Geoffrey Edwards 2007

Gotta love google....Dick, you have a rather colourful history with aviation safety. Since 1984...Gotta love quotes from Yeenda-

Before the reforms of 1988 and later, the staff had apparently been proud of their record: "...there was, over a period of 40 years[1948-1988], a complete body of safety regulations established...It was not perfect, but it was the foundation of the best safety record in the history of aviation" (Yeeend 1994a:2,5,6). yet "Despite our record and experience, the industry clamoured for a new civil aviation authority, loudly supported by the aviation press in the late 1980s. I am one of those who was in the process labelled as part of the dead hand and cement-headed bureaucracy of the 1980s (1994:6). Yeeend deplored the self-serving capture of the Authority in the early reforms by "some industry operators and adventurers" and the destruction of corporate expertise.my italic

I take it, Yeend wasn't a mate of yours?

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

Flight Service and OCTA services that went with them are a separate subject from the GAAP, D, ICAO compliance discussion.
But I am sure you will agree that it will only go this way because those involved in the OAR are either grossely incompetent or are intentionally wanting to undermine their superiors.
That is a nasty accusation! Equally, are they to be described as grossly competent and superior if it goes your all the way with FAA way? for what reasons?

enter Gretel Killeen with a sample script in hand, and reality TV soap style lights and sirens genre in tow

A. a cost and safety benefit study GAAP V FAA D (procedural requirement)? - Where can we find that?

B. a cost and safety benefit study (or equivilent) undertaken by the US on thier own FAA D? - where can we find that?

C. in the absence of A. or B. above, the only office holder who might be backed into a corner of ignorance sufficient to 'direct' a change without process might be the Minister. Lets hope not!

D. even if someone has lent on, frightened, or otherwise mislead an office holder in to a course of action, those persons and the office holder would spend a deal of effort finger pointing after the fact

looking like a pretty ugly stage play already!

Even in the unlikely event that any or all of the above are possible, I am one to wonder the reaction from those further down the responsibility tree.

A. a direction for change might be made in haste - probable

B. the change if not consulted and properly assessed may make the situation worse - probable

C. the eventual outcome may be undesirable from a comparative cost and safety viewpoint -probable

in the unlikely event this dead end was reached, where to from this uncomfortable point?

A. back track to the previous procedures - possible, but highly embarrasing for those that made the leap in the first instance

B. back track, put a blue ribbon around its binder, and call it an emhansement - possible

C. stick to change plan A and cop the consequences - possible, although looking for another political option at this point might be high on the agenda

Mr Smith, were this an example of a reality TV airspace pick-a-box show on channel 10, where do you see you, and your FAA type NAS fitting in to the script?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, there is a whole chapter dedicated to you. Do you remember talking to Geoffrey. He has described you rather interestingly in the final paragraph-

There are more than two temperatures at which to cook a pot of stew

If only there had been someone channeling Smith's abilities, such as by installing a meticulous team-leader to run the bureaucracy, leaving him as an advocate and conscience-pricker. The people in charge could have done better

OHHHHHH, IF ONLY:hmm:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

More quotes-

Splitting Accountability Through Commercialisation

The Commercialisation Ethic Driving Institutional Reform

After his appointment as chairman in Jan. 1990, Smith championed profound change. Baldwin as CEO "shared Smith's zeal for reform. He described his brief as 'to take the CAA - an inert, centralised, bureaucratic edifice - and turn it into an efficient customer- oriented business enterprise'..."(Plane Safe 1995:111). The savings made were estimated by Smith at over $100m p.a. ('about' $150m in Smith 2005) and the figure of $100m has not been contested. However, what is contestible is whether this is a waste that has been pruned in the public interest from the regime, or represents the now-missing safety margin that a prudent nation should in the public interest be prepared to invest to keep its travellers safe. is the system now ripe for a disaster or is it as effective as it can be without diminishing returns? And how catastrophic does a disaster have to be to justify spending $100m to avoid it.

[Dick Smith]

Sounds like the Yeend who was involved in Flight Standards in the old Department.

Read "Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom" to get a background on his abilities and results.

He predicted (among other things) that the savings gained by removing full position reporting for VFR and removing the AFIZ's would come at a great cost to safety.

Eighteen years later it is clear that he was wrong- safety has improved.

I am proud to be criticised by such a cargo cultist!

Imagine the state of our industry now if the $100 million PA had not been saved- $1.8 Billion of extra costs would have caused even more damage- if that was possible!

The Edwards thesis is inaccurate rubbish - it clearly shows how bad our institutes of learning are these days. For instance the industry did not "clamour" for the user pays CAA to be set up. Just the opposite.

I will ask again - why has the OAR directed AsA to move to class D- especially if it is going to have the consequences that you and others describe?

Love to hear your conspiracy theories!

[Joker 10]

AH Dick, The entrenched ex RAAF fly boys of the 1960/1970 era in the bureacracy now set the standard, (a) They don't like light aircraft , period and (b) they absolutely believe in sterile controlled airspace no matter what the risk assesment is or how much it might cost.

There is not a commercial bone in their bodies and they really don't care if the flying schools grind to a halt.

The notion that holding early low time pilots OCTA in the concentrated space adjacent to designated GAAP airports is safe defies logic, and to be then assured after clearance is granted to the GAAP that they are mystically separated is fallacy.

[Dick Smith]

Coral ,I really don't know. I hope that it is part of the NAS- so that all of our non radar towers will have harmonised simple procedures.

Of course if it is to go to ICAO D with no differences filed our GAAP airports are doomed.

Now the people in the CASA OAR would know this so it is interesting they make no clarification.

The OAR won't even answer my letters so it's unlikely they will tell me what their real intentions are.

My suggestion is that someone phones them and puts the answer here.

Surely it can't be a national secret.

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

So..you want the flying schools to be doomed, because if they are going to file differences then it won't be proper Class D will it? In fact, it may as well be..well..GAAP! I'm confused!

Dick the resistance to change that you criticise, and I agree is often unfounded, is inevitable when the people at the coal face are not consulted, rather they are insulted by being considered so unimportant as to not be worth seeking an opinion from.

Maybe we do want change, and could come up with something even better, if only we were asked. We'd probably be able to save lives and small business too.

You haven't answered my q yet, about how you could save costs with the retail analogy of 40% of your trading hours and floor space taken away. You're a clever guy, perhaps you can tell me how I can do it and stay solvent let alone save costs?

[ARFOR]

Dick Smith, 28th August 2009, 13:15 Ambidji Report thread
if the Benalla accident had happened at a similar airport where the radar went to ground level they would have still all died.
That's because there has been constant resistance to putting in proper procedures or airspace after the FSO's were removed.

How many more will have to die before modern proven overseas practices are introduced?
- you allege that CTA and radar as used today would not save lives (where are the IFR in surveillance covered airspace accident records?)
- you allege that your removal of OCTA Flight Services has not cost lives, resistance to proper procedures or airspace is!

2 days later on the 30th of August 2009, 23:59 CASA Revised GAAP procedures thread
He predicted (among other things) that the savings gained by removing full position reporting for VFR and removing the AFIZ's would come at a great cost to safety.

Eighteen years later it is clear that he was wrong- safety has improved.
- you allege that by your removing of OCTA Flight Service and related procedures that safety has improved!

Which is it? is the current OCTA system safer, not safer, cheaper, more expensive? Then you say we should pay for the huge additional expense asociated with ATC surveillance services where safe and efficient Flight Service use to be before you binned it?

Removing OCTA services and replacing them with the system we have today (ATC CTA combined with OCTA services) was presumably a known outcome of your OCTA changes. If those changes back then (which is basically the system today) were not safe (as you alledge just 2 days prior to saying OCTA safety has improved), why did you allow the change in the first place?

It is one or the other Mr Smith!

[LeadSled]

CFI,
You'r not dumb, I know that from first hand experience, so please re-read what Dick is having to say about FAA D, with a (in my opinion) minor difference, the GAAPs are already FAA D. Dick is not advocating a system where you have your ability to conduct your business reduced by 40%.

If you haven't already, have a look at the Ambidjii take on the history of GAAP, which superseded the old "Secondary Airport Procedures".

We all know that ICAO D will be disaster for the GAAPs, it will be a lot mote than 40% reductions, particularly at Jandakot and Bankstown, and would have been at Archerfield, if the airport company hadn't already almost killed off training.

Where is the united national outcry ????

Maybe you can resurrect "Gaunty".

Tootle pip!!!

[GROSSER]

The September issue of the above magazine will be hitting the stands any day now.
There is a four page article on the problems being faced by all at Archerfield Airport.

One example of the issues not commonly known involving ASA is that a deal was done with the ALC where aircraft owners are unable to take advantage of the General Aviation Exemption. All landing fees at YBAF are invoiced by the ALC and the minimum fee is $25.50! ASA have also seen fit to reduce the 28R runway TODA by 400m as the ALC have built new buildings inside the OLS!
All these and many more issues involving CASA, ASA, OAR and ATSB are falling on deaf ears and clearly show no one is interested in doing their job.

What can be done?
Well it requires a unified voice from all aviation particpants at all levels of Government then litigation to realy get their attention.

You can not rely on Mr Dick Smith to do anything.:ugh:

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR, your post is far too complex for me to understand let alone give an accurate answer to !

The fact that you are not game to put your real name on your post or even phone me shows that you do not have a genuine belief about saving human lives.

Remember there is no pprune rule which stops genuine people from posting their honestly held beliefs under their real names.

I do feel sorry for you - to frightened to be honestly open about an issue as important as public safety.

Never will I believe for a second that your own self interest to protect yourself from some real or imagined threat is more important than lives that can be saved if you had the guts not to hide behind a false name.

For I strongly believe that nothing involved with aviation safety should ever be secret or put behind self interest.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, losing another argument?

ARFOR...Three for Three:E

[ARFOR]

No, Mr Smith,

The object of these forums is a free exchange of views without the personalities baggage. That you decide to use your marketing label in preference to anonymity is understandable!
I strongly believe that nothing involved with aviation safety should ever be secret or put behind self interest.
A noble sentiment, such that you would in that case be prepared to share with us your meetings with, and lobbying for certain agenda's, in the interests of aviation safety, open and transparent unsecretness and non-self interest of course! ;)

[le Pingouin]

Grosser, ASA doesn't have control over what an aerodrome operator does with their real estate - the operator could probably close a runway if they felt the financial urge. TODA does have to provide obstacle clearance, bit pointless otherwise

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR, phone me any time- from a public phone if you want- and I'll answer any question you want.

Or better still do it as a taped interview and whack in on the web. I had A Current Affair in today, believe it or not they don't give me the questions beforehand.

I don't have time to post every answer on this site as I only type with two fingers and Marilyn has gone to Queensland to live.

And we sure don't want the "baggage of personalities" That's just a stupid part of our democratic system. Far better to have important public safety decisions made by unamed and un-accountable bureaucrats like you!

[ARFOR]

now now Mr Smith, no need to be nasty!

[Freewheel]

Dick,

Unnamed and unaccountable bureaucrats have families too!

(and every now and again, one of them does some good stuff)

[SuperStinker]

Hey Dick How do we know its actually you posting?

[Polymer Fox]

Had my lovely first experience with the new regulations last week.

Waiting for a CTA departure in the run-up bay I received the call to taxi to the holding point "without delay". Hoping to get a speedy departure after hanging out in the bay for 5 minutes I moved off only to be promptly cut off by another aircraft who started to taxi out of the bay just after I'd received the call to the holding point (which is another matter all together about airmenship and people listening out on ground).

I ended up waiting at the holding point for 15 minutes. At times even though there was nobody on base or final but I wasn't being allowed to move because of what I assume to be congestion in the zone. I was sitting there listening to every man and his dog reporting in from PSP and TWRN. At one stage the tower had enough of a gap in transmission to apologise and remind me that I hadn't been forgotten. This wouldn't have been so much of a problem except that I had to stop the plugs from fouling up (more of an issue related to idiotic company regulations that an aircraft SHOULDN'T have the mixture leaned under any conditions).... after 5 minutes there was a noticable RPM drop more than what I was experiencing when I was doing the run-ups. I ended up sitting at the holding point with very sore legs from holding onto the brakes because I had to keep the RPM up. Never before have I run through the EFATO brief in my head so many times before take-off.

Engine problems from holding on the ground can only get worse in summer if this is going to be par for the course. What is going to happen to aircraft that are sitting around waiting in 40 degree heat? What about the meat bag flying the thing sitting in the hot box swealtering in an airless environment under the open sun?

[Backdraft5]

If you were waiting for a CTA departure, then the delay at the holding point sounds like it would have been a "departure instruction" (ie H....) issue. Had this a few times over my life time. The issue is getting us separtated from the Class C guys over the top that are not on frequency. It's not the tower guys.

.....Yes, we still need to be mixed in with the new "CASA 6 in the circuit" regulation but this sounds more like the reason from what you have typed.

[Polymer Fox]

If you were waiting for a CTA departure, then the delay at the holding point sounds like it would have been a "departure instruction" (ie H....) issue. Had this a few times over my life time. The issue is getting us separtated from the Class C guys over the top that are not on frequency. It's not the tower guys.

.....Yes, we still need to be mixed in with the new "CASA 6 in the circuit" regulation but this sounds more like the reason from what you have typed.

Probably should have mentioned this, but there was an aircraft waiting for an OCTA departure on center that didn't move either. It actually asked for clearance before I did. However you are quite right about the CTA departure delay. That has happened to me before too.

[Dick Smith]

Etrust, there is no rule mandating anonymity.

I reckon if you are going to cast dispersions about a person by name on this site you should have the strength of character to post under your own name.

And for those who want to know if it is really me I suggest you pluck up some courage and phone me on 0408640221 and check!

[YPJT]

Dick, I for one don't give a monkey's about your lack of anonymity. That is not the issue being faced here.:ugh:

[Wallsofchina]

Arfor, you've lost the plot. Your arguments have just become vindictive and pointless.

If you want to improve safety sit down and think before you post.

[LeadSled]

----and non-self interest of course!

ARFOR,

I can say, in all sincerity, that in my opinion the person with the least self interest in this whole Australian aviation schermozzle is Dick Smith.

Whatever the outcome, it will have little or no impact on his aviating, the unnecessary cost that do have an impact on so many aviation businesses and individual, will be no more than a very minor irritant to Dick, half his luck.

I have known him for a very long time, the ONLY thing that has motivated him is to see aviation in Australia as safe, prosperous, affordable and and as free of unnecessary bureaucratic imposts and restrictions as humanly possible.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Polymer Fox,
Depending on the aircraft, prolonged idle will also produce carb. icing. As for the "company policy" you mention, better you try another company that conforms to the aircraft POH.
Not only "safer" but "legal".
Tootle pip!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Wallsofchina????? "vindictive?" "pointless?" has a post been removed?....the score is still three zip...Game on!:E

[Capn Bloggs]

It's about time the mods turned Prune into a real internet forum: no deletions of posts (except by the mods) and post-editing turned off after 10 minutes. :ok:

So who said Arfor has lost the plot? I thought his posts have been quite good.

[Howabout]

Maybe I pinged after everybody else, but then maybe not.

What I have been trying to figure is why the insistence on FAA D instead of GAAP, when the following was written on GAAP:

Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.

So why go to the extra expense of FAA D, when GAAP serves the purpose?

Ah, standardisation we are told. If we change GAAP to FAA D, then we have D at both present GAAP and regional locations. What could make more sense - we would have 'harmonisation.'? So the Machievellian bit goes like this:


We change GAAP to FAA Class D for 'harmonisation' with the regional towers.
After all, GAAP is pretty close to FAA Class D anyway, so what's the difference?
But, hang on, we now have a mismatch, because there are two distinct types of Class D with different procedures- we have ICAO D and FAA D.
This is potentially confusing and dangerous (Minister).
So, for consistency, and to stop this dangerous confusion that will lead to a mid-air, we must convert ICAO D airspace to FAA D airspace.
Right, done and dusted, we are now 'harmonised.'
But, hold the boat, we now have a bastardised system, 'unique to Australia,' because nowhere in the world (read US) do we have Class C over FAA D.
In the 'proven' system of the US, all Class D airspace has overlying E.
And here we get to the true endgame.If GAAP goes FAA D, then you guys (controllers and pilots alike) will be re-living Launy as an everyday experience.

It was always about E terminal and I kick myself that I didn't wake up earlier.

[Mr Brewster]

Bankstown is a mess.

Had to orbit 'OCTA' for 5 minutes with traffic everywhere and was still funneled in via a single route.

How does this make it better???

Who did this??

How is it safer, its a mess.

My 10c worth. A few more lanes of entry and the C lifted by 500' on the non-approach sides (to KSA) is all it would take to keep the Curries of our backs (no pun intended, and I don't mean Lisa).

Oh, and reopen the N/S runway, kicking BAL out would help too.

Or even better, real English tests, not just testing native English speakers and rubber stamping the idiots driving the Europa's!!!

Grrr

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Howabout.....how exquisite! A cunning plot The End Game! Ties up all the loose ends, doesn't it. Regional D TWRS with implied clearance...gotta love that...smaller dimensions and class E on top and no limits for VFR...Right in one Howabout...Launie, Melbourne and Maroochy all over again. Just one little addition.....Military User Airspace.

[Capn Bloggs]

Well how about that! Dick's master plan has been outed. Well done Howabout.

Free in G...and now E. :ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, I will say it again - There is no measurable extra expense in changing GAAP to FAA class D.
This then means your conspiracy theory fails.

Yes, I find GAAP gives high levels of safety- it should because it was modelled closely on FAA NAS class D at Van Nuys.

A minor change will bring GAAP in line with FAA class D.

It is then sensible to change our other non radar airports to the same airspace and procedures as the FAA class D that replaced the GAAP procedures.

Then we have one simple set of procedures for all non radar towers.-pretty sensible.Higher compliance will no doubt result.

And class E in lower risk link airspace is surely better than the class G we have at RPT jet airports like Ballina and Ayers Rock!

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs, It was CASA OAR that made the direction for AsA to change GAAP to Class D.

I am glad you believe they are following my "master plan".

Or do you believe they are doing it for another reason?

What reason?

[Ted D Bear]

The Director of Aviation Safety's direction to ASA requires ASA to provide CASA with an implementation plan 'outlining in detail how the provision of full Class D services ... will be implemented' by 21 August 2009. Has ASA complied? Can we see that plan? When will it be released to the public?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The CASA is directing for ICAO Class D changes in GAAP!

A few minor differences?????
Dick, maybe true. However....these (FAA Dthat is) changes are quite drastic for regional towers. Imagine these changes at WLM? Punting down the coast and call up Willie...I'm coming through....no answer....hey, I'm coming through...still no answer...oh well I do not have implied clearance so I better start climbing and fly over the top in class E....nong is on the wrong frequency and because he didn't get the call he just thought that clearance wasn't available...just blasted through very busy airspace....problem is....it is perfectly legal to do it.

[ARFOR]

Is this what you would like Mr Smith?

FAA Class D, a couple of examples

Teterboro

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/airports/html/teb_operations.html)
AIRCRAFT REGULATIONS - It is important to note that Teterboro Airport does not accommodate scheduled carrier operations due to its functional role as a general aviation reliever airport. To maintain its role in serving the region's small aircraft needs, the airport imposes weight restrictions that prohibit use of the airport by aircraft with operating weights in excess of 100,000 pounds. As a result, Teterboro's utilization is comprised of a broad range of general aviation aircraft.
AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS ANNUALLY
2007: 182,101
2006: 187,840
2005: 193,427
2004: 202,400
2003: 193,907
2002: 200,599
2001: 175,980
2000: 182,888
1995: 183,992
1990: 191,118
1985: 216,974
1980: 231,074

The procedures (VFR) http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTravel/airports/pdfs/TEBNoiseAbatementCharts.pdf

Note the procedures complexity and VFR arrival and departures altitudes and tracks

And the real twist Letters to Airmen (http://rahvalor.teb.com/letters2.asp?lta_id=55)
This letter describes the VFR arrival, departure and traffic procedures for Teterboro Airport.

Arriving aircraft should establish initial contact with the tower (119.5 alternate125.1) at least ten (10) miles from the airport, stating the appropriate ATIS code. ATIS information is broadcast at Teterboro Airport on 132.025 and Broadway VOR (114.2).
During heavy traffic periods, VFR arrival aircraft may be instructed to hold outside of the Class D Airspace. The following are suggested geographical holding locations:
ROUTE 17 AND THE G.S. PARKWAY INTERSECTION TEB 003/6 MILES
ORADELL RESERVOIR TEB 030/6.8 MILES
ALPINE TOWER TEB 051/9.5 MILES
LINCOLN TUNNEL TOLL PLAZA TEB173/5.4MILES*

Other prominent geographical locations may be used.

* NOTE: VOR radial unusable below 3,000 feet.

Traffic pattern altitudes are 1500 feet AGL for large and turbine powered aircraft, and 1000 feet AGL for other aircraft. Between the hours of 2200 and 0700 local, all arrival aircraft are requested to remain at 1500 feet AGL, until further descent is required for a safe landing. Aircraft on approach to Runway 24 over fly an extremely noise sensitive area, and should remain at the traffic pattern altitude until starting the base leg. Aircraft on approach to Runway 19 should avoid flying over the hospital 1.7 miles north of the airport.

Departing aircraft, prior to taxi, should contact Clearance Delivery on 128.05 stating their location on the field, the appropriate ATIS code and direction of flight (if requesting advisories state destination). ATIS information is broadcast at Teterboro Airport on 132.025. When the VOR DME "A" approach is in use, departures that are North or Northwest bound should maintain 1000 feet until North of the TEB 305 degree radial or clear of the Teterboro Class D Airspace. Teterboro Airport is located under the New York Class B Airspace and in close proximity to congested airways and airport traffic areas. Caution is advised.
Teter does not have parallel runway op's, the rest gives you a picture of what Mr Smith is trying hard to sell you.

Van nuys

Traffic throughput figues for July 09 and YTD (NOTE ZERO Scheduled Services)
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/VNY/statistics/tcom-0709.pdf

Not disimilar to our busy GAAP's
Pilot Information (http://www.lawa.org/welcome_VNY.aspx?id=1730)

Note Closed to air carrier operations, airport not FAR part 139 certified.

General Airport services information.
VNY - Van Nuys Airport (http://skyvector.com/airport/VNY/Van-Nuys-Airport)

Note the number of ATC frequencies, procedures complexity, approach - departures frequencies. COST with a user pays system?

For all that complexity and infrustructure, is it safer and more efficient?
LAX00FA093B (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X20502&key=2)

Aviation Safety Letter 2/2001 - TP 185 2/2001 - TP 185 - Aviation Safety Newsletters - System Safety - Aviation Saftey - Air Transportation - Transport Canada (http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/SystemSafety/Newsletters/tp185/2-01/255.htm)

Reality is enlightening!

[Dick Smith]

ARFOR, Yes I would like to see an equivalent airport to Teteboro in Australia.It would show that our industry was absolutely booming.

Most of those movements are corporate jets up to G5's and bigger.

I have flown in there many times- last time was with John and Martha King in their Falcon 10.

Most Australian pilots would love to be involved with aviation at this level.

Van Nuys is also something to envy -everything from piper cubs to BBJ's- almost unbelievable!

If you love aviation get hold of a copy of the 'One Six Right" DVD- it was shot at Van Nuys and has some of the most motivational shots and interviews that I have seen about General Aviation.

Many will be green with envy on just how good the Yanks can do it.

Bring on NAS! It will a bit like upgrading from a Nomad to a G5 !

It's obvious you have never flown an aircraft into places like Teteboro or Van Nuy's.

Give me a phone call and I will get you a ticket to LAX and a flight in a corporate jet into Van Nuy's. I guarantee you will be a convert to NAS!

[Dick Smith]

OZ, your example re Williamtown shows just how closed your mind is.

If it was a busy jet airport like Ballina the VFR plane would simply fly straight through the circuit area on the wrong frequency using the same scenario. And thats our existing system that you want to keep.

At least climbing up into the E would reduce the chance of a collision as the traffic is more spread out the higher it is above the circuit area.

[QJB]

Can I have a ticket to the US and a flight in a corporate jet! I'm mostly on your side anyway Dick, but I could report back to everyone. Just send me your phone number and I'll call you! :O

[ARFOR]

Mr Smith,

Did you actually read the links above?

Most of our GAAP's are moving more than Teter, and a couple of our GAAP's would give KVNY a run for its money on raw movement numbers, so they must be booming by your standards!

On the expensive corporate metal issue, compared to the money flying around LA and NY, it would not matter if the airport paid people to fly into and out of it, for the forseable future, Australia is not going to have that number of gold plated kero rockets, and thats the point, without them, how does Australian GA pay for approach, clearance delivery, and all the other infrustructure the US provide to these GA specific airports? Even if we could, why would we when the result is no better? all it would do is cost load the GA industry out of existence! Surely you do not want that?

Admit it, the Australian system of GAAP for GA, ICAO D, C, B and A for CTA and CTR is worlds best in both cost and safety terms. If there is any improvement to be made to enhance what we already have with GAAP, then those 'possible' options must be put to industry, costed and properly consulted. Don't fix what is not broken!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, not closed as you are to any argument not of your origin.

WLM? RAAF? fast movers? and you think it is OK to fly through that airspace with no radio? This wasn't intended as a trap, I was only highlighting a situation that a blunder can be made and yet still continue LEGALLY through some pretty busy airspace....Risk assesment? Current situation, you know from your training you do not continue unless you have made contact...even if the answer is NO...You know what to expect. (Iconsider this as the same argument as the lottery that is monitoring an appropriate frequency.)

Implied clearances may be fantastic to save a couple of verbs over the radio on a quiet day. However, when things get busy, the chatter is still at the same level as currently (or was currently) on GAAP tower frequencies...The changes to ICAO D is a retrograde step in provision of a service for heavy RPT... Dick, you asked for no less at AV...you didn't ask for FAA D there. As ARFOR has pointed out again...all those busy aerodromes are nonRPT aerodromes just like our GAAP.....what happens if BAL do get their way and start up RPT services with BAE type Jets...would you still like FAA D control with BAE types on RPT mixing it with foreign students trying to master the english language as well as learn to fly?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

ARFOR, funny you should say that....most all that infrastructure is paid for by subsidy.

[Dick Smith]

OZ, it's the same in the 350 FAA class D airports- you don't continue into the airspace if your call has not been confirmed by ATC.

I can assure you that I asked for FAA NAS class D at Avalon. I even travelled to the AsA operated tower in Hawai with the Avalon airport owner and manager so we could see how this superb system operated.

Airservices were very proud to show us how safe the D with E above was because their controllers could focus where the risk was. All very sensible.

Surely it is obvious AsA took the FAA contract (which loses them money) so they could learn and become expert on this FAA NAS system. Why else would they get involved in such an expensive exercise!

[djpil]

Very busy at Moorabbin today and the tower guys & gals remained polite and calm despite some silly things by pilots. My student turned the radio volume right down so that he could hear me on the intercom, I didn't notice from the back seat until I wondered why there were no calls. At least they got a laugh yesterday when a student on taxi to R31 requested "clearance to cross all active runways".
I heard one observation about the procedures which got the simple response of "talk to CASA about that".

[PPRuNeUser0163]

Djpil,

I hear you! Was flying in the circuit tonight at Moorabbin and on 35 its not that bad- just need the clearances to cross 35L as Tower was open tonight, but who in earths name is gonna use a runway with no lighting at night- beyond me!

When 31 is in use and towers on, things start to get a little more interesting around Bravo and Foxtrot taxiways. I know many from my particular flying school who have mistaken Foxtrot for 35L and accordingly had incursions to answer with the tower.

[KittyKatKaper]

Surely it is obvious AsA took the FAA contract (which loses them money) so they could learn and become expert on this FAA NAS system. Why else would they get involved in such an expensive exercise!perhaps ASA underpriced that contract, hence got it, and got stuck with it.
ASA's primary role appears to be to make a profit in the air-traffic-control market, Australia, Hawaii, wherever.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, you really are a card! It's what AsA management calls a "business opportunity". Didn't you know AsA have been trying to expand their business? I wonder who scored the bonus for landing the contract?

KKK, I don't think there is any "perhaps" invloved!

[LeadSled]

Folks,

Not surprisingly, there has been confusion and not a little fear about what is proposed by April next year at GAAPs ---- will it be "FAA D" or "ICAO D", particularly given the present arbitrary movement limitations imposed on GAAPs. Also given the range of possible interpretations of what has been published about this matter.

I can say, without fear of contradiction, that if you ring Peter Cromarty, Head of the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA, the answer is FAA D.

Peter (as has Dick Smith) makes the point that the FAA regard their implementation of D as ICAO compliant, including the differences, but as a convenient description, we understand what "FAA D" means in practice.

It's about time to push for ALL D towers and GAAPs to be the same standard, the FAA implementation of ICAO D, it would make life a lot simpler for a lot of people. Properly handled, it will quickly get us back to long standing GAAP capacity, and the withdrawal of the current crippling movement limitations.

Tootle pip!!

PS: In good old USA, they don't seem to have a problem with military fast movers and civil traffic of all kinds. Many are the civil airports that host an Air National Guard unit, interesting to see a bunch of F-16 or F/A 18 lined up on a ramp, in close proximity to a bunch of GA aircraft --- no sign of even a security fence, once you are "on the active".

[LeadSled]

Clinton,
I can only answer one part with any certainty, GAAP v. "FAA D" (which is ICAO D with a difference for VMC ---- or as our US friends call it- VFR) and that is, the current GAAP requirement that IFR in the GAAP zone must operate VFR in VMC would go.

Thus, if any IFR flight in VMC so chose, it would be processed IFR all the way, separated from other IFR, with traffic information on VFR traffic.

It will not be long before IFR flights learn that "cancelling IFR" in a GAAP zone (virtually universal in US) in VMC will expedite matters --- ie; produce the same end result as we have right now.

As to other possibilities, I can only speak for YSBK. Given the severe limitations imposed by YSSY CTA, I would expect the present "unders and overs" for inbound and outbound traffic to remain, I look forward to the discussions on inbound and outbound routes, beyond the zone boundary (in G), to say that the matter is contentious would be to put it mildly.

Tootle pip!!

[Dick Smith]

I agree with Leady- as the most likely explanation. I also think that the mandatory inbound reporting points will most likely change to at least three recommended inbound routes.

This spreads out the potential collision points so safety is improved.

[Wallsofchina]

You've been at each others throats on multiple threads for days, yet when Clinton puts up a straightforward scenario you all choke.

How much confidence should we have that CASA aren't stitching us up yet again?

[Unhinged]

Dick, Are you seriously suggesting that a change from two inbound reporting points to three inbound routes will make a significant safety difference ? With the vast amount of energy that you've put in to defending this proposal, I'd have seriously thought you'd have actually come up with something substantial.

Good god, I'm sure even you can remember when Westmead was an inbound reporting point ? The safety stats weren't any different then.

How about someone on your side of the discussion giving Clinton a bit of respect and having an honest go at his questions ?