Class D seperation YMMB

[VH-XXX]

I've had my eyes closed a little with the recent changes not worrying too much about it until now.

Would you say that with class D versus the old GAAP that controllers are MORE likely to seperate you, or less likely?

With regard to the old approach points, eg Carrum & GMH for Moorabbin, are these recommended or mandatory?

Had an "incident" on the weekend. Came within 100 metres of an aicraft joining downwind and I was at 800ft on upwind.

Controller told me that I "should have avoided heading towards Carrum."

Is this a valid comment?

(Departure Runway 17R)

[Jabawocky]

Better study up a bit there XXX

Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Home (http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:HOMEPAGE::pc=HOME)

[ReverseFlight]

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/publications/current/ersa/FAC_YMMB_26-Aug-2010.pdf ERSA YMMB FAC M-1:

4.7 DEP from RWY 17R maintain upwind leg until S of Woodland Golf Course. If DEP to S, turn left to follow coast when S of Woodland Golf Course.

When following "coast", you should be over land, not water. Routes over water are for inbound aircraft from the south.
Hope that settles your mind.

[Awol57]

That all depends on whether you were IFR or VFR.

Flying towards a recommended inbound point is probably never a good idea. Here at JT our old reporting points are the way you will be cleared into the zone. So whilst not mandatory, thats the way you are cleared in.

[Sunfish]

I believe the Tower now has a radar screen. Were both of you squawking 3000?

[VH-XXX]

When following "coast", you should be over land, not water. Routes over water are for inbound aircraft from the south.
Hope that settles your mind.

That clears it up a bit - the other aircraft simply should not have been there.

That being said, the 4.7 reference complicates things.

woodland golf course, moorabbin - Google Maps (http://maps.google.com.au/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=woodland+golf+course,+moorabbin&sll=-25.335448,135.745076&sspn=42.669037,87.714844&ie=UTF8&hq=woodland+golf+course,&hnear=Moorabbin+Victoria&ll=-37.996974,145.114117&spn=0.070614,0.171318&z=13)

What aircraft often seem to do is fly direct from Aspendale to join right down-wind for 17R which puts them in direct conflict with upwind traffic. You'd have to do a very deliberate left turn at Woodlands to take you out of their way, but it says If DEP to S, turn left to follow coast when S of Woodland Golf Course. so to be safe you'd really want to head to Patterson Lakes or similar. I guess staying inland and climbing as quickly as possible would be the go.

I know this is in the VFG somewhere however I don't think people fly around with that on their lap daily.

Sunny - yes, I was, I don't know about him.

[rjtjrt]

Departing south and passing over Carrum at 800ft is an unfortunate choice to say the least (assuming that is what you did).
Helicopters overfly approach points at 700 ft so as to separate from fixed wing.
Outbound tracking over or near any approach point (at less than 2000ft) is risky in my opinion - just because northbound should be over water doesn't mean you aren't asking for trouble tracking so close to an approach point.
John

[VH-XXX]

Departing south and passing over Carrum at 800ft is an unfortunate choice to say the least (assuming that is what you did this).


Not quite, it was probably closer to half way between Aspendale and Aspendale Gardens. If the inbound traffic heads in from Carrum, you've got problems.

All that aside, this is probably just a one off, it was more the responsibilities of the controller and his comments regarding heading towards an approach point that is essentially 7 miles away when I'm more like 3.5.

[djpil]

Query about two aircraft departing upwind on different runways at about the same time. 13L & R is when that occurs more often with both going to the training area - then when they depart the zone the one on the right turns left and the one on the left ........
See also para 4.6 "DEP from RWY 17 on UPWIND leg should remain over land until abeam CARRUM to avoid inbound traffic." Some-one on 17L may do that while the one on 17R is following the previously noted instructions of para 4.7 so will turn left ....

[Jabawocky]

See and Avoid......:E

[VH-XXX]

Oh Dear Jaba. You just go back to your busy little CTAF and pipe down.

Down here we have highly paid controllers that do the looking outside for us and when we have a near miss we can blame them for not warning us.

There's no see and avoid in Victorian Special VFR with 1 km vis. You simply don't get that soup up in the Sunshine State and when you do you are all grounded until the sun shines through.

[43Inches]

The controller in any controlled airspace has no responsibility to separate VFR aircraft. Only if IFR (not including IFR departing VFR) or Special VFR are involved is a separation service provided. VFR are only provided with traffic information if conflict exists. Also no separtion service is required whilst operating near or in the circuit other than control of the take-off/landing sequence.

In short close to the airport see and avoid applies if VFR.

[Jabawocky]

43Inches....... XXX is just taking the Pi$$ out of me, mainly jealous of our better weather.

Go IFR and depart that way! :}

[Clearedtoreenter]

Would you say that with class D versus the old GAAP that controllers are MORE likely to seperate you, or less likely?

Errrr no..

If you're outside their miniscule control zone, you're Class G and they really dont give a stuff. If you happen to ask for clearance at about the same time as someone else you'll be told to track to the same point at the same altitude and if you dare to ask something like'should I follow the blar blar?', you'll probably be told, politely if you're lucky, to 'sort yourselves out'. Then when you call at the required position, you'll be given a sequence but still responsible for manitaining your own separation. They have no responsibility to separate you and make no attempt to do so if you are VFR. Even if you're in your Citation and they tell you to do something next to impossible like 'follow the Jabiru' on a massive circuit, its still you're fault if you get too close or infringe an adjacent CTA desperately trying to widen out.

As for Go IFR and depart that way! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif

Now that is REALLY taking the PI$$!

Its unbelievable how much CASA and ASA have spent on this Class D rubbish with no positive contribution to separation or reducing the risk of collision at all! They have very successfully impeded the flow of IFR traffic though and maybe covered a few of their bums when push comes to shove though.

[Jabawocky]

My comment was serious........although to some extent it was also taking the piss. :p

Your summary of events is a pretty accurate view of events! :ok:

[5miles]

Even if you're in your Citation and they tell you to do something next to impossible like 'follow the Jabiru' on a massive circuit, its still you're fault if you get too close or infringe an adjacent CTA desperately trying to widen out

Depending on the model Citation, I sympathise with this predicament as the Jabiru disappears into the distance. :ooh:

If a controller instructs you to follow a course of action which is not operationally acceptable, then speak up. If the speed differential and proximity to other CTA gives limited options, then request an orbit or 2.

[Dreamflyer1000]

Even if you're in your Citation and they tell you to do something next to impossible like 'follow the Jabiru' on a massive circuit, its still you're fault if you get too close or infringe an adjacent CTA desperately trying to widen out
then what the hell are we paying them for...they dont help us, but if we dont help them, we get letters...hmm..

[Jack Ranga]

then what the hell are we paying them for...they dont help us, but if we dont help them, we get letters...hmm..


You are paying them to be separated ON THE RUNWAY

If you want a higher service speak up, you may have to pay more for it though