"Metro" Class D

[ravan]

Reading a couple of recent threads, I noted references to "Metro" Class D. It reminded me of the visit I had (at the flying school where I work) from an Air Services Australia representative some time ago.
He was conducting a survey on air space usage around Brisbane and any difficulties that might have arisen. Since Archerfield's air space is next to/under Brisbane airspace, I raised some concerns about the interaction between Archerfield's Class D and Brisbane's Class C and was met with the reply "....Ah, you mean Metropolitan Class D".
Interestingly, when I asked for directions to where in the Documents I might find a definition of this Metro Class D (since I had been unable to find it for myself), he was unable to provide them and I have not yet met anyone who can show me where it is defined.
I am aware that Metro Class D has become a "modern" name for a mix of Class D and GAAP procedures, but it's a bit hard to teach students about something that isn't defined in any of the documents. Is this just another case of "making it up as we go" to cover system inadequacies?

[Awol57]

To my knowledge it's simply an internal Airservices reference. The procedures are as detailed in AIP for Class D operations. Internally it's referenced differently due to a non metro D usually have procedural approach attached to it. Shouldn't make any difference to pilots though.

[Jack Ranga]

I've recently flown in & out of a few Class D aerodromes for the first time. You download the booklet to check the procedures before 'aviating' there. 20 to 30 pages of procedures. I shake my head and wonder how any newbie is expected to comply with the bureaucratic & red tape filled process it is to depart or arrive at a control zone.

'Unfamiliar, read the guide and have no clue what you want from me'

[Awol57]

I haven't read the guide recently, but we do try to make it as easy as possible. Readbacks are almost always where we have issues and that isn't a Class D problem.

[ravan]

That's the problem Awol57. It shouldn't be "to my knowledge..." or to anyone else's knowledge.
If it was clearly defined and simply explained in the documents then everyone would have less trouble, surely.

[Sunfish]

There is no feeling of terror quite like being in the circuit at YMMB with seven other aircraft plus Three helicopters, when you hear announcements from Brighton, GMH and Carrum that more are inbound.

And everyone but me and ATC are speaking broken, halting, English.

Please tell your students to learn the procedures. One mid air was enough.

[Creampuff]

‘Metro D’ is the classification that dare not speak its name: GAAP. All the old GAAP aerodromes were effectively ERSA’d back to GAAP a while ago.

[Jack Ranga]

'Are you familiar with the St Kilda departure?'

'Negative, I'm never flown here before, I'm from Melbourne, I've read the 30 page guide but I can't see St Kilda from the run up bay. How about we save a bit of time and you submit the ESIR now? How about I depart the the zone on upwind? (crosswind, downwind, overhead)

Nah, lets complicate the fark out of it, employ a 30 member team to educate pilots on how to read a 30 page guide on how to depart a control zone. Another 10 member team to prosecute those who fark it up.

[Awol57]

Ravan, what document refers to Metro D. I just had a look at the CASA website and AIP and can find zero reference to Metro D, only Class D airspace.

Unfortunately all aerodromes will have their differences, due terrain, surrounding airspace etc, which is the whole point of ERSA. I know I will just be shot down so I'll leave it it that.

[Creampuff]

Errrm, isn't that precisely ravan's point?

[Awol57]

My mistake, I thought he meant the actual Class D procedures not aerodrome specific tracking

[ravan]

Awol57, that indeed was my point. There are no published procedures specifically for "Metro" Class D, yet an Airservices representative suggested to me that it was a separate airspace category "different" from "Normal" Class D.

[Awol57]

Ok. We definitely reference it internally but it's purely an admin thing. Class D is class D. There were some overall changes made during the GAAP to D changes but the actual procedures are the same everywhere.

There was potentially some misspoken moments during the transition and just after but the procedures are the same throughout. Obviously there are some local variations but the basics are as per AIP.

[Creampuff]

Then why is there a term "Metro D"? What possible use could it have internally?

[alphacentauri]

For the same reason people use the term externally, so that everybody knows we are talking about the old GAAP aerodromes.


Posted from Pprune.org App for Android

[Awol57]

Some differences in coord is all I can think of off the top of my head. I'll have a look tomorrow and see if it's written anywhere if I remember. But basically what alphacenturi said :)

[mcgrath50]

Departure reports (or any type of estimate) aren't usually done at "Metro Class D" especially for VFR flights. I can't find where it gives this exception in the AIP at this hour but I'm sure AWOL and the other country Class D controllers can always pick when a pilot has just come out from a Metro Class D and forgets his estimates!

[Creampuff]

Alpha, you left off a bit:For the same reason people use the term externally, so that everybody knows we are talking about the old GAAP aerodromes where the procedures are different from D aerodromes.The procedures at the old GAAP aerodromes are the old GAAP.

That’s why there has to be a term to distiguish them from D aerodromes, where the procedures are for Class D.

[Creampuff]

Bingo.

The reason for the change was political not practical.

The practicalities were what resulted in GAAP, and the practicalities haven’t changed. So it’s D in name only, and even that name has evolved to “Metro D” for reasons of ….. practicality.

[Ted D Bear]

"There were some overall changes made during the GAAP to D changes but the actual procedures are the same everywhere."

So why do IFR flights give departure reports at non-metro Class D's but not at metro ones? :confused:

[vieuphoria]

I have to say I bypassed TW going to YARM, because it all seemed just to difficult. In respect to Departure reports at class D isn't it whether it is RADAR or not? Ie BK has RADAR and a SID so no need for a departure report (other than passing 2000')

[mcgrath50]

No class D has radar they can use. The old GAAPs can only use the feeds from approach for situational awareness so guess again (not sarcastic, I genuinely mean guess cause I have NFI :ugh: )

[Awol57]

Departure Report -- certain Class D aerodromes
8.2.1 At certain Class D aerodromes where the tower also provides a
procedural approach control service (see ERSA), a pilot must report
on the TWR frequency after take--off:
a. tracking information; and
b. the last assigned altitude.
However, this report is not required:
a. for VFR aircraft departing the control zone directly into ClassG
airspace; or
b. for aircraft that have been instructed to contact Centre, Approach
or Departures once airborne -- in which case an airborne
report will be made on the relevant frequency.
8.2.2 Tracking information must confirm the track established with reference
to the appropriate navigation aid or, if tracking via a SID, confirm
the SID identifier.
8.2.3 The departure time must be calculated as follows:
a. current time minus an adjustment for the distance from the
aerodrome; or
b. when over or abeam the aerodrome.

The VFR going into from the CTR (note not CTA, only CTR) was one of the changes I alluded to earlier when CASA changed the airspace.

When I was at Jandakot most IFR aircraft were out of our airspace before they had a chance to do a departure report.

[Dick Smith]

Incredible! Isn't it amazing - in the USA there are over 200 Class D towers and none require a departure report from a V F R aircraft. So why is it different here?

I know. It's the coriolis effect that's different in the Southern Hemisphere! That's clearly the cause.

Seriously. I was involved in the change to Class D from GAAP. The intention was to make the procedures simple and internationally standardized. We failed!

[ravan]

It's truly a shame that you failed Dick. Nice idea, but we get stuck with the "Australian-ised" version of Class D which seems to leave most with some level of perplexity:(

[Ted D Bear]

Yes, I know Awol - but that doesn't take away from the requirement to give one! Nobody does because either they're too focused on calling Departures or coz it is just plain silly to do so ... :ugh:

[Hempy]

'Local' procedures always evolve for very good reasons, generally significant improvements in safety or efficiency, or both. I'm all for standardising to 'Worlds Best Practice' (aka what the Americans (or even 6.9 billion!) do), just don't bitch and moan when things get more restrictive/bureaucratic as we become more 'the same' as 'everywhere else'. It's the nature of the standardisation beast. Just ask Dick, he started it!

[mostlytossas]

I don't know...some of you blokes really! Ofcourse we have to have different class D in Australia to most of the world. For starters we are in the southern hemisphere and therefore fly upside down,unless inverted then we are right way up. Secondly we fly under the southern cross. This has the effect when there is a high tide and with Uranus aligned with Saturn the sky acts all differently to anywhere else. Thankfully with such competent Government departments such as CASA ( with their 11 month year calendars to save costs) and ASA with their Red/yellow flight plans of some years ago that you couldn't read at night ( just to test you) we are all in good hands.
I hope that has satisfied your concerns. Now off you all go.:ugh:

[LeadSled]

'Local' procedures always evolve for very good reasons, generally significant improvements in safety or efficiency

Hempy, with all due respect, in the Australian case, bollox!!

Australian ATC is a byword for pedantic and inflexible ATC (not the individual controller's fault, they have to comply with their manuals) which is notably inefficient, compared to US or UK, to nominate just two. Comparisons of track miles flown to block miles in Australia versus US are quite startling.

Australia's rates of "loss of separation" incidents and other ATC blunders is an embarrassment -- doubly so, because of the relative paucity of traffic in Australia--- despite Airservices press releases to the contrary.

Tootle pip!!

[1Charlie]

I disagree. What manual exactly are you talking about? Aircraft can still be 5nm apart in en route airspace and 3nm in terminal. Wake turbulence separations are ICAO and less restrictive than some areas. Runway separations are no more restrictive than other places...The problem is too few controllers trying to move too much traffic.

What the rest of the world do better, is manage capacity. Airspace design, flow control, runways, controller staffing.

Take BNE as an example. 220,000 movements in the last financial year, almost totally on one runway. That's the second largest amount of movements on one runway IN THE WORLD. The one drome that wins, has TWICE the amount of approach controllers and has a flow control system the actually works. So it should, they've had traffic levels like this for years. 3 years ago BNE was in the 180's. if LAX was moving the same amount of traffic per runway as BNE, they'd be doing an extra 180,000 movements per year. All I'm trying to point out is, the failings of Australian ATC might not be where you think.

Build the runways like the States do. Design airspace like the Brits do, and put the controllers in the positions to move the traffic. Done

[1Charlie]

Thing that pisses me off with class D in Australia, is the separation or 'segregation' provided between VFR aircraft. Why, when I'm cruising up the coast at 500' into the sunny coast do I need to climb to 1500' because there is a guy in the circuit??? I bet you I can see him well before the tower see me if I'm given traffic information. Class D is see and avoid with traffic info and runway / wake turbulence separation as far as VFR goes.

Problem is ATCs 'duty of care' responsibility, to prevent collisions. But it is supposed to be joint responsibility, not ATC separation.

[1Charlie]

The main problem is how quickly aviation in Australia has grown in the last few years. It is putting intense pressure on an airspace structure that was designed to fit traffic flows that are now very different. There are not enough staff to put in positions to talk to aeroplanes let alone be free from the roster to redesign airspace and procedures, and hopefully get us ahead of the game. However it is coming. You may hear ASA claim it is fully staffed. In reality they know the truth is, they're far from fully staffed, or should I say, have enough staff in the right areas. You just have to look at the training academy in Melbourne which is bursting at the seems with trainees.

I become tired of hearing people say Australia's ATC rules which govern how the ATCs move aeroplanes is what's holding us back. When actually the focus should be reducing the workload of controllers to allow them to be flexible and to provide a world class service. When you're approaching the limit of your capacity as a controller, screw efficiency, your only trying to stop aircraft running into each other.