Port Macquarie Airport

[Heywoodjablome]

As someone who was in the industry for 30 years but now retired for 10, I am out of touch with current regs. Our local council has extended the strip to accommodate larger ( jet ) a/c but I am curious about requirements for ATC & RFFS these days is it a/c movements /config , pax numbers or ???
Thanks in advance

[morno]

Certain amount of pax movements per year for both I believe.

[Mr Approach]

I think the figures are on the CASA website and they only trigger a review, although the RFSS used to be an absolute figure. There are also lots of CASA reviews of various airports so you can see how they make the assessments. (not for RFFS just ATC)

[drpixie]

I don't think there's anything actually mandatory - I can think of one airfield that does require ATC by the stated movements but is without on the excuse that the extra cost might reduce movements such that ATC is no longer required!

[Jenna Talia]

Is there a tower under consideration for Port Mac?

[XPT]

Take The Jet (http://www.jetgo.com/routemaps)

[Icarus2001]

Remember about six years ago that AsA were having lots of trouble with staffing levels so we were getting TIBA all over the place?

I heard the chief pilot of Qantas on the ABC claiming that Q NEVER fly in uncontrolled airspace, of course he never got called on it by ignorant "journalist" but think of all the places they go (along with VA) that does not have a tower or RFFS. Until one flaming wreckage then watch it change.

[Hempy]

YAYE... :rolleyes:

[Fonz121]

The less towers the better imo.

Flying into a CTAF equals minimal delays. Flying into class D equals numerous delays for lesser amounts of traffic.

[Jenna Talia]

Agree Fonz. The stupidity that prevails at YMAY is ridiculous.

[Ned Stark]

Take The Jet (http://www.jetgo.com/routemaps)
If it's staffed adequately or not down for MX perhaps

[The name is Porter]

The less towers the better imo.

Agree, when you see how they should be working you'll realise that in Australia it's better left to the pilots.

[Capt Claret]

... you'll realise that in Australia it's better left to the pilots.

Bloggs & I had a conversation yesterday evening taxiing at SYD regarding what a good job the guy on SMC was doing. We both agreed that as pilots, whilst we reckon we've got "it" skun, neither of us could have stepped in and organised the plethora of taxiing aircraft as efficiently.

I reckon we pilots don't know, what we don't know about "controlling" multiple (large numbers of) aircraft.

[Jenna Talia]

Clarie - I fully agree that Sydney SMC most of the time do an exceptional job but it is hardly a comparison to a Class D tower environment.

[Mr Approach]

The US Class D model - All Class D is approximately 5NM Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) with all IFR on SID/STAR/Inst Apch no visual approaches allowed. If you want one of those you need to cancel IFR, fly VFR, and you get to track direct to airport and join circuit. VFR get no altitude assignment just tracking instructions to enter circuit area as directed by TWR. - Unfortunately Oz still suffering hangover from the old days

[PLovett]

Unfortunately Oz still suffering hangover from the old days

Whats this old days thing - its as prevalent today. Australian regulators have always thought they knew better than the rest of the world and nothing will make them change that.

[LeadSled]

I heard the chief pilot of Qantas on the ABC claiming that Q NEVER fly in uncontrolled airspace
Folks,
If Qantas never flew in G or F airspace, they would have to cancel a lot of services.
Tootle pip!!

[The name is Porter]

The US Class D model - All Class D is approximately 5NM Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) with all IFR on SID/STAR/Inst Apch no visual approaches allowed. If you want one of those you need to cancel IFR, fly VFR, and you get to track direct to airport and join circuit. VFR get no altitude assignment just tracking instructions to enter circuit area as directed by TWR. - Unfortunately Oz still suffering hangover from the old days

Flew into several of these recently. Works a treat. Would never work in Australia, would take a fairly significant cultural change that ASA would be incapable of managing.

[Tinstaafl]

Not correct about IFR aircraft only on SID/STAR/Instr. approach in US Class D. Visual approaches are common, even preferred, for all aircraft when weather permits. Also Class D zones are smaller than 5nm, although they can have Class E extensions to accommodate instrument approach paths.