Melbourne Coastal Route / YMML Runway 34 GBAS

[andrewr]

According to AIC H44/18 the CTA above part of the VFR route will be lowered frm 2500 to 2000 feet from 8 Nov to allow GBAS approaches to runway 34 at Melbourne.

If I read the chart correctly (no guarantee!) aircraft on approach to Melbourne will be crossing the VFR lane at 2500. 500 feet clearance below e.g. an A380 on approach doesn't sound like much.

What does it take to get a TCAS RA if e.g. someone in the lane drifts a bit low then climbs back up out of the opposite direction traffic?

Just checked the 8 Nov charts, and the recommendation is eastbound at 2000, westbound at 1500 i.e. westbound is opposite the hemispherical level and opposite to the currently recommended direction.

Things might get a little interesting...

[Squawk7700]

Pictures for some context.

Agreed it could get very tight through there! There are frequently moderately close calls through that area.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/359x640/map1_8f166945428eb1b4398cad5e96258465be9219fc.jpg
https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/359x640/map2_17b89e7d77556c42ff445397b6859224d46a45b4.jpg

[Okihara]

Nav + taxi lights on, please!

[harrryw]

Nav + taxi lights on, please!
Hardhats too.

[andrewr]

You have to zoom in a long way before the VFR route procedures appear on OzRunways. I predict many OzRunways users will never see them. (To be fair, many paper chart users probably don't read them either.)
There will be a lot of people who don't know the recommended direction at 1500 has changed.

Crazy stuff.

[logansi]

The opposite levels are dangerous - YMMB wants aircraft leaving the zone at 2000ft so they will now have to descend once outside to 1500ft to track westbound while inbound aircraft are descending to 1500ft to enter the zone...

[Sunfish]

So why is gbas accuracy so bad that increased tolerances are needed?

[andrewr]

It's not tolerances so much as that the approach needs to start further from the runway, and according to the discussion paper they need a level segment at 2500. So they need to be at 2500 over the coastal route. 500 feet separation isn't increased tolerances!

[alphacentauri]

500 feet clearance below e.g. an A380 on approach doesn't sound like much.


Isn't that what you have now? Aircraft fly the current STAR at 3000ft. Its all just 500ft lower than it was before....not an issue, just need to be aware that the airspace has dropped 500ft

So why is gbas accuracy so bad that increased tolerances are needed?

Umm...it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the system or tolerances. The tolerances are still the same, just lower. It has everything to do with the fact that the airspace to the south of YMML was originally designed for non precision approach procedures. Introduction of GLS, upgrades RW 34 to a precision approach runway and this requires different airspace architecture for containment. It has to do with the fact that enough airspace must be provided for intercept of the localiser before intercept of the glide path. This is not a constraint for NPA.

Alpha

[djpil]

Hardhats too.SOP now per CASA's advice regarding drones around Moorabbin (I encountered one at 1500 ft).
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/721x611/43048904_10156719016553454_8983575616058032128_n_79fe2a14e42 79bb0a54c8c9a2ad8e017a547eb00.jpg
As for nav lights - I've never seen the point of using them in day VFR as the whites of the pilot's eyes are more prominent, anyway when I turn them my airplane thinks it is night time and dims the instruments.

[andrewr]

Isn't that what you have now? Aircraft fly the current STAR at 3000ft. Its all just 500ft lower than it was before....not an issue, just need to be aware that the airspace has dropped 500ft

Do they? I admit that I don't know the routes of the STARs into Melbourne. I had assumed (implied by the discussion papers) that the current routes were closer to the airport and/or did not cross the VFR route that low. Which STAR crosses the VFR route at 3000?

[alphacentauri]

andrewr,

All of the STARs to RW 34 through OBGAL-AKDEL and BOLTY-AKDEL have a minimum segment altitude of 3000ft to connect to the RNAV RWY 34 approach. The protection areas for theses STAR's sit over the VFR lane. The STAR tracking for the GLS 34 are not changing, but because the altitudes are lowering a piece of airspace had to be acquired to protect the STAR and turn onto the localiser at 2500ft.

Lateral tracks are not changing from the current STAR-RNAV tracking. It is just being lowered at AKDEL by 500ft...that's it

Alpha

[andrewr]

The GLS chart also shows ESLOK-AKDEL which is in line with the approach. Is the intention that the straight in approach from further south would never be used?

[logansi]

GLS 34 chart for those interested:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/dap/MMLGL03-157_08NOV2018.pdf

and new VTC

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/aipchart/vtc/Melbourne_VTC_08NOV2018.pdf

[alphacentauri]

Yeah that's a modified PORTS arrival, for aircraft from Tasmania. Same tracking as current STAR, but with new waypoint to control descent to 2500ft (currently flown at 3000ft)

[Squawk7700]

You have to zoom in a long way before the VFR route procedures appear on OzRunways. I predict many OzRunways users will never see them. (To be fair, many paper chart users probably don't read them either.)
There will be a lot of people who don't know the recommended direction at 1500 has changed.

Crazy stuff.

The direction recommendations are on the Moorabbin Inset so as you say, most will miss them if using paper.

[andrewr]

Yeah that's a modified PORTS arrival, for aircraft from Tasmania. Same tracking as current STAR, but with new waypoint to control descent to 2500ft (currently flown at 3000ft)

Is that the RNAV approach? Forgive a question from a non-instrument rated pilot:
Is the RNAV approach flown so you are level at 3000 before AKDEL (how far before?) or is it flown in a continuous descent to cross AKDEL not below 3000? If flown as a continuous descent you could be significantly higher than 3000, 10 miles from the threshold.

For the GLS approach, are you required to be level at 2500, or can you be above 2500 and descending?

[alphacentauri]

andrewr.

From memory, a 3 degree path requires a descent from 3000ft just passed AKDEL (~0.3nm). So AKDEL is about in the position to be on profile at 3 degrees. Typical turn radius for a 90 degree turn is about 2nm at that point (note 185kt speed restriction). This means that aircraft will not be established on the final approach path (ie complete the turn) until after the profile descent point. For an RNAV approach this is OK. For a precision approach this is not.

Precision approaches require establishment on the localiser before intercepting glide path. The GLS design required getting the aircraft under the glide path, and making the turn lower so they could establish on loc and intercept glide path from below. Doing all of this at 3000ft (particularly on a hot day) would have caused problems, and is not inline with ICAO procedure design rules (PANS-OPS).

Alpha

[Old Akro]

I'm not hugely happy about this, but it has had significant discussion over the past 18 months or so and has been part of the last round of CASA safety briefings and has had extensive discussion in RAPAC. It shouldn't be a surprise. Many arguments were put, but now we just have to face up to dealing with it. At the end of the day, its pretty much the situation we had 20 or more years ago before the steps were relaxed.

The RWY 34GLS approach is only used on strong Nth wind days, so traffic flying the approach will not be common.

The real concern is that it compresses the vertical separation of the "light aircraft lane". You can still transit it at 2,000ft but you're going to have to have good altitude discipline if you don't want to suffer airspace incursion.

And the proposed flying school for Chinese students at Bacchus Marsh will add to the complexity at the western end.

[machtuk]

A good proportion of App's to 34 are done in VMC so most will be vectored in closer I imagine as some are now accept for some of the foreign Airlines, they often need to be spoon fed by ATC! This App could be intercepted from above like a tradition ILS but most operators dislike this procedure as it often gets cokced up!

[Sunfish]

I think I raised the issue of Hobson bay some years ago. There are helicopters, light aircraft and the occasional seaplane in that area and we are asking for trouble. my solution is a traffic separation scheme with east/west lanes.

[Squawk7700]

If I’m not mistaken, QF 94 makes this approach almost every morning at 8:30am.

[andrewr]

From memory, a 3 degree path requires a descent from 3000ft just passed AKDEL (~0.3nm). So AKDEL is about in the position to be on profile at 3 degrees. Typical turn radius for a 90 degree turn is about 2nm at that point (note 185kt speed restriction). This means that aircraft will not be established on the final approach path (ie complete the turn) until after the profile descent point. For an RNAV approach this is OK. For a precision approach this is not.

I was really asking about the approach from the south, i.e. what altitude the aircraft you mentioned from Tasmania typically cross the VFR route.

Is there any advantage to ATC and/or airlines doing a straight in precision approach from further out rather than the turn at 2500? Just wondering whether there will be pressure to use that approach, given it is on the chart.

The AIC says "the GLS approach will become the preferred instrument approach to Runway 34. The earliest this could occur is 6 December 2018." I'm not sure whether that goes along with the idea that it will not be common.

[Capt Fathom]

Aircraft will be flying the same route they always have. The only difference is if they are flying the GLS approach, they may be 500 feet lower than the RNAV or VOR approach.

The only aircraft that do GLS approaches are A380 A350 B787 and some 737-800's (Qantas only I believe).

[porch monkey]

Virgin 737 as well.

[swh]

For the GLS approach, are you required to be level at 2500, or can you be above 2500 and descending?

A GLS could start 30 nm and be totally curved with no level segment.

[andrewr]

A GLS could start 30 nm and be totally curved with no level segment.

Are you referring to the Melbourne runway 34 GLS as published, or in general?

[andrewr]

it has had significant discussion over the past 18 months or so and has been part of the last round of CASA safety briefings and has had extensive discussion in RAPAC

Was the change in direction at 1500' discussed? Is there some rationale for it?

[alphacentauri]

A GLS could start 30 nm and be totally curved with no level segment.

30nm, yes. Curved path, so far in theory only. I am not aware that has been tested anywhere, nor are there any technical standards for it.

[Sunfish]

so VFR pilots are being exposed to continuous increased collision risk just so that some Qantas aircraft might save a few tons of fuel now and again?

[Squawk7700]

<div style="text-align:left;">so VFR pilots are being exposed to continuous increased collision risk just so that some Qantas aircraft might save a few tons of fuel now and again?</div>

What is more important / takes priority... Sunfish banging along at 60 knots doing circles over his small sail-boat at Hobson’s Bay yacht club in his home built experimental, or the safety and timely arrival of 500 passengers in an A380?

Be careful what you wish for as they could have easily put it to ground level and routed you to the south around or over Point Cook.

[Okihara]

What is more important / takes priority... Sunfish banging along at 60 knots doing circles over his small sail-boat at Hobson’s Bay yacht club in his home built experimental, or the safety and timely arrival of 500 passengers in an A380?
I vote for 60 kts circles over Sunfish's boat at 2500 ft.

[neville_nobody]

Part of the issue is starting ILS approaches so far away from the runway. Alot of noise/airspace problems around Australia would be resolved by just having shorter approaches. Especially with a STAR delivering you to a intercept point, 10 mile finals are just a waste of fuel. In this instance if the STAR lined you up at 5.5 miles it would solve a few issues.

[CaptainMidnight]

Those worried about 500FT vertical separation, have a look at ERSA for Sydney's chopper and Victor One VFR routes.

Been in for years.

In this instance if the STAR lined you up at 5.5 miles it would solve a few issues.Essendon airspace and traffic as well as the height of the CBD buildings are limitations.

Also the noise associated with manoeuvring closer in over built up areas is a factor. These days any changes to and new SID/STAR procedures have to pass stringent environmental assessment.

[Lead Balloon]

What CM said.

It’s fun looking up at the dirty belly of an A380 500’ above while tootling along in V1.

[vee1-rotate]

Can't say I'd be excited to experience the wake turbulence from an A380 500' above me as I troddle along in a C172

[Lead Balloon]

Wake turbulence doesn’t affect an aircraft that is below the aircraft creating the wake turbulence. The clue is in the word “wake”.

I’d certainly be orbiting for a while at a distance if there was a chance of passing through the wake of wide bodied jet.

[4forward8back]

Wake turbulence doesn’t affect an aircraft that is below the aircraft creating the wake turbulence. The clue is in the word “wake”.


Are you sure about that?! :eek: That is not at all correct, as this crew (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3/0017&opt=6400) discovered.

Also see: https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2018/01/down-and-out-the-hazards-of-wake-turbulence/
"What makes wake vortexes particularly dangerous is that they can persist some distance behind, and below, the aircraft generating them. En route, an aircraft’s wake can extend for more than 25 nm, and descend very slowly downwards and outwards—levelling off around 1000 ft below the generating aircraft.This means encounters can occur when an aircraft passes below the flight path of another aircraft—even though ATC vertical separation is being applied."

[Lead Balloon]

Are you sure about that?! :eek: That is not at all correct, as this crew (http://avherald.com/h?article=4a5e80f3/0017&opt=6400) discovered.

Also see: https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2018/01/down-and-out-the-hazards-of-wake-turbulence/
"What makes wake vortexes particularly dangerous is that they can persist some distance behind, and below, the aircraft generating them. En route, an aircraft’s wake can extend for more than 25 nm, and descend very slowly downwards and outwards—levelling off around 1000 ft below the generating aircraft.This means encounters can occur when an aircraft passes below the flight path of another aircraft—even though ATC vertical separation is being applied."
I think there is a confusion of timings.

Of course a big flying thing creates wake turbulence that propagates and persists in all kinds of - sometimes unexpected - directions, including more than 500’ below it. It’s just that at the moment in time the big flying thing is 500’ above another aircraft, the big flying thing is not creating turbulence that will affect the aircraft 500’ below at that point in time. And if the aircraft have tracks that are approximately at right angles, the aircraft below will be a long way away when the turbulence from the aircraft above ‘washes through’ the airspace where the aircraft below used to be but is no longer.

[4forward8back]

I think there is a confusion of timings.


Understood.

[kaz3g]

I vote for 60 kts circles over Sunfish's boat at 2500 ft.

Too fast...I can’t even open my flaps at that speed.

kaz

[andrewr]

Those worried about 500FT vertical separation, have a look at ERSA for Sydney's chopper and Victor One VFR routes.

500 ft on Victor 1? The charts seem to show traffic into Sydney crossing Victor 1 at 1600', so about 1100' clearance - double what the Melbourne coastal route will have.

Victor 1 is 5 miles from and 500' above the threshold. The Melbourne coastal route is 10 miles from and 1700' above the threshold - and traffic may be (will be?) below the glide slope at that distance by design.

Information on wake turbulence says it descends to somewhere between 500 and 900 feet below the flight path. 1000 feet is considered adequate vertical separation. 500 feet is not.

Looking at the numbers, I would guess Victor 1 was designed so the Sydney approach was at least 1000' above the base of CTA. In Melbourne, the consultation material explicitly said 500 feet was all that was required - but that was based on the minimum in the regulations to protect aircraft in CTA, not safety. Melbourne will be like Victor 1 - if you busted airspace by 500 feet on Victor 1.

You have convinced me that the approaches via BOLTY/OBGAL are not the issue, it is only the one through ESLOK that crosses the route.

You know what they say about seeking forgiveness and asking permission... I have the feeling that they wanted 1000 or 1500 feet CTA base for the GLS approach, but knew that if they asked permission they would meet a lot of opposition. On the other hand, once the GLS approach is published, they can implement a restricted area on short notice or change the airspace steps much more easily for "safety reasons" (GA aircraft not perfectly holding altitude and causing TCAS RAs, people flying in the wrong direction/wrong altitude in proximity to the approach etc.). Then it is GA's fault because they can't follow the published procedures, and you can't shut down a Melbourne airport approach for GA's convenience.

Time will tell if I'm right or wrong. If GA are still transiting OCTA at 2000 a few years from now, I was wrong. If the CTA LL is dropped further to accommodate the approach, my prediction was correct.

(I actually support the GLS approach into Melbourne. If that is the safest and most efficient approach, and it requires that airspace then obviously Melbourne airport traffic should have priority. However, if they take that airspace away, Airservices should make it much easier to transit in CTA i.e. make clearances available through CTA for the majority of the traffic that currently uses the route. That would be a safer option overall, but I believe that Airservices do not want to process GA traffic through CTA.)

[Lead Balloon]

You should refer to paragraph 17.3 of the current ERSA entry for YSSY. It says, among other things, that the 500FT vertical separation design buffer for V1 might be infringed if aircraft have performance problems departing YSSY.

It also says the “wake turbulence standard of 1,000FT vertical separation from heavy aircraft may not always be achievable” when flying in V1. I have never experienced wake turbulence in V1 when flying under heavy aircraft flying into or out of YSSY. However, that’s not the same as saying there are not substantial wake turbulence risks in flying through the same chunk of airspace in V1 in the minutes after the heavy aircraft has transited over V1.

[andrewr]

It also says the “wake turbulence standard of 1,000FT vertical separation from heavy aircraft may not always be achievable” when flying in V1

There is a big difference between "may not always be achievable" and nonexistent. "May not always be achievable" means the separation is usually there, but might be infringed in some circumstances. In Melbourne 1000 ft separation is not there - the separation designed in is 500 ft.

I have never experienced wake turbulence in V1 when flying under heavy aircraft flying into or out of YSSY.

That is what you would expect with clearance of 1000 feet and the wake descending less than 1000 feet. If you do hit the wake, be prepared for it to be violent - nothing like the wake of a smaller aircraft. Crossing at right angles it won't be a rolling action, it will be positive and/or negative Gs.

[Capt Fathom]

If the weather is that bad that the few aircraft equipped with GLS are requesting to do that approach, it is highly unlikely you will be flying the route VFR at 2000'. When descending into the major airports, ATC clear the jets to descend to 500' above the CTA steps. I have never heard of any light aircraft encountering WAKE turbulence in these situations.

[Squawk7700]

For those that raised concerns about this, I have been advised that both of the Australian EFB providers are making efforts to ensure that this change to the airspace and the associated wording are made very clear to pilots using their products. This may involve changes to the way the map operates and also communications to pilots about the changes at map release time.

Thumbs up guys.

[andrewr]

If the weather is that bad that the few aircraft equipped with GLS are requesting to do that approach, it is highly unlikely you will be flying the route VFR at 2000'.

Hopefully you re correct. We can only wait and see.

[Old Akro]

If the weather is that bad that the few aircraft equipped with GLS are requesting to do that approach, it is highly unlikely you will be flying the route VFR at 2000'. When descending into the major airports, ATC clear the jets to descend to 500' above the CTA steps. I have never heard of any light aircraft encountering WAKE turbulence in these situations.

i really don't think wake turbulence is a big issue. The new 2000ft step already has a buffer from the approach gradient.

The big issue is that after about 40 years of precedence and ingrained habit, CASA is changing the direction of flight at 1500 ft with no effective education or communication programme. The major risk is other head on VFR traffic that are still using an old VTC or flying levels from memory. The jolt from a mid air is bigger than the jolt from wake turbulence.

And CASA has continued these levels to Carrum and that the southbound recommended altitude of 2,000ft is an IFR level and crosses 3 IFR routes with lowest safe altitudes that allow IFR aircraft to be flying them at 2,000ft - whilst probably being on a different frequency (IFR will be on ML CTR, many VFR will be on MB tower). Why we need to continue these close separation VFR altitudes past Point Ormond under a 4,500 ft step is known only to CASA and they don't seem to be talking to anyone. But after Nov 8 (17 days and counting) anyone going for an around the bay flight and flying the levels they have had drummed into their memories may find themselves head on with aircraft that have read the new maps and noticed that the text in the call out boxes has changed.

While Squawk 7700 notes that AvPlan & Ozrunways are concerned about trying to help communicate the changes, they are not permitted under the terms of their licences to change or amend the charts. So, they cannot add any notation to the Melbourne VTC that does not show any warning of the note boxes. These are on the Moorabbin enlargement which AsA doesn't include in the electronic version. So, there is a limited amount they can do. I think we'll see them alerting their subsribers by email, blog and maybe pop up messages on the programme, but thats pretty much the extent of their ability under the AsA licence agreements. This is a CASA created issue and its a CASA responsibility and so far they are absent from the room and not showing much interest or care. CASA has clearly shown disdain for communication with industry, RAPAC or the OAR .

[Squawk7700]

These are on the Moorabbin enlargement which AsA doesn't include in the electronic version.

You mean the Moorabbin Inset. It is included in Avplan and Ozrunways. That’s why the notation shows up when you zoom in.

You need to be careful about which map you have selected in your EFB. If you use the hybrid style charts, as you zoom in and out, you are automatically being changed from one chart to the other and only the inset has the VFR route (in purple) and the box with notations.

[Stretch06]

If the weather is that bad that the few aircraft equipped with GLS are requesting to do that approach, it is highly unlikely you will be flying the route VFR at 2000'. .

Except when the airlines don't need it for weather and still opt to use it because of fuel efficiencies, or because it is more precise than an RNAV.

If it is only going to be used on the days when the weather really warrants its use, why not leave the airspace as is, and then have a NOTAM for the 30 days a year. Similar to a Temp Restricted Airspace setup.

[Old Akro]

“You mean the Moorabbin Inset. It is included in Avplan and Ozrunways. That’s why the notation shows up when you zoom in.”

The VNC and Mega WAC do this. The VTC does not.

If I were flying visually in the terminal area only, my first reaction is to get the VTC. In which case, AsA in its wisdom denies me the information about the changed recommended VFR route cruising levels.

[Lead Balloon]

As a matter of interest, OA, why wouldn’t you use just the MegaVFR Map, the En Route Lo and PCA when flying VFR? What’s the point in downloading any other charts if flying VFR?

(That said, I do agree that it’s counter-intuitive that the ‘zoom to inset’ function doesn’t work if you’ve selected an individual VTC. Counter-intuitive = risk of error.)

[Squawk7700]

The VNC and Mega WAC do this. The VTC does not.

The VNC does not have the notations / recommended directions, or at least for Melbourne it doesn’t.

It is only on the Moorabbin inset which is located at the highest level of zoom on the Hybrid map. Ideally the hybrid / mega map should be notated so you know which map you are actually looking at, at the time.


Did anyone notice the change to the lane when heading past Moorabbin?

- Southbound at 2,000ft
- Northbound at 1,500ft
- Track to the right of lane of oncoming traffic identified !!

[Okihara]

Did anyone notice the change to the lane when heading past Moorabbin?
- Southbound at 2,000ft
- Northbound at 1,500ft
- Track to the right of lane of oncoming traffic identified !!
Doesn't it say Track to the right of lane of oncoming traffic identified both north and south of the MB CTR?
The eastbound at 2000 ft becomes southbound at 2000 ft, ditto for northbound becoming westbound.

There was no mention of tracking to either side of the lane in the May 24 version of the VTC.

[Squawk7700]

There was no mention of tracking to either side of the lane in the May 24 version of the VTC.

We are talking about the new November maps.

It says above except replace “of” with “if” due to my typo.

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1334/887486c7_64c3_4b2a_bfba_240d68853f0c_40f5f93708c64b968141ed2 246b6bb1f29dc77cb.jpeg

[Okihara]

(Very nice and creative screenshot by the way!)

We are talking about the new November maps.
Yes, we are. Sorry mate, my brain is still fried from that noise cancelling stopping in mid-flight yesterday.

May 24 version: Fly eastbound/southbound at 1500 ft, westbound/northbound at 2500 ft. No mention to keep to the right of the lane.
Nov 08 version: Fly eastbound/southbound at 2000 ft, westbound/northbound at 1500 ft. With a new mention to track to the right of the lane if [Sunfish's] aircraft is oncoming.

Now your comment:
Did anyone notice the change to the lane when heading past Moorabbin?
- Southbound at 2,000ft
- Northbound at 1,500ft
- Track to the right of lane of oncoming traffic identified !!

Isn't that change consistent with the new levels going east/south or west/north?

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg4.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1334/bee1073a_d590_4483_9ca9_53145167faf0_2c8a3d340fe536abd6cacee a82e08c79cb0697e2.png

The recommendations carry down past Moorabbin, however the airspace hasn’t changed there. They are expecting you to maintain the same height past Williamstown and down past Moorabbin, even though you’ve got 2,500 then 4,500ft to play with.

[Okihara]

Ah, yes, of course.

I just find it awkward approaching BTO from PTOM at 2000 ft if inbound to Moorabbin when first contact is usually made at 1500 ft. That means you'll potentially be in conflicting trajectory with aircraft flying coastal west-/northbound at the same altitude. And even more so because there still seem to be a lot of people at Moorabbin who just aren't aware of these changes yet.

[Old Akro]

Yes, we are. Sorry mate, my brain is still fried from that noise cancelling stopping in mid-flight yesterday.

May 24 version: Fly eastbound/southbound at 1500 ft, westbound/northbound at 2500 ft. No mention to keep to the right of the lane.
Nov 08 version: Fly eastbound/southbound at 2000 ft, westbound/northbound at 1500 ft. With a new mention to track to the right of the lane if [Sunfish's] aircraft is oncoming.

Thats been a major part of this thread.

The "direction change" was NOT part of any of the briefings. it is a late change implemented by CASA without any consultation with RAPAC or the OAR. It is believed that the only consultation may have been with the airlines.

CASA were supposed to have had an education programme, but with now less than 2 weeks until implementation there is no sign of any communication programme whatsover from CASA.

RAPAC has called on CASA to defer the change. CASA has rejected this.


On Nov8 anyone flying the East-West coastal route - or doing an "around the bay" joyflight who has not read the detail of the new charts and flies in the direction of 40 years of habit, will be head on at the same level with those that have noticed the text change in the 2 red call-out boxes.

This "change of direction" creates a material risk for a mid-air collision. This decision by CASA together with its failure to conduct any sort of communication programme moves air safety from the realm of good management to good luck.

[cogwheel]

This has to be the largest and most significant screw up by ASA & CASA for many years!

CASA are meant to be about and promote safety, then why was this change (the levels) not consulted with ALL interested parties including the Vic RAPAC? Where is the safety case/risk analysis?

The change can continue with all the attend risks, but it could also be deferred with perhaps much less risk, but that would upset the airlines who pay the bills and have much more influence than GA.

Looks like the Iron Ring are still there and flexing their ego like they still trying to do on the MULTICOM.....

Time for the Director to kick some but!... and take charge

[djpil]

This "change of direction" creates a material risk for a mid-air collision.especially with aircraft departing MB at 2,000+ ft then having to descend to 1500 ft - I guess that we'll all meet at D342.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/150x173/img_3402cs_43476003e097b76d5c0987a83daff249a58f608d.png

CASA were supposed to have had an education programme, but with now less than 2 weeks until implementation there is no sign of any communication programme whatsover from CASA.Someone asked the question at the CASA Flight Instructor Safety Workshop yesterday but I didn't notice any sign that they wanted to answer the question nor discuss it at all.

[CaptainMidnight]

I agree this change hasn't been thought out or managed well, but to correct some misconceptions:

This has to be the largest and most significant screw up by ASA & CASA for many years!
CASA, not Airservices.

Airservices's responsibility would have been limited to proposing the airspace change and publishing the charts and DAP. They aren't responsible for VFR notes and procedures in Class G airspace including NOTAMs related to such. That's CASA's bailiwick.

If I were flying visually in the terminal area only, my first reaction is to get the VTC. In which case, AsA in its wisdom denies me the information about the changed recommended VFR route cruising levels.
Not sure what you are referring to here - the ML VTC online from Airservices includes the expanded portion down the bottom of the chart, and always has.

The VNC does not have the notations / recommended directions, or at least for Melbourne it doesn’t.

The VNC shouldn't be used for operations within the terminal area, which is why they have the usual box around the area and note saying "USE VTC" for operations within, with the VTC showing far greater detail. It would be like trying to use an ERC within a terminal area instead of a TAC.

The "direction change" was NOT part of any of the briefings. it is a late change implemented by CASA without any consultation with RAPAC or the OAR. It is believed that the only consultation may have been with the airlines.

CASA were supposed to have had an education programme, but with now less than 2 weeks until implementation there is no sign of any communication programme whatsover from CASA.

RAPAC has called on CASA to defer the change. CASA has rejected this.

CASA now have a problem.

Deferring use of the charts presents a safety issue, in that some pilots will use them and may or may not be aware of the deferment.

Therefore the safety issue ASSW with deferring the charts has to be balanced with the safety issue ASSW the VFR route changes .....

[Okihara]

Perhaps leaving east-/southbound unchanged at 1500 ft and west-/northbound at 2500 ft outside and down to 2000 ft inside the zone would be an easier way to accommodate this new LL.

[Sunfish]

this is a disaster in the making.

[Old Akro]

not sure what you are referring to here - the ML VTC online from Airservices includes the expanded portion down the bottom of the chart, and always has.]

who still uses paper maps? Most VFR guys I know buy one every 2 years in case they get ramp checked when they fly into the Avalon air show. Then the map gets stuffed in a side pocket in case it’s useful when their memory fails.

The on-line AsA might be useful in the air conditioned ivory towers in which CASA lives, but it’s hardly an inflight reference.

Even as an old school pilot that first learned to fly in 1973, I now fly with 2 x iPads. It’s all you need to be legal and It’s what I would suggest most pilots are doing. Airservices in its wisdom does not supply this as part of the electronic VTC that it makes available to AvPlan & Ozrunways.

Avplan ( and I believe Ozrunways) supply the detail of the Moorabbin enlargement in the VNC and in the “mega WAC” products, but not the VTC. And Their licence agreement with AsA forbids then from modifying it in any way.

As primarily an IFR pilot and as someone trained before the advent of VNC charts, I reach for the VTC for visual navigation around the Melbourne basin - and it does not contain any detail on the cruising altitudes for the VFR route.

If on NOV 9, Others like me who use the VTC on their iPad will have no clue that CASA has changed the direction of flight of the VFR route that they may well have been accustomed to since the mid seventies when the VFR route was introduced.

And CASA has no education / communication plan for the change.

CASA has created the antecedents of a mid air collision.

[Okihara]

In 1968 Sweden changed from driving on the left to driving on the right literally overnight. This was a major move to adapt to the majority of cars that had wheels on the left which caused a high number of collisions when passing cars with little clearance. Surprisingly, statistics following the change showed that car accidents instantaneously dropped. Six months later, accidents rates climbed back to their original numbers.

[Lead Balloon]

CM: OA is referring to the VTCs available in EFBs.

There’s a weird and counter-intuitive aspect of selecting just the VTC as the chart instead of the ‘mega’ composite map that ‘stitches’ all the WACs, VNCs and VTCs together.

If you select just the VTC, you can’t ‘zoom in’ to see the large scale insets that provide more detail. However, if you select the ‘mega’ map, it does incorporate the insets.

For example, when I select the current Sydney VTC on the EFB I use, there is no depiction of the vertical dimensions of the YSBK airspace, no matter how far I zoom in. However, if I select the ‘mega’ chart, it does depict “D 1500/SFC” inside the YSBK CTR boundary. I have been caught out by this precise difference.

The lack of education campaign about the Melbourne changes is, sadly, a manifestation of a ‘safety’ authority that has long since been that in name only.

[Squawk7700]

Avplan ( and I believe Ozrunways) supply the detail of the Moorabbin enlargement in the VNC and in the “mega WAC” products

Certainly not in Ozrunways. Only in the Hybrid VFR. (and inset of course)

[Old Akro]

In 1968 Sweden changed from driving on the left to driving on the right literally overnight.

The Swedish driving CHANGE was overnight, but the PLANNING and EDUCATION beforehand spanned something like 1 year.

In this instance, CASA decided on the change virtually overnight AFTER its consultation process and is not planning any EDUCATION or COMMUNICATION about the change.

[Capn Bloggs]

For example, when I select the current Sydney VTC on the EFB I use, there is no depiction of the vertical dimensions of the YSBK airspace, no matter how far I zoom in. However, if I select the ‘mega’ chart, it does depict “D 1500/SFC” inside the YSBK CTR boundary. I have been caught out by this precise difference.

Select the Bankstown Inset. I do note that there isn't a black line on the VTC indicating that the inset actually exists, but it is in the map list.

How could you be caught out? If a particular chart doesn't have what you want ie the CTR vertical dimensions, choose a chart that does.

[Sunfish]

CASA will solve this mess by making it mandatory to use the largest scale chart or inset for navigation. what a mess.

[Capt Fathom]

Guys and Girls.
Can I just suggest you don’t get too bogged down in the details.
Just get out there and fly to the best of your ability, responsibly and safely.
:)

[Derfred]

Except when the airlines don't need it for weather and still opt to use it because of fuel efficiencies, or because it is more precise than an RNAV.

If it is only going to be used on the days when the weather really warrants its use, why not leave the airspace as is, and then have a NOTAM for the 30 days a year. Similar to a Temp Restricted Airspace setup.

There are no efficiency gains for the airlines from a 34 GLS. It is merely a more accurate approach allowing a lower minima. When 34 is in use, it is rare that a lower minima is useful, it’s usually CAVOK, excepting occasional heavy rain.

It is, however, a safer approach. From memory, in recent years, Singair have royally screwed up an RNAV onto 34, and VOZ screwed up a visual from over Essendon. There are threads about both these incidents on this forum - both 777’s I think, and both descended way below profile. I think the Singair was at 900 feet at 10NM so at least they were under the lane ;)

I would imagine that most GLS profiles will follow exactly the same path as the RNAV. That is, a continuous descent via the STAR onto final. This would mean no change to current jet altitudes over the lane. However the GLS (unlike the RNAV) allows ATC discretion to vector onto the approach at a lower altitude. They may do this occasionally to optimise arrival rates, but I wouldn’t expect it to be the norm. So I wouldn’t be too worried about wake turbulence.

As to CASA’s poor form in communication, no argument there. They’ve known this was coming for a couple of years now.

[Lead Balloon]

How could you be caught out? Because I’m grossly incompetent. It had nothing to do with being led into error by the counter-intuitive functioning of the different charts in the same EFB. A VTC doesn’t zoom to its own inset. Go figure. I now just use the mega map that includes the insets. Swapping from an individual inset to an individual VTC then to a VNC and vice versa in a busy arrival or departure environment is unnecessarily distracting.

I’m just trying to help others understand the issue to hopefully reduce the possibility of others making the same mistake.

It must be very satisfying being perfect, Bloggs.

[Capn Bloggs]

What "error"? What "mistake"? Anybody would think you busted CTA or something equally catastrophic. For someone who tears strips off me for wanting to radio jabber, you're carrying on a bit about nothing.

Swapping from an individual inset to an individual VTC then to a VNC and vice versa in a busy arrival or departure environment is unnecessarily distracting.
Nobody said you had to. The auto-zoom is a feature of the Hybrid VFR map, as you know. Have you contacted the app maker for an explanation? Perhaps they designed it so that you could either stay on the individual map you deliberately chose, or you could have auto-zoom on the Hybrid.

[Lead Balloon]

According to an ATSB Publication “Aviation Occurrence Statistics 2007 to 2016” (here: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5773880/ar-2017-104_final.pdf ) there were over the period covered by the publication this number of occurrences by type “airspace infringement”:

- 3 accidents and serious incidents in air transport operations

- 158 incidents in air transport operations

- 12 accidents and serious incidents in GA operations

- 386 incidents in GA operations

- 2 accidents and serious incidents in recreational aviation

- 21 incidents in recreational aviation

- 2 incidents involving RPAS.

The mistake I made to become one of those statistics was to look at the EFB VTC chart and assume that the lower level of the C over YSBK was 2,000’, which was the closest depiction of the Class C airspace lower level. If I’d used the ‘mega’ map instead I would not have made the same mistake, as it depicts D 1,500/SFC at the location of YSBK.

Not an excuse. Just an explanation for what happened.

Thankfully, few airspace infringements result in a catastrophe. In my case, YSBK tower queried whether I had clearance to climb into the C above at 1,500’ as I passed through that level. I said ‘no’ and immediately descended to 1,500’. Submitted a report ‘fessing up’.

I realise that you never could make a mistake that resulted in an airspace infringement, Bloggs, but lots of others can and do. It’s in your interests that those of us who are fallible highlight the kinds of circumstances in which mistakes happen. (I thought it was SOP for RAAF pilots to brief their colleagues on mistakes made, why the mistake was made and the consequential risks. Perhaps that enlightened approach was introduced after you pulled the pin?)

Which kinda loops back to the point OA was making about the potential for pilots to overlook the information depicting significant changes to tracking altitudes for aircraft around the standard lanes/tracks Melbourne, if they use just the VTC on an EFB. Not an excuse. But a potential explanation (along with the absence of appropriate education) for a mid air, don’t you think?

[Egipps]

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1112x834/moorabbin_03f3b0164a71ca6bfa13ed7bea501c2e3bbe0581.jpg
https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/539x451/coastal_85c8b1a919f801c98e697af6bcd9100f4709acd5.jpg

[Lead Balloon]

We know.

But what do you see if you open just the Melbourne VTC?

[Capn Bloggs]

Thanks for that diatribe, LB.

It is a pity that, in your first post on the issue:
For example, when I select the current Sydney VTC on the EFB I use, there is no depiction of the vertical dimensions of the YSBK airspace, no matter how far I zoom in. However, if I select the ‘mega’ chart, it does depict “D 1500/SFC” inside the YSBK CTR boundary. I have been caught out by this precise difference.
You didn't even mention the REAL problem: that the "C LL1500" label over BK doesn't exist on the Sydney VTC. That fact only came to light a couple of posts later after much nashing of teeth and claims that I am perfect.

I agree that you don't get that CTA LL of 1500 info unless you look at the inset. The VTC should have a C LL 1500 caption on it in the BK "CTR" freq boundary area. The LL 2000 close by is deceiving. But that is more of a chart deficiency than a poor feature of the app.

I suggest you hop onto your friendly local RAPAC to suggest a change to the Sydney VTC to add a C LL 1500 label. There's enough space for it and I'm sure it will be supported by the other RAPACs.

Anyway, I see that CASA has just issued a note to all RAPAC addressees regarding the Melbourne issue. Spread it around!

[Egipps]

We know.

But what do you see if you open just the Melbourne VTC?
Dunno. I'm VFR and I always use the MegaVFR unless I've a reason to swap. Works for me locally, cross country etc.

[Lead Balloon]

Me too. I now use only the MegaVFR (and ENR(L) and PCA).

The discussion on this specific point arose because OA pointed out - correctly - that if you select just the VTC you don’t get the inset information. That’s counter-intuitive and, therefore, a potential trap.

[Lead Balloon]

You didn't even mention the REAL problem: that the "C LL1500" label over BK doesn't exist on the Sydney VTC.ErrrrrrrmmmFor example, when I select the current Sydney VTC on the EFB I use, there is no depiction of the vertical dimensions of the YSBK airspace, no matter how far I zoom in.I don’t know how more clearly I could have articulated the REAL problem.

[Capn Bloggs]

Hampster wheel: Who cares what the vertical dimensions of the BK CTR are? Surely anybody with half a brain would see 'hey, there's a CTR there, I better find out how high it goes to", regardless of what they can or can't see on a map?

The critical issue is the fact that the SY Class C drops to 1500ft over BK (and that is not on the VTC), which only came out later. Anyway, on on. Moorabbin here we come.

[Capn Bloggs]

Caution Traffic in the Melbourne Area

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/278909621e741473665c63b33/images/3c31e736-0b81-4056-8ee5-3e6e1b716120.jpg

"To facilitate more separation between coastal VFR traffic and instrument approaches to runway 34 at Melbourne, the lower level for class C will be dropped to 2000 feet along the northern coastal route from November 8. This also means the recommended cruising levels along the entire coastal route will change. Check the new details carefully on the VTC Inset, which is part of the Hybrid VFR map; just zoom in. Following the old recommendations means you will fly head-on at the same level as those flying by the new ones!"

ie no nonsense, cut straight to it (OzRunways bolding, BTW). :ok: :ok:

[triadic]

TRIGGER NOTAM - AIP SUP H132/18 CHANGE TO THE RECOMMENDED ALTITUDES FOR AIRCRAFT TO FLY USING THE MELBOURNE (PORT PHILLIP BAY) VFR ROUTE AVBL FM AIRSERVICES WEBSITE HTTP://AIRSERVICESAUSTRALIA.COM/AIP/AIP.ASP (LOWER CASE) FROM 11 271600 TO 12 111600 Victorian RAPAC Working Party 1 (VWP1) was convened to discuss the resolution moving forward after the 8 November 2018 (charting cycle) unexpected reversal of altitudes recommended to be used whilst flying along the Melbourne Coastal Route that follows the shore of Port Phillip from the BOM TOWER near Altona in the north-west to Carrum in the south east.

Concern was raised in RAPAC that the new altitudes, which were selected to maximise gliding range to land and assist compliance with CAR258, were in contravention of CAR173(2) and introduced a collision risk between pilots aware of the recommended levels as per the Melbourne VTC inset and those who were complying with CAR173(2) with respect to cruising levels. Members of RAPAC and the members of VWP1 feel that the risk associated with recommending levels not in accordance with CAR173(2) far outweighs any benefit that may be gained with respect to gliding distances from land and CAR258 of the revised levels.

Since the aircraft operating along this route which are following the recommended altitudes will be vertically separated by at least 500ft, traffic in both directions may safely operate on the same track laterally and thus be operating the same distance from land.

A win for all - well done to those involved in having this change reviewed.

[Capn Bloggs]

Working link:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s18-h132.pdf

[kaz3g]

A good outcome thanks to RAPAC but it should never have happened. One has to wonder what risk analysis was done on the previous iteration...what were they thinking?

[Capn Bloggs]

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/278909621e741473665c63b33/images/90381703-dac1-494d-85b3-c0b09fc17bf8.pngUpdate to Melbourne VFR Lane AltitudesAirspace changes that came into effect on 8 November for the Melbourne Port Philip Bay VFR route have now been modified.

The new procedure recommends:

Between Point Ormond and Laverton BOM tower, fly eastbound at 1500 feet and westbound at 2000 feet
Between Point Ormond and Carrum, fly southbound at 1500 feet and northbound at 2500 feet.

The changes are published in SUP H132/18 (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s18-h132.pdf), but an officially amended VTC will not be provided to Australian pilots until the May 2019 update. This is why in the interest of safety we have taken the unprecedented step to modify the Melbourne VTC Inset to reflect the SUP changes..

https://gallery.mailchimp.com/278909621e741473665c63b33/images/35b52404-cfb8-4234-b3a9-b77d3d73000b.jpgHow to get the updated maps


https://gallery.mailchimp.com/278909621e741473665c63b33/images/b6580a47-f50d-4b1f-a184-5bfe88e78396.jpg

In Settings > Downloads > Australia you will find the updated Hybrid VFR and Moorabbin Inset available. Until you download these, the previous downloaded version will still be used. After downloading you may need to switch to a different map and then back to Hybrid VFR to view the new version.We hope the swift release of this update will benefit the safety of those flying in the Melbourne area.