Reporting point 2RN
Forgive me if I am wrong but were there not 3 reporting points some years ago before the Richmond airspace got more space west of the inbound lane and the olympics had a fobidden area?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: YSSY
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAAP inbound points outside CTA zones are lunacy
Long time lurker, occasional poster but I have to speak out on this one in support of Dick's views, which I share.
GAAP inbound reporting points are simply an insane idea. It doesn't take a huge leap of cognition to realise that when you funnel a high density of aircraft movements through narrow points in space that you are creating a recipe for disaster. It's a "failure mode", plain and simple, and it needs to be addressed.
It's not to stay that a mid-air collision would never occur in the absence of fixed inbound points, but clearly the probability of airspace conflicts leading to collision would be far reduced relative to the current model. It's a basic probability density function argument (note: you could build a random model simulation using monte carlo methods and easily demonstrate this to be the case). The "safety case" for fixed inbound points is simply flawed. There is no safety case, in the modern traffic environment.
We really do seem to have a NIH (not invented here) attitude to airspace management in Australia and in my view it's high time it changed. The US may not have the perfect model, but they do manage many more movements in their airspace than we do here, and I think we should be looking to draw best practice ideas from other airspace systems. Ditching fixed inbound points for GAAP airports would be a good start.
I'm flying out of BK over the Christmas break. Safe travels all.
GAAP inbound reporting points are simply an insane idea. It doesn't take a huge leap of cognition to realise that when you funnel a high density of aircraft movements through narrow points in space that you are creating a recipe for disaster. It's a "failure mode", plain and simple, and it needs to be addressed.
It's not to stay that a mid-air collision would never occur in the absence of fixed inbound points, but clearly the probability of airspace conflicts leading to collision would be far reduced relative to the current model. It's a basic probability density function argument (note: you could build a random model simulation using monte carlo methods and easily demonstrate this to be the case). The "safety case" for fixed inbound points is simply flawed. There is no safety case, in the modern traffic environment.
We really do seem to have a NIH (not invented here) attitude to airspace management in Australia and in my view it's high time it changed. The US may not have the perfect model, but they do manage many more movements in their airspace than we do here, and I think we should be looking to draw best practice ideas from other airspace systems. Ditching fixed inbound points for GAAP airports would be a good start.
I'm flying out of BK over the Christmas break. Safe travels all.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: YSSY
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(Direct.no.speed): You've got to be kidding me. You can "guarantee it", can you? Get real mate.
The US works their system this way every day of the year. *I* can guarantee that you're not reading about midairs every couple of weeks, because they are not happening.
What part of concentrating movements through narrow points in space not leading to increased probability of collision do you object to, exactly? Let's have an engineering discussion. (Yes, I am an engineer as it happens).
And I should just point out that the primary "segregation" in the BK GAAP between arriving and departing traffic is the 500 ft of altitude separating them - not the tracks they take over the ground!
The US works their system this way every day of the year. *I* can guarantee that you're not reading about midairs every couple of weeks, because they are not happening.
What part of concentrating movements through narrow points in space not leading to increased probability of collision do you object to, exactly? Let's have an engineering discussion. (Yes, I am an engineer as it happens).
And I should just point out that the primary "segregation" in the BK GAAP between arriving and departing traffic is the 500 ft of altitude separating them - not the tracks they take over the ground!
My Christmas Message for YSBK Pilots.
If your a low wing fly and report at 1400'QNH, if your a high wing fly and report at 1600'QNH. In addition could there be a 'local rule' that high wings report west of the mast and low wings to the east or something to that effect.
Hope it helps to avoid yesterdays tragedy.
Hope it helps to avoid yesterdays tragedy.
I'd have to agree with what Dick is proposing.
I've been to Bankstown once and found it quite cramp and the frequencies always in use to the point where I struggled to make my inbound call at the radio mast.
I gotta say from memory the way you had to go from the radio mast to Warwick racecourse and then hitch that right turn over any incoming/departing traffic on the west side was pretty weird.
I've got mates who when they were doing their training (I'm from Melb) they flew to Bankstown in not the best weather... one set of mates struggled to find the radio mast as it was their first time there... It does seem quite bottle necked in comparison to Moorabbin (only other GAAP I've flown into).
Moorabbin personally I havent had any issues with it (I dont fly regularly) except for the cramp circuits especially on a few occasions at night with a twin up my behind which I'm sure was over the RW threshold a few times before I even took off again on the same RW.
Just looking at the approach point design of the GAAPs does seem a bit obvious it could be designed more efficiently.
I've been to Bankstown once and found it quite cramp and the frequencies always in use to the point where I struggled to make my inbound call at the radio mast.
I gotta say from memory the way you had to go from the radio mast to Warwick racecourse and then hitch that right turn over any incoming/departing traffic on the west side was pretty weird.
I've got mates who when they were doing their training (I'm from Melb) they flew to Bankstown in not the best weather... one set of mates struggled to find the radio mast as it was their first time there... It does seem quite bottle necked in comparison to Moorabbin (only other GAAP I've flown into).
Moorabbin personally I havent had any issues with it (I dont fly regularly) except for the cramp circuits especially on a few occasions at night with a twin up my behind which I'm sure was over the RW threshold a few times before I even took off again on the same RW.
Just looking at the approach point design of the GAAPs does seem a bit obvious it could be designed more efficiently.
Grandpa Aerotart
So all you clever people got an answer for what will happen when the 4 or 5 or 7 aircraft all inbound to YSBK, as an example, from random tracks arrive at the beginning of downwind 29 or finals 11?
Given the (constantly) demonstrated lack of general skill, airmanship, recency and radio discipline displayed by the average PPL do you really want them to be all converging from random directions at that point...at the same time as an IFR Baron, Metro or Citation?
Think people
Given the (constantly) demonstrated lack of general skill, airmanship, recency and radio discipline displayed by the average PPL do you really want them to be all converging from random directions at that point...at the same time as an IFR Baron, Metro or Citation?
Think people
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop giving the man a hard time, im quite sure he has achieved alot more in 10 years than you will in a lifetime. Your no better than the little men in brown suits at CASA
Mr Smith done nothing but good work. Whats so wrong with trying to implement reforms in order to save mine, his and YOUR life.
If you have a hard time comprehending how precious life is then your obviously to stupid to be flying.
Beached
Mr Smith done nothing but good work. Whats so wrong with trying to implement reforms in order to save mine, his and YOUR life.
If you have a hard time comprehending how precious life is then your obviously to stupid to be flying.
Beached
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 105
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu,
They way I see it - in a CTAF you effectively have people coming from random directions and then joining a circuit.
One could also argue that the circuit entry points are like "reporting points", but as they are not precisely defined locations on the ground, you don't tend to get two aircraft trying to occupy the same airspace - not as often anyway.
They way I see it - in a CTAF you effectively have people coming from random directions and then joining a circuit.
One could also argue that the circuit entry points are like "reporting points", but as they are not precisely defined locations on the ground, you don't tend to get two aircraft trying to occupy the same airspace - not as often anyway.
wouldn't it be best for any IFR movements to be totally procedural and via a STAR/GNSS/NDB or whatever to the field everytime CAVOK or IMC but always procedural and away from VFR traffic.
What CTAF has 10 aircraft in the circuit on one runway and up to another 10 inbound for the other runway? Having everyone come from certain directions makes it much easier to see people and then sequence them.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ambiguity - how far SOUTH of TWRN is SOUTH?
Of the many comments about TWRN as an approach point, one thing is patently clear. The reference to report "S of TWRN radio mast" is ambiguous - how long is a piece of string?
My post in the (now) locked thread brought out the blowtorch by those unable to make positive inputs to the current debate about safety of GAAP approach points. They seemed to gain some perverse kind of satisfaction by criticizing reporting exactly at TWRN. If my aircraft was 5 metres SOUTH of the mast I would have complied. If I was 1 metre SOUTH I would have been compliant. As it turned out, using GARMIN MapSource and the GPS track log for that flight, I approached 0.1 NM SOUTH of TWRN.
It's logical too - entry from the WEST via TWRN driving from the pilot's seat and maintaining visual contact with TWRN until turning towards YSBK, would put the aircraft S of TWRN i.e. COMPLIANT with ENTRY PROCEDURES.
Now someone who calls TWRN inbound needs to be somewhat closer than 2 miles otherwise (and this is my entire point) you have to scan a lot more sky to acquire the traffic, and the bum pucker factor increases significantly if you don't see them, which is more than likely. Alternatively if they say they are 2 miles SOUTH then you know where to look.
Another point is frequency congestion (common at BK), where with the best of intentions, you don't get to call until you've passed TWRN. The reason for the inbound call is twofold - (1) to announce to BK TWR you are coming and (2) to alert other pilots who might be conflicting traffic.
This makes interesting reading on the subject of "see and avoid":
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/..._see_avoid.pdf
My post in the (now) locked thread brought out the blowtorch by those unable to make positive inputs to the current debate about safety of GAAP approach points. They seemed to gain some perverse kind of satisfaction by criticizing reporting exactly at TWRN. If my aircraft was 5 metres SOUTH of the mast I would have complied. If I was 1 metre SOUTH I would have been compliant. As it turned out, using GARMIN MapSource and the GPS track log for that flight, I approached 0.1 NM SOUTH of TWRN.
It's logical too - entry from the WEST via TWRN driving from the pilot's seat and maintaining visual contact with TWRN until turning towards YSBK, would put the aircraft S of TWRN i.e. COMPLIANT with ENTRY PROCEDURES.
Now someone who calls TWRN inbound needs to be somewhat closer than 2 miles otherwise (and this is my entire point) you have to scan a lot more sky to acquire the traffic, and the bum pucker factor increases significantly if you don't see them, which is more than likely. Alternatively if they say they are 2 miles SOUTH then you know where to look.
Another point is frequency congestion (common at BK), where with the best of intentions, you don't get to call until you've passed TWRN. The reason for the inbound call is twofold - (1) to announce to BK TWR you are coming and (2) to alert other pilots who might be conflicting traffic.
This makes interesting reading on the subject of "see and avoid":
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/..._see_avoid.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Downwind
Posts: 348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meanwhile....
...just down the road Camden, without the restrictive airspace around it, manages to do quite well with 5 approach points, which provides some certainty for traffic and ATC, without pushing everybody to 2 points.
No doubt the recent closure of YHOX will test the effectiveness of this approach.
Perhaps Bankstown could be helped by reducing the Richmond CTA to more common dimensions?
No doubt the recent closure of YHOX will test the effectiveness of this approach.
Perhaps Bankstown could be helped by reducing the Richmond CTA to more common dimensions?
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't the whole problem about two or more aircrafts at the same reporting point and not seeing each other... or maybe even not hearing each other because of radio congestion? How do you stop that from happening - visual separation/see & avoid? Well we know see & avoid is not 100%, because if it was they'd be all alive now. It's not easy trying to spot a plane that is so close to you, above, below, screaming past you because they are faster - such a highly stressful thing to be doing.
Its almost 2009, yet our aircraft equipment, airspace, towers etc, don't have technology that could perhaps be very well available that would make our flying less stressful around such reporting points and safer for everyone.
Why can't we somehow, have the information/knowledge of where other aircrafts are in the sky with respect to where I maybe flying - this does not mean one does not do look outs. Use technology to our advantage. Why do you think there is controlled airspace in the first place? Piece of mind, protection, real separation!
The sad thing is Sydney saw all this on RADAR (it was recorded on the tracking website - but later removed for obvious reaons), but it's not their space to monitor. Why can't YSBK be equipment with RADAR equipment, that would alert controllers to potential fatal hazard such as this event on Thursday.
With regards to Dick smith, there is no point battering the guy, he is trying to come up with ideas, whether or not some people think that he has an huge ego and is trying to gain credit for himself is not really important - we all have our different personalities. Dick, I'm very keen to know what are the ideas you alluded to? What is the US doing that we could benefit from - I feel that the posts have been very vague with no real detail?
Its almost 2009, yet our aircraft equipment, airspace, towers etc, don't have technology that could perhaps be very well available that would make our flying less stressful around such reporting points and safer for everyone.
Why can't we somehow, have the information/knowledge of where other aircrafts are in the sky with respect to where I maybe flying - this does not mean one does not do look outs. Use technology to our advantage. Why do you think there is controlled airspace in the first place? Piece of mind, protection, real separation!
The sad thing is Sydney saw all this on RADAR (it was recorded on the tracking website - but later removed for obvious reaons), but it's not their space to monitor. Why can't YSBK be equipment with RADAR equipment, that would alert controllers to potential fatal hazard such as this event on Thursday.
With regards to Dick smith, there is no point battering the guy, he is trying to come up with ideas, whether or not some people think that he has an huge ego and is trying to gain credit for himself is not really important - we all have our different personalities. Dick, I'm very keen to know what are the ideas you alluded to? What is the US doing that we could benefit from - I feel that the posts have been very vague with no real detail?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: The Coast of Sunshine, Australia
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Irrespective of how many 'approach' points you have, there is still one spot everyone is aiming for and eventually ends up at. Yep, the landing threshold.
This is usually right slap bang in front of those supposably providing a separation service to those flying, instead of some neferous point many km's/nm's away and most probably unsighted from the tower.
GAAP has served us for the last 30 years, maybe it's time to revisit the process and see if it is still applicable, suitable and safe given the changes that have taken place at all the current GAAP airfields over the intervening years.
This is usually right slap bang in front of those supposably providing a separation service to those flying, instead of some neferous point many km's/nm's away and most probably unsighted from the tower.
GAAP has served us for the last 30 years, maybe it's time to revisit the process and see if it is still applicable, suitable and safe given the changes that have taken place at all the current GAAP airfields over the intervening years.
I'm 100% with Dick Smith on this.
The only part of flying that ever worries me is the 4 minutes when I am in the vicinity of 2RN or prospect in and out of bankstown - it is lunacy to be funneled into a piece of sky at exactly the same height as an unknown number of other aircraft of differing speeds and configurations. Note the emphasis on "unknown". Why can we not give a call on either twr or syd frequency when "approaching 2rn/prospect" to give a fair chance of sequencing into the funnel?
The only part of flying that ever worries me is the 4 minutes when I am in the vicinity of 2RN or prospect in and out of bankstown - it is lunacy to be funneled into a piece of sky at exactly the same height as an unknown number of other aircraft of differing speeds and configurations. Note the emphasis on "unknown". Why can we not give a call on either twr or syd frequency when "approaching 2rn/prospect" to give a fair chance of sequencing into the funnel?
This may sound really stupid, but imagine if there was an alarm that automtically played over the Radar frequency where if two aircraft passed close together (like really close) that you heard it on the radio and straight away looked out the window around you. I realise if someone is using the radio it's not going to work very well. The system could be automatic or instigated by a radar operator. I know if I heard it I'd be looking all around me straight away as best as I could. Same goes for GAAP, the tower guys could press it. It could work for a wheels up, near miss or emergency etc.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
INCREASE IN VCAs?
A question: I am not taking sides here as I am not qualified to comment on the airspace setup or the reporting points and, therefore, can't voice an opinion one way or the other.
However, in looking at the VTC, and the proximity to SY terminal airspace, I am wondering how many readily identifiable visual cues are there to guarantee that there wouldn't be an increased number of VCAs if there weren't mandated inbound/outbound routes. OK, two seems to be (intuitively) too few, but I wonder about the risk of a lighty, and BK is also a training location, misidentifying their location and inadvertantly getting in the way of heavy metal.
We have VCAs all over the place, primarily (I believe) because there are not enough visual cues, for the VFR pilot, to determine where G ends and C starts.
I am just looking at this from a different perspective and would appreciate the take of others on the practicality of doing away with routes that are identifiable (OK, I gather there's confusion with the 2RN position), which may, possibly, have other unforseen consequences.
Once again, this is a question, not a comment.
However, in looking at the VTC, and the proximity to SY terminal airspace, I am wondering how many readily identifiable visual cues are there to guarantee that there wouldn't be an increased number of VCAs if there weren't mandated inbound/outbound routes. OK, two seems to be (intuitively) too few, but I wonder about the risk of a lighty, and BK is also a training location, misidentifying their location and inadvertantly getting in the way of heavy metal.
We have VCAs all over the place, primarily (I believe) because there are not enough visual cues, for the VFR pilot, to determine where G ends and C starts.
I am just looking at this from a different perspective and would appreciate the take of others on the practicality of doing away with routes that are identifiable (OK, I gather there's confusion with the 2RN position), which may, possibly, have other unforseen consequences.
Once again, this is a question, not a comment.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It sickens me to see you on the news after every tragic event in Oz Aviation pushing YOUR agenda.
And why is it DICK's agenda - if it wasn't for Dick putting himself out there, there would be little debate about the appropriateness of our air service arrangements.
I don't agree with everything he puts forward, but I would expect the counter-arguments to be more sophisticated than the drivel you contribute