Reporting point 2RN

[Capcom]

1. The OSH argument is valid! ... the fact that inbound acft rock wings vice a call is only a frequency management issue

2. The VAP's list a position prior to the geographical fix (mast) to build in a small amount of lateral displacement freedom to avoid everyone flying over 'exactly' one position i.e. the feckin arrows such as OSH

3. If anyone thinks arriving and departing traffic should not be segregated into same direction flow patterns i.e. avoiding high speed opposite direction conflict, in favour of random free for all (including nose to nose) conflict opportunities .. then they are talking out of their augmenters!

4. As has been pointed out, the number of fatal accidents verses the number of aircraft that have operated through the VAP's over the years, supports the above conclusions

5. Forget ATC and radar (OCTA) for all the reasons mentioned in this place and others. Think about this, what would be the cost to industry of a dedicated (not combined with other ATC functions) radar advisory service to OCTA traffic approaching YSBK? ... not in our lifetimes even if we had the ATC's. However, compare that cost against funded ADS-B!

6. PCAS, TCAS etc will NOT give you accurate azimuth position on A/C targets, only mode C relative alt and distance ... there is no positional data in the TXPDR ping to confirm azimuth .. that is why triangulation is required for non-radar positional A/C TXPDR surveillance

7. ADS-B provides azimuth, alt, distance to target and FMS vector prediction!

8. If what R.H.S says is true about his predictive fear this would happen, who, how and when did he raise this dire safety hazard regarding VAP's? .. and what follow up occurred?

9. R.H.S is an ambulance chasing media tart with no real idea of what he is interfering with. Which I might add is a long standing and less than distinguished practice!!!

[mostlytossas]

Capcom mate,the OSH scenario is not even remotely simular to a GAAP.Read posts #46 Link to pilot lounge and post #77 link to OSH.
It is quite obvious even the yanks are not 100% happy with it but is the best they can come up with for the huge influx of arrivals in one go. I bet also it would be like here at any airshow departures would be virtually non existant during the morning and vice versa in the evening.
Note the notam for the event,No solo students allowed and what they are really saying is unless you are current and can hold an accurate speed and altitude plus stay on track please do not enter. We would end up loosing our GAAPs if students couldn't use them. In addition to that they have controllers giving instructions half way down the entry lane.
You also raise concerns about head to head traffic. Nothing would change as there is still 500' separation as is the case now.
Your main agenda is to have a go at Dick Smith it appears to me, after your final 2 points. Please leave it alone or at least find some other insignificant thread to do it so we don't have to read the drivel.
We have had 2 mid airs this year alone entering GAAPs a previously unheard of amount. The vast majority of posters here want to explore and debate if there is a better way of doing things. It is not all about 2RN either as there is another 5 GAAPs in the counrty with simular problems.

[Awol57]

Whilst the ATSB report isn't out on either of the mid air collisions, I think you will find the MB happened in the Circuit area, the other OCTA. Not quite apples and apples.

Looking at the movements for the five GAAPs, year to date 08 there has been 1 230 262 movements, for 2007 there was 1 395 932 movements. I do not recall any mid air collisions in 2007, and 2 in 2008 (one not in the GAAP zone). If you had those stats for road vehicles (pretty close to 1:1250000) would we be complaining?

Perhaps the road stuff is close, thats not where my interest lies so I am not really sure. To me, whilst it is tragic, the current way appears to be working. It is already hard work sequencing aircraft when they are inbound from 2 or 3 positions. It would be significantly worse if they were coming from say a 180 arc, particularly with training aircraft where more often than not the pilot doesn't know the difference between left and right downwind.

I am not against change, but I don't want to see it as a reaction to a tragic accident rather than study and research.

[Chimbu chuckles]

For those arguing in favour of 'change' based on this accident please point out where you want the choke point to be...because no choke point is not an available option. It can be anywhere you would like between the threshold and Katoomba/Mittagong/Hawkesbury River Bridge but a choke point there WILL be.

This is like the VFR version of the moronic, vacuous WOFTAM that is the endless airspace musical chairs game at YSSY, YBBN, YPPH etc. All this disingenuous political drivel from The Minister, AsA et al about enhanced airspace utilisation enabling technology when the sad fact is everyone is arriving at the same point in space and only 1 aircraft can exist in that point in space at any one time.

No matter the technology installed or the pretty manouvers you fly between 10000' and the ground at some point you have to land on the runway.

For those musing about radar and ATC providing some level of service in the approach phase to GAAPS (like they have the manpower for that...well how long do you suppose it will be, under this radar safety umbrella, before a Cherokee gets vectored into a Piper Cub that is transiting just west of YSBK sans transponder while the Cherokee pilot looks in the other direction for traffic he has been given by ATC?

What will you cry out for then?

OsH and GAAP is different...you gotta be ****ting me?

Lots of VFR light aircraft arriving via visual reporting points at a runway on an airport with a manned tower. The only difference between OSH and YSBK is the rate of arrivals. You're not really going to suggest that what works for 100s of aircraft/hour won't work for 30?

Those suggesting long time aviation professionals, be they pilot or ATC, are 'change resistant' (Dick's favorite phrase) are profoundly ignorant of the nature of this industry. We do 'change' constantly...you'd be hard pressed finding a section of society that experiences as much change as those involved with aviation do. An enormous percentage of the changes in the last 30+ years have been as a direct result of Dick Smith's time as CAA CEO/AOPA President or part time ambulance chaser/full time self promoter. I have 'changed' everytime it has been required of me to do so...but I struggle mightily to think of a single operational change, whether instigated by RHS or some transient bonus chasing meddler at AsA/CASA, that was an improvement over what we did before.

I am not change resistant...but after 30 years I am most assuredly idiot resistant.

[Gerry Hattrick]

I'm with chimbu on this one.You have to ask how many midairs have we had at 2rn and Prospect as opposed to in the circuit areas of BK and Hox. Dicks plan is simply moving the accident closer to the airport.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

6. PCAS, TCAS etc will NOT give you accurate azimuth position on A/C targets, only mode C relative alt and distance ...

My experience with the Zaon XRX PCAS in the Bo does not support that statement. The azimuth position may not be accurate to the nearest 5 or even 10 degrees, but it does generally give you a pretty good idea of where to look for the conflicting aircraft.

The XRX is a bit suss in detecting with aircraft that are behind you - but that is only an issue if they are faster than you and closing. This is not a big problem for the Bonza as its generally doing the overtaking - not the other way round.

The Avidyne gear that Ovation referred to is a quantum leap up from the XRX!

Dr

[Duke16]

I have GA, military, and RPT experience in the US and globally and now fly regularly out of SBK in a number of capacities. The recent midair near SBK is sad and my condolences go to the families and people involved. Discussions like this do not denigrate the lost lives but honor them by seeking to find ways to prevent these accidents in the future.

I have always had difficulty with the over focus in Aus on prescription and mandation in airspace and procedural flying arrangements not for philosophical reasons but because incident and accident statistics demonstrate these arrangements don't work the best.

A large number of accidents occur below 3000' ft AGL within 10 NM of airports. Driving everyone into this airspace vertically and then having them fly over the same tracks into a few reporting points may appeal to a person's sense of order, but it is not a good safety practice. Ops at OSH Air Venture and Ops at SBK are so different in scope and detail that to compare them is not particularly helpful to this discussion. I have experienced both. I embrace technology, but both locations do share one thing in common: They are both predominantly see and avoid environments.

My experience with busy Class D towers in the US is that they move aircraft in and out from all quadrants very safely and efficiently. I believe SBK could be operated very safely and efficiently as a Class D tower if US NAS procedures were used. The US NAS Class D airspace is quite small and the active tower sequencing takes place close to the airport.
The fact that aircraft arrive from various quadrants and pilots are actively searching for other traffic adds to safety. This very pilot unease and sense of need to actively clear for other aircraft that you are aware of and also for aircraft who may not be where you expect them is a good thing. Some posters have stated they like the funnel and choke system at the GAAP reporting points because "all the traffic is in front of me" is just plainly incorrect.
This is a similar mindset that falsely lures pilots at CTAF (R) airports where the lack of broadcasts means nobody else is flying in the airspace. I try not to ever make these assumptions.

I have flown all over the world and admit my bias, but I have not flown anywhere that moves more aircraft safely than in the US NAS. Some posters have suggested that with a Class D tower and aircraft arriving from multiple quadrants, you are just moving the choke point closer to the airport. This is correct but the advantage closer to the airport is you have the assistance of the tower controller to help in sequencing and the tower controller can in most cases see you. This is not the case at 2RN at SBK.

It is unfortunate that Aus pilots have such a low regard for their fellow pilots and for ATC. This alone should point to the need for pilots and ATC to constantly look for ways to improve operational safety. Think about it, if we feel so good about the way we do things today and don't want to change, why do we have such a low regard for the other pilots and ATC'ers we are doing it with?

We will never achieve a zero accident rate, but we should continually strive to improve safety and forums like this are an excellent way to bring forth good ideas.

[Capcom]

mostlytossas

In relation to OSH and organising traffic into same/similar direction arrival and departure tracking, of course it is similar to the GAAP procedures, and more than remotely! I am glad you raised the issue of airshows, as more often than not a random arrival and departure (CTAF) arrangement provides for a very interesting discussion with operating pilots after the event. Yes there are arrival and departure peaks, but during events (outside the display times) the number of itinerant local/demonstration flights mixing with arrivals and departures is often huge. The number of 'high' speed (as opposed to slow speed same direction) conflicts that occur is of concern, moreover, it is not a procedure that would/could operate for more than those types of events given the natural arrival and departure peaks!

That option compared with segregated arrival and departure GAAP VAP’s (having worked both) .. I know with certainty which reduces fatal collision opportunities, and it isn’t the former. You would loose your money if you did take a bet!

The requirements at OSH i.e. for experience (pilot), speed, altitude and track are for exactly the reasons being discussed here, to ensure minimal crossing or opposite direction conflict. It is not rocket science!

In the GAAP context, students (and all others) are to some extent protected by the procedures. Are you suggesting students are advanced enough with SA skills developed to a point of being able to operate at a scan level sufficient to identify conflicts in a free for all? The traffic management enhancements put in place at OHS recognise the volume. GAAP by comparison does not have that traffic level to contend with every day! So from a student pilot acces point of view, lets compare apples with apples!

You think 500ft separation in the CTR will mean nothing will change if random arrivals were the order of the day. That is probably indicative of the simplistic view most have of the whys and where’s. A couple of scenario’s

RWY 11

So where would you call, and at what altitude?

Returning from the training area, you might decide to track inbound from the west, you must be at A015 over populated areas so let’s say you call at 7nm YSBK on the extended centreline to the WNW.

Departures to the W and SW off 11L go left downwind to say A015 (they would/could not stay at A010 dues final traffic and flight over populated areas, unless in the aerodrome traffic procedures listed), so they get to 3nm and go where?, left right or straight ahead, straight at you opposite direction (give or take), whilst you on the extend centreline at the same of similar altitude descending, and every other arrival from 7nm is converging from your left and right whilst on descent to Warwick Farm area. The high speed conflictions will now occur well outside tower visual range.

In fact if you consider any inbound direction from the SW through NW and LoE from 7nm at or on descent to A015 verses, departures within the same area being in much the place at much the same altitudes climbing, the picture is starting to look pretty grim. Add to this the fact that sequencing arrivals to final for 11 become that much more difficult due to the random convergence from the left and right rather than two specific flight path directions for you to look for converging arriving aircraft.

RWY 29

Arrivals from any of the above SW through NW and Nth now descend to A015 at 7nm and hold that until downwind abeam the upwind threshold. Departures will maintain A010 on upwind or right crosswind (LoE) to 3nm then turn and/or climb on track …. What happens between 3nm and 7+nm ….. hmmm

Yes there would still be 500ft vert within the zone, what then between 3nm and 7+nm in any and all OCTA areas around the zone ….. NO VERT, NO LATERAL and plenty of OPPOSITE DIRECTION conflicts!

My main agenda (as you put it) is not to have a go at R.H.S ..my (and others it would appear) main agenda is to put the realities and practicalities to ensure folks have the full picture. The relevance of the closing comments in my last post is to highlight that this is just another case of ‘opportunity’ for one to gain profile with little offer from him of how a change as he (and you) propose would work more efficiently and safely, then lets have the practical application realities rather than soap box one liners.

I have no problem with him if he were to be raising legitimate concerns in a legitimate way through the legitimate channels. If that has/had been done, and the answer received was inadequate, or concerns still apparent, then again, why have we not heard of it before this accident, and I might add with the same level of gusto?

The above systemic realities (in similar forms) apply at most GAAP’s, So besides my drivel (as you put it), have you any ideas on a better way of doing it that validates his claim that what has been done for years is fundamentally flawed and needs changing?

If there are US D's with similar traffic, proximities to CTA (around and above) etc etc with lesser accident rates, lets look at their 'specifics' .. I say again THE SPECIFICS!!!

[mostlytossas]

Capcom I think Duke 16 has answered your points better than I could and thanks Duke for your input which is much appreciated. The important point he made was the "choke point" as people are saying would be closer in but as he says under the assistance and sight of the tower controller whereas now it is all self separation. So how would it work? inbound would stay at 1500' until instructed to decend and outbound would be at 1000' for 10miles if necessary but at least until well clear of the zone. To my knowledge the 1500' over built up areas changed some years ago ( according to my CAR157) to 1000' but even if I'm wrong it certainly is in many other parts of the globe so can easily be changed. Sure some minor changes will need to be made to restricted zone upper levels and the SYD CTA to get full benefit but if that makes it safer for all go for it I say. The other problem they have at BK is that it is not operated as a true GAAP. One runway is used exclusively for arrivals and departures the other for circuit training. That I suggest would need to change but the debate is bigger than just Bankstown as there is another 5 GAAP's in OZ.

[Matt-YSBK]

Just to exclude our US friends for the time being. Are there any other countries in the world that have GAAP's (or like) procedures. Or is it uniquely Australian. ?

[mostlytossas]

I believe it to be uniquely OZZIE. Invented in the rag&tube days when aircraft were both slower generally compared to simular catergories today and because many aircraft in those days never had radio( a very rare event now even though non radio can still get in even today). Back then it made sense. Aircraft would enter as today from a known point so the controllers would know where to look for them. If one didn't reply to the "radio telegragh" he would be given light signals to land or take off. I've been told at times even coloured flags were used. In some ways it was invented for benefit of the controllers not pilots.The system has just stayed with us mainly because it seemed to work just fine and the resistance to change has always been with us. If you think the above is funny I used to know a bloke(dec) who learnt to fly in Moths at Mascot when Smithy and Co were around but that is another story.

[tipsy2]

mostlytossas

GAAP precedures were introduced in the late '70's and the carriage and use of radio was well and truely the norm by then. For your information, the same training aircraft are still in use today as were being used in the '70's, Cessna's 150, 152, 172, PA28-140, 151 and 161's. There are a number of later technology aircraft (plastic) now used as well but all them, then and now exhibit similar performance numbers.

Never had flags waved at me (whilst civil flying) but have certainly responded to light signals (following a radio failure). Infact no-radio circuits were practised as part of civil pre solo training.

Have a chat with Nancy Bird if you want to find out what it was really like learning to fly at Mascot from Charles Kingsford-Smith.

Your reasoning for GAAP procedures is alittle off the mark, perhaps even fanciful. GAAP procedures were introduced in responce to increasing traffic volumes and an attempt to provide additional runway capacity from the exsiting infrastructure. I seem to recall the introduction of contra-circuits happened at the same time.

tipsy

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Tipsy2 - you beat me to it. Your recollections agree with mine.

I learned to fly at Archerfield in 1973. I don't remember what the procedures were called but it was not GAAP - that came in later with the introduction of contra-direction circuits off parallel runways.

The training aircraft in use at that time were C150/172, PA28 and Beech Mousekateers! They were all radio equipped - probably with the same radios they have today.

I have been in and out of Archerfield a few times since, both VFR and IFR, and it all seemed to work pretty well. I went into Jandakot last year in the Bonza. Thought I would be cunning and go IFR, but I made the mistake of saying "visual" and immediately got told to track via some lake that I had never heard of and arrived in the Jandakot circuit with about 16 other aircraft - but that all worked out OK as well.

Never been to Bankstown, and if I ever do I won't say "visual" until on final approach (!), but I do wonder where the general view comes from that aircraft are being funnelled over a precise spot on the map as a reporting point. My Jepps say, "Arriving aircraft shall track via, and report at, one of the following CTR approach points ........b. 2RN (south of 2RN radio mast)".

If it were me, even with my std 3 x GPSs, I would aiming to fly somewhere through the gap between the 2RN mast and the north-western corner of R555A.

Dr

[mostlytossas]

Ok I stand corrected on when GAAP was introduced. My info comes from aviation history type books and talking to some old pilots. I learnt to fly early 80's and they were about then. I think however the entry point issue you will find goes back to the rag& tube days. ( not to be confused with rag & plywood days). PS I have met Nancy Bird also got her book

[jportzer]

I received a pm that suggested the 2RN mast can't be the approach point because it's a hazard to navigation due to its height. If that's correct, that may explain why the actual approach point is south of the mast. (Anyone out there able to provide some authoritative input to that question?) If that's the correct explanation, it just shows that someone needs to reinforce the importance of complying with the procedure in ERSA.

Clinton,

First thanks for mentioning the bit about the arrow being the preferred location for inbound flights - while this seems to make sense, I haven't ever heard anyone mention that before when discussing how far "south" of 2RN the inbound track should be made. Where is this kind of information prescribed? As I mentioned earlier even my flight instructor wasn't quite sure on this, and he's definitely had me fly much closer to the mast/beacon than the arrow on the VTC would indicate.

I've also been told that the quarry at the corner of Prospect resevoir is the inbound point there, but the arrow doesn't seem to quite match up with the location of the quarry?

For 2RN, I do avoid flying over the mast directly, but as it is 870 feet high (VTC), and the altitude should be 1500 ft, this would seem to meet the 500-ft obstacle clearance limitation. However the arrow is shown at least 600m away from the mast so this would give you appropriate obstacle clearance both laterally and vertically. This is assuming that 500 ft vertically or 600m horizontally are indeed the correct obstacle minima - perhaps it really should be 1000ft vertically if this is considered a "populated area?"

[By George]

At last, 'Duke 16' says it all, "if you move the choke point to the airport at least you have the assistance of ATC who can see you". After reading all the other posts I cannot believe nobody else can see that.

[Chimbu chuckles]

How will that stop an identical accident in the vicinity of 2RN/Prospect as aircraft track to the airfield?

[By George]

Increase the number of entry/departure points, or eliminate them altogether.

[Ultralights]

that was my suggestion, now with Hoxton gone, why cant a 3rd inbound point be created overhead YHOX??

[mostlytossas]

CC.. It won't stop it entirely no system will but it will reduce the likelyhood dramatically simply because the aircraft are not all aiming for 1 or 2 approach points.
C McK..Agree entirely you have no choice but to enter via an approach point at a GAAP whereas at a Dtower you can track in pretty well anywhere ( outside CTA restriced zones ofcourse)
Duke16's post should be mandatory reading.