Reporting point 2RN
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by bentleg
I also agree that moving the reporting point or abandoning all the points just moves the problem somewhere else. I will be very interested to hear what ATSB says about it.
As Duke16 said, moving the point (and the problem) closer to ATC probably makes sense.
In an interview the day after the incident Ken Andrews mentioned (my paraphrasing) that they weren't aware of another aircraft being nearby, and had heard no radio calls to indicate that there were. Isn't that the main problem with the current procedure? Shouldn't the tracking point at TWRN and the radio reporting point be in different places... it's quite possible that the pilots of both aircraft were "just about" to reach for the PTT to make their calls... both following the current procedure.
spinKing's suggestion sounds like one possible solution to this problem.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Up here
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I completely disagree. The last thing we need is yet another frequency change with people looking down at the radio. Remember under the new CTAF rules we are also supposed to be making a CTAF call to Holsworthy and whatever else happens to be within 8 minutes flying time, while getting an ATIS, changing to BK - and now you are talking about yet another frequency?
Don't forget somewhere in there the student is supposed to be flying the aeroplane, getting their head around radio calls and looking out the window for the other traffic.
We need a less complicated system, not more complicated
You can't regulate against mistakes either. Put in 10,000 frequency changes by law if you like. Put in huge fines for those that don't comply. But who here hasn't dialled up a wrong frequency or stuffed up the radio selection? Radio is great but we can't all rely on every other pilot being on frequency and making the right call at the right time.
So why not make the system simpler and more random to reduce the impact of people making mistakes? It's plain stupid to have aircraft at exactly the same place at the same altitude.
I'm with Dick on this one. Let's have inbound calls more like "5 miles to the west inbound" rather than over a defined point on the ground, and let them get closer to the airport where controllers can see them for sequencing.
Some seem to think that is too complicated for students. Well how do they cope with making such calls at CTAF airports now? Or in other countries? I would hope our instructors would be able to teach how to read a compass/DG before sending students on area solos. It's not rocket science.
Don't forget somewhere in there the student is supposed to be flying the aeroplane, getting their head around radio calls and looking out the window for the other traffic.
We need a less complicated system, not more complicated
You can't regulate against mistakes either. Put in 10,000 frequency changes by law if you like. Put in huge fines for those that don't comply. But who here hasn't dialled up a wrong frequency or stuffed up the radio selection? Radio is great but we can't all rely on every other pilot being on frequency and making the right call at the right time.
So why not make the system simpler and more random to reduce the impact of people making mistakes? It's plain stupid to have aircraft at exactly the same place at the same altitude.
I'm with Dick on this one. Let's have inbound calls more like "5 miles to the west inbound" rather than over a defined point on the ground, and let them get closer to the airport where controllers can see them for sequencing.
Some seem to think that is too complicated for students. Well how do they cope with making such calls at CTAF airports now? Or in other countries? I would hope our instructors would be able to teach how to read a compass/DG before sending students on area solos. It's not rocket science.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After being in and out of BK for almost 20 years, i have had my share of close calls - but I still think PSP is worse - you can get traffic from ahead, behind, left or right.
I hope that at least higher performance a/c they will see fit to let us simply drop out of class c straight into the GAAP rather than go via the approach points. At least when I go to BK, inbound at 200 plus kts I figure not much will get me from behind, but in the usual training a/c these problems are real and of course beacuse the different a/c are at the same sort of speeds (relative to each other) they dont appear to be moving at all.
Radio alerted see and avoid is great - but you cant rely on ATC to give a heads up even with their collision algorithims on the radar. Good lookout is our only answer i fear, and that has to be taught correctly too.
Remember, lookout is hard work if you are doing it right.
I hope that at least higher performance a/c they will see fit to let us simply drop out of class c straight into the GAAP rather than go via the approach points. At least when I go to BK, inbound at 200 plus kts I figure not much will get me from behind, but in the usual training a/c these problems are real and of course beacuse the different a/c are at the same sort of speeds (relative to each other) they dont appear to be moving at all.
Radio alerted see and avoid is great - but you cant rely on ATC to give a heads up even with their collision algorithims on the radar. Good lookout is our only answer i fear, and that has to be taught correctly too.
Remember, lookout is hard work if you are doing it right.
Have to agree with you there 'Clarie' more isn't always best (as in another radio freq) That would just complicate matters even more. To fiddle with the radio even more than needed at this critical time is crazy! Maybe we have reached (or fast getting there) the saturation point from a safety aspect with regards GAAP AD's the way we do it here in Oz. From the words written here there seems no real fix for this current situation.
'pa60ops' do you really arrive at BK or it's reporting points @ 200kts+? Gee I would have thougt at that speed the sky would appear clear to you 'cause everything would be a blur! You don't need to be at that speed, even a Learjet can fly at the same speeds as most larger piston twins.
Wmk2
'pa60ops' do you really arrive at BK or it's reporting points @ 200kts+? Gee I would have thougt at that speed the sky would appear clear to you 'cause everything would be a blur! You don't need to be at that speed, even a Learjet can fly at the same speeds as most larger piston twins.
Wmk2
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Capt W - profile dec in the old BE44 is around the 200 kts, unless you start down quite early. With no ailerons, you really dont want to be back around 150kts as if a suddden turn is needed on the spoilers you can get into more trouble!!!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: US of A
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm an ex-pat who has flown in both countries. I have not read all the replies.
This could have happened anywhere. Sorry Oz, but we don't cut for efficiency. In making that comment I place no blame on ATC for the accident, but simply point out that busy environments are sustainable in GA. I know Bansktown is busy.
Are bankstown controllers able to provide radar seperation? I don't know.
VFR advisories are a great thing. I know you probably do not have the same radar saturation at home.
The US is busy, crazy compared to Oz actually and makes for an easy target for verbal assaults, but if you look at the movements that contollers make, the record here is good.
If I get flack for this fine, but critics note: How is it in The Northeast USA you can get three Class B airports within 20nm of each other with at least half a dozen Class D & C airports within another 20nm while handling VFR jollies squeezed betwen three Class B airports all worked into the system.
I hope user pays never happens in the USA, but I feel it is inevitable.
Why have so many been so stubborn in preventing the change in Australian airspace?
Webins has made points I agree with. Two Instructors who were busy at the time, tough job.
We need to more open minded about this in Oz. we have been wrapped up in our "safe record" for years. It is safe, I don't deny this, we are well trained pilots in Oz. But combine the Training in Oz with the USA's airspace, the exposure in pricless. How many pilots in Oz are encourged to get IFR rated, not as many as the USA! Pilots here are encouraged to use technology, especially with G1000 equipment becoming standard. Training should be a mixture of both. We are multi-taskers.
There is no shame in having technology save your life because your eyeballs missed something. Otherwise what is the point of progress?
This could have happened anywhere. Sorry Oz, but we don't cut for efficiency. In making that comment I place no blame on ATC for the accident, but simply point out that busy environments are sustainable in GA. I know Bansktown is busy.
Are bankstown controllers able to provide radar seperation? I don't know.
VFR advisories are a great thing. I know you probably do not have the same radar saturation at home.
The US is busy, crazy compared to Oz actually and makes for an easy target for verbal assaults, but if you look at the movements that contollers make, the record here is good.
If I get flack for this fine, but critics note: How is it in The Northeast USA you can get three Class B airports within 20nm of each other with at least half a dozen Class D & C airports within another 20nm while handling VFR jollies squeezed betwen three Class B airports all worked into the system.
I hope user pays never happens in the USA, but I feel it is inevitable.
Why have so many been so stubborn in preventing the change in Australian airspace?
Webins has made points I agree with. Two Instructors who were busy at the time, tough job.
We need to more open minded about this in Oz. we have been wrapped up in our "safe record" for years. It is safe, I don't deny this, we are well trained pilots in Oz. But combine the Training in Oz with the USA's airspace, the exposure in pricless. How many pilots in Oz are encourged to get IFR rated, not as many as the USA! Pilots here are encouraged to use technology, especially with G1000 equipment becoming standard. Training should be a mixture of both. We are multi-taskers.
There is no shame in having technology save your life because your eyeballs missed something. Otherwise what is the point of progress?
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wherever seniority dictates
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I return to work in the new year I'll be making three recommendations to my pilots when they operate at Bankstown.
1) You don't have to call inbound at 1500ft
3) Whenever the TWR frequency is selected, enforce a sterile cockpit
I'd be interested in thoughts on the above
1) You don't have to call inbound at 1500ft
There is a misconception that you must be at 1500ft at PSP/TWRN. That's not true. The only altitude requirement is to be at the correct height entering the control zone. Better to make this the 'funnel point'.
By the time you arrive at the control zone boundary, you've already called inbound and will have directed traffic information. So when you're funnelled into the one position/altitude as other traffic, hopefully you'll already have them sighted.
So my recommendation will be call inbound at whatever height you happen to reach the GAAP approach point at. Preferably make it something other than 1500ft.
2) Monitor the TWR frequency for at least 2nm before the GAAP approach point to start building a mental picture3) Whenever the TWR frequency is selected, enforce a sterile cockpit
All conversation to be operational in nature to assist in developing a clear mental picture of the traffic around you both from a good lookout, and a listening watch.
These recommendation stem from years of operating there and giving some thought to the recent accident. If the ATSB recommend it, there might be procedural changes coming, but in the meantime we have to avoid another accident.I'd be interested in thoughts on the above
Problem you have with crossing the approach point at a higher altitude (say 1800') then descending to 1500' by the boundary is that you can't see beneath you so you run the real risk of running over some poor soul not unlike that accident at Moorabin on final some time ago.
I still reckon the best way is the D tower nas system they use in the US.
If you imagine a GAAP being like a bicycle wheel with the hub as the airport the safest way in is for aircraft to approach along random spokes all at different distances from the hub until in sight of the controllers who can then assist with your seperation for descent into the circuit.
Unlike now where everyone is channeled into 2 or 3 spokes line astern, and the seperation and descent part (the most risky bit ) is done outside the zone away from any assistance whatsoever.
I still reckon the best way is the D tower nas system they use in the US.
If you imagine a GAAP being like a bicycle wheel with the hub as the airport the safest way in is for aircraft to approach along random spokes all at different distances from the hub until in sight of the controllers who can then assist with your seperation for descent into the circuit.
Unlike now where everyone is channeled into 2 or 3 spokes line astern, and the seperation and descent part (the most risky bit ) is done outside the zone away from any assistance whatsoever.
Last edited by mostlytossas; 23rd Dec 2008 at 12:19.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you imagine a GAAP being like a bicycle wheel with the hub as the airport the safest way in is for aircraft to approach along random spokes all at different distances from the hub until in sight of the controllers who can then assist with your seperation for descent into the circuit.
The current plan seems to segregate opposite direction conflictions, at the cost of compressing the inbound conflictions. Not so much of a problem at MB with 4 commonly used inbound points, more so it seems for BK.
Should consideration of such things be part of the investigation or subsequent recommendations - Go for it! Put the teeth back in ATSB!
Spodman. You misunderstand me, my fault as I should have elaborated more. Departures would still be as you say outbound on different spokes but 500' seperated. It is no different to what occurs now at places like Albury, Alice Springs etc only the traffic volume would be far greater and the majority VFR from OCTA. This will no doubt require some modification to the radio procedure as is the current situation. ie no readback of clearance as an acknowledgment by the tower of your inbound call is clearance to enter, no taxi clearance required etc ( otherwise I can see many delays waiting to depart / enter )
So what would happen as I see it: inbound ..Report at the rim after copying the ATIS at 1500' fly direct to airfield (tower would probably tell you to report again )at 2 mile out or at some point like Warwick Farm, salt pan, etc so they can get a visual on you. You would then be instructed to join base, downwind etc on descent pretty much as of now.
Outbound... Same as now only track out direct at 1000' until well past the rim before climbing.
Approach points would still be on the VTC but only used as a means to let the tower know roughly from where you are coming from. ie with your inbound report you would say : BK tower warrior ABC 2mile east of Prospect inbound 1500' with Bravo.
So what would happen as I see it: inbound ..Report at the rim after copying the ATIS at 1500' fly direct to airfield (tower would probably tell you to report again )at 2 mile out or at some point like Warwick Farm, salt pan, etc so they can get a visual on you. You would then be instructed to join base, downwind etc on descent pretty much as of now.
Outbound... Same as now only track out direct at 1000' until well past the rim before climbing.
Approach points would still be on the VTC but only used as a means to let the tower know roughly from where you are coming from. ie with your inbound report you would say : BK tower warrior ABC 2mile east of Prospect inbound 1500' with Bravo.
This sounds a lot like procedural separation to me. Whilst I have been out of the college for 18months, most radials had a point about 8nm out where you lose lateral separation. I really can't see that specific example helping with the traffic flows, if we can't see you then we can't visually separate you.
I see where you are coming from but the problem is when you have 300000+ movements a year its going to be quite hard to manage it that way. We do have a TSAD but we can't use that for separation.
I am just not yet sold on the inbound radial method. What happens when 2 people report inbound on the same radial at the same height. We are back at the same problem all over again.
I see where you are coming from but the problem is when you have 300000+ movements a year its going to be quite hard to manage it that way. We do have a TSAD but we can't use that for separation.
I am just not yet sold on the inbound radial method. What happens when 2 people report inbound on the same radial at the same height. We are back at the same problem all over again.
Awol57,ATC don't separate now at 8nm out only give an advisory that someone else has just reported inbound at your location and sight a follow. This is the crux of the problem. It is not until the second report somewhere like Warwick Farm that the real control comes in usually in the form of join on base, make visual approach for runway...etc, with you are number 3 or so on (as if we can't see that by then). All the GAAP zones are between 4nm and 8nmin diameter and as the tower is about in the middle the furthest you would have to see is 4nm. As in the above example all the climbing and decending occurs in that airspace.
As for what about 2 aircraft on the same radial heading in the same direction,yes that can happen but that is a minor problem (as the tower can advise this fact to the second aircraft)whereas now you can have anything up to a dozen aircraft all line astern tracking down the same radial. In fact that is how the system has been setup in the first place. Might be convienient for ATC but as Duke16 said earlier it does not make good safety practice.
Some posters might consider 2008 to have been an unlucky year. I rather think it is the year our luck ran out.
As for what about 2 aircraft on the same radial heading in the same direction,yes that can happen but that is a minor problem (as the tower can advise this fact to the second aircraft)whereas now you can have anything up to a dozen aircraft all line astern tracking down the same radial. In fact that is how the system has been setup in the first place. Might be convienient for ATC but as Duke16 said earlier it does not make good safety practice.
Some posters might consider 2008 to have been an unlucky year. I rather think it is the year our luck ran out.
I realise we don't separate you now, but it sounds to me like some people are suggesting that we should. I am just saying that unless people are well separated when inbound (ie from different quadrants) we can't do that if we can't see you. Some days when its a bit hazy its very hard to even see aircraft in the circuit and spotting someone at 6nm is near on impossible.
At the end of the day we will still be relying on chance and traffic information, just that you can report inbound from anywhere. I would have thought from a pilots perspective that being told "Traffic is a C172 approaching ADWD from SHIP" would have more meaning than "Traffic is a C172 out to your right tracking inbound from the SW on the 235 radial". Without me getting a radar rating I can't give you a distance or other information so it comes down to you seeing the other aircraft, or me sighting both of you and then doing something about it. At the moment GAAP and Class D towers are very similar in terms of what separation ATC provide.
At the end of the day we will still be relying on chance and traffic information, just that you can report inbound from anywhere. I would have thought from a pilots perspective that being told "Traffic is a C172 approaching ADWD from SHIP" would have more meaning than "Traffic is a C172 out to your right tracking inbound from the SW on the 235 radial". Without me getting a radar rating I can't give you a distance or other information so it comes down to you seeing the other aircraft, or me sighting both of you and then doing something about it. At the moment GAAP and Class D towers are very similar in terms of what separation ATC provide.
Originally Posted by Dick Smith
The Class G trial airspace was instigated to use radar for the first time between Canberra and Ballina. Remember, a flight service officer standing behind the radar controller reported an incident
That is an absolute load of bull****. I was sitting at the very next radar screen, which just so happened to be the vertical split airspace with the one where the 'show stopper' occured so this happened right smack bang in the centre of my display.
The incident was a Jetsream going through a King Air with just about nothing between them in complete silence and the controller, against all procedures to the contrary, spoke up about what he knew was going to happen to the aircraft and they took unsighted avoiding action in cloud. Radar plots point towards a very probable hit had they not done something. Where on earth you came up with this fantasy about a Smelly standing behind and pointing something out I don't know
Interestingly enough Dick, the exact same controller who was sitting there was also sitting in when the Impulse 717 nearly got collected by the Jet War Bird off 12 at Willy which then lead (eventually) to the extension of tower hours. The War Bird was on 'the appropriate frequency'
Awol57, I'm not familular with Perth/Jandakot airspace so you have me at a disadvantage there but I have managed to find an old 2001 VTC. I see over there you have 2 VFR routes following the coast, one northern and one southern, each has it's own approach point in POW and SHIP then they both head to the one tracking point ADWD merge then into the GAAP zone. In my view that is even worse than Bankstown and it is only a matter of time before there is a midair at ADWD not if.
What I would rather see is this, we will assume runway 24 is in use.
Traffic from SHIP would report inbound at 1500' and track direct to the field ( because approaching from the south would be using 24L) and would be told to report approaching or over Kwinana Freeway. At this point the tower could get a visual on him and he would be instructed to descend and join downwind.
Traffic from POW would do likewise but would be using 24R.
Lets say at the same time an aircraft was approaching the zone from the south and had been told to report at the prison and had arrived the same time as the one from SHIP was at the freeway. Then normal rules of the air apply. The aircraft at the freeway is instructed to maintain 1500' sight then follow the aircraft over the prison who has been told to make visual approach to join base24L.
I can't see the problem here. It removes the risk of collision as much as possible and the point of most risk is where you have the assistance of the tower.
Anyway all good debate.
What I would rather see is this, we will assume runway 24 is in use.
Traffic from SHIP would report inbound at 1500' and track direct to the field ( because approaching from the south would be using 24L) and would be told to report approaching or over Kwinana Freeway. At this point the tower could get a visual on him and he would be instructed to descend and join downwind.
Traffic from POW would do likewise but would be using 24R.
Lets say at the same time an aircraft was approaching the zone from the south and had been told to report at the prison and had arrived the same time as the one from SHIP was at the freeway. Then normal rules of the air apply. The aircraft at the freeway is instructed to maintain 1500' sight then follow the aircraft over the prison who has been told to make visual approach to join base24L.
I can't see the problem here. It removes the risk of collision as much as possible and the point of most risk is where you have the assistance of the tower.
Anyway all good debate.
Moderator
Except that traffic from SHIP and POWR are both going to 24R. 24L is used for circuits and departures via ARE. Only used for arrivals if the arrivals, normaly from FDL, wants to do circuits on arrival.
Aircraft at SHIP and POWR will hopefully hear each other's call, and if at the same speed, the rule of give way to the right should apply. However there are some at JT who think that right of way goes to whoever gets the call in first, regardless of where they actually are when they make the call; some who think it is OK to orbit at ADWD
, and many who think it is OK to overtake on the left.
In other words, it is a lack of basic airmanship or knowlege of the rights of way HAVING SIGHTED TRAFFIC, as much as those who seem to fly around with their eyes and ears shut that causes near misses, plus a lack of understanding of the part of many pilots of the actual role and responsibilities of our ATC.
Its in the syllabus, units C6 and C7, it's not rocket science.
Aircraft at SHIP and POWR will hopefully hear each other's call, and if at the same speed, the rule of give way to the right should apply. However there are some at JT who think that right of way goes to whoever gets the call in first, regardless of where they actually are when they make the call; some who think it is OK to orbit at ADWD
, and many who think it is OK to overtake on the left. In other words, it is a lack of basic airmanship or knowlege of the rights of way HAVING SIGHTED TRAFFIC, as much as those who seem to fly around with their eyes and ears shut that causes near misses, plus a lack of understanding of the part of many pilots of the actual role and responsibilities of our ATC.
Its in the syllabus, units C6 and C7, it's not rocket science.
CFI you beat me to it. I agree all a discussion in good fun as I am not familar with YSBK. As CFI mentioned, we use 24L as circuit runway and departures to the E/SE via ARE. Runway 24R is for all arrivals and other depatures. People inbound from the South overfly at 1500 and from ADWD join downwind (or as instructed runway dependant). With up to 10 aircraft and helicopters on 24L it is generally not possible to sequence traffic in from the south.
There is a difference in time for people inbound from POWR/SHIP so one aircraft or both normally hear the others calls.
We can tell from the tower when someone is trying to call early to get in first (though it is sometimes hard from our perspective) but generally people try and do the right thing. We have a pretty good idea where ADWD is so when people call early (normally up to about 1nm prior to ADWD) we will try and sequence them to follow the aircraft that is ahead. Of course it is dependant on speeds and the like.
An orbit is the worst thing we see people do there, if you are ever caught there and not able to make a call the safest option is to make a left turn and track out to fremantle and then come back for another shot.
Mostlytossas do you fly at YMMB by any chance? That sounds familar to what I experienced when I flew there.
There is a difference in time for people inbound from POWR/SHIP so one aircraft or both normally hear the others calls.
We can tell from the tower when someone is trying to call early to get in first (though it is sometimes hard from our perspective) but generally people try and do the right thing. We have a pretty good idea where ADWD is so when people call early (normally up to about 1nm prior to ADWD) we will try and sequence them to follow the aircraft that is ahead. Of course it is dependant on speeds and the like.
An orbit is the worst thing we see people do there, if you are ever caught there and not able to make a call the safest option is to make a left turn and track out to fremantle and then come back for another shot.
Mostlytossas do you fly at YMMB by any chance? That sounds familar to what I experienced when I flew there.
Ok so YPJT is simular to YSBK in so far as 1 runway is used for circuit training 29L/11R and the other 29R/11L for arrivals/departures. This requires pilots to overfly depending on which runway is in use. As I said in my post #94 this would have to change to get full benifit from less congestion. By halving the amount of traffic aiming for the same runway you should half the risk. Circuit training is shared between the active runways. That is how a true GAAP operates and most of them do this. My home airfield is Parafield and does this as does Moorabin and on memory Archfield also (though at YPPF they do prefer to get the circuit traffic on 03R/21L if possible due traffic amounts). Here at YPPF we also have just 2 inbound reporting points (just like Bankstown) OHB to the west and the SUB to the north. As we have a college here plus Uni and 3 or so flying schools all out at the training area along with a lane of entry all feeding into OHB it can get a bit hairy on occasions and I hold my breath at times waiting for the inevitable.
I am open to a way to prevent this and as I said previously the US nas is the best I've heard so far. These type of discussions can only help to improve the system even if by only making pilots aware of the dangers. I have a brother who fly's and now a son in addition to myself. If one of us ever went down in a collision at a GAAP I would like to think others would discuss the issue and try and come up with a safer way to do things so it would never be repeated.
I am open to a way to prevent this and as I said previously the US nas is the best I've heard so far. These type of discussions can only help to improve the system even if by only making pilots aware of the dangers. I have a brother who fly's and now a son in addition to myself. If one of us ever went down in a collision at a GAAP I would like to think others would discuss the issue and try and come up with a safer way to do things so it would never be repeated.