CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
----and non-self interest of course!
I can say, in all sincerity, that in my opinion the person with the least self interest in this whole Australian aviation schermozzle is Dick Smith.
Whatever the outcome, it will have little or no impact on his aviating, the unnecessary cost that do have an impact on so many aviation businesses and individual, will be no more than a very minor irritant to Dick, half his luck.
I have known him for a very long time, the ONLY thing that has motivated him is to see aviation in Australia as safe, prosperous, affordable and and as free of unnecessary bureaucratic imposts and restrictions as humanly possible.
Tootle pip!!
Polymer Fox,
Depending on the aircraft, prolonged idle will also produce carb. icing. As for the "company policy" you mention, better you try another company that conforms to the aircraft POH.
Not only "safer" but "legal".
Tootle pip!!
Depending on the aircraft, prolonged idle will also produce carb. icing. As for the "company policy" you mention, better you try another company that conforms to the aircraft POH.
Not only "safer" but "legal".
Tootle pip!!
It's about time the mods turned Prune into a real internet forum: no deletions of posts (except by the mods) and post-editing turned off after 10 minutes. 
So who said Arfor has lost the plot? I thought his posts have been quite good.
So who said Arfor has lost the plot? I thought his posts have been quite good.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clever, Cute And Machievellian
Maybe I pinged after everybody else, but then maybe not.
What I have been trying to figure is why the insistence on FAA D instead of GAAP, when the following was written on GAAP:
So why go to the extra expense of FAA D, when GAAP serves the purpose?
Ah, standardisation we are told. If we change GAAP to FAA D, then we have D at both present GAAP and regional locations. What could make more sense - we would have 'harmonisation.'? So the Machievellian bit goes like this:
It was always about E terminal and I kick myself that I didn't wake up earlier.
What I have been trying to figure is why the insistence on FAA D instead of GAAP, when the following was written on GAAP:
Personally, I believe that airports such as Bankstown have some of the safest procedures that I have experienced in the world.
Ah, standardisation we are told. If we change GAAP to FAA D, then we have D at both present GAAP and regional locations. What could make more sense - we would have 'harmonisation.'? So the Machievellian bit goes like this:
- We change GAAP to FAA Class D for 'harmonisation' with the regional towers.
- After all, GAAP is pretty close to FAA Class D anyway, so what's the difference?
- But, hang on, we now have a mismatch, because there are two distinct types of Class D with different procedures- we have ICAO D and FAA D.
- This is potentially confusing and dangerous (Minister).
- So, for consistency, and to stop this dangerous confusion that will lead to a mid-air, we must convert ICAO D airspace to FAA D airspace.
- Right, done and dusted, we are now 'harmonised.'
- But, hold the boat, we now have a bastardised system, 'unique to Australia,' because nowhere in the world (read US) do we have Class C over FAA D.
- In the 'proven' system of the US, all Class D airspace has overlying E.
- And here we get to the true endgame.
It was always about E terminal and I kick myself that I didn't wake up earlier.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Near TownTown
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bankstown is a mess.
Had to orbit 'OCTA' for 5 minutes with traffic everywhere and was still funneled in via a single route.
How does this make it better???
Who did this??
How is it safer, its a mess.
My 10c worth. A few more lanes of entry and the C lifted by 500' on the non-approach sides (to KSA) is all it would take to keep the Curries of our backs (no pun intended, and I don't mean Lisa).
Oh, and reopen the N/S runway, kicking BAL out would help too.
Or even better, real English tests, not just testing native English speakers and rubber stamping the idiots driving the Europa's!!!
Grrr
Had to orbit 'OCTA' for 5 minutes with traffic everywhere and was still funneled in via a single route.
How does this make it better???
Who did this??
How is it safer, its a mess.
My 10c worth. A few more lanes of entry and the C lifted by 500' on the non-approach sides (to KSA) is all it would take to keep the Curries of our backs (no pun intended, and I don't mean Lisa).
Oh, and reopen the N/S runway, kicking BAL out would help too.
Or even better, real English tests, not just testing native English speakers and rubber stamping the idiots driving the Europa's!!!
Grrr
Howabout.....how exquisite! A cunning plot The End Game! Ties up all the loose ends, doesn't it. Regional D TWRS with implied clearance...gotta love that...smaller dimensions and class E on top and no limits for VFR...Right in one Howabout...Launie, Melbourne and Maroochy all over again. Just one little addition.....Military User Airspace.
Howabout, I will say it again - There is no measurable extra expense in changing GAAP to FAA class D.
This then means your conspiracy theory fails.
Yes, I find GAAP gives high levels of safety- it should because it was modelled closely on FAA NAS class D at Van Nuys.
A minor change will bring GAAP in line with FAA class D.
It is then sensible to change our other non radar airports to the same airspace and procedures as the FAA class D that replaced the GAAP procedures.
Then we have one simple set of procedures for all non radar towers.-pretty sensible.Higher compliance will no doubt result.
And class E in lower risk link airspace is surely better than the class G we have at RPT jet airports like Ballina and Ayers Rock!
This then means your conspiracy theory fails.
Yes, I find GAAP gives high levels of safety- it should because it was modelled closely on FAA NAS class D at Van Nuys.
A minor change will bring GAAP in line with FAA class D.
It is then sensible to change our other non radar airports to the same airspace and procedures as the FAA class D that replaced the GAAP procedures.
Then we have one simple set of procedures for all non radar towers.-pretty sensible.Higher compliance will no doubt result.
And class E in lower risk link airspace is surely better than the class G we have at RPT jet airports like Ballina and Ayers Rock!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Sep 2009 at 06:45.
Bloggs, It was CASA OAR that made the direction for AsA to change GAAP to Class D.
I am glad you believe they are following my "master plan".
Or do you believe they are doing it for another reason?
What reason?
I am glad you believe they are following my "master plan".
Or do you believe they are doing it for another reason?
What reason?
The plan for transition to Class D
The Director of Aviation Safety's direction to ASA requires ASA to provide CASA with an implementation plan 'outlining in detail how the provision of full Class D services ... will be implemented' by 21 August 2009. Has ASA complied? Can we see that plan? When will it be released to the public?
The CASA is directing for ICAO Class D changes in GAAP!
A few minor differences?????
Dick, maybe true. However....these (FAA Dthat is) changes are quite drastic for regional towers. Imagine these changes at WLM? Punting down the coast and call up Willie...I'm coming through....no answer....hey, I'm coming through...still no answer...oh well I do not have implied clearance so I better start climbing and fly over the top in class E....nong is on the wrong frequency and because he didn't get the call he just thought that clearance wasn't available...just blasted through very busy airspace....problem is....it is perfectly legal to do it.
A few minor differences?????
Dick, maybe true. However....these (FAA Dthat is) changes are quite drastic for regional towers. Imagine these changes at WLM? Punting down the coast and call up Willie...I'm coming through....no answer....hey, I'm coming through...still no answer...oh well I do not have implied clearance so I better start climbing and fly over the top in class E....nong is on the wrong frequency and because he didn't get the call he just thought that clearance wasn't available...just blasted through very busy airspace....problem is....it is perfectly legal to do it.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is this what you would like Mr Smith?
FAA Class D, a couple of examples
Teterboro
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
The procedures (VFR) http://www.panynj.gov/CommutingTrave...mentCharts.pdf
Note the procedures complexity and VFR arrival and departures altitudes and tracks
And the real twist Letters to Airmen
Teter does not have parallel runway op's, the rest gives you a picture of what Mr Smith is trying hard to sell you.
Van nuys
Traffic throughput figues for July 09 and YTD (NOTE ZERO Scheduled Services)
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/VN.../tcom-0709.pdf
Not disimilar to our busy GAAP's
Pilot Information
Note Closed to air carrier operations, airport not FAR part 139 certified.
General Airport services information.
VNY - Van Nuys Airport
Note the number of ATC frequencies, procedures complexity, approach - departures frequencies. COST with a user pays system?
For all that complexity and infrustructure, is it safer and more efficient?
LAX00FA093B
Aviation Safety Letter 2/2001 - TP 185 2/2001 - TP 185 - Aviation Safety Newsletters - System Safety - Aviation Saftey - Air Transportation - Transport Canada
Reality is enlightening!
FAA Class D, a couple of examples
Teterboro
The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey
AIRCRAFT REGULATIONS - It is important to note that Teterboro Airport does not accommodate scheduled carrier operations due to its functional role as a general aviation reliever airport. To maintain its role in serving the region's small aircraft needs, the airport imposes weight restrictions that prohibit use of the airport by aircraft with operating weights in excess of 100,000 pounds. As a result, Teterboro's utilization is comprised of a broad range of general aviation aircraft.
AIRCRAFT MOVEMENTS ANNUALLY
2007: 182,101
2006: 187,840
2005: 193,427
2004: 202,400
2003: 193,907
2002: 200,599
2001: 175,980
2000: 182,888
1995: 183,992
1990: 191,118
1985: 216,974
1980: 231,074
2007: 182,101
2006: 187,840
2005: 193,427
2004: 202,400
2003: 193,907
2002: 200,599
2001: 175,980
2000: 182,888
1995: 183,992
1990: 191,118
1985: 216,974
1980: 231,074
Note the procedures complexity and VFR arrival and departures altitudes and tracks
And the real twist Letters to Airmen
This letter describes the VFR arrival, departure and traffic procedures for Teterboro Airport.
Arriving aircraft should establish initial contact with the tower (119.5 alternate125.1) at least ten (10) miles from the airport, stating the appropriate ATIS code. ATIS information is broadcast at Teterboro Airport on 132.025 and Broadway VOR (114.2).
During heavy traffic periods, VFR arrival aircraft may be instructed to hold outside of the Class D Airspace. The following are suggested geographical holding locations:
ROUTE 17 AND THE G.S. PARKWAY INTERSECTION TEB 003/6 MILES
ORADELL RESERVOIR TEB 030/6.8 MILES
ALPINE TOWER TEB 051/9.5 MILES
LINCOLN TUNNEL TOLL PLAZA TEB173/5.4MILES*
Other prominent geographical locations may be used.
* NOTE: VOR radial unusable below 3,000 feet.
Traffic pattern altitudes are 1500 feet AGL for large and turbine powered aircraft, and 1000 feet AGL for other aircraft. Between the hours of 2200 and 0700 local, all arrival aircraft are requested to remain at 1500 feet AGL, until further descent is required for a safe landing. Aircraft on approach to Runway 24 over fly an extremely noise sensitive area, and should remain at the traffic pattern altitude until starting the base leg. Aircraft on approach to Runway 19 should avoid flying over the hospital 1.7 miles north of the airport.
Departing aircraft, prior to taxi, should contact Clearance Delivery on 128.05 stating their location on the field, the appropriate ATIS code and direction of flight (if requesting advisories state destination). ATIS information is broadcast at Teterboro Airport on 132.025. When the VOR DME "A" approach is in use, departures that are North or Northwest bound should maintain 1000 feet until North of the TEB 305 degree radial or clear of the Teterboro Class D Airspace. Teterboro Airport is located under the New York Class B Airspace and in close proximity to congested airways and airport traffic areas. Caution is advised.
Arriving aircraft should establish initial contact with the tower (119.5 alternate125.1) at least ten (10) miles from the airport, stating the appropriate ATIS code. ATIS information is broadcast at Teterboro Airport on 132.025 and Broadway VOR (114.2).
During heavy traffic periods, VFR arrival aircraft may be instructed to hold outside of the Class D Airspace. The following are suggested geographical holding locations:
ROUTE 17 AND THE G.S. PARKWAY INTERSECTION TEB 003/6 MILES
ORADELL RESERVOIR TEB 030/6.8 MILES
ALPINE TOWER TEB 051/9.5 MILES
LINCOLN TUNNEL TOLL PLAZA TEB173/5.4MILES*
Other prominent geographical locations may be used.
* NOTE: VOR radial unusable below 3,000 feet.
Traffic pattern altitudes are 1500 feet AGL for large and turbine powered aircraft, and 1000 feet AGL for other aircraft. Between the hours of 2200 and 0700 local, all arrival aircraft are requested to remain at 1500 feet AGL, until further descent is required for a safe landing. Aircraft on approach to Runway 24 over fly an extremely noise sensitive area, and should remain at the traffic pattern altitude until starting the base leg. Aircraft on approach to Runway 19 should avoid flying over the hospital 1.7 miles north of the airport.
Departing aircraft, prior to taxi, should contact Clearance Delivery on 128.05 stating their location on the field, the appropriate ATIS code and direction of flight (if requesting advisories state destination). ATIS information is broadcast at Teterboro Airport on 132.025. When the VOR DME "A" approach is in use, departures that are North or Northwest bound should maintain 1000 feet until North of the TEB 305 degree radial or clear of the Teterboro Class D Airspace. Teterboro Airport is located under the New York Class B Airspace and in close proximity to congested airways and airport traffic areas. Caution is advised.
Van nuys
Traffic throughput figues for July 09 and YTD (NOTE ZERO Scheduled Services)
http://www.lawa.org/uploadedfiles/VN.../tcom-0709.pdf
Not disimilar to our busy GAAP's
Pilot Information
Note Closed to air carrier operations, airport not FAR part 139 certified.
General Airport services information.
VNY - Van Nuys Airport
Note the number of ATC frequencies, procedures complexity, approach - departures frequencies. COST with a user pays system?
For all that complexity and infrustructure, is it safer and more efficient?
LAX00FA093B
Aviation Safety Letter 2/2001 - TP 185 2/2001 - TP 185 - Aviation Safety Newsletters - System Safety - Aviation Saftey - Air Transportation - Transport Canada
Reality is enlightening!
ARFOR, Yes I would like to see an equivalent airport to Teteboro in Australia.It would show that our industry was absolutely booming.
Most of those movements are corporate jets up to G5's and bigger.
I have flown in there many times- last time was with John and Martha King in their Falcon 10.
Most Australian pilots would love to be involved with aviation at this level.
Van Nuys is also something to envy -everything from piper cubs to BBJ's- almost unbelievable!
If you love aviation get hold of a copy of the 'One Six Right" DVD- it was shot at Van Nuys and has some of the most motivational shots and interviews that I have seen about General Aviation.
Many will be green with envy on just how good the Yanks can do it.
Bring on NAS! It will a bit like upgrading from a Nomad to a G5 !
It's obvious you have never flown an aircraft into places like Teteboro or Van Nuy's.
Give me a phone call and I will get you a ticket to LAX and a flight in a corporate jet into Van Nuy's. I guarantee you will be a convert to NAS!
Most of those movements are corporate jets up to G5's and bigger.
I have flown in there many times- last time was with John and Martha King in their Falcon 10.
Most Australian pilots would love to be involved with aviation at this level.
Van Nuys is also something to envy -everything from piper cubs to BBJ's- almost unbelievable!
If you love aviation get hold of a copy of the 'One Six Right" DVD- it was shot at Van Nuys and has some of the most motivational shots and interviews that I have seen about General Aviation.
Many will be green with envy on just how good the Yanks can do it.
Bring on NAS! It will a bit like upgrading from a Nomad to a G5 !
It's obvious you have never flown an aircraft into places like Teteboro or Van Nuy's.
Give me a phone call and I will get you a ticket to LAX and a flight in a corporate jet into Van Nuy's. I guarantee you will be a convert to NAS!
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Sep 2009 at 12:31.
OZ, your example re Williamtown shows just how closed your mind is.
If it was a busy jet airport like Ballina the VFR plane would simply fly straight through the circuit area on the wrong frequency using the same scenario. And thats our existing system that you want to keep.
At least climbing up into the E would reduce the chance of a collision as the traffic is more spread out the higher it is above the circuit area.
If it was a busy jet airport like Ballina the VFR plane would simply fly straight through the circuit area on the wrong frequency using the same scenario. And thats our existing system that you want to keep.
At least climbing up into the E would reduce the chance of a collision as the traffic is more spread out the higher it is above the circuit area.
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can I have a ticket to the US and a flight in a corporate jet! I'm mostly on your side anyway Dick, but I could report back to everyone. Just send me your phone number and I'll call you! 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Did you actually read the links above?
Most of our GAAP's are moving more than Teter, and a couple of our GAAP's would give KVNY a run for its money on raw movement numbers, so they must be booming by your standards!
On the expensive corporate metal issue, compared to the money flying around LA and NY, it would not matter if the airport paid people to fly into and out of it, for the forseable future, Australia is not going to have that number of gold plated kero rockets, and thats the point, without them, how does Australian GA pay for approach, clearance delivery, and all the other infrustructure the US provide to these GA specific airports? Even if we could, why would we when the result is no better? all it would do is cost load the GA industry out of existence! Surely you do not want that?
Admit it, the Australian system of GAAP for GA, ICAO D, C, B and A for CTA and CTR is worlds best in both cost and safety terms. If there is any improvement to be made to enhance what we already have with GAAP, then those 'possible' options must be put to industry, costed and properly consulted. Don't fix what is not broken!
Did you actually read the links above?
Most of our GAAP's are moving more than Teter, and a couple of our GAAP's would give KVNY a run for its money on raw movement numbers, so they must be booming by your standards!
On the expensive corporate metal issue, compared to the money flying around LA and NY, it would not matter if the airport paid people to fly into and out of it, for the forseable future, Australia is not going to have that number of gold plated kero rockets, and thats the point, without them, how does Australian GA pay for approach, clearance delivery, and all the other infrustructure the US provide to these GA specific airports? Even if we could, why would we when the result is no better? all it would do is cost load the GA industry out of existence! Surely you do not want that?
Admit it, the Australian system of GAAP for GA, ICAO D, C, B and A for CTA and CTR is worlds best in both cost and safety terms. If there is any improvement to be made to enhance what we already have with GAAP, then those 'possible' options must be put to industry, costed and properly consulted. Don't fix what is not broken!
Dick, not closed as you are to any argument not of your origin.
WLM? RAAF? fast movers? and you think it is OK to fly through that airspace with no radio? This wasn't intended as a trap, I was only highlighting a situation that a blunder can be made and yet still continue LEGALLY through some pretty busy airspace....Risk assesment? Current situation, you know from your training you do not continue unless you have made contact...even if the answer is NO...You know what to expect. (Iconsider this as the same argument as the lottery that is monitoring an appropriate frequency.)
Implied clearances may be fantastic to save a couple of verbs over the radio on a quiet day. However, when things get busy, the chatter is still at the same level as currently (or was currently) on GAAP tower frequencies...The changes to ICAO D is a retrograde step in provision of a service for heavy RPT... Dick, you asked for no less at AV...you didn't ask for FAA D there. As ARFOR has pointed out again...all those busy aerodromes are nonRPT aerodromes just like our GAAP.....what happens if BAL do get their way and start up RPT services with BAE type Jets...would you still like FAA D control with BAE types on RPT mixing it with foreign students trying to master the english language as well as learn to fly?
WLM? RAAF? fast movers? and you think it is OK to fly through that airspace with no radio? This wasn't intended as a trap, I was only highlighting a situation that a blunder can be made and yet still continue LEGALLY through some pretty busy airspace....Risk assesment? Current situation, you know from your training you do not continue unless you have made contact...even if the answer is NO...You know what to expect. (Iconsider this as the same argument as the lottery that is monitoring an appropriate frequency.)
Implied clearances may be fantastic to save a couple of verbs over the radio on a quiet day. However, when things get busy, the chatter is still at the same level as currently (or was currently) on GAAP tower frequencies...The changes to ICAO D is a retrograde step in provision of a service for heavy RPT... Dick, you asked for no less at AV...you didn't ask for FAA D there. As ARFOR has pointed out again...all those busy aerodromes are nonRPT aerodromes just like our GAAP.....what happens if BAL do get their way and start up RPT services with BAE type Jets...would you still like FAA D control with BAE types on RPT mixing it with foreign students trying to master the english language as well as learn to fly?