CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Clinton, if the same number of aircraft are entering BK and you have three approach points instead of two you reduce the chance of a collision.
I will say again, there will not be big changes at GAAP from this decision. When all on non radar towers go to NAS class D there will be the advantages of a simpler and more standardised system.
Also pilots being trained under what are now called GAAP procedures- a unique Australian name- will be trained for class D which is used in most other modern aviation countries.
I will say again, there will not be big changes at GAAP from this decision. When all on non radar towers go to NAS class D there will be the advantages of a simpler and more standardised system.
Also pilots being trained under what are now called GAAP procedures- a unique Australian name- will be trained for class D which is used in most other modern aviation countries.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also pilots being trained under what are now called GAAP procedures- a unique Australian name- will be trained for class D which is used in most other modern aviation countries.
Scratches head trying to work out the cost/benefit.
So, and this is a genuine question, because I don't know the answer: When you use the words 'most other modern aviation countries,' who is included?
Does this include the Dutch, Germans, French, Italians, Greeks, Irish, Singaporeans, South Africans; the list goes on and each of those (and many more) run pretty safe systems. Do all these guys operate FAA D, being in the category of 'most other modern aviation countries?'
If they don't then, by inference, you've consigned them to third-world status, because if they don't then they are not 'modern aviation countries.'
Can I please have a run-down of what constitutes 'most other modern aviation countries' that use FAA D? It's a legitimate question!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, people who don't fly in to the cities often are looking for a simple explanation and the underlying logic.
Then we can get it into our brains before we even get near the locations.
Then we can get it into our brains before we even get near the locations.
Actually, the FAA considers that their class D is ICAO class D.
I am happy to accept that as it's probably as close as you can get..
How come no screams about my post 275 where I pointed out that the Launy incident was with full radio alerting- the same as we use in G every day at many class G RPT airports!
I am happy to accept that as it's probably as close as you can get..
How come no screams about my post 275 where I pointed out that the Launy incident was with full radio alerting- the same as we use in G every day at many class G RPT airports!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is getting a little tedious - refusal to answer questions in the hope that they will go away; so let's give it another go - after all Dick, you are the acknowledged expert.
So, if the FAA considers that:
and we have ICAO Class D, why should we impose additional costs on industry to convert - when it's just the same?
And, by the way, I'd appreciate an answer to my previous question below.
But, going on what's been posted before (with some degree of glee) the OAR will be introducing FAA D at present GAAPs. So, in fact, we'll just convert from 'unique Australian GAAP' to 'unique FAA D.'
Scratches head trying to work out the cost/benefit.
So, and this is a genuine question, because I don't know the answer: When you use the words 'most other modern aviation countries,' who is included?
Does this include the Dutch, Germans, French, Italians, Greeks, Irish, Singaporeans, South Africans; the list goes on and each of those (and many more) run pretty safe systems. Do all these guys operate FAA D, being in the category of 'most other modern aviation countries?'
If they don't then, by inference, you've consigned them to third-world status, because if they don't then they are not 'modern aviation countries.'
Can I please have a run-down of what constitutes 'most other modern aviation countries' that use FAA D? It's a legitimate question!
So, if the FAA considers that:
their class D is ICAO class D
And, by the way, I'd appreciate an answer to my previous question below.
e:
Also pilots being trained under what are now called GAAP procedures- a unique Australian name- will be trained for class D which is used in most other modern aviation countries.
Also pilots being trained under what are now called GAAP procedures- a unique Australian name- will be trained for class D which is used in most other modern aviation countries.
Scratches head trying to work out the cost/benefit.
So, and this is a genuine question, because I don't know the answer: When you use the words 'most other modern aviation countries,' who is included?
Does this include the Dutch, Germans, French, Italians, Greeks, Irish, Singaporeans, South Africans; the list goes on and each of those (and many more) run pretty safe systems. Do all these guys operate FAA D, being in the category of 'most other modern aviation countries?'
If they don't then, by inference, you've consigned them to third-world status, because if they don't then they are not 'modern aviation countries.'
Can I please have a run-down of what constitutes 'most other modern aviation countries' that use FAA D? It's a legitimate question!
Dick,
You've lost the flippin' plot! The bugsmasher may have been radio-alerted, but the other players (the tower and the 737) weren't! If I'd been in the 737, had I known about the smasher, I would have said "You are going to do WHAT??!! Get the hell out of my way before you kill us all!" As the VFR almost did.
You may remember that before YOUR famous NAS, all players, especially VFRs, were encouraged to pipe up if there was any possibility of a confliction. That would in all probability have resulted in a call from the VFR and prevented the Launy NMAC. But no, you had inserted into the documents that pilot to pilot R/T was "discouraged" (AIP ENR 1.1, 56.5), and that, together with the "free in Class E" empowerment of all bugsmasher drivers, exposed the 737 to unnecessary danger. Your head-in-the-sand policies based on DC-3s and the 50s almost cost quite a few lives that day.
How come no screams about my post 275 where I pointed out that the Launy incident was with full radio alerting- the same as we use in G every day at many class G RPT airports!
There may be some who may like to know the truth about the Launy incident. At all times the VFR aircraft heard all the radio calls from the airline and the tower. It was classic radio alerting which so many swear about on this site.
You may remember that before YOUR famous NAS, all players, especially VFRs, were encouraged to pipe up if there was any possibility of a confliction. That would in all probability have resulted in a call from the VFR and prevented the Launy NMAC. But no, you had inserted into the documents that pilot to pilot R/T was "discouraged" (AIP ENR 1.1, 56.5), and that, together with the "free in Class E" empowerment of all bugsmasher drivers, exposed the 737 to unnecessary danger. Your head-in-the-sand policies based on DC-3s and the 50s almost cost quite a few lives that day.
HOWABOUT
Thanks for saying that I’m “the acknowledged expert”. I’ll endeavour to answer your questions to the best of my abilities!
The reason we are going to convert GAAP to Class D is that it presently isn’t called Class D. Is that clear?
The reason for the ICAO airspace classifications was so that pilots flying or being trained in different countries would know what service they were likely to get in a particular type of airspace.
When it comes to GAAP, there is no other airspace called that anywhere in the world. If it’s called “D”, who cares if it is ICAO Class D or FAA Class D, they will know what the basic service is.
Do I know which other modern aviation countries use Class D in a similar way to the FAA Class D?
Well, the ones I know are New Zealand, Canada, the USA (of course) and the UK, and most of the countries in Europe. There may be many others – I can’t remember from my flying.
By “most other modern aviation countries” I normally consider the countries with the most traffic density which are, of course, the USA, Canada, the UK and Europe.
I don’t know of any country that has an airspace called “GAAP”. All the countries I know that have Class D airspace comply closely with the airspace classification from ICAO – as does the USA. The USA believes it complies closely with ICAO because ICAO doesn’t actually state the wording for the clearance request. As we all know, the US clearance request is more of a statement – like we have at airports like Bankstown – and the US FAA claims this complies with ICAO. I agree with them.
This is about the best I can do as an “acknowledged expert”.
Thanks for saying that I’m “the acknowledged expert”. I’ll endeavour to answer your questions to the best of my abilities!
The reason we are going to convert GAAP to Class D is that it presently isn’t called Class D. Is that clear?
The reason for the ICAO airspace classifications was so that pilots flying or being trained in different countries would know what service they were likely to get in a particular type of airspace.
When it comes to GAAP, there is no other airspace called that anywhere in the world. If it’s called “D”, who cares if it is ICAO Class D or FAA Class D, they will know what the basic service is.
Do I know which other modern aviation countries use Class D in a similar way to the FAA Class D?
Well, the ones I know are New Zealand, Canada, the USA (of course) and the UK, and most of the countries in Europe. There may be many others – I can’t remember from my flying.
By “most other modern aviation countries” I normally consider the countries with the most traffic density which are, of course, the USA, Canada, the UK and Europe.
I don’t know of any country that has an airspace called “GAAP”. All the countries I know that have Class D airspace comply closely with the airspace classification from ICAO – as does the USA. The USA believes it complies closely with ICAO because ICAO doesn’t actually state the wording for the clearance request. As we all know, the US clearance request is more of a statement – like we have at airports like Bankstown – and the US FAA claims this complies with ICAO. I agree with them.
This is about the best I can do as an “acknowledged expert”.
The reason for the ICAO airspace classifications was so that pilots flying or being trained in different countries would know what service they were likely to get in a particular type of airspace.
I hardly think that the reason for allocating and naming airspace was to help the foreign visitors or students. If it can be done, well and good but it wasn't the reason.
Speaking of worldwide standardisation, when are we going to start driving on the right hand side of the road like the almighty Yanks do? or why have we had to endure seatbelts when they haven't? The answer's pretty simple really. Commonsense. Something we are not seeing in the VFR-in-E airspace discussion.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dick, I try to avoid being cynical; it doesn't add to the debate. However, if we have Class D, the ICAO version, why should we change - with the associated costs?
OK; I will accept your assertion that Class D is globally accepted..
But, you haven't answered the question.
QUOTE]Well, the ones I know are New Zealand, Canada, the USA (of course) and the UK, and most of the countries in Europe[/QUOTE]
Do most of the countries in Europe have FAA compliant Class D?
That's the simple question I am trying to ask.
OK; I will accept your assertion that Class D is globally accepted..
But, you haven't answered the question.
QUOTE]Well, the ones I know are New Zealand, Canada, the USA (of course) and the UK, and most of the countries in Europe[/QUOTE]
Do most of the countries in Europe have FAA compliant Class D?
That's the simple question I am trying to ask.
Howabout Yair, I'm going flying!
Bloggs, the ICAO airspace classifications were allocated to existing airspace and were introduced for the exact reason I said..
Keep your mind closed -- fortunately others reading this site keep their minds reasonably open.
Bloggs, the ICAO airspace classifications were allocated to existing airspace and were introduced for the exact reason I said..
Keep your mind closed -- fortunately others reading this site keep their minds reasonably open.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really don't think comparisons with every other country on the planet will get us anywhere. Countries that do not operate the ICAO airspace structure are all being encouraged to do so, that is why CASA wants Australia to change. We are operating a non-standard airspace configuration and there is no reason why, given our expertise and relatively advanced ATC and Safety Management systems.
Back to the problem:
Currently IFR aircraft entering Australian Class D airport airspace are kept separated from all other aircraft because in many ways that is easier to do than giving traffic on VFR's. It enables the controller to keep better control of the arrival sequence. When they are closer to the airport they are then sequenced visually into the circuit area with the controller providing separation until the pilot is able to sight the aircraft to follow. (This is the simple explanation it is often harder to do because of weather, etc)
In the US the same IFR traffic is being controlled in C and E airspace by the Centre (the only D is around the Towered airport, about 5nm I think) but the process is the same, eventually the D tower takes over for circuit sequencing. If the traffic is RPT and cannot or will not cancel IFR then generally they would be on STARs in bound and SIDs outbound. These are designed to facilitate D Tower separation and the tower has a radar picture repeater to assist with the separation. (Note: Where alternative airports exist such as in the LA area, an airport such as Van Nuys, probably the busiest in the world, will ban RPT traffic because they simply would not be able to handle it)
Unfortunately it is not easy to translate our existing D airport procedures to the current GAAP airports. As I see it the major problem is the lack of an alternative to D steps surrounding them. There is very little airspace room around the GAAP airports so how will IFR coming out of G with the VFRs be handled by a Tower controller?
I think the simplest method would be to introduce Class E out to 20/30 nm from each GA airport, where airspace of a higher category does not already exist. The local Centre or TCU would then have to clear IFR aircraft into that airspace and maintain separation with other inbound IFR aircraft until the D tower could continue the separation. Radar displays for the D tower controllers will be essential for situational awareness.
Quite obviously there is a deal of difference between a regional Class D airport handling mixed RPT, charter and private IFR as well as commercial and private VFR, and a Class D airport where the main users are flying schools. However this difference also exits in the USA and it is the latter where the Tower controllers have the greatest problems in integrating IFR traffic into the circuit area. This is where the pilot who is familiar with the airport and feels he/she has sufficiently good visibility will cancel the IFR flight plan and join the inbound VFR traffic.
Disclaimer: It is a while since I was able to see these things in action (ATC familiarisation at Oakland Centre back in the 90's) so if things have changed I have missed the changes.
Final word, I see no difference between the formal ATC (airways) clearance given to pilots for entry into controlled airspace and the next clearance they get, "Taxi to the holding point RWY XX". They are both clearances. If I was to call a D Tower inbound and be told "Enter on downwind RWY XX report ready for base turn" or" Overfly not below 2000 feet report overhead" then I have an ATC (but not an airways) clearance.
Back to the problem:
Currently IFR aircraft entering Australian Class D airport airspace are kept separated from all other aircraft because in many ways that is easier to do than giving traffic on VFR's. It enables the controller to keep better control of the arrival sequence. When they are closer to the airport they are then sequenced visually into the circuit area with the controller providing separation until the pilot is able to sight the aircraft to follow. (This is the simple explanation it is often harder to do because of weather, etc)
In the US the same IFR traffic is being controlled in C and E airspace by the Centre (the only D is around the Towered airport, about 5nm I think) but the process is the same, eventually the D tower takes over for circuit sequencing. If the traffic is RPT and cannot or will not cancel IFR then generally they would be on STARs in bound and SIDs outbound. These are designed to facilitate D Tower separation and the tower has a radar picture repeater to assist with the separation. (Note: Where alternative airports exist such as in the LA area, an airport such as Van Nuys, probably the busiest in the world, will ban RPT traffic because they simply would not be able to handle it)
Unfortunately it is not easy to translate our existing D airport procedures to the current GAAP airports. As I see it the major problem is the lack of an alternative to D steps surrounding them. There is very little airspace room around the GAAP airports so how will IFR coming out of G with the VFRs be handled by a Tower controller?
I think the simplest method would be to introduce Class E out to 20/30 nm from each GA airport, where airspace of a higher category does not already exist. The local Centre or TCU would then have to clear IFR aircraft into that airspace and maintain separation with other inbound IFR aircraft until the D tower could continue the separation. Radar displays for the D tower controllers will be essential for situational awareness.
Quite obviously there is a deal of difference between a regional Class D airport handling mixed RPT, charter and private IFR as well as commercial and private VFR, and a Class D airport where the main users are flying schools. However this difference also exits in the USA and it is the latter where the Tower controllers have the greatest problems in integrating IFR traffic into the circuit area. This is where the pilot who is familiar with the airport and feels he/she has sufficiently good visibility will cancel the IFR flight plan and join the inbound VFR traffic.
Disclaimer: It is a while since I was able to see these things in action (ATC familiarisation at Oakland Centre back in the 90's) so if things have changed I have missed the changes.
Final word, I see no difference between the formal ATC (airways) clearance given to pilots for entry into controlled airspace and the next clearance they get, "Taxi to the holding point RWY XX". They are both clearances. If I was to call a D Tower inbound and be told "Enter on downwind RWY XX report ready for base turn" or" Overfly not below 2000 feet report overhead" then I have an ATC (but not an airways) clearance.
Currently IFR aircraft entering Australian Class D airport airspace are kept separated from all other aircraft because in many ways that is easier to do than giving traffic on VFR's. It enables the controller to keep better control of the arrival sequence.
Therein lies the problem with "Australian D", it is not D at all, effectively non-radar C, almost B. Very convenient for controllers, the all too common answer to a VFR request for clearance: "Clearance not available, remain clear of controlled airspace".
In my long experience, IFR traffic is very often given absolute priority, when IFR is clear, then VFR gets a go. Quite unnecessary, and very frustrating and expensive for VFR traffic.
Clinton,
Back to the future, indeed. When "Westmead" was wiped and the "lane" was changed. to solve a problem most of us at YSBK said did not exist, that's when we were reduced to two inbound points.
As you well know, seldom is the chance missed to "do something" after an incident, even if the "something done" has little or no relationship with the triggering incident, it doesn't take much for the knee trembling to become a kneejerk.
Tootle pip!!
I would argue that there isn't really such a thing as an ATC clearance. A enter downwind of overfly instruction is an implicit airways clearance to that point I reckon.
But thats not the gist of the arguement
But thats not the gist of the arguement
MrApproach, you may remember I organised those "famil" trips for our ATC's to go to the USA (with full pay) and see how the system worked.
The ATC on return to Australia had to write a simple report on what appeared to be better about the US system and what appeared not as good.
The plan was to copy, where possible, what was better.
I still have copies of those reports.
All stated that there were some procedures which were better and some where we were already in front.
After I finished my term as Chairman of CAA the trips were stopped and none of the ideas were acted upon.
Any pilot here who wants to fly a jet aircraft competently will end up at some time in an overseas built multimillion dollar simulator.
This results in some pretty good standardisation of procedures for similar types of aircraft throughout the world.
ATC's are not exposed to this type of international standardisation because the simulators and training tend to be locally produced for each country.
For example US and Canadian low level en-route controllers think nothing of providing IFR procedural approach services for every non radar instrument approach in their sector- after all it is what they do 365 days of the year.
Readers of this site will know that it is quite different here- as no Australian controller is trained to provide this service though it is commonplace overseas.
The main reason for the difference is that for 40 years FS "owned" this airspace in Australia. Pilots were not even allowed to communicate directly with ATC when in this airspace so no ATC separation service could be provided.
One day we will follow the more proven and safer system used in most other countries where airline jets actually get an IFR ATC service whenever they are in IMC!
For that to happen we will have to upgrade some of our terminal airspace from G to E.
The ATC on return to Australia had to write a simple report on what appeared to be better about the US system and what appeared not as good.
The plan was to copy, where possible, what was better.
I still have copies of those reports.
All stated that there were some procedures which were better and some where we were already in front.
After I finished my term as Chairman of CAA the trips were stopped and none of the ideas were acted upon.
Any pilot here who wants to fly a jet aircraft competently will end up at some time in an overseas built multimillion dollar simulator.
This results in some pretty good standardisation of procedures for similar types of aircraft throughout the world.
ATC's are not exposed to this type of international standardisation because the simulators and training tend to be locally produced for each country.
For example US and Canadian low level en-route controllers think nothing of providing IFR procedural approach services for every non radar instrument approach in their sector- after all it is what they do 365 days of the year.
Readers of this site will know that it is quite different here- as no Australian controller is trained to provide this service though it is commonplace overseas.
The main reason for the difference is that for 40 years FS "owned" this airspace in Australia. Pilots were not even allowed to communicate directly with ATC when in this airspace so no ATC separation service could be provided.
One day we will follow the more proven and safer system used in most other countries where airline jets actually get an IFR ATC service whenever they are in IMC!
For that to happen we will have to upgrade some of our terminal airspace from G to E.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right Dick, hope you enjoyed the flight - not to Temora by any chance? I understand the Sabre was there.
On your comment that:
Does this include in G? I appreciate the qualification regarding upgrading to E, but when it's G and it's IMC, your comment would seem to imply that 'airline jets' get an IFR ATC service' regardless.
See, this is where we get a little confused. To my dim mind the statement that:
means that 'airline jets' get an 'IFR ATC' service regardless. What happens in the US?
On your comment that:
One day we will follow the more proven and safer system used in most other countries where airline jets actually get an IFR ATC service whenever they are in IMC!
See, this is where we get a little confused. To my dim mind the statement that:
airline jets actually get an IFR ATC service whenever they are in IMC!
I will make it clearer -airline jets actually get an IFR Air Traffic CONTROL service whenever they are in IMC.
IE by CONTROL I am describing what happens in IMC in the USA. Here we just get a traffic information service when in the terminal area under our en-route airspace.Pilots, sometimes with only a few hundred hours, set the separation 'standard" (if you could call it that) and become the "Controllers" as they "separate" their aircraft from the Airline jet in IMC.
Some people claim a traffic service is just as safe. If so why do other countries provide a CONTROL service when IMC exists?
If it is as safe why don't we just provide a traffic information service in our high level en-route airspace where the experts say the risk of collision is less than in the low level terminal area?
Then again, I have always said our airspace is upside down!
IE by CONTROL I am describing what happens in IMC in the USA. Here we just get a traffic information service when in the terminal area under our en-route airspace.Pilots, sometimes with only a few hundred hours, set the separation 'standard" (if you could call it that) and become the "Controllers" as they "separate" their aircraft from the Airline jet in IMC.
Some people claim a traffic service is just as safe. If so why do other countries provide a CONTROL service when IMC exists?
If it is as safe why don't we just provide a traffic information service in our high level en-route airspace where the experts say the risk of collision is less than in the low level terminal area?
Then again, I have always said our airspace is upside down!
Riiiiiight. So you'd be happy for me to train in a steam driven DC8 sim in the US before coming home to drive a glass cockpit A320?
When, oh when, oh when will you address the resources issue? Nothing intelligent will happen until you do.
When, oh when, oh when will you address the resources issue? Nothing intelligent will happen until you do.
I did address the "resources" issue - see the post where I said it looked as if we were under resourced be 100 compared to the USA.
Of course the FAA has efficiencies of scale that are greater than ours so the under resourcing may even be greater.
Ping, I don't know of any Australian airline that trains in such out of date sims' Do you?
Of course the FAA has efficiencies of scale that are greater than ours so the under resourcing may even be greater.
Ping, I don't know of any Australian airline that trains in such out of date sims' Do you?