CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YLIL on my days off
Age: 50
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So does anyone have clarity on where the circuit starts and ends?
Take YMMB - reporting at Brighton or GMH or Carum - am I in the circuit yet as it implies with the 'arriving and departing aircraft' clause?
Or is it once I've physically joined and called downwind/upwind/oblique long slightly dog-legged in the pike position base?
Flog.
Take YMMB - reporting at Brighton or GMH or Carum - am I in the circuit yet as it implies with the 'arriving and departing aircraft' clause?
Or is it once I've physically joined and called downwind/upwind/oblique long slightly dog-legged in the pike position base?
Flog.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A discussion with someone from AsA revealed the other considerations.
Basically the change means the controller can only handle six (possibly seven) on their frequency. Who knows what will happen, but that is their current interpretation. If six are 'in the circuit', which can include some inbound and outbound, and then someone extra calls inbound, they will be required to hold at the inbound reporting point - they cannot enter the control zone. This is a crazy situation making the whole situation far more dangerous.
It is not uncommon for two even three aircraft to arrive within 2 mins of each other at an inbound reporting point. Now will they be required to orbit OCTA awaiting a clearance? Very very poor situation increasing the risk of a collision. CASA, you will have blood on your hands.
Furthermore, consider the VMC criteria required when GAAPs become Class D aerodromes. Being clear of cloud will not be enough, you will now require 1000ft vertical sep from cloud. On days when a 1500ft cloud base would have easily allowed flying (maybe restricted VFR) we will all be kept on the ground.
Yes, CASA went to the industry to find the problems. But did they talk to the stakeholders about these changes - pilots, flying schools and AsA?
It may please the smaller operators, but don't be surprised if a number of medium to larger schools walk away from the GAAPs.
Basically the change means the controller can only handle six (possibly seven) on their frequency. Who knows what will happen, but that is their current interpretation. If six are 'in the circuit', which can include some inbound and outbound, and then someone extra calls inbound, they will be required to hold at the inbound reporting point - they cannot enter the control zone. This is a crazy situation making the whole situation far more dangerous.
It is not uncommon for two even three aircraft to arrive within 2 mins of each other at an inbound reporting point. Now will they be required to orbit OCTA awaiting a clearance? Very very poor situation increasing the risk of a collision. CASA, you will have blood on your hands.
Furthermore, consider the VMC criteria required when GAAPs become Class D aerodromes. Being clear of cloud will not be enough, you will now require 1000ft vertical sep from cloud. On days when a 1500ft cloud base would have easily allowed flying (maybe restricted VFR) we will all be kept on the ground.
Yes, CASA went to the industry to find the problems. But did they talk to the stakeholders about these changes - pilots, flying schools and AsA?
It may please the smaller operators, but don't be surprised if a number of medium to larger schools walk away from the GAAPs.
The important part of this announcement is the move to Class D next April. This I assume(and hope) will be the end to the risky practise of approach points outside ATC where traffic is funnelled into one point all at the same altitude and all tracking to the same base/ downwind/crosswind leg. This has been the subject of much debate on prune for some time. Could it be someone is finally listening?
If you look at the GAAP Review Report (Ambidji Report) - all 320 pages!
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...ull_june09.pdf
on pages 64 and 65 it shows John Wayne and Montreal/St Hubert with VFR routes and states the majority of GA aerodromes utilise mandatory VFR inbound and outbound routes (p 64) and refers to the USA/Canadian practise of a single departure track - runway heading until clear of the zone, anyone?
Class D does not change the theory of inbound points (and if you think there will be a radar controller sequencing aircraft to these points in G airspace you are dreaming (staffing/costs).
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GAAPs are there these days mostly for flight training. Sure, other GA has its place at some airports, but student pilots account for the majority of aircraft movements.
In the training world the inbound and outbound tracks make life easier for ATC and the pilots. Can you imagine the problems that will occur if a bearing and distance is required when making the inbound call (if reporting points are not used). Commerical pilots can handle it, but student pilots or the inexperienced? Three scenarios:
- modern aircraft with GPS information, possibly a glass cockpit. A lot of eyes-inside flying, making see-and-avoid less effective.
- older aircraft, no GPS or tracking data readily available. Unless stong SOPs or educational material are made available, pilots make incorrect assessments of position, leading to ATC confusion in an environment where radar cannot be used to 'officially' identify aircraft.
- people flock to positions they already know and use, therefore conflicts are not reduced.
Back to circuit traffic - of the three collisions recently only one was in the circuit during tower hours. The accidents that have occurred are tragic, but the unfortunate reality is accidents will occur again, no matter the rules. I'm sure I'm also not the only one to have been cut off by another aircraft, during tower hours, when there have been a lot less that six aircraft on frequency.
I don't have the answers but, in my eyes, CASA's knee-jerk reaction is not correct. I'm off to a meeting with CASA tomorrow, maybe I'll be convinced otherwise.
The new rules will further strangle operators when schedules are affected and flights cancelled because the pattern is full. It will be bad enough for the larger schools, what impact will it have on the smaller operators if even an average of one flight a day is cancelled?
CASA, the mailout last week was a joke, as is your involvement with the real stakeholders.
On a positive note this has been the fastest piece of legislation I've ever seen pumped out by CASA.
Rant over, looking forward to other's thoughts.
In the training world the inbound and outbound tracks make life easier for ATC and the pilots. Can you imagine the problems that will occur if a bearing and distance is required when making the inbound call (if reporting points are not used). Commerical pilots can handle it, but student pilots or the inexperienced? Three scenarios:
- modern aircraft with GPS information, possibly a glass cockpit. A lot of eyes-inside flying, making see-and-avoid less effective.
- older aircraft, no GPS or tracking data readily available. Unless stong SOPs or educational material are made available, pilots make incorrect assessments of position, leading to ATC confusion in an environment where radar cannot be used to 'officially' identify aircraft.
- people flock to positions they already know and use, therefore conflicts are not reduced.
Back to circuit traffic - of the three collisions recently only one was in the circuit during tower hours. The accidents that have occurred are tragic, but the unfortunate reality is accidents will occur again, no matter the rules. I'm sure I'm also not the only one to have been cut off by another aircraft, during tower hours, when there have been a lot less that six aircraft on frequency.
I don't have the answers but, in my eyes, CASA's knee-jerk reaction is not correct. I'm off to a meeting with CASA tomorrow, maybe I'll be convinced otherwise.
The new rules will further strangle operators when schedules are affected and flights cancelled because the pattern is full. It will be bad enough for the larger schools, what impact will it have on the smaller operators if even an average of one flight a day is cancelled?
CASA, the mailout last week was a joke, as is your involvement with the real stakeholders.
On a positive note this has been the fastest piece of legislation I've ever seen pumped out by CASA.
Rant over, looking forward to other's thoughts.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I'm confused (only slightly) by this NOTAM.
The AIP change is effective from 07 160244 TO PERM, but elsewhere it says at the top of the NOTAM WITH EFFECT FM 0907201400.
So with the AIP in effect, but the NOTAM not.....which do we do?
Is it simply a matter of the NOTAM cancelling out the AIP? Until 201400, which then the AIP comes into effect, but backdated?
The AIP change is effective from 07 160244 TO PERM, but elsewhere it says at the top of the NOTAM WITH EFFECT FM 0907201400.
So with the AIP in effect, but the NOTAM not.....which do we do?
Is it simply a matter of the NOTAM cancelling out the AIP? Until 201400, which then the AIP comes into effect, but backdated?
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AFAIK Class D airspace = non-radar. Don't know about other places, but at Bankstown the tower has a radar feed but it is slightly delayed and cannot be used for separation. No safety gain.
Of course with non-radar control zones come Departure Reports, plus the requirements to advise tower when maintaining assigned levels. So increased pilot workload in what is already a high traffic environment where they should not be distracted from looking for other traffic. Safety reduction.
Inbound reporting points are still used and important. The restrictions on aircraft per controller mean that we're going to have more pilots told "Remain outside Class D airspace" than before. So now there'll be more aircraft orbiting at inbound reporting points awaiting clearance. Safety reduction.
Can't find it just now, but someone said that helicopters use different inbound points at Bankstown. Not true. ERSA requires them to use the same reporting points as aeroplanes. It's just that they are then directed to track via helicopter waypoints after calling inbound at 2RN and Prospect (Of course, heli's inbound from R405 will usually use Olympic Park because it makes sense, but it isn't a published procedure)
The lack of any mention of helicopters or three-runway operations in the directives suggests to me that these documents have been published without any significant internal or external consultation. You'd only have to show the draft to any flight school at Bankstown or Camden to get reminded about that !
Ando1Bar, Special VFR is still available in Class D. Same requirements as GAAP zones and Class C.
I'd still like to think this is more about CASA putting pressure on Airservices to sort out their staffing levels and service delivery so that flight safety is increased eventually, rather than any direct policy to increase safety.
A less charitable interpretation, would be that John McCormick is under pressure to be seen to be doing something, anything. If there is a belief that this action could directly increase overall aviation safety, then it might suggest that Mr McCormick does not have an operational understanding of how GAAP zones work in practice; There is nothing in his published bio (CASA's Director) which would contradict that.
Of course with non-radar control zones come Departure Reports, plus the requirements to advise tower when maintaining assigned levels. So increased pilot workload in what is already a high traffic environment where they should not be distracted from looking for other traffic. Safety reduction.
Inbound reporting points are still used and important. The restrictions on aircraft per controller mean that we're going to have more pilots told "Remain outside Class D airspace" than before. So now there'll be more aircraft orbiting at inbound reporting points awaiting clearance. Safety reduction.
Can't find it just now, but someone said that helicopters use different inbound points at Bankstown. Not true. ERSA requires them to use the same reporting points as aeroplanes. It's just that they are then directed to track via helicopter waypoints after calling inbound at 2RN and Prospect (Of course, heli's inbound from R405 will usually use Olympic Park because it makes sense, but it isn't a published procedure)
The lack of any mention of helicopters or three-runway operations in the directives suggests to me that these documents have been published without any significant internal or external consultation. You'd only have to show the draft to any flight school at Bankstown or Camden to get reminded about that !
Ando1Bar, Special VFR is still available in Class D. Same requirements as GAAP zones and Class C.
I'd still like to think this is more about CASA putting pressure on Airservices to sort out their staffing levels and service delivery so that flight safety is increased eventually, rather than any direct policy to increase safety.
A less charitable interpretation, would be that John McCormick is under pressure to be seen to be doing something, anything. If there is a belief that this action could directly increase overall aviation safety, then it might suggest that Mr McCormick does not have an operational understanding of how GAAP zones work in practice; There is nothing in his published bio (CASA's Director) which would contradict that.
Just a couple of points here.
cb radio, They may have inbound and outbound routes at busy GA airports in the USA but I bet they don't have them at the same altitude like here. My next trip over there I will ask again.
A..1bar..Maybe where you fly might be only training but at Parafield most of the states maintenance for GA plus numerous private aircraft are also based here, and with only 2 app/dep points for aircaft OCTA it can get very close and chummy at times. I would much rather see multiple app/dep tracks at various altitudes thanks, where you do not desend until under instruction and sight of the tower ie class D.
Why not wait until we all know what is being proposed before flying off at the handle with all this doom and gloom, it will never work jargon.
cb radio, They may have inbound and outbound routes at busy GA airports in the USA but I bet they don't have them at the same altitude like here. My next trip over there I will ask again.
A..1bar..Maybe where you fly might be only training but at Parafield most of the states maintenance for GA plus numerous private aircraft are also based here, and with only 2 app/dep points for aircaft OCTA it can get very close and chummy at times. I would much rather see multiple app/dep tracks at various altitudes thanks, where you do not desend until under instruction and sight of the tower ie class D.
Why not wait until we all know what is being proposed before flying off at the handle with all this doom and gloom, it will never work jargon.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airspace constraints in and around GAAP zones ( e.g abutting Class C airspace in alot of cases) would require certain dispensations to convert them to Class D control zones, otherwise the demise of GA at those airports would be a matter of when not if.
Dispensations such as :
-a reduction in met minima to allow for continued flow of traffic into and out of the CTR during times approaching marginal VMC.
-Differing sep standards being applied to aircraft operating within the CTR, i.e IFR treated as VFR. - try applying 1000ft sep IFR to IFR when the vertical limit of the zone is 1500ft
-Anticipation of runway standards so as to allow for efficient movement of traffic.
These are just to name a few. If you put these into place in a Calss D environment you would have, um..., hang on.... GAAP.
GAAP zones used to effectively be Class D CTR's. It was realised that something needed to be done to improve the system to cater for the increasing numbers of aircraft movements and operations, hence GAAP was born.
GAAP works.
It is the very small minority who enter the zone at the wrong altitude, who dont have any sense of airmanship whatsoever, who cant follow to save their lives, that puts doubts and pressure on the system. Instead of penalising the good pilots and operators CASA should do their job as regulator and crack down on the few instructors and students who cause GAAP zones to be unneccesarily hazardous.
Rant over.
Dispensations such as :
-a reduction in met minima to allow for continued flow of traffic into and out of the CTR during times approaching marginal VMC.
-Differing sep standards being applied to aircraft operating within the CTR, i.e IFR treated as VFR. - try applying 1000ft sep IFR to IFR when the vertical limit of the zone is 1500ft
-Anticipation of runway standards so as to allow for efficient movement of traffic.
These are just to name a few. If you put these into place in a Calss D environment you would have, um..., hang on.... GAAP.
GAAP zones used to effectively be Class D CTR's. It was realised that something needed to be done to improve the system to cater for the increasing numbers of aircraft movements and operations, hence GAAP was born.
GAAP works.
It is the very small minority who enter the zone at the wrong altitude, who dont have any sense of airmanship whatsoever, who cant follow to save their lives, that puts doubts and pressure on the system. Instead of penalising the good pilots and operators CASA should do their job as regulator and crack down on the few instructors and students who cause GAAP zones to be unneccesarily hazardous.
Rant over.
Say Again, Dispensations as you call them are common place at airports all over the country from the simple right hand circuits due terrain to the more complex. So there should be no fear in that if required.
GAAPS were born in the late 70's due mainly to the introduction of parallel runways and as such "Australian unique" procedures invented to handle them. At 28 you weren't even born then but I was and started flying just after their introduction so trust me. In those days there was no International student flying schools so traffic was much less although private flying was more common.
At the time the system was set up for the benifit of ATC as we would /still do organise ourselves OCTA at an approach point line astern and report inbound all at the same altitude. ATC would only have to note the callsign, usually have you report when closer to confirm the order of arrival, then clear you to land. Problem is they are of no real assistance to anyone at the approach point where they are needed most as this is where the most risk of a midair is. I'm not saying this was an intentsional plan way back then it was just the way the powers that be thought about the system (an ATC view). Remember few ATC's have pilots licences so looking at it from a pilots point of view didn't enter the equasion. With the increase in flying activity over the years this flaw is now coming home to roost.
Yes GAAPS work. But they can be so much better and safer for all.
I say again lets wait and see what is proposed before condemning any change.
GAAPS were born in the late 70's due mainly to the introduction of parallel runways and as such "Australian unique" procedures invented to handle them. At 28 you weren't even born then but I was and started flying just after their introduction so trust me. In those days there was no International student flying schools so traffic was much less although private flying was more common.
At the time the system was set up for the benifit of ATC as we would /still do organise ourselves OCTA at an approach point line astern and report inbound all at the same altitude. ATC would only have to note the callsign, usually have you report when closer to confirm the order of arrival, then clear you to land. Problem is they are of no real assistance to anyone at the approach point where they are needed most as this is where the most risk of a midair is. I'm not saying this was an intentsional plan way back then it was just the way the powers that be thought about the system (an ATC view). Remember few ATC's have pilots licences so looking at it from a pilots point of view didn't enter the equasion. With the increase in flying activity over the years this flaw is now coming home to roost.
Yes GAAPS work. But they can be so much better and safer for all.
I say again lets wait and see what is proposed before condemning any change.
Last edited by mostlytossas; 16th Jul 2009 at 13:43.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I commend CASA for taking the initiative to increase safety in GAAP airports. My greatest concern however is how the new rules against runway incursion are going to work in practice. It's all very well at Bankstown and other GAAPs where they have parallel runways (correct me if I am wrong) but Moorabbin is facing a real challenge.
Quite often on a full stop landing pilots use the cris-crossing non-active runways for vacating the active runway at MB eg. when landing on 17L, runoff to 22, when landing on 35R, runoff to 31L or 31R, or when landing on 13/31, runoff to a combination of 04/22 and crossing 17L/R. If the pilot is still on TWR frequency, is TWR expected to such taxi clearances ? Normally such clearances are given by GRD after you have vacated the active runway - now you're already on another runway before you can contact GRD (!) The problem is if you missed the exit say to a non-active runway, you may have to roll a long way to the next available taxiway or even right through to the end before vacating, and given TWR's reluctance to clear the one behind from landing or touch n' go until you have vacated, are we going to witness a lot of go-arounds ? Or should we make every full stop landing a short field and vacate ASAP knowing that some else is following close behind ?
Maybe this problem is peculiar to MB. My suggestion is (now the Tiger Moth enthusiasts are going to shoot me down in flames) to consider de-commissioning 04/22, otherwise there will be a lot of runway incursions every day, as 04/22 is hardly used anyway.
I agree that no amount of regulation is going to prevent accidents caused by the individual pilot who departs (for one reason or another) from the rules. Yes we need better regulation and supervision but the parameters drawn up by CASA does not necessary work at every GAAP aerodrome (not without substantial local modification and/or sacrifice). With limitations on the number of aircraft in the circuit, I dare not even start to think how other aircraft will be sequenced at VFR entry points as that seems to me to be the real reason for a substantial proportion of accidents.
Quite often on a full stop landing pilots use the cris-crossing non-active runways for vacating the active runway at MB eg. when landing on 17L, runoff to 22, when landing on 35R, runoff to 31L or 31R, or when landing on 13/31, runoff to a combination of 04/22 and crossing 17L/R. If the pilot is still on TWR frequency, is TWR expected to such taxi clearances ? Normally such clearances are given by GRD after you have vacated the active runway - now you're already on another runway before you can contact GRD (!) The problem is if you missed the exit say to a non-active runway, you may have to roll a long way to the next available taxiway or even right through to the end before vacating, and given TWR's reluctance to clear the one behind from landing or touch n' go until you have vacated, are we going to witness a lot of go-arounds ? Or should we make every full stop landing a short field and vacate ASAP knowing that some else is following close behind ?
Maybe this problem is peculiar to MB. My suggestion is (now the Tiger Moth enthusiasts are going to shoot me down in flames) to consider de-commissioning 04/22, otherwise there will be a lot of runway incursions every day, as 04/22 is hardly used anyway.
I agree that no amount of regulation is going to prevent accidents caused by the individual pilot who departs (for one reason or another) from the rules. Yes we need better regulation and supervision but the parameters drawn up by CASA does not necessary work at every GAAP aerodrome (not without substantial local modification and/or sacrifice). With limitations on the number of aircraft in the circuit, I dare not even start to think how other aircraft will be sequenced at VFR entry points as that seems to me to be the real reason for a substantial proportion of accidents.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A..1bar..Maybe where you fly might be only training but at Parafield most of the states maintenance for GA plus numerous private aircraft are also based here, and with only 2 app/dep points for aircaft OCTA it can get very close and chummy at times. I would much rather see multiple app/dep tracks at various altitudes thanks, where you do not desend until under instruction and sight of the tower ie class D.
Two inbound points at airports like Bankstown and Parafield are a far more hazardous situation than restricting aircraft to 6 in the circuit. Also, how will you feel next week when ATC are holding aircraft at these two inbound reporting points?
A lot needs to be considered, SayAgainSlowly summed up the Class D situation nicely.
They may have inbound and outbound routes at busy GA airports in the USA but I bet they don't have them at the same altitude like here.
In those days there was no International student flying schools so traffic was much less
Remember few ATC's have pilots licences so looking at it from a pilots point of view didn't enter the equasion
RE: The Runway clearances, at BK at least the runway is owned by the tower (you get permission from them to cross). Is this the case at MB? If so this will increase work hugely for the tower if what ReverseFlight says is true.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tower always owns the runways. The difference at Bankstown is that Tower also owns the taxiways between the runways.
One thing that's not clear with the new rules is who owns an inactive runway at Bankstown. In practice it's just a taxiway, but the new rules have elevated it to an undefined sub-class that is more than a taxiway (since you need a clearance to use it) but less than a runway (because it's inactive, and is outside the runway in use)
One thing that's not clear with the new rules is who owns an inactive runway at Bankstown. In practice it's just a taxiway, but the new rules have elevated it to an undefined sub-class that is more than a taxiway (since you need a clearance to use it) but less than a runway (because it's inactive, and is outside the runway in use)
The ADC (or "tower") will own all the runways, same as at other controlled aerodrome types. They will simply tell you to vacate left or right into the runway and presto there is your clearance.
Internally the runway can be released to SMC so he can give you clearances to cross as well on ground.
Internally the runway can be released to SMC so he can give you clearances to cross as well on ground.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope pilots can comply with clearances vacating runways because if you can't slow down enough in time for exiting onto a non-active, the only option is to roll through, possibly to the annoyance of the aircraft trying to land behind you. In any case, the TWR is going to be a lot busier in future.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An interesting one will be (in the case of YSBK) you come in at night and Rwy Centre is the only one operational, yet when you vacate you have to hold short of the inactive (and UNLIT) runway at a holding point that is also UNLIT.
Are they going to have ALL runways, whether active or inactive, lit at night? Only way i can see to attempt to minimise runway incursions.
Next thing it will cost us $100 per movement at YSBK due to the airport's increased electricity bill.
Are they going to have ALL runways, whether active or inactive, lit at night? Only way i can see to attempt to minimise runway incursions.
Next thing it will cost us $100 per movement at YSBK due to the airport's increased electricity bill.
Moderator
Perhaps it would have been a good idea to consult with industry. Some of the things brought up here are clear to those of us who work in the GAAP environment every day but seem to have been overlooked.
Agreed that it is the approach points outside the CTR that are the most hazardous areas. Particularly when you have people who either don't know the rights of way or are apparently flying with their eyes shut. Overtaking on the left is one of my pet hates, people reporting at a point when they are in fact a couple of miles away from it is another. And orbiting at a GAAP approach point
I think we might see more of that with these proposed changes!
These proposed changes won't make any difference to safety for as long as the people who do the above and the orgnaisations they come from see no consequences for their actions. Perhaps if people thought that CASA might actually invite them over for tea and biccies to explain themselves we might see better airmanship. Until then there will always be those who behave this way, and the students will think that it's OK, and as CASA left Jandakot years ago to look after the fare paying pax at Perth there's no enforcement.
Agreed that it is the approach points outside the CTR that are the most hazardous areas. Particularly when you have people who either don't know the rights of way or are apparently flying with their eyes shut. Overtaking on the left is one of my pet hates, people reporting at a point when they are in fact a couple of miles away from it is another. And orbiting at a GAAP approach point
I think we might see more of that with these proposed changes!These proposed changes won't make any difference to safety for as long as the people who do the above and the orgnaisations they come from see no consequences for their actions. Perhaps if people thought that CASA might actually invite them over for tea and biccies to explain themselves we might see better airmanship. Until then there will always be those who behave this way, and the students will think that it's OK, and as CASA left Jandakot years ago to look after the fare paying pax at Perth there's no enforcement.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
\Given the size of the average civvy circuit, I'm not surprised at the concern!
Just wait for the next set of runway incursion statistics