CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Training Wheels,
I think I understand the concept of IFR in GAAP quite well. It is summed-up nicely in the ENR.
24.2 To aid in the provision of separation, ATC will determine the status
of operations in the GAAP CTR as follows:
a. Unrestricted VFR Operations
There are no weather related restrictions to aircraft operations.
IFR aircraft must operate to the VFR within the GAAP CTR.
b. Restricted VFR Operations
ATC may apply weather‐related restrictions to VFR operations
to facilitate the movement and separation of IFR aircraft. ATC
will then broadcast on the ATIS, “RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS”.
The actual restriction imposed may be specified individually
to aircraft, although general restrictions may be notified
on the ATIS; eg, “START APPROVAL REQUIRED”.
24.3 Arriving IFR aircraft which are visual outside the GAAP CTR, and
can continue visually, must operate VFR within the CTR (see para
31.5). IFR aircraft operating visually will only receive a traffic information
and sequencing service.
24.4 Arriving IFR aircraft which are not visual outside the GAAP CTR
may operate IFR within the CTR and separation will be provided
until the aircraft becomes visual.
24.5 Departing IFR aircraft must operate VFR within the GAAP CTR
until encountering IMC or leaving the GAAP CTR, whichever is the
sooner.
24.6 When aircraft are operating in conditions less than VMC, ATC will
provide separation within the GAAP CTR.
Walrus
I think I understand the concept of IFR in GAAP quite well. It is summed-up nicely in the ENR.
24.2 To aid in the provision of separation, ATC will determine the status
of operations in the GAAP CTR as follows:
a. Unrestricted VFR Operations
There are no weather related restrictions to aircraft operations.
IFR aircraft must operate to the VFR within the GAAP CTR.
b. Restricted VFR Operations
ATC may apply weather‐related restrictions to VFR operations
to facilitate the movement and separation of IFR aircraft. ATC
will then broadcast on the ATIS, “RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS”.
The actual restriction imposed may be specified individually
to aircraft, although general restrictions may be notified
on the ATIS; eg, “START APPROVAL REQUIRED”.
24.3 Arriving IFR aircraft which are visual outside the GAAP CTR, and
can continue visually, must operate VFR within the CTR (see para
31.5). IFR aircraft operating visually will only receive a traffic information
and sequencing service.
24.4 Arriving IFR aircraft which are not visual outside the GAAP CTR
may operate IFR within the CTR and separation will be provided
until the aircraft becomes visual.
24.5 Departing IFR aircraft must operate VFR within the GAAP CTR
until encountering IMC or leaving the GAAP CTR, whichever is the
sooner.
24.6 When aircraft are operating in conditions less than VMC, ATC will
provide separation within the GAAP CTR.
Walrus
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walrus, I don't want to get in to a pissing contest with you but this is what you originally posted.
You're confusing VMC with VFR. As I said in my previous posts, I have flown on an IFR flightplan into GAAPs doing practice circling approaches in VMC so it can be done. And of course you're going to separate yourself with other VFR by VFR rules. How else would you do it? Jeez! 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
The big difference between operating in straight D as opposed to GAAP D is caused by the VMC criteria.
In GAAP - clear of cloud.
In Straight D - 1,500m horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically from cloud.
This means with a base below 2,000 feet in straight D over a built up area all VFR flights are effectively required to obtain a Special VFR clearance. Whilst positive separation is not required between two special VFR aircraft (only due cloud and only in D), it is required between a special VFR aircraft and an IFR aircraft. Traffic advice (sight and avoid) is not an option where an IFR aircraft and a special VFR aircraft are involved, and given the physical size of the zones I think you'll be able to work out where this is will lead when the weather is a bit average.
In GAAP - clear of cloud.
In Straight D - 1,500m horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically from cloud.
This means with a base below 2,000 feet in straight D over a built up area all VFR flights are effectively required to obtain a Special VFR clearance. Whilst positive separation is not required between two special VFR aircraft (only due cloud and only in D), it is required between a special VFR aircraft and an IFR aircraft. Traffic advice (sight and avoid) is not an option where an IFR aircraft and a special VFR aircraft are involved, and given the physical size of the zones I think you'll be able to work out where this is will lead when the weather is a bit average.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The new procedures really made a show at Moorabin today with 31 active...."Clear to cross 35, taxiway echo, 22".. ", "Clear to cross 35 L, A4 35R"...something along those lines anyway...really clogged up ground frequency..not to mention confused me!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
so who do i thank for the 1 hr start delays at YSBK? then followed by 45 wait in the run up bay? at this rate we will be lucky to get 2 hrs of circuits in a day! 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, China
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm thinking about giving the game away completely. First we have hordes of foreign students that the instructors just want to make money out of, then when they clog the system, I get elbowed out of the way. Between AsA, CASA and the property developers, we are in a total mess.
CASA's Revised GAAP Procedures
Looks to me as if CASA is following the NAS policy. If you look at Page 7 of the NAS document (see here) paragraph 2.5, it clearly states:
"and if necessary, a difference lodged with ICAO with respect to VMC minima…
Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.
While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.”
If, indeed, CASA is moving to NAS Class D I commend them. It will mean that the non-GAAP Class D towers will have simpler entry procedures and no need for a VFR departure call.
The frequency will be less cluttered at these airports, and safety will be improved.
"and if necessary, a difference lodged with ICAO with respect to VMC minima…
Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.
While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.”
If, indeed, CASA is moving to NAS Class D I commend them. It will mean that the non-GAAP Class D towers will have simpler entry procedures and no need for a VFR departure call.
The frequency will be less cluttered at these airports, and safety will be improved.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick you don't have to live with this s***.
fcukin disgraceful
.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It will mean that the non-GAAP Class D towers will have simpler entry procedures and no need for a VFR departure call.
Can someone please substantiate and/or explain the CASA logic that it is safer for me to hold OCTA around a GAAP approach point than to be the 7th or 8th aircraft allowed into the circuit (which includes people departing often on a segregated track, e.g BK, JT).
The frequency will be less cluttered at these airports, and safety will be improved.
Im all for safety, as Im sure every other reader of this thread is, but CASA seems to have an agenda and at the moment it appears to involve shafting GA.
Dick,
What about in that great aviation nation that we should be aspiring to copy (that's the USA, in case you were wondering) ... do they limit the number of aircraft in a circuit? ... do they forbid aircraft to enter their GA Control Zones? How DO they handle their large numbers of GA aircraft at busy airports (and I'm sure there are a few)?
What about in that great aviation nation that we should be aspiring to copy (that's the USA, in case you were wondering) ... do they limit the number of aircraft in a circuit? ... do they forbid aircraft to enter their GA Control Zones? How DO they handle their large numbers of GA aircraft at busy airports (and I'm sure there are a few)?
CASA’s Revised GAAP Procedures on D&G General Aviation
Peuce - you have brought up a good point.
A week ago I checked with my contacts in the FAA in the United States, and they did not know of any Class D airport which had a limit on the number of aircraft in the circuit. In the States, it appears it is left up to the professionalism of the Air Traffic Controllers to make the decision.
For those who are concerned about going to the US system, let me point out that the GAAP procedures were copied from the Class D procedures at Van Nuys Airport in the USA. Unfortunately, rather than copy these procedures exactly, they were changed here in Australia - and that’s one of our problems.
By the way, before the abuse starts, I do not believe we should copy everything from the USA. I believe we should look around the world, take what is best and proven – especially if it adds to efficiencies – and combine that with what we already do which is better. After all, that’s what I did in my business career and it certainly worked.
A week ago I checked with my contacts in the FAA in the United States, and they did not know of any Class D airport which had a limit on the number of aircraft in the circuit. In the States, it appears it is left up to the professionalism of the Air Traffic Controllers to make the decision.
For those who are concerned about going to the US system, let me point out that the GAAP procedures were copied from the Class D procedures at Van Nuys Airport in the USA. Unfortunately, rather than copy these procedures exactly, they were changed here in Australia - and that’s one of our problems.
By the way, before the abuse starts, I do not believe we should copy everything from the USA. I believe we should look around the world, take what is best and proven – especially if it adds to efficiencies – and combine that with what we already do which is better. After all, that’s what I did in my business career and it certainly worked.
Six In The Circuit?
My experience at YMMB is that Seven is about the most you can fit, That's one on the runway, one on climbout, one on crosswind, Two on Downwind, one on base and one on final. Even Six can be a handful.
All it then takes is One or Two very new students to stretch out their circuits and Two announced arrivals from Academy and GMH, perhaps requesting circuits on arrival, and the poor bloody controller can get very busy very quickly.
Add in some poor "Engrish" and one starts hearing things like "which Cessna are you? Waggle your wings" or "You will not orbit in the circuit unless I tell you to. Do you understand?". It's at that point, when I hear the controller beginning to struggle a little to maintain situational awareness, let alone myself, that I stop my own practice and make a full stop to get out of the way.
To be fair, this only seems to happen in the first few weeks of a major schools "New Intake", and after a while they get the hang of things, as we all had to, and life settles down until the next course starts.
What I'm going to try next time is asking for the Western circuit, which seems to be kept a little quieter and seems to take some of the arriving traffic from the East when there is not conflicting traffic arriving from Carrum or Brighton.
As for orbiting at waypoints, I'm assuming orbiting to the left (don't know the AIP reference), and people are going to have to have eyes in the back of their heads to make that work.
All it then takes is One or Two very new students to stretch out their circuits and Two announced arrivals from Academy and GMH, perhaps requesting circuits on arrival, and the poor bloody controller can get very busy very quickly.
Add in some poor "Engrish" and one starts hearing things like "which Cessna are you? Waggle your wings" or "You will not orbit in the circuit unless I tell you to. Do you understand?". It's at that point, when I hear the controller beginning to struggle a little to maintain situational awareness, let alone myself, that I stop my own practice and make a full stop to get out of the way.
To be fair, this only seems to happen in the first few weeks of a major schools "New Intake", and after a while they get the hang of things, as we all had to, and life settles down until the next course starts.
What I'm going to try next time is asking for the Western circuit, which seems to be kept a little quieter and seems to take some of the arriving traffic from the East when there is not conflicting traffic arriving from Carrum or Brighton.
As for orbiting at waypoints, I'm assuming orbiting to the left (don't know the AIP reference), and people are going to have to have eyes in the back of their heads to make that work.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Silly question..how often do you end up with 6 a side ops at MB?
Going back through the NASIG stuff and seeing we had a change of Secondary procedures to GAAP after a non fatal mid air at BK in 76 and we started getting GAAP in 1978. Basic change was to enshrine pilot responsibility for separation.
This change is going to revert the responsibility back on controllers. So if the tower is responsible that means we are going to have to fly within the visual limitations of a view point from within a point in space in the tower cab.
VFR limits are set down quite explicitly. We are going to need the acerage at our GAAPs as big a layout as found at SY to facilitate two runway ops. I can see that happening, NOT!
NASIG just wanted a NAME CHANGE from GAAP to ClassD, the same procedures were to be kept in place. There isn't much difference from GAAP to US ClassD Our guys must receive instructions to enter where the US guys are expected to follow whatever procedures as set in their ATIS or aerodrome procedures...same thing just said differently.....in this case it is another argument.
I would prefer to keep the GAAP procedures as present...It is still the responsibilty of the PIC to maintain separation!
Operations within the GAAP need to be cleaned up as far as circuit procedures and the like but as Sunfish put it...we all have to start somewhere and things fall into place as soon as the newbs catch the beat.
Glad you agree with me, Dick.
This change is going to revert the responsibility back on controllers. So if the tower is responsible that means we are going to have to fly within the visual limitations of a view point from within a point in space in the tower cab.
VFR limits are set down quite explicitly. We are going to need the acerage at our GAAPs as big a layout as found at SY to facilitate two runway ops. I can see that happening, NOT!
NASIG just wanted a NAME CHANGE from GAAP to ClassD, the same procedures were to be kept in place. There isn't much difference from GAAP to US ClassD Our guys must receive instructions to enter where the US guys are expected to follow whatever procedures as set in their ATIS or aerodrome procedures...same thing just said differently.....in this case it is another argument.
I would prefer to keep the GAAP procedures as present...It is still the responsibilty of the PIC to maintain separation!
Operations within the GAAP need to be cleaned up as far as circuit procedures and the like but as Sunfish put it...we all have to start somewhere and things fall into place as soon as the newbs catch the beat.
Glad you agree with me, Dick.
Moderator
A few years ago CASA decided that Jandakot, despite being the busiest in Australia, wasn't worth the effort; packed their bongos and went away to Perth to look after their beloved fare paying passengers. So I find it hard to believe that they really give a rats about safety here.
Their ignorance of how things work here was displayed at a meeting of CFIs yesterday in regards to a simple airspace issue re the space between the training area and the GAAP zone. So...hardly experts in GAAP procedures Perhaps asking the pilots and ATC who make a living here might have been an idea before this change was made at the stroke of a pen. But hey, what do we know.
In the Ambidji report, on p234 it identifies an "unacceptable" (thier wording) risk at the SIXS/FDL inbound point. So..they bring in a procedure that will increase congestion there when aircraft are denied a clearance into the zone to keep within the cap.
I hear this has already been happening.
Their ignorance of how things work here was displayed at a meeting of CFIs yesterday in regards to a simple airspace issue re the space between the training area and the GAAP zone. So...hardly experts in GAAP procedures
Perhaps asking the pilots and ATC who make a living here might have been an idea before this change was made at the stroke of a pen. But hey, what do we know. In the Ambidji report, on p234 it identifies an "unacceptable" (thier wording) risk at the SIXS/FDL inbound point. So..they bring in a procedure that will increase congestion there when aircraft are denied a clearance into the zone to keep within the cap.
I hear this has already been happening.