CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Sorry Clinton M, I misunderstood your question.
It seems that CASA have reacted to some bits of the the recent Ambidgi "UTILITY OF GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES TO AUSTRALIAN-ADMINISTERED AIRSPACE" report. http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...ull_june09.pdf
(note that you can comment on it until 1-Sep-09)
It seems that CASA have reacted to some bits of the the recent Ambidgi "UTILITY OF GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES TO AUSTRALIAN-ADMINISTERED AIRSPACE" report. http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma...ull_june09.pdf
(note that you can comment on it until 1-Sep-09)
Recommendation 1
That an expert panel of strategic General Aviation (GA) stakeholders be established, chaired by the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), to provide advice and guidance to the OAR in the implementation of these recommendations.
Recommendation 2
That GAAP-related material within the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) suite of documents be reviewed to achieve consistency, clarity and accuracy of data in a standardised and controlled format.
Recommendation 3
That site-specific mechanisms be determined through the collaboration of all GAAP stakeholders at Bankstown, Jandakot and Moorabbin to limit peak traffic movements to the available capacity dictated by ATC surveillance, aerodrome infrastructure, pilot competencies and airspace volumes.
Recommendation 4
That any such mechanisms determined at Recommendation 3 be subjected to formal risk assessment, regulatory oversight and extensive promulgation to ensure that additional hazards are not introduced into adjacent aerodromes as a consequence of any change.
Recommendation 5
That any future material changes to GAAP should take into account the impact of change on operations outside GAAP hours.
Recommendation 6
That the effectiveness of existing safety occurrence reporting mechanisms be reviewed to generate corrective actions and safety promotion to ensure ease and speed of reporting, as well as the provision of formal and adequate feedback to stakeholders to facilitate analysis of contributory factors.
Recommendation 7
That the existing open safety recommendations made by ATSB to both CASA and Airservices in 2004 be addressed as a priority to provide a sound basis for further comparative analysis.
Recommendation 8
That the potential of site-specific internet websites relating to each GAAP aerodrome be reviewed, consistent with contemporary practices in the USA.
Recommendation 9
That the need for enhanced ATC separation services be considered prior to the introduction of future Passenger Transport Service (PTS) operations at GAAP aerodromes.
Recommendation 10
That the position of SMC is re-introduced on a discrete frequency and that taxi calls be re-introduced at GAAP aerodromes. In addition, the operating concept that enables the crossing of ‘non-active’ runways be reconsidered in light of the increased threat of Runway Incursions (RI).
Recommendation 11
That segregated inbound and outbound routes be published for each GAAP aerodrome, with inbound tracking information linked to circuit (CCT) entry procedures.
Recommendation 12
That the processing of arriving traffic from Class C airspace into GAAP Control Zones (CTRs) be reviewed to maximise segregation from other traffic.
Recommendation 13
That a methodology be promulgated that ensures the ongoing effectiveness of Inbound Reporting Points (IRPs) for GAAP aerodromes.
Recommendation 14
That MAC contributory factors at GAAP aerodromes be minimised through:
a) Improve IRPs through a review of their location and, if deemed necessary, the installation of strobe lights or high visibility markers;
b) Reduction in ADC frequency congestion to enable accurate and timely inbound reports;
c) Traffic segregation assurance associated with the publication of consistent inbound and outbound procedures for GAAP aerodromes; and
d) Publication of specific procedures – including actions prior to arrival and at the IRPs, including actions to take if an inbound report cannot be made.
Recommendation 15
That a review is undertaken of airspace in the vicinity of Bankstown with a view to increasing the number of IRPs.
Recommendation 16
That the feasibility of implementing traffic alert technology in GA aircraft operating at GAAP aerodromes be investigated.
Recommendation 17
That a training and development package be developed, consistent with CASA’s GAAP Training Review 2009 to address perceived declining levels of airmanship and flight training competencies.
Recommendation 18
That a consistent methodology for interpretation, collation and publication of air traffic movement data at GAAP aerodromes be determined to enable comparative safety analysis.
Recommendation 19
That documentation associated with the nomination, utilisation and promulgation of preferred runways at GAAP aerodromes be standardised.
Recommendation 20
That the potential of Airservices’ Global Environmental Management System (GEMS)-derived data be investigated in the ongoing surveillance of traffic patterns and densities in the GAAP environment.
Recommendation 21
That a formal monthly meeting program be initiated between operational ATC and Flying Operations Inspectors (FOIs)/Air Safety Advisors (ASA)s (both fixed and rotary wing) in order to monitor safety trends and developing hazards, with each meeting to include a period of time in the tower by an FOI/ASA.
Recommendation 22
That the requirement for transponder deactivation for aircraft operating wholly within GAAP CTRs be reassessed to ensure maximum safety value is derived from existing equipment.
Recommendation 23
That site-specific Standard Operating Envelopes and Design Standards for GAAP aerodromes be established, consistent with principles of contemporary change-management that would consider potential impacts on adjacent GA aerodromes and the mitigation of “change fatigue” amongst stakeholders.
Recommendation 24
That a regular analysis of traffic levels and potential collision risks is undertaken at Camden to enable a timely intervention with safety actions in the event that traffic levels increase beyond current levels of capacity.
That an expert panel of strategic General Aviation (GA) stakeholders be established, chaired by the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), to provide advice and guidance to the OAR in the implementation of these recommendations.
Recommendation 2
That GAAP-related material within the Aeronautical Information Publication (AIP) suite of documents be reviewed to achieve consistency, clarity and accuracy of data in a standardised and controlled format.
Recommendation 3
That site-specific mechanisms be determined through the collaboration of all GAAP stakeholders at Bankstown, Jandakot and Moorabbin to limit peak traffic movements to the available capacity dictated by ATC surveillance, aerodrome infrastructure, pilot competencies and airspace volumes.
Recommendation 4
That any such mechanisms determined at Recommendation 3 be subjected to formal risk assessment, regulatory oversight and extensive promulgation to ensure that additional hazards are not introduced into adjacent aerodromes as a consequence of any change.
Recommendation 5
That any future material changes to GAAP should take into account the impact of change on operations outside GAAP hours.
Recommendation 6
That the effectiveness of existing safety occurrence reporting mechanisms be reviewed to generate corrective actions and safety promotion to ensure ease and speed of reporting, as well as the provision of formal and adequate feedback to stakeholders to facilitate analysis of contributory factors.
Recommendation 7
That the existing open safety recommendations made by ATSB to both CASA and Airservices in 2004 be addressed as a priority to provide a sound basis for further comparative analysis.
Recommendation 8
That the potential of site-specific internet websites relating to each GAAP aerodrome be reviewed, consistent with contemporary practices in the USA.
Recommendation 9
That the need for enhanced ATC separation services be considered prior to the introduction of future Passenger Transport Service (PTS) operations at GAAP aerodromes.
Recommendation 10
That the position of SMC is re-introduced on a discrete frequency and that taxi calls be re-introduced at GAAP aerodromes. In addition, the operating concept that enables the crossing of ‘non-active’ runways be reconsidered in light of the increased threat of Runway Incursions (RI).
Recommendation 11
That segregated inbound and outbound routes be published for each GAAP aerodrome, with inbound tracking information linked to circuit (CCT) entry procedures.
Recommendation 12
That the processing of arriving traffic from Class C airspace into GAAP Control Zones (CTRs) be reviewed to maximise segregation from other traffic.
Recommendation 13
That a methodology be promulgated that ensures the ongoing effectiveness of Inbound Reporting Points (IRPs) for GAAP aerodromes.
Recommendation 14
That MAC contributory factors at GAAP aerodromes be minimised through:
a) Improve IRPs through a review of their location and, if deemed necessary, the installation of strobe lights or high visibility markers;
b) Reduction in ADC frequency congestion to enable accurate and timely inbound reports;
c) Traffic segregation assurance associated with the publication of consistent inbound and outbound procedures for GAAP aerodromes; and
d) Publication of specific procedures – including actions prior to arrival and at the IRPs, including actions to take if an inbound report cannot be made.
Recommendation 15
That a review is undertaken of airspace in the vicinity of Bankstown with a view to increasing the number of IRPs.
Recommendation 16
That the feasibility of implementing traffic alert technology in GA aircraft operating at GAAP aerodromes be investigated.
Recommendation 17
That a training and development package be developed, consistent with CASA’s GAAP Training Review 2009 to address perceived declining levels of airmanship and flight training competencies.
Recommendation 18
That a consistent methodology for interpretation, collation and publication of air traffic movement data at GAAP aerodromes be determined to enable comparative safety analysis.
Recommendation 19
That documentation associated with the nomination, utilisation and promulgation of preferred runways at GAAP aerodromes be standardised.
Recommendation 20
That the potential of Airservices’ Global Environmental Management System (GEMS)-derived data be investigated in the ongoing surveillance of traffic patterns and densities in the GAAP environment.
Recommendation 21
That a formal monthly meeting program be initiated between operational ATC and Flying Operations Inspectors (FOIs)/Air Safety Advisors (ASA)s (both fixed and rotary wing) in order to monitor safety trends and developing hazards, with each meeting to include a period of time in the tower by an FOI/ASA.
Recommendation 22
That the requirement for transponder deactivation for aircraft operating wholly within GAAP CTRs be reassessed to ensure maximum safety value is derived from existing equipment.
Recommendation 23
That site-specific Standard Operating Envelopes and Design Standards for GAAP aerodromes be established, consistent with principles of contemporary change-management that would consider potential impacts on adjacent GA aerodromes and the mitigation of “change fatigue” amongst stakeholders.
Recommendation 24
That a regular analysis of traffic levels and potential collision risks is undertaken at Camden to enable a timely intervention with safety actions in the event that traffic levels increase beyond current levels of capacity.
Last edited by KittyKatKaper; 2nd Aug 2009 at 07:21. Reason: added link
Grandpa Aerotart
Amazing innit? 100+ pages of pretty graphs and management speak and all they could come up with was this sh!t.
Anyone left in any doubt that we are dealing with morons?
Anyone left in any doubt that we are dealing with morons?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NOTAM might be the towers doing
"BK tower, SAS estimating PSP 2 mins"
How is that helping other peoples' situational awareness when I could be between 2 and 10 miles away and tracking to PSP from any direction?
It will only succeed in adding to frequency congestion and confusion.
The remark that the tower had a hand in this NOTAM I think would be insulting to the guys up there (in the tower) having to be the ones implementing this s#@t. They are qualified and licenced to provide a service but are being restricted by an imcompetent regulator.
I cannot see any improvement to safety from any of the directives/NOTAMs issued.
SAS
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If i'm on an IFR plan, on descent into Bankstown from inside CTA, do i have to call the TWR 2 minutes prior to the inbound point?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you are IFR they already know you are coming. Doesn't SYD arrivals hand you off to the tower anyway?
What will happen if I turn up at 2RN or PSP and didnt give an estimate 2 mins ago? Will an incident report be put in on me?
Maybe I didnt get in my estimate because the frequency was too congested with people trying to figure out where other people are...
'..estimating PSP 2 mins'
'...Im also 2 mins from PSP, I dont see you. Im a metro, 10 miles out'
'...Im an R22, 2 miles out'
'...Im to the north west'
'...Im to the south'
Its happening already
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
8.3 A. (I) ARR ACFT SHALL TR VIA GAAP APP POINTS PROSPECT (PSP)( NE SHORE OF PROSPECT RESERVOIR) OR 2 RN (TWRN)(S OF 2RN RADIO MAST)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last night i came in Via the RIC4 ARR, Approach never said anything about calling the TWR with an estimate, so i didn't bother, TWR never said anything when i called them inbound.
So i'll be continuing as normal until i'm told otherwise.
But what a bloody shambles it was when i departed earlier on with everyman and his dog trying to get there estimates in, at the same time as the kaos with the temporary restricted area at Cabramatta.
From the tone of the tower voices, i don't think they are enjoying these ridiculous procedures either.
So i'll be continuing as normal until i'm told otherwise.
But what a bloody shambles it was when i departed earlier on with everyman and his dog trying to get there estimates in, at the same time as the kaos with the temporary restricted area at Cabramatta.
From the tone of the tower voices, i don't think they are enjoying these ridiculous procedures either.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"... i'll be continuing as normal until i'm told otherwise."
Good call. The notam isn't active yet.
The whole thing is a smelly pile of poo, handed down from b*llsh!t castle to the significant distress of controllers, pilots and operators. But pilots who are already making the calls are adding weight to the "pilots-need-to-be-babied" argument, by showing that they don't even understand the basics.
Good call. The notam isn't active yet.
WEF 0908070800 FLIGHT PROCEDURES YSBK AMD ERSA ...
Quote:
The NOTAM might be the towers doing
Strongly doubt that. Why would they care if your 2 minutes from the app. point? Heard some people at BK making the 2 min report yesterday and the reply from tower was 'report again at PSP'. And when they did they were processed the same as last week - if you were lucky to be one of the 6 you were given clearance. If not you were told to hold outside. Some people dont even know the correct position to report at (e.g NE shore of PSP reservoir) - let alone how to pass an accurate estimate on a position that they make up to suit their own flying. A valid point was made a few posts ago re: IFR flights descending from CTA. What about a jet on descent through class C at 300+ kts - 2 min ETA to Prospect is almost at Katoomba. I dont think Sy departures will be happy ( and I dont think it is all that legal) to be in their airspace, under their jusisdiction, yet on someones elses frequency who probably doesnt want you there anyway.
"BK tower, SAS estimating PSP 2 mins"
How is that helping other peoples' situational awareness when I could be between 2 and 10 miles away and tracking to PSP from any direction?
It will only succeed in adding to frequency congestion and confusion.
The remark that the tower had a hand in this NOTAM I think would be insulting to the guys up there (in the tower) having to be the ones implementing this s#@t. They are qualified and licenced to provide a service but are being restricted by an imcompetent regulator.
I cannot see any improvement to safety from any of the directives/NOTAMs issued.
SAS
The NOTAM might be the towers doing
Strongly doubt that. Why would they care if your 2 minutes from the app. point? Heard some people at BK making the 2 min report yesterday and the reply from tower was 'report again at PSP'. And when they did they were processed the same as last week - if you were lucky to be one of the 6 you were given clearance. If not you were told to hold outside. Some people dont even know the correct position to report at (e.g NE shore of PSP reservoir) - let alone how to pass an accurate estimate on a position that they make up to suit their own flying. A valid point was made a few posts ago re: IFR flights descending from CTA. What about a jet on descent through class C at 300+ kts - 2 min ETA to Prospect is almost at Katoomba. I dont think Sy departures will be happy ( and I dont think it is all that legal) to be in their airspace, under their jusisdiction, yet on someones elses frequency who probably doesnt want you there anyway.
"BK tower, SAS estimating PSP 2 mins"
How is that helping other peoples' situational awareness when I could be between 2 and 10 miles away and tracking to PSP from any direction?
It will only succeed in adding to frequency congestion and confusion.
The remark that the tower had a hand in this NOTAM I think would be insulting to the guys up there (in the tower) having to be the ones implementing this s#@t. They are qualified and licenced to provide a service but are being restricted by an imcompetent regulator.
I cannot see any improvement to safety from any of the directives/NOTAMs issued.
SAS
I am a GAAP controller as well so I am sure my comrades over east won't be too offended by my speculation.
The estimate could assist in planning from our perspective, mainly in managing the 6 aircraft we can have. If a lot call, it's quite simple to not launch any until we can have the six. That would be my guess.
We are all doing our best to deal with a situation forced upon us.
Last night i came in Via the RIC4 ARR, Approach never said anything about calling the TWR with an estimate, so i didn't bother, TWR never said anything when i called them inbound
Guest
Posts: n/a
No such 2 min pre-approach point call NOTAM for YBAF yet, IMHO they don't have the traffic density to require it.
A big pile of poo indeed, and sadly only a matter of time if it's kept as is until two planes barrel into each other holding at one of these approach points.
I think the best we can do in the meantime is get well away from the actual approach point and altitude when requested to stay clear, even if that does add time (then again, it's also time in the book, look at the bright side
)
Just another reason to desert the GAAP (apart from exorbitant usage fees and all the other BS)
A big pile of poo indeed, and sadly only a matter of time if it's kept as is until two planes barrel into each other holding at one of these approach points.
I think the best we can do in the meantime is get well away from the actual approach point and altitude when requested to stay clear, even if that does add time (then again, it's also time in the book, look at the bright side
)Just another reason to desert the GAAP (apart from exorbitant usage fees and all the other BS)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Awol57, maybe you can answer a question for me. Not sure whether the same applies where you are, as i fly from Bankstown, maybe you can help.
It relates to the allowance of only 6 aircraft at a time. The pile of poo says "6 in the circuit". Is it open to interpretation from your part as a ATC to work out what is "in the circuit". At bankstown (and most GAAP zones i know of), the inbound points are approx 5nm from the aerodrome, yet aircraft are being held at inbound points which are nowhere near "the circuit".
So if an aircraft departs, when is it classified as no longer in the circuit?
Likewise on arrival, for the little C152 it could take them 6-8 minutes to get from the inbound point to the circuit, that allows for a significant number of movements.
Is it up to the controller to say 3 aircraft will land from within the circuit, so i'll let 3 more start to come inbound?
I have the greatest respect for you guys (ATC in general, but specifically YSBK as that's who i deal with most) who have to manage everything from beginners in C152's to professional pilots in corporate jets.
You do a fantastic job - especially at the moment while having one hand tied behind your back and one eye covered by the bullsh@t castles poo list.
It relates to the allowance of only 6 aircraft at a time. The pile of poo says "6 in the circuit". Is it open to interpretation from your part as a ATC to work out what is "in the circuit". At bankstown (and most GAAP zones i know of), the inbound points are approx 5nm from the aerodrome, yet aircraft are being held at inbound points which are nowhere near "the circuit".
So if an aircraft departs, when is it classified as no longer in the circuit?
Likewise on arrival, for the little C152 it could take them 6-8 minutes to get from the inbound point to the circuit, that allows for a significant number of movements.
Is it up to the controller to say 3 aircraft will land from within the circuit, so i'll let 3 more start to come inbound?
I have the greatest respect for you guys (ATC in general, but specifically YSBK as that's who i deal with most) who have to manage everything from beginners in C152's to professional pilots in corporate jets.
You do a fantastic job - especially at the moment while having one hand tied behind your back and one eye covered by the bullsh@t castles poo list.
Has anyone actually read this report?
Gotta love the references of cost cutting. Reducing services to enable staffing cuts to reduce costs. The removal of the briefing office and the biggy to me, curtailment of free pubs...it pops up pretty regularly that a lot of GAAP infringments are doc related...pilots freely admit they do not carry current docs.....Hilmer/Bosch reviews have come home to roost as far as I am concerned...Bosch said SAFETY related issues NO CHARGE or cutting. PUBS are a safety issue if pilots refuse to carry updated docs on cost grounds...even if the threat of the FOI detection exists.
You reap what you sow!
Site Specific Charging, I reckon this is where the rot started. Stakeholders start bitching about charging. Start tinkering around the edges to reduce services and directly..costs and before you know it..well it did take nearly two decades and an upturn in movments and we find that we have cut the service to below what is considered safe....well if the CASA talked to any pre 92 professional pilot/atc they could have got that in a free spray!
Now? the Casa wishes to go to ICAO class D which will be an unmitigated disaster for GAAP. They may as well tell the airport owners to rip up all but one single runway in each direction...and we know where that will lead..because ICAO Class D SARPS will NOT allow parrallel runway ops with all current GAAP aerodrome layouts.
Funnily, Ambidji recommended NO CHANGE TO GAAP PROCEDURES!
Gotta love the references of cost cutting. Reducing services to enable staffing cuts to reduce costs. The removal of the briefing office and the biggy to me, curtailment of free pubs...it pops up pretty regularly that a lot of GAAP infringments are doc related...pilots freely admit they do not carry current docs.....Hilmer/Bosch reviews have come home to roost as far as I am concerned...Bosch said SAFETY related issues NO CHARGE or cutting. PUBS are a safety issue if pilots refuse to carry updated docs on cost grounds...even if the threat of the FOI detection exists.
You reap what you sow!
Site Specific Charging, I reckon this is where the rot started. Stakeholders start bitching about charging. Start tinkering around the edges to reduce services and directly..costs and before you know it..well it did take nearly two decades and an upturn in movments and we find that we have cut the service to below what is considered safe....well if the CASA talked to any pre 92 professional pilot/atc they could have got that in a free spray!
Now? the Casa wishes to go to ICAO class D which will be an unmitigated disaster for GAAP. They may as well tell the airport owners to rip up all but one single runway in each direction...and we know where that will lead..because ICAO Class D SARPS will NOT allow parrallel runway ops with all current GAAP aerodrome layouts.
Funnily, Ambidji recommended NO CHANGE TO GAAP PROCEDURES!
Ambidji does not see any demonstrable safety benefit in attempting to replace GAAP
with an alternative process in the short to medium term.
with an alternative process in the short to medium term.
Goin'flying
I am actually not at my GAAP tower at the moment, but will be soon. My understanding (which may change once I am back there) is that the six aircraft includes inbound and outbound aircraft. I think that essentially limits us to the number of aircraft in the CTR. I could be wrong, there may be other current GAAP controllers that can confirm that for us.
We do have the ability to go +1 on one frequency so we can have 13 aircraft in total.
I am actually not at my GAAP tower at the moment, but will be soon. My understanding (which may change once I am back there) is that the six aircraft includes inbound and outbound aircraft. I think that essentially limits us to the number of aircraft in the CTR. I could be wrong, there may be other current GAAP controllers that can confirm that for us.
We do have the ability to go +1 on one frequency so we can have 13 aircraft in total.
here's my take - fwiw!!
I think the estimate is a direct reaction to the 2RN mid-air. Aircraft can hear each other approaching the reporting point from different directions rather than running into each other just as they make a call (I think that's the theory). Nothing to do with ATC managing the cap - plenty of time for that from the inbound call - see below:
it certainly says "in the circuit" - open to a little bit of interpretation. Number 7 departing leaves "the circuit" (late crosswind etc) - number 8 can go.
You could have more than 6 inbound as long as the first couple land before the last ones reach "the circuit".
I think you could in theory have 8 or 9 on frequency on each side.
The estimate could assist in planning from our perspective, mainly in managing the 6 aircraft we can have. If a lot call, it's quite simple to not launch any until we can have the six. That would be my guess.
My understanding (which may change once I am back there) is that the six aircraft includes inbound and outbound aircraft. I think that essentially limits us to the number of aircraft in the CTR
You could have more than 6 inbound as long as the first couple land before the last ones reach "the circuit".
I think you could in theory have 8 or 9 on frequency on each side.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA has given no clear direction on their interpretation of "in the circuit".
However the important part of the CASA directive to ASA is 7(b):
"No ATC may assume control responsibility for more than 6 aeroplanes......" My italics/underline.
Once you have cleared an aircraft into the CTR/circuit you have effectively "assumed control responsibility", regardless of whether the aircraft is in the "circuit" yet or not, and until that aircraft is on the ground or has left the CTR.
Also you have to allow for the potential go around, so effectively you have to wait for a landing aircraft to have definitely landed or a departing to be established outside the CTR before clearing another aircraft in or out if you have already "capped out".
Thankfully we have TSAD ( a feed off the Sydney Radar ) otherwise we'd have to get aircraft to report established outside the CTR too....and hence more frequency congestion.
And to clarify the matter of who is responsible for these Notams I can definitely assure you it is not us Tower Guys but probably some boffin
in CASA H.O. Canberra who wouldn't know GAAP from a Skim Cappucino.
You will be happy to note though that at about 12.09pm today the "2 minute warning" Notam was cancelled.
Of course that doesn't preclude CASA coming up with yet another even more cunning plan.
IMHO I think you will find that most GAAP controllers would much rather have it back the way it was. It certainly is very frustrating from a professional aspect to be limited by this arbitrary, one-hat-fits-all directive and not be able to provide the level of service that you are capable of delivering. "One hand tied behind your back" does not even begin to cover it.
The management of the "Cap" has become a distracting safety/workload issue i.e. monitoring, counting, manipulating displays etc that takes attention away from the real job of looking out the window and providing a control service. In the context of the YSBK GAAP Tower environment, counting to six is not as simple a task as it may seem on paper!
Unfortunately ATC are as much passengers on this as you pilots, and we too are learning as we go. We are trying our best to work within the limitations imposed and try to accommodate all requests but inevitably there will be times where pilots may incur a significant delay for their operations or they may not be available.
Hopefully this has been a little informative for you all, however these are just my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues or employer.(Ask 3 controllers the same question and you'll get 6 opinions! My disclaimer!
)
However the important part of the CASA directive to ASA is 7(b):
"No ATC may assume control responsibility for more than 6 aeroplanes......" My italics/underline.
Once you have cleared an aircraft into the CTR/circuit you have effectively "assumed control responsibility", regardless of whether the aircraft is in the "circuit" yet or not, and until that aircraft is on the ground or has left the CTR.
Also you have to allow for the potential go around, so effectively you have to wait for a landing aircraft to have definitely landed or a departing to be established outside the CTR before clearing another aircraft in or out if you have already "capped out".
Thankfully we have TSAD ( a feed off the Sydney Radar ) otherwise we'd have to get aircraft to report established outside the CTR too....and hence more frequency congestion.
And to clarify the matter of who is responsible for these Notams I can definitely assure you it is not us Tower Guys but probably some boffin
in CASA H.O. Canberra who wouldn't know GAAP from a Skim Cappucino.You will be happy to note though that at about 12.09pm today the "2 minute warning" Notam was cancelled.
Of course that doesn't preclude CASA coming up with yet another even more cunning plan.IMHO I think you will find that most GAAP controllers would much rather have it back the way it was. It certainly is very frustrating from a professional aspect to be limited by this arbitrary, one-hat-fits-all directive and not be able to provide the level of service that you are capable of delivering. "One hand tied behind your back" does not even begin to cover it.
The management of the "Cap" has become a distracting safety/workload issue i.e. monitoring, counting, manipulating displays etc that takes attention away from the real job of looking out the window and providing a control service. In the context of the YSBK GAAP Tower environment, counting to six is not as simple a task as it may seem on paper!
Unfortunately ATC are as much passengers on this as you pilots, and we too are learning as we go. We are trying our best to work within the limitations imposed and try to accommodate all requests but inevitably there will be times where pilots may incur a significant delay for their operations or they may not be available.
Hopefully this has been a little informative for you all, however these are just my personal opinion and do not necessarily reflect those of my colleagues or employer.(Ask 3 controllers the same question and you'll get 6 opinions! My disclaimer!
)
NOTAM Gooooooooooooooone!!!!!!
No more requirement to broadcast 2 min prior to inbound point. NOTAM cancelled yesterday afternoon, and some very happy controllers I hear.
Seems like sanity has prevailed......for now
Seems like sanity has prevailed......for now
Dick,
If ever your influence was needed and appreciated, this is the time.
You have been unnaturally quiet on this topic ... which really does have the potential to hurt/wound/kill GA industry.
Your E over D or G over A, or whatever issues, will never have the disastrous potential that these "lucky dip" decisions from CASA have.
Do you really think we are moving in the right direction with these on again/off again decisions?
If ever your influence was needed and appreciated, this is the time.
You have been unnaturally quiet on this topic ... which really does have the potential to hurt/wound/kill GA industry.
Your E over D or G over A, or whatever issues, will never have the disastrous potential that these "lucky dip" decisions from CASA have.
Do you really think we are moving in the right direction with these on again/off again decisions?
Last edited by peuce; 5th Aug 2009 at 07:25.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: In a caravan
Posts: 179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now? the Casa wishes to go to ICAO class D which will be an unmitigated disaster for GAAP. They may as well tell the airport owners to rip up all but one single runway in each direction...and we know where that will lead..because ICAO Class D SARPS will NOT allow parrallel runway ops with all current GAAP aerodrome layouts.
this is exactly what those wa#kers at BAL want, they've happily just keep 29L/11R & build shopping centers right upto the rwy edge...