CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What an exciting day...
I recieved my first "clearance not yet available, remain clear of the zone" at a GAAP
Mind you, I was allready 3 miles past the inbound point with my initial transmission blocked by the aircraft calling half a mile before the inbound point
I think i busted GAAP!
I recieved my first "clearance not yet available, remain clear of the zone" at a GAAP
Mind you, I was allready 3 miles past the inbound point with my initial transmission blocked by the aircraft calling half a mile before the inbound point
I think i busted GAAP!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wait until a nil wind CAVOK saturday morning at YSBK, getting a 1 hr delay start if your lucky! oh, and the average 30 min wait in the runup bay for circuits now. and 50% of my entries back into the zone now are met with, clearance not available.
i have heard rumours already of 2 reputable small schools seriously considering throwing in the towel altogether as it not even worth moving interstate now.
IMO GA in OZ is already dead, its no longer self sustainable. in a few yrs YSBk will be back to its self again, not due to traffic leaving, but businesses simply walking away.
i have heard rumours already of 2 reputable small schools seriously considering throwing in the towel altogether as it not even worth moving interstate now.
IMO GA in OZ is already dead, its no longer self sustainable. in a few yrs YSBk will be back to its self again, not due to traffic leaving, but businesses simply walking away.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Yep!!! UL
Had this discussion with Scurvy D Dog the other day in fact........ between your scenario and the current OWNERS of these GAAP fields...... they will ALL be a CTAF without the R in a year or two!
J
Had this discussion with Scurvy D Dog the other day in fact........ between your scenario and the current OWNERS of these GAAP fields...... they will ALL be a CTAF without the R in a year or two!
J
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just wait until a nil wind CAVOK saturday morning at YSBK, getting a 1 hr delay start if your lucky! oh, and the average 30 min wait in the runup bay for circuits now. and 50% of my entries back into the zone now are met with, clearance not available.
How can schools possibly have reliable bookings if there's such a high likelihood of delayed starts or lack of clearance into the control zone. This is not only bad for pilots but bad for business.
If it wasn't bad enough doing battle with property developers, I mean aerodrome operators, now we have the regulator squeezing the last breaths of life out of the GA training industry.
I can only speak for bankstown, but I have never had a problem with traffic when arriving for a full stop on, say, 29R while the circuit was buzzing around on 29L. There is never such a swarm of aircraft arriving for full stops that there is any difficulty sorting out that traffic. The only serious issue is the possibility of the training circuit getting over full- and that is relatively easily managed by the tower. I am not altogether opposed to the idea of limiting the traffic in the training circuit to a manageable number at any one time. The idea that the total GAAP area can only take six aeroplanes in both independent circuits is ludicrous. Perhaps we should be pushing the regulator to make a sensible regulation specific to YSBK. I am sure that other fields would be able to develop their own versions instead of this crazy one size fits all approach that is obviously unworkable for the industry and for those of us who enjoy being up there.
BK ATC Management used to apply its own limit: 8 in the training circuit at any one time. If you've ever flown with 7 others in the training circuit - especially at night, and even more especially if there was a mix of types - you'd have to agree that 8 was a big number. Led to a few stressed pilots and controllers - especially when you add a stream of high performance bank-runners arriving.
Personally, I think 6 in the training circuit is a reasonable limit. For arrivals and departures, I think it will only be a problem if both circuits have been combined with one ADC - then it'll be 6 in total (+ 1 discretionary departure). (That, of course, will be every night.)
They do need to get on with writing a published procedure if you're at an IRP and either can't get a word in on frequency or the TWR won't let you into the zone because of too many already in the air. The last midair at BK was at an IRP, and orbiting at TWRN or PSP is a recipe for disaster.
Personally, I think 6 in the training circuit is a reasonable limit. For arrivals and departures, I think it will only be a problem if both circuits have been combined with one ADC - then it'll be 6 in total (+ 1 discretionary departure). (That, of course, will be every night.)
They do need to get on with writing a published procedure if you're at an IRP and either can't get a word in on frequency or the TWR won't let you into the zone because of too many already in the air. The last midair at BK was at an IRP, and orbiting at TWRN or PSP is a recipe for disaster.
Regardless of the circuit issue, how many new pilots has this new procedure caught out? Coming back from the training area and then refused entry. This either turns into a crash course in what to do when asked to hold OCTA with other approaching aircraft...what do you do? Take a number? or worse..the pilot not knowing what to do, starts to panic about new found concern on fuel and bank balance levels leading to...well...panic! As well as the rest of the day's schedule for the aircraft.
granted a worse case scenario but would be totally unexpected for a training regime...this is NOT class C.
Hoping the CASA boffins are taking note....this has not been correctly thought through.(...and I cannot blame Smith!
) OAR was supposed to smooth this stuff out but this is turning into a bigger stuff-up than Airspace2000...when are you guys going to step in and arrest your own stuff-up?
granted a worse case scenario but would be totally unexpected for a training regime...this is NOT class C.
Hoping the CASA boffins are taking note....this has not been correctly thought through.(...and I cannot blame Smith!
) OAR was supposed to smooth this stuff out but this is turning into a bigger stuff-up than Airspace2000...when are you guys going to step in and arrest your own stuff-up?
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 6th Aug 2009 at 09:09. Reason: added bad teeth and brackets...only gigging;-)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Indeed, although perhaps a different story south of the border. Hoxton Park's gone, and Camden is going to suffer the same indignities as Bankstown, so that leaves only Wedderburn and The Oaks that I know of in the Sydney basin. Are there GA flying schools at those ? Otherwise students will be off to Warnervale, Wollongong or even further. It's a long way for a flying lesson.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP)
CASA have just posted a designated GAAP information page on their website which outlines the new changes to procedures for pilots as well as a downloadable information booklet on the GAAP changes.
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - GAAP
There is also a page on general FAQs
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - GAAP
There is also a page on general FAQs
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The following is a quote from the answer to question 4 from CASA's GAAP Changes FAQ's :
Am I missing something?
How will limiting the number allowed entry to the circuit to 6 (i.e entry into the zone) lower the risk of collisions at the reporting points? I can only see it doing the opposite, significantly.
The cap on the number of aircraft in the circuit will also lower the risk of collisions at reporting points on approach to these aerodromes, as many of the aircraft outside controlled airspace originate from the GAAP aerodrome itself.
How will limiting the number allowed entry to the circuit to 6 (i.e entry into the zone) lower the risk of collisions at the reporting points? I can only see it doing the opposite, significantly.
SayAgain,
I think that is CASA speak for "There will be hardly any aeroplanes in the sky because no-one is allowed to take off any more, so there will be reduced risk of collision at the inbound points too..."
I think that is CASA speak for "There will be hardly any aeroplanes in the sky because no-one is allowed to take off any more, so there will be reduced risk of collision at the inbound points too..."
WATCH THIS SPACE
Warm the Barbie people, It's Showtime!
What we are getting and what the director is saying and what Smith is commenting on are ALL different....someone is going to get egg for a facial.
Warm the Barbie people, It's Showtime!
What we are getting and what the director is saying and what Smith is commenting on are ALL different....someone is going to get egg for a facial.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 12th Aug 2009 at 05:02. Reason: replacing u-tube link