CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Camden has a concern that when the circuit fills up with the overflow from Bankstown, the locals won't be able to do circuits or arrive. I note one departure is allowed but no mention about arrivals. I just hope ASA continues to look after us (as they do now). If arrivals want to do circuits, make them to do a full stop first and join the queue!
On the positive side, the extra tower hours should improve safety. The operation of two circuits (not parallel) has got a bit scary at times since YHOX closed. Probably means only six planes altogether across both circuits, unless ASA can find another frequency and another controller.
On the positive side, the extra tower hours should improve safety. The operation of two circuits (not parallel) has got a bit scary at times since YHOX closed. Probably means only six planes altogether across both circuits, unless ASA can find another frequency and another controller.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the telephone conversation i had with CASA yesterday regarding these proposed changes, the advise i was given is, if there are 6 in the circuit when you call inbound, one of those aircraft in the circuit would be made to do a full stop and taxi back to rejoin the circuit after you land. They couldn't tell me how the tower will pick who gets to do the fullstop. Words to the effect of "thats not our decision".
When i downloaded my NOTAMs (copied below) this morning, i love the way the GAAP procedures notam is followed by the staff shortages notam. Well done. Can see these changes being very well accepted by all. NOT.
C317/09 REVIEW C315/09
WITH EFFECT FM 0907201400
GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES - (GAAP) CONTROL ZONES A PILOT IN COMMAND MUST REQ AND OBTAIN ATC CLEARANCE BEFORE ENTERING, CROSSING OR TAXIING ALONG ANY RWY WHILE AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ARE IN OPERATION
REFERENCE AIP BOOK A/L 59 EFFECTIVE 4 JUNE 09
AMD AIP ENR 1.1-50 PARA 27.1.1 B. TO READ:
B. TAXIING ACROSS OR ALONG ANY RUNWAY
FROM 07 160248 TO PERM
C319/09 REVIEW C318/09
ATS IN CTR REDUCED DUE AVAILABILITY OF ATC STAFF POSSIBLE RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS.
START CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT.
FROM 07 180600 TO 07 181000
When i downloaded my NOTAMs (copied below) this morning, i love the way the GAAP procedures notam is followed by the staff shortages notam. Well done. Can see these changes being very well accepted by all. NOT.
C317/09 REVIEW C315/09
WITH EFFECT FM 0907201400
GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES - (GAAP) CONTROL ZONES A PILOT IN COMMAND MUST REQ AND OBTAIN ATC CLEARANCE BEFORE ENTERING, CROSSING OR TAXIING ALONG ANY RWY WHILE AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ARE IN OPERATION
REFERENCE AIP BOOK A/L 59 EFFECTIVE 4 JUNE 09
AMD AIP ENR 1.1-50 PARA 27.1.1 B. TO READ:
B. TAXIING ACROSS OR ALONG ANY RUNWAY
FROM 07 160248 TO PERM
C319/09 REVIEW C318/09
ATS IN CTR REDUCED DUE AVAILABILITY OF ATC STAFF POSSIBLE RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS.
START CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT.
FROM 07 180600 TO 07 181000
Join Date: May 2004
Location: East of YRTI
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Less Operators???
To begin with, I agree with those who comment on when was there not a requirement (in living memory) to use the active runway, other than with a clearance. Should the rest of the arrival/departure procedures follow these illogical statements, then heaven help us. Mention has been made that one result may well be less operators on the GAAP airports, that, might I suggest, would suit the airport owners down to a tee. Yippee, rub hands together, more land and facilities to rip (money gouge) more lucrative tenants off with!!
Personally, trying to land at night in higher performance aircraft, especially at YSBK, with the circuits full of training aircraft, is well nigh impossible. If you in a Metro, you get -"Sight and follow a Tecnam or (or similar) on mid down wind. You are at the required alt, 500 feet higher, (at which the lights of the preceeding aircraft are well and truly lost in the city lights, you have your aircraft back to Vref on early down wind, and you still cannot fit into the circuit. The tower used to require the preceeding a/c to extend the downwind leg, or similar, to fix the situation. Even at 105 kts, I am still catching the preceeding aircraft as if they were standing still. Are some of the training aircraft doing downwind legs full flap, and 65 kts or summat??
Even better, there used to be a ban on circuit aircraft during the times of bank runners dep and arr.
Personally, trying to land at night in higher performance aircraft, especially at YSBK, with the circuits full of training aircraft, is well nigh impossible. If you in a Metro, you get -"Sight and follow a Tecnam or (or similar) on mid down wind. You are at the required alt, 500 feet higher, (at which the lights of the preceeding aircraft are well and truly lost in the city lights, you have your aircraft back to Vref on early down wind, and you still cannot fit into the circuit. The tower used to require the preceeding a/c to extend the downwind leg, or similar, to fix the situation. Even at 105 kts, I am still catching the preceeding aircraft as if they were standing still. Are some of the training aircraft doing downwind legs full flap, and 65 kts or summat??
Even better, there used to be a ban on circuit aircraft during the times of bank runners dep and arr.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
goin'flying, a meeting I attended with CASA yesterday had a similar tone. Bascially they read the press release and wouldn't offer any real assistance. We were told to sort it out with ATC regarding the circuit procedures. Also told it was our responsibility to now work with the other flying schools to prevent more than six needing the runway. Easier said than done.
The direct question was asked whether it was now a more dangerous situation to have traffic holding at inbound reporting points. They wouldn't really answer our question, although the body language seemed to agree with the statement. We were just told to keep a good lookout and perhaps ATC will give us a new procedure.
CFI, interesting to hear others in the industry weren't consulted. I thought for some reason our heads had been in the sand in recent months. It's rather sad, but not suprising, that CASA invoke the new rules and leave it up to us - ATC, business and pilots - to sort it out. Less than a week's notice makes it worse.
I'm still considering whether an incident notification form should be submitted everytime aircraft from our organisation are held at the inbound points and another aircraft arrives within our vacinity.
The direct question was asked whether it was now a more dangerous situation to have traffic holding at inbound reporting points. They wouldn't really answer our question, although the body language seemed to agree with the statement. We were just told to keep a good lookout and perhaps ATC will give us a new procedure.
CFI, interesting to hear others in the industry weren't consulted. I thought for some reason our heads had been in the sand in recent months. It's rather sad, but not suprising, that CASA invoke the new rules and leave it up to us - ATC, business and pilots - to sort it out. Less than a week's notice makes it worse.
I'm still considering whether an incident notification form should be submitted everytime aircraft from our organisation are held at the inbound points and another aircraft arrives within our vacinity.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All of a sudden, going back to fly from Essendon's Class C seems an attractive option again, despite the higher landing fees.
And if 6 aircraft in the circuit is considered too many at a Class D aerodrome, what about those non-towered CTAF aerodromes? Pt Cook sometimes has as many as 6 or more aircraft doing circuits plus the odd aircraft or two doing practice NDB approaches. And it will probably attract even more when YMMB becomes a Class D.
And if 6 aircraft in the circuit is considered too many at a Class D aerodrome, what about those non-towered CTAF aerodromes? Pt Cook sometimes has as many as 6 or more aircraft doing circuits plus the odd aircraft or two doing practice NDB approaches. And it will probably attract even more when YMMB becomes a Class D.
In the case of Jandakot, I think exiting at tango or victor off rwy 30 might be interesting as it puts you immediately inside the flight strip for rwy 06/24 L&R. Any controllers care to comment?
We already tell you to cross the threshold of 06L when you vacate there on tower frquency so it won't be an issue. We will just do the same for 06R as well.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Anyone in the know how this will work at YBAF with the (almost always) inactive grass strips 04/22 that one normally taxies across the threshold of to get to the 10 runways? Will you have to call up tower or ground for clearance across every time you taxi down Bravo? I suppose you could always just use Alpha..
Agree this all sounds like ill-thought out buerocratic !diocy whatever the reasons behind it, the suspicion about AsA staffing levels makes sense in a twisted way
especially holding at/around the inbound reporting point sounds downright dangerous, I know I'll be getting out of the way quickly and by a wide margin if I am requested to hold OCTA, but judging from traffic levels at YBAF over the last six months this should normally not be an issue..
I suppose you could always just use Alpha..Agree this all sounds like ill-thought out buerocratic !diocy whatever the reasons behind it, the suspicion about AsA staffing levels makes sense in a twisted way
especially holding at/around the inbound reporting point sounds downright dangerous, I know I'll be getting out of the way quickly and by a wide margin if I am requested to hold OCTA, but judging from traffic levels at YBAF over the last six months this should normally not be an issue..
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone in the know how this will work at YBAF with the (almost always) inactive grass strips 04/22 that one normally taxies across the threshold of to get to the 10 runways? Will you have to call up tower or ground every time you taxi down Bravo?
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
that would explain YSBK being restricted VFR today despite perfect clear CAVOK conditions, and the expect extended delays for circuit training even when there was only 2 aircraft in the circuit i could see.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at CN too.
"They proceeded to have to tell one or two planes to remain outside the control zone (resulting in, as expected, orbits around inbound points"
I do believe it was 1 and they were not at the inbound point. I saw the aircraft just south of the township.
"spent at least another minute at least nonstop over the frequency confirming the location of every other plane in or near the control zone"
They do this each saturday and sunday when they open.
"so as to ensure the limit of 6 was not breached"
By reading the CASA information, this hasn't started yet.
"How very messy"
Did you see what was going on at 8.55am (5min before they opened)
Give them a break!!!! The bloke seemed to be working to regain order than make it a certain number.
"They proceeded to have to tell one or two planes to remain outside the control zone (resulting in, as expected, orbits around inbound points"
I do believe it was 1 and they were not at the inbound point. I saw the aircraft just south of the township.
"spent at least another minute at least nonstop over the frequency confirming the location of every other plane in or near the control zone"
They do this each saturday and sunday when they open.
"so as to ensure the limit of 6 was not breached"
By reading the CASA information, this hasn't started yet.
"How very messy"
Did you see what was going on at 8.55am (5min before they opened)
Give them a break!!!! The bloke seemed to be working to regain order than make it a certain number.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: WestQLD
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might be a tad cynical - this would be a way for the relevant airport corporations to rid themselves of more traffic and pave the way for selling off valuable aviation related infrastructure?
reduced traffic = no need for extensive airport
reduced traffic = no need for extensive airport
TonKat, I believe you are 100% spot on with your comments. You just have to look at the Bankstown debacle and now our mates from accross the Indian Ocean who operate Jandakot are pushing to have substantial development on the extended centreline of the existing rwy 30 and proposed 30R. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their agenda. It appears though that the Dept of Infrastrucure (formerly DOTARS) are now realising that our secondary airports are in fact key resources that need to be protected. There IS NO land available within reasonable striking distances of the capital cities to have them moved.
I remember in the early '80s having to phone the tower at BK and book a slot for night circuits. Worked fine - but then they had enough staff back then to run the booking system as well as the TWR!
A rather ominous NOTAM just promulgated for BK:
C322/09
START APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT OPERATIONS
FROM 07 200052 TO PERM
Note it is effective permanently.
A rather ominous NOTAM just promulgated for BK:
C322/09
START APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT OPERATIONS
FROM 07 200052 TO PERM
Note it is effective permanently.
Last edited by Ted D Bear; 20th Jul 2009 at 02:57. Reason: Update
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if
If inbound in CTA on IFR plan how would one go requesting (requiring) to stay in controlled airspace until overhead the GAAP? This is sometimes offered by Arrivals controller/s.
If inbound in CTA on IFR plan how would one go requesting (requiring) to stay in controlled airspace until overhead the GAAP? This is sometimes offered by Arrivals controller/s.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please allow me to be a tad cynical.
Although the CASA press release alluded to the actions being "consistent" with the Ambidji report, none of the recommendations in the report said anything about killing off GAAP. However, Recommendation 9 did say this:
That the need for enhanced ATC separation services be considered prior to the introduction of future Passenger Transport Service (PTS) operations at GAAP aerodromes.
IFR in VMC is not allowed in GAAP because pilots on instruments cannot separate themselves from other traffic. We know that most RPT like to go IFR all the way down, and so therefore RPT in GAAP was never going to be possible.
This may not be about safety after all.
Walrus
Although the CASA press release alluded to the actions being "consistent" with the Ambidji report, none of the recommendations in the report said anything about killing off GAAP. However, Recommendation 9 did say this:
That the need for enhanced ATC separation services be considered prior to the introduction of future Passenger Transport Service (PTS) operations at GAAP aerodromes.
IFR in VMC is not allowed in GAAP because pilots on instruments cannot separate themselves from other traffic. We know that most RPT like to go IFR all the way down, and so therefore RPT in GAAP was never going to be possible.
This may not be about safety after all.
Walrus
Last edited by Walrus 7; 20th Jul 2009 at 07:05. Reason: Inclusive language