CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
From the CASA mailout-
Must one hopes that AirServices understands....whats the wording...ah yes...."Its absolute form"....certainly sounds like AirServices DRIVING this agenda....NOT!
Still sounds like ICAO ClassD to me.
Transition to Class D airspace
On or before 21 April 2010, Airservices must provide at
each GAAP aerodrome air traffic services (ATS) applicable
to Class D airspace. This will harmonise Australia with
international standards. More information on the transition to
Class D will be made available in the coming months.
On or before 21 April 2010, Airservices must provide at
each GAAP aerodrome air traffic services (ATS) applicable
to Class D airspace. This will harmonise Australia with
international standards. More information on the transition to
Class D will be made available in the coming months.
This will harmonise Australia with international standards.
Airspeeds In GAAP...
Just received my 'little blue book' re GAAP changes in the mail, and am surprised at the max speed limitation of...250KIAS.
As I usually never have the opportunity to do 250 IAS, can anybody advise the acft type(s) which may have to do these speeds in a GAAP, where the 'average bugsmasher' is plodding along at 100 or so?
He'd either be doing a wide circuit to maintain separation behind, or he could have it all to himself.....(?)
I've shared the circuit with a Vampire at BK back in the 'good ole days'...with me in a Chippie (90kts flat out..), however I don't know what IAS he would have been doing, and there was plenty of 'warning' from the excellent controllers of the time. (Mirro? don't know how he spelt his name, but the man was VERY good).
We agreed that I should just let him 'go past'.....
As I usually never have the opportunity to do 250 IAS, can anybody advise the acft type(s) which may have to do these speeds in a GAAP, where the 'average bugsmasher' is plodding along at 100 or so?
He'd either be doing a wide circuit to maintain separation behind, or he could have it all to himself.....(?)
I've shared the circuit with a Vampire at BK back in the 'good ole days'...with me in a Chippie (90kts flat out..), however I don't know what IAS he would have been doing, and there was plenty of 'warning' from the excellent controllers of the time. (Mirro? don't know how he spelt his name, but the man was VERY good).
We agreed that I should just let him 'go past'.....
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Close
Posts: 231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Uh oh......
A quote from inside the front page of the little blue book....
"...CASA makes no representations or warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this document.....CASA assumes no liability for any loss or damage caused as a result of reliance on this document...."
I think I've just been hypnotized again.......
A quote from inside the front page of the little blue book....
"...CASA makes no representations or warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of the information contained in this document.....CASA assumes no liability for any loss or damage caused as a result of reliance on this document...."
I think I've just been hypnotized again.......
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Gooday Griffo!
At YBAF the Metro might be a contender for some speedy entries, but I doubt they do 250!
Nightmode or j3 may be able to shed some light on that one!
Now how about this little Gem, this is from the booklet and the online quiz (yes I am bored).
Now from their material............
Now this says you should broadcast and listen.....just like a CTAF R..... it does not say MUST CONTACT ATC.
So what do you think the quick wanted as an answer..........
Go check it out for yourself!
J
At YBAF the Metro might be a contender for some speedy entries, but I doubt they do 250!
Nightmode or j3 may be able to shed some light on that one!Now how about this little Gem, this is from the booklet and the online quiz (yes I am bored).
Q11 Must you contact ATC if transiting within the proximity of a GAAP aerodrome?
Pilots of aircraft tracking within 5nm of a GAAP control zone
boundary (or at a distance as specified in the ERSA) but
not entering the control zone must obtain the Automatic
Terminal Information Service (ATIS), then broadcast their
position, altitude and intentions. Pilots must comply with any
instructions issued by the tower and maintain a listening
watch on the tower frequency while in the area. Pilots must
maintain a vigilant look out.
boundary (or at a distance as specified in the ERSA) but
not entering the control zone must obtain the Automatic
Terminal Information Service (ATIS), then broadcast their
position, altitude and intentions. Pilots must comply with any
instructions issued by the tower and maintain a listening
watch on the tower frequency while in the area. Pilots must
maintain a vigilant look out.
So what do you think the quick wanted as an answer..........
Go check it out for yourself!
J
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No way would the Metro's be doing 250KIAS into the circuit, maybe 220KIAS on Descent.
There are a few contenders at YSBK - Citation X, a few other from the Citation family, a couple of Beechjets, and the occassional visiting Bizjet.
There are a few contenders at YSBK - Citation X, a few other from the Citation family, a couple of Beechjets, and the occassional visiting Bizjet.
Just in case....ATSB can be contacted on 1800 011 034. Online incident reports are here
If anyone does witness any incident caused by changed procedures at GAAP reporting points...PLEASE make that call. The more incident reports, the more weight to remove these changes.
If anyone does witness any incident caused by changed procedures at GAAP reporting points...PLEASE make that call. The more incident reports, the more weight to remove these changes.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 30th Aug 2009 at 02:07.
Nup, they just run away and start another thread in the hope they can string along an argument that develops into a NASdebate.
JK and BK? Situation is looking more grim. Methinks an all round case of "I told you so" to the OAR at the CASA....as for Smith???? AIrServices??? He killed off that dog three years ago
Thats why the OAR was set up...to remove airspace design from the guys who manage it....and still Smith keeps flogging his horse.......It's DEAD, Dick!
JK and BK? Situation is looking more grim. Methinks an all round case of "I told you so" to the OAR at the CASA....as for Smith???? AIrServices??? He killed off that dog three years ago
Thats why the OAR was set up...to remove airspace design from the guys who manage it....and still Smith keeps flogging his horse.......It's DEAD, Dick!
OZ, Why then have CASA directed AsA to move GAAP to Class D ?
You may not have noticed that moving GAAP to Class D was an important part of the NAS proposal that was approved by cabinet.
Love to hear your explanation !!
And the reason Airspace was moved from AsA to CASA was because my Unsafe Skies publication was read by important people who understood conflict of interest.
You may not have noticed that moving GAAP to Class D was an important part of the NAS proposal that was approved by cabinet.
Love to hear your explanation !!
And the reason Airspace was moved from AsA to CASA was because my Unsafe Skies publication was read by important people who understood conflict of interest.
Etrust, my comment re AsA supporting NAS was tongue in cheek.
I am amazed that I would have to explain that to anyone.
NAS will clearly result in more responsibility being placed on AsA-especially re CFIT in a radar enviroment.
Why would they want this when it will be difficult to charge extra for a safety service that should have been provided anyway.
And by the way , AsA successfully fought for over 10 years to keep hold of Airspace regulation.
That's why there were no measurable safety improvements during that time.
I am amazed that I would have to explain that to anyone.
NAS will clearly result in more responsibility being placed on AsA-especially re CFIT in a radar enviroment.
Why would they want this when it will be difficult to charge extra for a safety service that should have been provided anyway.
And by the way , AsA successfully fought for over 10 years to keep hold of Airspace regulation.
That's why there were no measurable safety improvements during that time.
Got ahead of yourself, Dick. I do not think classD for GAAP was ever part of the mix...You are the only guy I know that pushes for FAA D. This current iteration is for ICAO D to be implimented...you agree on that, it will be an unmitigated disaster!
All the NAS characteristics have been either modified or dumped, excepting for classE all over the place.....itself a leftover of airspace2000...funny how a lot of people did not realise what the two bits out to DU and MIA were really about. Changes of procedures got changed themselves...nothing I can think of from the original NAS has gone through without changes...And why would that be? Simple, lack of forthought, lack of planning for implimentation, lack of consultation with industry figures OTHER then the Q and a small part of the RAAF...You know? the guys down at the coalface..lack of training BEFORE implimentation, Someone got to the minister with a "Good Idea" to make Australia the TRAINING CAPITAL OF THE WORLD...right now, all it is trying to do is make for very dangerous airspace for training anyone lower than a CPL.
Dick I do not know you, I am sure you are very frank and earnest with what YOU wish to do. But, mate....there is no difference between you and me, we are both pilots, granted I am a PPL but even I can see that some of these changes have done zero to improve and mostly have sent aviation backwards.
Howabout using your vast experience with access to Ministers of the realm and get the OAR to reverse this change before someone gets killed.
All the NAS characteristics have been either modified or dumped, excepting for classE all over the place.....itself a leftover of airspace2000...funny how a lot of people did not realise what the two bits out to DU and MIA were really about. Changes of procedures got changed themselves...nothing I can think of from the original NAS has gone through without changes...And why would that be? Simple, lack of forthought, lack of planning for implimentation, lack of consultation with industry figures OTHER then the Q and a small part of the RAAF...You know? the guys down at the coalface..lack of training BEFORE implimentation, Someone got to the minister with a "Good Idea" to make Australia the TRAINING CAPITAL OF THE WORLD...right now, all it is trying to do is make for very dangerous airspace for training anyone lower than a CPL.
Dick I do not know you, I am sure you are very frank and earnest with what YOU wish to do. But, mate....there is no difference between you and me, we are both pilots, granted I am a PPL but even I can see that some of these changes have done zero to improve and mostly have sent aviation backwards.
Howabout using your vast experience with access to Ministers of the realm and get the OAR to reverse this change before someone gets killed.
Oz , You delude yourself.
The airspace you fly in today with it's FAA style semicircular rule was introduced by me.
If you want to go back to the Quadrantal rule you will have to go back to full position reporting for VFR- because VFR and IFR then fly at the same levels.
But of course you don't.
The stuff ups that you talk about were the responsibility of the AsA and CASA management who would not stand up to those who insisted on changing anything that was proven to a hotch potch of ignorance.
But I will tell you one thing- that is if we don't go ahead and complete the NAS changes I believe we must go back to the pre AMATS system with it's AFIZ's , no CTAF's and huge costs'.
Don't worry, I'll still be flying!
The airspace you fly in today with it's FAA style semicircular rule was introduced by me.
If you want to go back to the Quadrantal rule you will have to go back to full position reporting for VFR- because VFR and IFR then fly at the same levels.
But of course you don't.
The stuff ups that you talk about were the responsibility of the AsA and CASA management who would not stand up to those who insisted on changing anything that was proven to a hotch potch of ignorance.
But I will tell you one thing- that is if we don't go ahead and complete the NAS changes I believe we must go back to the pre AMATS system with it's AFIZ's , no CTAF's and huge costs'.
Don't worry, I'll still be flying!
BY the way OZ I was responsible for the two class E corridors to Broken Hill.
They were violently opposed by the so called professional pilots who flew the route.
Five years later they were so loved that when they were removed with the NAS2b changes that the same group of pilots insisted that they be re -introduced- which they were.
You may be right about ICAO D. But I am sure you will agree that it will only go this way because those involved in the OAR are either grossely incompetent or are intentionally wanting to undermine their superiors.
Which one do you think it is.
And you kid yourself- there are other differences between you and me- for one I have the guts to post under my own name.
They were violently opposed by the so called professional pilots who flew the route.
Five years later they were so loved that when they were removed with the NAS2b changes that the same group of pilots insisted that they be re -introduced- which they were.
You may be right about ICAO D. But I am sure you will agree that it will only go this way because those involved in the OAR are either grossely incompetent or are intentionally wanting to undermine their superiors.
Which one do you think it is.
And you kid yourself- there are other differences between you and me- for one I have the guts to post under my own name.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 30th Aug 2009 at 10:33.
Dick, you can jam AFIZ where the sun don't shine. We both know why that little gem was created.
AND which part of NAS implimentation was the hemispherical rule....That was done to separate IFR from VFR in non-controlled airspace. I loved arguing the foibles of hemispherical rules with my instructors when it first came out...Especially the little bit that you could have aircraft at exactly the same cruise level at almost 180D closure angles...Thank god for big sky theory.
who would not stand up to those who insisted on changing anything that was proven to a hotch potch of ignorance.????? Can you say that again in English please?
It appears to me that you are upset because ASA and the CASA did not stand up to YOU...???? Now I am confused
AND which part of NAS implimentation was the hemispherical rule....That was done to separate IFR from VFR in non-controlled airspace. I loved arguing the foibles of hemispherical rules with my instructors when it first came out...Especially the little bit that you could have aircraft at exactly the same cruise level at almost 180D closure angles...Thank god for big sky theory.
who would not stand up to those who insisted on changing anything that was proven to a hotch potch of ignorance.????? Can you say that again in English please?
It appears to me that you are upset because ASA and the CASA did not stand up to YOU...???? Now I am confused
Dick, sorry over posted...missed my point about the two wedges...those who did not fly in that airspace knew squat about it...so much for education...I even picked up instructors about this NEW classE....education severly lacking!
You are so badly informed, the semi-circular rule was introduced in 1991 when I was chairman of CAA -it was the start of the move to the FAA airspace system - even though we called it AMATS. I suggest you get out your old documentation.
WHO Guards The Public Interest in Civil Aviation Safety Part of a Doctorial Thesis by Geoffrey Edwards 2007
Gotta love google....Dick, you have a rather colourful history with aviation safety. Since 1984...Gotta love quotes from Yeenda-
my italic
I take it, Yeend wasn't a mate of yours?
Gotta love google....Dick, you have a rather colourful history with aviation safety. Since 1984...Gotta love quotes from Yeenda-
Before the reforms of 1988 and later, the staff had apparently been proud of their record: "...there was, over a period of 40 years[1948-1988], a complete body of safety regulations established...It was not perfect, but it was the foundation of the best safety record in the history of aviation" (Yeeend 1994a:2,5,6). yet "Despite our record and experience, the industry clamoured for a new civil aviation authority, loudly supported by the aviation press in the late 1980s. I am one of those who was in the process labelled as part of the dead hand and cement-headed bureaucracy of the 1980s (1994:6). Yeeend deplored the self-serving capture of the Authority in the early reforms by "some industry operators and adventurers" and the destruction of corporate expertise.
I take it, Yeend wasn't a mate of yours?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith,
Flight Service and OCTA services that went with them are a separate subject from the GAAP, D, ICAO compliance discussion.
That is a nasty accusation! Equally, are they to be described as grossly competent and superior if it goes your all the way with FAA way? for what reasons?
enter Gretel Killeen with a sample script in hand, and reality TV soap style lights and sirens genre in tow
A. a cost and safety benefit study GAAP V FAA D (procedural requirement)? - Where can we find that?
B. a cost and safety benefit study (or equivilent) undertaken by the US on thier own FAA D? - where can we find that?
C. in the absence of A. or B. above, the only office holder who might be backed into a corner of ignorance sufficient to 'direct' a change without process might be the Minister. Lets hope not!
D. even if someone has lent on, frightened, or otherwise mislead an office holder in to a course of action, those persons and the office holder would spend a deal of effort finger pointing after the fact
looking like a pretty ugly stage play already!
Even in the unlikely event that any or all of the above are possible, I am one to wonder the reaction from those further down the responsibility tree.
A. a direction for change might be made in haste - probable
B. the change if not consulted and properly assessed may make the situation worse - probable
C. the eventual outcome may be undesirable from a comparative cost and safety viewpoint -probable
in the unlikely event this dead end was reached, where to from this uncomfortable point?
A. back track to the previous procedures - possible, but highly embarrasing for those that made the leap in the first instance
B. back track, put a blue ribbon around its binder, and call it an emhansement - possible
C. stick to change plan A and cop the consequences - possible, although looking for another political option at this point might be high on the agenda
Mr Smith, were this an example of a reality TV airspace pick-a-box show on channel 10, where do you see you, and your FAA type NAS fitting in to the script?
Flight Service and OCTA services that went with them are a separate subject from the GAAP, D, ICAO compliance discussion.
But I am sure you will agree that it will only go this way because those involved in the OAR are either grossely incompetent or are intentionally wanting to undermine their superiors.
enter Gretel Killeen with a sample script in hand, and reality TV soap style lights and sirens genre in tow
A. a cost and safety benefit study GAAP V FAA D (procedural requirement)? - Where can we find that?
B. a cost and safety benefit study (or equivilent) undertaken by the US on thier own FAA D? - where can we find that?
C. in the absence of A. or B. above, the only office holder who might be backed into a corner of ignorance sufficient to 'direct' a change without process might be the Minister. Lets hope not!
D. even if someone has lent on, frightened, or otherwise mislead an office holder in to a course of action, those persons and the office holder would spend a deal of effort finger pointing after the fact
looking like a pretty ugly stage play already!
Even in the unlikely event that any or all of the above are possible, I am one to wonder the reaction from those further down the responsibility tree.
A. a direction for change might be made in haste - probable
B. the change if not consulted and properly assessed may make the situation worse - probable
C. the eventual outcome may be undesirable from a comparative cost and safety viewpoint -probable
in the unlikely event this dead end was reached, where to from this uncomfortable point?
A. back track to the previous procedures - possible, but highly embarrasing for those that made the leap in the first instance
B. back track, put a blue ribbon around its binder, and call it an emhansement - possible
C. stick to change plan A and cop the consequences - possible, although looking for another political option at this point might be high on the agenda
Mr Smith, were this an example of a reality TV airspace pick-a-box show on channel 10, where do you see you, and your FAA type NAS fitting in to the script?
Dick, there is a whole chapter dedicated to you. Do you remember talking to Geoffrey. He has described you rather interestingly in the final paragraph-
There are more than two temperatures at which to cook a pot of stew
OHHHHHH, IF ONLY
There are more than two temperatures at which to cook a pot of stew
If only there had been someone channeling Smith's abilities, such as by installing a meticulous team-leader to run the bureaucracy, leaving him as an advocate and conscience-pricker. The people in charge could have done better
More quotes-
Splitting Accountability Through Commercialisation
The Commercialisation Ethic Driving Institutional Reform
After his appointment as chairman in Jan. 1990, Smith championed profound change. Baldwin as CEO "shared Smith's zeal for reform. He described his brief as 'to take the CAA - an inert, centralised, bureaucratic edifice - and turn it into an efficient customer- oriented business enterprise'..."(Plane Safe 1995:111). The savings made were estimated by Smith at over $100m p.a. ('about' $150m in Smith 2005) and the figure of $100m has not been contested. However, what is contestible is whether this is a waste that has been pruned in the public interest from the regime, or represents the now-missing safety margin that a prudent nation should in the public interest be prepared to invest to keep its travellers safe. is the system now ripe for a disaster or is it as effective as it can be without diminishing returns? And how catastrophic does a disaster have to be to justify spending $100m to avoid it.
The Commercialisation Ethic Driving Institutional Reform
After his appointment as chairman in Jan. 1990, Smith championed profound change. Baldwin as CEO "shared Smith's zeal for reform. He described his brief as 'to take the CAA - an inert, centralised, bureaucratic edifice - and turn it into an efficient customer- oriented business enterprise'..."(Plane Safe 1995:111). The savings made were estimated by Smith at over $100m p.a. ('about' $150m in Smith 2005) and the figure of $100m has not been contested. However, what is contestible is whether this is a waste that has been pruned in the public interest from the regime, or represents the now-missing safety margin that a prudent nation should in the public interest be prepared to invest to keep its travellers safe. is the system now ripe for a disaster or is it as effective as it can be without diminishing returns? And how catastrophic does a disaster have to be to justify spending $100m to avoid it.