CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA's revised GAAP procedures.
Gday
Took this from the CASA website:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, has given notice of his intention to issue legal directions to pilots and Airservices Australia in relation to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) used at Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield aerodromes.
The proposed directions are part of CASA’s ongoing efforts to improve safety at GAAP aerodromes and complement the education and awareness campaign currently being undertaken by CASA regarding safety and procedures at these aerodromes.
“The action we are taking is the result of extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis undertaken by CASA in recent months, including surveillance activity of Air Traffic Services (ATS) at GAAP aerodromes. This is also consistent with the findings of a review of airspace management recently commissioned by CASA (‘the Ambidji Report’) which has highlighted the need for immediate action to improve airspace management at GAAP aerodromes,” Mr McCormick said.
“GAAP aerodromes are busy hubs of Australian general aviation and are home to numerous flying schools, charter operators, aircraft maintenance businesses, and private aircraft. The safety of all airspace users and of people on the ground is CASA’s primary concern,” said Mr McCormick.
Effective Tuesday 21 July 2009, the proposed directions would require:
“These proposed directions are an appropriate, measured and justifiable response to the safety requirements at and in the vicinity of GAAP aerodromes,” Mr McCormick said.
Aviation Safety Advisors and other CASA staff will commence briefing operators on the changes at each of the six aerodromes from today. Further information on the proposed directions and a copy of the Ambidji Report is now available.
Is anyone else concerned with the possible implications of these procedures?, such as :
-the prospect of increased numbers of aircraft in a holding pattern at GAAP approach points while they wait for the controller to work his/her traffic down to just 6 aircraft?
-the obvious delays and subsequent cost to indusrty?
Im sure there is plenty more.
The prospect of holding people out of the zone until they become one of the 6 lucky ones seems to be contradictory to the mid-air collision propaganda mailed out last week.
Any thoughts?
-P.S Be gentle, 1st post.....
Took this from the CASA website:
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s (CASA) Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick, has given notice of his intention to issue legal directions to pilots and Airservices Australia in relation to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP) used at Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield aerodromes.
The proposed directions are part of CASA’s ongoing efforts to improve safety at GAAP aerodromes and complement the education and awareness campaign currently being undertaken by CASA regarding safety and procedures at these aerodromes.
“The action we are taking is the result of extensive qualitative and quantitative analysis undertaken by CASA in recent months, including surveillance activity of Air Traffic Services (ATS) at GAAP aerodromes. This is also consistent with the findings of a review of airspace management recently commissioned by CASA (‘the Ambidji Report’) which has highlighted the need for immediate action to improve airspace management at GAAP aerodromes,” Mr McCormick said.
“GAAP aerodromes are busy hubs of Australian general aviation and are home to numerous flying schools, charter operators, aircraft maintenance businesses, and private aircraft. The safety of all airspace users and of people on the ground is CASA’s primary concern,” said Mr McCormick.
Effective Tuesday 21 July 2009, the proposed directions would require:
- An immediate limitation on the number of aeroplanes in the circuit for one runway, controlled by one Air Traffic Controller, to six. If two runways and two controllers are available then the total number of aeroplanes in the circuit would be limited to 12. An additional departure may be permitted at the discretion of the controller having given due consideration to all relevant safety factors.
- An immediate requirement for all aircraft to obtain an Air Traffic Control clearance to enter, cross or taxi along any runway.
- The provision (within 9 months) of aerodrome ATS daily for the hours of daylight without any reduction in the service currently provided during the hours of darkness.
“These proposed directions are an appropriate, measured and justifiable response to the safety requirements at and in the vicinity of GAAP aerodromes,” Mr McCormick said.
Aviation Safety Advisors and other CASA staff will commence briefing operators on the changes at each of the six aerodromes from today. Further information on the proposed directions and a copy of the Ambidji Report is now available.
Is anyone else concerned with the possible implications of these procedures?, such as :
-the prospect of increased numbers of aircraft in a holding pattern at GAAP approach points while they wait for the controller to work his/her traffic down to just 6 aircraft?
-the obvious delays and subsequent cost to indusrty?
Im sure there is plenty more.
The prospect of holding people out of the zone until they become one of the 6 lucky ones seems to be contradictory to the mid-air collision propaganda mailed out last week.
Any thoughts?
-P.S Be gentle, 1st post.....
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NOTAM has just appeared this evening -
C0033/09
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 201400 TO PERM
C0033/09
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 201400 TO PERM
Join Date: May 2009
Location: broome
Age: 44
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
am I missing something here?
since when did you not need a clearance at a GAAP to enter a runway, cross a runway, or taxi on a runway???????
have the rules been ammended to include runways which arent active?? e.g. 04/22 at ybaf when 10/28 is in use??
since when did you not need a clearance at a GAAP to enter a runway, cross a runway, or taxi on a runway???????
have the rules been ammended to include runways which arent active?? e.g. 04/22 at ybaf when 10/28 is in use??
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Down Under
Age: 33
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
An immediate requirement for all aircraft to obtain an Air Traffic Control clearance to enter, cross or taxi along any runway.
The important part of this announcement is the move to Class D next April. This I assume(and hope) will be the end to the risky practise of approach points outside ATC where traffic is funnelled into one point all at the same altitude and all tracking to the same base/ downwind/crosswind leg. This has been the subject of much debate on prune for some time. Could it be someone is finally listening?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope there's more to it. The part I'd like to see is pilots approaching Class D's/GAAP get equal treatment with clearance through Class C and not stuffed down below the steps because clearance is not available. But then, that might require changing all those noise abatement spaghetti tracks and I can't see that happening. So Class D will ameliorate one issue and just create another one. Controlled airspace will be a little better managed in the immediate vicinity of the airports and it'll be a bigger fustercluck in Class G just outside the boundaries. At least this might be one way for the CASA to force staffing issues to the forefront in AsA.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Hiding between the Animal Bar and the Suave Bar
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Info is on the CASA website at: CASA - Proposal for revised procedures at GAAP aerodromes Some interesting issues here.
Class D services will have to be provided at all GAAP aerodromes during the hours of daylight. So Camden is going to have to have full-time ATC, not just on weekends after 9am, as at present.
There's going to be a huge spike in night-time runway incursion incidents, as pilots accidentally taxi across inactive unlit runways.
There's no discussion of traffic management with three active runways (the normal arrangement at Bankstown), and it isn't clear what CASA's intention is for this situation.
There's no mention of the status of helipads. Will they be treated as an additional runway for traffic management purposes ? What happens when helicopters arrive and depart direct to/from company pads or taxiways ? Nor any mention of helicopter traffic, who will hopefully just continue to do what they always do and stay out of the way of everyone else !
It looks like this is CASA's way of forcing the issue with Airservices on staffing levels and service provision. Unless Airservices ramp up staffing to adequately address current service obligations, plus the extra obligations imposed by these directions, GA at GAAP aerodromes will be completely stuffed due to a complete inability to actually get airborne.
Class D services will have to be provided at all GAAP aerodromes during the hours of daylight. So Camden is going to have to have full-time ATC, not just on weekends after 9am, as at present.
There's going to be a huge spike in night-time runway incursion incidents, as pilots accidentally taxi across inactive unlit runways.
There's no discussion of traffic management with three active runways (the normal arrangement at Bankstown), and it isn't clear what CASA's intention is for this situation.
There's no mention of the status of helipads. Will they be treated as an additional runway for traffic management purposes ? What happens when helicopters arrive and depart direct to/from company pads or taxiways ? Nor any mention of helicopter traffic, who will hopefully just continue to do what they always do and stay out of the way of everyone else !
It looks like this is CASA's way of forcing the issue with Airservices on staffing levels and service provision. Unless Airservices ramp up staffing to adequately address current service obligations, plus the extra obligations imposed by these directions, GA at GAAP aerodromes will be completely stuffed due to a complete inability to actually get airborne.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 133
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know where they are going to get all this staff from. All the extra staff for the extra positions that need to be opened (SMC) and the extra opening hours (think daylight savings in Moorabin and ANY day in Camden).
The plan has to be delivered to CASA by August this year, so that will be an interesting read.
The plan has to be delivered to CASA by August this year, so that will be an interesting read.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 201
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And what happens when you've got, say, 6 students in the circuit, and an RPT inbound? Make the RPT wait until the students are done with their T&G's? Force one of the circuit-goers to make a full stop?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Geosynchronous
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone explain what CASA call "the circuit"?
6 planes in "the circuit" with 1 RWY & 1 controller, but 12 in "the circuit" if there are 2 RWYs & 2 controllers... is this supposed to mean that with the two duty RWYs and two controllers on duty, one circuit can have 12 planes, or do they mean 12 spread over both RWYs (what I'd call both circuits, not "the circuit")?
Specifically in regard to Singapore Southern International Aerodrome (aka YPJT) - where its not unusual to have the circuit saturated with SQ students as it is (without extra limitations) ... does this mean the "circuit training circuit" will be cut to no more than 6 a/c at a time (great for reducing the problems with the SQ 160nm wide circuits @ 85 kts, but bad for congestion - esp. departures to the East).
Even without this, I've had to wait 45 mins from startup to T/O clearance for Armadale departure (in 35C ambient) early afternoon on a weekday ... I can just imagine if there's now a queue of 18 SQ + 12 other planes awaiting depature! It'll cost students $150 just idling on the ground for their circuits!
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
6 planes in "the circuit" with 1 RWY & 1 controller, but 12 in "the circuit" if there are 2 RWYs & 2 controllers... is this supposed to mean that with the two duty RWYs and two controllers on duty, one circuit can have 12 planes, or do they mean 12 spread over both RWYs (what I'd call both circuits, not "the circuit")?
The plan has some leeway for outbound traffic but mentions nothing about arrivals getting into the mix.
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...irservices.pdf
7. Airservices must ensure that, at any given time, the maximum number of aeroplanes in the circuit (including arriving and departing aeroplanes) for any 1 runway controlled by an ATC, is 6.
additional notes
8. For clause 7, an additional departure may be permitted at the discretion of the controlling ATC, having taken into account any relevant considerations relating to the interests of safety.
note 1 For clauses 7 and 8, the maximum number of aeroplanes in a circuit must not at any given time exceed 7 when 1 runway is used or 13 when 2 runways are used