Good Aviation Practice
Thread Starter
Good Aviation Practice
Yet another gem from the Sept-Oct Flight Safety Australia!
So what is the alternative to conducting an orbit at the inbound reporting point? A bunt? An immelman?
I will take some convincing that conducting an orbit in a low wing aeroplane, where you are turning into air that you can visually confirm is clear of conflicting traffic, is dangerous. Perhaps special care is required with a high wing aircraft, but what is the alternative - a 180 degree turn - which perhaps halves the risk? Eventually you are going to have to turn back towards the inbound reporting point - thereby picking up the other half of the risk!
Dr
GOOD AVIATION PRACTICE
Do not enter the GAAP control zone without a clearance
Clearances .............etc. If the inbound radio call cannot be made at the appropriate position, or if clearance is unavailable, you should have an alternative plan.
Do not orbit at an inbound reporting point
Potentially this is dangerous. If you need to hold, or reposition the aircraft to the GAAP approach point, do so in a manner that provides lateral and vertical separation from other aircraft likely to be in the same area. Ensure other .......etc.
Do not enter the GAAP control zone without a clearance
Clearances .............etc. If the inbound radio call cannot be made at the appropriate position, or if clearance is unavailable, you should have an alternative plan.
Do not orbit at an inbound reporting point
Potentially this is dangerous. If you need to hold, or reposition the aircraft to the GAAP approach point, do so in a manner that provides lateral and vertical separation from other aircraft likely to be in the same area. Ensure other .......etc.
I will take some convincing that conducting an orbit in a low wing aeroplane, where you are turning into air that you can visually confirm is clear of conflicting traffic, is dangerous. Perhaps special care is required with a high wing aircraft, but what is the alternative - a 180 degree turn - which perhaps halves the risk? Eventually you are going to have to turn back towards the inbound reporting point - thereby picking up the other half of the risk!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 15th Sep 2009 at 12:15.
I think the point is Doc that if you are holding overhead the approach point at the inbound altitude, and while you're holding another plane, and another, and another all come over the same point at the same altitude then it could get just a teensy bit hairy. In saying that though, if the rules were better thought through then less aircraft would be stuck waiting at the approach point, but that's another thread
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: out there
Age: 43
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe we should retrofit aircraft with tilting wings/engines like the osprey. I almost said everyone should switch to helicopters, but I have a few mates that would see it a sign of superiority on their behalf.
Thread Starter
So what exactly do CASA want us to do when we're screwed and have to stick around at the inbound points?
Then once you have your entry clearance you could do another 180 and head back over the inbound reporting point.
Oh no! That won't work - that would look too much like an orbit, which would be inherently dangerous - apparently!
Dr
Aussie innovation !!
Don't worry Doc, I'm working on the world's first in-flight PAUSE button (bit like that garmin "BLUE" button but smarter). It will be the only safe way to deal with the situation.
Happy to sell you one when I've completed product development...
BP
Happy to sell you one when I've completed product development...
BP
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe we should start our own stacks for VFR traffic. Sorry, i'm joking but i agree with FTDK, its confusing. i think that perhaps one should request a clearance a little B4 the reporting point and listen for inbound traffic, if congested, slow it down. Maybe 2 minute racecourse patterns with a good listening watch and lookout???
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Perth
Posts: 430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
maybe we should start our own stacks for VFR traffic. Sorry, i'm joking but i agree with FTDK, its confusing. i think that perhaps one should request a clearance a little B4 the reporting point and listen for inbound traffic, if congested, slow it down. Maybe 2 minute racecourse patterns with a good listening watch and lookout???
I guess the best thing is to call well out from the reporting point and say "approaching" as this will give time to do the evasive without causing too much of a hiccup.
The best alternative is to avoid GAAPs altogether. That's just what they want us to do.
My experience is that if you are told to hold, they will call you in when they want you. So fly away from the reporting point and hang around somewhere convenient, not too far away, but definitely not right at the reporting point. Also make a call on the freq what you are going to do, so any others approaching know.
(If it is as busy as some would have us believe, divert somewhere else and try again later).
(If it is as busy as some would have us believe, divert somewhere else and try again later).
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: AUSTRALIA
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's all part of the plot to kill aviation at GAAP airports by their owners - thus making the land available for more retirement homes/industrial estates. Remember the tenure was only for 100 years so they have to move fast if they are to maximise returns.
