172/04 - Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures,
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Peru
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dizzy, You fail to acknowledge that the GAAP's as we have them mostly are parralell runways with 2 controllers working them so your example would be 3 aircaft/ controller.
Also in other countries they have much greater traffic numbers
Unless you think our ATC'ers are somehow inferior
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it will and be a better and safer system than the current one where we pilots do ATC's work at GAAP's by self sequencing then telling them the order of arrival( and therefore normally the landing sequence)
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: here
Age: 45
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And to think that CTAF's cope just fine with 3 aeroplanes doing circuits, 2 helicopters doing a circuit inside that (or contra circuits), and some aircraft departing and arriving in between - all on the same runway 
GAAP's as they are work fine, it's the pilot's that don't.
GAAP's as they are work fine, it's the pilot's that don't.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi all,
I thought I'd chip in a few thoughts. I am still undecided on whether I like the idea of GAAP aerodromes switching to D and I certainly haven't been following this debate as long as many people. However I thought rather than becoming a hive of negativity this forum might provide some opportunity for those that operate at GAAP aerodromes to provide some educated and specific suggestions for how to improve the current system. I have done a fair amount of flying at Bankstown airport and also Archerfield. I must admit that on the whole I am impressed with how well the current system works. That being said, I have had several tense moments, one particular instance at YSBK when about 20 aircraft decided to return from the training area simultaneously due to weather. I was very impressed with how calm the controllers were and how well everything was handled but being surrounded on all sides by other aircraft was daunting non the less. I also always get a little uneasy at the approach points as I know how hard it can be to see other aircraft until it is too late. Anyway on to a few ideas:
1/ At GAAP's such as YSBK a discrete radio frequency for the training area "all stations bankstown, MMG, cessna 182, on descent to 1500, northen end of training area (etc), 2RN at 24"
2/ If everyone is worrying about controller workload, perhaps borrowing some tricks from overseas might help. I was reading up on the proceedures for arriving at Oshkosh in the states. Due to the number of arriving aircraft they mandate a speed as well as an altitude for approaching aircraft. 90 knots at 1800 ft or 135 knots at 2300 ft. Could a similar speed requirement help controlers sequence aircraft that are arriving from non specific points in Australia.
3/ Not so much an idea as an observation, I notice in the proposed changes that controllers can require aircraft to report at standard inbound points, I assume that this could be broadcasted on the atis for inbound aircraft, reducing controller workload during busy time periods.
If you have any ideas please post them, it's better than just being negative.
J
I thought I'd chip in a few thoughts. I am still undecided on whether I like the idea of GAAP aerodromes switching to D and I certainly haven't been following this debate as long as many people. However I thought rather than becoming a hive of negativity this forum might provide some opportunity for those that operate at GAAP aerodromes to provide some educated and specific suggestions for how to improve the current system. I have done a fair amount of flying at Bankstown airport and also Archerfield. I must admit that on the whole I am impressed with how well the current system works. That being said, I have had several tense moments, one particular instance at YSBK when about 20 aircraft decided to return from the training area simultaneously due to weather. I was very impressed with how calm the controllers were and how well everything was handled but being surrounded on all sides by other aircraft was daunting non the less. I also always get a little uneasy at the approach points as I know how hard it can be to see other aircraft until it is too late. Anyway on to a few ideas:
1/ At GAAP's such as YSBK a discrete radio frequency for the training area "all stations bankstown, MMG, cessna 182, on descent to 1500, northen end of training area (etc), 2RN at 24"
2/ If everyone is worrying about controller workload, perhaps borrowing some tricks from overseas might help. I was reading up on the proceedures for arriving at Oshkosh in the states. Due to the number of arriving aircraft they mandate a speed as well as an altitude for approaching aircraft. 90 knots at 1800 ft or 135 knots at 2300 ft. Could a similar speed requirement help controlers sequence aircraft that are arriving from non specific points in Australia.
3/ Not so much an idea as an observation, I notice in the proposed changes that controllers can require aircraft to report at standard inbound points, I assume that this could be broadcasted on the atis for inbound aircraft, reducing controller workload during busy time periods.
If you have any ideas please post them, it's better than just being negative.
J
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clinton,
Whilst I believe what you are saying is quite true, for example, ( correct me if I misunderstand ), without approach points, how will we safely have departures, especially IFR on a SID ?.
I have recently been flying out of Jandakot, lots of GA aircraft, from my experience, when departing I have always been vertically seperated ( having climbed above )from inbound traffic by the time I have left the circuit area.
Whilst it could be argued that not having VFR GAAP approach points may make IFR departures slightly more risky, IMHO it will certainly considerably reduce these "funnelling" type problems with VFR GAAP approach points ( basically reducing chances of approach point mid air collisions ).
In the case of all the GAAP's I've flown in, you are in CTA at 1500 AGL, so I do not think it is really that much of an issue.
As far as the proposed distance changes etc etc, I see no problem with that.
I can not see how we can have it both ways on this topic.
Whilst I am not a member of the Captain Smith fan club, I believe he is quite correct WRT to closed minded attitudes some here have, particularly WRT looking at the way other countries operate and how so often people resist change purely for the sake of resisting change.
IMHO we are far from worlds best practice in many ways.
Disclaimer: All ASA controllers / Tower Staff I have dealt with have been fantastic.
Whilst I believe what you are saying is quite true, for example, ( correct me if I misunderstand ), without approach points, how will we safely have departures, especially IFR on a SID ?.
I have recently been flying out of Jandakot, lots of GA aircraft, from my experience, when departing I have always been vertically seperated ( having climbed above )from inbound traffic by the time I have left the circuit area.
Whilst it could be argued that not having VFR GAAP approach points may make IFR departures slightly more risky, IMHO it will certainly considerably reduce these "funnelling" type problems with VFR GAAP approach points ( basically reducing chances of approach point mid air collisions ).
In the case of all the GAAP's I've flown in, you are in CTA at 1500 AGL, so I do not think it is really that much of an issue.
As far as the proposed distance changes etc etc, I see no problem with that.
I can not see how we can have it both ways on this topic.
Whilst I am not a member of the Captain Smith fan club, I believe he is quite correct WRT to closed minded attitudes some here have, particularly WRT looking at the way other countries operate and how so often people resist change purely for the sake of resisting change.
IMHO we are far from worlds best practice in many ways.
Disclaimer: All ASA controllers / Tower Staff I have dealt with have been fantastic.
If you are IFR capable, plan in Class C, insist on stayong there, and insist on an IAL. Otherwise you will be spinning in G awaiting clearance.
Outbound - "VFR Departure"
Inbound - "Cancel IFR"
should work the same as now!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Well Mr MacK has sent me a post card inviting us all along to "Workshops" at various locations around the country between 10th and 20th of May!
Should be a hoot!
Anyone else get one?
Should be a hoot!
Anyone else get one?
Sent off the request for the PM show for MB and still haven't got a reply..as the same for new education material..big no show...even guys learning at MB give blank expressions when I ask about it.
Bull****!!!
Actually, I think (from memory) it's two, can anybody remember more? In the zone, not in the training area. The Dove/Twin Comanche and the AFTS v. Clambacks Warrior.
Given the movement rate we used to have, still not a bad record.
Certainly a lot better than the roads around YSBK.
Tootle pip
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled:
In the last 40 years there have been exactly 5 instances of MACs at Bankstown airport or Bankstown airspace, viz:
1971: C182/C150 (non fatal)
1974: DH104/PA30 (fatal)
1975: PA30/C182 collision (non-fatal)
2002 : PA28/TB9 (fatal)
2008 : C152/Liberty XL (fatal)
Actually, I think (from memory) it's two, can anybody remember more?
1971: C182/C150 (non fatal)
1974: DH104/PA30 (fatal)
1975: PA30/C182 collision (non-fatal)
2002 : PA28/TB9 (fatal)
2008 : C152/Liberty XL (fatal)
Leadsled (correct quote)
so that would be one in 35 years - Dick was pretty close.
Actually, I think (from memory) it's two, can anybody remember more? In the zone, not in the training area.
