172/04 - Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures,
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
172/04 - Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures,
http://casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/ma.../npc172-04.pdf
Don't know if this has been posted already. CASA notice of proposed rule making 172/04 - Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures
Don't know if this has been posted already. CASA notice of proposed rule making 172/04 - Changes to General Aviation Aerodrome Procedures (GAAP), Class D procedures, and miscellaneous air traffic procedures
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Wherever seniority dictates
Posts: 158
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In some circumstances this may be alleviated by the ability for aircraft to fly closer,
horizontally, to cloud under the new VMC criteria – 600 m as compared to the current
1,500 m.
horizontally, to cloud under the new VMC criteria – 600 m as compared to the current
1,500 m.
You're right, but they are talking about the change in VMC criteria between the current Class "D" rules and the new Class "D" rules (ICAO versus FAA).
I think CASA for once have got it about right. I particularly like the recommended approach points not mandatory part. I along with others have long held the view that everyone converging on one point at the same altitude is asking for mid air collisions to happen.
So I for one am happy with it.
So I for one am happy with it.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
My quick read is that SVFR will be separated from all SVFR. So with less than a 1500 ft base the operations in the zones will all but stop. IMO the 600m reduced horizontal distance from cloud will not help.
Currently GAAP is clear of cloud, and in "standard D" SVFR is only separated from other SVFR if it is due to reduced visibility.
Currently GAAP is clear of cloud, and in "standard D" SVFR is only separated from other SVFR if it is due to reduced visibility.
Something doesn't jell...
The Argus Consulting Group study for Launceston Aerodrome, December 2009 doesn't agree with any of the NPRM as per the proposed changes to FAA class D
The Argus Consulting Group study for Launceston Aerodrome, December 2009 doesn't agree with any of the NPRM as per the proposed changes to FAA class D
In addition to the modelling discussed above a comprehensive a qualitative airspace risk assessment was undertaken including AS/NZS 4360:2004 assessment with comparative risk ratings applied.
In consideration of the input from all stakeholders and their respective replies to structured and unstructured questions on specific areas of potential risk, it is arguable that the airspace contained with 35 nm of Launceston is acceptable from both an operational (efficiency) and a risk perspective. This would appear consistent with the application of a limited quantitative assessment as set out at Section 3.2 and indeed supported by the
absence of any discernable pattern of incidents or accidents. Again, this is not inconsistent with previous findings and reports.
An argument could be made that, in an attempt to overcome inefficiencies, safety can be compromised inadvertently. Consequently this review raises a number of issues that either directly impact upon the safety of operations, or indirectly have the potential to impact on the safety of operations within the airspace.
In consideration of the input from all stakeholders and their respective replies to structured and unstructured questions on specific areas of potential risk, it is arguable that the airspace contained with 35 nm of Launceston is acceptable from both an operational (efficiency) and a risk perspective. This would appear consistent with the application of a limited quantitative assessment as set out at Section 3.2 and indeed supported by the
absence of any discernable pattern of incidents or accidents. Again, this is not inconsistent with previous findings and reports.
An argument could be made that, in an attempt to overcome inefficiencies, safety can be compromised inadvertently. Consequently this review raises a number of issues that either directly impact upon the safety of operations, or indirectly have the potential to impact on the safety of operations within the airspace.
Werbil is pretty well on the money. Talking to an ATCer from YBAF and he was saying that with the size of Archerfield's airspace there will not be enough room to apply the required Class D separation standards, ergo, one movement at a time in the zone?
Doesn't sound like an improvement in efficiency to me.
Doesn't sound like an improvement in efficiency to me.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Here and there
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish and Werbil raise very good points re the Wx.
During marginal weather days (ie: cloud below 1500') say goodbye to circuit training and dep/arr will need special VFR clearances. 1 in/out at a time.
Fewer aircraft airborne, less chance of a collision?
During marginal weather days (ie: cloud below 1500') say goodbye to circuit training and dep/arr will need special VFR clearances. 1 in/out at a time.
Fewer aircraft airborne, less chance of a collision?
I along with others have long held the view that everyone converging on one point at the same altitude is asking for mid air collisions to happen.
One of the other purposes of the inbound point is to segregate inbound flight paths from the outbound traffic - not sure how that works now.
Good luck!
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: E116
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worse than having aircraft merging at the same altitude is aircraft descending on the same track to a common altitude. Aircraft A flying between point X and Y at 1500ft and Aircraft B on the same track descending to 1500ft on top of Aircraft A. This has caused many a midair previously worldwide!
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Peru
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Worse than having aircraft merging at the same altitude is aircraft descending on the same track to a common altitude. Aircraft A flying between point X and Y at 1500ft and Aircraft B on the same track descending to 1500ft on top of Aircraft A. This has caused many a midair previously worldwide!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
If the changes are implemented as proposed I think that all D zones (not just GAAP) will effectively become 1 in 1 out for low base situations (including up to 1,500 AAL) where SVFR is required to operate because of their relatively small physical size of the zones (only about 6 - 7nm at 1,000').
This change will result in aircraft flying lower to comply with VFR - I can't see anyone being happy with training aircraft conducting low level circuits over built up areas.
Please respond to the NPRM - otherwise we'll get stuck with the proposal.
This change will result in aircraft flying lower to comply with VFR - I can't see anyone being happy with training aircraft conducting low level circuits over built up areas.
Please respond to the NPRM - otherwise we'll get stuck with the proposal.
Clinton,
No downwind is not the same,as this is within the control zone and under the instructions and guidance with separation issues if required from the tower. The problem with reporting points as they currently stand is that it is all self separation with little or no help at all,due to them being outside the zone.
No downwind is not the same,as this is within the control zone and under the instructions and guidance with separation issues if required from the tower. The problem with reporting points as they currently stand is that it is all self separation with little or no help at all,due to them being outside the zone.
Clinton, You have described exactly how it will work ( as it does now at non radar primaries in the old term) with less risk of collision because all inbound aircaft are at different points until told to merge with the assistance of the tower. Outbound traffic would be at 1000' ( or something simular) again with the assistance of the tower until well clear of the zone. I don't see where there is any greater collision risk in this. As for Bankstown who knows what they have planned as it is not a true GAAP and may need to change. Most GAAPs now do not have procedures like BK where you have all arrivals and departures using the same runway and all circuit traffic using the other. Ask CASA or ASA what they plan to do for the finer details not me.
Cheers
Cheers
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Peru
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mostly - I suggest a bit of time in Parafield Tower when it is really busy.
these don't have 30,000+ movements per month.
Just what is a tower controller suppose to do with 6 inbound and 6 outbound (speaking marginal English - SW, SE?? 3 miles, 5 miles?? 80kt, 180kt) while he is providing Runway Separation? I think you over rate just what is possible.
it makes sense to do that now until clear of inbound points - plenty don't, get to 3 miles - up we go. Just how far do you go - 3 miles, 5, 10?
if only anyone knew!
Alot of this stuff sounds good in theory with only 2 or 3 aeroplanes in a perfect world - unfortunately, when it involves 8 or more aircraft, not quite sure where they are, speaking limited English, throw in an SR22 going 180kt - IT WILL NOT WORK!
That is why special procedures were developed - borrowed from FAA VFR D - we just called it GAAP.
No mention yet of how SMC is suppose to work!!
as it does now at non radar primaries
until told to merge with the assistance of the tower
again with the assistance of the tower
Outbound traffic would be at 1000' ( or something simular)
Ask CASA or ASA what they plan to do for the finer details not me
Alot of this stuff sounds good in theory with only 2 or 3 aeroplanes in a perfect world - unfortunately, when it involves 8 or more aircraft, not quite sure where they are, speaking limited English, throw in an SR22 going 180kt - IT WILL NOT WORK!
That is why special procedures were developed - borrowed from FAA VFR D - we just called it GAAP.
No mention yet of how SMC is suppose to work!!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dizzy Llama
The closest that I can find amongst all the strikeouts in Annex A, is on page A32 where a 'Ready to Taxi' report is to be given to 'ATC'.
No mention yet of how SMC is suppose to work!!
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/population than our paltry 20 million could ever achieve,yet seem to handle them quite well. Unless you think our ATC'ers are somehow inferior. I don't and reckon it will all settle down soon after it is implemented. Just as metric measures, and decimal currency did and yes I'm old enough to remember how it was.
It never ceases to amaze me that whenever change is proposed the nay sayers all come up with reasons it won't work never reasons it will.
I happen to think 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) which is in my view is the most dangerous part of the whole flight.
I'll have a friendly bet with you that after 12months we will all wonder what the fuss was all about and few if any will want to return to the old system. As an example ask around and see how many VFR pilots want to go back to full reporting, or the days of Flight service and the odd Hitler refusing to accept your flight plan.
Cheers
It never ceases to amaze me that whenever change is proposed the nay sayers all come up with reasons it won't work never reasons it will.
I happen to think 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) which is in my view is the most dangerous part of the whole flight.
I'll have a friendly bet with you that after 12months we will all wonder what the fuss was all about and few if any will want to return to the old system. As an example ask around and see how many VFR pilots want to go back to full reporting, or the days of Flight service and the odd Hitler refusing to accept your flight plan.
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mostlytossas
the keyword in there is mostly.
I've experienced many instances of only one, (very busy), GAAP controller handling circuits and arrivals and departures on all runways.
I just hope that the ASA staffing at the new class D's will be adequate and permanent.
...the GAAP's as we have them mostly are parralell runways with 2 controllers working them...
I've experienced many instances of only one, (very busy), GAAP controller handling circuits and arrivals and departures on all runways.
I just hope that the ASA staffing at the new class D's will be adequate and permanent.