Class D Transition and IFR/VFR Operations

[OpsNormal]

T minus 6 weeks from June D changes and the educatory informatory silence from CASA is deafening

I just love that attitiude of needing to be spoon fed. Class D Control Zones that abut Class C and/or G/E are nothing new here in Australia (Coffs etc). To need to be spoon fed information on changes to your cozy little GAAP comfort zones defies belief. The procedures are already in your AIP/JEPP, get off your RRRs and read them, and in fact I hope they actually start having to make some lazy instructors and students both teach and learn how to give a distance/radial/track reference the NDB and an accurate ETA etc... It isn't that hard at all and don't sit there and tell me it isn't required...

Glekichi. It was great airmanship of you to offer to do what you did, however by doing so you brought that extension of a ride in turbulence on yourself and your passengers. The lesson here is to call up, rock up and let the tower sort it out based on ETA's etc. I've no doubt the controller and the other aircraft appreciated it, however you wont find any requirement in the AIP to even offer to forgo a clearance.

Regards,

OpsN.

[2b2]

The procedures are already in your AIP/JEPP

I'd be surprised when no-one seems to know what they are yet.

distance/radial/track reference the NDB and an accurate ETA

that'll work at JT or MB! - wonder how many students know what an NDB is - ETAs - no thanks.

GAAP is not just changing to current D ala Coffs Harbour - these are new "FAA/Twist/ICAOish D" procedures - to be implemented at all the D towers.

No-one wants to be spoon fed, but pilots and ATC are still waiting, and working out, exactly how things are going to be done. Not long now!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

How hard can it be?

Just go IFR (VFR is too scarey!) and do as you are told!

Remember, don't say "visual" until you have it sussed (even if its 8/8's blue)!

Has always worked for me - at least where ATC is concerned.

Dr

[Clearedtoreenter]

Has always worked for me

Me too but for some reason in this new wonderplan, due to the closeness of Sydney CTA, BK IFR traffic is going to have to have 5 million miles separation. The result is we'll be holding until the find us a gap - which might well be impossible!

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Doc - you assume ATC are in the know are about how this is supposed to transition.

In my experience ATC guys generally seem to know what they are doing, but I guess that if they don't know and I don't know then we will just have to make it up as we go along!

Dr

[cbradio]

if they don't know and I don't know then we will just have to make it up as we go along!

you haven't been reading the transition plan have you?

[Awol57]

We don't know what the procedures/rules are going to be yet. Apparently Perth traffic is going to cause us all sorts of headaches at JT. But none us are really sure why yet.

Should be interesting times ahead - once we find out what sort of Class D we are doing. ICAO/FAA or some sort of GAAP/D morph. I might start calling it GAAD haha.

[Clearedtoreenter]

or some sort of GAAP/D morph. I might start calling it GAAD haha.

Probably pretty close to the mark... difficult to see how a proper D can work at BK or JT.

[majorca]

Modified Class D is change for the sake of change and only demonstrates the ignorance and lack of experience in CASA. Over the years, CASA has allowed Airservices management to reduce staffing levels at GAAP aerodromes (cost effective decisions??) to such a point that when aviation activity increased with the recent influx of overseas students, controllers were struggling to cope during peak times.
The fix is simple...increase staffing levels to that required, segregated flight paths for arriving and departing aircraft and a dedicated circuit for circuit training only.
Modified D is not the answer and is only going to place unnecessary imposts on the industry...both IFR & VFR.

[Chief galah]

The fix is simple...increase staffing levels to that required, segregated flight paths for arriving and departing aircraft and a dedicated circuit for circuit training only.

majorca

I believe this is exactly the GAAP procedure at YMMB that has existed for years.

[Awol57]

Chief Gallah I think a more effective way is the way YPJT is set up. No one arrives onto the circuit runway (unless they are joining the circuit) and one departure point off that runway. All other traffic is on the arrivals/departure runway (and frequency). Unless it has changed YMMB used to have a frequency/airspace split from between the runways and you departed off either runway depending on which way you were headed.

[majorca]

Awol57 you are correct. To clarify Chief galah's points, YMMB also has touch and go circuits on BOTH runways PLUS arrivals and departures. GAAP A/Ds have designated VFR inbound tracking points but not segragated tracks within the zones to separate departing and arriving traffic. As to the staffing situation, most GAAP A/Ds have suffered at least a 50% staff reduction over the last 10 years and they're back handling the same movements of the busy periods during the 80's and 90's. Look back and compare the safety records prior to staff cutting. CASA & Airservices won't admit this so they're window dressing with unnecessary procedures.

[Awol57]

Yes I believe YSBK is similar. I have been to the tower there once and from what I saw it is similar to what we do over here, but they are very much constrained by SY airspace. I found it interesting choppers come through on a different frequency but it seems to work ok

[Ted D Bear]

Choppers are on the same frequency at BK (132.8 for ARR & DEP) - just different arrival points and altitudes.

Ted

[Awol57]

Yeah I meant the choppers through the circuit low level on the other frequency, but thats just a different way of doing things.

[Ted D Bear]

CASA elearning tutorial on new Class D procedures

Just completed this on-line tutorial (on the CASA website) and, in general, found it useful and informative. The 3 June issue of AIP book and ERSA are out too, and we've all got a letter from CASA with the CAAPs. But all this still leaves a few areas that need clarification, IMHO. For example:

1. IFR flights will have to give a departure report as per AIP and this will apply to all Class D aerodromes, including the former GAAP ones. So, for example, if departing IFR from Bankstown on a Bankstown 3 Departure (SID), does this mean it will be necessary to give a (procedural style) departure report as per AIP Book ENR 1.1 section 8.2.1 (AL/63) to Bankstown Tower prior to being handed to Sydney Departures? That seems to be required by that section. Currently, the report is given to Sydney Departures after changing frequency - and it is a (shorter) report consistent with being in a radar environment.
2. After 3 June, should a departure report be made to the tower by an IFR aircraft conducting a VFR departure into adjoining G? Or should that report be made to ATC on the area frequency once established in Class G (at the time, presumably, of notifying ATC that the flight is “reverting to IFR”)?
3. Do requirements in ERSA that apply to “VFR aircraft” apply to IFR aircraft conducting a VFR departure? The ERSA entry for Bankstown (effective 3 June 2010), for example, states in Flight Procedures, para 11, that VFR aircraft departing the zone should do so by extending a leg of the circuit. Should an IFR aircraft making a VFR departure automatically do likewise, or will specific tracking requirements be notified by ATC to each such flight?
4. The on-line tutorial does not discuss frequency changes when departing a Class D zone into adjoining Class G airspace. AIP ENR 1.1 section 8.4.2 (AL/63) requires pilots to remain on the tower frequency until a change is made in accordance with specific instructions from ATC. (The second sentence of that section seems to assume that the section is only discussing a departure from Class D into C, but the section is not expressed to be limited to that situation.) Will all aircraft departing a Class D zone into Class G will be given a specific frequency change instruction by the tower? Tower frequency is going to be a bit more congested ...
5. The tutorial mentions the requirement for a taxi clearance prior to operating on the manoeuvring area (before the tutorial goes on to discuss take-off). AIP ENR 1.1 section 16.2(b) (AL/63) refers to the need also to obtain an ATC taxi instruction after landing and vacating the runway strip. However, the ERSA entry for Bankstown (effective 3 June 2010) - Local Procedures para 12.3 refers only to a requirement to "monitor SMC" after landing and vacating all active [sic] runways. Shouldn't the latter paragraph refer to the need to advise SMC of intended destination on the aerodrome and to obtain an ATC instruction to taxi to that destination?

Maybe this was all covered at the workshops, but I wasn't in Sydney on the day they were held so don't know ... Be interested to hear from anyone who did attend - or from others with a view about the above.

Ted

[SayAgainSlowly]

Hey Ted

Was talking to some ATC's today to try and get a bit of clarification about a few things, some similar to the points you raised. From what I could gather (and I can't blame the guys I spoke to for not knowing as they haven't done their Class D training yet) CASA has been very vague on the detail.

Surprise.

1. Yes, IFR aircraft conducting a SID will need to give a departure report to Tower. Apparently the Tower now has to record the detail from the departure report onto the paper strip.
-on a side, apparently the Bankstown 2 Departure is set to be axed as it is one of the few, if not the only, SID that vectors aircraft OCTA. Probably won't matter anyway because no one will be able to use it unless they want a 3 day delay.

2. Not sure. The guys I spoke to seemed to think yes, as it would then give them the chance (if appropriate) to say 'no further requirements, contact RADAR' - who would have you identified and could then process your request to upgrade to IFR, which is the service your entitled to. Again TWR has to annotate you departure call on the paper strip.

3. Expect to depart the zone on an extended leg of the circuit on a VFR departure. You are essentially a VFR aircraft for your departure (VFR departure, but IFR, but treated as VFR in the zone. Thats not confusing at all), and should conform to the departure requirements for VFR aircraft.

4. Once clear of the zone VFR aircraft will not be directed to change frequency. PIC is responsible, as it is now.

5. The guys I spoke to said you need to contact SMC on vacating the runway and advise destination, e.g 'ABC for the terminal', who will then give you a taxi clearance.

I'm surprised more questions about these changes haven't been posted, but I guess I'm guilty because I've got quite a few too.

Hope I haven't done the guys I spoke to a disservice by posting their advice, they were more than accommodating.

[Ted D Bear]

Thanks, SayAgainSlowly - it's good that talking to the ATC guys has helped to clarify some of this. Interesting they're still waiting on their training . I'm sure at the end of the day they (ATC) and we (pilots) will sort it out, but by golly its gonna be shambolic on 3 June if CASA doesn't improve the quality of the information and training ASAP!

Re the current BK2 Departure, it is being replaced on 3 June by the BK3 Departure and the only change is a note to say that pilots are responsible for their own separation OCTA. Currently, Departures only give you a vector to take up 'on reaching 3,000FT' (if not departing into Sydney CTR) anyway, so I had presumed this wouldn't be an issue. Is it being suggested that the initially assigned heading is a 'vector', and therefore can't be assigned unless you're departing into the Sydney CTR? Who knows but it sounds crazy!

It makes perfect sense for an IFR aircraft on a VFR Departure to behave like a VFR aircraft and depart via an extended leg of the circuit, but why the can't the ERSA entry say so?

The ATC guys say there will be no instruction to VFR aircraft (note here "VFR aircraft" does not equal "IFR aircraft on a VFR Departure" ) to change frequency when departing into Class G, but that is directly contrary to AIP ENR 1.1 section 8.4.2 (AL/63) (which applies to ALL aircraft). What does CASA propose to do about that?

Also makes sense that you need a taxi clearance after landing. But, again, ERSA should be updated to reflect this and - more importantly, shouldn't this be emphasised in the training material (like the on-line tutorial).

All a bit disappointing but not unexpected really. I have a great deal of sympathy for the controllers, who are going to be trying to run this airspace on 3 June!

Ted

PS Isn't it a requirement, on an initial issue of a CIR, to demonstrate you can fly a SID? How are people going to be able to do that at Bankstown in the future if the SID is either abolished or in practice impossible to get?

[Ted D Bear]

The option of departing VFR or cancelling IFR inbound may seem inviting, but as the training package suggests: if you were delayed initially, it was only because of other IFR aircraft that were - and still are - ahead of you already.

In reality - this is what we're doing now when the zone is VMC, because IFR are required to operate VFR in the zone when VMC exist under GAAP. And regularly IFR aircraft elect to 'depart OCTA' now when advised of a delay in getting a clearance into Class C - which usually happens because someone has just departed IFR in front of you, and you won't be released until the radar controller can see the other guy is at least 3 miles in front.

I can't see why the delay for an IFR departure (in the BK case, via the SID) should be any greater (or more likely) after transition to D - but I'd really like to hear from the ATC guys ...

this new, fresh, bold approach

... and, by golly, ain't it exciting

Ted

[Ted D Bear]

This was always the case anyway

That makes sense - it is due to geography (and nothing to do with transition to D) that we have delays in getting an IFR departure via the SID.

We already have to live with delays due to other (IFR) traffic in nearby Class C, but my experience is that often the runways in use at Sydney will permit IFR departures via the SID out of Bankstown without any delay. The biggest issue for me has been waiting for another IFR departure at Bankstown who has called "ready" before me.

I don't think any of this will change with transition to D.

Ted