Class D Transition and IFR/VFR Operations

[mirage3]

IFR operators need to talk to CASA about some so far unadvertised impacts upon IFR operations. The problem is that CASA has determined that where Class D airspace abuts Class C airspace, then for ATC separation purposes, the Class D and Class C volumes are considered as one volume for ATC separation purposes. For example, at Bankstown, an IFR Duchess departing runway 11C on a BK2 departure is dependent upon ALL IFR activity within the Sydney Class airspace volume. Considering that the Federal Government's stated policy is that the Sydney Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) will NOT be impacted by the transition from GAAP to Class D operations, guess who the losers will be? BK operators or the 'heavy' operators at Sydney who will have no hesitation in letting the Minister what they think if even one of their scheduled services is delayed even for a minute?

It is potentially so serious an issue for IFR operators at the shortly to be reclassified GAAP airports that the impact may very well send a lot of those operators to the wall. Get off your bottoms ladies and gents and contact CASA and demand that organisation give you the exact implications of the CASA decision to transition from GAAP to Class D airspace.

Do not be fooled into thinking that this transition is a minor thing; it certainly is not. The VFR folk need to consider their well-being as well because the end result of these changes does not look pretty.

If you thought that the CASA directive about the mandatory restrictions of 6 aircraft in the circuit in 2009 was bad for business, you ain't seen nothing yet.

The VFR and IFR operators need to contact CASA. In fact, you need to overwhelm them with your demands for an education and information program ASAP.

Don't ask Airservices Australia ATC staff for the answers. They are NOT the regulators. All they do (very well for the most part) is apply the procedures that are dictated to them by CASA.

Welcome to the brave new world. Training organisations and Flight Instructors need to pray to all known gods that their students have the common sense and ability to transition from GAAP to Class D on June 3. Sadly, history shows that most will blunder on oblivious to rule changes and expect that someone else will fix everything.

I think it was CASAs original intent that they could make it all safer by going 'yankee' but the state of flying training in Australia over the last 10 years or so has seen it deteriorate to such a low level by CASA that it may beyond salvation until the next tragedy and we have another 'great idea'.

Sorry folks, but the proposed changes for June 3 just will not solve the problem of rubbish oversight, rubbish attitudes by SOME Flight Instructors, the refusal by a lot of pilots to read NOTAMs and otherwise thoroughly prepare for a flight and the seemingly common attitude by a lot of pilots that I should fly like I drive; full of aggression and 'get out my way' itis. It is extremely easy to teach someone to fly an aircraft but it is not easy to teach someone to be a pilot. Heck, what would I know after 35 years of flying? Just my thoughts.
CASA, June 3 is not the answer.

[ravan]

What mirage 3 said ....in spades. He's talking about Bankstown but you can choose which GAAP you want to check for impact.

I use Archerfield occasionally and I am wondering how you provide separation IFR to IFR or IFR to VFR when your airspace is only 1500' high and approximately 3nm radius??? One IFR movement at a time perhaps?????

Wiser minds might be able to shed some light but I remain sceptical as to whether this is a good thing.

[cbradio]

on a nice day to keep things moving when IFR, remember these -

"VFR Departure"

Inbound - "Cancel IFR"

and I am wondering how you provide separation IFR to IFR or IFR to VFR when your airspace is only 1500' high and approximately 3nm radius??? One IFR movement at a time perhaps?????

IFR to VFR is traffic only - otherwise one at a time might be pretty close.

[Aimpoint]

CASA have been aware of these issues (contiguous airspace) since the AsA industry forums last year. As per usual they put their fingers in their ears and said to ATC and pilots - you work it out.

The issues isn't just IFR to IFR seperation, also special VFR to IFR seperation. VFR can no longer simply remain clear of cloud, and any change to special VFR while there is a 'jet overflying on the ILS' will lead to being held OCTA. The pilot starts holding OCTA, in marginal weather around a busy aerodrome, and we're opening ourselves to another mid-air.

[Ted D Bear]

3 June

Methinks a [former] GAAP CTR will be a good place not to be on 3 June, and probably for a little while thereafter ...

[Aimpoint]

June 3 - same date as the non-towered aerodrome changes. Choas everywhere that week! Might take some annual leave while everyone sorts themselves out.

[SayAgainSlowly]

This whole process has been laughable, to the point where I've forgotten what the original intent of the airspace change was.

Was it for improved safety for IFR aircraft?

That is one thing that will definately occur - BECAUSE EVERYTHING IFR WILL BE ON THE GROUND.

Do CASA seriously think Qantas/Virgin/Rex/etc will be happy to give up a highly sought after slot into YSSY, or be delayed, to facilitate the departure of an IFR flight out of BK?
Me thinks not.

I've got $5 that says June 3rd won't even get off the ground.

[glekichi]

on a nice day to keep things moving when IFR, remember these -

"VFR Departure"

Inbound - "Cancel IFR"

Ha. Last time I tried that to help out at a class D IFR was cancelled and I was immediately told to remain outside of controlled airspace.

Hope the GAAP controllers don't implement full IFR to VFR separation like the current D controllers do.

[ARFOR]

glekichi

Ha. Last time I tried that to help out at a class D IFR was cancelled and I was immediately told to remain outside of controlled airspace.

IFR inbound towards the CTA steps?

You may have thought you were helping out by cancelling IFR. Why would you need to 'help out'? Obviously There were conflicts that provided a block, whether you were IFR or VFR. Going VFR is not going to help.

How long was the delay [were orbits above the LSALT required] OCTA?

Hope the GAAP controllers don't implement full IFR to VFR separation like the current D controllers do.

Finally people are waking up to the change. Australian GA only GAAP [and US D] pilots are primarily responsible for collision avoidance in VMC. ICAO D, pilots AND ATC are responsible for preventing collisions [as it should be where Hi-Cap RPT/PTO operations exist].

That is why removal of GA GAAP and changing it to Class D [ICAO] places a new responsibility on GAAP controllers.

Anyone who thinks Controllers at GAAP's are going to fire traffic and hope they miss [even with DTI] when the rules change, is kidding themselves.

Don’t blame the Controllers, the CASA are enforcing this unnecessary change to GA only secondary airports.

After the changes, these airports will no longer be restricted to GA Only

[ARFOR]

Lighthearted Satire'

Which reminds me, I thought this:-

Talking Heads - Crosseyed & Painless

Lost my shape, trying to act casual
Can't stop, I might end up in the hospital
I'm changing my shape, I feel like an accident
They're back to explain their experience
Isn't it weird, sounds too absurd to me
Wasting away and that was their policy
I'm ready to leave, I push the fact in front of me
Facts lost, facts are never what they seem to be
Nothing there, no information left of any kind
I'm lifting my head, looking for danger signs
There was a line, there was a formula
Sharp as a knife, facts cut a hole in us
There was a line, there was a formula
Sharp as a knife, facts cut a hole in us
I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting
The feeling returns whenever we close out eyes
Lifting my head, looking around inside
The island of doubt, it's like the taste of medicine
Working by hindsight, got the message from the oxygen
I'm making a list, find the cost of opportunity
Doing it right (Right), right, facts are useless in emergencies
The feeling returns, whenever we close our eyes
Lifting my head, looking around inside
Facts are simple and facts are straight
Facts are lazy and facts are late
Facts all come with points of view
Facts don't do what I want them to
Facts just twist the truth around
Facts are living turned inside out
Facts are getting the best of them
I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting
I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting
I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting
I'm still waiting, I'm still waiting, (Thank you) I'm still waiting, (We like to thank our crew) I'm still waiting

Might be a perfect theme song 'The NAStronauts' might like to adopt as their own

[glekichi]

Arfor,

You may have thought you were helping out by cancelling IFR. Why would you need to 'help out'? Obviously There were conflicts that provided a block, whether you were IFR or VFR. Going VFR is not going to help

.

Wow. Settle down there. I was no. one but with a jet up my date with a very similar eta. Tower was starting to throw ideas at the jet about how they could make some space, so I asked if cancelling ifr and proceeding vfr would help, to which the reply was yes. I was then forced to remain clear of the next step and orbit for a few minutes in an area between mountains that happened to be quite turbulent and highly uncomfortable for my passengers.

You can bleat on all you like about who is responsible for collision avoidance, but the fact is that in D that collision avoidance is supposed to be provided by traffic information rather than fully blown separation. A separation service is not supposed to be provided vfr to ifr and whilst workoad permitting to do so is not a problem, to deny a clearance and cause delays in order to provide such separation, in fully blown daytime cavok conditions, undermines what D, ICAO or FAA, is really about.

[ARFOR]

glekichi

Fair enough. But to be fair, you had not explained that you were number one, with a similar eta, with a jet up your six.

That said, without knowing what else was 'in the picture' I would have thought there might have been 'other' options. 'A few minutes' is the point though, isn't it!

You can bleat on all you like about who is responsible for collision avoidance, but the fact is that in D that collision avoidance is supposed to be provided by traffic information rather than fully blown separation.

That is not correct. Ask your local ATC's [presumably an Australian class D tower] if they are 'required to prevent collisions', and if DTI without a guaranteed 'miss' is meeting their 'legal' requirements.

to deny a clearance and cause delays in order to provide such separation, in fully blown daytime cavok conditions, undermines what D, ICAO

Have a think about that given:-

I was no. one but with a jet up my date with a very similar eta. Tower was starting to throw ideas at the jet about how they could make some space

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

on a nice day to keep things moving when IFR, remember these -

"VFR Departure"

Inbound - "Cancel IFR"

And for those who are required by contract to operate under the IFR? Clients would be pretty ****ty to say the least and I can't see that they'd be willing to discuss the issue.

Whether or not it's a good idea I'm not looking forward to being part of the transition as I suspect that we'll be operating IFR into D flights on or about that day.

FRQ CB

[glekichi]

Hi arfor,

Yeah I always enjoy a good yarn with the controllers an understand the Airservices interpretation of D. But, I think it's all arse covering (not the controllers themselves, but the organisation as a whole) and really missing the point of D airspace, which is airspace where separation is not provided vfr to vfr or vfr to ifr. Creative use of dti and the control service to satisfy ones self that the risk if a collision is negligible is all that is really required, but I guess everyones personal interpretation of a safe margin differs also. The tower I'm at tends to apply full ifr sep standards vfr to ifr, yet is not restrictive at all vfr to vfr, which under the Airservices interpretation is no different in that atc is partly responsible for preventing a collision.

Anyways, my dislike of the current implementation of D is irrelevant. The fact is, that they're going to have to change that implementation to handle the gaap volume of traffic. I don't like the US FAA system but the Airways NZ implementation of ICAO works very well in my experience.

[privateer01]

Why in God's name would you cancel IFR then? You are paying for and are entitled to a service

That in a nutshell explains why Australian ATC does not compare to FAA or work the same way.

No cost ATC = everyone utilizing it.

I'm at a loss (much like the rest of you) how a D underlying a C is supposed to sequence traffic effectively without participation of the C airspace ATC or aircraft.

An effective example of how it SHOULD work is FAA C, D and uncontrolled airports underlying B.

Required transponders for VFR traffic within 30 nm of the B primary. Even below the CTA.

IFR traffic being fully controlled with communication between B approach and C approch or D towers.

Full separation provided between all IFR and all VFR in the B......Separation provided between IFR and VFR below.

I dunno how the poor gaap cum D controllers are supposed to work this out.

[glekichi]

Because changing to vfr should have allowed the controller a lot more flexibility in how they brought the jet in behind me. Its called airmanship.
Not the case it would seem under the current ASA interpretation of D, but I had only just come from overseas and when I read the Australian rules they said ifr and vfr would not be separated in D!

[glekichi]

You seem to have missed the whole point entirely.

I was no 1 to start with, and saw what I thought was a way I could help out both the tower and the following jet by saving them time.
I then asked if changing to VFR would help sequencing, to which the tower replied yes!

If you can help out others without detriment to yourself, then offering to do so would be what I consider a part of airmanship.

The problem in this case was the application of VFR to IFR separation when the airspace did not call for it (yes I understand that is how it is applied in Australia), meaning that there was no benefit separation wise at all..

Instead I got told to descend and orbit in, as I said earlier, were some pretty horrible conditions (but 8/8ths blue). Descending and slowing down at the same time is not something a PA31 is very good at either.

That was 2 years ago, and I have not bothered cancelling IFR since, because of the lack of benefit to anybody, but if this change to GAAPs also leads to a change in the way D is implemented at other airports then that too is a good thing IMO.

[werbil]

I agree with glekichi in that the service I receive as a VFR aircraft in D airspace is closer to what I would expect in C airspace. I can only remember one occasion where I have been separated from other VFR aircraft except for circuit sequencing (it was SVFR due cloud and very close to due visibility as well) rather than just been provided with traffic. On the other hand I have never been only provided with traffic information for a conflicting IFR aircraft - at the very minimum sequencing instructions have been issued only after I have reported sighting the other aircraft.

The difference between a red light on the road is that a red light doesn't differentiate between cars and buses. As to the costs of delays whilst the absolute cost of a minute's delay is significantly higher for a mid sized jet than a light aircraft I'd be surprised if there was any significant difference in relative cost compared to the hourly cost of running the aircraft or the cost of flying the sector. Give me one good reason a commercial operator operating a smaller aircraft should subsidise another commercial operator just because it is operating a larger aircraft, especially when the relative cost incurred is greater than the relative cost saved (ie 5 minute hold for light aircraft to allow jet to land 1 minute earlier).

[Charlie Foxtrot India]

As regards CASA and industry education, as a CFI all the infomation I have recieved is the same little postcard inviting me to attend a "workshop" as my student pilots got... I only found out about the NPRM or whatever they are called these days through this board, weeks after the closing date for submissions.

I know there is no way that I will be able to make head or tail of it, change all my procedures and manuals and educate all of my staff and students to a competent level in 2 weeks. That's if I'm lucky enough to be able to get a place among the limited numbers at the "workshop".

I'm also wondering the odds of getting a fax on the Tuedays evening to say the whole thing has been cancelled. Perhaps the lack of GAAP to D calendars, squishy toy aeroplanes, posters, stubby holders or whatever is a clue?

[Chu Mai Huang]

Hey my cat loves her squishy rubber CASA plane and plays with it every day!

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