Class D seperation YMMB
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class D seperation YMMB
I've had my eyes closed a little with the recent changes not worrying too much about it until now.
Would you say that with class D versus the old GAAP that controllers are MORE likely to seperate you, or less likely?
With regard to the old approach points, eg Carrum & GMH for Moorabbin, are these recommended or mandatory?
Had an "incident" on the weekend. Came within 100 metres of an aicraft joining downwind and I was at 800ft on upwind.
Controller told me that I "should have avoided heading towards Carrum."
Is this a valid comment?
(Departure Runway 17R)
Would you say that with class D versus the old GAAP that controllers are MORE likely to seperate you, or less likely?
With regard to the old approach points, eg Carrum & GMH for Moorabbin, are these recommended or mandatory?
Had an "incident" on the weekend. Came within 100 metres of an aicraft joining downwind and I was at 800ft on upwind.
Controller told me that I "should have avoided heading towards Carrum."
Is this a valid comment?
(Departure Runway 17R)
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Yellow Brick Road
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...6-Aug-2010.pdf ERSA YMMB FAC M-1:
When following "coast", you should be over land, not water. Routes over water are for inbound aircraft from the south.
Hope that settles your mind.
4.7 DEP from RWY 17R maintain upwind leg until S of Woodland Golf Course. If DEP to S, turn left to follow coast when S of Woodland Golf Course.
Hope that settles your mind.
That all depends on whether you were IFR or VFR.
Flying towards a recommended inbound point is probably never a good idea. Here at JT our old reporting points are the way you will be cleared into the zone. So whilst not mandatory, thats the way you are cleared in.
Flying towards a recommended inbound point is probably never a good idea. Here at JT our old reporting points are the way you will be cleared into the zone. So whilst not mandatory, thats the way you are cleared in.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When following "coast", you should be over land, not water. Routes over water are for inbound aircraft from the south.
Hope that settles your mind.
Hope that settles your mind.
That being said, the 4.7 reference complicates things.
woodland golf course, moorabbin - Google Maps
What aircraft often seem to do is fly direct from Aspendale to join right down-wind for 17R which puts them in direct conflict with upwind traffic. You'd have to do a very deliberate left turn at Woodlands to take you out of their way, but it says
If DEP to S, turn left to follow coast when S of Woodland Golf Course.
I know this is in the VFG somewhere however I don't think people fly around with that on their lap daily.
Sunny - yes, I was, I don't know about him.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departing south and passing over Carrum at 800ft is an unfortunate choice to say the least (assuming that is what you did).
Helicopters overfly approach points at 700 ft so as to separate from fixed wing.
Outbound tracking over or near any approach point (at less than 2000ft) is risky in my opinion - just because northbound should be over water doesn't mean you aren't asking for trouble tracking so close to an approach point.
John
Helicopters overfly approach points at 700 ft so as to separate from fixed wing.
Outbound tracking over or near any approach point (at less than 2000ft) is risky in my opinion - just because northbound should be over water doesn't mean you aren't asking for trouble tracking so close to an approach point.
John
Last edited by rjtjrt; 27th Sep 2010 at 13:04.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Departing south and passing over Carrum at 800ft is an unfortunate choice to say the least (assuming that is what you did this).
All that aside, this is probably just a one off, it was more the responsibilities of the controller and his comments regarding heading towards an approach point that is essentially 7 miles away when I'm more like 3.5.
Query about two aircraft departing upwind on different runways at about the same time. 13L & R is when that occurs more often with both going to the training area - then when they depart the zone the one on the right turns left and the one on the left ........
See also para 4.6 "DEP from RWY 17 on UPWIND leg should remain over land until abeam CARRUM to avoid inbound traffic." Some-one on 17L may do that while the one on 17R is following the previously noted instructions of para 4.7 so will turn left ....
See also para 4.6 "DEP from RWY 17 on UPWIND leg should remain over land until abeam CARRUM to avoid inbound traffic." Some-one on 17L may do that while the one on 17R is following the previously noted instructions of para 4.7 so will turn left ....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh Dear Jaba. You just go back to your busy little CTAF and pipe down.
Down here we have highly paid controllers that do the looking outside for us and when we have a near miss we can blame them for not warning us.
There's no see and avoid in Victorian Special VFR with 1 km vis. You simply don't get that soup up in the Sunshine State and when you do you are all grounded until the sun shines through.
Down here we have highly paid controllers that do the looking outside for us and when we have a near miss we can blame them for not warning us.
There's no see and avoid in Victorian Special VFR with 1 km vis. You simply don't get that soup up in the Sunshine State and when you do you are all grounded until the sun shines through.
The controller in any controlled airspace has no responsibility to separate VFR aircraft. Only if IFR (not including IFR departing VFR) or Special VFR are involved is a separation service provided. VFR are only provided with traffic information if conflict exists. Also no separtion service is required whilst operating near or in the circuit other than control of the take-off/landing sequence.
In short close to the airport see and avoid applies if VFR.
In short close to the airport see and avoid applies if VFR.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Mars
Posts: 373
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you say that with class D versus the old GAAP that controllers are MORE likely to seperate you, or less likely?
If you're outside their miniscule control zone, you're Class G and they really dont give a stuff. If you happen to ask for clearance at about the same time as someone else you'll be told to track to the same point at the same altitude and if you dare to ask something like'should I follow the blar blar?', you'll probably be told, politely if you're lucky, to 'sort yourselves out'. Then when you call at the required position, you'll be given a sequence but still responsible for manitaining your own separation. They have no responsibility to separate you and make no attempt to do so if you are VFR. Even if you're in your Citation and they tell you to do something next to impossible like 'follow the Jabiru' on a massive circuit, its still you're fault if you get too close or infringe an adjacent CTA desperately trying to widen out.
As for
Go IFR and depart that way! 
Its unbelievable how much CASA and ASA have spent on this Class D rubbish with no positive contribution to separation or reducing the risk of collision at all! They have very successfully impeded the flow of IFR traffic though and maybe covered a few of their bums when push comes to shove though.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if you're in your Citation and they tell you to do something next to impossible like 'follow the Jabiru' on a massive circuit, its still you're fault if you get too close or infringe an adjacent CTA desperately trying to widen out
If a controller instructs you to follow a course of action which is not operationally acceptable, then speak up. If the speed differential and proximity to other CTA gives limited options, then request an orbit or 2.
Last edited by 5miles; 29th Sep 2010 at 12:23.
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 34
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if you're in your Citation and they tell you to do something next to impossible like 'follow the Jabiru' on a massive circuit, its still you're fault if you get too close or infringe an adjacent CTA desperately trying to widen out
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then what the hell are we paying them for...they dont help us, but if we dont help them, we get letters...hmm..
If you want a higher service speak up, you may have to pay more for it though
