Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Latest information on CASA giant 40nm 5,000 foot CTAFs

Old 23rd Mar 2018, 07:21
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 775
I thought this was a thread about CTAFs, not towered airports and landing clearances.
fujii is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 07:23
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
fujii,
Be happy, be flexible, be open minded --- as long as it is not open at both ends!!
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 08:26
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 775
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
fujii,
Be happy, be flexible, be open minded --- as long as it is not open at both ends!!
Tootle pip!!
I am but the bit about multiple aircraft being cleared to land is just plain dangerous.
fujii is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 08:54
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
fujii,
Just don't travel to the US, UK or anywhere else (including AU) where this ICAO compliant practice for aircraft cleared for a visual approach is ever used.

What you really mean is you think it is dangerous, as a reflex reaction, without any sort of risk analysis, because you don't understand what is happening, and you don't actually understand the various rights and responsibilities of controllers and pilots in command.

Just a clue: It is always the responsibility of the pilot in command to be satisfied that the runway us clear before landing (or takeoff) ---- regardless of the clearance.

If you want to have a look at how various people can tie themselves in knots on such a matter, particularly when serious vested interests are concerned, get all three complete inquiries into the day the TAA B727 on takeoff hit the Trans Canada DC-8 that had just landed.

Tootle pip!!

PS: You should probably also avoid the parts of the world where all the often quite busy airways systems are G or E airspace, and I do NOT mean USA below 10,000'
LeadSled is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 10:18
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 775
Originally Posted by LeadSled View Post
fujii,
Just don't travel to the US, UK or anywhere else (including AU) where this ICAO compliant practice for aircraft cleared for a visual approach is ever used.

What you really mean is you think it is dangerous, as a reflex reaction, without any sort of risk analysis, because you don't understand what is happening, and you don't actually understand the various rights and responsibilities of controllers and pilots in command.

Just a clue: It is always the responsibility of the pilot in command to be satisfied that the runway us clear before landing (or takeoff) ---- regardless of the clearance.

If you want to have a look at how various people can tie themselves in knots on such a matter, particularly when serious vested interests are concerned, get all three complete inquiries into the day the TAA B727 on takeoff hit the Trans Canada DC-8 that had just landed.

Tootle pip!!

PS: You should probably also avoid the parts of the world where all the often quite busy airways systems are G or E airspace, and I do NOT mean USA below 10,000'
Not a reflex reaction. After forty two years in ATC, mostly in towers, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the rights and responsibilities of pilots and controllers.
fujii is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 10:26
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 372
All I can do is echo the other contributors.

Having flown from the USA across the Atlantic Europe etc etc to Australia, the BS starts around 100nm out of Broome.

Prior to that 100nms even 3rd world s***holes airspaces were better and easier to fly in
dhavillandpilot is offline  
Old 23rd Mar 2018, 10:31
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,276
But you’re “safer” once you’re within 100nms Broome.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2018, 14:44
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
After forty two years in ATC, mostly in towers, I think I have a pretty good grasp of the rights and responsibilities of pilots and controllers.
Fujii,
Apparently not?
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 24th Mar 2018, 15:02
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,032
Hey Leddie, as I'm passing through 20 miles to run termorra, I'll demand my clearance to land behind the 3 in front (Australian capital city airport). What's your mobile in case I get some push-back.
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 01:26
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Hey Leddie, as I'm passing through 20 miles to run termorra, I'll demand my clearance to land behind the 3 in front (Australian capital city airport). What's your mobile in case I get some push-back.
This is all thread drift but Leady is correct about takeoff and landing clearances:
Often been cleared to land joining the ILS in Honolulu for instance with two more departures and the guy five miles in front of me to land first! It works, just land once runway clear!
At Heathrow you may be cleared to line up “after Brittania 767”, when you look for Brittania they are number four on the other side of the runway while you are number five on this side!
As Fujii did not perceive, there are different rules around the world.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 01:44
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,276
AIM 5_5_11
5-5-11. VISUAL APPROACH

a. Pilot:

1. If a visual approach is not desired, advises ATC.

2. Complies with controller's instructions for vectors toward the airport of intended landing or to a visual position behind a preceding aircraft.

3. The pilot must, at all times, have either the airport or the preceding aircraft in sight. After being cleared for a visual approach, proceed to the airport in a normal manner or follow the preceding aircraft. Remain clear of clouds while conducting a visual approach.

4. If the pilot accepts a visual approach clearance to visually follow a preceding aircraft, you are required to establish a safe landing interval behind the aircraft you were instructed to follow. You are responsible for wake turbulence separation.

5. Advise ATC immediately if the pilot is unable to continue following the preceding aircraft, cannot remain clear of clouds, or lose sight of the airport.

6. Be aware that radar service is automatically terminated, without being advised by ATC, when the pilot is instructed to change to advisory frequency.

7. Be aware that there may be other traffic in the traffic pattern and the landing sequence may differ from the traffic sequence assigned by approach control or ARTCC.

b. Controller:

1. Do not clear an aircraft for a visual approach unless reported weather at the airport is ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility is 3 miles or greater. When weather is not available for the destination airport, inform the pilot and do not initiate a visual approach to that airport unless there is reasonable assurance that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually.

2. Issue visual approach clearance when the pilot reports sighting either the airport or a preceding aircraft which is to be followed.

3. Provide separation except when visual separation is being applied by the pilot.

4. Continue flight following and traffic information until the aircraft has landed or has been instructed to change to advisory frequency.

5. Inform the pilot when the preceding aircraft is a heavy.

6. When weather is available for the destination airport, do not initiate a vector for a visual approach unless the reported ceiling at the airport is 500 feet or more above the MVA and visibility is 3 miles or more. If vectoring weather minima are not available but weather at the airport is ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility of 3 miles or greater, visual approaches may still be conducted.

7. Informs the pilot conducting the visual approach of the aircraft class when pertinent traffic is known to be a heavy aircraft.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 04:27
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
I'll demand my clearance to land behind the 3 in front
Bloggsie,
You just don't get it, do you?? Charitably, I will put that down to your limited experience.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 05:06
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,032
Yes, Leddie, I must admit I have no idea what you lot are on about now. I thought that you had implied that it was ICAO-compliant to allow a landing clearance with the runway occupied, which is obviously not allowed in Australia, which I thought is what Fujii's point was. But then you speared off on the Visual Approach tangent; as I have better things to do in my life than read up on the septic's VA procedures, I have given up attempting to sort through your riddle-laden language and pontifications.

Please forgive me.

Originally Posted by Tank
At Heathrow you may be cleared to line up “after Brittania 767”, when you look for Brittania they are number four on the other side of the runway while you are number five on this side!
Tank, that is totally different to being given a landing clearance with multiple ahead. Obviously you weren't going to line up before the Brit. Did Honolulu tell you what aircraft to land after?

One last question to put my mind at rest. ICAO procedures allow giving an aircraft a clearance to land with the preceding aircraft still not landed or clear (2400m rule excepted). Yes or No?
Capn Bloggs is online now  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 05:25
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 775
As Fujii did not perceive, there are different rules around the world.

Fujii is wel aware of different rules around the world. All I said was that it is dangerous. If familiar with the Swiss cheese analogy, multiple landing clearances are just another hole. Although there is a perception that the landing pilot will see an aircraft on the runway, the pilot is far less likely to see a vehicle or personnel. The landing clearance is the controller’s cue for a final check. Approach path, runway, overshoot path, radar display, strip display and separation standard.
fujii is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 07:26
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 57
Posts: 1,543
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs View Post
Yes, Leddie, I must admit I have no idea what you lot are on about now. I thought that you had implied that it was ICAO-compliant to allow a landing clearance with the runway occupied, which is obviously not allowed in Australia, which I thought is what Fujii's point was. But then you speared off on the Visual Approach tangent; as I have better things to do in my life than read up on the septic's VA procedures, I have given up attempting to sort through your riddle-laden language and pontifications.

Please forgive me.


Tank, that is totally different to being given a landing clearance with multiple ahead. Obviously you weren't going to line up before the Brit. Did Honolulu tell you what aircraft to land after?

One last question to put my mind at rest. ICAO procedures allow giving an aircraft a clearance to land with the preceding aircraft still not landed or clear (2400m rule excepted). Yes or No?
Short answer: yes.
Fujii, I agree with you re absolute safety, however the stats may or may not agree.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 09:22
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
One last question to put my mind at rest. ICAO procedures allow giving an aircraft a clearance to land with the preceding aircraft still not landed or clear (2400m rule excepted). Yes or No?
Bloggsie,
You love "Yes/No" answers, as if that was the full and only answer, don't you, being incapable of comprehending that there might be matters of judgement involved.
Last time I had a close look (and I am not going to spend time actually cutting and pasting a section) the phrasing was to the meaning that a controller can issue a landing clearance to an aircraft if they have a reasonable belief that the landing runway will be clear for the aircraft in receipt of the landing clearance when the aircraft is to use said runway.
The second part is specifically when visual approaches are in progress. At EGLL I have received a landing clearance when all involved fully understood that the aircraft No.1 ahead was still airborne, much less having cleared or being close to clearing the runway. This leaves it up to the PIC of the following aircraft to decide to land or go around.
As I recall, working this way at EGLL can gain up to four (4) movements an hour in visual conditions, but also acknowledges a likely increase in missed approaches.
The controllers in London are quite smart enough to exercise their discretion, knowing which airlines are notorious for being slow to clear the runway.
What happens in US is a combination of the above, and the specific conditions for a visual approach in the US, see the AIM.
In the Australian case, you do know what your clearance limit is, if you are " --- cleared for approach"??
It is quite some time ago now, but we came to the conclusion that a controller in Australia had the same basic framework, had the same discretion, to issue a clearance, when you look at the totality of "the rools", not just tables of separation.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 10:39
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 775
Meanwhile, back in the CTAF......
fujii is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 11:02
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,276
Actually, you can’t be “in” a CTAF.

Which is kinda part of the current problem being discussed...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 11:24
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 68
Posts: 775
Well, yes.
Meanwhile back to the topic.
fujii is offline  
Old 25th Mar 2018, 11:42
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,276
The “topic” covers the misconceptions of experienced Australian air traffic controllers (even retired ones like you) and commercial pilots (like Bloggs). It is those misconceptions that result in the gross over-exaggeration of risks and Galapagos ideas like CTAF (or maybe MBZ or AFIZ?) procedures within a 20nm radius and 5,000’ above aerodromes in G.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.