OZ, it's the same in the 350 FAA class D airports- you don't continue into the airspace if your call has not been confirmed by ATC.

I can assure you that I asked for FAA NAS class D at Avalon. I even travelled to the AsA operated tower in Hawai with the Avalon airport owner and manager so we could see how this superb system operated.

Airservices were very proud to show us how safe the D with E above was because their controllers could focus where the risk was. All very sensible.

Surely it is obvious AsA took the FAA contract (which loses them money) so they could learn and become expert on this FAA NAS system. Why else would they get involved in such an expensive exercise!

Very busy at Moorabbin today and the tower guys & gals remained polite and calm despite some silly things by pilots. My student turned the radio volume right down so that he could hear me on the intercom, I didn't notice from the back seat until I wondered why there were no calls. At least they got a laugh yesterday when a student on taxi to R31 requested "clearance to cross all active runways".
I heard one observation about the procedures which got the simple response of "talk to CASA about that".

Djpil,

I hear you! Was flying in the circuit tonight at Moorabbin and on 35 its not that bad- just need the clearances to cross 35L as Tower was open tonight, but who in earths name is gonna use a runway with no lighting at night- beyond me!

When 31 is in use and towers on, things start to get a little more interesting around Bravo and Foxtrot taxiways. I know many from my particular flying school who have mistaken Foxtrot for 35L and accordingly had incursions to answer with the tower.

perhaps ASA underpriced that contract, hence got it, and got stuck with it.
ASA's primary role appears to be to make a profit in the air-traffic-control market, Australia, Hawaii, wherever.

Dick, you really are a card! It's what AsA management calls a "business opportunity". Didn't you know AsA have been trying to expand their business? I wonder who scored the bonus for landing the contract?

KKK, I don't think there is any "perhaps" invloved!

Folks,

Not surprisingly, there has been confusion and not a little fear about what is proposed by April next year at GAAPs ---- will it be "FAA D" or "ICAO D", particularly given the present arbitrary movement limitations imposed on GAAPs. Also given the range of possible interpretations of what has been published about this matter.

I can say, without fear of contradiction, that if you ring Peter Cromarty, Head of the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA, the answer is FAA D.

Peter (as has Dick Smith) makes the point that the FAA regard their implementation of D as ICAO compliant, including the differences, but as a convenient description, we understand what "FAA D" means in practice.

It's about time to push for ALL D towers and GAAPs to be the same standard, the FAA implementation of ICAO D, it would make life a lot simpler for a lot of people. Properly handled, it will quickly get us back to long standing GAAP capacity, and the withdrawal of the current crippling movement limitations.

Tootle pip!!

PS: In good old USA, they don't seem to have a problem with military fast movers and civil traffic of all kinds. Many are the civil airports that host an Air National Guard unit, interesting to see a bunch of F-16 or F/A 18 lined up on a ramp, in close proximity to a bunch of GA aircraft --- no sign of even a security fence, once you are "on the active".

Clinton,
I can only answer one part with any certainty, GAAP v. "FAA D" (which is ICAO D with a difference for VMC ---- or as our US friends call it- VFR) and that is, the current GAAP requirement that IFR in the GAAP zone must operate VFR in VMC would go.

Thus, if any IFR flight in VMC so chose, it would be processed IFR all the way, separated from other IFR, with traffic information on VFR traffic.

It will not be long before IFR flights learn that "cancelling IFR" in a GAAP zone (virtually universal in US) in VMC will expedite matters --- ie; produce the same end result as we have right now.

As to other possibilities, I can only speak for YSBK. Given the severe limitations imposed by YSSY CTA, I would expect the present "unders and overs" for inbound and outbound traffic to remain, I look forward to the discussions on inbound and outbound routes, beyond the zone boundary (in G), to say that the matter is contentious would be to put it mildly.

Tootle pip!!

I agree with Leady- as the most likely explanation. I also think that the mandatory inbound reporting points will most likely change to at least three recommended inbound routes.

This spreads out the potential collision points so safety is improved.

You've been at each others throats on multiple threads for days, yet when Clinton puts up a straightforward scenario you all choke.

How much confidence should we have that CASA aren't stitching us up yet again?

Dick, Are you seriously suggesting that a change from two inbound reporting points to three inbound routes will make a significant safety difference ? With the vast amount of energy that you've put in to defending this proposal, I'd have seriously thought you'd have actually come up with something substantial.

Good god, I'm sure even you can remember when Westmead was an inbound reporting point ? The safety stats weren't any different then.

How about someone on your side of the discussion giving Clinton a bit of respect and having an honest go at his questions ?

Because GAAP is not the game....regional towers and tower E in particular is what Smith is after.

So leadie, does that mean a regional RPT can expect better treatment if he cancels IFR in the new all dancing FAA D type regional tower zone? It works for a GAAP why not in a regional and if it doesn't then why should an IFR cancel in a GAAP.....after all, they are both the same...aren't they.

OZ, keep the faith. I say again what I posted on the other thread:

Clever, Cute And Machievellian

What I have been trying to figure is why the insistence on FAA D instead of GAAP, when the following was written on GAAP:

So why go to the extra expense of FAA D, when GAAP serves the purpose?

Ah, standardisation we are told. If we change GAAP to FAA D, then we have D at both present GAAP and regional locations. What could make more sense - we would have 'harmonisation.'? So the Machievellian bit goes like this:

• We change GAAP to FAA Class D for 'harmonisation' with the regional towers.
• After all, GAAP is pretty close to FAA Class D anyway, so what's the difference?
• But, hang on, we now have a mismatch, because there are two distinct types of Class D with different procedures- we have ICAO D and FAA D.
• This is potentially confusing and dangerous (Minister).
• So, for consistency, and to stop this dangerous confusion that will lead to a mid-air, we must convert ICAO D airspace to FAA D airspace.
• Right, done and dusted, we are now 'harmonised.'
• But, hold the boat, we now have a bastardised system, 'unique to Australia,' because nowhere in the world (read US) do we have Class C over FAA D.
• In the 'proven' system of the US, all Class D airspace has overlying E.
• And here we get to the true endgame.

If GAAP goes FAA D, then you guys (controllers and pilots alike) will be re-living Launy as an everyday experience.

At the risk of boring the pants off everyone, I repost the above

Howabout, we have plenty of airports with airline jet traffic that are all G-yes, not only the approach airspace but also the circuit area.

Now if you insist we have C over Launy surely you should be consistent and insist we have C over these airports?

Oh, I forgot, these airports have always been G so it's all OK!

As long as it's be done in the past- never ever change it.

Forget science- use perception and resistance to change as the decision makers!

Seriously and most importantly,when the E link airspace returns controllers will be able to concentrate their skills where the risk of collision is over 100 times greater- that is where aircraft are either close to or on the runway. If I was a controller that's what I would want.

There may be some who may like to know the truth about the Launy incident. At all times the VFR aircraft heard all the radio calls from the airline and the tower. It was classic radio alerting which so many swear about on this site.

If you don't accept the safety levels of a radio alerted enviroment you will have to stop flying into the majority of airline airports in Australia.

And the CASA OAR have confirmed that GAAP is changing to FAA class D.

See the post from LeadSled so you are obviously right on to what is happening!

Clinton,

I know what GAAP procedures are, I know what FAA D procedures are, in theory and in practice, and I know how little the differences are --- the only significant difference as already described re. handling IFR flights in VMC.

I could go so far as to say that GAAPs, highly successful for twenty of so years (nil MAC in the first ten) , proves that FAA D will work in Australia. We have twenty or so years successful experience, so let's have all D towers "FAA D", not the quasi non-radar C that we have now.

What will OAR come up with, I can only guess, but I will bet you a decent bottle of red, at the next ALAANZ meeting I get to, that it won't be too far from my previous post.

What would Regionals do, if the current D towers marginally changed? Probably exactly what they do now, as the "Australian" rules for heavier RPT do not permit canceling IFR.

Tootle pip!!

So let me get this straight; dick says that putting back one extra inbound option at Bankstown will improve safety, presumably by some substantial amount given the energy that's gone into this debate. While leadsled says that GAAPs have been highly successful for twenty years, but wants us to change anyway and use one part of a system used in a different country with a different aviation environment.

And neither of them can have a reasonable go at how their proposed system will function in Australia in practice ... You guys are just kidding, right ?

Oh.....

If only those pilots had been watching where they were going....there'd be none of this.....

:ugh:

Clinton, Unhinged, you're on the right track.
Something smells here.

Dick, the only "Coward" I see here is the one who continually tells us we are all cowards by not stating our name.

Clinton as posted using his real name and you ignor his legitimate question!

Either answer a "real" person or shut the F$%^k up!

I am happy to be banned from this forum if that is the wish of the moderators for the above post.:{

Also, may I suggest that everyone elso waites for Dick to answer Clintons question so it does not get lost in cyerspace.

Wallso, I think you are on to us.
It could'nt be that we just want a reasonably standardised and simple system for all non radar towers in Australia as per the Government NAS policy.

There must be more to it!

Two Dogs, I answered Clintons post with my post 269. Changing the two mandatory VFR reporting points to three recommended routes will substantially reduce the chance of a 2RN type mid-air.

There will be no other substantial changes as GAAP was modelled of NAS class D in the first place.Leadsled is correct.

The big advantage will be when all class D's in Australia are similar.