Camden has a concern that when the circuit fills up with the overflow from Bankstown, the locals won't be able to do circuits or arrive. I note one departure is allowed but no mention about arrivals. I just hope ASA continues to look after us (as they do now). If arrivals want to do circuits, make them to do a full stop first and join the queue!

On the positive side, the extra tower hours should improve safety. The operation of two circuits (not parallel) has got a bit scary at times since YHOX closed. Probably means only six planes altogether across both circuits, unless ASA can find another frequency and another controller.

From the telephone conversation i had with CASA yesterday regarding these proposed changes, the advise i was given is, if there are 6 in the circuit when you call inbound, one of those aircraft in the circuit would be made to do a full stop and taxi back to rejoin the circuit after you land. They couldn't tell me how the tower will pick who gets to do the fullstop. Words to the effect of "thats not our decision".

When i downloaded my NOTAMs (copied below) this morning, i love the way the GAAP procedures notam is followed by the staff shortages notam. Well done. Can see these changes being very well accepted by all. NOT.:ugh:

C317/09 REVIEW C315/09
WITH EFFECT FM 0907201400
GENERAL AVIATION AERODROME PROCEDURES - (GAAP) CONTROL ZONES A PILOT IN COMMAND MUST REQ AND OBTAIN ATC CLEARANCE BEFORE ENTERING, CROSSING OR TAXIING ALONG ANY RWY WHILE AIR TRAFFIC SERVICES ARE IN OPERATION

REFERENCE AIP BOOK A/L 59 EFFECTIVE 4 JUNE 09
AMD AIP ENR 1.1-50 PARA 27.1.1 B. TO READ:
B. TAXIING ACROSS OR ALONG ANY RUNWAY
FROM 07 160248 TO PERM

C319/09 REVIEW C318/09
ATS IN CTR REDUCED DUE AVAILABILITY OF ATC STAFF POSSIBLE RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS.
START CLEARANCE REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT.
FROM 07 180600 TO 07 181000

Less Operators???
 

To begin with, I agree with those who comment on when was there not a requirement (in living memory) to use the active runway, other than with a clearance. Should the rest of the arrival/departure procedures follow these illogical statements, then heaven help us. Mention has been made that one result may well be less operators on the GAAP airports, that, might I suggest, would suit the airport owners down to a tee. Yippee, rub hands together, more land and facilities to rip (money gouge) more lucrative tenants off with!!
Personally, trying to land at night in higher performance aircraft, especially at YSBK, with the circuits full of training aircraft, is well nigh impossible. If you in a Metro, you get -"Sight and follow a Tecnam or (or similar) on mid down wind. You are at the required alt, 500 feet higher, (at which the lights of the preceeding aircraft are well and truly lost in the city lights, you have your aircraft back to Vref on early down wind, and you still cannot fit into the circuit. The tower used to require the preceeding a/c to extend the downwind leg, or similar, to fix the situation. Even at 105 kts, I am still catching the preceeding aircraft as if they were standing still. Are some of the training aircraft doing downwind legs full flap, and 65 kts or summat??
Even better, there used to be a ban on circuit aircraft during the times of bank runners dep and arr.:confused::confused::ugh:

goin'flying, a meeting I attended with CASA yesterday had a similar tone. Bascially they read the press release and wouldn't offer any real assistance. We were told to sort it out with ATC regarding the circuit procedures. Also told it was our responsibility to now work with the other flying schools to prevent more than six needing the runway. Easier said than done.

The direct question was asked whether it was now a more dangerous situation to have traffic holding at inbound reporting points. They wouldn't really answer our question, although the body language seemed to agree with the statement. We were just told to keep a good lookout and perhaps ATC will give us a new procedure.

CFI, interesting to hear others in the industry weren't consulted. I thought for some reason our heads had been in the sand in recent months. It's rather sad, but not suprising, that CASA invoke the new rules and leave it up to us - ATC, business and pilots - to sort it out. Less than a week's notice makes it worse.

I'm still considering whether an incident notification form should be submitted everytime aircraft from our organisation are held at the inbound points and another aircraft arrives within our vacinity.

All of a sudden, going back to fly from Essendon's Class C seems an attractive option again, despite the higher landing fees.

And if 6 aircraft in the circuit is considered too many at a Class D aerodrome, what about those non-towered CTAF aerodromes? Pt Cook sometimes has as many as 6 or more aircraft doing circuits plus the odd aircraft or two doing practice NDB approaches. And it will probably attract even more when YMMB becomes a Class D.

In the case of Jandakot, I think exiting at tango or victor off rwy 30 might be interesting as it puts you immediately inside the flight strip for rwy 06/24 L&R. Any controllers care to comment?

We already tell you to cross the threshold of 06L when you vacate there on tower frquency so it won't be an issue. We will just do the same for 06R as well.

Anyone in the know how this will work at YBAF with the (almost always) inactive grass strips 04/22 that one normally taxies across the threshold of to get to the 10 runways? Will you have to call up tower or ground for clearance across every time you taxi down Bravo? :confused: I suppose you could always just use Alpha..

Agree this all sounds like ill-thought out buerocratic !diocy whatever the reasons behind it, the suspicion about AsA staffing levels makes sense in a twisted way:ugh::mad: especially holding at/around the inbound reporting point sounds downright dangerous, I know I'll be getting out of the way quickly and by a wide margin if I am requested to hold OCTA, but judging from traffic levels at YBAF over the last six months this should normally not be an issue..

PB, yes. Tower confirmed it when I spoke to them last week.

Cheers Ando, probably less hassle just to use the 28 runup bays and taxi down Alpha when 10's are in use..

that would explain YSBK being restricted VFR today despite perfect clear CAVOK conditions, and the expect extended delays for circuit training even when there was only 2 aircraft in the circuit i could see. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

I was at CN too.

:=

"They proceeded to have to tell one or two planes to remain outside the control zone (resulting in, as expected, orbits around inbound points"
I do believe it was 1 and they were not at the inbound point. I saw the aircraft just south of the township.

"spent at least another minute at least nonstop over the frequency confirming the location of every other plane in or near the control zone"
They do this each saturday and sunday when they open.

"so as to ensure the limit of 6 was not breached"
By reading the CASA information, this hasn't started yet.

"How very messy"
Did you see what was going on at 8.55am (5min before they opened)

Give them a break!!!! The bloke seemed to be working to regain order than make it a certain number.

Might be a tad cynical - this would be a way for the relevant airport corporations to rid themselves of more traffic and pave the way for selling off valuable aviation related infrastructure?:ugh:

reduced traffic = no need for extensive airport:mad:

TonKat, I believe you are 100% spot on with your comments. You just have to look at the Bankstown debacle and now our mates from accross the Indian Ocean who operate Jandakot are pushing to have substantial development on the extended centreline of the existing rwy 30 and proposed 30R. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out their agenda. It appears though that the Dept of Infrastrucure (formerly DOTARS) are now realising that our secondary airports are in fact key resources that need to be protected. There IS NO land available within reasonable striking distances of the capital cities to have them moved.

I remember in the early '80s having to phone the tower at BK and book a slot for night circuits. Worked fine - but then they had enough staff back then to run the booking system as well as the TWR!

A rather ominous NOTAM just promulgated for BK:

C322/09
START APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR CIRCUIT OPERATIONS
FROM 07 200052 TO PERM

Note it is effective permanently. :\

The requirement now exists at all GAAP's NOTAMs.

What if
 

If inbound in CTA on IFR plan how would one go requesting (requiring) to stay in controlled airspace until overhead the GAAP? This is sometimes offered by Arrivals controller/s.

Ask the arrivals/area controller. Who else could you ask?

If the circuit quota is full .... "Clearance not available ... remain INSIDE controlled airspace !"

Please allow me to be a tad cynical.

Although the CASA press release alluded to the actions being "consistent" with the Ambidji report, none of the recommendations in the report said anything about killing off GAAP. However, Recommendation 9 did say this:

That the need for enhanced ATC separation services be considered prior to the introduction of future Passenger Transport Service (PTS) operations at GAAP aerodromes.

IFR in VMC is not allowed in GAAP because pilots on instruments cannot separate themselves from other traffic. We know that most RPT like to go IFR all the way down, and so therefore RPT in GAAP was never going to be possible.

This may not be about safety after all.

Walrus

This was never and will never be about safety and is not safe, or should I say any safer than what it was. It is totally about money/air traffic controllers (or lack of them) and an instrument air services will use in the near future to better their agreement.

:confused:

I can't see things changing much at Moorabbin. That NOTAM posted earlier for Bankstown is the norm at Moorabbin on the weekend (whether or not it's actually Notamed. It would seem that if 35 was in use, 35R gets used for circuits and 35L for those that come and go. Seemed to work ok until someone smashed into someone else.

IFR into and out of GAAP's (regardless of Met conditions) has been going on since Adam was a boy Walrus.

Don't confuse IMC with IFR. Once visual an IFR flight (including RPT) can and are, given instructions to sight, follow, avoid etc... These flights continue to retain their IFR status however untill such time as their sarwatch is cancelled automatically after landing.

I'm not sure what Walrus means by no IFR in VMC at GAAPs. I've done a few practice NDB approaches and practice circle to land at YMMB when the circuit wasn't busy. No probs at all with tower approval.. and as Krusty says, you're asked to just follow the traffic pattern as you would if you're flying VFR. I even recall a few years ago that YMMB had standard IFR departures in the DAPs.

As for how the new changes will affect IFR training at MB, that would be interesting. What happens during a practice NDB approach, when you call the tower after turning inbound, only to hear the circuit is full? Cancel IFR and track to a VFR approach point and join the queue?

Did anybody have trouble today at any of the GAAP aerodromes with the new procedure change??

You would also think that now that these changes have come into effect, CASA could change their website and all correspondence from stating Proposed changes, They still are even calling the changes draft :ugh:

What diference will class d make for VFR? I'm really confused, and i work class D everyday! The only change will be wx related.. No change for IFR either really. Until another IFR comes in the zone, then the vertical limits will get blown... So what's the big deal?
Seems to be CASA forcing ASA to get more controllers.

I'm all for it though, GAAP is scary, and yes, i have flown in it.

Training Wheels,

ENR1.1 24 makes it clear that IFR is allowed in GAAP, but have to operate visually and provide own separation if the conditions are VMC. You can plan IFR into and out of GAAP, but the tower will instruct you to track visually and you are responsible for separation, based on traffic information. Only if conditions are IMC will separation be provided.

Since my post, my contention that this will benefit RPT has crumbled somewhat: there is no separation between IFR and VFR in Class D either.

There goes that conclusion, which has served only to add more mud to the puddle. Why make a change that will change nothing?

Walrus

Well, that's exactly what I said in my post, Walrus. :) As I said, IFR flights can and have been operating in GAAPs in VMC.

And it appears IFR flights get better protection from VFR flights in GAAPs than in Class D. According to the AIP (effective 27 AUG 09) ENR 1.4-9, for GAAPs , in IMC IFR will be separated from IFR and VFR but in Class D, separation is only provided between IFR and IFR and IFR and Special VFR. :confused: Go figure.

....or how about getting rid of foreign non english speaking lazy students?:D
Hey Presto.........collision risk brought down to reasonable level again.

INCOMING !!!!(tin hat on!):E

Very windy at Moorabbin so not much traffic the last couple of days. Called inbound at GMH and was told #1 for 35R. Twice, after landing, requested clearance to exit 35R on to 31L. First time I thought I detected a surprised tone from the tower. Second time he said a lot more, not sure if that was meant to be a more general explanation of what to do in that situation or not - I meant to ring and ask, will do that.

So what did the tower say? Did they allow you to enter and taxi along 31L back to the apron?

Yes, called ground as usual after vacating 35R.

Training Wheels ... from reading the docs, this is how I see it:

GAAP in IMC

Everyone is separated from everyone (IFR/Special VFR) There are no VFR aircraft in IMC

GAAP in VMC

No one gets separated. All get traffic info.

Class D in IMC

Everyone is separated from everyone (IFR/Special VFR) There are no VFR aircraft in IMC

Class D in VMC

IFRs get separated from each other.
IFRs get traffic on VFRs
VFRs get traffic on everyone

Besides the requirement for a clearance, the only real difference is that IFRs are protected from each other in VMC.

Training Wheels, can I have some more time to consider the concept of VFR in IMC?

Peuce's summary is pretty much what I had arrived at after a lot of anlysis and crunching. There is no advantage to going D-class. So why do it?

Walrus

From what I've heard a move to Class D could kill parallel runway operations due to their close proximity. Maybe someone from ASA could back this up?

Unless today's GAAP aerodromes get some sort of concession, the airport owners will be very happy about the new real estate for sale.

Tamworth has been Class D for donkeys years and it has parallel runways.

I suspect the runways at TW are much further apart than the runways at any of the existing GAAPS, certainly MB or BK.

Walrus

Spot on Walrus, the GAAP airfields were not designed to Class D criteria and the implementation of Class D will cripple them.

Really uninspired thinking on behalf of CASA and ultimately the end of high dennsity VFR traffic at GAAP.

Well, Walrus, I quoted that directly from the AIP thus my use of :confused: emotion. But I'll give you time to grasp the concept of IFR operations in GAAPs, though.. that one seems to take a little while to sink in for you. :rolleyes:

Correct. The short distance between the runways at most GAAPs is the problem.