Training Wheels,

I think I understand the concept of IFR in GAAP quite well. It is summed-up nicely in the ENR.

24.2 To aid in the provision of separation, ATC will determine the status
of operations in the GAAP CTR as follows:
a. Unrestricted VFR Operations
There are no weather related restrictions to aircraft operations.
IFR aircraft must operate to the VFR within the GAAP CTR.
b. Restricted VFR Operations
ATC may apply weather‐related restrictions to VFR operations
to facilitate the movement and separation of IFR aircraft. ATC
will then broadcast on the ATIS, “RESTRICTED VFR OPERATIONS”.
The actual restriction imposed may be specified individually
to aircraft, although general restrictions may be notified
on the ATIS; eg, “START APPROVAL REQUIRED”.
24.3 Arriving IFR aircraft which are visual outside the GAAP CTR, and
can continue visually, must operate VFR within the CTR (see para
31.5). IFR aircraft operating visually will only receive a traffic information
and sequencing service.
24.4 Arriving IFR aircraft which are not visual outside the GAAP CTR
may operate IFR within the CTR and separation will be provided
until the aircraft becomes visual.
24.5 Departing IFR aircraft must operate VFR within the GAAP CTR
until encountering IMC or leaving the GAAP CTR, whichever is the
sooner.
24.6 When aircraft are operating in conditions less than VMC, ATC will
provide separation within the GAAP CTR.

Walrus

Walrus, I don't want to get in to a pissing contest with you but this is what you originally posted.

You're confusing VMC with VFR. As I said in my previous posts, I have flown on an IFR flightplan into GAAPs doing practice circling approaches in VMC so it can be done. And of course you're going to separate yourself with other VFR by VFR rules. How else would you do it? Jeez! :ugh:

The big difference between operating in straight D as opposed to GAAP D is caused by the VMC criteria.

In GAAP - clear of cloud.
In Straight D - 1,500m horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically from cloud.

This means with a base below 2,000 feet in straight D over a built up area all VFR flights are effectively required to obtain a Special VFR clearance. Whilst positive separation is not required between two special VFR aircraft (only due cloud and only in D), it is required between a special VFR aircraft and an IFR aircraft. Traffic advice (sight and avoid) is not an option where an IFR aircraft and a special VFR aircraft are involved, and given the physical size of the zones I think you'll be able to work out where this is will lead when the weather is a bit average.

The new procedures really made a show at Moorabin today with 31 active...."Clear to cross 35, taxiway echo, 22".. ", "Clear to cross 35 L, A4 35R"...something along those lines anyway...really clogged up ground frequency..not to mention confused me!

so who do i thank for the 1 hr start delays at YSBK? then followed by 45 wait in the run up bay? at this rate we will be lucky to get 2 hrs of circuits in a day! :hmm:

Who do you thank... CASA.

That's about as efficient as what we got in China. If this trend continues, it will be a big step backwards for GA in this country.

I'm thinking about giving the game away completely. First we have hordes of foreign students that the instructors just want to make money out of, then when they clog the system, I get elbowed out of the way. Between AsA, CASA and the property developers, we are in a total mess.

CASA's Revised GAAP Procedures
 

Looks to me as if CASA is following the NAS policy. If you look at Page 7 of the NAS document (see here) paragraph 2.5, it clearly states:

"and if necessary, a difference lodged with ICAO with respect to VMC minima…

Class D procedures will be aligned to the FAA application.

While VFR aircraft in Class D airspace are subject to an airways clearance (ICAO Annex 11, App. 4), the clearance may be implicit as is current practice at GAAP Zones and in US Class D airspace.”

If, indeed, CASA is moving to NAS Class D I commend them. It will mean that the non-GAAP Class D towers will have simpler entry procedures and no need for a VFR departure call.

The frequency will be less cluttered at these airports, and safety will be improved.

exactly, last weekend was my first experience with the new procedures, ill be fcukde if im going to book a student for 3 hrs per just to get 1 hr of circuits, and then to be told after 40 mins in the air, to make your last circuit a full stop due to traffic.

fcukin disgraceful :mad:.

There's the rub!

Silly question..how often do you end up with 6 a side ops at MB?

Thats great news for the non-GAAP Class D towers (who make up a small proportion of movements Australia wide and from whom I dont think there has been alot of concern raised regarding this issue). But what about the GAAP Class D-in-waiting towers/zones that have the most movements, the most flight training and who have raised legitimate concerns regarding this issue on this thread?
Can someone please substantiate and/or explain the CASA logic that it is safer for me to hold OCTA around a GAAP approach point than to be the 7th or 8th aircraft allowed into the circuit (which includes people departing often on a segregated track, e.g BK, JT).


The last time I flew into Albury or Tamworth (after operating out of GAAP) frequency congestion was the least of my worries.

Im all for safety, as Im sure every other reader of this thread is, but CASA seems to have an agenda and at the moment it appears to involve shafting GA.

Dick,

What about in that great aviation nation that we should be aspiring to copy (that's the USA, in case you were wondering) ... do they limit the number of aircraft in a circuit? ... do they forbid aircraft to enter their GA Control Zones? How DO they handle their large numbers of GA aircraft at busy airports (and I'm sure there are a few)?

CASA’s Revised GAAP Procedures on D&G General Aviation
 

Peuce - you have brought up a good point.

A week ago I checked with my contacts in the FAA in the United States, and they did not know of any Class D airport which had a limit on the number of aircraft in the circuit. In the States, it appears it is left up to the professionalism of the Air Traffic Controllers to make the decision.

For those who are concerned about going to the US system, let me point out that the GAAP procedures were copied from the Class D procedures at Van Nuys Airport in the USA. Unfortunately, rather than copy these procedures exactly, they were changed here in Australia - and that’s one of our problems.

By the way, before the abuse starts, I do not believe we should copy everything from the USA. I believe we should look around the world, take what is best and proven – especially if it adds to efficiencies – and combine that with what we already do which is better. After all, that’s what I did in my business career and it certainly worked.

The problem? FAA NAS ClassD is NOT ICAO ClassD.

This is going to be a can of worms if ICAO Class D is implimented. Our GAAP parrallel runways may as well be ONE runway!:eek:

Six In The Circuit?
 

My experience at YMMB is that Seven is about the most you can fit, That's one on the runway, one on climbout, one on crosswind, Two on Downwind, one on base and one on final. Even Six can be a handful.

All it then takes is One or Two very new students to stretch out their circuits and Two announced arrivals from Academy and GMH, perhaps requesting circuits on arrival, and the poor bloody controller can get very busy very quickly.

Add in some poor "Engrish" and one starts hearing things like "which Cessna are you? Waggle your wings" or "You will not orbit in the circuit unless I tell you to. Do you understand?". It's at that point, when I hear the controller beginning to struggle a little to maintain situational awareness, let alone myself, that I stop my own practice and make a full stop to get out of the way.

To be fair, this only seems to happen in the first few weeks of a major schools "New Intake", and after a while they get the hang of things, as we all had to, and life settles down until the next course starts.

What I'm going to try next time is asking for the Western circuit, which seems to be kept a little quieter and seems to take some of the arriving traffic from the East when there is not conflicting traffic arriving from Carrum or Brighton.

As for orbiting at waypoints, I'm assuming orbiting to the left (don't know the AIP reference), and people are going to have to have eyes in the back of their heads to make that work.

I only usually go there on the weekends when I assume it's very busy and I've NEVER seen this happen. The east side gets used for circuits and the west side generally for arrivals and departures. When it gets busy a start clearance is required for circuits. Not to say that circuits don't happen on west side, generally they happen on the east. Can only assume this is also due to noise issues.

OZ, I agree ICAO Class D will not work. That's why CASA policy is FAA class D.

Going back through the NASIG stuff and seeing we had a change of Secondary procedures to GAAP after a non fatal mid air at BK in 76 and we started getting GAAP in 1978. Basic change was to enshrine pilot responsibility for separation.

This change is going to revert the responsibility back on controllers. So if the tower is responsible that means we are going to have to fly within the visual limitations of a view point from within a point in space in the tower cab.

VFR limits are set down quite explicitly. We are going to need the acerage at our GAAPs as big a layout as found at SY to facilitate two runway ops. I can see that happening, NOT!

NASIG just wanted a NAME CHANGE from GAAP to ClassD, the same procedures were to be kept in place. There isn't much difference from GAAP to US ClassD Our guys must receive instructions to enter where the US guys are expected to follow whatever procedures as set in their ATIS or aerodrome procedures...same thing just said differently.....in this case it is another argument.

I would prefer to keep the GAAP procedures as present...It is still the responsibilty of the PIC to maintain separation!

Operations within the GAAP need to be cleaned up as far as circuit procedures and the like but as Sunfish put it...we all have to start somewhere and things fall into place as soon as the newbs catch the beat.

Glad you agree with me, Dick.

A few years ago CASA decided that Jandakot, despite being the busiest in Australia, wasn't worth the effort; packed their bongos and went away to Perth to look after their beloved fare paying passengers. So I find it hard to believe that they really give a rats about safety here.

Their ignorance of how things work here was displayed at a meeting of CFIs yesterday in regards to a simple airspace issue re the space between the training area and the GAAP zone. So...hardly experts in GAAP procedures :ugh: Perhaps asking the pilots and ATC who make a living here might have been an idea before this change was made at the stroke of a pen. But hey, what do we know.

In the Ambidji report, on p234 it identifies an "unacceptable" (thier wording) risk at the SIXS/FDL inbound point. So..they bring in a procedure that will increase congestion there when aircraft are denied a clearance into the zone to keep within the cap. :confused::confused: I hear this has already been happening.

Sunfish on YMMB:
This afternoon (0330Z) the controller was telling aircraft to go around on 35L twice in succession and the circuit wasn't even busy - he was just trying to get a couple of sitting aircraft away. However, I agree I wouldn't dream of going on the eastern circuit unless I had absolutely no other choice.

ozbusdriver to answer your question re how often we have 6 in the cct , mon-fri on good wx days it has been not unusual to have 8-10 in Eastern cct, this reflects the international students whereas weekends are mainly local pilots so not nearly as busy.

Remember MB used to only allow around 5-6 in each cct in the 80s and 90s and both ccts were quite busy until the recession hit in early 90s and MB became ghostly quiet.

After almost 2 weeks of operation I have witnessed and been involved in 4 less than desirable t'off/landing clearances which should not have occured and i put down to controller workload associated with the new procedure.

Having all runways requiring clearance to cross adds zero to efficiency , has a measurable negative safety outcome as mentioned above and requires an additional controller to operate SMC.

Thanks for the consultation CASA....

At least the circuit won't be full of RAA now after the rejection on CTA today!

We should impose a $50 fee per take-off in GAAP's. That'll keep even more of the great unwashed out.

superdimona, you may think you're kidding, but at Archerfield I pay almost 30 bucks for every landing already! Do circuits and it's another charge on top just for grins. That's on top of monthly airport usage/parking charges of $120+, and of course on top of any ASA enroute charges..

Charges at YBAF increase at CPI +5% every year just to make sure there's no growth and in due time everyone just p!sses off and the whole thing can be turned into warehouses :yuk: I've not seen a more delinquent abuse and neglect of public infrastructure anywhere, and I though some of the Europeans had got it badly wrong, but they pale in comparison to what they get away with here :ugh:

Great unwashed? Haven't seen many of them airside lately. They couldn't afford to go anywhere near a GA outfit, which is why you mostly see foreign sponsored students around GAAP's -- and the bogan racism that is shockingly ubiquitous in this supposedly friendly and relaxed country and with it in the aviation industry is making sure that market is drying up quickly too: Indian student market collapsing | The Australian

All this talk about where GAAP's are and should be going is a little inconsequential methinks, in time the developers and local resident groups and pollies will get their wish and training will be banished to remote areas, and the slow death of the aviation industry in a country that has all the prerequisites to be a leader in the region in flying training and GA will continue :{

Rant over :yuk:

Well, that's just doubled the frequency congestion at Bankstown. Now we'll all have to call the tower 2 minutes before the approach point to tell them that we're (ahem ...) 2 minutes from the approach point. Then we'll get to call them again 2 minutes later to tell them that we're there. Genius !! That'll really help things along nicely :-((

Has anyone writing these notams drawn a line 5 nm from the boundary (not the AD, btw) and seen what it encompasses ? Good grief ...

Does anyone who's writing these things actually fly in Sydney ? or at all ?

Did I read that right? Got to call 2 minutes prior to the approach point to advise you're 2 minutes from the approach point? (roughly 3-4nm from 2RN/Prospect)

Can only hope the tower will realise it's ridiculous and will issue you with your clearance right there and then.

settle down dudes,

the notam is only saying to call prior to, and with an est o/h the app point

it's not saying you have to call twice

so, better make sure you have an accurate time piece showing minutes and seconds, next time you venture out to the training area. what's the world coming to?

I think you will find you are expected to call twice, the first time is so they can put someone on the ground to fit you in.

Isn't that a requirement anyway:\

.. being sarcastic there. I never used to checked the accuracy of my watch when going to the training area. ;)

NOTAM says to report two minutes prior to the app point, then AIP ENR
31.4 says to make the inbound report at the app point. = 2 radio calls.

The NOTAM might be the towers doing, but the restrictions aren't. We just have to deal with it as best we can.


I believe there have been similar issues at JT with people being told a clearance isn't available.

Our (ATC) rules are we can NOT have more than six in the circuit (both arrivals and departures). So that's what we have to do.

The first call is only to give them an estimate for arriving at the inbound reporting point. It doesn't require a location, altitude or intentions - other than "estimating PSP at 34" Unless the rules are changed further, the second call will still be required to give location, altitude, intentions, atis, etc

I suppose the initial call will help give better traffic awareness for pilots coming inbound anyway

Clinton M
The underlying problem is CASA, who in their manifest wisdom, have decreed that an ATCO will only handle 6 aircraft (see post #1 at http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-a...ml#post5061824)

Calling prior to the reporting point sounds like a giant leap forward to me. I could never figure out why we need to call 10 miles out from a CTAF, yet we put aircraft at a precisely defined point and altitude inbound to the busiest airports with no prior call at all! It amazes me that there haven't been more collisions at GAAP reporting points.

As far as 6 aircraft in the circuit goes, the simplest way may be to require the next aircraft to do a full stop and taxi back when someone calls inbound if the circuit is full (and require a full stop from the inbound aircraft).

The general principle should be to give priority to aircraft that will only be in the circuit for a short time.

andrewr Please make sure that you tell the upper management in ASA to change their fee structure. At the moment, in GAAP, each full-stop is charged around $14/tonne.

So can someone tell me about this 2 minutes prior to inbound point call requirement.

If i'm on an IFR plan, on descent into Bankstown from inside CTA, do i have to call the TWR 2 minutes prior to the inbound point?

Half the time on descent into Bankstown coming down the Watle4 arrival at 220kts, we're lucky to get below 3000ft by 2RN, and then get flicked straight to the TWR as we go over the top of the mast.

If there is a hefty westerly blowing, 2 minutes prior to 2RN could be anything up to 10-15NM west of the mast, and still up at around 6-7,000ft (which puts us well inside CTA). I'm sure Sydney Departures are going to be happy if i change freq to BK TWR to give this approaching 2RN call. :ugh::ugh: