Increasing max number in circuit at GAAPs!
 

Just got a letter from the CASA
excerpt:
"CASA intends to issue directions to AsA increasing the cap on aircraft in the circuit from six to eight with effect from 18 January 2010. Despite the cap there will be no restriction on the number of arriving and departing aeroplanes that ATC may permit into a circuit having taken into account any relevant consideration relating to the interests of safety"

(slightly?) Good stuff for GAAP flying schools, 2 less aircraft on the ground.
Also:
The cap will be removed with the coming Class D airspace procedures, even better i suppose.

also - full text:
Civil Aviation Safety Authority - GAAP

Pyro

In my experience at BK I think 6 is as many as you'd want in a training circuit, especially if you've got a range of performance, any more and you start to get alot of practice at go arrounds!

For the inbound circuit 8 is far better though. I'd much prefer to be in a crowded inbound circuit than requested to 'hold' at PSP for 5 mins along with 2 other a/c as I have been twice since the 6 maximum came in. In that instance I beat a hasty retreat to the 'safety' of the training area for 20 mins.

I'm thinking for training circuit at least that the controllers will have the final say on how many they want in the circuit.

I think Awol57 will be along shortly to explain that 8 in the Jandakot circuit is still less than they could run with before the restrictions came in.

I for one can't wait for Class D Twr's instead of GAAP's. Gotta be safer for all.
Whenever I receive a letter from the rule makers I think oh no what have I done this time!:}
I wonder how the controllers feel about this?

Wmk2

What are the actual differences between GAAP's and Class D that can be expected?:confused:

how exactly?

especially when no-one seems to know -
:confused:

Jay Bo

1. Taxi clearance and taxi instructions.
2. Airways clearance to enter and leave the “D” class airspace.

Just to mention the obvious that comes to mind.

Dizzy Llama

As above.

that'll stop those mid-airs (the instructions bit has always been available)! :)

I think you'll find the plan is for "implied" clearances (ala FAA) i.e. "ABC, Ready Upwind Departure" - "ABC, Cleared for Take-off" (sounds a bit like the way it is done now ;) )


any more! :)

Just got off the phone to a Jandakot controller- he was on a break from work (and that's sent all the people who know YPJT controllers to the roster to work out who's on and who may have been on a break! :ok: ). When he did his YPJT tower rating he had ten aircraft in the circuit runway with four choppers operating inside that. At the same time there were 8-10 aircraft inbound/outbound/ transiting on the other runway with the other controller. Somehow I think they'll cope with 8 in the circuit and eight others without too many dramas. :E

Beans
 

direct.no.speed
A number of my employees are asking how much are you selling the beans for ??

OK I'll bite. What's wrong with Perth controllers?

It used to get quite busy at Jandakot before the cap. We would on occasion have 10 in the circuit (all singles) plus helicopters operating inside the fixed wing circuit and also squeezing the odd ARE departure away. I don't think that is the optimum level of service that can be provided but it can be made to work.

The other runway would just process the normal arrival and departure traffic whilst this was all going on over the other side. That could mean potentially another 5-10 inbound plus departures.

Now whilst this is achieveable at Jandakot I just can't see it working at say YMMB due to their configuration and same with YSBK due to airspace limitiations. I am not familiar with YPPF or YBAF. 8 seems like a reasonable number and eventually controller discretion. We have always reduced the numbers for varying conditions, so the 8 or 10 were never hard numbers.

I guess we wait and see what ASA directs now through MATS :)

All of this is purely my opinion only and in no way represents the views of Jandakot tower or ASA or CASA :ok:

Ozineurope, Nothing wrong with Perth controllers the TCU is easy to deal with despite high traffic levels early morning and late afternoon.

Jandakot is a very busy place, the intensity of traffic when 2 runways operating is challenging at times and the inbound/outbound flow control is generally very well managed in a calm way, when the Easterlies blow and Rwy 12 comes into play single runway it gets a lot more difficult, particularly a mix of high performance and C152/C172.

The Jandakot controllers handle traffic very well, minimum go arounds.

CASA really needs to have envelopes for general communication that say 'THIS IS NOT A PENALTY'. Then my heart rate will remain in the green arc while I'm opening it!

ConfigFull, Penalty notices usually turn up via registered post. I know from experience. :{

hear hear. :D

As far as I can see the choice of 6 a/c in the circuit was arbitrary, or at least made centrally by CASA bureaucrats. I deduce from the letter that after some sort of analsis of saftey data and some sort of consultation, they have now decided to increase the limit to 8, which I also suspect has a large degree of arbitraryness.

My question is this. CASA in one guise or another has been around for well over 60 years. Over all these years they have been (at our expense) collecting statistics of airport movements, accidents, and near misses & other incidentys via a number of different incident reporting mechanisms.

With all this taxpayer funded knowledge base, why can't they make better decisions that don't require modification within weeks or months of implementation. Indeed is this knowledge base usable or have we been funding all this activity for nothing?

I'd put the recent back track on base leg circuit entry in the same category. Why did they need to do a pilot survey? With 60 or 70 years of accumulated knowledge, why don't CASA better understand what works and what doesn't work and what's safe and not safe ?

How is traffic handling in the circuit different now to the sixties & seventies? Essentially all aircraft have radio now, and there is probably a smaller spread of ciruit speeds than there was with Tiger Moths & Comanche's sharing the circuit. Places like Moorabbin use 2 runways not 3. Shouldn't it be more straightforward now?

Agreed! even though I knew it was coming after reading it on here, I did get the token heart flutter when I saw it in the letter box.

So yet another complete waste of time.
It could of been easily handled by sending all foreign students home.
I'm thinking the collision risk would have decreased quite significantly after that!!
:E

GADRIVR,
What is your basis for that assumption? Strongly suggest you search the ATSB database where you will find the usual suspects are the ones that have been involved in the majority of collisions and near misses in recent times. I'll give you a clue it's not one of the international schools.