Ground operations at GAAPs post June 3 2010 - safer?
 

Having spent far too long sitting on a taxiway at Bankstown this morning trying to get out to the runway, I have to ask - is this an improvement?

I don't remember ever having to wait 10 minutes + just to get to the runup bay before surface movement control was re-introduced. Nor do I remember having so many other aircraft sitting around next to me or taxiing past me. Can't get a word in on the radio, ground can't see you in lots of places, people getting on the radio first and cutting in, people not bothering with a taxi clearance and taxiing anyway then feigning ignorance - could this be why clearance requirements for taxi were removed in the first place?

Problems;

Too much congestion on ground frequency.
Inadequate signage of taxiways.
Unlit parallel runways at night.

Result;
Pilots cutting in and just taxiing anyway.
Aircraft exiting the runway, stopping and waiting for a taxi clearance, blocking the exit.
Aircraft crossing the L/R runways at night without a clearance, because they are practically invisible.
Pilots getting lost - knowing where to go but not knowing which taxiways are called what.
Pilots and controllers getting angry and frustrated at delays.

My question is - how is this safer? Were things so bad that this is an improvement?

Sorry to intervene. Agree with this one 100%. If you're supposed to rely on a blocky crappy graphic in the ERSA with the ground frequency controllers rapid directions that are difficult to follow, then there's no hope for you.

I responded with "unfamiliar with Bankstown." I got back something like "you are at least going to need to know where taxiway Juliet is."

Why is this a problem, if it's unlit at night it doesn't exist.

Geez. Havent been there for a while but can imagine that Ms Dorothy must have the ****s good and proper!........................................or more than usual :E:E

My understanding is that unlit runways certainly do "exist" at night and you need a clearance to cross them. Many years ago you did not, but now you do.

Taxi reports were always required at GAAPs by AIP, but in Bankstown's case they had excused the requirement in ERSA.

Given the problems they were trying to solve by introducing class D, and how none of them were surface movement related, why can't a similar ERSA entry be made for Bankstown now?

Clearly unless they undertake a significant upgrade including signposting of taxiways and holding points and better lighting, it is actually causing pilots to taxi around with their head down reading a map instead of looking outside at the fairly high levels of surface traffic.

Safer? Well yes. Runway incursions should decrease as does the chance of collision on the taxiway (which has happened at BK on multiple occasions).

What I do agree with is that there should be taxiway markings, that there is still confusion from some pilots which is fair enough too.

The new procedures can't handle the amount of traffic that used to move with GAAP, so if 20+ aircraft try to taxi at the same time like yesterday including half a dozen or so IFR (some who didn't have the BK4 SID which made the blockage worse) things are going to slow down.

One thing that has also been mentioned is the fact that people at the back of the queue were trying to talk over those calling at the front of the queue. Hopefully in the near future it will be documented a little better on taxi calls to ensure some kind of order is maintained ie calling when number 1 holding short of the manoeuvering area, just like you would at the holding point for a runway.

Solution:

Spend some Fricking money on infrastructure at Bankstown.

All those problems with the exception of congestion on the radio were problems when it was GAAP.

Operating at Bankstown is currently a nightmare and it has to change.

I fail to see how anything has changed from a safety perspective. We are still all being directed via PSP or TWRN at 1500 ft so they didn't fix that problem.

Trying to make a departure report before you leave 3nm is close to impossible, and the tower doesn't want to hear it anyway.

The tower doesn't actually know what they are doing half the time anyway, especially with night operations. They have been poorly trained. (not their fault)

Taxiway lighting and sign age needs to exist if they expect everyone especially those unfamiliar to safely 'taxi via kilo runway 29 alpha 3'..

IFR efficiency of operation has been positively launched out the window.

Overall, great job.

Bloggs, you are correct. A clearance is required to cross all runways H24, regardless of whether they are lit or not. Changed at least 8 or 9 years ago (probably a lot more). RWY 12 at CS is an example, doesn't have lights but a clearance to cross is still required HN.

Muffman,

Just a note on taxi reports and the ERSA excuse, the last NOTAM I saw had re-instated taxi reports:

AMEND ERSA EFFECTIVE 03 JUNE 2010 FAC S-45 12.3.
DELETE PARAGRAPH:
AFTER LANDING REMAIN ON 132.8 UNTIL CLEAR OF ALL ACTIVE RWYS, THEN
MONITOR SMC ON 119.9
INSERT NEW PARAGRAPH:
AFTER LANDING REMAIN ON 132.8 UNTIL CLEAR OF ALL ACTIVE RWYS, THEN
CONTACT SMC ON 119.9 IN ACCORDANCE WITH AIP
FROM 06 031600 TO PERM

So watch out for that...

Ferdad,

Perhaps I was unclear in my original post:
I am aware a clearance is now required. That was my point. Why can't that requirement be excused by ERSA in the same way the requirement for a taxi report was excused in GAAP? Presumably the reasons for doing so (i.e. large amounts of traffic) have not changed.

I don't like hearing the controllers having a dig at someone who makes an IFR departure report (in accordance with AIP) just because they're not interested.

Agreed. Whilst I fully support the controller's sentiments in terms of reducing radio clutter, there is nothing worse than phraseology by rumour. If the full departure report is unnecessary, the AIP needs to be changed to reflect that.

The other example of non-standard phraseology which bugs me is vacating the runway after landing and requesting taxi. If you follow AIP phraseology, i.e.

"Bankstown Ground, (aircraft call‐sign) [parking area or bay number]"

.... inevitably ground will get agro and ask what your position on the aerodrome is. Fair enough if they don't know where you are, but it means we either need to change the AIP or figure out a system which doesn't involve ATC getting agro at the poor old pilots. This is another situation where taxiway signage would help. Shortly after landing in a single pilot operation, my head is not in an aerodrome chart figuring out which taxiway I vacated on to.

In line with recent CASA "policy", shouldn't it be BROADCAST to SMC? :E

The latest edition of Tarmac Topics (RACWA's mag) has the Mgr Flt Ops saying the call is (my bolding):

"Jandakot Ground, Foxtrot Alpha Sierra, on Golf, for the Southern Apron". :=

Capn Bloggs you are right that it's not as per AIP but it certainly makes our life easier when you tell us where you are. Perhaps FAS wasn't the best example as the yellow tigermoth is pretty obivous but telling the difference between the grobs, or SIA C172 or even RACWA C152 can be difficult. SMC can't always be watching to see where you vacate as we now a days have a lot of other stuff we need to do as well.

More often than not we don't need to ask, but occasionally we do. It's the same as making the standard call from between the runways. We could be caught out telling you to taxi to the apron when you still need to cross RWY 24R/06L. Perhaps you wouldn't do it without a specific cross instruction but who is to say that a solo student wouldn't?

I personally dont have a problem with the extra word.

AWOL57,

I understand how that extra phrase might help you ... as long as you:

• were expecting it
• understood it
• were not confused by it
• got it in the same format each time

But that is not the case for all Controllers, or all pilots, or in all situations.

I must stick up for ... by the book, standardised radio telephony. It's the backbone of clear and unambiguous communication. I can't see any place for a "little bit for mum" phrases.

The eventual outcome will be that you will be expecting it. If it's not forthcoming, you could be, at least momentarily, confused.

If what's in the book doesn't work ... change it.

AWOL57-
-and what would that be? Awol, not having a go at you...if you are busy elsewhere on a system that is only less than 6 weeks old, one does have to ask, where are your attentions most needed?

Very interested in your answer.

At MB, the procedure appears to be a taxi clearance is not required until entry to Alpha, Echo and Golf for departure. Is this just unique to MB?

Sorry Mates...we had this little thing called a GAAP and it matched absolutely nothing else..... anywhere else.

Its not how it is in the USA....its how it is in the WHOLE REST OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD.

Now how it works in the USA is tower staffing is based on traffic....the more the traffic the more tower staff.

Really the whole Class D system would work just fine if and when CASA figures out how it works and gets up to date on the regs.

There should be no need to make any unsolicited reports within the 5 NM area of the class D upon departure.

There should be a taxi clearance not a taxi broadcast when the tower is in operation.

If your issued specific exit instructions off the runway theres no need to report your location (really tower should hand ya to ground) Example Tower: VH-OZY exit taxiway Golf contact ground 119.2

If you exit and then contact ground.....yeah ICAO says tell'm where your at and where you wanna go.

No you don't need a clearance to cross an unlit runway at night when the tower is closed. When its closed D is no longer in effect.

And while I am on a rant....theres no bloody need to report how many POB's when you filed a bloody flight plan.