YSBK South-East VFR Lane Proposal
 

Does anyone know what has happened to this proposal?

I recall seeing some NSW RAPAC minutes a few years ago that showed work was being progressed on a third VFR point of entry/exit at YSBK. The small corridor was south-east over Picnic Point and Engadine between a slightly shrunk YSSY CTR Zone and the Holsworthy and Lucas Heights Restricted Areas.

Has it been killed off by airspace-hungry vested interests or just delayed because of unforeseen complexities?

PG

Folks,
I would suggest it is being actioned with with all the sense of urgency and dispatch that is typical of aviation reform of any kind in Australia.
It has been going since the early days of RAPAC, probably 40+ years now, check in again in say, 2030, when the availability of avgas will be unlikely, so the problem will be solved, no further requirement, if, indeed, YSBK still exists.
After all, the significant piece of airspace that needs to change/shrink slightly is there to accommodate DC-4 freighter's (non)performance on a hot summer night.
Tootle pip!!

Clearance thru CTA over Picnic Point then Sutherland and south is available most of the time if planned and requested.
Used it on many occasions.

Popgun,
It was dropped from the RAPAC agenda years ago.
Airservices were never, in my opinion, fair dinkum about progressing the model, in part because changing (if it is a reduction) of any terminal control zone is just too hard.
Tootle pip!!

It was not an isolated idea, but was part of a series of ideas presented in response to the CASA Sydney basin review. It was presented as a way to alleviate some of the congestion issues surrounding the inbound points 2RN and PSP. How these things typically work is that CASA presents the report to Airservices and asks them to respond. A 'working group' is formed and solutions to perceived problems are formulated. Some of the ideas are good, some are not so. The good ones get some legs and it gets taken further.

In this case a few things happened, that first stalled the forum and then all discussions stopped.
First thing was accelerate, the main proponent within Airservices took up a redundancy. Fair call too, he was a nice bloke. It would take 2 years until a replacement could be found.
Next to happen was the planning for Badgery's Creek took off. No one is allowed to make any changes in Sydney until its impact on Badgerys is determined. Because planning for Badgerys is not finished, no proposals for changes in the Sydney Basin are being considered.

It was actually a good idea, I thought. But will probably never see the light of day now. Been a long time since I was involved, I believe I was at the last meeting some 3 years ago. No further action has been taken.

Alpha

It appeared now and then between 1992 and 1999 when I was on RAPAC, the group thought it was a good idea, but it never progressed beyond "a good idea".

I've often wondered how they work out airspace management in Australia.
When one looks at the proposed airspace required for Badgeys Creek it seems an enormous amount of Airspace will be required.
When you consider Dallas Fort Worth and its precincts in the US, to accomodate that airport and its satellites in Australia you'd need an area about the size of Victoria to accomodate it.

thorn bird,
In the best of Australian tradition, the proposed CTA for Sydney West is based on an aircraft that does not exist flying a maneuver that is obsolete for large aircraft.

By this, I mean that the CTA is sized to "protect" a Approach Cat E aircraft flying a visual circling segment of a non-precision approach.

There are no Cat E aircraft in existence, nor will there ever be.

In the day and age of Cat 1 or better GNSS approaches, even if there is no ILS ( Sydney West should have Cat 111C from the word go, it is a fog hole) no large aircraft is every going to do even a Cat C or D circling.

As you and I well know, most major airlines don't even permit their crews to fly a visual circling segment.

With a less "Anal Australian" ( ie more ICAO compliant) approach to airspace design, we would still be able to have IFR arrivals and departures to YSBK ---- but this would not meet the criteria of maximizing disruption to GA.

Tootle pip!!

Um, there isnt a proposed CTA/ Airspace model yet. The only proposed model that i know of is in the Dept original report from 20 years ago. Flight paths are still being established, and until that is finalised, airspace models will follow.

No such thing as CATI or better GNSS approaches.

Would you be so kind as to point us in the direction of this manual on ICAO compliant airspace design? (Its ok Ill wait)

Alpha,
Wrong, I am afraid, the initial design was presented to an industry meeting in the "Terminal" at YSBK by a combined team from the "Department", CASA and Airservices quite some time ago. And I do have comprehensive contemporaneous notes of the meeting and plenty of witnesses, there were about 50 present, including the current AOPA President.

One of the PP slides showed the extent of the planned CTA boundary ----- although it went over the heads of most at the meeting ---- airspace design matters are not generally a riveting conversation piece.

Subsequent to the meeting, I had quite a long conversation about the "plans" with one of the 'Department" persons, it was quite enlightening --- about all I can say about that conversation is that there is not 100% internal support for what is proposed ---- which is freely admitted will seriously disrupt any GA VFR and kybosh any IFR at YSBK. Indeed, one "Department" person at that meeting made it quite clear that both CASA and Airservices intended to disregard GA in practice, GA would get whatever was left after this huge and completely unnecessary zone was established for Sydney West, and it would not be much more than VFR lanes in and out of the two GA airfields.

That person did not agree with the approach, but there was little he could do about it, as CASA and Airservices were "the experts". Indeed, CASA and Airservices both seem to be quite sanguine about YSBK closing completely, GA is regarded as dispensable, and ambulance, rescue, police, National Parks etc can move to the new airport.

Since then, there have been all sorts of denials, the present "policy" is to present a fait acompli, close to the opening, with a "it's too late to change it now" defense to demands for real consultation, and the denial of any IFR in and out of YSBK is accepted as a given.

The fact is, that it is quite possible to design a CTA for Sydney West that, whilst it will be quite disruptive, compared to now, would still allow VFR and IFR at YSBK, and have Camden well outside the new zone.

Some investigation was commissioned by AOPA, the result was that the zone depicted is based on a 1960s DCA draft "Australian" standard, which was adopted from the UK, EGLL zone is an example. Work the size out for yourself, based on the ICAO standards, and add the separation of the two runways to work out the width. Hint: The reference speed for circling for Cat.E is 250 kts, with what that means for radius of turn.

As to CAT 1 minima for GNSS approaches, the standard certainly exists for GNSS with SBAS or GBAS, and both Sydney and Melbourne areas have GBAS right now, it has been there for a while..At least some QF aircraft are equipped to use GBAS.

Light Reading> https://www.icao.int/MID/Documents/2...tus%20ACAC.pdf


Tootle pip!!

PS: Much like certain flightpaths into YSSY, little attention seems to be given to the use of current aircraft equipment to minimize noise ---- not even the "low noise" procedures that are common elsewhere. Such flightpaths would further reduce the impact on GA, as well as noise impact on western Sydney.

Leadsled, there is no airspace proposal for Western Sydney yet. There is an airspace concept in a document that dates back to the 80's. I suspect this is what you saw.

You need to read more on modern nav technologies. SBAS and GBAS are not GNSS approaches. Fleet equipage at the major RPT level is much lower than you think. Designing an airspace model on these capabilities would not be a smart idea.

Been designing for a long time, never heard of these "low noise" procedures you speak of. Are you perhaps referring to RNP-AR?

Still waiting for you to provide the ICAO airspace design concept you recommended we adopt in your previous post.

AlphaC,
No, you are quite wrong, everything presented was directly related to Sydney West, and, as I said, I have plenty of witnesses. It was the usual PowerPoint presentation.

And I didn't have a long post meeting discussion with a quite senior Department of Infrastructure, Transport etc. officer about something from the 1980s, most of the discussion was about the stupidity of the size of the proposed zone, why it was unnecessary, how it unnecessarily effected Bankstown and Camden. and what should be done. Said departmental officer and I were in heated agreement, but it was out of his hands. I even had follow-up discussions in Canberra, in following weeks, but since then it has gone very quiet. Indeed, much of the discussion was about how profligate Airservices are in closing off airspace with quite unnecessary and unjustified airspace classifications, in this case the lateral boundaries of the proposed zone. The department officer was very well informed on practical applications of such matters in other countries, including the US and the UK and EEC generally..

It is clear to me that "some" in Canberra don't want any discussion or serious public consultation on what is proposed and what alternatives exist, prior to the "unveiling" of said "final" proposals close to the opening of the first runway. You might have already "noticed" the eruption, from the "usual suspects" about flight over the heritage areas of the Blue Mountains --- to say that flightpaths are politically a loaded gun would be an understatement. Again, some time ago, I even flew one of the vitally interested local MPs along some of the potential flightpaths, more meaningful than him or her just looking at lines on a map. Aircraft noise is hardly a new political issue around Sydney.

You can quibble about terminology, but the fact remains that GBAS is available in the Sydney basin, has been for quite some time, and the capability to have non-ILS approaches to ILS Cat 1 minima exists.

The fact that you don't know anything about common low noise procedures (by whatever name) only means you don't know. Seems quite appropriate to mention, given the election at the weekend, that, in times gone by I have written aircraft noise minimization procedure drafts for both Labor (when Martin Ferguson was Shadow Minister) and Lib/NP (John Anderson) policy documents --- I do know what I am talking about, and am apolitical in such matters These are not "ICAO" but based on well proven techniques, including flightpaths, in use for many years in other parts of the world.

As to "ICAO" docs., are you suggesting that ICAO has nothing to set lateral limits of airspace boundaries for A,B,C,D,E,F,G. classifications??

I have detailed the source of the so called "draft standard" that was used to size the proposed zone, that was not "ICAO", as I said, and was dug up by a firm that may be a competitor, if you work in the private sector as a procedure designer. I have the greatest confidence in my colleague's knowledge and capabilities, they have a most impressive and long list of satisfied international customers.

I can only assume you are quoting from the current PR handouts, do you really think a mass of work (much misdirected, in my opinion, but that's only my opinion) has not already been done.

Tootle pip!!

It's my understanding that CASA via their Office of Airspace Regulation is responsible for airspace classifications, airspace design compliance with ICAO SARPs, and are the approving authority for any airspace changes. Airservices, Defence and other parties can propose changes, but ultimately assessment and approval comes from CASA.

I recall a few years back CASA serving Airservices with NCNs (Non-Compliance Notice) for a number of CTR & CTA designs because they weren't compliant with ICAO airspace design standards to contain various instrument approach procedures.

According to the CASA website from their "Airspace Risk and Safety Management Manual":
And:

CaptainMidnight,
All consistent with what I said about the Bankstown presentation that some seem to think is a product of my imagination. Unfortunately, the CD of the presentation did not include all the PowerPoint slides.
However, it is Airservices that apparently proposed the huge CTA to ground level, along with the initial drafts of ATC procedures to handle Sydney West, that gave rise to the published advice that there would be no IFR at YSBK, and limited VFR.
As far as I know, CASA is not a procedure designer, but supposedly checks others work for conformity.
The whole issue of aircraft pollution (including noise) around Sydney is such a hot-button issue, I am not surprised at the preset "policy" of presenting a fait accompli (with the requisite pro-forma consultation) clsoe to opening.
Tootle pip!!

Correct, they don't design procedures but have procedures designers in their Flight Standards section.

Airservices would have designed the airspace to contain the procedures, missed approach procedures, holding areas etc. with buffers in accordance with CASA MOS Part 173, chapter 8 specifically. That's how it's done i.e design the procedures etc. then design the airspace around them.

CapatinMidnight,
Precisely!!
Including a visual circling segment for an approach cat E aircraft, no such civil aircraft exists, nor will one ever.

Then add the protective area around said circling area, to give the gargantuan zone proposed for Sydney West. With the total disruption to GA around Australia's largest city that the proposal clearly admits.

Given a more sensible recognition of the real world in 2020+, a much more compact zone should be the end result, not some fanciful nonsense, because the "only standard" they could dig up ( literally, as in disinter) was a "draft" standard from the middle of the last century.

One of those present at the meeting I have mentioned was very familiar with the New York/New Jersey area --- he got no answer to his question of the what and why of the Sydney area, when a similar area can accommodate Kennedy, Newark, LaGardia, Teberboro, White Plains and a number of smaller aerodromes in the general area. like Long Island MacArthur, with conflicting runway directions (unlike the Los Angeles basin) ----- with movement rates that absolutely dwarf anything that happens in Australia.

It is ludicrous in the extreme, to contemplate a situation where Australia's largest city and business center has no General Aviation airport worth the name, when all that is need is a planning approach that starts with the proposition: HOW do we integrate H24 IFR GA at YSBK with the two HCPT airports in the area. HOW we do it, not can we do it!!

Tootle pip!!

Alpha C,
The majority of my remarks have been directed at the absolutely ridiculous size of the proposed CTA, not the flightpaths in and out of Sydney West.
And, based on the various discussion I, personally, have had over a period of time, it is Airservices in particular, but also CASA, who need to be more flexible to the possibilities.
It was not "the department" that came up with the ratbag megazone.
And yes, a redesign of the whole area, including the again ridiculously large size of Richmond, Nowra and Williamtown is about 70 years overdue, with their CTAs reduced to the equivalent of at least NATO/RAF size, and better still, US standards.
The current policy of everything behind closed doors, in part because of the sensitivity to the noise of small but well publicized groups violently anti aviation in general and aviation noise and alleged pollution in the Sydney basin and surrounds, is very dangerous for GA.
Both major political parties should have the courage to ignore a bunch of Stalinist, but the won't!
Tootle pip!!