Comments on: Unintended Consequences

By: RIC D T WILSON

RIC D T WILSON — Sat, 03 Jul 2010 06:56:22 +0000

I got rebuked by CASA for giving input (after they wanted it from us pilots since Class D was introduced). Peter Gibson gives me the spin that I am rare in suggesting the readback requirments are too cumbersome and and could be shortened a tad. I am talking about Moorabbin Airport when runway 31 is being used since one has to include taxiway, holding point and runway and crossing three runways. Already several students have got a little tongue tied and at least one that I heard even asked for the ground controller to read it back again. One pilot that tried to report 10 NM inbound was directed to the Carrum VFR approach point. I think that the approach points are much better and safer than this adhoc approach where you can elect (or try) to enter from any direction. If the CASA chief suggests that all has gone well with the Class D introduction may I suggest that this is because I know so many pilots and owners that are either dropping out or too frightened to go flying until better weather, things settle down(if they ever do) and wait and see how others fare. Early days yet. Waiting to get a word in after clearing the runway so you can get a clearance to taxi back to the apron is a brilliant way to waist fuel and make a bigger carbon emission. Great bit of bureaucracy if there ever was – and other silly things in this system that could quite easily be fixed by a housewife.

By: David Walker

David Walker — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 01:49:48 +0000

Dare I need say;

Charles Perrys quote of senior YSBK flying Instructor is scarey. Not because it is a rant – but because it is valid feedback from a professional at the experiential edge of the way things are really working. Industry (ASA) & government (State, Federal and CASA dept)should (& I’m sure good people in those dept’s do) realise that what this person says is valid. Remove the emotive feeling and any reference to obfuscated expletives – what (he?) says is very pilot like and up-front, no-nonsense; if this sort of thing is ignored in aviation *very bad* things happen. Reduced VRP?; sounds dangerous. There needs to be a realisation that functional mistakes that (quoted flying instructor) mentions are due to ‘root caused’ systematic failure. Pollys and administrators definitely responsible here.

By: Charles Perry

Charles Perry — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 10:12:02 +0000

This is a quote from another website giving some feedback from a YSBK based Senior Flying Instructor – note there is some rather emotive language – I can hardly blame the poor man. Somehow, if this madness remains in place, I can’t see us waiting another 40 years for the next midair collision.

‘Just what is ASA obligations to CASA and the aviation industry when it comes to delivering the services they’re currently incapable of?

Perfect example was the almost complete failure of the system at YSBK today.

Restricted VFR all day, MAX 1 aircraft in the circuit at any time, resulting in 4 hour delay, yep 4 FCUKIN hours for CCTS. up to 3 aircraft at a time delayed at inbound points at 2RN and prospect.

Constant radio chatter resulting in serious errors from both aircraft and controllers, aircraft calling ready at holding points given landing clearances, aircraft responding to requests intended for other aircraft, almost a quarter of all calls made over other calls. a total and complete cluster fcuck.

in 15 yrs flying from YSBK, its the first time i have seriously considered calling off all flying simply because it was to dangerous to fly with even advanced students in such conditions.

A Fcuking Disgrace! just what are we paying out airways charges for??

end rant.’

So this seems to be working well then?

By: Stan van de Wiel

Stan van de Wiel — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 09:35:49 +0000

A good article Paul, highlights the problems of perception between conflicting G.A. Industry needs and CASA mandate to control (sorry regulate). Although I trust we are all safety minded, the survival of the industry is dependent on flying/operating aircraft, let alone essential growth for any business. Until such time as CASA is also given the mandate to PROMOTE the industry as well as SAFETY their aim will always be to reduce the risk by the easiest means possible. Ultimately “Empty Skies are Safe skies”.
Although any fatality is one too many, the industry record for operations has been reasonably (acceptably) good when it comes to GAAP operations. All that is required is some resolute fine tuning after proper identification of the real problems. My personal experience is that individual ATCers do a fine job, albeit with [Problem 1] limited man-power at times. [Problem 2] As to VRP (VFR reporting points) Bankstown’s single VPR is a recipe for disaster (yet to my knowledge incredibly only 1 mid-air in recent times) [Problem3] any VRP (being a fixed geographical location) adds to the risk factor especially with the widespread use of GPS (eyes in the cockpit) great devices but they have their place.
Even under good circumstances, concentrating traffic over single points is a recipe for disaster so the suggestion to have a couple of off-set initial reporting points will reduce concentration of traffic and increase awareness (RT) in approaching that single VRP. Within the GAAP zone ATC have the means to divert, slow aircraft down or divert to the other runway.
The Commercial argument: Limiting the number of aircraft (6) in the circuit at any one time is naturally safe but a commercial disaster. Take the example of Moorabbin, consider 6 typical training aircraft x 6 circuits per hour = 36 movements x 14 hrs/day x 365/year = 184,000 movements per year on single runway. The parallel runway is/can be used for arrivals and departures only since “flying neighbourly” precludes constant circuit use. At 3 min spacing = 20mvmts/hr = 102,000 /year giving a total of 286,000 movements. Latest available figures record 400,000 movements per year at Moorabbin would be an approx. 30% reduction in traffic. Also this is based on 100% VFR weather and no excessive cross winds.
Fewer movements, but more ATCers also mean higher ATC charges.
Conclusion: This is the real SAFETY CASE, The G.A. Industry desperately needs more GAAP style facilities within easy reach of the population centres, not fewer as in Sydney or shortly in Melbourne with the imminent closure of Essendon. Post WW2 Gov. had vision because G.A. had its own Minister. The sell-off (long term leases) of the Airports could have funded long overdue additional facilities. For an Industry bringing in some $5billion and 40,000 jobs to Australia G.A. is certainly the “black sheep” of the family.

By: Maurice Waugh

Maurice Waugh — Wed, 12 Aug 2009 23:24:46 +0000

There is another unintended consequence here: the possible loss of G airspace around the airports concerned. US Class D has no inbound reporting points; you just “pop-up” approaching the boundary from anywhere. If that was to happen with the new Class D boundaries being where the GAAP ones are now, ATC wouldn’t know about you until you were three miles from the ARP! A recently retired controller told me that would be unworkable. Most likely, the Class D boundaries will be pushed out to where the inbound points are now, gobbling up all that G airspace that currently exists between the two.

Maurice Waugh