Watch This (Air) Space!
CASA Director John McCormick has issued legal directions to Airservices Australia, ordering a sweeping transformation of the air traffic control environments at Australia’s six capital city general aviation airports’ (GAAP).
Notice and draft copies of the proposed directions were first issued on 15 July 2009, and became effective from 0001 AEST on Tuesday 21 July.
When fully actioned, the changes will help bring to finality the implementation of Australia’s National Airspace (NAS) Plan which has been frustrated for years by groups who believe Australia should manage its airspace differently from the rest of the world.
Also ordered are new rules to ensure airport surface safety by requiring pilots to obtain a clearance before crossing any runway, and controllers to limit to six the number of aircraft conducting circuit and landing training on any individual runway.
The surprise moves follow an ICAO report that criticised both Airservices as service provider and CASA as regulator for their records on bringing Australia’s airspace management to international standards; and a consultancy report that castigated safety levels at GAAP airports.
Mr McCormick’s directive to Airservices imposed a tight nine-month deadline to reach compliance with internationally recognised Class D classification at Archerfield, Bankstown, Camden, Jandakot, Moorabbin and Parafield. Under Class D rules ATC will be responsible for providing:
- Positive separation between aircraft operating to instrument flight rules (IFR);
- Traffic information to IFR flights on VFR (visual flight rules) traffic;
- And traffic information on VFR flights as available on an “alerted see-and-avoid” basis to aid pilots in applying their own separation.
The six airports have been operating under a non-ICAO definition as “GAAP” (General aviation airports) which adopts similar rules but with “special procedures” set by Airservices that are outside ICAO’s normal Class D requirements. These include providing procedural separation between VFR flights, and requirements for VFR pilots to request and comply with clearances within the zones on flight paths and altitudes set by ATC.
Mr McCormick has also made it clear that the proposed Class D airspace will be based not on the ICAO version but on the model adopted in the USA which has far more Class D airspace than the rest of the world combined. The USA achieves compliance with ICAO simply by filing a “difference” with the international regulatory overseer – a course Australia can now be expected to follow.
At an Industry Consultative Committee meeting on July 29 he made no apologies for the rapid adoption of the measures, saying he had two reports indicating unacceptable safety situations and that he had absolutely no choice but to take immediate positive action.
The CASA directive also requires Airservices to provide air traffic services at all six airports daily in all daylight hours without any reduction in present night services, to provide regular reports to CASA on its implementation of the changes, and to state how it plans to implement the requirements.
The moves are widely applauded by general aviation pilots and operators but are expected to be opposed by some interest groups. AOPA President Phillip Reiss however describes the moves as “a breath of fresh air.”
So does a well-known aviator called Dick Smith, the ultimate flying enthusiast and experienced pilot who has championed these principles for almost as long as anyone can remember. (see Dick’s comments below.)
Mr McCormick made it bluntly clear he believed some elements among Australian pilots needed to become attuned to modern ATM concepts. He told the SCC meeting he had just attended the first meeting of CASA’s new Board, noting that its new Chairman Dr Allan Hawke knows a lot about aviation and that Deputy Chair David Grey was the ex-CEO of Boeing Australia:
“Dr Hawke is a great fan of the NAS Airspace Policy and I’m a great fan of the NAS Airspace Policy, so watch this space!”
Reader comments and responses to this article would be appreciated, Ed.
As a pilot of 35 years I believe that it is way overdue that GAAP Zones be consigned to the past as they have been very dangerous places to operate for many years. Class D Tower Airspace is a sensible and effective way to manage traffic operating into and out of these very busy terminal airfields.
Mandatory approach points and standard circuit entry procedures have exacerbated many dangerous and deadly events over the last few years. This situation has resulted in many near-misses at approach points and caused the waste of many young lives and the destruction of the confidence of the pilots forced to accept a funneled approach from crowded and uncontrolled airspace.
It is about time that CASA got off it’s high horse and did something at last to bring back some proper standards and good old common sense. I fly in the USA and New Zealand and I can certainly agree with Dick Smith when he says that our airspace is the most dangerous place in the world to fly in.
Class D airspace works and works well as is proved by many years of successful operation at other Terminals such as Coffs Harbour, Albury, Marouchydoore, Mackay Etc. Etc.
Yes it costs more, but from a safety point of view its worth every cent if it saves lives and because it is safer IT WILL SAVE LIVES !
PS: Maybe CASA could also work on improving some Airservices indifference to the people that actually use their airspace and put some ‘service’ back into their organisation.
“Do you copy that SYDNEY RADAR!” or are you on another frequency !!
Greg Ackman ARN 129918
Well done J-Mac …….. long overdue.
A nice interview with Dick Smith……… some constructive comments:
1. Yes, people do resist change and this is quite natural, however any Australian pilot who has flown in the USA will appreciate the excellent service that is afforded by ATC, whether one is flying a C172 or a B767.
2. Is this due to the excellence of the National Airspace System alone? Perhaps so, but I suspect that the US NAS is better supported by an adequate number of controllers, higher ATC salaries, better rosters, quality of life, etc, etc? So it comes back to budget again doesn’t it.
3. I can’t recall (when 200 miles from the US coast) being told to hold for 60 minutes or divert due to “controller shortages” (as was the case when 200 miles east of Sydney last year). Was this industrial action or a true reflection of a beaurocracy fiscally unable (or unwilling) to support their staff?
4. Track shortening is similarly unavailable when controllers are short-staffed.
5. With respect to the notion of a 360 degree entries to class D airports, it will work well at Alice Springs, but one can only wonder what “variation” (no doubt based upon geography) that Bankstown will derive.
6. How much extra will AirServices charge Australian pilots for this “Simplification”. An idealist might seek a reduction in TNC fees….. ha!
Fly safely,
Gaz
I think if John McCormick gets airspace changes through he will deserve a medal – he has to overcome a culture of Air Traffic Controllers handicapped with out of date rules and a hierarchy that has no real desire to become part of the 20th century. Every obstacle will be put in the way of change as is going on now. Only 6 aircraft allowed to operate in the zone at one time if the frequencies are hooked up which they are a great deal. I don’t think it can get any more dangerous than it is now – with aircraft denied access to arrival at Bankstown and told to go away. Students on their early solos are out there. Where do they go? Students are not allowed to land anywhere except at their own airport. Inexperienced pilots are told to go away. Where do they go? There is no Hoxton Park anymore. Pilots who were trained anytime before last week, and some of them 30 years ago – will not understand what is wanted. Where do they go and what should they do? – they will be dumbfounded and orbit? There have already been several near misses including two student aircraft nearly being cleaned up by a Kingair at 2RN last week. “D” airspace should be run exactly like it is in the USA. No aircraft should be denied entry. Airservices should understand that the airspace is for providing a service for pilots not for air traffic controllers. There is an endless and long litany of poor airspace management over many years – VFR pilots talking on radar, ATC denying access to aircraft – go away – the list is endless – it is just so debilitating to everyone and does not add to any safety whatsoever. The Australian way of course is to re-invent the wheel. How many people over how many years have gone to the USA (paid for by us the taxpayer) to find out how to run things safely? Then nothing much happens.
Mr. McCormick GO FOR IT – I HOPE YOU SUCCEED. I AM WATCHING WITH INTEREST. I WILL ASK FOR DIVINE INTERVENTION AND PRAY TOO.
USA Class D with everyone arriving from every point of the compass may have avoided the 2RN accident, but would it have avoided the Moorabbin accident? I wouldn’t have thought so. One aircraft was on crosswind, the other joining downwind. It had nothing to do with the approach points. Pilots in Class D are still responsible for separation. At least with approach points we knew where to look; now the traffic could be coming from anywhere!
I’m not saying I don’t support the move to Class D, just that people are relying on this to bring about an increase in safety. I don’t think it will; I think nothing will change at all. But why has this happened at all? CASA say it’s in response to Ambidji, but Ambidji specifically says that GAAP should not be replaced. Then they say it will bring us into line with ICAO, but we’re going to the non-compliant US Class D.
Am I the only one who sees the contradiction in Dick’s argument when he blames the approach point system for the deaths at 2RN, then goes on to disagree with Ambidji and claim that BK is one of the safest, busiest airports in the world? If that’s the case, then why is there a need to change to Class D? If that is the case, shouldn’t all the Class Ds be changed to GAAP?
Maurice Waugh
Editor’s comment
Maurice, nobody has suggested that implementing Class D is a substitute for keeping a lookout in the circuit area, but everybody who has contacted us agrees that Class D (as applied in the USA, Canada and New Zealand) would be excellent risk management for a number of reasons. One is that it would replace the practice of having inbound aircraft converging on a single point so the controllers will know where to look for them, which is appalling risk management. They say turning landing lights on would also be good risk management, as would controllers familiarising themselves with the azimuth/direction of numerous other landmarks, and pilots using the nearest of these to report abeam or over them inbound.
Ed
???? I am awaiting the outcome of entry from 360 degrees around BK. Are we going to wave some magic airspace wand to make SY Class C and RIC just disappear. There are effectively only two sectors that a VFR can approach BK from Class G…with YSCN about to go fulltime GAAP ICAO class D or whatever that also limits available airspace…someone has NOT thought this through!
Limiting aircraft to 6 in the circuit is just plain dumb. Aminta is so correct when she says there will be serious issues with returning early solo students mixing in class G UNCONTROLLED airspace with other inbounds.
How are we going to decide who was here first? The ones actually at their position or those that sneak their calls in early to jump the forming queue.
Editor’s comment
Mark, Bankstown operators confirm what was our understanding, which is that a VFR aircraft can approach Bankstown from any direction at all subject to any necessary airways clearance and observation of restricted airspace, and that the upper limit of surrounding uncontrolled airspace is 2500′. Some of them say they tell students to stay above 1500′ and to fly anywhere up to 2500, and never to go right over the top of the 2RN for two reasons:
1.The book says you must come inbound SOUTH of 2RN – and there is a corridor of about 2nm wide available; and
2. What the students (and possibly CASA) do not realise is that ATC directs the Kingairs and Citations OUT OF CTA OVER THE TOP OF 2RN.
Ed
I cannot think of a pilot or ATC personnel I have ever met that doesn’t think the’ US system’ is better than ours. In my view however I don’t believe we are getting ‘the US system’. We are getting a cherry picked portion of it – US Class D.
Combining that with the AsA location specific charging model, and their profit before service mentality (just look at the cost cutting result in coal face ATC staff numbers as an example) I think that we will potentially end up with a hybrid that does nothing to foster GA in the capital city GAAP/Class D airports.
We currently pay a great deal of tax on every litre of avgas, hour of LAME labour, $ of spare parts as well as for every regulatory function from CASA and AsA charges. The part of ‘the US system’ we are NOT getting and that NO ONE seems willing to talk about is the charging regime.
US pilots don’t pay landing fees, Terminal/Enroute fees or fees to do instrument approaches/circuits etc. US pilots don’t face the same privatisation of what were Govt monopolies (airports) that we do.
They pay a small, 4 or 5 cents/litre, fuel tax and then use the ENTIRE US system, essentially, AT NO FURTHER COST.
By all means bring in ‘the US system’ – but bring in ALL of it!
Somehow I don’t think the 20 odd cents a litre I pay in sundry avgas taxes is going deemed enough.
Chuck
Quote: I fly in the USA and New Zealand and I can certainly agree with Dick Smith when he says that our airspace is the most dangerous place in the world to fly in. End Quote.
I fly all over the world on long haul operations and that would have to be the silliest thing I have ever read. When I fly in Australia, whether in my Boeing or Bonanza, I feel a cloak of safety and comfort that I experience in few other places.
Dick didn’t say that anyway – in fact he said that after only 1 midair (near YSBK) in 40 years that Australian GAAP is ‘the safest busy airspace in the world’. So we should change that airspace?
What people seem unwilling to come to terms with is that AT SOME POINT aircraft will converge because they are ALL heading for the same runway. Its like the myth that new enroute technology will save the airlines money – hey Australia’s airspace is near empty – its not called the GAFA for no reason – but we are all heading for 34L at YSSY and arriving just after 0600LT.
So clearly the answer is close airports, don’t build more runways and have everyone (including low time students) at YSBK et al converging from 360 different directions rather than 3 – obvious isn’t it – why didn’t I think of that?
And just out of curiosity, when the next midair collision happens at ysbk et al, and one will sooner or later, what will we do then?
If it happens in the next 10 years will that mean that ‘Australian’ Class D is 4 time more dangerous than the GAAP it replaced?
Only six aircraft in the Class D airspace at one time? Well that is 3 potential midair collisions right there – I think it behooves us to allow no more than 1 aircraft within the Class D airspace at any one time – zero midair risk.
I am being silly?
Well I am not the only one.
Quote:The Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association reports there have been 70 midair collisions involving 140 aircraft in the United States over the last 10 years. There were fatalities aboard 83 of those aircraft. End quote:
How many have we had in Australia in the last 10 years?
Maybe 2 or 3?
So to quote Dick ‘the US has 15 times the aviation activity in a roughly similar geographical area but DOES NOT have 15 times the midairs?’
Gee I don’t know but 1/15th the US rate would be 4.7. I feel sure we would have noticed that many.
So if the agenda here is not intellectual honesty what is it?
I think, no in fact I am bloody certain, we have a right to know.
Let’s just say we do get the US Class D and not the ICAO Class D. What happens to the other Class D towers like Coffs and Tamworth? They are currently ICAO Class D. Are they going to change to US or are we going to have two types of Class D? If we do get two types, may I suggest we don’t name the US system Class D? It needs a specific name of its own so the two systems won’t be confused.
How about … ummm … GAAP!
Maurice Waugh
Quote from Paul Phelan article above:
“Mr McCormick has also made it clear that the proposed Class D airspace will be based not on the ICAO version but on the model adopted in the USA.”
Quote from AIC H09/09:
“5.1a The implementation of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Class D airspace where GAAP control zones currently exist.”
Quote from Maurice Waugh:
“Well, I’m confused.”
Maurice Waugh
Editor’s comment
Well Maurice, the confusion arises not from the Director’s comments and assurances which reflect exactly what we’ve said, but from an Aeronautical Information Circular originated by Airservices Australia, which is no longer the regulator. I think you’ll find that this contradiction if being resolved as we speak.
Ed
Paul Phelan wrote: “The six airports have been operating under a non-ICAO definition as “GAAP” (General aviation airports) which adopts similar rules but with “special procedures” set by Airservices that are outside ICAO’s normal Class D requirements. These include providing positive separation between VFR flight …”
Positive separation is not provided between VFR aircraft in a GAAP
Oooops, I guess I meant “procedural separation.” I can’t actually find a definition of “positive separation but I’d have thought clearances to takeoff and land, or instructions to do a go-around, would qualify.” Fixed, anyway.
Ed
ED, I beg to differ. Even the CASA site and the mail out to pilots refers to International practices…I would accept that to mean ICAO and NOT FAA
Ed,
Thanks for that, but my confusion has not been extinguished. This statement is from the CASA press release of 15 July.
“The Director of Aviation Safety has also announced CASA will require that all GAAP aerodromes will be moving towards Class D air traffic control, by 21 April 2010, better harmonising arrangements in Australia with the current International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) airspace classification system.”
I think CASA had better sort out their own contradictions first before they go hunting heads at Airservices.
Maurice Waugh
Editor’s comment – A final word
The statement quoted above closely resembles the one published in the AIC on July 24, which said in part:
The CASA Director of Aviation Safety has directed that the following actions be undertaken by 21 April 2010:
a. The implementation of International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) Class D airspace where GAAP Control zones currently exist.
(i) Implementation will enhance safety by standardising Class D procedures nationally and aligning Australia with ICAO requirements.
I think the sorting out of contradictions is happening in various appropriate places as we speak.
AviationAdvertiser has been busy obtaining some clarification and all will be revealed in a follow-up article which will on this site tomorrow and will also reflect the experiences of flying school operators since all this hit the fan.
Ed
Hey Charles what’s your problem do your buddies at Airservices jump every time you call ?
Clearly you fly your ‘Boeing’ much more than your ‘Bonanza’ or you would have discovered that the ‘service’ being offered is way below acceptable standards for even a third world country.
That is unless you ‘live’ in controlled airspace all the time such as when you are in a ‘Boeing’ where the service must be first class ( at the expense of everyone else )
We are the ONLY country in the world that uses the phrase ‘REMAIN OUTSIDE CONTROLLED AIRSPACE’ and where it is a HASSLE to get a clearance. I know because I fly there a lot and it is such an INCONVENIENCE for them to have to actually let people through.
Our system has traffic cops and their job is not to assist the flow of traffic unless it suits them!
Get real Charles a lot of us don’t fly ‘Boeings’ and therefore in the eyes of the powers-that-be we are second class citizens and the sad fact is that this IS A FACT.