"Metro" Class D
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Sydney
Age: 43
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to say I bypassed TW going to YARM, because it all seemed just to difficult. In respect to Departure reports at class D isn't it whether it is RADAR or not? Ie BK has RADAR and a SID so no need for a departure report (other than passing 2000')
No class D has radar they can use. The old GAAPs can only use the feeds from approach for situational awareness so guess again (not sarcastic, I genuinely mean guess cause I have NFI 
)
)
Departure Report -- certain Class D aerodromes
8.2.1 At certain Class D aerodromes where the tower also provides a
procedural approach control service (see ERSA), a pilot must report
on the TWR frequency after take--off:
a. tracking information; and
b. the last assigned altitude.
However, this report is not required:
a. for VFR aircraft departing the control zone directly into ClassG
airspace; or
b. for aircraft that have been instructed to contact Centre, Approach
or Departures once airborne -- in which case an airborne
report will be made on the relevant frequency.
8.2.2 Tracking information must confirm the track established with reference
to the appropriate navigation aid or, if tracking via a SID, confirm
the SID identifier.
8.2.3 The departure time must be calculated as follows:
a. current time minus an adjustment for the distance from the
aerodrome; or
b. when over or abeam the aerodrome.
8.2.1 At certain Class D aerodromes where the tower also provides a
procedural approach control service (see ERSA), a pilot must report
on the TWR frequency after take--off:
a. tracking information; and
b. the last assigned altitude.
However, this report is not required:
a. for VFR aircraft departing the control zone directly into ClassG
airspace; or
b. for aircraft that have been instructed to contact Centre, Approach
or Departures once airborne -- in which case an airborne
report will be made on the relevant frequency.
8.2.2 Tracking information must confirm the track established with reference
to the appropriate navigation aid or, if tracking via a SID, confirm
the SID identifier.
8.2.3 The departure time must be calculated as follows:
a. current time minus an adjustment for the distance from the
aerodrome; or
b. when over or abeam the aerodrome.
When I was at Jandakot most IFR aircraft were out of our airspace before they had a chance to do a departure report.
Incredible! Isn't it amazing - in the USA there are over 200 Class D towers and none require a departure report from a V F R aircraft. So why is it different here?
I know. It's the coriolis effect that's different in the Southern Hemisphere! That's clearly the cause.
Seriously. I was involved in the change to Class D from GAAP. The intention was to make the procedures simple and internationally standardized. We failed!
I know. It's the coriolis effect that's different in the Southern Hemisphere! That's clearly the cause.
Seriously. I was involved in the change to Class D from GAAP. The intention was to make the procedures simple and internationally standardized. We failed!
Thread Starter
It's truly a shame that you failed Dick. Nice idea, but we get stuck with the "Australian-ised" version of Class D which seems to leave most with some level of perplexity
Yes, I know Awol - but that doesn't take away from the requirement to give one! Nobody does because either they're too focused on calling Departures or coz it is just plain silly to do so ...
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
'Local' procedures always evolve for very good reasons, generally significant improvements in safety or efficiency, or both. I'm all for standardising to 'Worlds Best Practice' (aka what the Americans (or even 6.9 billion!) do), just don't bitch and moan when things get more restrictive/bureaucratic as we become more 'the same' as 'everywhere else'. It's the nature of the standardisation beast. Just ask Dick, he started it!
I don't know...some of you blokes really! Ofcourse we have to have different class D in Australia to most of the world. For starters we are in the southern hemisphere and therefore fly upside down,unless inverted then we are right way up. Secondly we fly under the southern cross. This has the effect when there is a high tide and with Uranus aligned with Saturn the sky acts all differently to anywhere else. Thankfully with such competent Government departments such as CASA ( with their 11 month year calendars to save costs) and ASA with their Red/yellow flight plans of some years ago that you couldn't read at night ( just to test you) we are all in good hands.
I hope that has satisfied your concerns. Now off you all go.
I hope that has satisfied your concerns. Now off you all go.
Last edited by mostlytossas; 25th Aug 2013 at 11:50.
'Local' procedures always evolve for very good reasons, generally significant improvements in safety or efficiency
Australian ATC is a byword for pedantic and inflexible ATC (not the individual controller's fault, they have to comply with their manuals) which is notably inefficient, compared to US or UK, to nominate just two. Comparisons of track miles flown to block miles in Australia versus US are quite startling.
Australia's rates of "loss of separation" incidents and other ATC blunders is an embarrassment -- doubly so, because of the relative paucity of traffic in Australia--- despite Airservices press releases to the contrary.
Tootle pip!!
I disagree. What manual exactly are you talking about? Aircraft can still be 5nm apart in en route airspace and 3nm in terminal. Wake turbulence separations are ICAO and less restrictive than some areas. Runway separations are no more restrictive than other places...The problem is too few controllers trying to move too much traffic.
What the rest of the world do better, is manage capacity. Airspace design, flow control, runways, controller staffing.
Take BNE as an example. 220,000 movements in the last financial year, almost totally on one runway. That's the second largest amount of movements on one runway IN THE WORLD. The one drome that wins, has TWICE the amount of approach controllers and has a flow control system the actually works. So it should, they've had traffic levels like this for years. 3 years ago BNE was in the 180's. if LAX was moving the same amount of traffic per runway as BNE, they'd be doing an extra 180,000 movements per year. All I'm trying to point out is, the failings of Australian ATC might not be where you think.
Build the runways like the States do. Design airspace like the Brits do, and put the controllers in the positions to move the traffic. Done
What the rest of the world do better, is manage capacity. Airspace design, flow control, runways, controller staffing.
Take BNE as an example. 220,000 movements in the last financial year, almost totally on one runway. That's the second largest amount of movements on one runway IN THE WORLD. The one drome that wins, has TWICE the amount of approach controllers and has a flow control system the actually works. So it should, they've had traffic levels like this for years. 3 years ago BNE was in the 180's. if LAX was moving the same amount of traffic per runway as BNE, they'd be doing an extra 180,000 movements per year. All I'm trying to point out is, the failings of Australian ATC might not be where you think.
Build the runways like the States do. Design airspace like the Brits do, and put the controllers in the positions to move the traffic. Done
Thing that pisses me off with class D in Australia, is the separation or 'segregation' provided between VFR aircraft. Why, when I'm cruising up the coast at 500' into the sunny coast do I need to climb to 1500' because there is a guy in the circuit??? I bet you I can see him well before the tower see me if I'm given traffic information. Class D is see and avoid with traffic info and runway / wake turbulence separation as far as VFR goes.
Problem is ATCs 'duty of care' responsibility, to prevent collisions. But it is supposed to be joint responsibility, not ATC separation.
Problem is ATCs 'duty of care' responsibility, to prevent collisions. But it is supposed to be joint responsibility, not ATC separation.
The main problem is how quickly aviation in Australia has grown in the last few years. It is putting intense pressure on an airspace structure that was designed to fit traffic flows that are now very different. There are not enough staff to put in positions to talk to aeroplanes let alone be free from the roster to redesign airspace and procedures, and hopefully get us ahead of the game. However it is coming. You may hear ASA claim it is fully staffed. In reality they know the truth is, they're far from fully staffed, or should I say, have enough staff in the right areas. You just have to look at the training academy in Melbourne which is bursting at the seems with trainees.
I become tired of hearing people say Australia's ATC rules which govern how the ATCs move aeroplanes is what's holding us back. When actually the focus should be reducing the workload of controllers to allow them to be flexible and to provide a world class service. When you're approaching the limit of your capacity as a controller, screw efficiency, your only trying to stop aircraft running into each other.
I become tired of hearing people say Australia's ATC rules which govern how the ATCs move aeroplanes is what's holding us back. When actually the focus should be reducing the workload of controllers to allow them to be flexible and to provide a world class service. When you're approaching the limit of your capacity as a controller, screw efficiency, your only trying to stop aircraft running into each other.
