Caught in the GAAP

The result of the analyses by the consultancy found that there was “unacceptable risk” with the operation of GAAP at secondary airports. Added to this was a scathing report by Lloyds Register as well as other anecdotal evidence that safety at the six general aviation airports was being compromised under GAAP.

As CASA CEO John McCormick explained at the RAAA conference at Coolum in October, the reports put pressure on the regulator to improve the situation. “We’ve been presented with something which says that the risk of collision is unacceptable… The public and the politicians and everybody else – they may not understand the nuances of aviation that we understand, but everybody understands the word unacceptable.

“So we were faced with a situation of looking at what was happening with GAAP and what we should do.”

The action it took was swift. With six days’ notice, the Authority moved on July x to implement new interim measures at GA airports which would limit the number of aircraft in the circuit to six for each active runway, while aircraft taxiing on inactive runways would also need to seek permission. The changes also forced Airservices Australia to extend tower operations to all hours of daylight, and also to implement surface movement control at the airports.

CASA made it clear that the changes to GAAP were only an interim measure, and part of a wider plan which would see the implementation of Class D airspace at the six airports by April 2010.

McCormick explains that this was driven by the need to ensure that the industry moved quickly, which has been difficult from past experience. “If I change it to something interim and it takes five years, and then we do have the increase in aviation activity that we’re all after… they’re not looking at changing it again from what has just been set down.”

While most operators Australian Aviation talked to admit that the Ambidji report forced CASA to take action to address the deficiencies of GAAP, many have expressed disappointment at CASA’s lack of consultation in the process.

One of the most vocal about the issue is Royal Aero Club of Western Australia (RACWA) CEO Alan Hoffman. “To us, this came out and then we started to talk about this, and they said that consultation had happened,” he told Australian Aviation. “Our argument was that they had collected information (in the Ambidji report), but they didn’t consult with industry at all and just brought it out, and we had concerns about that. We think that’s not a good process.”

In response to such criticisms, McCormick said, “If you look at the case law and what the Administrative Appeals Tribunal says, it says you don’t have to consult. What you do have to do is give people notice, and you have to publish what you are going to do, and then you have to allow in the fullness of time for negotiation, and that’s what we’re doing.”

McCormick acknowledges that there have been mixed responses from the industry to the changes. “I had a chief flying instructor write to me and say, ‘Thank you for limiting the number in the circuit because I was turning base the other day and there was seven aeroplanes between me and the threshold. All I was teaching the kid I was with was collision avoidance, not how to fly the circuit.’

“You get the other side to who say, ‘We’re going to write to you, we’re seriously concerned about safety and issues at the approach points,’ and I get a letter and the first five points are economic.”

While the changes have had an economic impact, the operators Australian Aviation spoke to expressed more concern about the unsafe environment which was created by the sudden implementation of the new procedures, and the lag in distributing new training materials and information to pilots.

“Within the first three or four days of it happening, one of our aircraft was coming into the entry point and there was another coming straight towards it from a person who had been told to turn back, and they took it literally and turned 180 degrees,” explained Hoffman.

As such, he and others see that the GAAP changes have merely moved the risk of a mid-air collision from within the circuit to the entry points when an aircraft is refused entry into the circuit, although this is now much better since the earlier incident. “There’s been discussion on how to handle that and at least the operators have reached a decision on that, but that could have been fatal,” said Hoffman.

While he admits that RACWA is primarily concerned about the risk to pilots in the aircraft of a collision at the entry point, there is also a greater risk at entry points such as Six South at Jandakot, which are over built up areas.

Nevertheless, as McCormick points out, the addition of the cap on aircraft in the circuit has had an economic impact. Hoffman notes that while the impact of this was lower as the changes were implemented during winter, the impact was tangible.

“I’d look outside my window and there would be eight or 10 aircraft sitting in the holding area, and we would get stories of people waiting 45 minutes for a gap. That was obviously huge,” he said.

As a result of the cap, some operators have had to change their operations. “We are starting earlier and finishing later and staggering the start times. We’re a third of the activity on this airfield, so if we stagger our start times, that helps everybody,” said Hoffman.
“We’ll find solutions, but only because we see them as interim,” he added.

Longer term, keeping a cap arrangement could have some detrimental effects on the booming international flying training market, which has been the lifeblood of Australia’s general aviation industry. Accordingly operators could be forced to make major changes.

One possibility flagged by RACWA could be moving most of its operations away from Jandakot. “We own our own airfield at Murrayfield (approximately 40km south of Perth) and we’re giving some serious thought to transferring some of our activity down there.”

However, CASA has left the door open for an increase in the cap. “We will look to move the cap because as I’ve said all along, it was there as a temporary measure,” said McCormick.

Caught in the middle of the debate has been Airservices, which has seen its role at the various airports increase as part of the interim GAAP changes. In that respect, Hoffman is full of praise for the action that the ATC provider has taken at Jandakot. “Airservices have been fantastic through this as they were given directives, and they have implemented them.

“They’ve worked within the confines of what they were given. But of late Airservices have been very good at finding solutions to that.”
Interestingly, there appears to have been some disconnect between CASA and Airservices in the implementation of the cap on aircraft in the circuit. In correspondence from CASA to RACWA provided to Australian Aviation, McCormick said that air traffic controllers were given some discretion to allow more or less aircraft into the circuit on an as required basis.

However, an Airservices spokesman noted that, “In relation to the numbers of aircraft in the circuit, we have implemented the directions as issued by CASA.” As such, Airservices had no reports of individual controllers allowing more than six aircraft into the circuit at any one time.

Class D

When CASA initiated the changes to GAAP, it noted that they were an interim measure ahead of a move towards instituting Class D airspace during April 2010.

McCormick explains that this is also being done without consultation, as it will be the most effective way to get the changes through the industry, once and for all. “The Ambidji report said that GAAP was suitable in the short to medium term… If I [were to] change it to something interim and it takes five years, and then we have the increase in aviation activity that we’re all after… they’re not looking at changing it again from what has just been set down.

“Well, I don’t want to do that. So let’s change is once. We’re changing it to D”

When Australian Aviation contacted CASA for comment in December about the move to Class D, the Authority refused to make any comment, citing at the time that it was preparing to release its review of GAAP, and would not give any further details about the move to Class D.

While the move to Class D has been accepted by some flying schools as a positive as it will allow for better integration of foreign students, not all operators are happy with it. Hoffman is totally opposed to instituting Class D. “We’re of the view that Class D is not going to achieve improvements in safety at Jandakot,” he said.

Instead, “The solution to this is to tell us the areas of concern that are causing you to believe that this area is less safe, and work with industry to find a solution to it,” he said.

That solution will not be a return to the previous form of GAAP, though. “We don’t subscribe to the theory that says it was OK before so leave it alone,” said Hoffman. “’Ain’t broke don’t fix it’ doesn’t work in this case, because industry does need to be more focused in this area of safety.”

An Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association spokesman also told Australian Aviation that in September the organisation’s board has passed a resolution “supporting retention of existing GAAP airspace with repair of the risk factors arising in the Ambidji report, including inbound reporting points, via suggested industry consulatative process.”

As such, many operators have been trying to guess at what Class D will entail, particularly whether it will follow the US FAA or ICAO versions. Despite its preference for a modified GAAP, AOPA says that FAA Class D “appears preferable to ICAO D for GA operations.”

Broadly FAA Class D requires clearance or ‘implied clearance’, pilots are responsible for collision avoidance in VMC conditions, while air traffic control provides traffic advisories as work permits and also separation between IFR flights.

While considered favourable over ICAO Class D, McCormick notes that there are some difficulties in adopting the FAA version carte blanche in the local context. “If we went Class D FAA, there would be no special VFR flights because it doesn’t exist in Class D FAA.”

Similarly, AOPA notes that FAA Class D would require some changes to operate in the Australian context, particularly as a number of the airports it would be implemented in are primarily involved in flight training, and thus pilots have varying skill levels. Nevertheless, it notes that the move to D will be safer than GAAP because of the greater involvement of air traffic control.

On its part, Airservices says that it has been in close consultation with CASA and is preparing for the move to Class D. “We are aware of CASA’s timeframes for introduction of alternative airspace arrangements and are working to ensure we have the resources in place to meet these deadlines,” a spokesman for the company said.

A number of operators have expressed their disappointment that CASA is not planning to consult with the industry on the design of Class D procedures. “If it’s going to be implemented, at least let us have the chance to put our view forward and provide our experience, knowledge and expertise and put that into the process,” said Hoffman.

“Everyone wants safe skies, so anything that is proposed to increase the safety of the skies, we’re 100 per cent behind it and we’ll throw whatever resources are required. But implement with some smarts behind it and take advantage of the knowledge of the industry.”

He concedes though that CASA will at the end of the day make what it sees as the safest choice – with or without consultation. “At the end of the day, the regulator is the regulator, and their role is to regulate. But why not take advantage of the knowledge?”

“Better to take a bit of time to make a good decision than to make a bad one and have to change it,” he added.

One clear area where the industry hopes to see great improvement over the implementation of GAAP is in the education of pilots about Class D procedures. While CASA did hold Hazard Identification workshops to discuss the GAAP changes, these were some time after they became effective, and did not involve any discussion about the change to Class D.

As well as aircraft operators, some airports have also expressed concerns about the move to Class D. Mario Bayndrian of Sydney Metropolitan Airports told Australian Aviation, “SMA is concerned that Class ‘D’ airspace may place an artificial cap on movements, will increase the cost of operations at Camden Airport which currently operates mostly under CTAF procedures and that non standard Class ‘D’ procedures may be implemented at different GAAP airports due to their operating environments.”

Hoffman shares this concern, noting that continuing to restrict movements could force Jandakot Airport Holdings to rethink its plans for a fourth runway at the busy airfield, which has been proposed to increase safety during cross-winds. “Now, if activity is going to turn down because the restrictions are still in place, then who is going to fund the fourth runway? If I was an investor, I would be concerned about that,” he said.

Whatever comes from the review, many in the industry hope that CASA can work to implement it better than the changes to GAAP to ensure that safety is not compromised, and that the industry can continue to grow.