CASA explains the rules (Please explain).

[Garfly]

I've been checking out the recent CASA video series  "Explaining the rules". 

 

Some are sort of useful but this one "Landing Rules at non-controlled aerodromes" has me confused.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EkQagUcwNY&list=PLjm7k4QRw7_spKGYzGOkxBwrWiaDr-srd&index=5

 

In it, these two slides are shown, one after another.

 

 

 

 

Am I missing something?  How is it that these two "explanations" both apply?

 

It's not like there's an "and/or" involved (but even if there was ...??).

 

Anyway, if version 1 wins out, what happens when the aircraft ahead departs upwind?

[turboplanner]

2 minutes ago, Garfly said:

I've been checking out the recent CASA video series  "Explaining the rules". 

 

Some are sort of useful but this one "Landing Rules at non-controlled aerodromes" has me confused.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2EkQagUcwNY&list=PLjm7k4QRw7_spKGYzGOkxBwrWiaDr-srd&index=5

 

In it, these two slides are shown, one after another.

 

 

 

 

Am I missing something?  How is it that these two "explanations" both apply?

 

It's not like there's an "and/or" involved (but even if there was ...??).

 

Anyway, if version 1 wins out, what happens when the aircraft ahead departs upwind?

Good pickup; email CASA. The VFRG should show the correct one.  

[clouddancer]

They are both correct, it is an either, or, kind of scenario.

either the aircraft taking off had turned onto crosswind, or it is climbing straight ahead and is further along the runway and you can finish your landing roll.

simples.

[Garfly]

12 minutes ago, clouddancer said:

They are both correct, it is an either, or, kind of scenario.

either the aircraft taking off had turned onto crosswind, or it is climbing straight ahead and is further along the runway and you can finish your landing roll.

simples.

 

Simples? But there's no suggestion of any either/or scenarios in the video. 

The commentary names both as "certain criteria" that must be met. (Not either one criterion or another).

 

"You must not continue approach to land beyond the threshold of the runway until you meet certain criteria. These are:

• An aircraft that is taking off from the same runway must have become airborne and commenced a turn.

• An aircraft that is taking off from the same runway must be beyond the point at which your aircraft could be expected to complete its landing roll."

 

But, in any case, even if we put it down to clumsy language/video production, how is this of any guidance in the real world?

Taking your first scenario - an aircraft that's already taken off, climbed to 500' and turned crosswind then clearly it's no factor. It's everyday circuit work.  As to your climbing straight ahead case, at most uncontrolled strips you'd be clearing the far end before turning anyway so that scenario only counts if, turning final, you felt compelled to apply the video's first criterion strictly. (No turn, no land!)  But then, looking at the wording of the second of the two criteria, it seems it doesn't even require the aircraft ahead to be airborne in its take-off run - just so long as you reckon you can pull up in time if, say, he suddenly aborts. 

To me it doesn't look simple at all. It looks like a super stringent rule running concurrently with a really quite liberal one - applied to the same scenario. Take your pick?

[Moneybox]

Sure seems confusing however you approach it. One way the previous aircraft is so far beyond range it's hardly worth mentioning and the next you're setting yourself up for a nasty surprise if he chooses to taxi back up the runway. Anyway I enjoyed sitting watching as it flicked from one short informative to the next. I left it open because I want to watch more.

[Student Pilot]

Good luck approaching casa and expecting an answer.......

[facthunter]

Who's filling in their suggestions for radio procedures changes? Don't complain if you don't bother.  Nev

[Garfly]

11 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Who's filling in their suggestions for radio procedures changes? Don't complain if you don't bother.  Nev

 

Okay, here's a link to that:

 

Draft guidance on radiotelephony procedures - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Citizen Space

CONSULTATION.CASA.GOV.AU

---

Find and participate in consultations run by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

 

Draft Multi-Part AC 64.B-01, AC 91-35, AC 139-14 and AC 172-04 v1

 

 

 

[Student Pilot]

1 hour ago, facthunter said:

Who's filling in their suggestions for radio procedures changes? Don't complain if you don't bother.  Nev

Years and years of being ignored, hostility, non action and outright incompetence have made one jaded. Talk to most in GA, they are of a similar view. The less I interact with casa the easier life is.

[facthunter]

Put it this way. They can only get better. I had PLENTY to do with them and I know of lot's of others, I won't elaborate as Turbo may call Me a CASA Hater again and I might get into trouble.  Nev

[turboplanner]

You might.

It's interesting to watch though; years of bitter complaints about CASA never listening, then when they follow the normal protocol of corporate fact finding we're encouraged not to talk to them, so the discussions will be had with half a dozen who thought they should at least show up, they'll want the old terms  and zones back, and it will start all over again. That's the way it has been for the last 20 years.

[facthunter]

I really work on the hope they will do things better and WE should not prejudge everything before it happens. The more you get around, in the aviation game, you will find some monumental Faux Pas and inconsistencies and even '"Personal" attitudes against People they  CASA found troublesome.. I worked as an official "Pilot's Friend" at  many Incident enquiries  where I was pretty effective at making sure the other side of the story was considered and people kept their jobs. Pretty full on at times as the pilot group are often ALL too ready to assume the worst about one of their Compatriots. Nev

[Thruster88]

16 hours ago, turboplanner said:

You might.

It's interesting to watch though; years of bitter complaints about CASA never listening, then when they follow the normal protocol of corporate fact finding we're encouraged not to talk to them, so the discussions will be had with half a dozen who thought they should at least show up, they'll want the old terms  and zones back, and it will start all over again. That's the way it has been for the last 20 years.

Turbo, this is not about changing anything. It is about educational material on the current system. 

[turboplanner]

16 minutes ago, Thruster88 said:

Turbo, this is not about changing anything. It is about educational material on the current system. 

Yes and no.

The OP thread was about the Landing Rule, so only clarity was needed. The thread heading didn't say that but that's not the end of the world.

 

About 6 posts in there was reference to us checking changes to Radio Procedures, and yes I contributed to thread drift by answering FH, but referring to Radio Procedures it was a little more than education material.

 

The post-WW2 radio procedures were born out of saving lives in combat or passenger flying, and there were a lpot of people around who'd lost friends or experienced a near miss, so radio procedures were cutting edge and DCA added value to that by introducing systems to match. They knew where we were and if we got lost they'd get us back on track, and lessons learned on the busy circuits of WW2 were put into practice.

 

Then cost cutting was introduced and a lot of those procedures dropped off and you had to unlearn the old and learn the new.

 

Then some people thought they had better ideas and partial changes were introduced and you had to unlearn the new old and learn the new new.

 

Then the States and Commonwealth Governments had a meeting in Perth in the mid 1980s and decided they all would be stuffed if they were going to pay out in lawsuits which were occurring probably every day if you include pole vaulting and axe competitions, so the governments went for a split relationship where the people engaged in some activities had to pay for themselves, and a lot of radio procedures dropped off and you had to use your eyes. You then had to unlearn the new new and learn the new newer and come up with your own safety systems.

 

Believe it or not there would be some people here who went through the lot and felt this behaviour by a regulator of constant switches was appalling. I've condemned CASA for it in the past.

 

So I would recommend people read the proposed changes and make comments related to their  operations.

[facthunter]

The standard is not that good, so any improvements would be welcome and benefit us all.  Nev

[sfGnome]

Has anybody tried to read it? I was on about page 180 when I realised I was only about a third of the way through! if you have to memorise all of that to be able to fly in controlled airspace, then I think I’ll have to stay OCTA. 🫤

[facthunter]

Looks harder than it is. When you use it you will get familiar with it. Nev

[aro]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Looks harder than it is. When you use it you will get familiar with it. Nev

Have you read it? It's a terrible document. It reads like it was written by someone who hasn't done much/any VFR flying.

Press and hold the PTT as long as possible as a signal you're abandoning the aircraft??? Really? Am I ever going to use that information?

[facthunter]

I'm only referring to the Abbreviated  capital letters symbols. Holding the transmit button just makes that frequency useless  locally.   Nev

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, aro said:

Have you read it? It's a terrible document. It reads like it was written by someone who hasn't done much/any VFR flying.

Press and hold the PTT as long as possible as a signal you're abandoning the aircraft??? Really? Am I ever going to use that information?

I guess you don't do much flying in the city. The PPT can be used for a lot of things especially communicating something after you've been talking to another airctaft.

[facthunter]

PTT can also mean Press to TEST.  Nev. . 

[aro]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

I guess you don't do much flying in the city. The PPT can be used for a lot of things especially communicating something after you've been talking to another airctaft.

If you're referring to the common double-click acknowledgement, that conflicts with the standard. Communication using speechless radio transmissions:

- 1 transmission - affirm, or acknowledge

- 2 transmissions - negative

- 3 transmissions - say again

- 4 transmissions - request for assistance from ATC

- 5 transmissions - additional emergency

1 long transmission - abandoning the aircraft

 

Have you ever used any of these? The only example I could find was an ATC describing trying to use them in a comms failure, but the pilot was using 2 clicks for affirmative. Confusion resulted.

 

Maybe we do need to educate on their use. Or maybe they are outdated and should be abandoned.

[spacesailor]

I have never heard of this list ! .

Only  a ww1 children's book .

So , one for yes  'Affirmative ' .

Maritime similar. 

5 horn blasts = what is your intention / danger. 

But mostly confusion! .

spacesailor

 

[facthunter]

IF I was ABANDONNING the Aircraft I wouldn't be wasting time sitting there and jamming the radio frequency for everyone else.  It's supposed to be radiotelephony NOT some code.

[onetrack]

And what kind of ABANDONMENT are we talking? Jumping out of it after an emergency landing? Or jumping out it of whilst airborne, and you've packed a 'chute for the occasion?