Baffle 'em with Bullshit?
P2 - "Referring to the arrogant Curran AQON, which appears to be taking the piss on the fact that this QON was (perhaps naively) asked by an ill informed Green's Senator (concerned more with breaches of noise abatement procedures), the following are some dots and dashes that IMO point towards a total disconnect by the ASA executive with their aviation safety compliance obligations with both ICAO and indeed (ironically) CASA..
Answer: There are two types of dependent separation approaches used for the parallel runways at Brisbane Airport – dependent parallel visual approaches and dependent parallel instrument approaches. There are no International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for dependent parallel visual approaches. Australia’s dependent visual parallel runway approach standards are set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and implemented by Airservices Australia (Airservices).
There are ICAO standards for dependent parallel instrument approaches and Airservices can confirm compliance with these standards. The dependent parallel instrument approach standards were reviewed following a change by ICAO in 2018 and updated in February 2020.
It seems the reply to Sen. Rice QoN has raised some eyebrows. Airspace design and the language combined with a general lack of knowledge within the 'aircrew' lexicon makes it a 'black art' - beyond direct interest or control. However, most working pilots have operated into and out of 'parallel' runway systems, without a care in the world - fully dependent on and trusting in the ATCO's and the ICAO standards set; across the planet.
We can (and have) reached out to a couple of folk who are involved in airspace design; problem being they are likely to reply using terms which are alien to the working pilot and the Senate committee. It is a 'technical' complex subject for the layman to grasp. So, while we wait, I have referred to Goggle and found the following link.
Parallel Runway Operations. (PRO).
On first read it seems that P2 is (once again) onto yet another ASA 'shortcut' initiated to save the money Halfwit and his mates blew on the failed scam of 'Big Sky'. I do wonder when the improvements which were sidelined to accommodate the 'impossible dream' will happen. Aye well; that will keep for another day. But take a squint at the 'explanations' provided in the PRO text - before trying to unscramble Curran's weasel worded answer to a QoN.
Toot - toot....
P2 - "Referring to the arrogant Curran AQON, which appears to be taking the piss on the fact that this QON was (perhaps naively) asked by an ill informed Green's Senator (concerned more with breaches of noise abatement procedures), the following are some dots and dashes that IMO point towards a total disconnect by the ASA executive with their aviation safety compliance obligations with both ICAO and indeed (ironically) CASA..
Answer: There are two types of dependent separation approaches used for the parallel runways at Brisbane Airport – dependent parallel visual approaches and dependent parallel instrument approaches. There are no International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards for dependent parallel visual approaches. Australia’s dependent visual parallel runway approach standards are set by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and implemented by Airservices Australia (Airservices).
There are ICAO standards for dependent parallel instrument approaches and Airservices can confirm compliance with these standards. The dependent parallel instrument approach standards were reviewed following a change by ICAO in 2018 and updated in February 2020.
It seems the reply to Sen. Rice QoN has raised some eyebrows. Airspace design and the language combined with a general lack of knowledge within the 'aircrew' lexicon makes it a 'black art' - beyond direct interest or control. However, most working pilots have operated into and out of 'parallel' runway systems, without a care in the world - fully dependent on and trusting in the ATCO's and the ICAO standards set; across the planet.
We can (and have) reached out to a couple of folk who are involved in airspace design; problem being they are likely to reply using terms which are alien to the working pilot and the Senate committee. It is a 'technical' complex subject for the layman to grasp. So, while we wait, I have referred to Goggle and found the following link.
Parallel Runway Operations. (PRO).
On first read it seems that P2 is (once again) onto yet another ASA 'shortcut' initiated to save the money Halfwit and his mates blew on the failed scam of 'Big Sky'. I do wonder when the improvements which were sidelined to accommodate the 'impossible dream' will happen. Aye well; that will keep for another day. But take a squint at the 'explanations' provided in the PRO text - before trying to unscramble Curran's weasel worded answer to a QoN.
Toot - toot....