Added details about AYPM Class F and ATZ operations

[m-9c]

Summary

Added details about AYPM Class F and ATZ operations, using the PNG AIP as a reference.

Changes:

• Aded detail of Class F and ATZ to Papua New Guinea index.md
• Modified all Class F PNG aerodromes to include descriptions of airspace, diagrams and link to overview.
• Modified AYPY TCU with link to Class F description.

Fixes:

• Standardises display of Pacific position lists

[m-9c]

Hello,

Again, I hope this is useful and welcome.

I've tried to document enough to provide people with enough accurate information to jump off into the PNG AIP themselves and build there knowledge from there. :)

[mattkelly4]

@m-9c looks great, thanks for putting this together! Obviously Class F is a foreign concept for most of us, how does it work with an ADC being responsible for uncontrolled airspace? I take it they issue takeoff/landing clearances but provide no airspace services? Or do they manage the airspace within a certain radius of the aerodrome and provide a control service to those pilots? How would this work with an aircraft conducting circuits, for example?

[alphadelta332]

Nice work @m-9c ! I'm happy with everything, I'll just hold off on approving for now though, to look at potentially fleshing out the Class F ATZ Operations as per @mattkelly4 's comment. Cheers

[m-9c]

No problem; thanks for the feedback. I’ll flesh out the ATZ section when I’ve returned from overseas. :)

[m-9c]

Hey @alphadelta332 / @mattkelly4 , I'm back and working on this now. I wanted to clarify: Does AYGA, AYMD, AYMH, AYTK require a procedural endorsement?

I was assuming it does, as It's a non-surveillance position with airspace up to A200, but it's not listed as requiring an endorsement on the position list (https://vatpac.org/controllers/position).

[mattkelly4]

Hey @alphadelta332 / @mattkelly4 , I'm back and working on this now. I wanted to clarify: Does AYGA, AYMD, AYMH, AYTK require a procedural endorsement?

I was assuming it does, as It's a non-surveillance position with airspace up to A200, but it's not listed as requiring an endorsement on the position list (https://vatpac.org/controllers/position).

It likely does in that case. We've essentially required the procedural tower endorsement for any aerodrome position which provides an approach service (as per ERSA). Given that this is uncontrolled airspace but a traffic information service is provided, it likely exceeds the skills of an S2.

@alphadelta332 what are your thoughts?

[alphadelta332]

@alphadelta332 what are your thoughts?

I would say given that there are no procedural separation standards that need to be applied, the complexity is somewhat reduced.

But I also think on review, that even with the SOPs, no one (Procedural Endorsement or not) really would have suitable training to operate these towers. Given they don't actually separate and just provide a traffic service, we would probably be better off leaving them out.

We made the same decision for SFIS/AFIS towers such as Ballina and Port Hedland, although the difference being that these PNG towers provide runway and SMC sep standards. So maybe that's good enough to include them? What do you reckon @mattkelly4 ?

[m-9c]

Also have now updated the index page with as much information as I could gather for ATZ operations. I hope it makes sense?

@mattkelly4 @alphadelta332

[mattkelly4]

Also have now updated the index page with as much information as I could gather for ATZ operations. I hope it makes sense?

@mattkelly4 @alphadelta332

Yep that looks great, thanks. We'll take some time to wrap our heads around it and go from there

[mattkelly4]

Opened internal discussion, but leaning towards clipping ADC's vertical limit to a couple of thousand feet and introducing a no change boundary requirement so that ADC can look at an inbound aircraft's FDR to determine the relevance of traffic information with outbound/other inbound aircraft. If an aircraft wants to change their flightpath, ENR advises ADC if inside the no change boundary.