BOM Draft TAF review

[Kenneth]

Looks Like 78 Aerodromes may lose funding for a TAF service unless they are willing to fork out the $20-65K per annum to keep it.

TAF Review (http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/taf-review/)


For the majority of these aerodromes (where an instrument approach procedure exists) most aircraft will be required to carry additional fuel to fly to an alternate aerodrome. It therefore becomes a cost-benefit analysis for the aerodrome owner or operator on whether to proceed with a contractual TAF service.



Once again the small operators are the ones who will have to fork out either in increased charges to keep the TAF service or in Fuel carried for alternates.:confused:

[megle2]

Of the actual 78 aerodrome's who have their TAF's under review how many actually have fuel available

[Horatio Leafblower]

One I know intimately has

1/. AVGAS available
2/. 3 approved flying schools
3/. 2 resident charter companies operating 9 IFR twins (piston and turbine)
4/. more than 4000 IFR movements per year, never mind the VFR GA and RAAus
5/. Nearest IFR alternates 52, 58 and 69.5 nm away and all in significantly different met areas.

No, we don't have RPT but at the stroke of the pen we go from category D to "Nil"??? :mad:

[Aussie Bob]

4000 movements per annum? I can see the bean counters salivating already, why "that is only ten bucks per movement". What they will fail to see is the camel already overburdened with straws. My heart bleeds for the industry.

[swh]

I could make up a TAF and post it for each aerodrome for $1k per month. Bound to be just as accurate.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Tch Tch Mr swh.....

You 'know' ASA Policy....they are the ONLY 'certified'(?) provider of MET info.

ALL met info for 'official' aviation services can be obtained ONLY from ASA.

Even though it comes straight from BOM...via....to U!

Cheers:ugh:

[Sunfish]

Support the general idea of rationalization, but consideration needs to be given to operations and particular routes. - especially to avoid "gaps" in coverage where significant wx can happen in a hurry.


Not having a taf for ylec will kill a few. The weather can be different either side of the flinders ranges and the port Augusta forecast won't help if you are trying to pick a trend.

Similarly perhaps malacoota.

And of course Bass strait locations

Them there is Latrobe valley which can be fogbound when everything else is clear.

Just my opinion.....

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Either cough up or carry an alternate.....Blackmail from a state owned service? What's next? Subscription fee for access to aviation weather through the ASA website?:hmm:

Wasn't safety information stipulated as FOC? So, now, weather is operational information? Bludy ALP:ugh:

[alphacentauri]

Whilst I am always keen for a bit of AsA bashing, I don't think this is coming from AsA. The TAF's are generated by BOM and just forwarded and published on the AsA system. You can get TAF's from the BOM website as well (yes I know its not authorised). The expense side of providing TAF (ie infrastructure and software) is held by BOM not AsA

The TAF review has come from BOM not AsA. In fact AsA are pushing BOM to expand and upgrade their weather services through out the country, but so far BOM are not coming to the party. As an example, AsA are trying to implement BARO-VNAV approaches Australia-wide to help us get the ICAO tick in the box for APV. Unfortunately we can only publish BARO-VNAV to aerodromes with an AWIS/AWIB/ATIS. AsA has been trying to get BOM to upgrade all the aerodromes, but BOM has pretty much told AsA to 'bang it squarely'

Looks like the issue is at the BOM end. Unfortunately, withdrawal of TAF's means that minima at 78 aerodromes will be going up another 50ft. All this in an era where we should be lowering minima not increasing it

Disappointing

[Nautilus Blue]

From the FAQ

9. Is the TAF review focused on cost savings rather than safety?

Safety is paramount to the TAF Review and is a major driver for undertaking the review. The TAF Review has identified that the quality of TAFs would be improved, and safety enhanced, by ensuring that all TAF sites meet minimum observation requirements that exceed the current observational infrastructure at many aerodromes.

The review intends to ensure all TAF services are supported by adequate observations and that forecasting staff are able to both monitor the large number of observations and be responsive to changes to the forecast conditions.

The proposed changes will improve the quality of aviation weather services and provide capacity for additional services as required by the industry.

Sounds like they are saying they don't have the staff/equipment to do the job properly. To increase safety they will do less so it's done properly. Wish I could do my job that way.

PS is "Safety is paramount" now one of those phrases in corporate communications that automatically ring alarm bells?

[avconnection]

It'll be interesting to lose YRTI as an planning alternate for the west cost fog that is forecast nearly every night of autumn. Given Perth BoMs abysmal record for forecasting around Perth of late I wonder how they plan to "improve" the service without offering an alternative?

[swh]

You 'know' ASA Policy....they are the ONLY 'certified'(?) provider of MET info.

I am sure I can get certified, some think I am already.

Sounds like they are saying they don't have the staff/equipment to do the job properly.

MBA 301, Downsize the organization to such a point where they are unable to provide the required deliverables, then either change the deliverable outcome to something less extensive (cheaper), or employ your mates that used to work for you in a different organization as contractors at a greater expense. The ledger entry is on a different line, it is not your problem.

It'll be interesting to lose YRTI as an planning alternate for the west cost fog that is forecast nearly every night of autumn.

Please stop trying to drag aviation into this, I would wager not a single person making this decision has ever had to make an operational decision based upon TAF.

[206greaser]

Oh if only there was some form of aviation safety authority in this country...

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced, And It Will Cost You Less".......'

OI rest moi case your Honour.....

Cheers:yuk:

[YPJT]

The BoM has been in a bit of turmoil for some time. Over the past five years or so a number of cashed up opertors have wanted to pay for the installation and maintenance of an approved TAF AWIS/AWIB weather station. The unit within the bureau the provided the expertise to supply and install these systems was disbanded a few years back meaning some mining airports have resorted to the off the shelf Dick Smith all singing all dancing weather stations. :ugh:

[Cirronimbus]

The BoM has chosen to replace the human weather observer with Automated Weather Systems (AWS). These AWS can provide a greater quantity of less precise or reliable information at a cheaper cost than the human observer. The poor forecaster sitting in an office 100s of km away does not know how reliable the info is and basing a forecast on it is largely guesswork. So who pays if the TAF is wrong? Not the forecaster is it? I can understand BoM (and ASA) reducing their liabilities by reducing TAF services but perhaps this is just the start of a campaign to apply for increased funding? The aviation industry needs the service, BoM (ASA) are willing to supply it but claim they don’t have the resources. So, when the funding is provided, they will install more automated (unreliable) junk and the cycle continues. If was up to me, I’d prefer to see humans on site verify the automated output so that the forecaster could be more certain of the reliability of the info and go ahead and provide the TAF. Many airports have Aerodrome Reporting Officers on duty, why not train them up to be co-operative weather observers? The co-op observers of days gone by did a good job and at least if anyone was unsure of the conditions, you could ring them and ask. You can’t do that with an automated sensor!

[Old Akro]

This post raises many issues.

The first is, why is Aviation singled out for cost recovery? Guys with boats of similar passenger carrying capability, complexity and value as my aircraft don't pay for marine forecasts. Farmers don't pay for agricultural forecasts. Why isn't this considered part of our country's basic infrastructure?

Secondly, Fundamentally the BOM has been given a budget based (at least in part) on the fees that we collectively give them to deliver a level of service. How is it that they can unilaterally change the level of service because it suits them?

Thirdly, I think we should be seeing more benefit from new technology and more benefit from productivity improvements. If we could get the same sort of radio / internet based weather services as the US we would care less about reduction in TAF's. How long has the US had NEXRAD? How long has the US had satellite weather services? Can't we at least get a trial somewhere in the J curve?

Fourthly (and a little off topic) is that, in my opinion, our weather forecasts have deteriorated and become "political". The consumer forecasts have always had a bias toward not admitting they got it wrong by changing forecasts, but the aviation forecasts were immune from this. That no longer seems to be so. More and more, I find that my judgement applied to the predictive MSL charts gets a better result. It also used to be that there seemed to be a more accurate forecast issues at 6am than the late night forecasts from the day before. I presume as the day staff came on-board. Now that seems to be slipping until 9am.

and the final rant is back on TAF's. I think the broader value of TAF's beyond landing is not fully recognised. They can be pretty useful to check en-route to fine tune the area forecast, although I seem to see TAF's that are in stark contrast to the AWS or METAR's more and more regularly.

I don't hugely mind the move to AWS, but predominantly they are accessible by phone. We seem to be slowly but steadily moving a lot of aviation services to the mobile phone network, which gets AsA off the hook from providing proper VHF based services.

When are we going to arrest the slide toward 3rd world levels of government services & infrastructure?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Well, the situation is...I TOLD YOU SO! (Hmmm...maybe that should read..there was only ever one way this was going to turn out.)

Thin edge of the wedge was accepting the changes to aviation charging regimes in the interest of "FLY FREE IN G" No fuel levy..(still with us) No nav charges...(well , those that actually use IFR procedures still pay) Local governemnt control of local aerodromes will be cheaper to operate...(!) Private enterprise will deliver cheaper better services for GAAP....(!!!!!)

Did I mention maps? Flight Services with no replacement, CASA fees and charges...AVMED costs...landing fees...aerodrome sales and closures...GST...

And now the BOM want their slice of the pie...had to happen sooner or later...whats next...we have received your maday call...rescue will be enacted with the receipt of a valid credit card number.....key in your number at the end of the tone...

Politically, aviation was sold a pup in the 80's...no one then had the balls..or the widespread collective knowledge supplied by the internet to combat such a rapacious government money grab.

[Old Akro]

Politically, aviation was sold a pup in the 80's

Before the Dick Smith bashing starts. I have a recollection it was Frank Crean in the Whitlam government when it would have been the Dept of Transport Air Transport Group? But that was pre-eighties.

But I agree. Aircraft pay search & rescue levies, but boats & bush walkers do not. We pay airnav charges to go places but cars and boats do not. We pay for a special regime of medicals, but truck drivers and sea captains do not. we pay for airnavigation beacons, but boats do not pay for lighthouses, beacons and buoys. The list goes on.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Not even going to dig up that past any more....methinks the goal is looking forward and trying to hold on to what we have left. Safety was a promise! that needs to be held....

Food for thought...If said outfits do pay for said service....is it then bound by copyright and unavailable for use outside said outfit?

[T28D]

Bus Driver HOW then bound by copyright and unavailable give us at least an authority that isclose to the mark to support this.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

That was a bit cryptic, T28D. Care to have another go?

If an explanation on my part. A company pays for a TAF service at a specific location. Would that company then be able to claim exclusive use of that data. Precedence has already been set with NPAs commissioned for the sole use of specific companies(realise that majority of these are for EMS choppers but there are a few mine company plates)

After all.....if this data is operational as opposed for safety...why should company A fork out and then freely give out that information to competitor companies B or C?

[Old Akro]

I think the answer is that it depends. Paying for information does not transfer copyright. If I buy a music CD, I do not get copyright. In this instance the contract could be written either way. If BoM retains copyright then they would be selling a copy of the data, renting access to the data or any number of mechanisms.

I just think that a 1st world country should have this infrastructure and it should be provided freely. I think it is one of the differentiators between 3rd world and 1st world countries.

[drpixie]

Stuff to consider:

TAFs are largely computer generated - the cost is essentially the cost of the weather station (can't cost must to have the computer extract a forecast for one additional location).
BOM say the cost of ensuring the 78 TAFs is weather station costs - that's about 7m. With what CASA/Airservices do with our money, Shirley they could divert 7m from something else :}
BOM are talking about a "review" - that does include reorganisation with additional services or improvements at some locations (fair enough)
The TAF review started in 2009 :mad:
A TAF serving a single industry (mining?) might not get funded. But Hamilton Island is getting one - history, or someone's mates?


Got to agree with Old Akro - weather stations accessible by phone are pretty much useless. I almost never get usable mobile signal in the air; and knowing the weather when I departed, hours ago, is pointless.

[Nautilus Blue]

Paying for information does not transfer copyright. If I buy a music CD, I do not get copyright.

In this case though you are paying got the resources to produce the information, and there are no intellectual property issues. If I paid for a recording studio and the musicians to record something in the public domain, I would expect ownership fo the finished product.

Presumably if company A stumps up for a TAF service, and company B also wants TAF's later on, they pay for half the initial cost and half the ongoing from then on, and company A gets refunded.

ETA - actually that wouldn't work because TAF's are available to all free of charge once issued.

With what CASA/Airservices do with our money, Shirley they could divert 7m from something else

Three completely separate entities, all operating cost recovery. Whether thats the way it should be is a whole other argument.

[Seagull V]

The BOM published the final TAF Review earlier this month.
See TAF Review (http://www.bom.gov.au/aviation/taf-review/)

[Horatio Leafblower]

Makes perfect sense.

Remove the TAF for those aerodromes which are most remote and will therefore require the carriage of the most alternate fuel.

Nice one :D

[Pinky the pilot]

Does tend to make one wonder, doesn't it Horatio?

The only conclusion I can reach is that in the Aviation bureaucracy that is CASA, ASA or whatever, there is not a single person who has any idea of what they are doing!:ugh::mad:

[Howard Hughes]

Are we still expected to pay NAV charges when operating to an aerodrome with no TAF?

[catseye]

In the early days of the review there was considerable discussion within most parts of industry to ensure not much adverse effect. a sliding scale was discussed where fuel, navaids review and GPS approach availability, AWS, wx and runway lighting was used to ensure the requirements of both rpt and ems were met . In NSW for example forbes lost out as no AWS, no jet a and no rpt but Parkes was kept. Bathurst also stayed due to the large number of trainers which in those days( a couple of years ago ) services Bankstown cross country trainers.

Some upper hunter valley locations were also kept due to the significance for IFR EMS operations. I think Scone fell into this bucket.

BoM acted fairly quickly to identify some locations vis eastern end of Torres Strait where the installation of an AWS would be of significant benefit to IFR operations and particularly IFR ems helos. The installation was done with a combination of aviation and public wx money. The public wx input was for cyclone monitoring.

happy to discuss further offline. No I don't work for the Bom

[Sunfish]

point cook and Laverton are no loss since we still have Essendon, Avalon and Moorrabbin TAF's.

[Creampuff]

Probably a different "Laverton" to the one you're thinking it is, S.

[Slippery_Pete]

I could make up a TAF and post it for each aerodrome for $1k per month. Bound to be just as accurate.

Exactly, SWH.

The last 5 years in particular has shown a HUGE decline in the quality of TAFs.

[Howard Hughes]

I could make up a TAF and post it for each aerodrome for $1k per month.
In the top end don't they only have two TAF's for the year anyway? ;)

[Flying Binghi]

The sheer incompetence, corruption and waste of the BOM is astounding.

Stop funding the global warming scam and a few billion government dollars would be freed up over night.

The BOM wont give up the global warming gravy train easy though...


"The BOM, meanwhile, added a page called “Adjustments”, two years after launching “ACORN”, quietly admitting that the skeptics were right..."

Under pressure, Australian BOM puts up facade of ?transparency? ? too little, too late « JoNova (http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/under-pressure-australian-bom-puts-up-facade-of-transparency-too-little-too-late/)













.

[Pinky the pilot]

The sheer incompetence, corruption and waste of the BOM is astounding.

Anyone else remember the recent story about the BoM having 'homogenised' some temperature observations which effectively converted what was a slight cooling over a number of years to a slight warming?:rolleyes: