CAGRS now established at BNK
This document (which contains your quote, Dick):
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r/ac90-42F.pdf
in section 8 clearly does not mention traffic information.
I would be very careful basing a design of an airspace system on a sample radio call.
BTW, it's an "Airman's" information manual.
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/...r/ac90-42F.pdf
in section 8 clearly does not mention traffic information.
I would be very careful basing a design of an airspace system on a sample radio call.
BTW, it's an "Airman's" information manual.
Bloggs,
Dick has already trotted that furphy out before. As you have just now pointed out, and I have before, that is the ONLY instance of Unicoms delivering traffic that is mentioned in the entire FAA regs and AIM on the subject. They are quite prescribed and succinct on what they can and can't provide, and traffic is noticeably absent.
However, just one oft quoted instance in an example radio call...........
PS the example phraseology is for a taxing aircraft requesting traffic. This does not mean the Unicom is allowed to respond with it. There are no examples of what the Unicom operator should respond with, or what criteria they should apply when assessing it.
Dick has already trotted that furphy out before. As you have just now pointed out, and I have before, that is the ONLY instance of Unicoms delivering traffic that is mentioned in the entire FAA regs and AIM on the subject. They are quite prescribed and succinct on what they can and can't provide, and traffic is noticeably absent.
However, just one oft quoted instance in an example radio call...........
PS the example phraseology is for a taxing aircraft requesting traffic. This does not mean the Unicom is allowed to respond with it. There are no examples of what the Unicom operator should respond with, or what criteria they should apply when assessing it.
The ignorance is staggering.
The FAA is non prescriptive with many regulations. There is no prescriptive limit on what can or cannot be said on a US Unicom.
Hundreds of Unicom operators on the US give traffic and weather information. They have no specific qualifications to do this. The system is fantastic. I ask Aussie pilots who have experienced the US Unicom system to come on this thread and clear up the gross ignorance from posters who are not even game to identify themselves and have been able to stop this excellent proven system from being introduced here.
The FAA is non prescriptive with many regulations. There is no prescriptive limit on what can or cannot be said on a US Unicom.
Hundreds of Unicom operators on the US give traffic and weather information. They have no specific qualifications to do this. The system is fantastic. I ask Aussie pilots who have experienced the US Unicom system to come on this thread and clear up the gross ignorance from posters who are not even game to identify themselves and have been able to stop this excellent proven system from being introduced here.
Bloggs, here is a quote from The Weekend Australian July 11-12, 2015, by Jeff Griffith:
So who is Jeff Griffith? An Australian aviation journalist? No, he is the former Assistant Director of Air Traffic Control at the FAA.
Another article in The Australian on 22 July 2015 mentions that the former CASA Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick supported this:
“In the US, one of the most successful safety improvements is the UNICOM radio operator at small airports. This is a no-cost system using someone who is at the airport. It could be airport operations personnel, the flying school, a fixed base operator or the firefighting service. This option is not at present viable in Australia because regulations prevent such an operator from providing important traffic and weather information. If Australia moved to the US system, safety could substantially be improved at no measurable cost.”
So who is Jeff Griffith? An Australian aviation journalist? No, he is the former Assistant Director of Air Traffic Control at the FAA.
Another article in The Australian on 22 July 2015 mentions that the former CASA Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick supported this:
“Mr McCormick said he supported calls from businessman and aviator Dick Smith and others for Airservices to have its fire and rescue crews at regional airports without control towers to provide pilots with a basic local air traffic and weather information via radio, as do their counterparts in the US.”
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting..., in that Advisory Circular that Bloggs found there is
"8. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AERONAUTICAL ADVISORY STATIONS (UNICOM).
UNICOM stations may provide pilots, upon request, with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information. ..."
(note the word may)
and
"17. USE OF UNICOM FOR ATC PURPOSES. UNICOM SERVICE MAY BE USED FOR ATC PURPOSES, only under the following circumstances:
a. Revision to proposed departure time.
b. Takeoff, arrival, or flight plan cancellation time.
c. ATC clearance, provided arrangements are made between the ATC facility and the UNICOM licensee to handle such messages."
(note the lack of any traffic or separation information)
To my way of thinking, 'traffic' and or separation are ATC functions and therefor UNICOMs do not provide such functions, but I can interpret ", or other necessary information" in section 8 to mean that the UNICOM operator can/will/might/won't provide traffic and or separation.
ie. it's up to the UNICOM operator as to what information they want to provide.
"8. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AERONAUTICAL ADVISORY STATIONS (UNICOM).
UNICOM stations may provide pilots, upon request, with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information. ..."
(note the word may)
and
"17. USE OF UNICOM FOR ATC PURPOSES. UNICOM SERVICE MAY BE USED FOR ATC PURPOSES, only under the following circumstances:
a. Revision to proposed departure time.
b. Takeoff, arrival, or flight plan cancellation time.
c. ATC clearance, provided arrangements are made between the ATC facility and the UNICOM licensee to handle such messages."
(note the lack of any traffic or separation information)
To my way of thinking, 'traffic' and or separation are ATC functions and therefor UNICOMs do not provide such functions, but I can interpret ", or other necessary information" in section 8 to mean that the UNICOM operator can/will/might/won't provide traffic and or separation.
ie. it's up to the UNICOM operator as to what information they want to provide.
So DICK, what are the FCC (not FAA) requirements for issuing a UNICOM license?
Hint, you need not one but TWO licenses to operate a UNICOM in the US.
This free ain't sounding so free no more right?
Hint, you need not one but TWO licenses to operate a UNICOM in the US.
This free ain't sounding so free no more right?
With the further information that is coming onto this thread, everyone note post #35 by Renegade154, which in part says:
I would imagine Renegade154 is possibly one of the people in CASA who has prevented UNICOMS from working in Australia because of this disinformation which has gone on for over two decades.
“The FAA regs clearly forbid your fantastic USA Unicoms from giving traffic information. They are allowed to do basically what a Unicom in Australia can do and no more.”
I would imagine Renegade154 is possibly one of the people in CASA who has prevented UNICOMS from working in Australia because of this disinformation which has gone on for over two decades.
Biggles It's clear that your " way of thinking" is totally different to the FAA way of thinking.
Clearly giving traffic info is not an ATC function in FAA speak. Note a Unicom can even pass on an ATC clearance ( which has normally been provided by phone )
Clearly giving traffic info is not an ATC function in FAA speak. Note a Unicom can even pass on an ATC clearance ( which has normally been provided by phone )
Plazbot. You win. A US Unicom is probably more expensive than our $100k+ PA CAGRO manned by retired ATCs.
What with multiple licences being required..
Those dopey yanks should abolish Unicoms and go with cagros.
And it's clear from Bloggs that FAA Unicoms can't even give traffic or WX info so they are next to useless.
No wonder most GA aircraft are made in Aus- not USA.
What with multiple licences being required..
Those dopey yanks should abolish Unicoms and go with cagros.
And it's clear from Bloggs that FAA Unicoms can't even give traffic or WX info so they are next to useless.
No wonder most GA aircraft are made in Aus- not USA.
Originally Posted by Dick
Plazbot. You win. A US Unicom is probably more expensive than our $100k+ PA CAGRO manned by retired ATCs.
And it's clear from Bloggs that FAA Unicoms can't even give traffic or WX info
Going to YPBO tomorrow, will look out for the scantily-clad girl with the follow-me van offering me a cuppa with a "fill 'er up mate?" greeting!
Following your line of logic there Dick, why don't we take it one step further and replace ATCs with people that aren't trained?
If you like it so much you could always move to the US
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really have some reservations about some of the posters on this thread.
I used to fly quite frequently to a little airport in the US called Fernandina beach.
It was a bit of a weekend retreat for the NY hoi paloi, very expensive condo's, resorts and golf courses. Friday afternoon the circuit was full of heavy metal traffic from NY.The airport was quite busy most times due to several maintenance businesses and quite a lot of training.
When you were cleared off centre with an instruction to call on the ground, you called the unicom. This was run by an ex navy carrier pilot, a paraplegic, in a wheelchair due to an unfortunate accident. He received no remuneration for his services, but he was there every day providing traffic information and weather information, I think that was his reason for getting out of bed every day.
Having flown all over the US from Alaska to Florida as well as Canada the local unicom operator provided useful service at no cost.
I sometimes wonder as I read some of the comments from the sky gods on here,
why are you so negative? Is this just a Dick bashing Phobia you have?
Does what he is suggesting cost you personally? or the operator you work for?
Does a unicom affect you or your operation in any way? In the US and Canada its provided at no cost to anyone, its up to you if you use the information provided.
Its only a dumb ass ill informed country like Australia takes a simple system and complicates it into a convoluted expensive mess.
A unicom may or may not provide any safety benefit at all, but does it really matter? it costs nothing so why are so many of you so negative? From my experience it might just save your neck one day, then again it might not.
I used to fly quite frequently to a little airport in the US called Fernandina beach.
It was a bit of a weekend retreat for the NY hoi paloi, very expensive condo's, resorts and golf courses. Friday afternoon the circuit was full of heavy metal traffic from NY.The airport was quite busy most times due to several maintenance businesses and quite a lot of training.
When you were cleared off centre with an instruction to call on the ground, you called the unicom. This was run by an ex navy carrier pilot, a paraplegic, in a wheelchair due to an unfortunate accident. He received no remuneration for his services, but he was there every day providing traffic information and weather information, I think that was his reason for getting out of bed every day.
Having flown all over the US from Alaska to Florida as well as Canada the local unicom operator provided useful service at no cost.
I sometimes wonder as I read some of the comments from the sky gods on here,
why are you so negative? Is this just a Dick bashing Phobia you have?
Does what he is suggesting cost you personally? or the operator you work for?
Does a unicom affect you or your operation in any way? In the US and Canada its provided at no cost to anyone, its up to you if you use the information provided.
Its only a dumb ass ill informed country like Australia takes a simple system and complicates it into a convoluted expensive mess.
A unicom may or may not provide any safety benefit at all, but does it really matter? it costs nothing so why are so many of you so negative? From my experience it might just save your neck one day, then again it might not.
But I note that the Fernadina Beach unicom was not run by any of the firies, groundstaff, maintenance orgs, FBO's, or training schools ie, anyone actually working at the airport. It was basically a hobby for a guy with nothing else to do it seems. Good luck to him. However, as has been said a thousand times, there is nothing stopping anyone from providing a unicom now in Australia, especially if you have the requisite Met qualifications. Surely they have not said, "well if I can't pass traffic, I'm not going to do it!" Where are the hundreds of Unicoms all waiting to take your call and order your fuel, hotel and taxi? I would have thought all the other worthwhile duties of a unicom would still make it viable....er.......hang on......
Of course Unicom is no cost. It is always going to be no cost to the end user. But not on the other end. And it seems that even the supposed pittance isn't seen as worth it by those that actually do the paying.
Of course Unicom is no cost. It is always going to be no cost to the end user. But not on the other end. And it seems that even the supposed pittance isn't seen as worth it by those that actually do the paying.
There is no prescriptive limit on what can or cannot be said on a US Unicom.
https://books.google.com.au/books?id...unicom&f=false
This was run by an ex navy carrier pilot,
Give me a Beepback and an AWIB every time, unless it's busy, then give me a CAGRO. Then if it's really busy, an AFIZ. And then a tower. Gee willikers, a safe, graded-service system that works well. Who'da thought such a system could exist in ..... Australia?
Well, well, well Captain Midnight, it seems that some USA experts don't have a clue about the system they are/were operating in, does it. Tut tut to them.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith.
I want to know what service or information a UNICOM can, or will, provide.
I do not want a service that is dependent on who turns-up, or how busy they are, or how they feel, when I request their services.
The USA has a heck of a lot of small airports, and their business model is to get fliers on the ground to use their services.,
ie. if outer-ButtFf airport provides a better UNICOM service than inner-ButtFf airport then there is commercial pressure for the inner-ButtFf UNICOM to improve their service to get more customers.
Australia simply does NOT have the population, or the number of aircraft, or the number of airports, to provide such an 'free-market' in aviation.
I want to know what service or information a UNICOM can, or will, provide.
I do not want a service that is dependent on who turns-up, or how busy they are, or how they feel, when I request their services.
The USA has a heck of a lot of small airports, and their business model is to get fliers on the ground to use their services.,
ie. if outer-ButtFf airport provides a better UNICOM service than inner-ButtFf airport then there is commercial pressure for the inner-ButtFf UNICOM to improve their service to get more customers.
Australia simply does NOT have the population, or the number of aircraft, or the number of airports, to provide such an 'free-market' in aviation.
DICK threads run by the rule of 3s. He says the same thing 3 times. Gets ask a question by 3 people that don't receive answers. Goes off on 3 tangents. End up with him saying it's not him, it's us and disappears for 3 months. 3 dicksupports come along with the usual 'well struth he's a nice bloke and you gallahs should listen'. I die a little inside and around we go again.
I think we have ticked the boxes here. See you all again soon.
I think we have ticked the boxes here. See you all again soon.
This thread illustrates four things.
Australia has more Skygods per head of population than the rest of the world.
For those who have never been exposed to the wide world, Australian procedures are always worlds best practice and never accept that something that works elsewhere may actually work in Australia.
Those that have been exposed to the wide world are much more enlightened.
Some posters always oppose Dick no matter what the argument is.
Australia has more Skygods per head of population than the rest of the world.
For those who have never been exposed to the wide world, Australian procedures are always worlds best practice and never accept that something that works elsewhere may actually work in Australia.
Those that have been exposed to the wide world are much more enlightened.
Some posters always oppose Dick no matter what the argument is.