PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - How does CASA and Air Services decide whether an airport has a Control Tower?
Old 28th Apr 2020, 01:47
  #37 (permalink)  
Mr Approach
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
The question first put, has been answered I think - however if you read the airspace policy document closely you will see that the traffic and passenger movements only trigger a review.
CASA OAR reviews, because of their top down methodology, invariably find that the airspace "is fit for purpose". This occurred at Hobart but then Airservices decided it wanted Class C airspace so OAR had to go back and create a report agreeing with them. It also happenned at Port Hedland where the ATC Line Manager wanted to close the FISU, CASA OAR approved, but the Airservices CEO decided to keep it open. CASA OAR then found a discontinuance figure so low that the FISU can stay open forever. You will also note, If you read the airspace review of Avalon, that CASA OAR has now formally handed it's responsibility for airspace back to Airservices, by requiring them to come up with a plan instead of CASA, as per the legislation.

Airservices current "fad" is remote Tower technology, however this technology is far from being mature, hence Airservices procrastination about new Towers and replacing old ones. I have seen most of the Towers in Australia and can list all of the ones that are past their use by dates. These include Essendon, Hobart, Bankstown, Moorabbin, Parafield, Jandakot and Canberra but for a different reason. What is happenning, nothing as far as can be seen.

The opening of new Towers is even more vexed. There are flying schools popping up at uncontrolled airports all over the country, mostly these airports have regional air services as well so these aircraft are mixing it in the circuit with foreign students who have English as a second language! Unfortunately Airservices is not able to provide Tower service at a cost that is compatible with small aviation operations. You only have to look at what they build for a simple Fire Service to see the expense involved. The airspace around an airport should be considered an asset that can be utilised by the airport owners to leverage their plans for development. In the UK Southend wanted airline services so they built a control tower, and approach centre and installed ILS and radar. They then conducted ATC as a voluntary service in Class G airspace until the UK CAA allocated Class D airspace: that is the bottom up approach also used in the USA. However according to CASR Part 172 no-one can operate ATC or even train ATCs, unless they are the Federal Government, or have their permission. In Australia I could argue that we have to wait for an airport environment to become dangerous (that is exceed the MInister's guidelines) before we then have a "review" and then try and talk Airservices into providing it's grossly expensive ATC. Are we crazy - or what?



Last edited by Mr Approach; 28th Apr 2020 at 01:51. Reason: spelling errors
Mr Approach is offline