PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - How does CASA and Air Services decide whether an airport has a Control Tower?
Old 29th Apr 2020, 00:56
  #40 (permalink)  
Mr Approach
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 196
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Hi Roger - I think you have nailed the Australian philosophy nicely! Did I say anything about control area steps?
You are correct about cost/benefit, but Gove was a rubbish decision based on outdated philosophies and should be taken out of this argument completely.

Safety miigation should be concentrated where it can have the most effect.
A simple control tower (Class D) with one controller is all that is needed to keep control of a circuit area and allow for RPT aircraft and other visitors to arrive and depart safely.
Ideally the surrounding airspace would be Class E, with surveillance, so that IFR aircraft can safely fly in cloud, under the hood.
When the aerodrome gets busier it begins to warrant a separate approach control (Class D or C) or one shared with the tower cab - this is much easier nowadays than it was when radars were dark room devices.
Only when an aerodrome starts to generate significant traffic on defined routes does extended Class C airspace become a necessity.
Class A should be confined to the upper airspace above for instance FL180.

So Ballina - a small single person Tower surrounded by Class E airspace, with surveillance, encompassing the RPT traffic routes in and out. At such a low RPT traffic airport, procedural Class C control area steps are a waste of airspace controller resources. This can be demonstrated at Karratha where a two person tower is required for seven hours a day.
If the single person tower at Ballina was staffed by the same people who operate the CA/GRS (All ex-ATCs) then costs would be commensurate with the operation.
This same model could be used at every airport in the country that conducts circuit training and has RPT movements. (Wellcamp where the locals do not want a Tower - or is it an Airservices tower they do not want?)

The key is to allow some market forces into the equation and get rid of this silly idea that only the Federal Government can be trusted to provide safe air traffic control.
I would have thought that idea would appeal to a free-enterprise country like Australia - or am I missing something?
Mr Approach is offline