Originally Posted by
triadic
Did anyone here participate in the ASA web 'discussions' on plan B? I understand that some got a bit heated???
Hi Triadic - I attended the Brisbane WEBEX meeting and I will try and summarise what I heard. There was also some great input from others, very well qualified to comment, but I will not try and paraphrase what they said.
- The meeting was run by Airservices (ASA) implementers, not the managers responsible for the proposal.
- ASA admitted that the MNG deaths and recent BNA incident had caused ASA "to perceive the risk had changed so Airservices had to do something"
- The first proposal (1500ft AGL) was intended to be "iterative', their word, not mine. I assume that meant they did not expect the first to be accepted.
- The second proposal is based on feedback and the proposed Class E bases also happen to be good for their comms coverage
- The proposed SAFIS base of 6500ft could be lower
First of all, while their first proposal could have been interpreted as "doing something", the second most certainly does nothing to address MNG or BNA unless they were referring to the SAFIS. However bear in mind that BNA already has a CA/GRS (which is an AFIS), but they use Flight Radar 24 for surveillance because ASA did not extend their surveillance feed to the private operator. (Yes I know FR24 only displays ADS-B tracks but the nearest SSR head is at the Gold Coast so ASA would not have too many low-level transponder tracks)
Secondly, the process does not comply with the Ministerial directions given in paragraphs 25 - 32 of the current Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2018. ASA is quite entitled to make a proposal to CASA with supporting evidence, however, CASA is then required to carry out a risk assessment, decide whether to support or modify the proposal and then present it for public comment.
So why has the DIRD varied the Minister's policy? Does the Minister even know? Perhaps Senator MacDonald can ask him at the next RRAT estimates?
Can we expect to have to go through all of this again, or are CASA and Airservices operating as one body to provide a fair accompli that they can tell the Minister "does something"? If so, where is the safety assessment? Why is CASA allowing ASA to do their consultation work? The questions just go on.........