Open Mic
A tip - you would have more credibility at your briefings if you did not parrot the same things as your counterpart with the same surname.
I'm also curious re the MBZ vs CTAF debate. At a recent briefing you parroted exactly what Dick did - claims that MBZs were not safer than CTAFs etc., yet your previous employer (while you were with them?) said the opposite:
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comment 47 – Mandatory Broadcast Zones (MBZ) – Non-ICAO – MOS Part 71 paragraph 2.2.10 (page 2-4)
CASA Response
CASA acknowledges that MBZs are not ICAO compliant in that they require carriage and use of radio by VFR flights in Class G airspace. When MTAFs (later renamed MBZs) were introduced under the Airspace Management and Air Traffic Services (AMATS) project on 12 December 1991, no risk assessment was conducted. The MTAFs replaced the pre-existing AFIZs. In 1994/95, CAA and a risk consultancy firm developed the Airspace Risk Model (ARM), which was later incorporated into an ICAO airspace planning manual. Initially, the ARM was used to model the difference in risk between MBZs and CTAFs. It found that for a given traffic level and mix, an MBZ reduced risk by a factor of about three or four.
Your comments?
Also CASA have included MBZs in the heirachy of risk mitigators (and not UNICOMs):
Summary of Responses Regulatory Standards for Airspace – CASR Part 71
Comment 21 – Impact analysis of options – Economic impact – NPRM page 15, paragraph 5.5, fourth dot point.
CASA Response
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers. CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:
a) UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;
b) UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;
c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;
d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;
Comments also?