Dick Smith: "Broome to get Control Tower"

[Capn Bloggs]

As the NAS lurches from one farce to another, now Dick (and his new-found friends in ATC management wanting a tropical retirement pad) has decided that Broome needs a control tower. Why? In a report in The West Australian on 28Aug03, he says "because it's traffic level exceeded 100 jets a week". Currently the CAGRS works very well, and safely. The new tower would cost up to $20 per passenger! "I'm sure all passengers would be happy to pay this small amount to ensure higher safety". So much for NAS making regional aviation cheaper and revitalising the industry.

The state minister for planning and infrastructure, Allannah McTiernan, demonstrating a welcome understanding of the issue said "reforms to air services regulation were an absolute dog's breakfast". She said the federal govt had ignored concerns that the new system, based on a north american model, was inappropriate for WA and would have ramifications for struggling airports. "Rather than abandon the system, they have now decided Broome is going to get a full on tower...guess who pays for this??"

Have to agree with that!!

[MoFo]

Is this report just about what Smick Dith WANTS, or is it actually going to happen. Its the first I've heard on the subject. I'd think Ayers Rock would be in line before Broome with traffic density.

[Jamitupyr]

Suspect that this was the first that the operators of Broome Airport heard on the subject as well.

It would appear that the success of the Broome CA/GRS and MBZ are not consistent with the vision for the endstage of NAS of G airspace not having any traffic services...so it suits to now change tack and go for ATC at Broome with all the associated costs for GA (i.e. Airservice's Terminal Navigation charges that comes with class D) in addition to the cost of landing on the Aerodrome that presently includes a safe and cost effective service under CASA's new MOS Part 139 as provided by Broome Airport.

Normally, people would discuss the business operations of an airport with the owners of that business - but I guess this man thinks he knows best for all.

[karrank]

In the end-state NAS, the only traffic you'll get in G is the self-same CAGRO. The spec says EVERYBODY will get traffic in the terminal area, from ATC, but not everybody will tell ATC where they are. This is of course, complete bollocks. CAGRO are here to stay.


A tower at BRM? Complete bollocks also.

[I Fly]

Heh guys, we have a very well run in tower here at Camden that is up for sale. Has very nice controllers to. Do you want it. We wanted it but the bean counters said not enough traffic. During the week now, Camden is MUCH more efficient. We have up to 5 runways operating simultaneously.

[Prop's ????]

A controller at Broome, well that may not be a bad idea.

I remember seeing VFR C206/210 doing IMC takeoffs in heavy fog many times, and B737 & 146’s trying to fly around light aircraft.

Why not Broome? Mackay, Maroochydore and Coffs Harbour have one.

Maybe the locals don’t want to be policed.

The GA culture will never change.
:} :} :}

[Suffering Sucataash]

I guess someone thinks jets really need control towers.

We'll as a G/A pilot long ago and now on the 737, I would suggest I can not see the need. Sure a few drivers are uncomfortable as soon as they get off and ILS approach, but in real terms how is a tower going to help just because X number of jets use the airport per week?

The current set up does a great job and is more than enough I believe.

(Not with-standing a 500' go-around for a Bra that backtracked on me and didn't depart soon enough, isolated incident, but thanks again.)

Perhaps they could use the tower from Gove. Built at a massive cost and was never commissioned. I'ts been quite a few years since we operated there but I guess they probably still maintain it.

Bum ideas don't go away, they just lay forgotten untill the next idiot comes along.
:}

[Shepherd]

I can understand the reluctance to support an ATC manned tower at Broome based on cost however, I don't imagine that a CAGRO comes for free. Someone must pay his/her salary. Can anyone enlighten me on how much and who pays eg via landing costs, airport operator, local council?

[willadvise]

link to article (http://www.thewest.com.au/20030828/news/state/tw-news-state-home-sto110448.html)

[WALLEY2]

The Broome CA/GRS costs 48cents per pax movement.

Not only did the airport owners get a suprise by Dicks Announcement.

AA CASA and NAS IG when asked that morning also knew nothing about it. !!!

It would be funny if not for the risks that ad hoc airspce reforms need to address :(

[triadic]

Dear old Dick is obviously up to his usual stunts and is playing politics as the people in WA and BRM in particular have stuck a thorn in his side and he does not like it. He is just doing it to get some press and he is good at that as we know. If you think about it, establishing a tower at BRM or anywhere else for that matter is not a matter for the NASIG, Dick or any other individual, but one for CASA and the industry to determine.

Understand Dick and Chairman Forsyth (ASA) are in the west in the DS Caravan at this time (so watch out!!). No doubt this media release was timed to get some attention from the masses and the media who don't know better.

Have to agree with the WA Minister... "dogs breakfast" sadly, you bet it is!

[orva]

Apparently the new tower in Broome will be built on the building that will accomodate the Broome approach/departure radar guys.:D

[MoFo]

Just because Smick Dith WANTS something why does it mean that he will get his wish granted?
Or put another way:who the f**k is Smick Dith?

[Continental-520]

I'd rather pay the extra money that Dick is suggesting towards the Fire Service at the field, myself. Probably cost more per passenger than the unnecessary tower, though.

520.

[Jamitupyr]

I think you will find that RFF is already provided along with the CA/GRS that Broome Airport provide for the cost pax/landing charges that they apply now. - check out the ERSA. In fact I understand that Broome RFF sets the standard for CASA's part 139H for RFF provided by other than Airserivces Australia! (at a far more economical cost - because the RFF staff do more than just firires duties) Perhaps it is time for Broome Airport to explain to the uninitiated (including DS) how their operation runs - I think all will be plesantly surprised.

[Continental-520]

Indeed, I stand corrected. Research of facts can help from time to time...(!)


520.

[WALLEY2]

BRM is staffed and has Cat 6 vehicles.

For International flights the units are manned to achieve 3 min anywhere on areodrome ICAO req.

All staff are multi skilled during normal times first vehicle may take 5 mins. Unfortunately unannounced prangs are difficult even if 2 mins to site is achieved. None in Australia to my knowledge have been rescued.

For an announced emergency its full monty including all other emergency vehicles normal 2min response time. This happens 2-3 times per year.

The biggest was a Dash 8 without a nose wheel, happened to be there at the time, flew up with Dash8 Chief Pilot on AN that morning !!!

He got the Dash down very well landed on up hill section our RIV was there under 60 secs guys did a great job. No pax it was only a test flight after the a/c hit an eagle at 5000ft and was out of action for some months. The crew were able to get out before the RIV!! ie under 60 secs.

AN crew had stayed in their a/c the whole time, one helped with comms and the other once landing was iminent road on one support vehicle in case things got jammed and he might know something our guys didn't .

That why it saddens me to see all the 1989 stuff on this site, what happened that night is everyone helping aviators with a problem.

Hey we even made it with out Dick directing the traffic!!!!:ok:

[What-ho Squiffy!]

Broome could do with some modification to how traffic is regulated. This week a jet made a very late go-around because a twin could not exit the runway fast enough after landing ahead.

Often the radio is so congested with multiple traffic advices from CA/GRS that it becomes a safety issue. The CA/GRS does the best it can, but ends up complicating the situation, with some pilots treating the service as a pseudo-tower, deferring to the "authority" on the radio. Compounding the latter, there seem to be a few operators in Broome that fly the aircraft with the damn radio - never shutting up.

With several large aircraft movements and a quintillion light aircraft movements per day, the place could do well with a tower - at least in the peak season.

[WALLEY2]

Squiffy,
Thanks for your post to be honest you are the first flight crew to advise of CA/GRS over use of comms. I'd like to get the CD recording of the period and give it to the team currently doing an independent safety report.
The consulting teamm includes exCASA and Heavy Metal pilots who could analysis this for us.

Could you kindly advise date and time.

Ta Walley2

[Capn Bloggs]

Squiffy,

If a jet did a go round behind a twin "late to vacate" then it ain't got nothing to do with the CAGRO: the jet crew stuffed it up, plain and simple. Don't blame the CAGRO for that. Perhaps the "light twin visitors from the East" DO need a tower...

You say the CAGRO "ends up complicating the situation". After my many times there with and without the CAGRO, I disagree, and things would be chaotic without him/her (onya L), especially if it was only a Dick Smith "I don't have to talk to any $rick" yank CTAF. And I can tell you what: a tower will cost you a fortune, AND you'll get more delays than now. Sure, the CAGRO may need a bit of fine-tuning, but in my extensive experience there, they are pretty good, and don't get in the way. No calls between aircraft are required at all until it actually gets to the separation/sequencing stage: you get the traffic picture in one fell swoop with no fuss.

What's needed is a bit less verbal diarrhoea by pilots (why do some jet pilots call at 15nm when they are joining on downwind??) and the system will work well.

Also, re "several large aircraft movements and a quintillion light aircraft movements per day": very few of the RPT flights are in the air at the same time, and those that are can quite easily manage the situation.

[cunninglinguist]

Well, hopefully if BRM does get a tower they can man it with Perth ATC.
That way when 2 A/C are inbound we can have 80kt speed reductions, radar vectors, last minute changes of runway and if you are really lucky, some holding thrown in for good measure.
then after landing you can wait to cross a runway while an A/C is on a 4 mile final at 90kts GS, whinge, moan grumble...............:yuk:

[Skin-Friction]

Under the NAS, MBZ's which are currently promulgated at busy airports and which cost nothing and promote safety hugely, will be taken from us - What a completely stupid idea!

Obviously the issue here is that Broome is going to lose its MBZ but will be too dangerously busy as a CTAF, therefore a tower is needed - at huge cost!

Question is - what about all the other MBZ's which as I say, cost nothing and promote safety hugely, but are just not quite as busy as Broome?

They become CTAFs - where you never will know who's just about to run into you, and were IFR jocks break visual at 1000' head to head with no-radio ultralights

In other words, the Broome tower is almost an admission by these unsupported NAS Fwits that NAS will be dangerous for us all.

Why the hell do we need this change - or is it change for change's sake - or change for Dick's sake.

[Windshear]

WALLEY 2 ...... I remember the evening very well as I was in the hot seat on the Dash 8 ... Windy:ok:

[WALLEY2]

Windshear greetings

I was the idiot who sat next to you coming up on AN and talked about recent a/c incidents. Like you probably, I never did that again!!

Hope you and yours are well
Mike

[MoFo]

Capt Bloggs,
You are right. The Jet that went around set himself up by lack of judgement. Thats his problem.

The non standard calls give me the sh*ts too. You'd be amazed sitting beside some bloke in a jet, who was trained by the RAAF in his previous life, who doesn't know jack about RT procedures.

Broome works well. The ground operators are helpful and most lightie operators are the same. The only thing I would ask is that if you are talking to a jet jockey who spends most of his life flying in controlled airspace tell him where you are in bearing and distance. Local placenames and features don't mean jack to him.

[Titan Driver]

there seem to be a few operators in Broome that fly the aircraft with the damn radio - never shutting up.

Care to expand on this What-ho Squiffy? There may be one small operator that has a habit of giving commentary on the radio (esp around sunset) but a few operators???

Broome needs a taxiway parallel to the runway capable of taking the jets before it needs a tower. Most of the go arounds are caused by the larger aircraft (wingspan greater than 15m) having to back track the entire length.

Broome doesn't need a tower. Traffic is no where near enough on Sunday to Friday. The only time you may think a guy in a tower may come in handy is during the peak period on a Saturday (12:00 to 14:00). Perhaps even this peak period may come to an end soon when Skywest start coming.

[What-ho Squiffy!]

I'm not throwing mud at the CA/GRS. As I said, they do their job properly, in accordance with the job specification. They weren't to blame for the go-around, but my point was to illustrate the fact that this does happen, even with a CA/GRS. Woiuld it have happened with a tower? Who knows.

Titan - maybe "said" operator was in the forefront of my mind when I made the post. I'll cop that one on the chin.

As I said, Broome could do with some modification to how traffic is regulated. Maybe Bloggs, you are right - less verbal diarrhea. But how do you make that happen?

[triadic]

Extract from the Airport Association newsletter for what it is worth, but I think they are more concerned with collecting charges than safety or security. Besides since when have aerodrome operators had an interest in airspace management?


WHY IS THE AAA SO OPPOSED TO ONE PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE NAS?


At the outset it should be made clear that the AAA is in favour of any airspace reform that is cost-effective for the Australian aviation industry, as a whole, provided that it in no way creates the potential or opportunity to compromise safety. That being said, what particular aspect of the NAS is causing so much concern to Australian airport owners/operators and why? In very simple terms the main objection is the proposal to move from the current MBZs to CTAFs at many Australian airports.
Why do we object? Well, on the issue of duty of care and negligence, in a landmark High Court decision, former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs said, "Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though not perhaps great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent." It could be argued that for airport owners to accept the proposed changes without resistance when they are aware of the dangers, may be construed as negligence.

On 12 June 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister (Hon. John Anderson, MP) issued a Press Release headed "National Airspace Reform Model Will Not Jeopardise Safety," in which he said: "NAS will not reduce the level of safety at Regional airports in Western Australia or anywhere else. NAS is about introducing the safe and proven airspace practices and procedures used in the world's largest aviation market – the US – to Australia." Mention is then made of comments aired in the WA Parliament that related to "just one of the almost 50 characteristics that make up NAS. This characteristic is the introduction, scheduled for November, of US Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) procedures at all non-towered airports."

Read on … "Consistent with US practice, non-radio equipped aircraft will be able to use certain airports which currently are open only to aircraft with radios. NAS will incorporate US CTAF procedures that will provide greater situational awareness and allow this to occur safely." Radio silence within the vicinity of an airport cannot, in our view, provide "greater situational awareness."

In this rather comprehensive media release, Deputy PM Anderson then made the following statement: "There is no question of safety being compromised. Each stage of the NAS will be introduced only after Australia's aviation safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has endorsed the safety case that covers each part of that stage." To date, to our knowledge, no such safety case has been conducted by anyone, other than an AAA member in WA who spent over $40,000 of their own money to commission a safety case specific to their own airport. This study was conducted by appropriately-qualified personnel and in accordance with AS4360:1999 Risk Management and CASA draft AC71-1(0).

In that 35-page report there is an interesting comment (but one of many): "CTAFs may be up to twice as risky as MBZs."

It behoves CASA, as this country's safety regulator, to ensure that an appropriate 'safety case' is undertaken on this particular aspect of the NAS. All affected airports are ready, willing and able to play an active part in the assessment process. All such safety cases must be site specific.

The question is rightly asked: "What facts are there to back your concerns and aren't we just transposing the proven US airspace system to Australia?" Well, for a start when comparing the airspace around airports (let's keep this real simple so that the Editor understands) in the US and Australia it is the classic apples and oranges scenario. Australia currently uses MBZs for regional flying, which includes 737s and 146s - the US does not. In the US, high capacity RPT jets are in 'controlled' airspace and the US, in addition to its major international and State Capital airports, has over another 450 airports with control towers. The Australian NAS proposes to mix jets with light aircraft (some without radios, which doesn't really bear thinking about in terms of risk and safety) on the basis of 'see and avoid' at designated airports. The US only do this with small aircraft at small airports. Another major difference between Australian and uncontrolled US airspace is that the US is subject to more active radar surveillance, which is not the case throughout Australia.
In all of the briefings around the country and literature released by the NAS-IG, not one mention is made of the safety implications in terms of airport/airfield ground operations and the likely conflict of ground staff and vehicles with aircraft, or of possible conflict between arriving and departing aircraft and those on the ground. This is a very serious issue which seems simply not to have been taken into account by the NAS-IG – or anyone else associated with airspace reform for that matter! The NAS MBZ to CTAF proposals (now delayed until mid 2004, if they are to be eventually implemented) affect at least 60 full-time MBZ airports and another 20 that revert to MBZ status after ATC tower hours. The MBZ airports concerned include Mt. Isa, Albury, Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Karratha, Armidale, Ballina, Broken Hill, Lismore, Gladstone, Devonport, Mildura, Mt. Gambier, Coffs Harbour, Port Hedland, to name but a few from the list of 60+ airports. Many of these airports have passenger numbers in excess of 150,000 per annum and RPT aircraft the size of B737s and larger.
The current MBZ radio procedures require: that broadcasts be made before entering the MBZ; upon entry; established in the circuit area if applicable; vacating runways; taxiing; rolling and departing the aerodrome. This system, that has worked safely for many years past, helps both pilots and those working on the ground, to gain an appreciation of the comings and goings of aircraft and enables them to either maintain appropriate separation or to remain clear of movement areas and strips.

Airside vehicles (maintenance vehicles, mowers, graders etc.) are fitted with radios on the MBZ frequency, as ground staff are constantly working on, and traversing the airfield. How are they able to develop situational awareness and keep clear of aircraft if they are not made aware of these movements? How are unintended incursions by ground vehicles to be avoided on busy regional airports in the absence of comprehensive radio communication? The AAA contends that the possible consequences are potentially tragic and entirely avoidable.
The only real and safe remedy is to modify the NAS proposal so that MBZs are retained and that radio broadcasts in relation to them continue to be mandatory. The point also needs to be made that if any CASA assessment is to be based on already agreed risk management principles, then either the existing regime should remain in place or a comprehensive qualitative safety case on a location specific basis should be conducted.
At present the Transport Aviation Security Bill is before Parliament. The resulting Act and Regulations will impose substantial obligations on airport owners and operators in relation to controlling airside access to certain airports. The NAS proposal allows access to airside by pilots (and their passengers) flying in and out with no mandatory requirement to identify their aircraft. At this time of heightened 'security awareness' the AAA finds it inconceivable that any Government could allow any aircraft flying in Australian airspace without a) a radio for communication purposes; and b) a mandatory requirement to use the radio when in the vicinity of an airport.
In recent correspondence from the NAS-IG to an AAA member, the following extract under the heading of MBZ vs CTAF should raise a few eyebrows!

"It should first be noted that the proposed replacement of MBZs with the CTAF has been rescheduled to mid 2004. The level of safety at MBZs is a continuing concern, particularly given the sense of security some pilots have that they are aware of all traffic in the area. More recommended calls will be available to pilots to indicate more clearly their position in the terminal areas. The simpler standard procedures should enable better situational awareness of all pilots in the terminal area.
As with all characteristics, the NAS Implementation Group will conduct a detailed implementation safety case on the move to the US CTAF procedure. Detailed hazard searches are conducted through industry briefings and formal workshops. The NAS Implementation Group works closely with the stakeholder agencies and subject matter experts to develop appropriate and effective strategies to mitigate any identified hazards.
A consolidated safety case is then presented to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for endorsement before the implementation proceeds.

This takes place within the overall content of the NAS Australian project in which we are copying the safe and proven US practice."

Well, well, have you ever read anything so confusing, and at variance with what the Deputy PM had to say on the matter? AAA members have attended many of the "industry briefings and formal workshops" and made their concerns known to the NAS-IG.

The AAA Chairman, John McArdle and CEO, Ken Keech accompanied by Messrs. Darryl Tonkin (Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport) and Ken Allcott (Sydney Airport) made a special trip to Canberra to 'brief' the NAS-IG on the proposal to move from MBZs to CTAFs and have high capacity jets 'mixing it' with non-radio equipped light aircraft. As one of the AAA contingent said after that particular meeting: "We would have been better off talking to a brick wall."

There are a great many other issues associated with this NAS program! We cannot help but speculate where the untimely departure of Mick Toller fits into all of this, particularly bearing in mind the personalities involved and their historical relationships. What 'responsibility' (if any) does the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) have in the NAS program? Why is CASA being singularly silent? Where is the Deputy Prime Minister getting his advice on what is happening out in the big wide world of Australian aviation, and does he appreciate the safety implications for voters in regional Australia? One could speculate that airports' liability insurance will significantly increase on the introduction of NAS.

Our public stance on this safety-related issue is to make everyone in the industry aware of our concerns and the reasons why we are so concerned. It would give us no comfort whatsoever at a later date to say to some Coroner in a far corner of Australia: "We told you so".

The AAA position in summary is simply this – all aircraft flying in Australian airspace must be equipped with a serviceable radio for communication purposes and it must be a mandatory requirement to use the radio when in the prescribed airspace of an airport that is operationally-certified or registered by CASA.


RECOMMENDED READING:
Report on Observations of the US NAS (NAS-IG, CASA, AA – Feb/Mar 2003)
Research Report "Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle" (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation – April, 1991)
"The Airspace Risk Model (ARM) MBZ/CTAF Analysis" (Civil Aviation Safety Authority – February 2002)
"Broome Terminal Airspace Aeronautical Study – Preliminary Analysis" (Kubu Australia Pty. Ltd., July 2003)

[Airspeed Ambassador]

"You'd be amazed sitting beside some bloke in a jet, who was trained by the RAAF in his previous life, who doesn't know jack about RT procedures."

Mofo, be carefull what you say about the standards of ex-RAAF pilots - Capn Bloggs happens to be one I recall! Fortunately his RT standards are first class.

Bloggs, get used to the "light twin visitors from the EAST" for one day they will be very much at home in the WEST!;)

As for the CA/GRS at Broome, I thinks it's an excellent service that's worth every cent at times.

AA

[mulgabill]

Ah yes, but Capn Bloggs EYES are not what they used to be in the heady days of the "aluminium death tube". Wears bifocals these days.....

[Capn Bloggs]

Airspeed/Mulga,
And we had better be flying them!! As for you, Mulga, there are none so blind as those who will not see!!

Triadic,
It is a sad state of affairs when the AAA has to voice everybody's concerns about the NAS, regardless of their motives. The fact that NAS is not subject to an NPRM (even RAPACs have been cancelled to gag dissenters) is a scandal.

Good luck to the AAA.

Squiffy,
Re verbal dia..., I have used the term "cork it!" on my kids, and will soon start on FOs... The message being to TX at the two mandatory points (or 3 if doing a straight in) and otherwise don't waffle on. "Does he really need to hear what I am about to say?" if the answer is No, don't say it.

[WALLEY2]

There is an element of finances in the airport owners concern but it is not landing fees. Most busy airports have enough ground staff refuelers etc to log traffic.

The cost to a region of an aviation tragedy is immense, for a tourist destination its a disaster.

An who are many of the Pax? our community members. This is not about fees it safety and I am appauled that the AAA is the strongest voice fighting a stupid unnecessary increase in risk at uncontrolled airports. We use mandatory comms to replace the lack of Radar the USA have.

In the report listed in the AAA letter by Observers from NAS IG, CASA, AA they stated for all practical purposes the IFR(RPT) traffic is under possitive ATC and RADAR from block to Block,even in the small amount of G Class airspace where few RPT flights go.

John and Martha said they knew of no airport in the USA mainland with 737 RPT which was not towered.

No RADAR no TOWERS but nothing unique when comparing USA and Australian airspace so we can copy book their system!!!!

Good on the AAA, but where are the Heavy Metal Airlines, Regional airlines, Pilot Federation, AA Association, Even Sydney Airport has helped out the AAA with their expertise though I doubt they are going to CTAF procedures.

Its not money its Terminal Airspace Safety that is driving the AAA and the Quiet ones on this issue should hang their heads. This part of the NAS it BS and they know it. :( :mad:

[WALLEY2]

Latest news on tower is Dep Prime Ministers office advises there probably will be a tower.

Not CASA not AA no study just tell the state gov looks like tower will be needed.

So if anyone wants a tower at their airport or ALA just get Dick to announce it and John will build and staff it at our expense!!!

[QSK?]

Are you serious Dick? Currently the Australian taxpayer (through DOTARS) pays Airservices Australia some $7m to compensate for the losses they incur operating regional control towers. Now you want to add another regional control tower simply because MBZs and CAGRS don't fit nicely into your precious NAS model. On top of the estimated $5m pa for new fire service infrastructure, which will eventually have to be recovered from the flying industry, you are now proposing that the industry and taxpayer should also cough up another $3m (estimated) for a control tower at BR. Who's going to pay for all this Dick? You, the airlines, me? Is this your new concept of "affordable safety"? I'm sure most pilots would agree that the CAGRS unit at BR (and also at AYE) provides a very friendly and effective service at a cost that offers significant value for money to the industry.

[GoNorth]

A tower in Broome...great!

In 5 to 10 years time we can add Broome to the list of closed down towers when the gov starts cost cutting again. Just like Karratha and Port Hedland down the road.

[Lurk R]

How many of these troublesome jet movements (which seem to be the trigger for a tower) are scheduled through the middle of the night? i.e. when the tower probably won't be manned???

[Suffering Sucataash]

Let me just quietly say,

MR SMITH,

BROOME DOES NOT NEED A TOWER!


Struth we don't even have engineers there, that's how much jet traffic we have and VB is even less and we promise not to fight each other if in the same airspace OCTA, OK.


:hmm:

[WALLEY2]

Should be read with the comments on NAS safety review

[mistapproach]

Report from a spy close to Perth Tower that Bernie Smith's overseas jolly has been cut short and he has been recalled to Canberra after the viewing of the radar tapes from the VBA Maroochy incident by QFA safety team and the subsquent reaction by them.
Big announcement in the next day or so.
Heard anything up your way ****zu?

[InTransit]

Just read in the local rag today that Broome's MBZ is to stay. In fact, the article goes on to say that:

"last week, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed that the reforms removing the mandatory broadcasts were being rejected, effectively killing off the proposed new system."

Couldn't find any other reference to the 'roll backs' on any website (dicksmithflyer/casa)....

[Lodown]

A question for someone in ATC. Is there a regulation in Australia that requires a minimum of two controllers in the tower? I seem to remember reading or being told about a regulation like this in the past, but I might be wrong (again). I think private towers in the US can get by with one controller on duty, which might in big part explain the reduced costs that Dick is brandishing about. But I guess the privatization issue is a better horse to flog.

[89 steps to heaven]

Lodown

I am not sure about radar towers, but in regional towers, we try to have 2 controllers rostered for peak traffic times. Single person operation occurs through the majority of tower hours.

At these locations, if a second controller is not available, NOTAM warning of possible delays and restrictions on training during the peak time has to be issued.

[Mr.Buzzy]

The money would be much better spent on more SIDS and STARS for Perth..................

[karrank]

Privatisation's first foot in the door. It will not make it easy to get people to work at regional towers that they may end up working for the local shire.

2 on duty would only apply where the workload justifies it.

Is this proposal for NAS endstate where D towers are only providing traffic anyhow within a tiny zone, or now with enroute airspace at some locations?

[4dogs]

Folks,

I'm confused.

Why is the architect of the destruction of MBZs "working in the background" to get BRM upgraded to a tower at great cost to the community?

Why is the architect of the destruction of the protection of commercial public transport by means of controlled airspace "working in the background" to get BRM upgraded to a tower with the addition of the associated Class D and E airspace?

Is it because he realises that one of the biggest flaws in "adopting the US model" campaign is that all the regional jet operations conducted in Oz by BAe 146/B717/B737/A320 into CTAF and MBZ airspaces would not occur in the US?

It can't be for the safety of the travelling public, because none of his so-called reforms have enhanced or even retained the previous level of safety! Fortunately, he does have Mr Anderson as the perfect glove puppet, mindlessly regurgitating everything that RHS tells him to say - at least that way only the Minister looks totally stupid while RHS stays in the background cherry-picking the popular statements to cliam as his own. Thank goodness we are in such capable hands.

Stay Alive,

[WALLEY2]

S-T,
I have spoken to Dick on this matter and it is canvassed in the BME DAS.
I knew he was raising the matter, but not to the extent now advised. While ATC can do CAGRS so can FSS and currently we have two fulltime ex FSS operators and one partime ex ATC.

For the record they do a great job and receive very pleasing compliments from pilots and Captains. It was not uncommon that when I was in the "tower" observing and logging activity to confirm to myself the DAS findings that Captains would leave their a/c cross to the CAGRS "tower" and come and see the facility and thank the CAGRS for their important service.

In particular the transcontinental 737-800 Captains would say "great to hear your advise as this is my first landing at an uncontrolled airport in --- months".It was bloody nice to see and I wish some of the instant experts in BME terminal airspace had been there.( on one occasion when two 737-800 were in the MBZ together and there was 17 movements in half an hour one captain came over to thank the CAGRO and the other passed on his thanks via our/his load controller.)

It is this comradeship of ATC, Captains,GA pilots,and CAGRS or even Airport Safety officers supervising works that gets lost and suffocated in the bile that the ARG and NASIG has caused. More than anything else this has angered me. How can people who have not experienced and seen the system up close and working suddenly elevate themselves to all knowing. I don't know if this comradeship is perculiar to the regional airports, I hope it is not. Anyway S-T back to the issue.

THE PROBLEM is insurance, if you could find a company crazy enough to insure you the premiums would be horrendous. I've warned Dick of this problem.

If we could be safely tucked under AsA insurance then the question of policing arises, certainly we would want only one auditing authority namely CASA and the same regime that they apply to AsA towers.

Can AsA live with this politically and in accordance with their responsibility to operations that is covered by their insurance?

Our position is we would support Dick on this initiative and run a private D class control Tower if the above matters are resolved and the traffic warrants the investment and costs. At current pax and a/c growth rates of 10% the tower could, using either the BME DAS or FAA modelling, be required in 5-7 years.

The problems, other than insurance, will be in the MOS area not the Regs.

Also as another contributer observed while staff retention at Broome is excellent other locations like Ayers Rock will struggle, this will be a serious problem for them.

K---- Certainly I have not heard of any attempt to privatise enroute ATS and as an airport we would never get involved as it is not a natural part of the airport enviroment and would cause a lack of focus.

4DOGS Why? because the BME DAS proves that the NASIG proposed CTAF(USA) will not work there at an acceptable level of risk. So isolate this problem by saying "it is not like other major regional airports it needs a D Class tower" and then proceed with NAS and CTAF(USA). Thankfully CASA and as Dick has been bashing into QF on his site, probably QF both rejected RPT flight into CTAF(USA) airports as did the AAA, RAAA and many others.

[m-dot]

CAGROs at BRM.

You do a great job and are very friendly. I do understand that you must work within your job specifications, but please take on board some constructive criticism.

There are odd occasions when it can get extremely busy! When an aircraft calls taxying you quite accurately relay the information to all parties in the MBZ. I believe there may be times when it may be more efficient to allow aircraft the key conflict aircraft to communicate between each other. The time it takes to relay five aircraft as traffic can often impede inter-aircraft comms causing frustration. Sometimes I feel that it may be more efficient to allow us to communicate directly to the other aircraft, being able to get their position and organise separation relatively quickly. During times of high traffic density it may be helpful if you let the aircraft self separate. You could then jump on if you notice a unresolved conflict. This is more efficient than just blanket reading of the 5 aircraft's details.
(I expect there is some responsibilty/duty of care placed upon you guys to relay information so I understand if this is the reason)

I do get the feeling that on the odd occasion CAGROs tend to drift into ATC mode and provide more than just traffic and WX information. Please refrain from doing this. I understand that you are ex ATC and can imagine it would be hard!

I heard a pilot who got criticised by a CAGRO on one occasion recently. There is simply no need at all for this to happen near terra firma (the firma it looks the more terra we get) This applies to everyone. (The only need for copping the stick during takeoff and landing shoud be from a training Captain in Grumpy mode!). Get it sorted out after they have landed (via the phone if possible).

Anyhow I am no expert. Take whatever you want to from it. Just some of my thoughts to hopefully let you know how a pilot feels.

BRM is certainly a busy this time of year. Its getting to the stage that we almost need CAGROs in Coles. Anyone who lives up here certainly understands why! Paradise.

I think I will go and have a nap in that hammock on the beach. Whats the temperature in ML at the moment ... .. yep - you guys can have it!!

:cool:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Dear M-Dot

Re "I heard a pilot who got criticised by a CARGO recently...."

Please explain? I thought the CAGRO's were ex Flight Service Officers of many years' experience, who, in their previous life, would have been trained severely into NOT issuing any 'instruction', or criticism 'on air', or otherwise acting like our ex esteemed colleagues - ATC's, under pain of '40 lashes'. In those days, the threat of some 'litigation' if it went wrong being the thought behind the scenes by our then 'masters'. :ok: