NAS and the Broome Airport design study

[Woomera]

I've taken the liberty of posting the link and stickying it for WALLEY2.

It's too big to post here in it's entirety, but go here for a copy
Design Aeronautical study for Broome Airport International Airport terminal airspace (http://broomeair.com.au/Broome%20Airport%20Airspace%20Study.pdf)

and whilst you're there, have a look around a very professional, well designed and informative site.

Broome Airport site (http://broomeair.com.au/index.htm)

Warning; it may cause uncontrollable desire to go visit and maybe just sell up and stay.

[bonez]

a good read - like it or not - a direct hit on NAS & co

[WALLEY2]

Woomera

Dear Sir,

My thanks for the complements and the importance you have shown to this work.

As the first proper Design Aeronautical Analysis on an element of NAS it clearly shows the different result that is achieved when Data is gathered and corelated, Analysised and Studied by Approriately Qualified Professionals; and where real intellect and rigor is applied to the problems.

Think back and compare this DAS to the "I believe....It works there so it will here.....worlds best practise...." type approach of NAS IG.

Most pleasing to BIA was the CSIRO audit on the preliminary findings- the excellent correlation between the quantified scientific approach- to the Airlines comments- and the Pilot Survey.

Not only does it add independence and veracity to the findings that shows the NASIG proposal would decrease safety by 88% !!!! It says to all authorities STOP and THINK!! The scientist-engineers-mathematicians say its unnacceptable. The Airlines say its unacceptable. The pilots say it is unacceptable.

Also the former Chief Justice of the High Court says do this proposed NAS IG changes in light of the DAS findings and you are doing an act of Negligence. Infact after this DAS we can prove it was a known act and therefore gross negligence.

We for one will not tolerate any changes in our terminal airspace unless another full DAS is done convincingly demonstrating the all three sources got it wrong and there is no increase in risk.

Our lawyers are briefed, proceed at your own corporate and individual risk. Sounds a bit over the the top, but we are sick of the weak shoddy arguments that has caused us so much work expense and effort.

These flawed mutterings has forced us to do NAS IG's job as under influence and pressure, they have not stood up and said "this is not how airspace systems are changed we will proceed only after an appropriate DAS is done for the characteristic that is under review. "

VoR we would appreciate your comments on the DAS privately or on pprune. My email is [email protected] (Woomera I hope I got it right this time :) )

Gentlemen, I hope you have the time to read the DAS as it is a great document on aviation risk analysis and a credit to the team that produced it.(I got it wrong there are 6 Phds not 5 as I thought)

[tobzalp]

I would like to hear Dick's thoughts on this. Quite an interesting read. Good to see you put up instead of shut up Wally2. I am still at a loss as to why a study like this was not completed prior to all this NAS idiocy.

[DirtyPierre]

Wally2,

Great work and I hope you keep on trying. Remember the squeaky wheel gets the grease. Just ask Dick!

Sound argument supported by logic and well documented fact - well done.

[Skin-Friction]

The maturity of scientific and engineering discipline demonstrated by this Report has not been observed by the Principal Auditor when responsible for conducting other audits of documents such as safety cases and risk management analyses pertaining to change of Australian airspace during the period 1992 – 2004

So sayeth the Auditor of the Broome DAS - CSIRO. There doesn't seem to be many things sacred in Australia anymore, but the methodology and trustworthyness of CSIRO is surely one of them. When CSIRO makes comments like this there are grounds for deep concern.


The report clearly states that for the change from MBZ + CGRS (present situation) to CTAF + UNICOM (NAS proposal) there is a comparative change in safety of -88% for a saving of $1.09 per ticket. Now that rings a bell somewhere............hey, that's right - affordable safety!


As professional aviators in whom our passengers trust to keep them safe, we must be entitled to be presented with the accurate scientifically based safety risk numbers for the deletion of each and every MBZ in Australia and its substitution by CTAF.
And we must have more than just an unannounced one month long web based "consultation process" to disscuss the resultant issues.

And no, I don't want to hear Smith's views. He must get out of our hair now. We are entitled to a professionally run consultation process.

[OverRun]

I've followed the link to the website and got the report. Wow – blew my socks off. It struck me that the report embraced 4 quite different approaches:

- hazard analysis study part with the professional pilots and risk people
- mathematical modelling by the boffins
- 'good oil' from the airlines
- and finally the real stuff from the pilots who were in that survey (those comments are blistering in places and they are so real, no spin doctors, no half truths or interpretations or press releases.

All 4 approaches are showing the same thing. Why oh why wasn't this sort of thing avalable for the other NAS stuff. Why did we never get the truth about what the American system really is.

Watch now fior the weasels to pick out a word or two or give the report a spin or a twist. Still, its going to be pretty tough to simultaneously say 'the hazard people were inexperienced', 'CSIRO are incompetent', 'all those ATSB reports were wrong', 'FAA airspace isn’t like this', 'the boffins got their sums wrong', 'airlines know nothing about flying', 'and pilots – huh!!!!! what do they know'. As for that idiot justice in the High Court . . . . . . . . Still I'm sure the smiths are gunna try.

But, what I really wanted to say in this posting, is let's all stand back a bit and maybe do some self-patting on the back.

Sometimes we have to wonder why we bother – to read PPRUNE, to write in PPRUNE, or even to work in PPRUNE. We spend hours labouring to try and make things work better. D&G and NAS have turned the hours of labour into days.

Well I reckon it's time to get awarded the points, and its +100 for PPRUNE and all the contributors and Woomera and VOR and Walley2.

Well done guys.

[ferris]

Hear hear. Big clap.


My next concern is; where to from here?
Given that this goes right up to the responsible Minister, the Deputy PM, how does the public seek redress?
If what the VoR have been insinuating is correct, the top 'men' in all the organisations involved (including the minister) were not duped by Dick, they happily danced to his tune. They knew all along. Surely, as paid public servants, servants of the Crown, or whatever, they have shown gross negligence/derelection of duty/criminal neglect or some such thing?
How can they be brought to account? Question time just doesn't seem to be the answer. Or, is it?

Gaol seems too good.

[Voices of Reason]

We have circulated the safety study report completed on Broome Airport to members and have assembled some commentary which has been forwarded direct to the authors. Most was of the nature of allowing the authors to fend off criticism that will no doubt surface over the coming weeks.

Without in any way diminishing the effort of Broome Airport here, what is important to note is that is study, as complete as it is, was not complex. By that we mean that this is the type of study that could easily and openly have been conducted by the architects of the airspace reform initiative on all elements of the model – individually and as a whole. Such open consultation and discussion would have identified potential deficiencies, and at the very least, allowed open – not covert – discussion on risk amelioration, and effective training and education.

It may not have stopped the initiative moving forward – but it would have allowed the potential deficiencies to be seen in the cold light of day, and treated accordingly. Even the most hardened opponent of change can live with that change – IF it is properly implemented.

We most certainly do not want to claim any credit in this initiative – it belongs solely to those at Broome airport who were strong enough to tackle this issue scientifically and rationally. If nothing else, this report will force detractors to develop at least as strong a factual argument in opposition. It is up to the detractors now to prove this study wrong – not the authors to prove it right.

Our congratulations to the authors.

[DownDraught]

Well Done Indeed

After reading the pdf above I have come to the conclusion that those in NAS/NASIG had/have little, or close to no idea on how the US NAS system works, and unfortunately this seems to have propagated down the line to others involved. After reading how the US actually operates, and the way that Steamboat Springs (HDN) is actually run, I now have a much clearer understanding on how the US system works, of which I can now say is completely different to what has been stated over here, or that which is to implemented.

I at this stage feel as though I have been lied to by those that wanted this "new system" implemented in Australia.

I am also pleased to see the Broome group direct there findings to the Senate Estimates Comitee Members, to expose those who have held us all to ransom.

And lastly, strike 3 dick......how many do you expect!!!

The Implementation of NAS2b, was at best shabby and unprofessional, the more information that comes out regarding this issue the more I see the powers at be rolling back this piesce of .... and seeing it for what it is, then and only then can we gain the reverence of the rest of the world again for the way in which we handle our airspace in Australia, and return to Worlds Best Practice. We will never again see other country's looking at our airspace and asking questions until NAS is thrown in the bin for good.

A person/country that can stand up and say "we have made a mistake" is a far better one than those who would try to hide/change the mistake afterwards!!!

Cheers

[Parrhresiastes]

"What they're saying is that safety will go down by 88 per cent - the figure is so ridiculous that people should treat it with the contempt that it deserves," he said.
"It's a classic example of people resisting change - I can assure you that these more modern procedures will be far safer."


I see you are back to the "I assure you", "I believe" mode of risk analysis and regulation by fiat.

Mr Smith would serve his argument better if he were to present equally well researched and peer reviewed analysis that refutes or at least mitigates that which he finds contemptuous.

Does Mr Smith have any formal expertise in these matters that enables him to make these very brave assertions against an array of what appears to be impressive talent?

Does that mean Broome will have a tower with the attendant costs or will you continue what appears to be a well proven seemingly, or close to, cost neutral sytem of MBZ?

Why is it necessary to change something just to satisfy what appears to be an ideological agenda.

A look at the pictures on the Broome website and my Jepp online suggests that a tower would dominate that beautiful landscape.

Would it require a redesign of the approaches and/or increase in the LSALTs, MDA's etc.

From where I sit, if this is the way your country goes about it's aviation regulation, it is the only one in the world that seems to allow a single individual to decide what is and isn't good for you.

Unless of course you really are a third or fourth world country.

[WALLEY2]

Kind Sirs,

Thank you all for your support and kind words. The team that produced the study will be rightfully proud. They directly and through us have recieved a great response via emails from organisations and individuuals.

I am saddened by Dick Smith's Statement and wish he would examine our document and apply his influence to have a similar study to NAS 2c and 3 carried out to the depth we have done at our aiports terminal airspace.

Pehaps it is too much to ask.

Finally, my thanks to pprune, it is vital to the NAS debate and keeping us all informed. We will be helping it financially to ensure it can continue. We are keeping a tally of downloads of the DAS and will advise you of this number on Monday as it shows the importance of Pprune in dissemenating information.

Mike Caplehorn
Chairman B.I.A.Group

[dodgybrothers]

While I applaud BIAs efforts in exposing the non-truths of the NAS there are a few issues that need to be addressed.

I flew in and out of Broome for years and still occasionally do. Broome has an almost 99% professional pilot usage, by that I mean there are very few private users so most pilots know whats going on and have the ability to organise themselves in a professional manner.

The old MBZ worked rather well, the new CAGO system also works well but it is not efficient when the traffic volume picks up (isloated to Broome only) and can hinder safety as the CAGO 'butts' in giving traffic information to aircraft that are already aware of each other and creating unneccesary chatter on the radio.

The study is quite extensive but Dr Steve Emery is one of only 3 shareholders in BIA and his company jointly commisioned the study with the CSIRO.

The report raises me valid and remarkable points and although I do not want to cast dispersions on the motivation of BIA to produce this study, they are a private company in the business of making money out of their airport and that includes charging a fee for the their CAGO. If ASA place a tower in Broome, BIA makes nothing on an airservice charge as they presently do.

Just for the record; it is the second most expensive airport to operate into outside KSA in this country.

[Duck N Weave]

It seems that history repeats itself but we rarely notice.
I copied this excerpt from an article on the www.airsafety.com.au web site.
____________________________________________________________

"WE WERE AT A WATERSHED ONE MONTH AGO - DESPITE YOUR HELP WE LOST

Despite your terrific help, we have lost. Dick Smith has been forced out of the chairmanship of CASA. I believe this is the end of major aviation reform in Australia in my lifetime. It could have been prevented by strong political support from AOPA, but that support was not forthcoming.

CASA's Airspace initiative was torpedoed on 9th December 1998 after a long struggle. Unfortunately AOPA ran away on 5th November and gave no further public support, leaving CASA completely isolated, and defeat almost inevitable.

Then on February 17th Cheryl Kernot (shadow Transport Minister) made a public statement that Dick Smith had lost the confidence of every sector of aviation. Sadly, AOPA did not ever contradict that. .........etc

Boyd Munro
22nd March 1999"

____________________________________________________________

Dick and Boyd, have you read the design study report yet? I would like to read your comments.

Cheers

[WALLEY2]

Dodgybrothers,

There are a few comments I need to make re your imput.

The Design Aeronautical Study(DAS) by its approach and reading demonstrates a very professional and independent analysis of the BME terminal airspace. The audit by the CSIRO praises its unbiased reporting of airline and pilot comments and independence of critique- as do comments from other nonaligned organisations such as the RFDS and Regional Airlines.

Through another company in which he has no voting rights but is a shareholder Dr Steven Emery, is in turn a minor share holder of BIA. He has no executive function in BIA and is not an employee of BIA nor sits on our Board. To my knowledge no other member of the panel or CSIRO are shareholders in any company that in turn has shares in any of our 30+ companies. Nor to my knowledge do they have a direct shareholding in our companies that form the B.I.A.Group.

.

BIA makes no profit from the CA/GRS, in fact it loses money and will keep doing so until traffic significantly increases. We always have adopted a policy of breakeven for the CA/GRS, this non profit approach was agreed to prior to its establishment in meetings between ourselves and Ansett and QANTAS.

We also agreed to allow the airlines to audit this section of our accounts. The current losses arise from the fall of Ansett and the switch to 737-800 which have a higher pax to weight ratio ( the charge is actually a tonnage rate which for the public is converted back to a Pax rate). I hope this puts your mind at rest and removes the hidden agenda theory you alluded to.

If you know Broome you know the extensive work we have done to the airport which won the Regional Airport of The Year in 2003.
We have funded this work by subsidising it from our other companies. The airport won't be profitable till 2008. However the effect of these works on Broome is tremendous with new direct flights from Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Denpasar. Through some of our other companies we share in the profits from this stimulii.

Your comments on the CAGRO is counter to the pilot survey findings. Using DTI reduces radio calls- at times we may have 8 a/c in the MBZ yet normally at worst the CA/GRS advises 3 are relevent. But these comments of mine and I could say more, are as irrelevent as yours. The DAS findings are those that stand as they are derived through 4 seperate strands of data,analysis and study and not personal opinions based on limited data and no analysis.

In todays West Australian Mr Dick Smith is now saying we are against NAS as we are trying to stall the implimentation of a D Class Tower at Broome,something that we so desperately need!!!! Until todays "West" the last I heard we at BIA were going to have a CTAF with Unicom and I know NAS IG is currently seeking to have CASA scrap the CA/GRS Regulations.

You sound like a CPL/GA pilot, do you realise without subsidy a tower run by AA would cost around $15.00 per Pax this equates to $25 to $30 per tonne!! We could provide it for much less (again refer you to the DAS, as they address this issue) but only as a subcontractor to AA, as the insurance would not only be prohibitive but probably impossible.

This is why AOPAs position on NAS suprises me, with no steps between CTAF and D Class Towers and many regional airports with 737 ops it is obvious we will soon be getting a large number of D class towers. The USA has some 470 such towers but also has FSS serviced airports and LAA via FSS airports and airports with dedicated Unicoms with compulsary calls.Read the DAS.

If you look at the airports with D class towers in the USA you will find they are in some cases located at airports simlar size or smaller than airports in Western Australia that currently operate as an MBZ.

Unlike the USA D class towers, which are funded from central revenue remove those USA NAS steps between CTAF and D towers and see the consequences I would guess 10 towers now and 20 within 5-10 years. In WA we could expect Karatha, Kalgoorlie, Kununnurra now, Port Hedland within 5-10 Years. All these airports are important bases for GA Charter flights and their D towers will cause a substancial rise in terminal fees.

Also any USA airport in the Contiguous States with 737 traffic is contained in E Class airspace and there are enroute charges to be decided apon if we adopt this system. Read the DAS

As a Western Australian unlike the rural eastern state airports where RPT services if any are turbo prop, you will see a poliferation of D Class towers here, just as Mr Dick Smith now advises for Broome.

Let me make BIAs position clear if the DAS concluded we need a tower we would advise CASA and seek to impliment it immediately. If we lose the ability to have a CA/GRS then we will need a D Class tower we agree with Mr Dick Smith on this. Please note he previously advised in an unsolicited unilateral press statement that it would only cost $20 per ticket this is $40 per tonne! The DAS ATC experts believe it can be done at a lesser cost. Please read the DAS.

As the requirement for the D class towers is due to GA and small RPT as well as the larger airlines they will insist on a tonnage rather than a pax rate.(as per CA/GRS)

Please note, neither the DAS nor the USA system positions us to be requiring one yet. Probably within 10 years our terminal airspace will need to go from DTI(CA/GRS) to Control(D class tower). Read the DAS

Mr Dick Smith and I do agree that when a tower is required the best option is a private tower as allowed in the USA but as advised insurance will be a problem. BIA would make this a non profit service open to audit by the airlines but it will still be a significant charge and subject to AA and CASA agreement(estimate it by multiplying the pax charge by two). This option is covered in the DAS, read it.

Dodgybrothers, I hope this covers the matters you raised, my apologies if my reply seems stern, but I felt the implied profit motive for CA/GRS was a low blow as was attemting to undermind the integrity of the DAS by playing the man. The DAS is the culmination of a great deal of professional effort from a well qualified team. Read it, critique it, answer the questions it raises.

The challenges and problems that various stages of the NAS raise should be assessed by meritious study and examination- we are dealing with people's lives, people who buy a ticket for themselves and their children and know nothing about aviation. At BIA we approach our terminal airspace responibilities with this in mind and the Board is unanimous in placing this aproach ahead of profits otherwise we would not have commited the resourses and time to the DAS.($70,000 and 7 months)

If we can agree on this "safe for the public" assessment criteria alone, then the personal politics can be left at the door and professional analysis replace preconceived egotistical unsubstantiated statements.There has been too much of this already, I blame this approach to the pickle we are in over 2b.

It is lunacy to play the man or make decisions based on limited personal experiences you don't build aircraft or aiports or ATC equiptment this way you don't become a Captain of an airliner or an ATC Officer this way- and you don't design an airspace this way.

Dodgybrothers this is the longest letter/email I have ever typed I have done so to explain why I BEG YOU and OTHERS " please don't start playing the man or the company.""please not on this issue"

Use our DAS as a basis for a better one, robustly and professionally challenge it - lets please progress our airspace using data, analysis and professional study in areas where we are appropriately qualified and experienced.

Mike Caplehorn
B.E. MIE Aust C P Eng FIACD
Chairman B.A.I.Group

[dodgybrothers]

no- I was not playing the man. If you are going to publish an 'independent' study as you put it you should at the very least declare an interest and I believe as a shareholder (voting rights or not) the good doctor has an interest.

I started operating into Broome when the terminal was nothing short of a tin shed so I for one certainly do not doubt the good work the the BIA group has done both for the town and for the airport. Now with the runway extentions I get to see if from time to time.



Dodybrothers
PaGf.hons (plumber and gasfitter, honestly)

[cogwheel]

This is why AOPAs position on NAS suprises me, with no steps between CTAF and D Class Towers and many regional airports with 737 ops it is obvious we will soon be getting a large number of D class towers.


Why would it? considering the amount of self promotion that comes from two of their board members. Cant tell them and they will continue to play the man. Ask them? They know best of course!

[QSK?]

Reports of safety incidents at airports without air traffic control towers – such as Kalgoorlie, Broome and Ayers Rock – had fallen by 30 per cent.

Dick would have us believe that this fall in incidents is due to the implementation of NAS 2(b).

However, these are Class G airports at which the 2b NAS initiatives had little (if any) influence on the operations at these airports.

And I thought I was a moron!

[Frank Burden]

Does AOPA have it wrong? When the spectre of user pays arose they adopted a strategy to minimise the cost to their user community. Did anyone think about the responsibility of the Federal Government to continue to provide a level of service commensurate with safety as a Community Service Obligation to the GA community and as a service to the remoter parts of OZ?

The aviation community has been poorly served by the divisiveness of the Government approach to divest itself of all responsibility and to reap the financial bonus of being able to sell off a commercially viable air traffic service provider.

[WALLEY2]

Gentlemen,

Do we have any feed back from the NASIG workshops?

We west of the rabit proof fence are waiting our turn. Would be keen to know of any spin on the DAS,forwarned is, well in this case forwarned!!

cheers

[Capn Bloggs]

Walley,
I'm going on THU and FRI, come hell or high water, and I'm taking my mates Smith and Wesson. The Smiths had better look out, because my Smith doesn't like 'em!:ok:

[INSIDEOUT]

cogwheel

"Why would it? considering the amount of self promotion that comes from two of their board members. Cant tell them and they will continue to play the man. Ask them? They know best of course!"

Nice quote it is starting to be very clear that the only one that likes the sound of his own voice is you! Nothing but childish games let me get on with my job please.

Your hatred towards some is starting to cloud right from wrong.

Ron B

[OverRun]

Walley2,

Feedback from the Perth workshop.

One word summary = productive

There was some frustration being let out by a few at the start. Some of the NASIG people apologised and said that they had expect a bit of this since they hadn't held many meetings in Perth before because of the cost of getting there, and the Sydney meeting had gone better because everyone there was used to the process. I'm sure if we started sending less mining tax money east, they'd quickly be able to improve on that.

I also reckon that part of the pressure was because none of us knew what was coming next. As it turned out, the Sydney session had had many of the same issues as Perth. One good thing - as a result of our feedback, the workshop at Darwin will have a list of the Sydney and Perth stuff to read though at the start, and that will probably take a lot of the anxiety out.

However once everyone settled down, I was amazed at how well it went. Great, and hats off to the people that ran it. There were a couple of show-stoppers when it turned out that some of the NASIG objections (issues?) were only because they hadn't got the current charts for Alaska or they hadn't read the Broome study properly, etc, etc.

You'd said above:
This is why AOPAs position on NAS suprises me, with no steps between CTAF and D Class Towers and many regional airports with 737 ops it is obvious we will soon be getting a large number of D class towers. The USA has some 470 such towers but also has FSS serviced airports and LAA via FSS airports and airports with dedicated Unicoms with compulsary calls.Read the DAS.

That came up a lot. For me the biggest thing that came out was that there is something special about WA airspace (well – it is actually the same issue in WA as in Alaska so can't really call it special – they are both empty of people and have to use jets]. Alaska has 737's operating into CTAFs, although the US itself mainly has 737s operating in Class D Towers. The difference between US and OZ is that their Alaska and Montana CTAFs with jets have Class E airspace and radar or ADSB, and our NAS has no Class E and no radar for WA. Big difference. There was a discussion about Class E and Class G airspace and it was obvious that no-one had realised that the US VFR Class G is a lot different to the US VFR Class E. That's a worry. This idea that Oz can run passenger jets in Class G is nonsense.

A lot of issues came up and a lot were written on the board. No guarantees were given about what happens from here and no promises to make the outcome public!! Saw a few spins on your DAS and they all vaporised after they got discussed.

Look forward to some feedback from Darwin.

[sport]

Dick is a polititian at heart and will jump of board good news when ever and where ever it comes from, and of course claim responsibility if it's good news.