PDA

View Full Version : Minister stands by $150m radar bid


Wirraway
4th Nov 2004, 13:21
Fri "The Australian"

Minister stands by $150m radar bid
Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
November 05, 2004

AIRSERVICES Australia will have to convince Transport Minister John Anderson there is no need to spend $150 million to install radar at airports subject to this month's national airspace system rollback.

A spokesman for Mr Anderson said this week that a directive requiring the radar at regional airports where Class E airspace would be reclassified to Class C on November 25 still stood, despite advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority questioning its need.

"As far as the minister is concerned, the directive stands and it's up to Airservices to convince him on the cost-benefit issue," the spokesman said.

He was commenting on an assessment of the changes provided to Mr Anderson this week by CASA chief executive Bruce Byron.

Mr Anderson released a letter from Mr Byron in which the CASA chief warned that any attempt to halt the November 25 rollback would "result in widespread confusion that would present unacceptable risks to the travelling public".

The letter, which Mr Anderson said he released in the interests of transparency, looked at claims that there was a "close to intolerable risk" associated with reverting to Class C airspace without radar.

The claims prompted Mr Anderson to issue a directive before the election requiring Airservices Australia to install radar at 10 regional airports subject to the November 25 revision.

In his assessment, Mr Byron said radar improved safety but the level of risk in Australian non-radar Class C terminal airspace had been assessed as only marginally higher than Class C with radar.

"This would seem to be an area where the traffic densities experienced in Australian airspace provide a different result than North America," he said.

"Additionally, there has been no evidence provided to CASA to support the claim that procedural non-radar Class C airspace in Australia is unsafe, and certainly not close to intolerable risk as you were previously advised."

Mr Byron said modelling undertaken by CASA several years ago demonstrated that the risks in non-radar Class C airspace in terminal areas were acceptable.

The addition of radar to areas where it was not available would lower risk from an already acceptable level and should be justified on cost-benefit grounds.

"On the strength of the information provided to me, it is my view that it would not be warranted to prescribe Class C airspace as exclusively radar airspace," Mr Byron said.

===========================================

Uncommon Sense
4th Nov 2004, 23:20
After publishing the findings of CASA on the rollback of elements of NAS Airspace this week, John Anderson has stated that, "well, No, I do stand by my pre-election 11th hour directive to Airservices" to install radar at D Airspace Control Towers.

I see Anderson's game - he wants a decision to back out of this to be made for him by others. Of course he knows very well this whole directive is unneccessary and is not a cost effective use of a lot of money.

If he gets Airservices to convince him it IS neccessary, he will somehow swing his directive around to making AirServices budget for it, when they don't need it or want it.

But if Airservices should NOT try and convince him out of it, just say: It's YOUR directive Minister - we WILL comply sir - cheque please!, he will be left with even more egg on that omellete of a face.

Anyway, How CAN Airservices be asked to convince the Minister on such issues when Anderson has clearly stated he is stripping Airservices of it's regulatory functions? Surely this is why Anderson asked CASA for their opinion?

Obviously he didn't get the desired answer from Mr Byron. All he is doing now is seeking 'advice' from official bodies, so he can pin the ridiculous decision, one way or another, on some other donkey. Well, I say, - DON"T convince him! Let him stand by his pre-election directive so eveyone can see the fool he is (those who haven't already).

http://www.wizfx.net/blogger.gif[4th Term Watch] (http://fourthtermwatch.********.com)

[Anyhow - I thought you were too busy with your mates Abbott and Andrews on your moral agenda of forcing abortions back in to unlicenced back yard clinics?]

Binoculars
5th Nov 2004, 00:15
Sorry, can't agree this time, Uncommon Sense.

The overturning of this ridiculous directive with its potential massive waste of public money, (no matter whose bucket the money is finally plucked from), is the imperative here. If in achieving this result this incompetent Minister thinks he can save a bit of face, so be it. And does anybody believe that AirServices will NOT be able to convince him to cancel, very reluctantly of course, his directive? Yeah, right! :rolleyes:

Those who matter know the truth about him and Smith and this whole sorry waste of time and money. Let's get back to the business of providing a safe service to everybody, and leave the spite behind us. There are a lot of wounds to heal.

VVS Laxman
5th Nov 2004, 00:51
Personally I'd say install the radars.

All you folk out in the D class Towers would have no reason to not change the D to C, change your pay scale to radar towers and use all the extra low level radar coverage in TAAATS.

Additionally it would provide a much better D service, cause it could be C in radar, a much better E service cause you'd see all the paints, a lot better G service because there would be better low level radar coverage.

Sure ADS-B, the great white hope, is just around the corner, but we all know that Primary radar coverage is much better than that airborne/GPS based surveillance. Surely in this alert not alarmed society the introduction of extra primary radar is an advantage to all.

The directive however does say something about 'install an approach radar service'; this is the overkill element and the massive ongoing cost basis. After the original hardware installation the ongoing cost of an extra 9 radar heads in only around $9M per annum; double it for approach controllers too...

Binoculars
5th Nov 2004, 01:02
I have news for you, Mr Laxman, and it may come as a shock to those who haven't worked procedural tower/approach. Radar approach controllers may get paid a lot more than we do, but the flexibility we have means we can move traffic a lot quicker than they do in a small piece of airspace.

This applies until movement numbers go beyond the point which procedural control was designed to handle. In short, for our traffic numbers we can do it quicker, more efficiently and cheaper than a full radar approach facility.

Leave us be, please!

Uncommon Sense
5th Nov 2004, 01:50
Bino's,

Point taken, but I think we are really talking about the same thing in terms of Anderson's political manouevring.

As can be seen from replies on PPrune , there is a belief out there somehow that radar approach is a worthwhile investment from whats left of an already wasted budget on NAS. As you rightly infer - it is a bloody nonsense.

Whilst you might disagree with my suggestion that Airservices not argue it one way or the other, I am afraid I can already see the headlines and press releases when Anderson announces his reversal of the decision. Airservices having been put in this Catch 22 position by the minister will be the scapegoat of the lobby groups and the just plain ignorant - although those parties may well overlap.