Geelong Advertiser re Avalon Airport

[Dick Smith]

I have placed the following article on PPRuNe so airline pilots can see what Lawrie Cox is saying:


http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/downloads/geelong_advertiser.jpg


This is very perplexing. I was asked by Danny Lannen of the Geelong Advertiser why airline pilots were not supporting the call for a radio operator or a tower at Avalon. I said that indeed they were, and that a Jetstar pilot had contacted me to say that the situation was not safe, and could I do something? They said that the only reason the tower was not manned was because of undue pressure to make profits.

Wouldn’t you have thought that upon interview, Lawrie Cox would have said words to the effect, “It’s good to see that Dick Smith has changed his mind and is now supporting control towers. We welcome his view and believe that the tower should be manned.”

By the way, my views have not changed at all. I am not a hypocrite. Yes, I was the CASA Chairman at the time the Mount Isa tower was closed down. That was because it did not meet the cost benefit formula as it had so few passengers and so few operations. My view is exactly the same today. I have continuously supported objective safety criteria which depend on collision risk. If the proper FAA cost benefit formula (as per NAS) was applied to Avalon, there would be no doubt that the tower should be manned. With over 1 million passengers per year it is just plain commonsense.

Does anyone know why the AFAP representative would be siding with the bosses (and airline profits) on this matter?

Does the AFAP need a spokesman who is a little less angry about the past, and more proactive about the future? Surely airline pilots would prefer an operating tower at Avalon.

I look forward to your replies.

[WELLCONCERNED]

In fact, Dick, this would be the perfect location to establish and demonstrate a US style Class D tower. The proximity of overlying controlled airspace, the access to communications and surveillance, etc, and the existing facilities at the airport would reduce establishment costs significantly [hence weigh the Cost Benefit Analysis in a more positive direction].

No need for complex airspace such as exists in other so-called Class D towers - simply a 5NM radius control zone, ground level to 2500 feet, with overlying ML CTA adjusted accordingly.

Approach area extensions [as is US practice] can be designated to become effective when instrument approach procedures are required.

This is [should be] a no-brainer - and should not require the higher level ratings that CASA and Airservices demand of their controllers at existing so-called Class D towers.

Two shifts a day [6.30am to 8.30pm], equals 14 shifts a week [one man tower], equals 3 staff [with leave relief from ML]. 3 staff equals about $300k, including on-costs - which works out at around $0.30 per passenger - less than the cost of one cigarette, or one piece of chocolate, or 1/4 litre of petrol!

Allow another few cents for the facilities, which you would expect the Avalon airport operator to provide.

[Kelly Slater]

I'll say it, “It’s good to see that Dick Smith has changed his mind and is now supporting control towers. We welcome his view and believe that the tower should be manned.”

[Atlas Shrugged]

Need a hug Dick? Here ya go.........

http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/hug5.gif

[tail wheel]

The nexus is an issue of safety:

Whether safety - particularly for heavy RPT aircraft - would be enhanced significantly to an extent to justify cost, by manning the Control Tower during periods of RPT operations.

The professional opinion of practicing airline pilots would be appropriate, without the usual thread drift into personalities.

This has been an issue in a number of threads. It is time for a professional, definitive, majority opinion.

Tail Wheel

[WELLCONCERNED]

Good point TW.

From past experience - and trying to put aside any pro/anti-Dick bias - the justifications for providing ATC at RPT locations revolved around the ubiquitous "FAA Cost Benefit Analysis Criteria" - something used by CASA, AsA, and its predecessors to either sustain, close, or deny tower services in Australia.

Again putting aside the DS connections, IF Avalon meets the FAA criteria for a tower service, and IF the facilities exist that COULD be used to provide a service, and IF AsA and CASA were willing to concede that there is a 'global best practice' service option available 'out there' - i.e., US Class D tower service in its entirety - and IF those entities were willing to facilitate its application - then shouldn't we try to provide a service to the RPT operations that will only increase at Avalon [Air Asia X comes to mind].

For once, I think DS has a very valid point - and all PPruNers should support his cry for some sort of control service at Avalon for RPT operations.

[tail wheel]

Thank you WELLCONCERNED. Whilst the FAA no doubt has the mathematics down to a fine art, I think the issue requires an Australian solution. Would safety at Avalon be enhanced to an extent which would justify the cost by provision of a manned control tower during periods of air transport category RPT operations.

Or conversely, does the current status represent an unacceptable long term safety risk to the extent the cost of the service would be justified?

I'm not expressing an opinion either way - I defer to the professionals - I'm merely adjudicating on an issue which has had more than it's fair share of coverage on PPRuNe.

[Spaz Modic]

Good to see you bouncing back Dick.:) Your nothing if not resilient. You should have been an airline pilot.
As I see it though, you are beating a dead horse:\
I note your regard for the AFAP hasn't changed, in contrast with your claim now that you have changed your mind about manning Towers at places like Avalon. Mt. Isa excluded.
It seems you had contact from one Jetstar pilot. That isn't a ringing endorsement to man the Tower there.
As has been mentioned already, if you had been a bit more savvy in 1989, rather than being rock solid behind the hypocritical PM of the day, and his puppeteer, you wouldn't necessarily have a case to argue now.
But I suggest it's a dead duck, Dick;)

[Chief galah]

1. Where are the personnel to man the tower going to come from?
2. Will the tight bums put in a proper radar display?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

…. this would be the perfect location to establish and demonstrate a US style Class D tower. The proximity of overlying controlled airspace, the access to communications and surveillance, etc, and the existing facilities at the airport would reduce establishment costs significantly [hence weigh the Cost Benefit Analysis in a more positive direction]. … why would one go to the trouble of installing a different, less safe and just as expensive US style D tower, when the current promulgated structure and procedures require only one operator ….. ?No need for complex airspace such as exists in other so-called Class D towers …. Hmmm, we are finally getting a flavour for WC’s bent on all of this … has taken a while to flush out though - simply a 5NM radius control zone, ground level to 2500 feet, with overlying ML CTA adjusted accordingly.
.
Approach area extensions [as is US practice] can be designated to become effective when instrument approach procedures are required.
.. I see, operate as an Island?, VFR only?, heard it all before ….. yes a real step forward … NOT!This is [should be] a no-brainer - and should not require the higher level ratings that CASA and Airservices demand of their controllers at existing so-called Class D towers. …. I beg your pardon?Two shifts a day [6.30am to 8.30pm], equals 14 shifts a week [one man tower], equals 3 staff [with leave relief from ML]. 3 staff equals about $300k, including on-costs - which works out at around $0.30 per passenger - less than the cost of one cigarette, or one piece of chocolate, or 1/4 litre of petrol!
.
Allow another few cents for the facilities, which you would expect the Avalon airport operator to provide. …. No different to the superior service that is already promulgated, documented and equipped (except cert radar, but then that applies equally to the numerous regional towers with more airspace and traffic than AV) ……. As far as AV, a superior service to US GAAP can be provided now …… if the bod’s were available!From past experience - and trying to put aside any pro/anti-Dick bias - the justifications for providing ATC at RPT locations revolved around the ubiquitous "FAA Cost Benefit Analysis Criteria" - something used by CASA, AsA, and its predecessors to either sustain, close, or deny tower services in Australia. … CASA and AsA …. You know not what you infer ….. look no further than ‘the nemesis’ for the FAA Est/Dis fervour
.
Summary of Responses to what was the latest attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/sor/sor0108as_intro-2.pdf (Comment 11 in particular re: FAA V’s Oz) Again putting aside the DS connections, … I don’t buy that, DS is in this up to his elbows, and based on your musing I suspect so are you IF Avalon meets the FAA criteria for a tower service, .. it surely meets the criteria for a service under Part 71 also and IF the facilities exist that COULD be used to provide a service, .. there is a fully functioning tower there OWNED BY ASA and IF AsA and CASA were willing to concede that there is a 'global best practice' service option available 'out there' .. yup, it is already documented and promulgated for AV - i.e., US Class D tower service in its entirety ….. there we go again - and IF those entities were willing to facilitate its application – .. why re-invent the wheel at great expense when all that has to happen is AN AERO STUDY and STAFF the dam’d thing then shouldn't we try to provide a service to the RPT operations that will only increase at Avalon [Air Asia X comes to mind]. … ask Dick why he wont support the gazetting of Part 71?? … I did, and the answer appalled me … lets see if he will explain it here to all of you :hmm:
.
… in the meantime, here are the links to the most recent Part 71 NPRM … read it and then tell us why Dick won’t support it (if he is genuine in this AV campaign)
.
Airspace Regulation History
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/casrcreate/071.asp
.
The most recent interaction of NPRM (note the date, and reflect on those influencing policy at the time)
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/01_nprm.asp#nprm0108as
.
Summary of Respondents to that NPRM (Speakes volumes does this SoR)
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/sor/sor0108asD_responders-2.pdf
.
BTW … any further comment on the CEO thread??? … you know, like what sort of reform (AusNAS) type undertakings have been given to get the gurnsey! :suspect: :mad:

[golow]

The tower should be open and Lawrie Cox and the AFAP don't represent me.

[QFinsider]

Agree with go low...

The concept of a Class D tower with overlaying ML CTA would appear a good concept given the proximity of heavy metal in the Melbourne Terminal Area and I think the "co-ord" is the important thing here...

May struggle with leave relief from ML TWR though, understand Air Services have plenty of problems with staffing.....

[WELLCONCERNED]

Looks like we've all been trumped.

According to news this morning, Mark Vaile has ordered an immediate inquiry - and you can bet "london to a brick on' that the tower will be staffed permanently within weeks.

Also likely that Broome will have ATC within 6 months.

A victory for common sense over statistics and endless studies.

Oh, and if Airservices can't staff the tower[s] - or try to use that as an excuse - then lets find someone who can provide ATC. It's done elsewhere - maybe one of the first tasks for the airspace authority should be to provide a regulatory framework that would allow economic and viable privately operated ATC services.

[CaptainMidnight]

golow The tower should be openOn what basis do you say that?

What are the traffic levels, and have you had any incidents?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... This should be fun :E
.
.. anyone got the popcorn and ice cream contract yet :}
.
... I'll give Ticketmaster a call :8

[kuldalai]

With Avalon being claimed as tenth busiest airport in Australia now with over 1 million pax through per annum, an International Operator confirmed from early 2008 when International Terminal built - then Jetstar will no doubt move their Melbourne International operations to Avalon to lower costs. Surely it is only a question of when Avalon control tower will be manned full time for all passenger movements rather than if .

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.... and still he skirts around the Part 71 issue
.
What are the trigger values for Part 71 D service Dick??
.
Comon Dick, tell us all why you won't support the gazetting of 71?
.
.. his response to Civilair:-
.
http://www.civilair.asn.au/_documents/20070823_dick_smith_reply_ymav.pdf
.
Spin cycle - Select :rolleyes:

[Creampuff]

Dick

I was going to say that I don’t understand why you argue with the monkeys rather than the organ grinders. You know the organ grinders: they’re the one’s who’ve been in power for 10 years and could make NAS happen with the stroke of a government-controlled parliamentary pen.

But then I remembered that you’re so infected by the politics-dressed-up-as-safety virus that even you don’t comprehend when you’re being taken as a patsy by the government.

Here’s how I confirm the diagnosis: tell me what’s stopping the government passing a law today, establishing a tower at Avalon and appropriating enough money to keep it and a bunch of happy controllers running for a few years with a few million left over?

Is it lack of government power? – No.

Is it lack of money? – Hell no: they’re falling over themselves looking for excuses to spend it.

Is it fear of offending the unions? - Don’t make me laugh!

So what is it that’s stopping them Dick?

[Dick Smith]

I’ll tell you what is stopping them Creampuff – it is the point that just about everyone (other than Dick Smith) is saying that a tower, or even a radio operator, is not needed at Avalon.

When you get Qantas and Jetstar, plus Airservices Australia, the Civil Air union and the AFAP, either saying nothing or claiming that a tower is not necessary, it is pretty obvious that the Government finds itself in a difficult position.

Creampuff, why don’t you tell me why these otherwise normally responsible organisations are being quite irresponsible in this situation?

I look forward to your advice.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

When you get Qantas and Jetstar, plus Airservices Australia, the Civil Air union and the AFAP, either saying nothing or claiming that a tower is not necessary, it is pretty obvious that the Government finds itself in a difficult position.
.
Creampuff, why don’t you tell me why these otherwise normally responsible organisations are being quite irresponsible in this situation?
.
I look forward to your advice. ....... pffffff :} ....
.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/popcorn.gif

[Creampuff]

Dick

If in fact:these otherwise normally responsible organisations are being quite irresponsible in this situationit's up to the government to step in and make them act responsibly. That's what governments are for and why they have power.

If the government fails to intervene when it can in circumstances in which public safety is at risk, isn't your argument with the government?

It's that monkey/organ grinder metaphor again.

Perhaps the government's done a (political) risk/benefit analysis and decided that exposing punters to risk at Avalon is better than offending some politically powerful organisations. Or perhaps the government doesn't agree with you. Either way, your argument appears to be with the government, not PPRuNers.

As a matter of interest, which party will you be supporting at the upcoming Federal election?;)

[kuldalai]

Well Geelong Advertiser reports today an Enquiry Group has been set up by Mark Vaile to assess the Avalon Control Tower staffing issue within weeks and that all and sundry are included , including Dick Smith . Minister says he expects an outcome in matter of weeks rather than months in terms of a recommendation.

Guys Broome is claimed to be busier than Avalon ? aircraft movement wise or passenger movement wise ? Surely Broome does not handle 1 million pax per annum ?

[mudpig]

Actually creampuff thats what CASA is supposed to be doing.:sad:

By the Hi Dick:ok:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/08/28/6417_news.html
.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/popcorn.gif

[Piston_Broke]

Dick Smithjust about everyone (other than Dick Smith) is saying that a tower, or even a radio operator, is not needed at Avalon.
Doesn't that say you're a lone voice, with little industry support?

[WELLCONCERNED]

Whoa, guys, whoa!

Avalon is fast becoming a second Melbourne primary airport - not because it doesn't have 'live' ATC - but because its airport fees and charges are low. That means more and more RPT services will start to operate from Avalon, and eventually, someone will say "well, gee - maybe we should have ATC on the ground here!".

That's an arbitrary decision.

There are, however, establishment and dis-establishment criteria out there [admittedly USFAA - but imported to Australia many years ago] that say that Avalon deserves the benefit of an "aeronautical study' to determine if an ATC tower service is required.

Ignore the current debate about Part 71 - that's a phurphy. Airservices has 'adjusted' the results to ensure it doesn't have to man the tower for any number of reasons.

In truth, the aeronautical study says that the 'per passenger' risk meets the criteria to do a cost benefit analysis on a tower service [I've seen it - it's true]. What is left to do is calculate the 'true cost' - not the hidden or inflated costs - of providing the infrastructure. It is an easy exercise to see that staffing costs are NOT a factor [and please ignore Airservices plaintiff cries that they don't have staff - that's a problem that AsA should have seen coming - not just at Avalon, but across the board! - and should NOT be used as an excuse to ignore the safety problems at Avalon].

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... closer :E
.
... now go and research the history of changes to drafts of Part 71
.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/popcorn.gif

[Chief galah]

The puddle of controllers used for Avalon, come from Essendon and Melbourne,
both of which have severe shortages themselves. To contemplate a team of suitably rated controllers in the short term, is folly, safety or not.

[SM4 Pirate]

Wellconcerned :ok:

From my information there is next to zero in terms of extra revenue for providing a tower service at YMAV; I suspect this is more to do with money than safety.

But, we can't ignore part 71; we need something better than we have now. An aero study at YMAV; conducted by whom? What about BLA, BME, AYE, PSP etc. When will they be done?

As far as staffing goes, well yes, they should have seen this coming; but then again on my roster we are 3 below establishment and it's likely to get worse before it gets better; every enroute group is screaming for staff from what I can tell; then there's all the SDE training, just sapping up resources further. So the staffing issue is not insignificant. Getting 3 people off the ML TWR/EN TWR roster is next to impossible.

Mind you and aero study is likely to last 3 months and then the implementation timetable to actually open the tower may take even longer; so nothing like getting on with it.

What about terminal class E? (procedural if needed) Clearances to get airborne?

[Chief galah]

How would E airspace help? IFR's delayed for each other if there's more than one, and VFR's still have open slather. Add to this the subjective assessement of "VMC" would make it just as hazardous.
I have heard of C airspace to the ground, administered by Melbourne TCU, which would be an interestingly complex concept.

[peuce]

Am I missing something? Am I looking at this too simply?


CASA regulates airspace
CASA does studies. rock, paper, scissors or whaterver ... and decides Class X airspace is required at Avaloan
Contracted supplier of services (that would be ASA) must provide Class X services


I didn't think that because Contractor can't provide sufficient staff, then Class X is suddenly not warranted :hmm:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

SM4, chief, peuce .... :ok:
.
.. although I agree with chief re E .. whats the point of it.
.
... bit like buying a porsche and putting a Dak Dak motor in it :}

[GaryGnu]

I have heard of C airspace to the ground, administered by Melbourne TCU, which would be an interestingly complex concept.

CG,

Isn't what you described there the exact definition of an approach control service?

The aerodrome control service aka "The Tower" is for the avoidance of collsions on the aerodrome. Class C to the ground controlled by the TCU is exactly what you have at all major aerodromes in this country.

Is the traffic situation on the manoeuvring area at YMAV so complex that an aerodrome control service (read tower) is warranted?

[Creampuff]

Mudpig

I think you will find that CASA is among the very organisations that Dick claims are being 'irresponsible'. My point remains that if Dick thinks CASA is being irresponsible, his argument is with the organ grinders - the government that has the power to do what ever it likes with CASA.

[bluerider777]

Garygnu,


Isn't what you described there the exact definition of an approach control service?

The aerodrome control service aka "The Tower" is for the avoidance of collsions on the aerodrome. Class C to the ground controlled by the TCU is exactly what you have at all major aerodromes in this country.

Is the traffic situation on the manoeuvring area at YMAV so complex that an aerodrome control service (read tower) is warranted?


It is not the manoeuvring area that is complex. If TCU were to control to the ground (Class C airspace) then the result would be basically one in, one out. This would provide procedural separation until acft are identified then radar after that. In other words it would create delays due to the Tower not being able to assist with visual separation (quite a large part of their job IMHO). This also avoids the question of which part of ML TCU would carry this extra workload etc.

IMHO the tower is there, the people are gettable, it seems to meet parameters for a tower, and it would without doubt be safer with a manned Tower. It unfortuanately seems to be a money issue. We hear rumours the airlines don't want it as it costs, AsA don't want it as it costs (likely to run at a loss like most regional towers), light acft operators don't want it as they are worried about restrictions.

Anyway, for once I find myself agreeing with Dick - though a Class D tower to A025 would be a terrible option (again IMHO). The tower should be manned, Class C ASAP.

Blue

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

..... :D .....