Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?

[Barkly1992]

Reported in Crikey today:

14. Dick Smith's $100,000 message for Kerry O'Brien: fix the skies
Luke McKenna writes:

Dick Smith, former chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority and Civil Aviation Safety Authority, has hit out at Airservices Australia and the ABC’s The 7:30 Report in an unusual -- and expensive -- stunt designed to raise awareness of his ongoing air traffic safety concerns.
Smith has sent a letter to The 7:30 Report ’s Kerry O’Brien, along with a cheque for $100,000, to highlight his allegations that the program has been "captured" by Airservices Australia's spin doctors.

The letter (click here for Dick Smith's perspective in full) weaves through accusations of interview footage being twisted or dumped, important arguments suppressed and story tips ignored in order to protect AA and its alleged lapse in air traffic control measures at Avalon Airport -- Smith argued in a press release last year that "Avalon Airport, near Melbourne has now operated for two years with over 1 million passengers in "dirt road" uncontrolled airspace."
Here are some excerpts:
… Kerry, I believe you are really letting Australia down. There will unfortunately be blood on your hands when the inevitable accident occurs and it becomes apparent that you have not only suppressed stories on the need for air traffic control but you have also run stories which are quite dishonest and inaccurate and have prevented airports being upgraded to controlled airspace.
… I sincerely believe that because of the growing number of movements and the complete lack of any air traffic control or even a local radio operator at Avalon, it will only be months before there will be a major mid-air collision with hundreds of lives being lost. Because of that, I am prepared to pay for the tower (that exists already) to be manned. I enclose a cheque for $100,000 made out to Airservices Australia.
I am not sending it directly to them because they will not accept it and they will use their spin doctors to distort my offer and stop any change.
I hope this cheque will give you a chance to do a proper story about the neglect.
…I have explained to you before that there is a financial benefit for the Airservices Australia executives not to have the tower operating. This is because all small towers lose money for Airservices and the executives depend on a substantial part of their pay on the bonus of the profits of the organisation.
…I trust you will contact Airservices and I look forward to your major story on this issue and the handing over of the cheque to get air traffic control operating at Avalon.
Yours faithfully
Dick Smith
Kerry O’Brien was in transit and unable to comment prior to publication.

[VH-Cheer Up]

Kudos to Dick for putting his money where his mouth is.

[Dick Smith]

VH-Cheer Up, thanks for your support. If you want to read the full letter, see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/letter_obrien.php?source=cmailer). I suggest you especially look at Attachment D showing the incidents that are now occurring at Avalon. It is amazing that the ATSB does not say anything.

[Ralph the Bong]

What about Broome? I understand that this is arguably the most dangerous airport in Australia; multiple jet RPT flights, VFR lighties, no radar, no tower, TPRXs not required...

I can't see what's "dangerous" about Dicks' assertions; certainly not 'spin'. I actiually agree with him.

[Walrus 7]

Here's the problem that I have: most of the incidents in Attachment D don't have anything to do with the classification of the airspace. It even mentions the Connie shutting down No.2 at the Avalon Airshow this year when the tower was most certainly manned. Then there's the birdstrikes. Do the birds know it's uncontrolled airspace? If you thresh out some of the chaff in the list of incidents, not a lot of it has anything to do with the classification of the airspace at Avalon.

As a simple GA pilot, I find myself transitting AV often, and the ability to fly right over the top is just brilliant. No doubt a tower wouldn't let us do that (as they don't at Melbourne without climbing to 6000 first). We have no chance of regulating for drongoes. Those who transit AV without calling probably transit BDG, SHT, LTV and all the other major CTAFs without calling also. Flying silent over one of the latter is much more dangerous that flying silent over AV because the traffic concentration is higher. Come to think if it, it's more dangerous overflying PCK!

If there are any JQ boys in the air at the time, we've always managed to sort things out without any risk to anyone. Is there really a need for a tower at AV given that the majority of the incidents here wouldn't have been avoided had it been manned?

Walrus

[Atlas Shrugged]

http://www.logohoax.com/TheBrokenRecordTechnique.jpg

[QSK?]

In the last 12 months, I have probably flown over (through) AV about 20 odd times at different times of the day.

In all cases I have made the recommended broadcasts and, to the best of my memory, I have only ever presented a traffic confliction once to any other aircraft.

The rest of the time, the silence has been golden. I certainly wouldn't think that AV even warrants CA/GRS - let alone a tower!

[Dick Smith]

Walrus 7, you don’t link the bird strikes with someone in the tower. I understand from talking to air traffic controllers that at controlled airports they often advise the safety officer that there are birds at the threshold if there is a jet on its way in. It appears that he drives out and encourages the birds to move away. It sounds to me as if that is worthwhile for safety.

QSK, are you really suggesting that airports with up to a million passenger movements per year can operate without any air traffic control and without even a UNICOM operator? What would happen if your radio stopped transmitting when you were making the recommended broadcast? How would you know? The carrier would still operate the beep-back, but there may be no modulation.

So if Avalon doesn’t require a tower for safety, why do we have towers at places like Coffs Harbour and Hamilton Island? Is it sensible to place our towers where air traffic controllers want to live and work, not where the risk is highest?

[Walrus 7]

Dick,

Yes, I see your point on the birds. But why can't JQ's ground staff do that now? Birds are a problem at every airport in the world, but how many of them need a tower for it. Hamilton Is and Coffs probably need towers because the number of movements dictates it. I haven't checked on that but I suspect that's the case.

Walrus

[CaptainMidnight]

airports with up to a million passenger movements per year can operate without any air traffic control and without even a UNICOM operator? Number of pax per year is irrelevant in dictating the level of ATS. That's just scare tactics to the public who don't know any better.

The level of ATS & airspace classification is dictated by traffic levels. And even the FAA don't consider UNICOMs in determining the level of ATS required at a particular AD.What would happen if your radio stopped transmitting when you were making the recommended broadcast? How would you know? And how would the Tower - and least of all a UNICOM operator - know who's responsible? A dead carrier could be coming from anywhere, if there is one at all. Radar surveillance would (and does) detect unidentified traffic and is passed as part of RAS if it is relevant.

[gaunty]

Keeerist, that is the sort of letter that my email spam control sends to the Junk bin with all the other offers of gazillions of dollars if I send my bank details or register as a bazillion dollar lottery winner.

I guess Kerry's email spam control does the same and if Kerry is as smart as I think he is, to stop the voices in his head too, he'll keep on his aluminium foil hat with the spiky horns.

Blood on his hands indeed. :ugh::ugh::rolleyes::{

Spin you say, spinning spin doesn't cut it either.

Mr Smith grow up, you do your oftentimes worthy causes no good at all with that sort of tripe. There may well be some sense in what you say but it sure is hard to find it amongst the rhetoric.

[tobzalp]

If it is supposedly uncontrolled, how come one of the incidents is the Avalon ADC not coordinating with ML App?

I just finished reading the list Attachment D. Every single one that is not a bird running into a plane is a case of someone doing the wrong thing. There is not one instance of everybody doing what they were supposed to do and something stuffing up. An example of this would be "at 2312 C172 broadcast intentions on CTAF as required. A320, after departing without hitting any birds and making all broadcasts as required received an RA based on the proximity of the C172'.:ugh:

Grasping at straws again.:rolleyes:

[Sunfish]

I'm at a loss to understand how the manning of the tower at Avalon would increase safety levels.

Is it going to fix bird strikes, Rabbit strikes and mid-Hare collisions?

I suggest that the C172 "Contamination" could be fixed by more English classes at YPCK. They won't talk because they don't understand and don't know what to say or do in reply anyway. But perhaps I'm being unfair.

I've never had any trouble transiting over YMAV, but I have had to do an orbit from time to time over that way to obtain some separation from the odd C172 who either can't or won't communicate.

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight, you state:

Number of pax per year is irrelevant in dictating the level of ATS. That's just scare tactics to the public who don't know any better. I’m now looking at my latest CASA document on the matter. It is headed Air Traffic Control Towers Decision Criteria September 1998.

The purpose of this paper
This paper advocates that Australia moves from the present cost benefit criterion for ATC towers to a criterion based on the number of fare paying passengers protected by the ATC tower service. My case rests.

Surely it is clear how a tower or a UNICOM operator would know who is responsible for a carrier without any modulation – they would simply ask. More to the point, the pilot giving the call wouldn’t get an answer from the UNICOM or the tower, so they would know there was a problem and change to the other radio. Surely that is pretty basic.

[squawk6969]

I only have one radio:eek: so what would I do:{

SQ

[Dick Smith]

Tobzalp, no, I’m not grasping at straws again. Surely one of the advantages of air traffic control in the tower is that there is a “fail/safe”, not a “fail/dangerous” system. Are you suggesting that the airport cannot be made safer with air traffic controllers manning the tower? Or do you think the 30 or 40 cents per head it would cost is too expensive?

[Dick Smith]

Squawk6969 – der! You would check your microphone selector, the speaker selector, check your frequency was correct, and then you would be extremely vigilant knowing that you had a faulty radio. If you were landing, you would watch for a green light from the tower if it was manned.

By the way, where is Civil Air? Why haven’t they made a statement supporting the fact that ATC should man Avalon tower for safety purposes?

[Lodown]

Where is Civil Air?

Like me, probably sitting in front of the TV with a cold beer or two getting ready for the Rugby World Cup. They know that any serious indication of funding for a tower at Avalon will be followed immediately by a huge bellow for privatised tower services and will have nothing to do with them.

[Walrus 7]

Does anyone know exactly what the criterion for a tower is nowadays? I was always under the impression that it was 100,000 movements, but if that was the case then we'd only have 10 towers in the country, and none at Darwin, Hobart, Essendon and Canberra among most of the regionals.

Walrus

[Atlas Shrugged]

You would check your microphone selector, the speaker selector, check your frequency was correct, and then you would be extremely vigilant knowing that you had a faulty radio. If you were landing, you would watch for a green light from the tower if it was manned
And you may care to squawk 7600 as well ;)

[milehighsociety]

Hey boys and girls.. several things worth mentioning..

In Broome, they have just cracked 350,000 seats per annum. The local papers suggested that federal law dictates that anything over that number requires a control zone.

I am a regular at that aerodrome and can say that most of the time a tower is of little benefit... try cracking in there around lunchtime though.. 2 737's 10 mins apart, a Braz incoming and one outgoing. A customs dash 8 doing all sorts.. A couple of twins some inbound some outbound. Numerous singles in and out bound and a hoard of singles inbound from scenic flights etc, its not uncommon to see 20 rego's on your flight plan all relevant traffic to you.

ATC could do some good there as the advisory tower is getting a little too much to handle at times and there has been conflicts.

Im not to up to scratch at all on AV's operations but could it be something similar?? Ie: a rush hour situation??

Im not happy about it.. as an operator they are no doubt going to slam us for even more rediculous landing fees (already $27 for a C210 and $55 for a twin)and no doubt double parking and rent and probably put parking meters on the bays we pay rent for, not to mention the $10 levy at the entrance gate just to get to our planes. Then if you have an ATC tower its mandatory to have complete fire services as well apparently.. There goes free car parking and an additional weather levy too..

Of course, we can forward these costs on to the customer, but they struggle as it is. We can of course forget aviation all together, I hear coles need vegetable managers..

In the end however, we have a problem. Air safety is paramount. Every accident we have brings in laws and maintenance requirements that cost far more than the implementation of ATC at certain aerodromes that may or may not be required.

Dick has a point.. he has been around for a while and I imagine understand the cost of every crash, not just in lives but in ensuing crap as well. You all have a point as well, towers cost money that eventually drowns GA in favour of airlines, when GA is goine all together, we no longer need the subsidiary towers.

SO:

What do we do. There is a balancing act here. There are two sides to this and if we dont find that delicate balance then someone cocks it up and we will end up with some CASA idea where we have a tower operational only during quiet times with FOI's noting all aircraft arriving during peak hour and sending citations to each rego holder for not arriving in a CASA specified tower hour.. I wouldnt put it past the BOZOS in CASA.

We all have our opinions, so why not discuss, rather than argue. Agree to disagree where necessary and leave the sarcasm and insults for when we have to call CASA over the other rediculous ideas such as ASICS etc.

I want to be in this game for a long time yet.. I love GA and I aint going anywhere else by choice. I want it to be good to me, so help me make it a little better.

Any suggestions by anyone that would avoid a tower at both BRM and AV would be great.. Enough ideas in the melting pot and something positive might just happen.

[Dick Smith]

Kaptain Kaos, I don’t actually believe it will be the money that gets an upgrade of the service at Avalon – but definitely the publicity created by the offer will. I guarantee that within a short time there will either be a radio operator in that tower, or air traffic control.

The reason I am so confident is that once some of the management of Jetstar and Qantas have been exposed to what is going on, they will see the sense of following world safe practice and having a system which does not rely on “calling in the blind” and therefore “fail/dangerous.”

Just wait and see.

[TeeTail]

Lets take your money and crew the tower at Avalon Mr Smith.

We need how many controllers? Three, maybe four to cover days off, lunch breaks etc. Where are we going to get them?; lets pull them from Melbourne, Essendon and Moorabbin seeing as they live close to Avalon.

Wait a minute, I seem to recall the phrase "Melbourne clearance delivery and ground frequencies combined due staff shortage, expect delays" Broadcast on the Melbourne ATIS.

Now, boys and girls, I believe that if we are having trouble employing staff for the major international towers where the passenger numbers per year are many, many times Avalon's capacity, that is a more major safety concern than the tower at Avalon.

If you want to do something worthwhile with your money Mr Smith I suggest looking at ways to improve the training intake at Airservices Australia.

And I agree with Kaptain_Kaos, judging by how quiet you have been the past few months, it's obviously time for another attention seeking, publicity grabbing statement.

Rant Over

*steps down from the box"

TT

[milehighsociety]

How about some positive suggestions mate.. Give the guy a go. He forked out 100K to help out, yeah there was an element of publicity about it but at least he is doing somthing positive.

How about enough of the rough comments, and a little more of something positive that someone might actually use to solve a problem.

Fair go fellas/Sheilas, there are alot of inherent problems with our aviation industry.. insults arent solving anything.

WAKE UP!!!

[Kaptain_Kaos]

Dear Dick,


I will take that guarantee.
Please quantify "short time".
I consider a sort time as 4 weeks.

My little megalomaniac friend. You delude yourself and others on this forum that you posses some magical power. You have neither the the power nor the authority to "guarantee" anything. You only delude yourself when you finally believe these things.

Like I said before, just keep taking the little red ones.

[SM4 Pirate]

He forked out 100K to help out, yeah there was an element of publicity about it but at least he is doing somthing positive.Writing a cheque that will never be cashed, is hardly "forking out" anything.

[PA39]

How about Lindsay Fox "kicking the tin"? He has the most to gain and possibly the most to lose in the case of mishap.

[Barkly1992]

It has been interesting reading this thread seeing I started it.

No one has mentioned 'THE STUNT' which why I put it up. A cheque for $100,000 sent to Kerry O'Brien - 7:30 Report - to run the story. This was the spin.

I think Kerry ought to bank it and then donate it to a good cause.

As for the argument about manned towers by ATC - this from a man who was Chairman of the CAA when they closed flight service offices around the country and control towers during the first re-structure of the airspace back in 1991! I had no problem with the policy then and still don't.

It is a bit like the hospital debate going on in northern Tasmania. Conduct an inquiry, make some decisions, implement and the have someone come along a few years later and try and buy some votes.

Jeeees - save me from the pollies.

:{

[milehighsociety]

Yes the cheque hasnt been cashed, but it is signed and was designed to be cashed. Seems to me it hasnt been cashed out of sheer stubborness..
And I read all the links.. You all gripe and moan and insult .... has one of you made a positive suggestion yet or at least proposed a better idea... has any one of you proposed any idea?? Nothing but insults.. Be very embarrassed boys and girls. I had naturally assumed that those in this industry are meant to be intelligent.. Looks more like a mob of small man syndrome. How depressed it makes me to know you are the future of aviation.
\
From now on, sit in your little knitting circles and argue amoungst yourselves. No one wants to hear your insults. When you can provide positive suggestions or at least add to someone else's.. or present to the public a reasonable point of view, then write it up here.
So far the only person providing positive input is the guy you are cutting down. Be ashamed... Be very ashamed.

Dicks idea may not be the best.. maybe there are better ways to present his idea... but at least he had an idea, and at least he is doing something about it. As for you jokers in this thread, you got nothin'...

[Lodown]

Ooooh! Insults? I wasn't aware that Avalon was in need of an idea anyway. What's wrong with the situation now? One or two people think Avalon needs a tower at a time nearing an election and after trying to get a privatised tower at every other regional airport in Australia at several times in the recent past, including Broome. Another 10 or 11 or 20,000 may not necessarily agree.
Cheques, who would you suggest cash the cheque and is that person allowed to bank the cheque by his/her employer? See if you can find it for all the strings.
RAPAC! Ever heard of the term? Well respected industry representation, particularly in Victoria. There was a great deal achieved at these forums, but it's been done quietly. Why is there a need to make a very public and very vocal push for a tower, when the ACF (http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/consult/acf.htm) should be effective? Perhaps the industry support does not exist.
Short of ideas?
Here's idea No.1. Go through CASA. I don't mind if there is a tower at Avalon or not if it's warranted, but why the need to circumvent effective processes?
Idea No. 2. Perhaps the money can be donated to GA to mitigate landing fees to the value of $100,000 across the country.
Idea No. 3. Let's all return to our knitting, argueing, beers and rugby. (Not a bad pastime.)

I choose No. 3. You should try it.

[kiwiblue]

Well spoken milehighsociety. Your post probably the most relevant & accurate I've seen in a while :ok:

[ROARING RIMAU]

When Dick's National Party mates are run out of office later this year we will never hear from him again.:D

Get your hand off it Dick and let your brain relax before engaging the fingers.:ok:

[tobzalp]

“fail/safe”, not a “fail/dangerous” system.
As I stated, when everybody does the correct thing, it seems to work. The problem is obviously that these airspace changes are being made without correct consultation, training and risk analysis. Obviously as I am sure you agree, if the pilots involved were correctly trained, the mistakes would never be made in the first place. It is basically criminal that these pilots are allowed to fly in the sky without the knowledge of the regulations.

For the record, put a tower next to every single piece of bitumen for all I care but make sure you tell everybody what is expected of them and tell them soon enough for them to learn.

[slice]

BWAHAHAHAHA - no one takes any notice of DICK anymore so he resorts to CHEQUEBOOK JOURNALISM - except he is the one writing the cheques!:p Hilarious stuff - sounds like a monty python sketch.

[Dick Smith]

Barkly1992, you state:

this from a man who was Chairman of the CAA when they closed flight service offices around the country and control towers during the first re-structure of the airspace back in 1991! It was (and still is) about moving the resources so we can save the most lives. Now that Avalon Airport has about 1 million passengers per year, I believe it should have either ATC or at least a radio operator in the tower – i.e. one that could provide a UNICOM service.

I have always been totally consistent – put the money where the risk is. That is, not Class C above Albury Tower (where there is virtually no collision risk), but controlled airspace in the airport area at Avalon – where the risk is far higher. Everything I have ever said and written was because I took good advice in those early years and was told that our system (even then) was “upside down.”

For example, we had mandatory radio and full position reporting for VFR above 5,000 feet enroute, when of course the collision risk was higher below 5,000 feet. We built a brand new tower at Gove when there was virtually no collision risk there, but we did not man a tower at busier airports. We purchased one of the best radar systems in the world, but basically below 12,500 feet (and then below 8,500 feet after some changes when I was Chairman in 1998) we did not use the radar properly.

It is all about moving the resources to where the risk is greatest.

[Dick Smith]

Tobzalp, I certainly don’t agree that if pilots involved were correctly trained that the mistakes would never be made in the first place. For example, the Airbus that took off from Avalon (giving its calls on the wrong CTAF frequency) would clearly have correctly trained pilots.

I bet you will find that it was a simple human factor problem, or maybe something wrong with the equipment. Can I ask someone from CASA or the ATSB to tell us what exactly happened? We can all learn from this.

[socks and thongs]

I am sorry, maybe I have stepped in at the wrong time here but there are a few points here that are quite confusing for my little brain.

A man has given away 100K to at the very least create some publicity about a potential problem and at the very best get some people into gear to fix it.

Maybe I'm not reading between the lines but to me that sounds like a good thing.

Maybe I'm just not angry enough to know it all.

[RENURPP]

Here's an idea. As the aiport operator raise the landing fees considerably within 30 mins either side of a JET RPT planned arrival and departure. That will decrease the aerodrome traffic at peak periods.
It won't cost any one a cent if there smart, and it certainly will remove the need for a tower.
I spend 50/50 in controlled airspace to "G" non controlled airspace during climb and descent flying RPT Jet. All of my near misses including RA's have been in non radar "C" airspace, with the exception of one RA in Darwin "C" airspace. Does that say anything at all?

[Walrus 7]

Benurpp (PpruneB?)

A great concept that will have no effect at Avalon. AV is not a public airport; it is owned by Linfox and you're unlikely to get permission to use it. You have to remember that the 'peak' periods at Avalon carry less traffic than the peak periods at most average CTAFs. Raising the landing fees to reduce traffic is pointless when all you need to do is refuse entry.

Potential traffic conflict at AV is very low given TCAS and virtually no private GA inbounds. There are GA overflies, but the sensible ones track overhead the field in airspace that JQ and their mates don't use.

I've tracked over AV several times when JQ was rolling and we just talked to each other and stayed clear. Nice bunch of blokes they have been too. Any input by a tower would have increased safety by refusing me a clearance and sending me northward or southward until the step was cleared.

If a tower was put in at AV, you can guarantee there would be no E over D there either, creating another roadblock for VFR traffic.

Walrus

[RENURPP]

I wasn't thinking AV sorry. I see no need for a tower there.
I was answering Mile Highs comments regarding Broome where there are multiple GA movements around the same time as RPT Jets.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Walrus7 .... nup .. Class D VFR/IFR
.
Separation standard, maybe a geo clearance limit, prolly not 90% of the time, or;
.. traffic info to the IFR .. segregation (safe geographic) ... then when proximity warrants ATC visual sep .. there are **** loads of ways to skin the cat
.. easy as piss when you know what you are doing (particularly if you have a slave radar to confirm aircraft position)
.
.... diversions all over the place or delays rarely happen .... tis a demonstrable fact ... saying otherwise does not make it fact ;)
.
... did I mention CASR Part 71 :E ... would make this discussion irrelevant .. but that would not be half as fun when grandstanding is the order of the day :p

[SM4 Pirate]

A man has given away 100K to at the very least create some publicity about a potential problem and at the very best get some people into gear to fix it.Nup; has written a cheque that will never be cashed to create that publicity. Then if you have an ATC tower its mandatory to have complete fire services as well apparently..In fact the establishment of the fire service has little to do with ATC; other than it's currently provided by AsA. Take HM, AY, CH, BK, MB, JT, AF, PF etc. they are operating under quite different ARRF conditions to AYE, and YMAV etc. where there are no (effectively) TWRS. Perhaps the rules relating to the fire service should equally apply to ATC; types of movements and pax.

Number one in this is there is no Establishment/Deestablishment criteria for ATC or 'classes' of airspace. The draft part 71 had 3 criteria, total movements/RPT movements/pax numbers; but they were then just trigger points to 'make an assessment' if a TWR is needed (after that assessment) it still could be 5 years after the trigger point was reached. before it actually happened.

Historical data assessed against a benchmark of some sort says risk = X; but what do you do with that?

If TGR, JST, VOZ, QFA all say the demand for PMQ flights is 'going off' and all decide to HUB out of PMQ (extreme example I know) instead of SY (due to delays) at what point would a tower be established; what if they did it for only 3 months?

[milehighsociety]

Hey Renurpp,

Good on you mate.. its a bloody good suggestion. Im not sure it will work, due to operational reasons for the GA contingent but your idea has got some weight to it. If you dont mind, the next meeting I have with these people, I will present it, or perhaps a form of it that will suit the GA a little better..

The rest of you take note... see how he used his brain?? Incredible huh.. Try it a little yourselves.

Lodown.
1)Read the letter first in this post.. it clearly states the cheque was written to Airservices.. Not one man or any other. They could quite easily use it.

2)If you dont think they need a tower in AV.. simply state why, perhaps Dick might see your point of view and agree, or perhaps include that in his processes which create his ideas and thoughts.

3) I am aware of RAPAC and have meeting booked with regarding future of Broome. Im not going to insult anyone and Im sure my input will be valued, unlike yours.

3) Feel contented that your level of maturity and ability to reasonable argue your point has you looking a little below puberty in the mental ages. If you are going to mnake such a strong statement, have some information to back it up. Insults dont cut it.. I dont know about too many others but I wont ever bother reading anything you write again... You have proven your worth in a conversation.

[Lodown]

Milehighsociety, I didn't mean to get you riled. Well...actually I did. You're leaving yourself open to it.
On a serious note on a not so serious thread, do you not see the delicious irony in this subject?
One moment, the industry (with some very vocal figureheads) is calling for AsA to be more commercial; to run at a profit. But for some reason, regulations, traffic and safety studies aside, it is now seen as too commercial and allegedly doesn't want to open a tower because it will lose money. Which is it to be because there is no halfway? An organisation can't be a little bit commercial.
If I offered you a cheque for $100,000 with the stipulation that it be utilised in the purchase of a brand new G-V bizjet, would you take it? If AsA wouldn't accept a cheque directly from Dick, why would they accept a cheque from Dick via Kerry O'Brien?
As for a simple statement as to why Avalon doesn't need a tower...It doesn't have one because it doesn't need one. The onus isn't on me to prove why it doesn't have one. The onus is on the parties who want one to prove that it does. :ok:

[tobzalp]

Actually, reading my posting, I have perhaps not revealed my stance on the matter. I agree entirely that Avalon should have a tower. Also places like Dubbo, Broome, Port Macquarie, Horn Island, Gove, Mt Isa and I could go on. Your 'proof' is what is flawed Dick. Don't run with that. You would be better served to just be consistent, as it is the US system you want, just get in black and white the things they use to determine tower needs and run with them. You will have 100% support I am sure from all bar those who pay the fees which are INCONSISTENT with the US system.

The GA lobby is very powerful in this land and if you want a system from elsewhere, you must import the whole deal including how it is paid for. There is some interesting reading laying about as to the need for change in the US in this respect. Tough road ahead if you really think you and I will get down it.

[milehighsociety]

ONYA MATE!!!

Now we are getting somewhere :ok::ok::ok:

[tobzalp]

Don't talk too soon chief. Charging and consistency have been the two show stoppers to date.

[milehighsociety]

Please note...

I said "getting somewhere"... not "getting there" :):):)

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... his reply is so tightly spun ... it resembles a ball of wool :hmm:
.
http://www.civilair.asn.au/_documents/20070823_dick_smith_reply_ymav.pdf
.
Part 71 Dick .... what say you?

[Fantome]

http://dicksmithflyer.com.au/letter_obrien.php?source=cmailer

Refer the link to Attachment D - the much touted 54 occurrences at Avalon, (16 of which were bird/rabbit strikes). The listed occurrence dates span 14/05/05 to 09/09/07 (sic), in no semblance of chronological order or clerical care. Incidence of incidents possibly as few as one per fortnight. Draw your own conclusions as to value of this data, but be very careful if tempted to attach it to any affadavit or wave it under the nose of a Kerry O'Brien.

On a digressive note Neddy, the fabulous $100,000 cheque that you can also see from it's link, is on a par with the one written to "East Sale Officers' Mess Benevolent Fund" by the late G/C Brian (Blackjack) Walker for, in pounds, ten grand. On the back of this prize souvenir is written "Blackjack pays for the Beaufort he burnt".

[Barkly1992]

Ok - has Kerry still got the cheque. If so, time for him to put it on the bar.

Mine will be a schooner of VB thanks Kerry.

:}

[Kaptain_Kaos]

Dear Dick,

4 weeks has come and gone and I still don't have my guarantee.

Is that phone to the Minister not working anymore?

Smoke and Mirrors, Smoke and Mirrors.

[krankin]

Why doesnt dick just give his $100,000 to GFS at PCK for an english teacher for their students? Maybe another $100,000 to teach them how to use their radios and AV will be a safe place for all!! :oh:

[insertnamehere]

All I can think of is a concept from some years ago called "affordable safety".

Now where have I heard that before?

[Pinky the pilot]

All I can think of is a concept from some years ago called "affordable safety".

Now where have I heard that before?

Funny you should mention that insertnamehere! That in turn reminds me of a notice I saw on the door of the old Nationair offices in Port Moresby years ago.
''If you think safety is expensive, try having an accident''

I sometimes gain the impression that some people have forgotten this old saying.

[Dick Smith]

Kaptain_Kaos, in your post of 22 August you referred to me as

My little megalomaniac friend Why do you do this? I would have thought that the experience of Caroline Tulip (see here (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=254348)) would have made it obvious that to anonymously defame a person on PPRuNe is not sensible.

I don’t consider 4 weeks a short time in aviation reform. I would consider a period of 3 months to be pretty short, and I believe that we will have either a tower or a radio operator at the airport within this period (or at least a decision to have one or the other).

By the way, do you support the present operations at Avalon – where there are over one million passenger movements without any local air traffic control, Certified Air/Ground or UNICOM operator?

Do you consider that it is safe for airline traffic to mix with light aircraft without any real way of confirming that radios are working correctly and on the appropriate frequency?

Do you consider it fair that when the military do some training in their King Air, they pay to man the tower – probably something like $300 per hour – but when trusting Australians fly in with Jetstar, there is no one in the tower for a saving of probably 50 cents per passenger?

I find it fascinating that there is not a lot of support for upgrading the airport at Avalon. You may have seen the announcement by the Minister in relation to providing UNICOMs at both Dubbo and Wagga – airports which have about 20% of the amount of passenger movements. Is it simply that the power of Qantas/Jetstar is so great that no one is prepared to stand up to them? Or what could the other reason be?

[olderbutyzer]

You may have seen the announcement by the Minister in relation to providing UNICOMs at both Dubbo and Wagga

Are these people going to be paid for their services, or are they expected to do it for nothing?

[Walrus 7]

Dick,

The only people in Australia afraid to stand up to Qantas are CASA, Airservices and the entire House of Representatives. The sorry affair surrounding the changes to the Arbey Two approach is evidence of that.

I'll tell you what, Dick. I've changed my mind. You can have your tower at AV provided the following conditions are guaranteed by Act of Parliament.

1. The tower is not responsible for any airspace above 2000 ft AMSL.
2. That no taxpayers money is used to subsidise Qantas and Fox's arrangement.
3. The CLL is not lowered to meet the AV CTZ.
4. No D class is established between the CTZ and the CLL

The point is that, as a private pilot, I don't want to fly around the zone burning my money so a commercial company that spends the equivalent of my entire year's salary on postage stamps can have the air they don't own all to themselves.

If there is to be an increase in safety at AV to tower level then Qantas and Linfox should fund the entire thing and that includes any extra costs born by private operators using the airspace. They don't own the air.

Walrus

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... beauty :ok:
.
.. no need for the OAR .... Walrus and the Parliament have it all covered :} :p :E

[Dick Smith]

Insertnamehere, there was no “concept of affordable safety.” Affordable safety is a truism. It was not new, it was not introduced by me, it was not a “concept.”

I’ll say it again, it simply meant that the money that could be spent on air safety was limited by what those who pay for it could afford. The only reason people can deny such a truism is that they believe the facts should not be known – what other reason could there be?

I have always been proud that I was prepared to state the truth. I remember when I first became Chairman of CAA I asked why there were different regulated levels of safety for different sized aircraft. I was told by a hardened bureaucrat that the level of safety was set by what the passengers could afford, however no one was prepared to admit this. Well, I am, and Insertnamehere, you can deny it for all your life, but sensible people will know that it is a fact of life.

[Piston_Broke]

The sorry affair surrounding the changes to the Arbey Two approach is evidence of that.Please explain?

[Walrus 7]

Piston Broke,

Qantas asked for an amendment to the Arbey Two approach to ML, which lowered the CLL north of Melbourne. At first glance, it didn't make much difference, so there were few objections. However, when Qantas was asked why, they said it was for safety reasons and that their aircraft couldn't hold the existing approach profile safely.

Airservices, who were in charge of airspace when this happened, had previously said that no airspace changes would be made without a legitimate safety case. Qantas failed to supply said safety case and when Boeing were asked to comment, they (Boeing) scoffed at the suggestion that their aircraft couldn't hold the approach profile. Qantas ignored this and stuck to their guns.

Airservices, true to previous undertakings, released an announcement saying that in the absence of a legitimate safety case, the changes to the Arbey Two approach would be dropped.

A few weeks later we got an announcement that rescinded the previous announcement and the changes to the Arbey Two approach were implemented at lightning speed, despite the fact that no legitimate safety case existed and despite Boeing's undertakings regarding the performance of the aircraft.

What, or who, changed Airservices mind? The lowering of the CLL has had little effect on G class operations, but the fact that airspace was changed simply because Qantas wanted it done, ignoring all other stakeholders, is certainly of grave concern.

The very day the changes were implemented I happened to be touring ML Centre, and when they asked for questions I hit them with this. None of them knew anything about it until their supervisor stepped in with a no comment as to the reasons why the big backpeddle.

That is the chain of events as I remember them. I could be wrong on some points. Times, dates, document references could all be cited if anyone really wants them. It was all done above board and Airservices did make an initial attempt at due process, but only after they were pushed on the matter.

Walrus

[Ron Jeremy Porn Star]

He did get NAS Mark I over the line only for every professional pilot and probably a great many Private Pilots to realise that one required three Comms for his system to work.....it wont work in the future

Flew into Avalon regularly and didn't have a problem mingling my prop with jets....

[R4+Z]

Ok

I'll probably get burnt here but I have to ask just why the industry is expected to fund the manning of a tower at Avalon just because someone doesn't want to use the perfectly good airport at Melbourne in order to save them money. If flying to melbourne I don't want to get lumbered with the trip into the city from Avalon, The GA pilots don't want the restrictions a tower would bring so why not simply tell the big boys to use the airport that is already equipped to deal with them! Talk about the tail wagging the dog!

I also wanted to refer back to one of Dicks earlier posts

CaptainMidnight, you state:


Quote:
Number of pax per year is irrelevant in dictating the level of ATS. That's just scare tactics to the public who don't know any better.

I’m now looking at my latest CASA document on the matter. It is headed Air Traffic Control Towers Decision Criteria September 1998.


Quote:
The purpose of this paper
This paper advocates that Australia moves from the present cost benefit criterion for ATC towers to a criterion based on the number of fare paying passengers protected by the ATC tower service.

My case rests.

Surely it is clear how a tower or a UNICOM operator would know who is responsible for a carrier without any modulation – they would simply ask. More to the point, the pilot giving the call wouldn’t get an answer from the UNICOM or the tower, so they would know there was a problem and change to the other radio. Surely that is pretty basic.

This followed discussions about the number of passengers moved. Dick's case rests on something a paper advocates not on legislation or regulation (I'm sure Dick would have stated them if they were relevant). So the question arises "just what are the criteria?"

It strikes me that whatever they are we have not yet reached them or it would have happened. My concern here is that as Dick is so knowledgeable about subjects aviation related, surely this either proves there is a "Spin" happening as the title of the post suggests or Dick is overlooking the actual criteria out of ignorance.

Does anybody know the actual criteria.

[SM4 Pirate]

Does anybody know the actual criteria. There is none; hence the problem.

The Draft Part 71 was attempting to address the issue; but it appears, to this little black duck, that it has greatly suffered from political interference and is going back to the 'consultation phase'; which means at best it is more than 2 years away.

Why did it (part 71) suffer from political interference? Well, IMHO people with influence didn't like the criterions developed; so they used their influence to get it back to the "drawing board".

I agree with midnight that no of pax shouldn't alone determine the service level; 1 A380 a day at AYE shouldn't be enough for a TWR service; but the issue is where do you draw the line?

PART 71 attempted to link total movements vs RPT movements vs Pax numbers and once 2 of 3 columns were over X then something had to be done; that something may simply have been a 'study' to justify why keeping status quo was adequate.

The trigger points were effectively drafted around the stats at the time; providing no changes, just about everywhere.

But we're now talking 6 years old; so back to the drawing board and I bet the new numbers will mean, status quo.

It also did not consider UNICOM or CAGRO; or non tower D, or low level E.

[R4+Z]

SM4 Pirate
Thanks for the hard information. Perhaps dick should spend his money on a safety case to prove his stance then. I for one would be more supportive of that than the current action.
I still don't see though why the RPT can't be forced to use Melbourne though as this would remove the problem completely.

By the way My appologies to Dick for the use of the word Ignorance as from the information you supplied it is now obvious there are not the criteria for him to know.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:suspect: ... ask Dick what involvement he had in the .... delay .. redrafting etc

[R4+Z]

Does it really matter what part he played. The simple fact is he has been out of the driving seat long enough for his successors to have dealt with the matter.

Since this kind of situation can put so many at risk, the authorities have an obligation to set the limits as soon as possible to prevent safety being compromised. The whole idea of having a system in place is to be proactive about safety not reactive.

constantly going on about what Dick did when in the driving seat gets us nowhere. If his arguement is valid now we should perhaps accept the possibility that he is seeing things from a different perspective now he is on the outside. Whilst we may not agree with the tactics can anyone say he is basicly wrong?

My concern is that the industry ends up paying for services it does not need because of a situation created by greed. A moratorium on RPT flights into Avalon pending the resolution of the issue would certainly speed a resolution and would probably not inconvenience the travelling public at all.

[Dick Smith]

R4+Z, you state in relation to trigger points to man the tower at Avalon:

It strikes me that whatever they are we have not yet reached them or it would have happened. Don’t you understand the facts? Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.

There is a study that has been previously used by Airservices to decide whether a tower is established. It is called the Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. If you want to contact me I will photocopy it and send you a copy.

The interesting thing is that in the case of Avalon, this particular study has not been performed. It hasn’t been performed because it would clearly show that manning the tower would meet the criteria. One of the reasons for this is that there is no need for the capital cost to build the tower – which quite often precludes a tower at many airports. In this particular case the tower already exists, and the cost is just the cost of manning it.

Ron Jeremy Porn Star, you believe that the US NAS requires three coms to work. This is like saying that a Boeing 767 requires a separate engineer, and an engineer’s position, to operate safely – and that is what happened originally in Australia. That was the start of Ansett going into bankruptcy.

In fact, you don’t need 3 coms for the US NAS to work properly, you just need to ask how it works, and the best people to ask are US air traffic controllers and US airline pilots. Of course this didn’t happen. There was a constant campaign of “It wasn’t built here so we are not going to ask anyone. We don’t want to know. We just want to keep the system that we were trained in.”

Even today there is a constant effort by people at Airservices, and many people at CASA, to make sure that no US professional aviator, or US professional air traffic controller, is involved in any way to explain how NAS actually works.

With this type of insecurity and ignorance, it is very difficult to move forward. It is amazing how we moved from 4 engine DC-6s to 2 engine 767s. Then again, we insisted on modifying the 767 (as stated above) because we were not prepared to ask advice from other experienced professionals.

[R4+Z]

Dick

I appologised for using the word ignorant as I didn't want to give offence when I learned that the criteria didn't exist. Yet you treat me as ignorant by asking...

Don’t you understand the facts?

The problem here is that you don't seem to be working on facts. If as you say a study would show that manning of the tower is required but that the study has not been done because...

Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.

Then I think you are implying either corruption or undue influence on a government body. So if we are talking facts I suppose it comes down to either put up or shut up and I don't mean financially.

Isn't it ironic that in my last post I was basically trying to support you!

All that aside nobody has yet explained why we should be forced to fund a tower at Avalon when the cheaper fix is make them use Melbourne!

[Walrus 7]

There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Jetstar will put up with using ML for the capital city flights. There are too many of them and that will add significant landing fees to their costs. That's why the regional flights use ML and the capital city flights use AV. I suspect the regional flights don't use AV because doing so would probably increase the number of movements to a level that would force CASA to do the study.

Using AV with no tower would have been costed into business plan for Jetstar from the beginning, so they won't be keen to see a tower go in there.

To throw a CB in the overcast, there was talk at the airshow this year that Linfox was trying to woo Tiger into using AV as well. This would definitely cause CASA to take a longer look at ops down there. Does anyone know more about this and what ever became of the proposal?

Walrus

[SM4 Pirate]

Using AV with no tower would have been costed into business plan for Jetstar from the beginning, so they won't be keen to see a tower go in there.Now what exactly would the cost (neigh, charges) be for A320 for landing and departure; more or less than Hobart/Launceston/Coffs Harbour etc.? They already pay for the RFF component, do they not?

What sort of horrible ATC charges would apply to upset that business case?

[CaptainMidnight]

Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.As has been stated previously in other threads, an Avalon aeronautical study was completed late last year. So much for stopping a study being performed.

When this latest fuss started in late August, I recall the Minister and others stated in the press that a study had been done and that it indicated the present activity does not justify the activation of the TWR.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

[Piston_Broke]

Qantas asked for an amendment to the Arbey Two approach Your take is one AOPA seemed to run with, and I don't know if they misinterpreted something along the line or deliberately adopted a QF-bashing line for some odd reason.

Someone in ASA can correct me, but my recollection is that for some time Virgin, QF, Jetstar and some of the internationals had reported a problem as a result of one of the initial NAS changes, specifically due to the base of CTA north of 30 ML having lifted from 6500 to 8500. This meant that the heavies operated by these companies could no longer fly the normal 3 deg descent profile to ML RWY 16 without leaving CTA i.e. to stay in CTA (presumably with at least a 500ft buffer to the lower limit), they had to fly a significantly steeper than normal profile which added to the workload.

I recall Cathay and/or VB were the first to formally request remedial action, and QF supported the investigation. To address the problem, a small wedge of CTA base 7500 was added, which had industry support (apart from AOPA).

So I don't know why QF has been made out to be the sole company involved and the others ignored (becasue they certainly weren't), apart from fitting nicely with the line of CASA ASA ATSB DOTRS etc. etc all running scared of QF and them calling the shots.

[Walrus 7]

PB,

You are correct that both VB and Jetstar were involved, but only Qantas was listed by AERU as the proponent of the change, and therefore responsible for establishing the justification. CAthay gets no mention, but that doesn't mean they didn't raise the issue.

Keep in mind that most stakeholders, including AOPA, had no objection to the change. Most objection came from that fact that Airservices allowed due process to be circumvented. The beef lies there. The following is an extract from the AERU documents.

Proponent: Qantas Airways

The raising of the CTA step by Airservices from A075 to A085 at 30nm north of Melbourne has resulted in the inability of high performance jet aircraft to conduct a continuous decent approach (CDA) straight in RWY16. The aircraft most affected are the new generation B737-800, A330 and A320 aircraft which cannot operate to the aircraft's normal descent profile, while other aircraft including the B767 and B747 are all affected to some degree.

And, from the AERU brief

This initiative by Qantas is a proposal to ensure containment of flight profiles in ML CTA during straight-in approaches to Runway 16. The contention is that the airspace design criteria [300FT/NM – (2.82° gradient)] is not particularly suited for modern high performance aircraft to be contained in CTA during straight-in approaches.

So what Qantas said was that modern jets listed above that were designed to be able to fly the ICAO SARPS glideslope can't meet it, but only on the Arbey approach to Melbourne?

As I stated earlier, I have no objection to the change because it has had minimal impact. My objection remains that, even after AERU rejected the change because there was no justification, someone somewhere pushed it through regardless, despite guarantees that that wouldn't happen.

Walrus

[Dick Smith]

Captain Midnight, the facts are simple. The study was a sham. Have a look at it – I’ve read it thoroughly. It doesn’t mention anywhere the actual cost of manning a tower. For example, I think it is about $300 per hour, which the Army can afford for one of their King Airs doing circuits. My estimation is that it would cost between 30 cents and 50 cents per passenger for Jetstar to man the tower.

Why do they use a proper cost benefit study to close down Wagga tower, but they then use a sham study for Avalon, which doesn’t look at cost at all? The tower already exists, so instead of having the capital cost of building a tower, they simply have to pay the cost of manning it.

Good evidence of the report’s fraudulent nature is the fact that it says it is confidential. Why, 11 months after the preparation of a so-called safety study, should it be confidential? Is that so the public can’t read it?

I can assure you it is a con, and no doubt it will all come out when the inevitable accident occurs. Remember, for 15 years I have constantly said decisions on airspace should be made on a scientific and objective basis. That is, as risk moves up the scale, you have a higher category of airspace – not the reverse.

[Piston_Broke]

W7only Qantas was listed by AERU as the proponent of the change, My understanding is that was simply a matter of resources. A "proponent" was necessary, the internationals weren't in a collective really suitable for it, VB & Jetstar are run lean, and QF did have the resources and were prepared to put their hand up.
So what Qantas said was that modern jets listed above that were designed to be able to fly the ICAO SARPS glideslope can't meet it, but only on the Arbey approach to Melbourne?No, not exclusive to the Arbey approach, but any other scenario where a TD point is sufficiently close to CTR & CTA boundaries that the 2.82° gradient results in clipping steps. I don't know of any other scenario like it offhand. The approach to ML from the east west & south appear OK because the distance from the RWYs to the CTR/CTA edges is greater.

I'll leave the technical stuff to the airspace designers :)

[LeadSled]

Folks,

-----A320, after departing without hitting any birds and making all broadcasts as required received an RA based on the proximity of the C172'.

Genuine question, how does TCAS II ( A320 or whatever) get an RA from a C-172??

Tootle pip!!

[Barkly1992]

I still want to know what happened to the cheque sent to Kerry O'Brien which is why I started this thread.

Also Dick - when did you fix you vehicle and get back to Australia?

[Walrus 7]

PB,

Apparently the BADGR9 straight in approach to RWY 27 at ML is the same, but no complaints about that.

QF said that the problem with Arbey was high level winds prevailing on that approach, but the Met knew nothing about any such winds, and that they would have abated at the lower levels, and if not then they'd be using 34 not 16.

I'm not a technical person either. All this information was dug up by someone else and presented to me in plain English.

Another thing that rankled was that Airservices apparently took over the role of proponent halfway through the process at QF's request. Therefore, they were in the position of having to state the airlines' position to themselves.

No wonder they won!

Walrus

[SM4 Pirate]

Apparently the BADGR9 straight in approach to RWY 27 at ML is the same, but no complaints about that. I was told that the problem was something to do with the 'average westerly at A100'; which provides an effective tail wind when via ARBEY, whereas via BADGR (2) that wind is on the nose thus not as problematic; it would be a problem if there was an Easterly wind at A100 or so; but unlikely to have an Easterly wind at A100 and still use RWY27 for arrival right?

I also understand that the ARBEY arrival was at it's worst (in terms of needing to get lower) when the surface wind was a southerly courtesy of the 'sea breeze' where the upper winds were still from the north.

Still doesn't excuse due process and if what you say is true then it should be examined; but ultimately I suspect it still would have been changed.

[Dick Smith]

Barkly1992, the 7.30 Report sent the cheque back to me with a very nice letter telling me how they couldn’t get any professional pilots to stand up and say that there were potential safety problems at Avalon.

Imagine that – how gutless. I’ve had a number of professional pilots contact me and ask if I would do something about getting either a UNICOM operator or a tower at Avalon, but no one is game to stand up and say the truth.

This is a damning reflection of the intimidation which is put on professional pilots by airlines that are desperate to maximise profits.

I would imagine these are the very pilots who said that the airspace above places like Tamworth and Albury must be Class C for safety reasons – but we can have terminal airspace at a place like Avalon, with over 1 million passenger movements per year and lots of overflying GA traffic, without a UNICOM, without any controlled airspace and without even a transponder requirement.

Those in power then tell lies by saying that no air traffic control or other service is required at Avalon because it is covered by the radar at Tullamarine. We all know that it is not covered by radar at low levels, and the most likely place for a midair collision will be on the runway or close to it.

By the way, I’m back in Australia waiting for the vehicle to be fixed. Hopefully that will happen in the next week or so.

[CaptainMidnight]

Dick Smith
So you stated here Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.Yet when confronted with the fact that a study has in fact been performed, you now admit you not only knew about it but had seen itThe study was a sham. I think you've been caught out.

Which colours anything else you claim as "facts".

And should a safety study focus on the cost of a Tower? Shouldn't the focus be on safety i.e. analysis of traffic levels, mix etc. etc. to determine & dictate the level of air traffic service required?

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight, the study I am referring to (and you know it) is the study entitled Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers.

Why do you defend the indefensible? Airservices has historically used this proper cost benefit study, which is based on the FAA system. Why suddenly not use it for Avalon Tower?

The actual “study” they performed is not a study at all. It is simply a documentation of some opinions of people who don’t want a tower there for obvious reasons. That is, it will reduce their profits and bonuses.

You ask:

And should a safety study focus on the cost of a Tower? Let me put you through the basics. A tower will improve safety. Why then don’t we have a control tower at every airport in Australia? The reason is that the cost of the control tower will add to the air ticket prices and could reduce participation levels. In the case of Avalon, with 1 million passenger movements per annum, there will be no measurable decrease in participation levels, but an increase in safety.

The cost benefit study that Airservices has consistently used for over a decade does focus on traffic levels and mix, as well as the cost of providing the service.

I am sure you understand that the only reason we do not have a tower at every airport in Australia is because of affordability. If it is not that, what other reason is there?

I find it fascinating that no one comes on this thread and supports the obvious. That is, some level of service - whether it be Class E (which brings in a mandatory transponder and can be operated remotely) or a Certified Air/Ground Operator or a UNICOM or a Class D tower – will all improve safety and are easily affordable.

CaptainMidnight, stand up for what is right and fair. Airservices in the past two years have gone down a track of creating “sham” safety studies to preserve the status quo, or to reverse decisions that have been made objectively.

PPRuNe is read by thousands of aviators, most of whom I’m sure are looking at this and realising that what I am saying is correct. That is, the decision in relation to Avalon is made for the airlines economic future, not in the interests of passengers, using proper objective reasoning.

[SM4 Pirate]

Dick; I agree with your sentiments; but I guess I'm always wary of your actual agenda.

Just so we know exactly whether it is economics or safety, what is the landing cost of a A320 at AMAV when the TOWER is active?

The cost benefit study that Airservices has consistently used for over a decade does focus on traffic levels and mix, as well as the cost of providing the service. probably has nothing to do with Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. Can we see that document? What are the trigger points within it; or is simply the 8 lines from the FAA model, which means it needs to pay it's way in terms of revenue vs cost or the operators and/or aerodrome must support the cost of service provision; which is why YBHM survived back in the Ansett days.

Has this "criteria" been used in anger since YSWG was closed?

[JackoSchitt]

I find it fascinating that no one comes on this thread and supports the obvious. That is, some level of service - whether it be Class E (which brings in a mandatory transponder and can be operated remotely) or a Certified Air/Ground Operator or a UNICOM or a Class D tower – will all improve safety and are easily affordable.

I support the obvious and I will support some level of service that improves safety and are easliy affordable.

The very service Dick is now arguing for is

AFIZ!!!!!!!!

So the problem is easily solved, let’s regurgitate AFIZesss….right, where's that ol' AOI (coz if you keep them long enough).

Right, now, who used to run AFIZ?....oh, oh...:=

[Wizofoz]

Jacko,

Spot on.

I always thought that the remote AFIZ system had to be THE most cost efficient form of traffic information.

Dick is so gung ho to have some semi-qualified goon from the local aero-club running a UNICOM because that's how it's done in Seppo land (and therefore MUST be the best way!!) when it was his reforms that did away with AFIZ, which provided a MUCH better service.

I used to operate into Ayes Rock when they dragged that stupid little trailer-back tower out (is THAT still in use?). Manned by an ex FSO, doing EXACTLEY the same thing, EXCEPT he couldn't give you your Airways clearence or take flight plan ammendements.

The system was changed based on the starry-eyed assumption that everyone would flock to the UNICOM idea.

Well guess what.....:ugh:

[R4+Z]

Isn't it amazing... We still have Dick making claims that the study was either subverted or flawed or anything else to undermine it. Dick, as I said earlier either put up or shut up. Accuse the people you are saying did wrong or back off. If you can show flaws in the process, give us the actual examples. Hard facts not just rhetoric. If you have proof of wrongdoing post the details. It seems to me you are just working the publicity machine and are depending on smoke and mirrors. You nearly had me for a while there!
Show us where you get this from....

This is a damning reflection of the intimidation which is put on professional pilots by airlines that are desperate to maximise profits.


Have any of the pilots you claim contacted you since got back to you and said they were intimidated? Or is that just your slant on things?

The requirements you claim are in place for the establishment of a tower, I assume, require a study and yet you claim...

The actual “study” they performed is not a study at all. It is simply a documentation of some opinions of people who don’t want a tower there for obvious reasons. That is, it will reduce their profits and bonuses.
Surely the ground rules for this type of study are documented. So if the study didn't follow the correct proceedure I'm sure you will be able to tell us where it was remiss. Or you can point the finger at the person who didn't set the criteria in stone. Wouldn't have been you by any chance would it?

I think the readers of this thread are more informed and aware than you give them credit for!

The wings await. Stage that is not aircraft.

[R4+Z]

Just a passing thought.

I once, some time ago made the mistake of leaping to the defence of another on this website because his arguments seemed so reasoned. I couldn't understand why others attacked him so.

I don't know when the Govenor will be released from prison but I will forever be more skeptical of the motives of people on the internet.

No inference should be taken from this post it is simply put out there as a timely reminder.

[peuce]

Dick Smith, you said:

Why do you defend the indefensible? Airservices has historically used this proper cost benefit study, which is based on the FAA system. Why suddenly not use it for Avalon Tower?

Let's get it straight again .... CASA is the regulator. CASA will decide what service is required at Avalon. Airservices will provide that service (if it is an ATS one).

[Sword of Damocles]

Peuce :ok:
Correct in principle.
However you have used 'CASA' and 'decide' in the same sentence ergo I trust it is not a timely outcome you pursue.

[peuce]

SWORD,

My intention was to re-state the legal accountabilities. It is difficult to take Mr Smith's points seriously if he continues to ignore the regulatory framework.

You, Mr Sword, are too cynical by far :E ... CASA has obviously made a decision already ... maintain the status quo.

[mjbow2]

Dick

the 7.30 Report sent the cheque back to me with a very nice letter telling me how they couldn’t get any professional pilots to stand up and say that there were potential safety problems at Avalon.

Obviously Kerry didn't ask me. I would be happy to go on the record and make such an assertion.

[QSK?]

Wizofoz:
Dick is so gung ho to have some semi-qualified goon from the local aero-club running a UNICOM because that's how it's done in Seppo land (and therefore MUST be the best way!!) when it was his reforms that did away with AFIZ, which provided a MUCH better service.


I agree totally that UNICOM is best provided by the local airport operator and/or aircraft operators, while delivery of CAGRS should remain a dedicated and certified function, so on what basis could Airservices Australia possibly be interested in trialling the provision of UNICOM at Dubbo and Wagga (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/unicom/default.asp)?

Is this another agenda by DS to eventually get rid of CAGRS at BME and AYE (and other locations) which, in some respects replicates the AFIZ service, and replace CAGRS with an Airservices provided/modified UNICOM?

[CaptainMidnight]

Wonder indeed, QSK.

From what was said by ASA recently at WG & DU the ASA Unicom will be a higher level than the "standard" i.e. the operators will undergo some weeks training by ASA and provide traffic information. Sounds like a CAGRS ..........

I don't know why we would want to have two different levels of Unicom, particularly one different from that in the U.S. Canada & N.Z.

If the standard and service are basically that of a CAGRS, why not call it that?

[bushy]

Things are different in Australia. We have to have "unique Australian" things. Like underarm bowling.

[Andy_RR]

In some regards, the world can learn a fair bit from Australia. In so many other ways it would reward Australia handsomely to take a good hard look at what other people around the world are doing*

A

*or not doing - ASICs and security fences, are two examples that spring to mind

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

...... bushyyyyyyyyy :E
.
.... hey MJ, would you cite Broome as a case in point :} :E
.
.... I know ... I know :8 .. HAT .. COAT ... DOOR :\

[JackoSchitt]

Why introduce a “****com” (Super High In-Tensity Communications Area) providing traffic, weather, avgas, tea and biccys?

Look at what a CA/GRO needs:

The primary purpose of a CA/GRS is to enhance the safety of air transport aircraft operations by the provision of relevant traffic information. This aspect of the service requires CA/GROs to have had specialised training and experience. Therefore, applicants for the issue of a CA/GRO Certificate must hold, or have held within the last ten years, an ICAO recognised Air Traffic Controller licence or an Australian Flight Service Officer licence.

(source CASA Manual of Standards Part 139)

Look at what a UNICOM does:

Unicom (Universal Communications) services are non-ATS radio communication services provided on an MBZ frequency or CTAF to enhance the value of information normally available about a non-controlled aerodrome. A Unicom service is not a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service.

The primary function of the frequencies (MBZ/CTAF) used for Unicom services is to provide the means for pilots to exchange traffic information for separation purposes. Unicom services, being a secondary use of these frequencies, must not inhibit the exchange of aircraft to aircraft traffic information.

(source CASA Manual of Standards Part 139)

So here’ the punch line…

Seeing as most of the people staffing CA/GRO are ex-FSOs and we are fast approaching 10 years since Flight Service was terminated (July 2000), oh, sorry, “incorporated into ATC” in the name of providing a “better service”, these people will become in-eligible to hold CA/GRO certificates. Hence the need to dream up another dog’s breakfast in the name of re-inventing a service that was successfully provided for many years but removed under the pretence of some idiot’s (or thicket thereof) idea of reform and rolled out over the 90’s.

Quite simple really….SNAFU!!!!

[Creampuff]

Dick, you said that:Those in power then tell lies…For whom will you be voting in the upcoming Federal election? Those in power?

Why did you accept a position on a 'task force' set up by those in power?

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, you state that you agree with my sentiments, but you also state:

I'm always wary of your actual agenda. You obviously don’t know me. I have no agenda other than what I have publicly stated for over 25 years. That is, put the safety resources where the measurable risk is.

You state:

Just so we know exactly whether it is economics or safety, what is the landing cost of a A320 at AMAV when the TOWER is active? That is the most sensible question I have heard. In the study performed by Airservices dated 27 September 2006 and entitled In Confidence: Airservices Australia Aeronautical Study Avalon – In Confidence (yes, “In Confidence” is repeated) this is not covered in any way. It is the most basic point that you would look at in any genuine safety study, yet it is not mentioned in this study regarding Avalon.

You, I, and millions of others would say, “Hold on – what is the cost of manning the tower? Oh, it is only $300 per hour. In that time x numbers of Airbus aircraft will land with so many passengers. Oh, that means it is only 30 cents per passenger,” (or something possibly a little more or less). We would then say, “It is obvious that the tower can be manned at very little cost and it is also obvious that safety would be improved.”

This is not what happened. Nowhere in the huge Airservices study (of 80 pages) does it actually mention the cost of manning the tower.

Of course the cost is well known, because when the military do a bit of training with one of their King Airs, Airservices man the tower. Even when the Formula One freighter aircraft arrive, the tower is specially manned by Airservices. In fact, somewhere in the report it shows that a number of years ago the tower was manned 608 hours per year but it is now way down to 208 hours – despite the huge increase in RPT traffic and passenger numbers.

By the way, the FAA’s Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers is a very lengthy document, full of formulas, and results in a proper cost benefit study – by valuing human life – as to whether a tower is cost effective. Airservices are running these Class D towers in the USA at the present time using this cost benefit formula. Isn’t is fascinating that they have dumped this formula here, and use an “aeronautical study” that is “In Confidence” – so the public can’t actually see what is going on?

Most importantly, CASA has always been responsible for this, and they will be the ones who will be held accountable when an accident occurs. Remember, under Regulation 92, CASA has the power to give directions in relation to aerodromes. This power under Reg 92 has obviously been put there by Parliament so CASA will do its job – not shirk responsibility and blame someone else, but insist that safety resources be allocated correctly.

SM4 Pirate, give me a phone call and I will photocopy the document and post it to you. My numbers are 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221.

Yes, the proper Establishment and Discontinuance Formula has been used since Wagga was closed. It was most recently used to justify Hamilton Island tower remaining open.

Wizofoz, you state:

I always thought that the remote AFIZ system had to be THE most cost efficient form of traffic information. The remote AFIZ may have been (i.e. when the local operator was removed from the airport and it was “remoted” from a capital city using a satellite system). However, this doesn’t give any information on traffic which may be on the wrong frequency. When you had a local AFIZ, or you have a local UNICOM, the operator can state that they have just seen an aircraft – let’s say a Jetstar Airbus – taxi out without giving any radio calls.

As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do with “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time and completely negated the major safety advantage of the local AFIZ – i.e. a person at the aerodrome who could give local traffic, weather, and other pertinent information that only a local operator can give.

[peuce]

Dick Smith said:

"As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do with “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time and completely negated the major safety advantage of the local AFIZ – i.e. a person at the aerodrome who could give local traffic, weather, and other pertinent information that only a local operator can give".

Actually, FSOs weren't allowed to look out the window and give "actual" information ... in fact, many Flight Service Units were built so that they faced away from the runways.... and the temptation removed.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, it sounds as if in those days the management of the Department of Civil Aviation was similar to the management at Airservices Australia. That is, trying to do everything to make sure they were not accountable for any accident, rather than ensuring the resources were allocated to reduce the chance of an accident.

Fortunately, the FSOs that I knew did everything they could to look out of the window. I’m particularly thinking of Dubbo, Coffs Harbour, Cooma and Charleville. At different times at these locations I have heard an FSO announce that there was an aircraft taxiing on the wrong frequency. This is a great safety advantage.

Remember, there are ATSB reports to show that a Qantas 737 departed Ayers Rock, even after the Air/Ground was installed, but gave all its calls on the company frequency. Luckily the Air/Ground operator was able to warn other aircraft.

Then at a later date, an Airbus took off from Avalon giving its calls on the wrong CTAF frequency. It would be interesting to know why the air crew ignored the beep back unit, or was the beep back not operating?

[CaptainMidnight]

As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do ith “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time Who was
Chairman of the CAA in 1991
who approved AMATS
which included closure of the Flight Service Units
which directly caused the remoting of AFIZs.
Woops.

JackoSchitt

Agree with your sentiments entirely. However a small point - the restriction to CAGROs being ATC & FSOs is in the process of being lifted (if it hasn't already):

http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/139/as0609.asp

[JackoSchitt]

Thanks CaptainMidnight,

I vaguely remember this revision. But it still is not law yet from what I can find.

Interesting question is what "traffic parameters" do CA/GRO apply? anyone?

as for Dick "back flip" Smith...:mad:

[Dick Smith]

CaptainMidnight, stick with the facts. The decision to “remote” the AFIZ, and therefore sack the local Flight Service Officers, was made before my time and commenced before the AMATS decision in 1991.

The decision to go ahead with a major contract with Aussat and “remote” the AFIZ was one of the catalysts for moving to AMATS. You may remember the original educational material explained that there would be many local UNICOMs being set up to give information at airports. This was resisted then, and has been resisted furiously ever since.

I will say again – I was a great supporter of the local Flight Service AFIZ. I particularly liked the fact that you could drop in to a place like Charleville and have a cup of coffee. The friendly FSOs would often put in a flight plan for you, organise refuelling and also a taxi.

I remember every time I went to Dubbo I would be met by the local media, who had been sent by the local Flight Service staff to ask me about whether the local Flight Service would stay open. I always said that personally I preferred this, however I wondered how a general aviation industry that was about to be destroyed could keep affording a system.

Yes, I did introduce the AMATS changes, and they have saved about $100 million per year since then. This is about $1.6 billion over the last 16 years. Part of the AMATS changes was to replace the “remote” AFIZ with a local UNICOM operator. I have consistently supported this since 1991 – even though it has been resisted as stated above.

By the way, if the AMATS changes hadn’t been made, the GA industry would have been forced to pay this $1.6 billion. Obviously GA basically would not exist today if the changes had not been made.

In other countries it is the local UNICOM operator (provided at no cost) who provides the cup of coffee, assists with the flight plan, organises refuelling and a taxi, and even gives local weather and traffic. Why can’t we do that here?

[Walrus 7]

I guess one of the reasons why Unicoms aren't prevalent in Australia is that the cost needs to be born by the aerodrome operator and given the restrictions imposed on the information they can provide, their value is low.

According to the Manual of Standards Part 139 14.4.1.3, a unicom can't tell an arriving aircraft what runway is in use, which is the most valuable piece of information you need at that time. They can't even provide warnings about glider or PJ ops.

And you can't pre-order your coffee either.

Walrus

[peuce]

Dick,
I wonder how much of a dint would be put into that alleged bucket of $1.6 Billion savings if you deduct:

The cost of setting up and running AusFIC (which was needed to replace part of the Flight Service function) ... over 16 years
The cost of Controllers providing services (which Flight Service used to provide at a much lesser cost) in G Airspace ... over 16 years

And then if you consider the proven reduction in uncontrolled aerodrome safety ... which ASA is trying to plug with its Unicom+ proposal ....
I don't think the final balance would be very flattering ....

[Dick Smith]

Walrus 7, you mention the restrictions that are imposed in Australia on the information that UNICOMs can give. As you probably know, under the proven FAA system there are no restrictions placed on UNICOMs. It is a non-prescriptive system which is entirely there to improve safety.

The Airways and Aerodromes Group at CASA have done everything they can to frustrate the introduction of the US style UNICOM. It is so sad because all the additional requirements and restrictions have led to fewer UNICOMs. I understand that they are now looking at a Certified Air/Ground Operator system where you have 20 or so hours of training – once again, making it more complicated than it needs to be.

One day we will get the US style UNICOM in Australia. It will be 20 years later than it should have been. I just hope we don’t have to wait for an unnecessary accident to bring in the change.

By the way, you don’t normally need to pay anyone extra to do this. Quite often it is someone already at the airport – like the Aero Club, the refuelling agent, or (dare I say it) the baggage handler – who operates the UNICOM.

Isn’t it amazing that CASA won’t even allow a trial of this simplified system without any prescriptive restrictions?

[mjbow2]

By the way, you don’t normally need to pay anyone extra to do this. Quite often it is someone already at the airport – like the Aero Club, the refuelling agent, or (dare I say it) the baggage handler – who operates the UNICOM.


In support of this I offer my own experience as both an FBO employee responsible for providing Unicom services and as a Cessna Citation pilot for a corporation. I would suggest that if we were to adopt the proven US style Unicoms, the Unicom operator would have a commercial advantage over other airport service providers.

As a corporate pilot I would use the Unicom services all the time, not only for airport information but to solicit services also. Fuel, catering, limo’s for the owners etc. Needless to say the first FBO I called was usually the one on the charted CTAF frequency.

As a Unicom operator near Aspen we would often get transient jet traffic that would divert from Aspen and Vail when the weather was marginal. The busiest day I recall was 31 corporate jets on a Sunday and we pumped over 20,000 gallons of jet fuel for the weekend. Had we NOT been the FBO running the Unicom I doubt we would have received all that business. The aircraft would most probably have called one of the FBO’s at Grand Junction and diverted there.

Interestingly enough the only other FBO on the airfield that day received 2 aircraft on their ramp! The point is even though we don’t have that kind of traffic calling into our FBO’s (do we actually have any in Australia?) just having the Unicom facility will prove to be commercially advantageous to a service provider. The running cost is negligible if anything.

Those 31 corporate aircraft were afforded a higher level of safety because we could give them real time information on the status of the airport (wind, temp, precip, unserviceable items, a blocked taxiway due to ramp congestion etc) including the runway condition (it snowed most of the day). Surely we can have this added level of safety for out RPT aircraft?

There is absolutely no reason that a Unicom operator must have the onerous requirements that people are suggesting including CASA it seems.

Again, I will be happy to donate the first $100. No make that $1000 to a program that sends either, controllers, CASA inspectors or policy makers over to the US to actually learn first hand how they utilize Unicoms safely. Or for that matter, I will donate it to any educational program that sends Aussie regulators/controllers to the US or brings US controllers to Australia to teach us how their entire airspace system works. The same system that I have been promised by parliament and that I believe will make our airspace safer and more efficient.

[Dick Smith]

The removal of the full position reporting requirement, with all its incredible cost, for VFR aircraft which flew more than 50 miles, and also the removal of the local AFIZ (which I was not responsible for) have saved an enormous amount of money – and have to my knowledge not resulted in one extra fatality in the last 16 years.

Or can you show me a fatality that can be attributed to the removal of the full position requirement for VFR and the local AFIZ?

I look forward to seeing your evidence.

[CaptainMidnight]

Let's get something straight here.

Given the choice between no-one to talk to at an AD vs. a UNICOM there is an advantage for certain aspects, however a UNICOM is not and should not be a factor to address a deficiency in air traffic services required at a particular location, which was the source of the discussion here.

My underlining for emphasis:

Summary of Responses: Regulatory Standards for Airspace - CASR Part 71CASA Response:

CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers.

CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:

a) UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;

b) UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;

c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;

d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;

e) The higher level services such as CA/GRS have certified, or licensed operators which provide a dedicated, continuous service provided by the aerodrome operator. Because of the higher level of competence that is required to obtain certification, CASA permits the assessment of traffic so that only relevant traffic is passed.

In addition, the CA/GRS operators are qualified and authorised to provide meteorological observations includingcloud and visibility assessments, and an approved source QNH which can be used for the purposes of lower nstrument approach minima.

Those CA/GRS now in operation have been shown to enhance safety and have received a high level of pilot acceptance. CASA intends to retain the standards for CA/GRS service provision, as a cost effective service for use at high traffic density regional non-controlled aerodromes. So
why would anyone prefer a UNICOM over a CAGRS, and if the cost for the Airservices "enhanced" UNICOM is not much less than that of a CAGRS, why not provide the better service, which is part of the airspace and air traffic services risk mitigators?


Oh, and according to ERSA, there is a UNICOM at Avalon .........

[89 steps to heaven]

As you probably know, under the proven FAA system...........
It is the US system, that grew out of their local requirements and procedures, that does not make it a proven system, nor worlds best practice.
If we need another layer of information transfer, and I think that at some locations we certainly do, then the form and content of the information needs to be consistent at all locations, regardless of the organisation providing the service.
The removal of the full position reporting requirement, with all its incredible cost, for VFR aircraft which flew more than 50 miles, and also the removal of the local AFIZ (which I was not responsible for) have saved an enormous amount of money
I guess there is no proof that the changes made actually did save any money. I suspect that more was expended in trying to keep the system safe and workable while the deck chairs moved.

I am not against change. I believe that we should always look back at how we have done business, look at how similar businesses work and assess how we can improve, but it has to be appropriate. Example, a computer controlled washing machine may be better than a rock next to a stream, but totally useless if there is no electricity (Not appropriate for the location).

The biggest changes we need is are a network charging structure, not location specific, make the charging attractive for non RPT operations to operate outside of the peak traffic times and be much more proactive in addressing issues before they become problems.

Now for something completely different.
Had a great meeting with a helicopter pilot today. We both asked the same question "Is there anything we do that causes you a problem or that we could do better? We both found out good things.

[JackoSchitt]

Under the old rules, there was an avgas levy that raise $20m per annum. Yeh?

$18.4m of that figure, 92%, went to fund GAAP towers and only $1.6m of that, YES, $1.6m went to fund Flight Service of $20MILLION collected. :confused:

If any changes should have been made, the re-allocation of funds should have been top of the list.

To get rid of FS, CAA/AA and the Thicket of Idiots, chanted mantra like that FS cost $80m per year to run. The FSO’s union conclusively proved otherwise that the real figure was under $20m. Factor that into your grandstanding cost statements!

AMATS…NAS….What a joke. IF you want real reform of OZ aviation, you would REDUCE controlled airspace – not introduce MORE Controlled airspace and 7 different types of Controlled airspace at that!:*

Baggage handlers!!!! ROFLMTO!!! Oh please, stop it, your killing me!!!!

Control what needs controlling and broaden advisory services in a regulated manner rather than employ a "Dad’s Army".

As for mid-air collisions….have a good look and you will see that CTA or CTR are not a cure all for prevention.

Bankstown May 5 2002,
Coolangatta May 20 1988
Jandakot May 29 1989
Archerfield April 24 1988
Parafield February 1 1976
Bankstown March 13 1975
Etc…

Lastly, if no fatality occurred because AFIZ were removed…

…Then logically, there is TOTALLY no need for a ****com!!!!!

[peuce]

Dick,

My post was in response to the cost saving issue you raised and nothing in your second post has changed my position on that. Actually, I've done some quick and dirty sums and can easily find $1 Billion in costs for the first 2 items I detailed.

Oh, I forgot, also add in the salaries of the countless bureacrats & pilots who have been working on AMATS/NAS & (I've forgotten the other acronym... was it LLAMP?) for the past 16 years trying to re-engineer a new airspace system to replace the one that "didn't work" ( you're either in or you're out!) ...$$$$$

I think my case is getting even stronger ....

As for safety, I didn't mention any change in fatality levels ... I'm not sure there was any.

However, the safety levels (in a general sense) at uncontrolled aerodromes for RPT aircraft has decreased since the removal of Towers/AFIZs. Just ask the ATSB. They recommended to CASA that they look at ways of getting onsite traffic information back on the agenda. Hence Airservices' foray into establishing Unicom Plus. Wow boy ... now who is going to pay for that??? And how much?... $$$$$

My case is looking better all the time!

Okay, I'll stop being a smart arse for a moment.

Dick, how about we call it evens for the financials. Let's move on to the sytems. Do we have a better airspace system now than we did in 1991?

Yes, we have great new kit and better surveillance capabilities ... but do we pilots feel safer in the air? Do we feel that GA flight planning, discipline, professionalism and general awareness has improved since 1991? Do GA pilots understand the airspace system better? Do we have less VCAs? Do we have less pilots flying without their radios turned on? Are uncontrolled aerodrome procedures understood and carefully followed?

Do we finally have an airspace sytem that everyone agrees on and that will become a stable platform on which to improve economies and efficiencies?

I'm afraid, I don't see it.

To answer Mr mjbow2's question ... why don't we have US style Unicoms? I think he answered his own question ... there aren't the aircraft movement figures in Australia to support the investment (no matter what level that investment is ... there is some investment in time, equipment & procedures) required of an FBO.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. outstanding :D :D :D
.
.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/pop.gif
.
.
... carry on :E
.
.
http://www.augk18.dsl.pipex.com/Smileys/popcorn.gif

[peuce]

Okay Scurvy, you've egged me on .... it's your fault!
And another thing ... did I mention Flightwatch ...
Now that on request flight information is going to be transferred from Flightwatch onto the ATC consoles ... somethings gotta give.
ATC instructions are, quiet rightly, that separation comes first. With the tightening of the rosters and less bums on seats, there can't be many Controllers who have much 'down time' to be reading out Area 30 forecasts and taking flightplans ... so, who does ... nobody ... you're on your own.
Another improvement in services since 1991 ...
My fear is that none of these discussions back and forth will provide any useful outcome. I really don't know how this is going to be sorted out. We shouldn't have to be debating these issues.
We should be spending our time doing what PPRUNE is really supposed to be for... whinging about Qantas management, bagging JetStar and complaining about the latest EBA negotiations!

[bushy]

Strangely, the mid air collisions seem to have happened at airfields that have towers.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Strangely .... the amount of traffic (ALL OF IT) at those locations is known ;) ... consider what operating rules applied, and what was considered contributory?
.
... and ......how many do you suppose would have occured WITHOUT ATC!
.
... how many have occured in recent years OCTA (including CA/GRS and UNICOM) .... I can think of 4 .... ;) JT (outside twr hrs), MB (outside twr hrs), GLB G, HOX CTAF!
.
... can anyone find a link to the safety/CBA for the flightwatch changes?? :hmm:

[SM4 Pirate]

This is not what happened. Nowhere in the huge Airservices study (of 80 pages) does it actually mention the cost of manning the tower.

Dick with the greatest respect the concept of $300 per hour being the "cost" is perhaps a little simplistic. Just because that is the charge to an individual operator for short term 'hires' doesn't actually reflect the true costs involved.

The fact that the RAAF can have tower opened 5 times a year (or whatever) for $300 per hour is very different from it being a permanently staffed location. i.e. Overtime, using staff at ML, EN, or MB is used to provide services at YMAV on a short term basis; this is far from sustainable for permanent or sudo-permanent staffing.

BUT THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION

I asked, What is the cost to the operator of landing and departing an A320 Airbus?

This has little to do with the cost of the service, right? But more about what is allowed to be charged courtesy of the past ACCC intervention.

This is the problem with user pays, it's not a true reflection of the cost of the business; thus this is significantly problematic when you have an operator that is in the business of money/profits first; such as ASA.

They are not allowed to go into businesses unless the CBA will pay off; having costs exceeding upwards of $500K per annum (absolute minimum) for an increase in revenue of $100K with a safety benefit (regardless of how you work it out) of $300K per annum (I'm guessing here) will equal a definite NO!

You wouldn't do it as an astute business man, would you?

I agree that YMAV deserves a TOWER, as does Broome and Ballina and Ayres Rock; but I believe in the IFATCA Policy, as quoted http://everyminutecountsblog.*************/2007/09/at-ifatca-annual-conference-held-in.html

In many parts of the world if RPT jets land at an aerodrome it has an operational tower.

But is this about revenue or safety?

If we changed the revenue stream to a passenger ticket tax, freight weight tax; we could probably remove all need for this profit regime that we have and have more money in the system, less money coming out of GA and more resources where we need them; of course then there are the issues relating to who and when's of that; and it doesn;t necessarily mean higher Ticket prices as all tickets currently have a ATC charge built in, which may be actually a significant profit factor on many full flights; but that's a whole other thread.

[JackoSchitt]

... can anyone find a link to the safety/CBA for the flightwatch changes??

Nope, there is no CBA - in any case, it would be kinda hard to justify the changes to eliminate only 2 flightwatch staff.

More importantly, has CASA run the ruler over it?

It is another ATC managed "situation" that will "integrate" the vhf fightwatch service and ultimately provide no service at all.

Case in point? Look no futher than the "ATC-initated FIS" and Hazard Alerts debarkle.

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate,

Even if the tower costs $500,000 per annum, that would mean 50 cents per passenger because there are 1million of them per annum at Avalon.

I would certainly be happy to pay 50 cents to have someone in the tower rather than airlines flying around, sometimes in cloud blind calling and hoping that other aircraft are on frequency.

The point I was making is that the safety study was a sham because it never actually mentioned the cost of manning the tower – whether that be $300 per hour or $500,000 per year.

Isn’t it amazing that Civil Air and the AFAP also support Airservices on this and are not supporting my call for the tower to be manned. I wonder what type of back room deal has been done – no doubt, it will come out one day.


JackoSchitt,

Re: The flightwatch changes

From what I understand no proper safety or cost benefit study has been done. It appears that Airservices go ahead and make decisions in this way because no one stops them.

[Dick Smith]

so-long,

I agree, I do not have any evidence of a back room deal and I will now withdraw the inference in relation to Civil Air.

Can I ask a question? Why doesn’t Civil Air insist that Airservices Australia, CASA or anyone, use the establishment and disestablishment formula to look at Avalon? After all Civil Air members have had the disadvantage of Wagga tower being closed down using that formula, why not have the advantage of a tower being opened using it!

I also believe my letter, which was published on the Civil Air website opens up the situation for dialogue. In particular, it says, “can we get together and discuss this issue”. This hasn’t happened yet. I am willing to fly to Melbourne or anywhere to do so.

[peuce]

Pre-empting "so-long's" response ...
I don't believe that Civil Air is in a position to dictate to ASA, CASA or anyone on their business decisions.
Civil Air's only responsibility is to ensure that it's members are treated fairly and equitably by ASA.

[SM4 Pirate]

Even if the tower costs $500,000 per annum, that would mean 50 cents per passenger because there are 1million of them per annum at Avalon.

I would certainly be happy to pay 50 cents to have someone in the tower rather than airlines flying around, sometimes in cloud blind calling and hoping that other aircraft are on frequency. Again, my question is not what is the cost per seat, but revenue allowed per A320; if it's only $100 per movement or less (remember the fire service is there already); then they will never cover their costs; and $500K is the lowest end of the costs I would think; it would be closer to LT or HB costs would be my guess.

I fully support the argument for a TWR to go into YMAV; I too would happily pay the extra $5 (or whatever) to have ATC, but what hours of coverage, 1st to last JST Flight? etc; what about weekends?

How is GA effected by the new TWR service; will they be happy to have the TWR open so they can be told "Cleared Touch & Go", when there is no-one else around in 8/8 blue sky and the CTAF would be perfectly acceptable, Ca'CHING.

[CaptainMidnight]

I suggest $500k per year for a TWR is a tad light on. For a 5 person roster it wouldn't cover salaries. $800k - $1.2m would be more like it.

And I repeat what I said in an earlier thread - there is already a UNICOM at Avalon. What if any value it adds, I don't know.

[QSK?]

Dick:As you probably know, under the proven FAA system there are no restrictions placed on UNICOMs. It is a non-prescriptive system which is entirely there to improve safetyRelevant extracts from the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual for your info
1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground radio communication station which may provide airport information at public use airports where there is no tower or FSS.
2. On pilot request, UNICOM stations may provide pilots with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information. If the UNICOM frequency is designated as the CTAF, it will be identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
It is interesting to note that information provided by a UNICOM can only be on pilot request and, significantly, there is no mention of traffic information. That sounds fairly prescriptive to me.
My highlighting of the quote for emphasis only.

[peuce]

Dick,
Instead of demanding that Civil Air sort it with ASA/CASA ...
It appears that putting your proposal on PPRUNE could have better results.
Case in point ... my post from earlier this year:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpost.php?p=3138129&postcount=103
It's probably just coincidence ...

[crisper]

Puece,
I couldn't agree with you more - makes a lot of commonsense to me. At Broome their are 2 CAGRO's providing services 7 days a week/ 11 hours a day. This is necessary at Broome because of the sheer volume of traffic. At some other airports it could be possible to have flexible hours dependant on traffic (RPT) movements further reducing costs.

The setup costs are minimal with modern technology these days and internet access. The main equipment required is 2 X vhf radios - 1 for CTAF freq and the other as a means of monitoring the adjoining freq in absence of coordination ( also as a backup ). A direct access to met - if met is on the airport via radio modem. And of course internet access for briefing/tafs/metars etc. Also flight strips and documents and thats about it.

As far as premises go, Wagga has a disused tower which has been used to provide CAGRO services for special events in the past - at no cost. Dubbo still has the old Flight service *tower* which would suffice there and is owned by council - again no cost. Ayers Rock have a pre-fab building, supplied again at minimal cost. Other airports might have similar facilities.

I strongly believe that the most efficient method of paying for the service is for the local councils to employ the staff and provide the service - after all they own the airports and facilities. This eliminates the contractor - middleman - further reduces costs and provides indemnity insurance. CAGRO's can also process the landing charges for the owner eliminating AVCHARGES. The council then charges a passenger head levy to cover the service- these already exist at many uncontrolled airports. At Wagga this would be under $1 per passenger - at Broome it is about 60c a passenger based on current RPT movements - surely not expensive for the level of safety it provides. This also means that pilots - RPT and GA - get the service for free as the RPT passengers pay for the service with no increase in landing fees. I can assure you it won't stop passengers flying to these destinations.

What is also required is for CASA to pressure councils to introduce the service when annual movements exceed a pre-determined level. These services have been operation at Ayers Rock and Broome for some 8 years now. Ayers Rock were made by CASA to introduce the service at the insistence of guess who ? Yes Dick Smith. The airport owner at Broome demanded that CASA legislate for the service there because of the increasing traffic volumes - unfortunately most other airport owners don't have this foresight or forward planning. Otherwise councils/airport owners will sit on their hands and do nothing - as they have done since the existence of CA/GRS - must we wait for an accident to happen involving an RPT at a regional aerodrome for councils/airport owners to be forced to introduce the service ? CAGRO'S could safely handle between 20,000 to 40,000 movements annually. Below which there may be a place for UNICOM - and after which an ATC tower may be required . Ballpark figures only . This plugs a huge gap that now exists in our ATS system and can be achieved at no cost to the industry.

[peuce]

I had one of those moments down at the confectionary aisle at Coles this morning ...

IF, the ASA-proposed Unicom Pluses had access to Notam and Met product (as proposed in my February post), they could provide on-demand FIS to anyone within VHF range. That would take a lot of pressure off the ATCs as Flightwatch was shut down.

Bing!Bing!Bing!

Is that what all this is about? Are the ASA Unicoms being setup as a control/mitigator for the inherint risks in closing Flightwatch?

There had to be a reason;)

[JackoSchitt]

Flightwatch is not closing.

Flightwatch was and remains always available on ATC FIA frequencies (Just like the Hazard Alert joke...er...."service")

ATC provides an effective and more efficient FIS - AIP SUP H62/07 says so - and they are taking over the primary provision of FIS.

If the unicorn areas are so busy, what makes you think that there will be time to pass weather and NOTAMs to the pilot too lazy to make a phone call?

Sorry, this whole thing is getting waaaaaay too silly for words - all so some AA manager can pull out a plum and say "What a good boy am I".

[peuce]

Jack,

I think I've taken this thread off topic enough.
I have moved our discussion over to another more appropriate thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=295740

[Barkly1992]

Dick

What happened to the cheque?

:confused: