Radar coverage at Avalon

[Dick Smith]

Can anyone advise the lowest altitude that a paint from a small aircraft flying in the Avalon circuit area can be reliably shown on the Melbourne radar? By this I mean the primary paint, not the SSR paint.

It should be noted that transponders are not required for flying in the Class G airspace at Avalon.

I ask this question because the Avalon Airspace Assessment, which has been completed by the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA (see here (http://casa.gov.au/oar/airspace/audit.htm#avalon)), states that one of the factors influencing the assessment included:

Reliable radar coverage to low level allows for the provision of a comprehensive traffic information service. It is interesting that CASA has resisted in every way using the existing tower establishment and disestablishment formula that has been used to close down Wagga tower, and to maintain services at Hamilton Island.

It is also interesting to note that they have “an area of concern” 10 to 15 miles north of Avalon, not actually in the circuit area or on the runway – fascinating.

[aulglarse]

Approx 600ft Dick.....although this can vary at times.

[Dick Smith]

Aulglarse, that seems incredibly low. I need to know where the paint can be reliably shown. When you say it can vary at times, would you be able to advise what altitude you can reliably receive a paint of a small non-transponder equipped VFR aircraft at Avalon?

I look forward to your advice.

[mention1]

Dear Dick,
I understand your concerns at Avalon, but have you had a look at Ballina???

On approach you always get the ol' "RADAR services terminated" call as you pass 8500' (just when you need it most) and then have to contend with Boeings and Airbus traffic as well as Saabs.

When the weather is seriously IMC AND you have to communicate with Ballina, Lismore, Casino and Armidale traffic on the SAME CTAF-R it becomes extreamly dangerous.

Have a look at the missed approach tracks. They all converge!

Anyone else been in this situation???
M

[VH-XXX]

I'd suggest that the area 10-15 miles to the north which is a problem would be near the You-Yangs and a bit hilly which might be upsetting the reliability of the radar. Aircraft use that area to transit to the west just outside the Avalon airspace. If someone is up high near the lower limit of class C, they could potentially interfere with traffic for the south runway at Avalon. I've heard many times the Mel Radar operator calling aircraft in this area when a Jetstar aircraft is both inbound and outbound. If the lower limit was a fraction lower it might not be as much of a problem.

[Sunfish]

The area I think you are talking about has a lower level of class C airspace at 2500'. I suspect that a lot of students find holding that a little problematic.

[Dick Smith]

Mention1, I agree with you totally. I have flown into Ballina and had exactly the same situation.

Dare I point out that with the North American system (which is Government policy) all IFR approaches are in a minimum of Class E airspace? If IMC exists, you remain on the Centre frequency under full radar control until you are visual. Of course, that means that you are separated from all IFR traffic, and when in radar coverage, given traffic information on all VFR traffic by the radar controller – as we have a mandatory transponder requirement in all Class E.

Maybe things are moving forward. After 15 years of resistance in relation to a lower level Class E, I understand that Airservices is planning to put some lower level Class E at Ballina. This will be fantastic. I only hope it is not the typical stuff-up. I hope there is proper staffing levels for the controllers and proper training – also for the pilots. I hope that someone looks at the proven North American system and copies the procedures – after all, they have been proven over a period of over 50 years, with 20 times the traffic density and terrible traffic conditions.

Of course, you will be told that in the North American system, you are on two frequencies at once. This is not the case. You remain on the ATC radar frequency when in IMC. Once visual, you cancel IFR, change to the CTAF and talk to the local UNICOM. What could be simpler and safer?

[Dick Smith]

I have another question. How can a “comprehensive traffic information service” be given if the airline flying in the Avalon CTAF(R) is transmitting a position report on the CTAF(R) frequency?

I look forward to advice on this.

[OpsNormal]

I have another question. How can a “comprehensive traffic information service” be given if the airline flying in the Avalon CTAF(R) is transmitting a position report on the CTAF(R) frequency?

I look forward to advice on this.

It can be quite as simple as one pilot monitoring CTAF-R, the other monitoring ATC and the pair then sharing traffic as it is presented to them to form the big picture in BOTH pilot's minds while inbound/departing busy airspace. One of the MANY reasons for two crew operations.

We have just the same issues as you describe Dick at YPMQ with the shared CTAF frequency and a high number of IFR training/VFR transiting traffic with radar coverage that seems to vary in altitude a little from time to time.

[DirtyPierre]

On approach you always get the ol' "RADAR services terminated" call as you pass 8500' That's not right.

The phrase used is "Passing A085 Control Services are terminated" ......because you are leaving Class E airspace and entering Class G airspace.

Radar coverage at BNA down to about circuit height, but reliably around A020.
To the west of BNA the ranges to the south of YBCG interfere with the radar head image from Mt. Somerville and we often lose aircraft at about A035.

When you tell ATC you are transferring to the CTAF or ATC lose ident, you will be told by ATC "Identification Terminated".

[kam16]

Dick

I can not recall the radar coverage in the Ballina area, long time since I worked in that part of the world. However if you get your wish and have low level Class E with out radar coverage expect delays cause it is basically one approach at a time with traffic being stacked. Having worked a few procedural towers you can get creative however if you have other airspace to look after, a large radar scale display, etc etc, it will be a night mare for both the ATC and pilots involved.
Now my cynicism shows through, after working for AsA for many years, I know that we do not have the staff to cover this type of airspace reform and to ask AsA to manage and implement this professionally....well you are dreaming...

KAM.

[Dick Smith]

OpsNormal, I do not know of any system anywhere in the world that is designed to have one pilot monitoring one frequency, and the other pilot in the flight deck monitoring another frequency. It is fraught with danger and totally amateurish.

How does it work in single pilot operations?

Also, in most aircraft, if you are transmitting on one frequency you cannot receive on another at the same time. If the tower was manned at Avalon, there would be a disciplined location where pilots would change from the radar controller to the tower controller. At no stage are they monitoring two frequencies.

As I’ve said above, this is a pathetically amateurish, invented in Australia system that is just waiting for an accident. I cannot believe that professionals could support it.

[Dick Smith]

Kam16, you state that if we use Class E with radar at Ballina:

it is basically one approach at a time Are you suggesting it is any different now? What prudent airline pilot would head off on an approach or departure in IMC when there is another aircraft on the same approach?

Believe it or not, the enlightened procedures that are used in the USA in Class E airspace (both in radar and non-radar) are similar to the “standards” that Aussie airline pilots apply themselves when in IMC in Class G. Why would they need to be any different?

Do you believe that at the present time airline pilots are taking undue risks when in IMC at Ballina? Personally, if I was to depart Ballina in IMC I would wait for an incoming aircraft to become visual, or to be well out on the missed approach – i.e. one in and one out at a time.

[En-Rooter]

Dick,

I will work E airspace anywhere, anytime AS LONG AS the facilities are there to support it. i.e. radar or surveilance TO THE GROUND, VFR transponders calibrated to IFR standard, enough ATC's rostered to cope with the increased workload and IFR drivers educated that they WILL be delayed in IMC conditions as it's one approach at a time. You will also not get a clearance on the ground while an aircraft is making an instrument approach. Do you really want this?

In the meantime.....sorry mate, no can do.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And, I can't believe that 'amateurs' created it!!!:}

:=:=

[OpsNormal]

OpsNormal, I do not know of any system anywhere in the world that is designed to have one pilot monitoring one frequency, and the other pilot in the flight deck monitoring another frequency. It is fraught with danger and totally amateurish.

The system doesn't mandate it (and I never said it did), the traffic levels do. Yes, flying is fraught with danger (as you put it), however every method is used to gain the big picture and there are very busy occasions where one pilot will monitor the CTAF only (usually PF) and the other will monitor both and deselect CTAF if ATC is trying to get a message across.

How does it work in single pilot operations?

I don't know, you did use the word "airline" to set the context of your question.... :ugh::ugh:

Also, in most aircraft, if you are transmitting on one frequency you cannot receive on another at the same time.

If the tower was manned at Avalon, there would be a disciplined location where pilots would change from the radar controller to the tower controller. At no stage are they monitoring two frequencies.

Then by your reasoning stick a tower/UNICOM in every CTAF.... Actually, that wont help either.... No, that is why we must now fly through 4 frequencies in about 2 minutes going from F130-A080 into WLM......:rolleyes::rolleyes:

As I’ve said above, this is a pathetically amateurish, invented in Australia system that is just waiting for an accident. I cannot believe that professionals could support it.

You keep denigrating the "professionals" you speak of and they'll eventually start just agreeing with anything you don't support on a matter of principle.:oh::oh:

Just stick to the thread topic!

:mad:

Tail Wheel

[Dick Smith]

En-Rooter, you have come up with a number of factors which will completely preclude Class E airspace at lower levels in Australia. For example, you want:

radar or surveillance TO THE GROUND There is no similar requirement in any other country that I know of. All instrument approaches in the USA are in a minimum of Class E airspace. 50% of instrument approaches in the USA do not have radar coverage even to the start of the instrument approach.

Of course in the USA there is no requirement for transponders in Class E airspace below 10,000 feet – other than within 30 miles of Class B.

Have you put all these parameters on to stop Class E from working? Why is it that US and Canadian controllers can satisfactorily operate Class E without low level radar and without unduly delaying aircraft?

I find it fascinating that you won’t even try the system that is so well proven in other leading aviation countries to see if it will work here. Your mind is already made up.

No, I do not want a clearance when I’m on the ground if an aircraft is making an instrument approach. That is the very point I’m making. When operated correctly, Class E is similar to the way professional pilots operate in Class G when IMC exists.

By the way, I totally agree that adequate staffing is required. I am very happy to work with you and Civil Air in ensuring that there is adequate staffing.

[OpsNormal]

Just stick to the thread topic!

Tail Wheel

Noted, apologies. Was getting heated.



Apologies accepted. It is a great debate, very professional and a wealth of experience behind most posts.

I intend to keep it that way. :ok:

Tail Wheel

[En-Rooter]

Dick,

My mind is made up for a number of reasons:

I watch the radar everyday, I see transponder errors everyday from VFR's. What protection is this to the IFR driver with TCAS, let alone the poor IFR bastard that doesn't have TCAS? (I was flying IFR about a month back and got traffic on a VFR at the same level as myself, I was in 8/8ths! What the fcuk was it doing there?)

Surveilance can be provided to the ground where class E is with ADS-B. There is just a lack of political will to do it because it costs money. And we can't have that can we??

No radar or surveilance equals procedural approach equals more delays equals more controllers equals costs more money (see previous paragraph)

[Dick Smith]

OpsNormal, I wasn’t having a go at you, or saying (or even implying) that you and your colleagues are not professional. I actually said:

I cannot believe that professionals could support it. That is, an invented in Australia system that is not designed to be fail safe.

The example you have given, in relation to Williamtown and 4 frequencies in about 2 minutes, is exactly what I can assist you in fixing. There is no such situation anywhere in the USA, Canada, Europe or England. Their airspace simply does not work like that.

Our airspace is still a mish-mash between modern international ATC procedures and 1950s Flight Service procedures. You need to have one or the other – you can’t actually have a bit of both in the same airspace.

Why don’t you give me a phone call? My work phone is 02 9450 0600 and my mobile is 0408 640 221. I would love to discuss this with you. Possibly we could go for a fly together in the Citation and see what we have in common – I bet it is a lot.

Why don’t I get your boss to give you an air ticket to the USA to fly with a Metro crew in their airspace? I think you will find it is pretty impressive – lots of low level airspace without radar coverage but a very safe system. This is necessary because of the very high densities of traffic, the high elevation of the airports, and often lousy weather with snow and ice.

I’m not saying everything about North America is better. There are just some things they do a bit better than us, and it would be sensible for us to copy these.

I look forward to hearing from you on the phone.

[dodgybrothers]

can I come too?

[boardpig]

You'll need a 4th person to act as um... an observer. :ok:

[kam16]

OK Dick

You have taken one part of my reply only the delay. I am happy to provide the service and agree that there would be few is any pilots that would intentionally mix in IMC.

However the real issue is AsA going to provide the equipment and staff, if so at what expense. Just as importantly where are they going to find the staff?
Now the affordable safety issue raises it head. Reading else where I see what you say about affordable safety and let me tell you this will cost the industry MORE. How much more I have no idea, however the real question must be is the industry prepared to pay???

So the way I see it is all that has to be done is find the staff, create the new sectors necessary for it to work effectively, convince AsA, CASA, and then the industry that this is what is needed.

Good luck :).

[Dick Smith]

I for one would be prepared to pay – especially when it is my family (including children and grandchildren) in the airliner. Perhaps I’m being selfish.

Others have said on this site that providing a Class E separation service is no more expensive than providing traffic information. Some have claimed it is even less expensive.

I don’t believe for a second that we should put Class E to ground level at every IFR approach in Australia. That would be a misallocation of resources. However at places like Proserpine, Port Macquarie or Ballina (which have a few mountains and hills around but have reasonable radar coverage) I would like to see the service.

I find that I receive a superb service out of Sydney and enroute, but when I really need it – that is, at the approach at an airport in mountainous areas – I am told, “Radar service terminated” and then I’m in ‘do it yourself’ airspace.

I have flown in many countries around the world and I haven’t seen our particular system used in any of these countries.

[Capt Wally]

...................Dick getting back to yr original Q. I have launched out of AV many times & have heard ATC mention to another A/C (perhaps inbound) that an A/C possibly XYZ appears to ge getting airborne at AV off rwy 18 for Eg.(that being me) & I have been at or about 200 ft AGL. Obviously I was Mode C compliant & not just a primary paint as you are enquiring about but it gives you an indication that ML radar have pretty good 'eye's down there at AV.
Would be nice also if MIA had radar coverage to near ground level where there are lots of diff operators slipping in & out with weather on or about the minima.

Capt Wally :-)

[Dick Smith]

Capt Wally, thanks for your advice. Yes, I did realise that the secondary surveillance radar coverage is very close to the ground. That is because the SSR radar is on a mountain top.

However I understand the primary radar is at Tullamarine Airport. Can anyone confirm this? I have recently been told that the primary radar coverage at Avalon can only be relied on at about 1,000 feet or higher. Can someone confirm this?

I also believe it is extraordinary that Airservices Australia and CASA can somehow claim that remote mounted radar units can replace local air traffic control. I always understood that historically most collisions around the world have taken place on the runway or close to the airport at less than 2,000 feet. You would think that this is where you would want air traffic controllers with good eyesight.

It is interesting that at a place like Sydney Airport we don’t just use the very good primary radar coverage at the airport. We actually have a tower – with people in that tower. Then again, maybe we could do away with that!

[Dick Smith]

It is obvious if you look at the Civil Aviation Safety Authority’s website, under the Office of Airspace Regulation, that one of the reasons they are supporting the continued operation of Avalon Airport without manning the tower is that they believe there is radar coverage at low levels.

It is well known that there is no transponder requirement.

I am quickly starting to believe that there had never been a survey on what level the primary coverage reliably goes down to regarding a paint on a small aircraft. Can anyone enlighten us here?

Or is it true that the Office of Airspace Regulation has simply accepted what they have been told and have not asked for any supporting evidence regarding radar coverage?

I was once performing an instrument approach at Avalon and at 1,000 feet I nearly collided with a small aircraft. I asked the radar controller if this aircraft was shown on their screen and they said no.

Please don’t let this matter die. Does anyone have any evidence of the existence of a simple chart which shows the lowest level of the reliable primary radar coverage for small aircraft at the airport?

[SM4 Pirate]

Whilst I fully support the need for a TWR service at YMAV; playing their game about 'radar coverage' may force them into putting in a radar head near YMAV (cheaper than a TWR service) which solves your 'angle' but does not approach a TWR service.

My understanding is their is one primary radar source at Melbourne; currently located on Gellibrand (spelling?) Hill, to the right of the approach path to RWY27. It is about to be replaced by a new Primary and Mode S radar being installed (currently spinning) on the Melbourne aerodrome.

I would be surprised about lower than 1000ft "primary only" returns near YMAV; but does that really matter?

Should not the VFRs be self announcing on the CTAF(R)?

To me the question still remains about a true 'establishment and de-establishment criteria'. This should be a priority.

Using the process from the early 90's i.e. closing YSWG TWR or keeping YCFS (new code) open may be seriously flawed now that we have separated regulation/service provision. Is that sufficient in a more SMS aware world.
The trigger points contained in the draft part 71 only considered things in isolation, Pax numbers, total movements, RPT movements. Nothing about terrain, facilities, approach types (i.e. PILS/NDB/VOR training), airspace complexities etc.

Additionally there is no way to truly capture the above data, it relies on true statistics from the RPTs who oft want to avoid the service, and the aerodrome operator about the total movements; but do they really have the 'true' data? Then it is at least 18 months old by the time the triggers are realised, not exactly a modern/mature response to 'safety'.

Edited to add, The part 71 does not cater for seasonal events, but only annual data, so there could be a location that needs a TWR for 6-10 weeks but then doesn't etc; so does it get an unsafe period for a while or a TWR for 42-46 weeks when it doesn't need one; well on the part 71 draft it would be no service at all? Do TWRs get established or de-established in 2 year periods, is that practical? Does anything cater for amended RPT schedules?

What about places like YMAY, or YWLM; low cost carriers have made announcements recently about targeting them? Does the RAAF still close YWLM for most of January? Will facilities (such as decommissioned YMML radar heads) get a go at YMAY to fill in the radar gaps; especially with the increases in numbers (thinking Virgin E170s to YMAY).

[Sunfish]

For what it's worth, my own experience of transiting YMAV was at about A2500 on a coastal round the Bay jaunt.

The zone was not active, but Jetstar was inbound and there was a call from Melbourne radar to "the VFR aircraft at 2500 near Avalon" from what I can remember.

I piped up and announced myself to the South, tracking to Clifton Springs and just over Point Henry or suchlike.

Mel Radar then came back asking for a range and bearing from YMAV, explaining that their radar display didn't "know" where Clifton Springs, Leopold, Point Henry, etc. actually "were". I suspect a Tower at YMAV would know these things.

Anyway I'm out of my depth in this discussion.

[Torqueman]

Hey Dick does this sound familiar..............

Still at it hey ! :ugh:




Minister for Transport, John Anderson, did the right thing on 17 November 2004 when he finally cut Dick Smith loose from the airspace reform process saying:“Australia’s skies are safe and will continue to be safe after 25 November, despite the comments today by Dick Smith [re the National Airspace System]…… Mr Smith’s claims are not supported by anyone with any credibility in the aviation sector……I have advised him that his role is at an end.”

[CaptainMidnight]

Mel Radar then came back asking for a range and bearing from YMAV,Fair enough. Visual features are no use to an RPT unlikely to be familiar with them, and probably of limited use to ATC for the same reason. I suspect the only VFR points on a radar display are published VFR waypoints.

AV area is a good place to stay away from, presumably why the warning boxes and VFR route have been placed on the new VTC.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

… nice post Mr Pirate!
.
Part 71 is designed as a ‘trigger’ document. Its parameters are baseline thresholds for initiation of an aeronautical study! The aeronautical study then takes account of those very important other factors you rightly point out! … one could argue that not gazetting 71 (by the former Gov’t) provided an excuse for not expediting aero studies!
.
… that said, for some time now I have been researching the way in which the draft Part 71 triggers were set, and whilst not confirmed yet (so I will refrain from inference), I have concerns about the robustness of those trigger points!
.
…that aside, at the end of the day it is semantics. The point should always be that where ‘experience’ shows a concern, whether through incident/accident data or when in the view of individuals or groups who are highlighting concerns, those matters should be looked at in a very careful, transparent and timely fashion! ….. but are they?
.
…. The oversight role sits with CASA AND the ANSP’s, along with users of the system! …. Is the regulator equipped with the right personnel to do this? … is the regulator supporting its experts with an interference free platform from which to address any adverse observations? …. Is CASA talking with the ANSP/s? ….Is the ANSP ‘senior management’ listening to their frontline operators? …. Is CASA talking to the ANSP’s frontline operators? … In all of this, are issues being looked at properly and followed up with remedies?? …. One wonders how we arrived where we are if the regulator (+ regulation) and service provider were so equipped!!
.
… whether a volume meets part 71 (or the FAA formula) triggers or not, should not be the sole determinant on which aero study assessments should be undertaken! … however, as with most things in life, systems require baseline rules to ensure objectivity … without them …the results are clear!
.
… gazetting 71 would be a good first step! … also … ensuring the ANSP was not involved in the aerostudy process other than providing open access to input from frontline subject matter experts (as it is pointless asking non-op management) to ensure evidence based conclusions are accurate, and can be acted on promptly!
.
.. in the current climate, can you imagine reacting with anything other than fits of laughter to hear intimations from the regulator that “ASA is a mature organisation and can manage issues through their own processes” … WTF???
.
…. Little will change (before a serious incident or accident) until there is an acceptance by the Gov’t of the day, that they need to make critical decisions (no more obfuscation) and soon, to ensure the above can occur!
.
….. it is urgent, and must be done without delay lest ALL of the wheels fall off and the inevitable happens!
.
Sunfish
.
Spot on re the eye’s in a tower …. Class D IFR/VFR can be solved using sep standards (both procedural, visual and a mix) and studious use of ‘segregation’ .. which is all further enhanced by surveillance data being made available in the tower!
.
I was once performing an instrument approach at Avalon and at 1,000 feet I nearly collided with a small aircraft. I asked the radar controller if this aircraft was shown on their screen and they said no. … I must ask;
.
1. How far below the cloud base (estimate) did this near collision (your words) occur?
2. Were you monitoring the CTAF, did you broadcast and did the VFR call?
3. How would the result have been different in class E (assuming all of the factors were EXACTLY the same)?
4. Did you have time to take avoiding action, or was this just a lucky miss?
.
.. much obliged!

[John Eacott]

However I understand the primary radar is at Tullamarine Airport. Can anyone confirm this? I have recently been told that the primary radar coverage at Avalon can only be relied on at about 1,000 feet or higher. Can someone confirm this?

Dick,

The radar was relocated to the top of Mt Macedon some 5 years ago, and has excellent coverage; some 200nm, IIRC. I've often heard radar reports of aircraft at Avalon down in the circuit, and also have been reported as traffic to RPT's when transitting at 500 feet along the Princes Highway.


Off topic, my current nark at Avalon is the false ILS glidepath about 500 metres east of the true one :eek:

And the Victorian Government legislating to allow private airfield owners to charge for the use of airspace within Victoria :mad:

[bluerider777]

SSR only - located Mount Macedon
SSR plus primary - located Gellibrand Hill (just east of ML as described earlier)

I work in this area but am not aware of whether the radar (currently rotating) on the airfield will replace Gellibrand Hill in the airfield location or if it is testing for redeployment. I must note that as currently sited this radar would have less coverage at AV than Gellibrand Hill.

Current coverage includes the gas pipeline survey aircraft which is at about 500 ft agl and goes from the NE corner of the AV zone to the SW passing about 2-3nm north of AV. This operator is primary only and occasionally fades but is fairly solid to a couple of miles SW of AV. I have passed traffic on it to JST as a possible train only to be advised it was actually an aircraft. Oh well!

I would estimate this as the lowest practical primary coverage in the area.

[ICAO-Delta]

Late into this discussion, but I think you should check out the current CAO(s) regarding requirements for carriage of a serviceable and active transponder in E Airspace. I recall an amendment (within the last 2 years) allowing some sports aviation (or similar) aircraft to NOT carry transponders in (some?) E Airspace.
ID

[concernaviat]

The 'new' radar at Melbourne Airport (on-airport) is a temporary (transportable) facility that will be commissioned to enable AirServices to turn-off, dismantle and replace/commission the Gellibrand Hill primary radar as part of the 'Australian Mode-S Terminal Approach Radar' (AM-STAR) project.

Therefore anticipate poorer radar coverage over Avalon during this period.

[andrew495]

Although initially I didn't agree with Dick that Avalon needed a tower, I have decided that a tower would ensure the highest level of safety. One day in winter last year, I had overflown Point Cook, then made a call advising that I would be overflying Avalon for the south at 2000 feet. The cloud base looked to be at about 2200 feet at the time. Another aircraft reported that they were about 10 miles west of Avalon at the time at 2500 feet and would be overflying also. I made an overhead call when I was overhead the aerodrome, and had still failed to sight this aircraft that I believed must be getting quite close. After my call, this other aircraft advised that it had sighted me and was manoeuvring to avoid me. It was now at my altitude and less than 10 seconds away from me.

Although Avalon is a CTAF(R), it is ineffective to an extent when people are not using their radios correctly. In this case, I expected that he may come down from his reported altitude because of the cloud, so I made sure that I didn't delay my overhead call for one second longer as I thought he may be very close to me. Despite maintaining a good lookout, I had been unable to sight him, and he was not at the altitude that he had advised. In my situation he was far enough away when he had sighted me to manoeuvre away from me before we got dangerously close to each other. However, those 10 seconds or less may become only 5 seconds with an A320 on approach, and you don't want to be taking these risks with nearly 200 people on board.

Most of the time the Avalon CTAF works fine, it is just on occasions like these when aircraft are not doing what they said they would be doing that problems arise. In the interests of safety, a tower is essential. Although this may make things a bit more difficult for VFR aircraft overflying, it is important that safety must come first, especially with so many lives at stake if something happened to go wrong.

Sorry for the slight thread drift by the way, I have no idea at what altitude the primary radar can detect aircraft!

[Dick Smith]

Torqueman, yes I am still “at it.”

You may have noticed the considerable support I have been given in relation to stopping Airservices from removing an independent VHF Flightwatch system without proper consultation and a proper safety study.

You will also be interested in knowing that for over 15 years I have been working on having the US style UNICOM to improve safety at non-tower airports, as well as Class E airspace to low levels to improve safety.

It looks as though both of these things are now happening. Yes, 15 years too late, but it shows that you can overcome resistance to change if you keep working on something and allow people to gradually come on board.

I have not noticed too many people pulling out the AFRU (“beep back”) units since my “role” has come to an end. You may not know that I built and designed the original “beep back” unit in my home workshop. I installed the first unit at Bundaberg after a horrific incident – where two commercial aircraft (including one airline aircraft) were in the same cloud at the same time, doing the same instrument approach, but on different frequencies because of the “calling in the blind” system.

There was a lot of resistance to the AFRU originally but now they are very widely supported. I believe the same will happen with UNICOMs and also with Class E airspace at lower levels.

[Dick Smith]

John Eacott, as pointed out by others I think you are referring to the secondary surveillance radar (SSR) coverage, which of course requires a transponder. I was asking about the primary radar coverage which gives a paint from the metal of an aircraft without any transponder.

At the present time there is no transponder requirement at Avalon Airport.

[CaptainMidnight]

which gives a paint from the metal of an aircraft without any transponderIs that how it works?

Modern science - it's marvellous stuff ........

[aulglarse]

Can someone briefly elaborate on the new VFR route running to the north of AVV? Where does it start and end please?

[CaptainMidnight]

I hope you are not relying on a description here as against buying a chart :hmm:

It runs from vehicle testing ground in the west, and the golf course about 4 miles west of PCK, with a slight dogleg in the middle to provide clearance from the AVV zone, hence the mag tracks on the VTC.

[WELLCONCERNED]

Jeez guys, get back on track.

Dick asked a simple question - what is the PRIMARY radar coverage in the Avalon area.

I KNOW that Airservices has the required data - I have SEEN the radar coverage diagrams - in fact, if Dick was to go back through information given to him as far back as 1996, he would also recall that Airservices has the data. He might also remember that a former American [ex FAA] CEO sat opposite a Liberal Minister of Transport with those very radar coverage diagrams back in 1996 and 1997 [I was there, Dick was there, Bill was there, the Minister was there].

The FACT is that whilst there is good SSR coverage to GL around Avalon, the Primary Radar coverage around Avalon is patchy [at best] below 1500 feet.

This is NOT conducive to good remote ATC services.

The FACT remains that if the FAA towers establishment and disestablishment criteria [so dear to AsA'sa and CASA's hearts over the years] were applied based on KNOWN primary radar coverage deficiency, a tower at Avalon WOULD be required.

PUT staff in the bloody tower and get on with it!! [if ASA can find them, given that they can't even staff a basic night duty roster!!!!!]

[Jabawocky]

They could train up some redundent Flightwatchers maybe:}

Sounds like Dick is onto something, again needing attention, so lets get behind it again.

J

[No IFR Traffic]

Traffic is ... um... a Kenworth tracking in a south westerly direction, just north of the field, groundspeed approximately 50 knots???

[Dick Smith]

WELLCONCERNED, thanks for your post. I can remember seeing some radar coverage diagrams many years ago, however unfortunately I do not have a copy of them – maybe I was never given a copy.

The problem I see is that the people in the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA have accepted the advice in relation to radar coverage that has been given to them by Airservices Australia. I can understand this, but I believe they will have to be more sceptical in the future.

Everyone had high hopes that by moving the airspace regulation out of Airservices Australia, there would be a far more objective team looking at these issues. So far it doesn’t look as if this is happening.

It is interesting that the letter written by the President of Civil Air (the air traffic controllers’ union) to the new Minister also confirms the failure of CASA to take action in relation to the shortage of controllers, fatigue, and controllers operating sectors when they do not hold the correct qualifications.

Don’t hold your breath for CASA to do something at the present time – it is obvious that the good people in CASA believe their career prospects would be jeopardised if they stood up to this important issue.

If I can do anything to help I would be delighted to assist. After all, as has been pointed out many times on this site, I do not have a career in aviation – and that does have some advantages in relation to standing up for important issues.

[Rule3]

Many moons ago there was a Zone at AMAV [I did say many moons ago], SFC to 2500. I believe the frequency was 120.1 and staffing was 1400 hr daily. However the Bean Counters and the AFFORDABLE SAFETY lobby decided it was no longer necessary. My how the worm has turned.!!!!!!!

[wesky]

With JST, Sharpe (couple of times a day), local traffic and the new lite Int' terminal being built/proposed by Mr Fox (no doubt for Go Cat's use), the TWR needs to be open.... It is there, heck all they need is a few stools, a new comms panel, reburbished dish and 14 man hrs a day!

AsA needs to use their brains. What ever happened to the message "Safety first".....

Dick, as for primary range, I honestly cant answer you on that one but sure as hell back the use of common sense!

Steve.

[Blockla]

And find 4-5 staff Wesky... Hard enough to man current facilities.

Dick, as for helping, I'm sure you know exactly who to call to fix the problems and who to call for 'real' information about the problems; good luck.

[wesky]

You do raise a good point.

AsA will sort their garbage out one day.

Lets hope safety starts to take some precedence over operational costs :uhoh:. Before you know it, MEL-SY will be the only route with an ATS.

Steve.

[fujii]

Dick,

Unless the Mode C is on, you couldn't tell hpw high the acft is without an organised trial.

[Chief galah]

I've looked at radar screens in the ML area for many years. The only predictability about primary radar returns is the unpredictability of coverage on any given day.
In the old days we had some input into the equipment parameters in order to reduce weather, angels, and second time round returns, as well as increase detection in some areas.
Now the whole shebang is homogenised, and as far as I know, ATC has little say in real time equipment setting.
All I know for sure is that we get primary returns from trains to the south east of Rockbank, trucks on the City Link freeway near Bolte Bridge, occasional freeway traffic near EN,
birds from time to time, and angels from the north in strong northerly winds.. But when you want the machine to show an aircraft primary return between Westgate and the city, it won't.
There are dodgy detection areas all over the place, and these areas will mainly be unpredictable in their location.

[mention1]

Regardless of the terminology, why is it that "Control Services are Terminated" as I am on descent through 8,500' , when I know that my transponder is able to be picked up soon after take-off on the return leg ?(YBNA)

[No Further Requirements]

mention1: because control service terminated refers to the fact that you are no longer in controlled airspace. You are still under radar surveillance, but not in CTA. ATC can still see you but not give you control instructions.

Cheers,

NFR.

[Sunstar320]

What is happening with the Control Tower returning to operation at AVV??. Recently, JQ have doing up to 22 movements a day out of YMAV, so why isn't it manned, well who knows:bored: I have left countless messages for JQ Managment/Avalon Managment, but nobody seems to want to answer me.

Safety needs to come first down at Avalon. Living 5mins to Avalon myself, it does worry me on occasions when there is 2 A320's on Approach/Climb, and there is all sorts of other traffic floating by. There has been posts on here about incorrect radio calls, the fact this has happened means there is chances of problems arising, and who could possibly stop this. I most certianly do witness close encounters over YMAV airspace and it just dosn't suprise me half the time. What happens if someone is on the wrong frequency by accident?? Who is there at Avalon to stop collisions?? What really frustrates me is that they will use the tower when QF send something down, but when JQ potentially flies nearly 4000 people in and out of YMAV, there is not a person is sight in that tower.

In the end, who cares if JQ need to add a few dollars onto each fare, they are still cheap to the consumer, and at least safety is somewhat improved. I have the Geelong Advertisier on my side, mabye its only a matter of a few PR threats for them to take action?. Westaway and Anderson just wont seem to budge on this, but something NEEDS to be done..

or is it going to take an accident for occur before action to be considered?? Its a joke at the moment, and I cant believe Avalon operates the way it does. I refuse to use it, no matter how close I live, lets hope the message is given, sooner rather than later.

Rgds
Sunstar

[aulglarse]

Sunstar 320, AVV airport tower is now 'manned' to an extent with CAGRS ( a basic information service ,like Ayers Rock at the moment) and has been functioning since December 2nd this year with a NOTAM released prior.

Qantas rarely have the tower 'manned' anymore, for a while anyway-only when heavy freighters turn-up.

[Dale Hardale]

CAGRS does NOT solve the problem.

Until the manning issues for Avalon Tower are sorted out, why not lower the base of Class 'C' airspace to ground level within the lateral limits of the AVV CTR. Take off and landing would remain uncontrolled, but everything else would be.

Once it's promulgated , it would eliminate the conflicts that continually occur for arrivals and departures at Avalon.

[andrewmizzi]

JQ has cut YMAV flights by 1/5 it was reported today (The Age)

[CaptainMidnight]

Both TWR & CA/GRS are/will be operating @ AV; CA/GRS outside TWR hours.why not lower the base of Class 'C' airspace to ground level within the lateral limits of the AVV CTR. Take off and landing would remain uncontrolled, but everything else would be. Class C is controlled airspace. You can't have part of it controlled and part not.