Going Backwards with Less Safety at Avalon

[Duke16]

I am planning a flight to Avalon and looking over the procedures there. When Avalon was uncontrolled airspace, I remember reading that ATC was giving Jetstar pilots a traffic information service on the ATC frequency to the lowest level of radar coverage on approach. The pilots would do the 2 frequency thing (Listen and broadcast on ATC and the CTAF simultaneously).

I now see that when the Avalon tower is active, these same Jetstar pilots must change to the tower controller's frequency on descent below 4500' and then plod along using procedural controller instructions without radar service at all. This is from 12 miles out.

Isn't this a step backwards?

This is Class C airspace and yet we have this unique Australian system where non-radar tower controllers actually take over responsibility for radar covered airspace and then use procedural separation rather than the advantages of radar.

I admit my bias as much of my experience is in the US, but there pilots remain under radar control from center or TRACON until they are very close to the airport, thus getting a
full radar service. The tower controller is of course responsible for runway separation but controls much less airspace. This seems to work very well and leverages the capabilities and expertise of both the radar and tower controllers.

[KeepItRolling]

The Powers That Be are, at this point, unwilling to provide a full up radar feed to AV tower to provide the service you describe.

Farcical? Yes.

But please do not complain to ATC about it, the accountants did not even want to open AV tower at all, that was mandated by CASA.

[Blockla]

It's also about providing an APP service along with the feed... = More ATC bodies required, something that ASA doesn't exactly have on the shelf ready to go.

[Pera]

There is nothing unsafe about procedural control in class C airspace. There may be delays due to no radar but no less safety.

An approach service from ML Centre would be appropriate but unfortunately ATC don't run ATC anymore. See some tosser in Canberra if you would like a better service...

[training wheels]

It's also about providing an APP service along with the feed... = More ATC bodies required

Doesn't the ATC guy on 129.4 already provide that for Avalon bound traffic?

[Dick Smith]

KeepItRolling

Your mind seems to be set in “Australian think”.

Surely Duke16 is explaining that in the US it’s the existing controllers and existing radar in the centre or the TRACON who provide the radar service.

At Avalon Airport, previously when the tower was not manned, I understand ATC would give a radar service to very low levels to aircraft that had two radios, ie. one on the radar controller’s frequency and the other on the CTAF.

When the tower is manned, why can’t we follow a system where the pilot remains on the radar frequency when in IMC receiving a full radar separation service and then changes to the tower frequency when visual to the tower?

Sounds as if there would be no necessity for additional money to be spent for a radar display in the tower.

[Howabout]

Dick,

I accept what you say regarding US practice, but I have a problem with the translation to here. And before you launch, this is not "Australian think."

For many years, our controllers have emphasised, on this site, the difference in personnel numbers, the smaller sectors in the US that allow the controllers to concentrate on their immediate area etc.

I was just looking around for my VTCs, but it seems my son's flogged them to play some on-line flight sim program. I wanted to confirm my belief that AV is well within ML terminal airspace.

That aside, I'd ask the following: You are always talking about distractions to controllers because C overlies D, instead of E. The experts can correct me, but what would be the distraction factor be if the controller responsible for sequencing traffic into both ML and ES was given the additional responsibility of sequencing, separating and providing RAS for traffic into AV, since it's E? I don't know, but I imagine it just wouldn't work - unless your happy to accept the occasional prang.

I don't know whether one guy is responsible, or more, for the terminal airspace; but I suspect they're flat out with the two ML airports without adding AV to the mix.

To me it's a simple equation: give them the staff and they'll provide the service.

Maybe your advocacy should extend to demanding that Airservices fess-up on staff numbers. I seem to remember what appeared to be a well-coached senator in the last round of Estimates. Maybe he could be your go-to-man.

Finally, can you lend any weight to the problem at The Oaks (also on this site)? I've never been there, but will this be another HXT? A beautiful little airfield, trashed by commercial interests, to the detriment of GA.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This argument is pretty lame.

Duke16 prior to AV becoming a C TWR the lower limit for the CTA was 4500ft to ABV AV and 30nm from ML and then FL180 class E. So it would be very hard for ATC to give traffic OCTA unless asked for it. And a different frequency, ML RADAR as opposed to CEN.

So are you arguing about ops in VMC..or IMC? If VMC then a visual TWR is as cool as any other VISUAL TWR...in fact I have yet to see an IMC TWR in operation...if IMC then APP or CEN hands off when aircraft is established on aid inbound....and then TWR says....?

AS far as TWR goes...how far out does ML TWR own? 12? 15? 20? Does ML TWR own a radar? Does EN?

TSAD is not a device to provide IMC separation.

edit to add- and if it does? then a whole department was layed wasted to save a dollar because a device could not be used for separation purposes and those who would provide it were not qualified to provide such a service...even though training was made available and training was being done.

[Dick Smith]

Nah! We can't afford enough controllers to operate an approach service at an airport with airline jets and 1.5 m pax per year- even when there is good existing radar coverage.

They can in Europe and in the USA.

Hold on- we are supposed to have the highest air safety standards in the world?

Nah! Just an illusion.

[max1]

Dick

Surely Duke16 is explaining that in the US it’s the existing controllers and existing radar in the centre or the TRACON who provide the radar service.
This is where you lose most of us Dick.

The 'existing' controllers are actually there for the 'existing' airspace/airport set-up. If they were going to give those existing controllers a new airport or increased traffic load they would do a safety case to see if they needed to upgrade 'existing' numbers.

If they ever get around to building a second airport for Sydney, would your argument be that we have 'existing' controllers in Sydney and they can just do the second airport as well?

Have a think Dick.

[CaptainMidnight]

Duke16

When the AVV Class C airspace is active you will get separated. That's all you need to worry about.

If you are not comfortable with a few miles of procedural & visual separation by a control tower, perhaps you should land at MEL.

[Howabout]

Max,

I didn't expect an answer! I thought I'd get the 'Nah, they do it in the US and Europe' bit. It was inevitable. No consideration of the resource costs in bodies - you guys just do the job with what you've got. After all, they do it in the US.

Put the harder questions and you get the obfuscation without any substance.

[Dick Smith]

IFR services in and out of Bankstown are primarily run from the Sydney terminal using radar.

Imagine if BK airspace was raised to 4500' , extended to 15nm and an Avalon like non-radar procedural service applied.

Safety would be clearly lowered.

And BK doesn't even have RPT jet movements with even one pax per annum let alone 1.5 million per annum.

Your minds are set in concrete. Keep attempting to justify the un-justifiable if you want to. Wait for lives to be lost and then make the changes as nomally happens.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Dear Dick,

"Hold on- we are supposed to have the highest air safety standards in the world?

Nah! Just an illusion."

WELL SAID THAT MAN!!! :8:8

We USED to have :}.......NOT ANY MORE.......:yuk::yuk::sad::sad:

We used to have a system that EVOLVED over many years around SAFETY FIRST.:eek:
NOT ANY MORE!! :ugh:

I'll bet that in the years to come, it will be seen as a 'Simplification' and 'Cost Saving Measure' to provide services to CTA vs OCTA ONLY.

'They' could even use a slogan, like......

'Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less'......

Well..?? Has it????:sad::sad:

[KeepItRolling]

Dick,

No one, least of all an ATC, thinks that the present set up at AV is the best it can be by any means.

Could Radar be used more effectively? Without any argument, YES.

The way MATS is currently written, and the way that the system works, AV tower would need a radar feed. The ATCs at AV and ML are doing the best they can with the tools, staffing and procedures mandated by CASA and provided by the Canberra Gurus of ASA.

I can understand what you would like to have in place, and I also agree that AV pax deserve better. BUT the system you desire will not happen under current management (up to and including the Minister) and that my good sir is beyond the coalface controllers you seek to denigrate every other post.

We work with what we have been given, including the training, and speaking for myself only, will work with the system I am trained to operate in without a qualm, whatever that system entails.

Your ideas about ATC are valid and indeed appear to work well in the US and Europe, but until there is the political will for these changes to happen I think you are shouting at the wind.

Over and Out.

Edit: I forgot to mention that while ASA returns $100mil pa to the government, the political will I mentioned is absent.

[Duke16]

Captain Midnight,

I get your point and although I'm not paying the bills for the procedural delays, it just seems kind of backward and not the greatest safety to fly into one of Australia's largest cities which has excellent radar coverage and be handed off to the Avalon tower guy 12 miles out who uses his grease board and string to procedurally separate me from other "Known" traffic. It would be much better to maximize the radar until closer in as most of the incidents/ accidents occur at lower altitude. By the way, not being an ATC guy, does anyone know how much larger the procedural separation standard is going into Avalon vs radar?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Duck16 you are a spoiler or stalking horse...your argument is full of holes!

the Avalon tower guy 12 miles out who uses his grease board and string to procedurally separate me from other "Known" traffic.

You haven't read any posts, have you? What is the difference between ML Tower and AV Tower?

"Known" traffic In C? You do have a pilot's licence?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Nah! We can't afford enough controllers to operate an approach service at an airport with airline jets and 1.5 m pax per year- even when there is good existing radar coverage.

They can in Europe and in the USA.

Hold on- we are supposed to have the highest air safety standards in the world?

Nah! Just an illusion.

So, now you have a tower in place in AV...and now you want a dedicated APP/DEP for AV as well...Dick...just tell your captive Senator to push for some of that dividend to be re-invested back in getting more people happy to sit behind the scopes....or...come up with a better way of looking after CTA/OCTA with highly trained ATC.

[max1]

Dick,

Listen up.
As a controller I get tired of reading your pontifications where you blame the controllers and imply we are some blue collar Luddites because we don't proclaim you the Messiah every time you come up with some half thought out idea of how Aviation would be saved if we just did it the 'Dick-Way'.

We (most of us) put up rational arguments to support our point of view. As has been said numerous times on numerous topics, some of your suggestions have validity but are not as easy as you would suggest. You have your sycophants who believe anything you say, and attempt to run interference when others either dare to disagree or point out a flaw in your suggestions.

The 'existing' controllers are actually there for the 'existing' airspace/airport set-up. If they were going to give those existing controllers a new airport or increased traffic load they would do a safety case to see if they needed to upgrade 'existing' numbers.

I have stated that with some of your ideas that they are doable, just not at the minimal cost that you seem to spout.

As controllers we work the airspace and procedures we are instructed to. If you have a problem with what is going on, go and see the brains trust that is attempting to run ASA.

As a controller I am just us frustrated that ASA seem to have lost sight that we are here for the Aviation industry, and not the other way around.

Simply Dick we don't have the controllers, and haven't for years. The place has become dysfunctional. Have a look at the thread on ATC Issues with how applicants for ATC with ASA are treated. The growth departments are HR and spin doctoring.
The latest staff engagement survey is a mastery of spin. No doubt more managers will be created, at higher remuneration, as 'there is still much work to be done'. The slower the boat gets the more managers are brought on board to flog the remaining rowers to row harder. More HR people are needed to 'streamline processes', and more PR are needed to shout to everyone on shore that this boat is actually flying along.

I'm pretty sure they didn't blame the soldiers when they were wrongly dropped ashore at Gallipoli, if you get my analogy.

[CaptainMidnight]

who uses his grease board and string to procedurally separate me Your comment suggests a lack of understanding of ATC procedures, particularly coordination between the centers and TWRs and separation arrangements, not just here but in the U.S.

Last I heard AVV only had about 25 -30 movements per day, and most of those are the same aircraft arriving and departing. So the current level of service i.e. Class C, Tower providing approach and AD control is more than adequate, and in particular, cost effective.

[FL400]

Radar: 5 miles or 3 miles in the terminal area
Procedural: 1 mile

Two aircraft converging at the same level on tracks 20 degrees apart:

Radar: need 5 miles but unless there is time for constant monitoring might run at 10 miles. Using 1-in-60, 10 miles across is 20 degrees at 30 NM from the fix.

Procedural: converging at 20 degrees - it's already published for convenience - 11 DME using VOR or 13 DME using NDB. Using 1-in-60, 20 degrees at 11 miles from the fix is about 4 miles across so you're closer than you would be by radar.

I don't know about Avalon specifically but in general, laterally, procedural separation is less restrictive than radar.

[Duke16]

FL400

Thanks for the info, I thought the procedural separation would have been more restrictive.

OZBUSDRIVER- Yes I do have a pilots license and have driven a few buses as well. The "known traffic" reference has to do VCA's which I read about from time to time. Any chance of a light aircraft wandering into the venerable Class C airspace Avalon at the outer ring Mel, am I separated from them in the procedural Class C airspace?

[Howabout]

Dick, I take your point on the following:

Keep attempting to justify the un-justifiable if you want to. Wait for lives to be lost and then make the changes as normally happens.

Can we please wind up a reputable senator; one who really knows something about aviation. As I said before, Senator H really seemed to know what he was talking about in senate estimates. I've rarely seen a politician with such an intrinsic grasp of the intricacies of airspace. That guy is a total stunner.

If we could just enlist that other star, your local member Bronwyn in the lower house, then I am sure we would be on a winner.

[CaptainMidnight]

venerable Class C airspace Avalon Thank your lucky stars it is currently Class C.

If it was E over D then you could be mixing it with various no radio no transponder sports aircraft types who have exemptions from carrying same, and can (and do) operate in E up to A100 and higher ..........

At least C precludes such ops and all require an ATC clearance :ok:

[HTFU]

I find it an absolute outrage that you can't fly a GA aircraft into avalon overnight, even GA aircraft can be flown into YSSY what makes YMAV so special???