Radar Coverage at Ballina

[Dick Smith]

Last time I flew into Ballina I noticed good radar coverage from the SSR to about 2,500 feet. Can anyone advise what radar head this coverage comes from and what is the lowest coverage level? Also, can anyone who flies into the airport advise on the traffic levels? I was told by an IFR airline pilot that he was once given traffic on seven aircraft covering the Ballina/Lismore area. I’m not sure how he could work that out!

[Hugh Jarse]

Dick, I'm not sure of where SSR radars are located. I do know there was en-route radar at Round Mountain (between Coffs & Armidale).

I have operated into Ballina for about 21 years and was never passed more than about 4 aircraft as traffic. That's easy enough to sort out if one is conservative.

I worry more about hitting the hang gliders off Rocky Point and Skennars Head from RWY06 :}

The 60's designed plane I fly these days has ADSB, therefore the SSR point is moot ;)

[Dick Smith]

So what level down to does the Adsb signal display on the Brisbane ATC screen? Where is the ADSB outlet located ?

When one of the other of the four aircraft is in cloud and piloted by a 200 hour pilot do you tell him what to do? Or do you allow this low time pilot to decide on what level of safety your passengers will be given?

I understand there is no " standard" for IFR self separation in un controlled airspace!

[Hugh Jarse]

Since we've had ADSB, we seem to be identified as soon as we contact ATC with our departure call (after we've done the after takeoff checklist). So I imagine that's above 3000' by the time we've cleaned up and done the checklist.

With regard to traffic, we devise a proposed plan of action. We NEVER "tell" any traffic what to do. And we encounter pilots with far less than 200hrs, Dick. Quite often it is pre-solo. The one size fits all approach does not work.

If the traffic is assessed as a conflict, we make a suggestion to the conflicting traffic that will ensure separation. The response from the other pilot will determine the next course of action. If we believe the other traffic either does not understand the suggestion or is unable to meet the proposed action, then we adopt a conservative approach and take an alternative action. That may mean delaying action on our part until such time as we assess the other traffic as no longer being a conflict.

Contrary to popular belief (and it appears to be your belief, too Dick), we don't just barge into the circuit and tell everyone to hold or get out of our way. Separation is a mutual responsibility.

Having said that, in my experience most of the schools operating at ports we go into are very good at training their students how to deal with RPT movements. And they do this very well.

You've been an IFR pilot for several decades, Dick. What is your methodology for separating from less experienced pilots than yourself?

[Hugh Jarse]

I should have written it's the pilots that don't/can't/won't use their radios that give RPT aircraft more grief when operating into CTAFs.

[megle2]

If Dick has been IFR for several decades that would make him about 90+
HJ do you mean a few decades

Ballina's busy enough but it seems to work fine

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Dick,

In the 'good ole days' of OCTA, he would have been given 'pertinent' traffic only.....

i.e. That traffic which may have posed a conflict.....

I dunno wot they do now of course....

Cheers :ok:

(p.s. Thanx again......)

[Hugh Jarse]

megle2,
Who cares? You're talking semantics. Few or several? It doesn't matter.

[KRviator]

Where is the ADSB outlet located ?ADS-B locations, with the coverage map at FL300:http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/adsb_at_30000ft_GM.jpg

ADS-B coverage at 5,000'. Working out approximate VHF ranges from the locations given should be relatively simple for someone who's flown round the world.
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/adsb_at_5000f_GM.jpg

When one of the other of the four aircraft is in cloud and piloted by a 200 hour pilot do you tell him what to do? Or do you allow this low time pilot to decide on what level of safety your passengers will be given?As a relatively low-time pilot, I'll happily work around RPT whereever possible, that being said, if said RPT tells me to do something, he probably won't like the reply. The safety of my aircraft and it's passengers is my first priority. If that means not deviating from a planned approach, so what? Captain Fourbars isn't paying for his fuel....

[The Green Goblin]

Captain fourbars might not be paying for his fuel, but mum and the kids are. There's also potentially a couple of hundred of them. The airline crew don't know your capability and treat you as a risk.

It does also say in the regulations that air commerce should be given priority by private operations.

It doesn't cause a lot of grief to throw in an orbit or two near the circuit for a lighty. It could cost a career for an airline crew....

Glad I don't go to Ballina.

[Creampuff]

... It does also say in the regulations that air commerce should be given priority by private operations. ...What regulation would that be? Does it apply to operations at non-controlled aerodromes?

(But I am always happy to adjust/wait/orbit or whatever works for the commercial folks anyway.)

[Dick Smith]

KR what's the difference between the red and the green in the lower pic?

Isn't the red SSR?

Huge. If self separation using radio in IMC is so good why do we need ATC?

[Dick Smith]

Creamy and Huge. I always give the bigger plane first go when I can. It's just commonsense that by doing so our country saves money - and safety is always improved if bigger passenger carrying aircraft can get on the ground sooner.

[Squawk7700]

... It does also say in the regulations that air commerce should be given priority by private operations. ...

From memory, this is to be taken into consideration when performing straight in approaches. In reality, common sense says that it should apply throughout the spectrum.

I always give way to the Sikorsky S76's at my airport... their operating costs are $100 per minute. When the Super Puma comes out... I keep well away!


Dick beat me to it.... well said - on the ground for an airliner is statistically much safer :-)

[le Pingouin]

KR what's the difference between the red and the green in the lower pic?

Huge. If self separation using radio in IMC is so good why do we need ATC?

Red is radar coverage, green is other surveillance coverage. The yellow pins in the previous image show radar and ADS-B outlets.

I'd take it as a guide only because there are plenty of places subject to anomalous propagation that have variable radar coverage. A bit like the coverage maps the mobile companies publish really.

Self separation around a common point (as in one you're all flying to) like an aerodrome is easy.

[Dick Smith]

So that must mean that Hugh's ADSB GPS transmitted position is not received by AsA at Ballina. It is simply the Mode S transponder that is being received and displayed on the controllors screen. The ADSB was a waste of money in this location.

CASA has written me a letter stating that from December this year I will no longer be able to fly my CJ3 in the J curve above FL 290 without ADSB. This is despite the fact that my aircraft is fitted with a mode S transponder and in most cases that's the only signal they will be receiving.

Sounds like a dishonest con to me!

Presumably the only reason they have not installed ADSB transceivers under the J curve is to save money and increase profits. But why then force aircraft to be ADSB equipped when they won't be receiving and processing the ADSB GPS position information ?

[Lookleft]

If self separation using radio in IMC is so good why do we need ATC?

Are you suggesting Dick that in the interests of safety that Ballina should have a Tower? Have you noticed the brand new fire station there? It seems that they are getting ready for when "See and Avoid" as a separation standard is proved to be flawed.

Of course self-separation is not as good as ATC. ATC do the best job they can with the resources given them as do the pilots. The moron who designed the current CTAF procedures considered that the highest performance aircraft operating into CTAF's was going to be an RPT turboprop.

[Homesick-Angel]

Ive always done everything I can to accomodate RPT etc, but if they act like the world owes em something I just pretend I'm on my first solo.....

[le Pingouin]

Dick, those coverage diagrams are well out of date for ADS-B as there have been further outlets added recently, for instance at Mt William in the Grampians west of Melbourne and Mt Tassie in Gippsland. No idea what has been added near Brisbane.

According to this there will be 74 outlets in total in 2015: https://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/new-ads-b-ground-stations-to-enhance-surveillance

A quick count shows 28 or so outlets on those maps so a a further 45 or so need to be included. No idea if the 74 includes the Tassie and Sydney multilateration gear though.

[LeadSled]

Contrary to popular belief (and it appears to be your belief, too Dick), we don't just barge into the circuit and tell everyone to hold or get out of our way. Separation is a mutual responsibility.H.J,
As long as "we" is you and your crew, I will accept that, but as for many of the Regionals crews, aggressive attitudes towards other airspace users is all too common.

Literally, priority is demanded, I have even been told that "RPT" has right of way --- the number of times I have found that the attitude is: Anybody flying a smaller aircraft is a "weekend warrior" or a "bug smasher" and altogether an imbecile and a deadly threat to the traveling public.

CAR 166 seems to be regarded by too many Regional's pilots as "guidance" for the -8s, SAABs etc, but set in stone black and white strict liability law for anybody else.

That an ATPL on a day off might be flying a PA-28 seems to be beyond their ken.

Look back through some of the ATSB files, and the PCH report(by Dr. Rob Lee) on the subject ---- it confirms what you assume to be Dick's position.

.It does also say in the regulations that air commerce should be given priority by private operations. Green Goblin,
A regulatory reference please, particularly for Class G airspace. In my opinion you are talking rubbish, but the alarming thing, from the risk management perspective, is that you probably believe it.

The airline crew don't know your capability and treat you as a risk.Exactly, an all to often arrogant set of radio transmissions from the RPT -8 or whatever, far removed from the cooperative approach that will give a far better result, while the RPT flight path may or may not comply with existing circuit traffic, depending on the best economic ( as opposed to safe) interests of the RPT.

I have never experienced this "Australian" attitude in NZ, US, Canada or the several African countries where I have flown aircraft of various sizes.

Tootle pip!!

[ACMS]

Dick----congrats your little toy has MODE S. In most places around this place we affectionately call the GAFFA it won't be seen anyway........

GAFFA because it contains fark all radar coverage....so call it GAFFAR

That's were the ADSB will work but you will be stuck at FL280 being procedurally separated. Enjoy the extra fuel burn that comes with stubbornness.

Maybe you could promise Airservices that you'll only fly in areas with 100% radar coverage, that should give you a little area to play in..:D

[LeadSled]

ACMS,
Are you trying to tell us complete radar coverage above FL280 is NOT available in the J-curve??
By the way, the chip on bother shoulders is showing - the sign of a balanced personality.
Tootle pip!!

[Hugh Jarse]

Huge. If self separation using radio in IMC is so good why do we need ATC?Where did I say self separation by radio is good, Dick? I quite dislike that type of separation, as do most professional pilots.

The subject has been done to death over the years, and I'm not going to go over old ground again.

H.J,
As long as "we" is you and your crew, I will accept that, but as for many of the Regionals crews, aggressive attitudes towards other airspace users is all too common. Leadsled,
I worked as a regional pilot for almost one and a half decades, in both seats with many pilots over the years - all had different personalities. I can only base what I wrote on my personal experiences. What I can say is when I was in the right seat these pilots all conducted their OCTA ops generally in the manner I described in a previous post.

Now I'm in a different company flying the right seat of slightly larger aircraft, and guess what? The attitudes of the pilots I fly with toward other traffic OCTA are the same as the regional pilots I used to fly with. I'm not saying there aren't RPT bullies out there, just that I have not witnessed it with anyone I've flown with in over 20 years of airline flying ;)

[KRviator]

Captain fourbars might not be paying for his fuel, but mum and the kids are. There's also potentially a couple of hundred of them. The airline crew don't know your capability and treat you as a risk.So the safest course of action, for all concerned, would be to delay their arrival, or otherwise orbit to allow the low-time pilot to finish his approach and land, thereby removing the risk entirely, rather than telling them to do something that simply removes the risk to the airliner by passing it to the 200-hour-pilot-in-cloud who now has to deviate from an established approach and plan of attack.
It does also say in the regulations that air commerce should be given priority by private operations.Ahh, no, it doesn't. So far as I am aware (always happy to be proven wrong, of course) there is no requirement for GA, or anyone else, to give way or otherwise give preference to, RPT traffic. CAAP 166 does say Pilots flying recreational, sport or general aircraft should consider giving way to commercial aircraft, provided that this can be done safely and without undue inconvenience to their own operation. Operators of commercial aircraft should never expect a ‘give way’ offer to be assumed or automatic. Any offer to give way must be explicit and its acceptance acknowledged. Note the "should consider" and "without undue inconvenience to their own operation". As aCAAP, it is not a mandatory requirement, so far as I'm aware never has been, and hopefully, never will be. As I said first time round, be polite, don't try to push me around and I'm more than happy to extend a leg or otherwise let you do your thing. But try to tell me to do something, and you can follow me in while I practise a short-field landing, with the turnoff at the far end of the runway! KR what's the difference between the red and the green in the lower pic?Red is SSR, Green is ADS-B theoretical range, AIUI. IT is a relatively old graphic from ASA, but the only one I was able to find that shows some, though probably not all, ADS-B ground stations. ASA refers you to a Notam to find the current list of operating ADS-B locations, but my Google-fu is not good enough to find this list at present.

[Capt Chambo]

The "advice" that non-RPT aircraft might like to give way to RPT aircraft is also in the AIP

Ref:- AIP 21Aug 2014. ENR 1.1-71 41.1.8

[ACMS]

Ledsled----so this J curve you speak about.....Is that the East Coast ( CNS to ADL ) Radar coverage area above 10,000' is it?

Ok sorry didn't get the meaning of J curve until now.

Either way it leaves a huge hole over the GAFFA he can't fly in above FL280, an area that benefits from ADSB and I can see why ASA wants it fitted to all Aircraft so they can use the airspace much more efficiently. ( and make more money, what they call a win win )

[Dick Smith]

So. What altitude does the radar coverage drop to at Ballina?

[ACMS]

What would it cost the taxpayer to provide a tower in Ballina or a total radar coverage service?????

Can we justify the cost????

Nothing is free.

Isn't that why they are rolling out ADSB??

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Methinks there is an ADS-B aerial on the fire station at Ballina.

[Dick Smith]

I have not suggested a tower. What's wrong with terminal E run from the en route centre as per USA and Canada. Also brings in mandatory transponder for VFR so makes even safer.

And why not put in a Unicom like the USA. Can give known traffic and WX.

The public won't be able to believe that Airline pilots are forced to transmit on a non ATC frequency and arrange their own separation with 1930s radio procedures when in cloud.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re " Airline pilots are forced to transmit on a non ATC frequency and arrange their own separation with 1930s radio procedures when in cloud."

WOW!! That's progress...... And maybe they also communicate with VFR aircraft who may be 'in conflict' and below the cloud...? Those 'Airline' aircraft sure do move fast, don't they?

That's the system Dick...remember...12/12/1991??
Services to VFR aircraft deleted!

And..."And why not put in a Unicom like the USA. Can give known traffic and WX."
Well....we USED to have such a service.
Now we have ....zilch.

No cheers:*

p.s. Thanx again for.....

[CaptainMidnight]

And why not put in a Unicom like the USA. Can give known traffic and WX.A UNICOM is not permitted to give traffic information, and is very limited to what can be provided. Only a CA/GRS can provide traffic information. UNICOM or CA/GRS are the responsibility of an AD OPR. Refer MOS Part 139 Chapter 14.

So perhaps you should be talking to the Ballina AD OPR or the airspace regulator CASA's Office of Airspace Regulation, if you are suggesting Class E should be lowered and/or the AD OPR should be providing a CA/GRS.

[Dick Smith]

Captain. Are you referring to CASA limitations on what a Unicom can do?

In the USA Unicom operators give known traffic and WX. Why can't we copy the success of this . We're you involved in the restrictions placed here or do you know who was?

[LeadSled]

Only a CA/GRS can provide traffic information. Midnight,

Another Australian unique set of "regulations" cobbled together to provide work for ex-FSOs and retired ATC license holders, by putting in very limiting qualifications --- for what was an ill-conceived non-ICAO (or FAA) "service" ---- yet again.

And to hobble a proper Unicom, NZ/US/Canadian style --- which is not a traffic separation but information service. If the traffic is above the tower establishment levels, a tower should be established, not some half- axxx system.

As for the "provide jobs" bit, that was a statement by a then ranking "official" of Civilair, uttered at a consultation meeting in Canberra, when the whole idea was first trotted out -- needless to say, he was very anti Unicom, as well as very anti anything FAA.

Time and again, we see the refusal of certain aviation groups in Australia to accept well tried and proven concepts, and yet again inventing an Australia unique square wheel.

There is absolutely NOTHING unique about Australian aviation that requires Australian unique limiting regulation ---- look at Part 61, as another example.

Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

We're you involved in the restrictions placed here or do you know who was? As far as I am aware introducing the UNICOM idea originated in CASA. I recall hearing something @ RAPAC many years ago, and Leadsled has given the history.

That said, being stuck with the regulations as they are, given the difference between the UNICOM service and CA/GRS, the latter would appear to be more useful a.k.a. what is provided at PD.

From Part 139:

UNICOM
14.4.1.3 Participation in Unicom services by an aerodrome operator, whether for the purposes of a frequency confirmation system or otherwise, is to be limited to the exchange of radio messages concerning:

(a) confirmation of the CTAF/MBZ frequency selected by aircraft;
(b) general aerodrome weather reports;
(c) aerodrome information;
(d) estimated times of arrival and departure;
(e) passenger requirements;
(f) aircraft refuelling arrangements;
(g) maintenance and servicing of aircraft including the ordering of urgently required parts;
(h) unscheduled landings by aircraft.

14.4.1.4 General aerodrome weather reports provided by a Unicom operator are to be limited to simple, factual statements about the weather, unless the Unicom operator is authorised by CASA to make meteorological observations.

CA/GRS
14.2.3.1 A CA/GRS must provide the following services to aircraft within airspace designated as an MBZ area in which the aerodrome is located:
(a) advice of relevant air traffic in the MBZ airspace or on the aerodrome;
(b) aerodrome weather and operational information, including:
(i) wind speed and direction;
(ii) the runway preferred by wind or noise abatement requirements;
(iii) runway surface conditions;
(iv) QNH;
(v) temperature;
(vi) cloud base and visibility;
(vii) present weather;
(viii) other operational information;
(ix) for departing aircraft, a time check;
(x) call-out of the aerodrome emergency services;
(xi) provide aerodrome information to pilots who telephone the service.
14.2.3.2 A CA/GRO may also provide other information requested by pilots.Good to see CASA's MOS has kept up to date. When did MBZ's disappear?

Have any training organisations ever tried to put together a UNICOM or CA/GRS course?

[Dick Smith]

What a giant dishonest con. Why can't a sensible human being give known traffic .

That's what happens in the USA and Canada with no safety problems over 50 years.

And the safety of. Airline passengers is reduced as a result!

[LeadSled]

---- or CA/GRS course? Midnight,

The original qualifications were deliberately limited by regulation to holders or former holders of FSO or ATC licenses.

It is quite some time ago that one organisation tried to put together a course, with fierce opposition from within OAR. Is there a course now, I don't know, maybe some reader can tell us.

The union that covers many employees of the BoM was also resolutely opposed to pilots or other unqualified persons (ie: were not BoM accredited met. observers) broadcasting any met. observations.

Tootle pip!!

[mjbow2]

So. What altitude does the radar coverage drop to at Ballina?

I had cause to ask Brisbane Centre this exact question after departing Ballina on a marginal VFR day. The controller indicated he had visibility of us at 'less than circuit height'.

The day in question involved 3 IFR aircraft and 1 VFR with stratus layers of cloud and rain showers in the vicinity. The frantic controller gave up trying to give ongoing updates on everyone's position as 2 aircraft were on the CTAF and 2 were on Centre frequency then 1 went back to CTAF as they thought there might be a conflict based on Centre's traffic information. In short it was unsafe and an absolute cluster!

The controller was audibly shaken which was when I asked at what altitude were we pick us up when we departed the airport. I suggested that class E to low level in this area would completely solve this problem.

What if we had low level Class E wherever radar coverage exists on the J Curve?

[LeadSled]

mjbow2,
Contrary to all the garbage talked, Class E is not dependent on having radar coverage, all it means is procedural control of IFR.
Contrary to claims by those still anti Class E, not all E in US has radar coverage.
Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Leady - many thanks for the detailed background to these issues.

What if we had low level Class E wherever radar coverage exists on the J Curve? A few years ago I recall this came up during discussions @ RAPAC, and a bunch of sport aviation types including gliders, hang gliders, certain ultralights etc. had exemptions (CAO 95??) from the carriage of transponders in Class E, if they didn't have an engine capable of powering one, and that lack of visibility to ATC and transponder-equipped aircraft seemed to be an issue for low level Class E i.e. down to 700FT AGL.

Anyone know if these exemptions still exist? I assume they still do for gliders.

[Capn Bloggs]

Contrary to all the garbage talked, Class E is not dependent on having radar coverage, all it means is procedural control of IFR.

Garbage is right. All that would have done was have ATC dictating instructions to IFR, all the while with VFR swanning around in the middle, whilst all are on both the CTAF and Centre in marginal weather!

The only REASON E exists is to allow VFR unfettered access to IFR airspace (John and Martha told me so). In the situation that MJbow2 described, VFR should have "got lost" and then, with some commonsense coord, the IFRs would have sorted it out. Or is that not taught any more?

Make it controlled to the ground or get rid of E completely. This half-baked free-for-all is nonsense. It's 2015, not the John Wayne 70s and 80s.

[Jabawocky]

Leadie,

This is an interesting read.

http://www.aph.gov.au/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/completed_inquiries/1999_02/airspace2000/report/report_pdf.ashx

Are you sure you are pointing at the right folks?

Lots of history here to be read!

I might try to read it too :uhoh:

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,

You talk the complete nonsense that is so typical of "expert professional" Australian pilots who have no real experience of anywhere else -- and no understanding of the risk management basis of ICAO airspace designation.

As I have often quoted Mick Toller, I will again: "Australia is an aviation Galapagos, where all sort of aviation mutations have developed in splendid isolation".

What John and Martha said is correct, but effectively misrepresented by you, before "alphabet soup" airspace was standardised by ICAO, what is now E in USA used to be called VFR exempt --- or put another way, virtually all US airspace is "controlled airspace", but for most of the non-TCA/TCTA ( as it was then called) airspace below 10,000' was "VFR exempt".

What all you anti-E "experts" seem to forget is that E is widely used, worldwide, including western Europe, not just USA.

As an aside, neither Europe or US is going to require anything like the ADS-B fitment that Australia has mandated ---- because they can do proper risk analysis.

Indeed, we can do it here, as well, but the rational results are rejected by irrational pilots.

As one well known Regional pilot repeatedly told us: " We must address the perception of a risk, even when there is no risk".This same pilot did a study tour of US, saw the whole system working, but when he returned to Australia, his words were to the effect : "It will never work in Australia, Australian pilots could not cope" --- as far as I am concerned, his remarks were an insult to every Australian pilot.

Don't you think it is time for Australia to grow up, after all, our rather poor loss of separation record, and our actual collision record ( remember how small aviation is in AU, compared to US) is nothing to write home about.

Tootle pip!!

[LeadSled]

Jaba
A quote from the Airspace 2000 report

However, in some instances these reforms have been controversial. Aspects of the Airspace 2000 model have been criticized by members of the aviation industry for reducing the safety of air travel in Australia by placing unrealistic expectations upon pilots and air traffic controllers (ATCs)


The above could be translated as: The ATC union, and one of the two pilot unions would not accept change. Poor old Australian pilots and ATC couldn't cope with what was pretty standard in the rest of the first world -- in their opinion.

In fact, Australian pilots seem to cope just fine from the first time they ever leave Australia airspace, and venture into the big wide world.

NAS followed Airspace 2000, and again generated huge resistance from the same sources. The group of pilots (Qantas) who had been flying outside Australia since forever never ever had a problem with either Airspace 2000 or NAS.

Do you remember the "NAS trial" --- it ran for 12 months, and was, in fact a resounding success. When the above mentioned pilot union realised that the trial had not only not failed, but had been a resounding success by every audit measure during that 12 months, as you would expect, because it was only what most of the rest of the world had done for years, strike was threatened.

Ansett was in a very poor state financially at the time, and exerted what I regard as entirely unconscionable pressure on Mick Toller, because of the threatened strike. CASA pulled the plug on NAS as a result.

There was an extensive safety case to justify NAS, that showed it to be more safe ( lower risk) than the existing Australian system, there was never a safety case to revert to the more risky/less safe old system.

There was never a risk/safety case to justify pulling the plug on NAS.

Jaba, I was in the middle of this for years, I know exactly what happened and why.

Tootle pip!!

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

Didn't the CP of Impulse go on national TV and criticise E airspace then was promptly sacked?

Notice Lead Slead doesn't mention the B737 vs Tobago incident near Launceston when E airspace was operating without radar.

[CaptainMidnight]

I don't recall a "NAS trial" running for 12 months.

I recall something with NAS being undone (Class E over Class D?) 6 months later.

I also recall this:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/30791/sir199911_001.pdf

[Capn Bloggs]

Or that See and Avoid really works: ask the pax that died in the 727 and DC 9 in the USA that had midairs with bugsmashers...

[triadic]

Leady.... I too was in the middle of it.... flying IFR in E every day. Just keep your eyes open when in VMC in class E...

I find it hard to believe that an earlier poster (ACMS) says he had never heard of the "J Curve"....! Shows perhaps that the lack of any corporate history of what has gone on in the past has been or is in the process of being lost (?). I think the term is at least 20-25yrs old.

Leady said:
This same pilot did a study tour of US, saw the whole system working, but when he returned to Australia, his words were to the effect : "It will never work in Australia, Australian pilots could not cope" --- as far as I am concerned, his remarks were an insult to every Australian pilot.

The problem with just about everything in aviation in Australia today is that we do not address the culture issues. The above quote certainly does not even consider culture!

As a result there is always resistance to change and the required education is almost always much less than that required. CASA never ever address the entrenched culture within the industry or try and sell in a practical way the changes that they think the industry needs.

Acknowledge and address the very entrenched culture in this country and we might have some chance of progressing change.

[LeadSled]

Or that See and Avoid really works: ask the pax that died in the 727 and DC 9 in the USA that had midairs with bugsmashers... Bloggs,

50-60,000 flights PER DAY in the US, and that is the best you can do.

Just how many years have they been spread over. The expression GET REAL comes to mind.

In fact they are not the only mid airs in the last hundred or so years in USA, but if you work out the figures per flight, you have a lot more chance of winning the California State lottery than having a mid-air in US.

If those odds concern you, I suggest you quit flying and find a "safer" way of spending your time, even never getting out of bed in the morning has a greater mortality risk.

In the case of the B727, it was the B727, under full ATC control, in a CTA (probably the equivalent of Class C at the time) that still hit the light aircraft.

Notice Lead Slead doesn't mention the B737 vs Tobago incident near Launceston when E airspace was operating without radar. CLX
Triadic mentioned "culture", here we saw a "culture" that the "professional" pilot is always right, and any "bug smasher" pilot is always a hopeless incompetent ---- in fact the Tobago pilot had very substantial experience, and if you gave equal weight to both PIC's statements, it is a very different picture that emerges, to only considering the matter from the point of view of the airline aircraft .

There never was any collision risk, the pilot of the Tobago had the airline aircraft in sight at all times. E is NOT depended on having radar coverage.

I notice you don't mention the TCAS incident north of Brisbane, where one of the allegations that came up in the investigation was that the PIC of the airline aircraft inexplicably turned towards the light aircraft (flown by a highly experienced professional pilot) resulting in the TCAS warning being generated.

Throughout the whole so called NAS "trial" , a joint aviation industry body considered EVERY reported incident, some of the reports from "professional" pilots really did reveal "cultural shortcomings", all of a sudden, training aircraft doing circuits at Port Macquarie were being reported as collision risks. The airspace wasn't even E, but suddenly E was the fault.

One piece of nonsense I well recall was that "some" Regional pilots were so irrationally anti Class E that into and out of Ballina, they would let down in the Evans Head R, and fly low level in G back to Ballina, rather than transit E on climb and descent from C. I personally experienced this one, flying VFR to Evans Head (not my day job), I was at 2000, they passed under me. I will refrain from mentioning the airline --- and it was not all their crews, just the irrational ones.

The fact is, Class E is one of the most widely used airspace classifications used for low and mid levels, world wide, it works, the record proves it.

The notion that Class G is "safer" than Class E for IFR aircraft is as about as irrational as you can get --- it just "flies" in the face of the facts.

Just keep your eyes open when in VMC in class E...
Exactly, just like G or any other class of airspace, some of the most dangerous airspace I have regularly operated in is Class A, what's in a name, nothing. Not that Class A is dangerous, the area I am thinking about, it would make no difference what the classification was.

One of the "cultural" aspects I did allude to was the one that "perceptions of risk" have to be procedurally dealt with, even when it is demonstrated that the risk does not exist, I have never come across this attitude outside Australia. Not limited to the "perception" that E is dangerous, or E must have radar coverage, therefor E should not be used, but G is OK, despite no separation service at all for IFR aircraft.

One of the things CASA or Airservices could do is run an educational campaign to get message across that the separation assurance standard is the same in all classes of airspace, A through G, A through G does not mean "safest" to "least safe", deteriorating standards of "safety" or increasing risk.

That is the whole point of the CNS/ATM ICAO system, the same risk level is achieved through all classes of airspace.

Eurocontrol even publishes regular reports of the achieved computed risk levels versus the target risk levels. Australia doesn't even publish the target in any accessible form.


Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

As a result there is always resistance to change Probably because most changes over the last 20 years have been:


poorly considered and not the best solution, if indeed a problem requiring a solution even existed;
poor industry education and understanding of the change;
insufficient consultation;
changes not supported;
etc. etc.

[Capn Bloggs]

Probably because most changes over the last 20 years have been:
Including completely unnecessary.

[triadic]

Consultation - Education

poor industry education and understanding of the change;

One of the best examples of education and understanding failing was the introduction of the ICAO readbacks in about 1997.

We had over two days in CBR discussing all the various options, most of which were additional to what was in use at the time, and for many years prior. Many were quite straight forward, but some lay open to interpretation.

I recall a number of hours spent discussing the requirement to read back the QNH and if this should include the "Area QNH" when provided.... at the end of the day there was no differentiation.

What many of the industry reps said was that unless there was sufficient education and understanding of the requirements, the default position of those that did not understand or perhaps care, would be to read everything back. :yuk:

A year or so later there were instructors and training Captains teaching readbacks that were not required. The PIR was a total failure. Guess what? we still have many pilots reading stuff back that is not required.:=

There has even been a change to AIP since, that introduced a readback that was not required by ICAO, but was sought by ATC at many locations and of course not readback by those that knew the difference...! ATC got it changed, so even they did not understand(?) :confused:

[Falling Leaf]

And two of my favourites…"Line up and wait", and "Cleared immediate take-off". WTF :ugh:

[LeadSled]

poorly considered and not the best solution, if indeed a problem requiring a solution even existed;
poor industry education and understanding of the change;
insufficient consultation;
changes not supported;
etc. etc.and:

Including completely unnecessary. Folks,
And there we have it, closed minds, the fact that it works just fine in the rest of the world, but Australia has to be different, and should have stuck with an Australian unique system that was expensive, ineffecient, and above all, generated unnecessary risk level because available resources were not allocated in conformity with demonstrated risk, but allocated on the basis ( and still is) of "That's the way its always been done".

No amount of "consultation" is enough when one major group rejects ICAO airspace management principles ----- ie: simply does not accept CNS/ATM based on demonstrated risk levels, but demands ATC services base on the "perception" of risk.

In short, rejects the basic principles of the A through G designations, where the separation assurance level is the same in each class of airspace.

Bloggs illustrated the "Australian way" so admirably in his posts.

To suggest that only Australia knows how to run an airspace system shows a breathtaking combination of arrogance and ignorance ---- the net result is an inflexible, expensive and inefficient system where about the only thing in which we lead the world (almost) is loss of separation incidents.

I suppose we should be thankful that there is so little aviation in Australian airspace, otherwise the results might be distressingly newsworthy.

Tootle pip!!

[The name is Porter]

I would suggest to you that once Australian ATC's work under the same liability laws that exist in the U.S. they wouldn't give a fat rats arse about working Class E airspace. Their union is doing the responsible thing by their members, the only thing they can do. Defend their members from the liability they face with this airspace.

I read an article in U.S. Flying, a pilot got into icing trouble and ended up below LSALT, indeed, in a valley below the terrain. The ATC was able to give the aircraft vectors to keep him in the valley away from the mountains on either side. Would NEVER happen in Australia, the ATC would get sued.

[CaptainMidnight]

And there we have it, closed mindsYou missed my first line:

Probably because most changes over the last 20 years and seem to think my points were aimed at NAS.

They weren't. In fact I support the NAS concept and didn't have a problem with most elements, but you well know that in some areas the education and industry understanding was lacking.

My points were aimed at many changes over the last 20 years e.g. ELB fitment, Part 61, Multicom vs. CAR 166, readbacks as Triadic has raised etc. etc.

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

While Ballina is the topic of conversation, don't we just love the way the instrument approaches to Ballina RWY06 and Lismore RWY33 cross over......
I don't think everyone realises just how critically relevant traffic on the other destination can be

[fujii]

What's wrong with "Line up and wait", and "Cleared immediate take-off?"

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Slight thread drift, are there/were there ever any CA/GRS set up and operated by aerodrome operators (as opposed to any similar provided by ASA) anywhere in the country?

[LeadSled]

What's wrong with "Line up and wait", and "Cleared immediate take-off?" Fujii,
Actually, nothing, they both have specific meanings.

One thing that always amuses me is the ( beloved of poms) "Fully ready" ---- as opposed to what other kind of ready, quasi ready,semi ready, almost ready etc.

At least with the widespread use of CPDLC for is a large number of position reports is good, so I don't have to listen to so many Australian pilots who don't understand how position reports should be handled ---- and the Australian AIP and local CASA training material doesn't help.

It's all in easily available ICAO Docs, for those who want to take the trouble to get it right, it is repeated in UK CAP413, and to a great degree (surprise, surprise) in the NZ AIP and other NZ advisory documents.

Midnight,
My apologies for misunderstanding you, but whilst Triadic is largely correct, no amount of "educational material" would have made any difference to those who, to this day, oppose E airspace.

Porter,
The ramped up fears of individual controller liability in Australia are completely unjustified. It is going to be Airservices that is sued.

Civilair clings onto a High Court ruling going back to about 1982 ( a case against that SA Government, I don't immediately remember the full name, but it was delivered by Gibbs, CJ, as I recall) about "duty of care", because it is very usefull industrially, but in the doctrine of duty of care, there have been a number of HCA and other cases, duty of care doesn't mean what Gibbs said it meant in about 1982.

Traffic,
I don't know how may Airservices set up, but my memory tells the Melbourne based consultancy, Ambidjii, was responsible for setting up, running and staffing some.

Tootle pip!!

[triadic]

I think that Ambidjii set one up at BRM pre tower. Some attempts also at AYE but not sure if it came off??? Trouble is everyone wants someone else to pay!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I figured that the cost/benefit would be a pretty hard sell. At the time I remember discussing it with my boss (Airport Manager amongst his other hats) , and he remarked that he would never be able to recover the costs if user pays was applied, did not want a bar of the potential risks/liabilities, and that it was typical government thinking....decide a service was not warranted and cease providing it, and then come out and say here's a great idea and expect someone else to pay for it.

[Capn Bloggs]

Precisely why "your friendly unicom of the 70s and 80s" does not work... :rolleyes:

[LeadSled]

Precisely why "your friendly unicom of the 70s and 80s" does not work... :rolleyes:Folks,
Amazing, is it not, that things aeronautical that work just fine in many countries, and have done successfully for years, undoubtedly as an aid to aviation safety, ie: risk reduction.

But ----- will not work in Australia???

The "only soldier in the battalion marching in step" syndrome, some of which Australia, aviation wise, is an undoubted world leader ---- resulting in out very inferior air safety outcomes.

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

The problem with you, Leadsled, is that you have no idea what goes on out in the bush here. Go to Paraburdoo (or any number of other places around the traps) and point out to me ONE person who has the time to talk to aircraft on the CTAF or maintain ANY semblance of a traffic picture. Then go and tell all the pax that get off RPT there and tell them that some office wally (no offence intended) who is also doing ramp and load control, is keeping an eye on us so we don't run into each other.

As I said, we don't have the 70s and 80s "follow me" girls, run-out-to-compete-for-turnaround-services FBO people to do all that nice stuff that you get in the US of A. Face reality!

Speaking of reality, I see RHS has started his Airspace 2015 campaign. Perhaps you'd liek to explain ot us all how Class E would have helped the 3 IFR deal with that VFR that MJBOW2 said was making things dicey in Ballina in the bad weather of post one. Or are VFR exempt from participation in the real airpsace system, free to just do their own thing oblivious to all others?

And yes, the Flight Service Stations at Port Hedland and Ayers Rock (and formerly at Broome) work very well, thanks. Graded service for the level of risk.

Toodle Pop.

:cool:

[LeadSled]

The problem with you, Leadsled, is that you have no idea what goes on out in the bush here.Just about a standard answer --- another way of saying "it won't work in Australia".

At the core of the objections are people like you, who are so convinced that what you are doing now is the only answer ---- and the rest of the world (not just US) has got it wrong.

As for reverting to a Flight Service system, forget it, although I don't expect you to believe it, the only reason we had (policy wise) two separate systems was militant unions, if one system was struck, the other would keep domestic aviation going, sort of. That was the political reason we ever had a dual system, not because it was the best answer, aviation wise. Facts can be so inconvenient.

In my early days, it got used that way just once. All ATC in the ASSY FIR was shut down for quite a while. It was quite interesting at the time.

As for the VFR at Ballina example, tell us all again why E with positive separation between all IFR, would have been less safe than G!!!

If the weather was so bad, why was the VFR there at all --- was it really keeping the necessary vertical and lateral distance from cloud.

Or was a non-problem turned in to a perception of a problem because of the penchant for Regional pilots to play mobile ATC from their flight stations.

Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Good on ya Leddie; full of ideology, a bit of union-bashing thrown in, throw a few more punches at the inconsiderate Regional airline pilots, but nothing of substance.

Nothing like being controlled around the sky on/by Centre and having to self-separate with a VFR on the CTAF. To quote MJBOW2:

The day in question involved 3 IFR aircraft and 1 VFR with stratus layers of cloud and rain showers in the vicinity. The frantic controller gave up trying to give ongoing updates on everyone's position as 2 aircraft were on the CTAF and 2 were on Centre frequency then 1 went back to CTAF as they thought there might be a conflict based on Centre's traffic information. In short it was unsafe and an absolute cluster!
You may well ask what that VFR was doing in there! Let's fix that; put in a Class D tower and VFR can pay their fair share, since they are part of the problem...

[Dick Smith]

I would certainly support a Class D tower before a $13.5 million fire station with 17 staff.

Even better - the tower operated on a contract basis by ATCs. Years ago a group of Aussie ATCs contacted me as they wanted to run contract towers at a far lower cost than AsA. Means we could get twice as many towers as there would be no need to cover the enormous AsA Canberra overheads.

And Bloggs. Have you ever flown a class E approach in France, the U.S. or Canada? I have many times , both in radar covered and no radar airspace. I would prefer the safety of class E . I have not experienced delays.

And what's wrong with the Firies running the Unicom and giving traffic info?

Suggest everyone reads the major article on this on the front page of the Aus this weekend or listen to Macca today. It's just the start!

And I flew into Newman a few weeks ago. Ridiculous! Hugely expensive RFFS without even a Unicom ,tower or controlled airspace to help prevent runway collisions or mid airs in the first place

[Clare Prop]

Facepalm.

Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/pilots-victims-families-call-for-change-as-planes-fly-blind/story-e6frg6nf-1227375264970) Pilots, victims’ families call for change as planes fly blind

"Smith’s friend and co-pilot on the flight to Ballina, former US Air Force F-16 fighter pilot and airline captain Richard Woodward, says the Australian system “drives me nuts”.

“You’ve got this very advanced national air traffic control system but, instead, you have pilot*s flying around in clouds saying to each other, ‘Hi, I’m here, where are you, let’s work out how not to crash into each other’,” Woodward says."

Well I have never heard anyone say anything of the kind on CTAF or in G or elsewhere, People will read this absolute inaccurate drivel and believe it! :ugh::mad: Is Mr Woodward on this forum? If so, please stand up.

And having a CA/GRO (a very experienced former SATCO) at Jandakot didn't prevent one aeroplane landing on top of the other, something he had no power to prevent. Thank goodness we got the tower back after that little experiment.

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
Difficult as it may be for you to comprehend, I am a former branch officer of the AFAP, and I have seen, up close and personal over the years, just how much damage ratbag union policies (not limited to the AFAP) have done to Australian aviation.

The history of the necessary formation of AIPA is the history of the ratbag policies of AFAP that simply ignored the real world of aviation technical development. It is simply impossible to estimate the cost to Australian aviation of the "Two Airline" policy and its "beneficiaries".

Indeed, the "regulations" that have resulted in Ballina (and elsewhere) now having unjustified on-airport fire services were put together by two "officers of the Dept. of Transport" who were ex-firies, and remained members of that union.

Any suggestion of rational risk analysis, and cost/benefit justification was bluntly rejected at the time, in favour of generating jobs for firies at the expense of the traveling public.

It remains a fact that there has never been an aviation accident on an airport/aerodrome in Australia, where the presence of on-airport ARFF has made any difference to the primary outcome.

A bit more union bashing in the interests of economic aviation jobs in Australia would be a damned good thing ---- but look at where we are going, with the likelihood of "cabotage" rights for foreign carriers above the Tropic of Capricorn, because of a perception of union resistance to change damaging tourism in particular, and business generally.

Not for one minute would I accept that such traffic rights are justified, but a perception has been generated, just like the perception that E airspace doesn't work.

As to Class D at Ballina, that is exactly what should be instituted at Ballina, a Class D tower, if the demonstrated traffic levels equal or exceed to establishment levels for a Class D tower.

As for the reported statements of Captain Richard Woodward, ex- NWA ( aka Lt. Colonel Richard Woodward, USAF Retired), of course they are not the words used in the air, that is a paraphrase of EXACTLY what goes on, in terms the public can understand. Do-it-yourself ATC.

Tootle pip!!

[NOtimTAMs]

I fly in and out of Ballina regularly in my own IFR (and now ADSB equipped) lighty in all kinds of weather. Until the new RNP RNAV procedures came out, I would regularly be able to get in where the RPT’s couldn’t. I get radar identified most times at about 1100-1300’.

RPT, Emergency services, 2 flying schools (fixed wing – ex-Jetstar CFI, and rotary), GA + ultralight traffic coexist quite well. The local flying club is proactive enough to brief its members on what the IFR procedures are, so when Captain (or FO) Skygod in the inbound Airbus/Boeing/Embraer announces they are on the 06 or 22 RNAV at waypoint XX, folks know what they’re on about (still can’t get the Skygods to give a sensible VFR-intelligible position report - or an accurate ETA for that matter).

In low cloudbase conditions it is uncommon to have 2-3 IFR inbound/outbound and rare to have more than that. Occasionally there is a gaggle of RPT arrivals if things have gone wrong in Sydney and Rex, Virgin and Jetstar arrive at one. If the coast is clear and land is clagged in, there may be VFR aircraft in the area. That being said, I don’t see the fuss – even in turbulence and flying single pilot IFR with a single axis autopilot I monitor 2 frequencies and it doesn’t take too much to sort out what is a safe altitude or sector. As for Brisbane Centre being unable to give updates ….

Can’t see how a UNICOM would help – in true low cloudbase situation a UNICOM would not have primary or secondary radar to call traffic and it would be no better than self-separation which has worked fine and continues to work fine.

For more info on Ballina airspace: www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/oar/papers/ballina-study.pdf

[CaptainMidnight]

of course they are not the words used in the air, that is a paraphrase of EXACTLY what goes on, in terms the public can understand.
The unfortunate statement did him no favours. Most of the public aren't quite that stupid.

As regards the usefulness of ARFF vs. a Tower. As I understand it the regulatory requirement for the introduction of ARFF is based on pax numbers, and the requirement for introduction of a Tower is based on aircraft movements. Presumably Ballina and Newman don't yet have the movements to justify a Tower.

If you don't like it, have the regs changed.

[cogwheel]

I believe the crux of this issue is the inability of many pilots in Australia to come to terms with Class E airspace. Nobody likes change, but there is one thing that is consistent in this business, and that is change! If we are to develop and use the international classes of airspace then we need to understand what each class provides and then work within those boundaries. Class E is fine with or without radar, but you need to be aware that in VMC you need to keep a lookout as it is only the IFRs that ATC are working. If there is radar coverage you may get some traffic info, but as you get lower of course the coverage usually limits that. Of course the other issue is that in class G and in the CTAFs far too many pilots don't think before they hit the PTT and as a result there is far too much talk. Some standardisation would be good with some education, but I don't see that happening as many of the CASA officers don't understand the basics either!!

[LeadSled]

"what would a bloody Yank military and airline pilot know about flying in Australia anyway?".Typical xenophobic, exceptionalist and generally biased ignorant remark I would expect ---- after all, the air is different in Australia.

And, the average John Q. Public actually believes it is Australia's superior aviation regulations and CASA that prevents Australian irresponsible, borderline suicidal pilots from "crashing" ---- ain't propaganda wonderful, given the reality of a very very ordinary Australian aviation safety record.

Perhaps, after so many years in Australia, Captain Woodward does know a little about Australian airspace management and its shortcomings, maybe that is why the Commonwealth Government hired him as an airspace management consultant to NAS.

Catseye,
Different Richard Woodward.

Cogwheel,
Well said.

If you don't like it, have the regs changed. Midnight,
I did my level best to get the at the time Government policy for rational risk assessment and cost/benefit justification applied, as was theoretically mandatory, but public servants in general and CASA in particular systemically hate such cost discipline, because they imagine they all know better than the demonstrated facts --- all justified by the "mystique of aviation safety".

Load a union push to retain/increase jobs on top of all that, I couldn't beat it, and once such things go into place, it is even harder to amend, unless you have a Minister with real fire, no matter how wasteful and expensive the " safety regulations".

Aviation in general in Australia, and GA in particular is being not so slowly crushed by the cost of so called "safety regulation" in Australia, it is all very sad, when it could be so different.

The number of pilots coming in on 457 visas is one measure of where we are at!! Thanks, CASA.

Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

I hear what you're saying, Leady :)

Perhaps, after so many years in Australia, Captain Woodward does know a little about Australian airspace management and its shortcomings, maybe that is why the Commonwealth Government hired him as an airspace management consultant to NAS.It's a pity that didn't come out in the publicity and press. Captain Woodward is clearly experienced and across the Australian airspace management environment, and therefore no doubt provided valuable advice during the NAS exercise. Its a pity if at the time that advice and expertise wasn't followed.

Cogwheel - agree also.

And what's wrong with the Firies running the Unicom and giving traffic info?

Dick - I agree. They are highly trained professionals, and being part of Airservices one would think they could arrange for the ATC academy to give them the relevant training modules.

[Capn Bloggs]

And what's wrong with the Firies running the Unicom and giving traffic info?
What is this paranoia you have about needing to talk to people, Dick? There's a beepback and an AWIB. That's all you need. Unicoms are part of a bygone era. Get over it.

As for
They are highly trained professionals
at putting out fires! Not providing RPT with a traffic service. That is what ATC/Class F is for. So one second we're sledging the Firies because they are a monumental waste of money, now we're going to train them as ATC-Lite, just because they are there. How much extra is that going to cost for no benefit?

Class E is fine with or without radar, but you need to be aware that in VMC you need to keep a lookout as it is only the IFRs that ATC are working.
Oh that's nice, Cog. Let me add that to my PA. It's 2015 with safety management cruelling almost everything on earth and a vociferous minority of VFR pilots insist on having airspace that requires me to look out to avoid them! For goodness sake, get real. The most pathetic thing I used to hear on the airwaves was Centre passing, to almost every jet inbound from the east to Perth, VFR traffic on a parachuting aircraft operating in E. Fortunately, after a VFR Tobago almost took out a Virgin 737 in Tassie (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2003/aair/aair200305235.aspx)because it misjudged where the 737 was actually going and caused an RA, terminal E got canned.

What right does VFR have to do what they like in terminal airspace occupied by A380s using unalerted See and Avoid to prevent midairs?? Are you guys serious??

Ledsled, please describe where and when Qantas ever flew through Class E in the USA.

As for the Virgin driver spruiking doom, death and gloom at Ballina, how about holding overhead at 7000ft until it's all clear? :cool:

I'm glad there is a little sanity here... Notimtams :D.

[Lookleft]

The reason Jetstar radio calls into Ballina are crap is that they keep sending the most inexperienced F/Os and they are handling the radios. Their only previous experience of CTAFs was flying light aircraft with an instructor onboard. As for Jetstar being Skygods thats the funniest thing I have ever heard. All we are trying to do is get in and out of that place without being made SOC because of a breakdown in separation.

[no_one]

Ledsled, please describe where and when Qantas ever flew through Class E in the USA

Everytime they fly into LAX/DFW or JFK!!!!!

The class B only extends to about 10,000 above the airport. Above that and below class A at 18,0000 is class E

[NOtimTAMs]

Lookleft- That Skygod thing stung, huh? In the interests of fairness, I’ve edited my previous post to widen the range of aircraft involved. I didn’t coin the term “Skygod”, BTW. I got it from my more or less regular flying buddy who flies A380’s (he hand-flies my plane in IMC beautifully…but still flares a little high, for some reason).

To be serious: Ballina has no parallel taxiway. When an RPT arrives or departs, the runway is unavailable for 5-10 minutes due to the associated turn and full length runway taxi time. If multiple RPT arrive or depart closely spaced, then the runway is not available for a commensurately increased period of time. So you can see that timing and cooperation is important for all.

Things that don’t help trust of the inbound RPT’s (and other jet traffic’s) calls or can otherwise cause problems are:

Announcing an ETA that is 5 or more minutes earlier than real ETA to try and keep “the circuit area clear” – inbound GA aircraft try to be understanding and will elect to hold clear of the RPT/jet approach if their ETA is close to the RPT/jet ETA. Pilots of aircraft who do thus to accommodate get pissed off when the ETA comes and goes and a further 5 minutes pass until actual arrival time of RPT….. and the GA could after all have landed and vacated well before the RPT actual arrival time and now will have to hold for what will be a total of 15-20 minutes - for no good reason.

Making a radio call that makes no sense to the non-IFR initiated, as per my previous post. That an “inexperienced FO” in an RPT operation makes the call is no defence – they have an experienced captain beside them and Jetstar ops have been notified of the problem previously. Experienced captains are there to pass on their experience to the inexperienced….

Directing traffic – a call like this on the CTAF to: a VFR GA aircraft on long downwind from an RPT 25 NM mile out: “Hold north of the field until after we land” or to: a GA IFR in IMC on 5NM final “Maintain 2000” etc. Really?

Arriving and flying a left hand circuit on RWY 06 – it’s a right hand circuit according to the ERSA….

It is only a small minority who do the “Skygod” thing out of ego or ignorance – but they need to remember that the folks flying around them are often very experienced ATPL’s in their own aircraft and it reflects poorly on them....

Just do the right thing and the system will work.

As for a tower or ARFF at Ballina – a WOFTAM, IMHO.

[Lookleft]

Lookleft- That Skygod thing stung, huh?

No its laughable when you refer to Jetstar pilots as skygods. If you go back through any thread dealing with Jetstar pilots they are usually referred to as scum of the earth and a blight on aviation. Never are they referred to as skygods.

BTW. I got it from my more or less regular flying buddy who flies A380’s

He was probably referring to himself.

That an “inexperienced FO” in an RPT operation makes the call is no defence – they have an experienced captain beside them and Jetstar ops have been notified of the problem previously. Experienced captains are there to pass on their experience to the inexperienced….

If you have never been in the flight deck of an RPT jet coming into a small country airport then you have no idea what you are on about. Who notified Jetstar Ops and which Ops are you referring to? Jetstar Ops don't listen to their own pilots so what makes you so special?

The system was developed by a bloke who hadn't flown anything bigger than a 310 and who thought the biggest thing flying into the place would be a Dash-8. If you don't know who I am talking about ask around for the DVD that accompanied the CTAF booklet produced by DOTARS in 2005. He is full of helpful hints and tips, none of which is relevant to a 60t passenger carrying aircraft.

I do agree with DS on the point if they can put a fire station in then they can put a tower in.

[NOtimTAMs]

Lookleft - settle down, son.

I'm not having a go at you or RPT pilots in general, or even at Jetstar in particular - one of my best mates is a J* captain. Just pointing out in what I thought was a semi-humourous and ironic way the other side of the RPT/jet vs GA coin at non-towered airports such as Ballina.

WRT the radio call issue: there have been senior Jetstar ops people come along to present at a few CASA/Airservices aviation seminars that I have been to in several locations. On at least two occasions that I recall the issue of IFR radio calls that were unintelligible to the uninitiated was raised (not by me, BTW) and the Jetstar ops rep response was that "that makes sense, that should be easy to fix". My J* mate has raised the issue as well. Obviously for reasons you state, it's not easy to change the culture, even for minor issues like this..

[Lookleft]

No problems NTM the reality is we are in furious agreement over the poor standard of radio calls. You should ask your J* friend for a copy of the radio cheat sheet J* produced several years ago. It included such gems as"visual on top". :ok:

[LeadSled]

Bloggs,
Got the message on E in the US??

I notice you still obviously believe you have or should have right of way over "VFR", only when you agree to get off the road in your "private" car, while there is a bus or truck there, and only proceed in your "private" car when there is no "scheduled or un-scheduled public transport" anywhere in the area, will I agree that you should have any prior right to airspace.

Since the advent of E, every flight I have conducted in the US, in anything from a T-6 to a B747-438, and quite a variety in between, has transited E airspace. Before E it was still called controlled airspace, VFR exempt.

Why don't you look up a few airways charts, see how much E is used in other countries, not just the USA.

I was reminded today of a very vociferous opponent of E, when it was first proposed in Australia. Said person (well known around RNAC) conducted regular tours of groups of Australian pilots around the the US, he didn't even know he had been flying in E for years.

no_one,
Add KSFO/PHNL and every off line place I went to over the years on non-sched. or freighter services.

Blokes like Bloggs just don't get it, and sadly, never will.

And that is all part of the reason why we have such a lousy safety record in Australia --- we seem to be completely "culturally" unable to adopt risk management allocated and cost benefit justified use of finite resources to produce the best air safety outcomes --- to minimise the risk.

Tootle pip!!

[NOtimTAMs]

Class E etc. in the US .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspace_class_(United_States

Still don't know what it has to do with Dick having an IFR bad hair day at an airport that randomly happened to be Ballina. Surely he can't be calling for radar control services in *every* location where there are 4 IFR aircraft near an airport in IMC, can he? Of course, if everyone had ADSB out and in.....problem solved. :}:}

[AbsoluteFokker]

If we can do mobile phones for $100, why can't a smart cookie develop ADSB-out for everything aviation? Sure, add another zero onto the cost, but wouldn't a decommission of maybe 3 or 4 VORs/NDBs pay for that?

i.e. is it really that hard to develop a device that does ADSB-out at low cost?

Add a cheap tablet that interfaces via bluetooth to an ADSB-in receiver (say, coupled with OzRunways or similar) and - wow- our situational awareness suddenly improved 100 fold.

Now that's safety improvement.

[aroa]

A F....Latest international gliding mag has a couple of articles about ADS B ...and the cost.
Google intend to apply there elctronic smarts to produce something to cost about 500 bucks or less, therefore affordable for all.

Of course in the Land of Oz where the air is funny peculiar and ADS B is mandateds by '16... in the US of A by '20 and they will have the benefit of some of the amazing developments soon to come.

Another article re tiny watch size digital radios..Come in Dick Tracey !

[no_one]

Add a cheap tablet that interfaces via bluetooth to an ADSB-in receiver (say, coupled with OzRunways or similar) and - wow- our situational awareness suddenly improved 100 fold.

Such a thing already exists for this part and the cost is less than $50 if you already have Ozrunways.

ADS-Pi: Low-Cost ADS-B IN for OzRunways (http://adspi.ozrunways.com/)

[The name is Porter]

Smith’s friend and co-pilot on the flight to Ballina, former US Air Force F-16 fighter pilot and airline captain Richard Woodward, says the Australian system “drives me nuts”.

“You’ve got this very advanced national air traffic control system but, instead, you have pilot*s flying around in clouds saying to each other, ‘Hi, I’m here, where are you, let’s work out how not to crash into each other’,” Woodward says."

Even in the 'so called' J curve radar coverage is limited. I'm sure your local ATC would be only too happy to give you traffic & avoidance advice...........if they had the radar coverage. Class E to the ground with an approach service would also give them valuable experience to take overseas with them :E

ADSB is now giving coverage to the ground in the West Sale/East Sale area. Radar at around F110-120. Class E to the ground with an approach service would be awesome but 1 in 1 out? Would you be happy with that? Would you be happy with the local VFR dood (in VMC of course) flying through your IMC approach?

[LeadSled]

Would you be happy with the local VFR dood (in VMC of course) flying through your IMC approach?

Porter,
It happens now in G, so the only thing that changes is that the radar man is going to give you the VFR traffic. Do you have a problem with having that information, and positive separation from other IFR traffic??

Don't forget that law (and, hopefully, your sense of self preservation) requires IFR aircraft to keep their eyes out the window, particularly (obviously) in G,E and D. Being an IFR flight does not absolve you from keeping a lookout.

As to the lower levels of radar coverage around Sale, don't confuse the actual coverage with what is selected to be presented on a TAAAAAAATS screen, as was demonstrated years ago, after a celebrated "near miss" at Williamtown.

As has been said, time and again, E works just fine in the rest of the world, what is the problem in Australia that so many domestic pilots seem to believe it would higher risk than "do it yourself ATC" in G.

Tootle pip!!

[The name is Porter]

I'm on your side LeadSled! There needs to be a bit of cultural change for E to work in Australia the way it's intended to. Unfortunately, cultural change is woefully managed by both CASA & ASA.

Just out of interest, why would ADSB coverage to the ground be presented on a TAAATS screen but radar be filtered out? An ATC uses the same surveillance separation standard for both.

[AbsoluteFokker]

no_one - that ADSB-in interface is brilliant - that sort of thing is exactly what is required for real-world use (perhaps with a couple more levels of redundancy)... e.g. OzRunways can take input from multiple sources and display when discrepancies occur (eg. aircraft xyz has travelled at 900 knots since its last reported location when comparing source A versus source B) etc.

[Capn Bloggs]

Don't forget that law (and, hopefully, your sense of self preservation) requires IFR aircraft to keep their eyes out the window, particularly (obviously) in G,E and D. Being an IFR flight does not absolve you from keeping a lookout.

Yep. Throw the book at the jet crew waffling around trying to get their aeroplane on the ground when they clobber something that is a tenth of their size because they couldn't see it behind the iron-mongery that holds the cockpit in place...

It happens now in G, so the only thing that changes is that the radar man is going to give you the VFR traffic.
No it doesn't! In Class G (actually F) we're all on the same frequency in the CTAF; in class E I have ATC directing me around the sky on a clearance on one radio and the VFR blabbing to me on the CTAF! I really am worried about the inability of some here to understand that!

I'm all for CA/GROs or Class D; just keep the enthusiastic amateurs off the airwaves. Things are busy enough as it is in the terminal area already.

Lookout doesn't work and nor does simultaneous comms on two radios in two-pilot ops!

[Dick Smith]

No it's nothing like class F

ICAO class F lists no radio for VFR.

That would send you berserk !

[Capn Bloggs]

No it's nothing like class F

ICAO class F lists no radio for VFR.

Yes, well, ICAO Class G has no radio for VFR either. So what shall we call it... Class H?

The fact that you and LeedSlud cannot come to grips with is that well before Alphabet soup airspace was invented, Australians created a useable, practical and cost-effective airspace system. We didn't have millions of radars, we didn't have millions of dollars to spend, nor did we need millions of miles of controlled airspace.

To placate the obsession of some to comply with what is done do O/S, we had to have a name. So "someone" thought G would be best, when in fact F is far more appropriate as it accurately describes services to IFR. Of course, "G" has served the argument of critics of our system that "IFR are on their own" well, when in fact our Class G provides so much more than crummy old ICAO G. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story eh...

Next... :hmm:

[triadic]

Bloggs, with all due respect, I believe you are a victim of the Australian Culture which does not like change of any sort. You would of course be aware that the only thing that is constant in Aviation is change!!

Whilst we could always return to the days of Flight Service, that we know is not going to happen. Yes, having Class F was discussed at length many times and I agree it would be more appropriate in many areas than G, but that is what the decision makers at the time decided, so we live with that (for the moment at least??) Many still live in the world of FS and want that to work in today's airspace model. Those folk need a big wake up call - this is 2015 and not 1980! (mind you, there were many things that were done much better back then, than now, but CASA don't have the corporate knowledge and history of what happened back then in the good old days of DCA - maybe if they did, it might be different?)

The fact that Class E works elsewhere in the world is at least a good reason to examine it in the Australian context. The real problem with its introduction is that those that even supported the ICAO menu of airspace classes did not at the time understand fully the implications of the change/s and how to introduce it across the board. For many that operated in upper airspace etc there was little or no change. However as we know the changes in what was OCTA did change and that is what we now have to deal with. I have operated in Class E and it is not an issue, provided you understand how it works and appreciate that VFRs may be about, hopefully monitoring the correct frequency.

Again, this brings about the amount of education required at all levels and the ability to address the culture issues that you and others don't seem to acknowledge. CASA have never appreciated the entrenched culture within this industry and have certainly never applied the required resources to bring about effective change (hello...look at the mess of Part 61..!)

Part of the problem is addressing pilots in the airlines that don't operate in E/G very often and they still believe it to be OCTA as it was years ago. Wrong! Some of the folk that wont let this happen are in fact senior pilots with the major carriers and it is very difficult to even talk to them about this as many don't accept they should be lectured to on this, or anything else for that matter. If CASA can get thru that gate, they will be doing well, but since they presently have very little credibility and very few pilots with appropriate experience I will not hold my breath. Maybe the new DAS can change that, but it like most things will take time.

By the way, have you ever in a two-crew op tried to work it so that one pilot has ATC as primary and the other pilot has the CTAF as primary - using the volume controls. I have, and it works well if briefed correctly.

The use of radio as discussed previously, is in this country, close to out of control with far too many transmissions and many that don't mean anything to anybody but the one doing the talking !! You need to get value for money out of every time you press the PTT. Again education and a change of culture is the key to getting it right. :ugh:

Maybe we should introduce some F so that we have an excuse for a major education program?? The question is: are CASA up to that?? Certainly the OAR have little understanding of what is out there in the real world, so it would have to come from elsewhere.

[Capn Bloggs]

Triadic:
Whilst we could always return to the days of Flight Service, that we know is not going to happen.
I never said I wanted FS back. I'm quite happy with my beepback, AWIB and tablet update from the NIS. A CA/GRO is an appropriate step up from a CTAF. Speaking of FS, what on earth could justify Firies yakking on the CTAF? I have the utmost respect for their primary job, but having one of them in action on a busy CTAF throwing in their two-bobs worth is not going to help anyone :Hey guys, just letting you know there's a loud on the top of that hill! Don't run into it!". If a CTAF is that busy (Ballina), put in a CA/GRO (properly trained, not "a couple of units of the ATCO course") or a tower.

Yes, having Class F was discussed at length many times and I agree it would be more appropriate in many areas than G,
Completely missed my point. We have a class F service in our uncontrolled airspace now. The term "Class F" didn't suit the master plan which was to use the "Class G" term to complain about our unsafe operations OCTA by Dick Smith and Richard Woodward; exactly as is occurring now (as well as some nit-picking bureaucrat who noted that Class F is "temporary" on the way to implementing Class E).

I have operated in Class E and it is not an issue, provided you understand how it works and appreciate that VFRs may be about, hopefully monitoring the correct frequency.
You can't be serious? Until someone goes whizzing past your windscreen? Is Class E supposed to raise even further the hairs on the back of my neck Because I know that even if I do spot a lighty, if he's on a collision course with me, I will probably be unable to avoid him. Class E means "VFR exempt" = non-participation. The whole idea is that VFR can do as they please talking to no-one. Get them on frequency and get them talking to me.

The implications? No radar and no ADS-B = procedural control, not to mention how many extra ATC sectors required?

By the way, have you ever in a two-crew op tried to work it so that one pilot has ATC as primary and the other pilot has the CTAF as primary - using the volume controls. I have, and it works well if briefed correctly.
You cannot be serious again... the reason we have two pilots is that the decisions are better; two heads are better than one. How can that occur with what is effectively single-pilot comms? "ATC says do this!" "But Captain, there's a lighty turning right!" "What? where is he again?!"

The use of radio as discussed previously, is in this country, close to out of control with far too many transmissions and many that don't mean anything to anybody but the one doing the talking !! You need to get value for money out of every time you press the PTT. Again education and a change of culture is the key to getting it right.
You don't change an airspace system because people talk too much.

Maybe we should introduce some F so that we have an excuse for a major education program??
And the major education program would be what... "Err, we're really operating in what ICAO would call Class F with it's IFR Air Traffic Advisory Service, so... nothing's changed...continue on as per normal..."

[thorn bird]

Oh dear Blogsie,
you sound just like that regional captain that "Instructed" me to hold East of the field until he had departed on an absolute CAVOK day, then got all snarky because I told him I was just entering the holding pattern overhead before conducting a practice NDB approach. Mate with due respect RPT do not own the skies over Australia, (the RAAF does).
Maybe a sabbatical to the USA to see how airspace is supposed to work might enlighten you. An afternoon doing circuits at Teterborough at half past four on a Friday afternoon should convince you.

[triadic]

hi Blogsie, yes I have to agree with thorny - you sound like a check captain that I used to work with - had blinkers on all day and never thought outside the box, nor considered empathy for other users.

From what you say, you are an example of the problem - CULTURE CHANGE AND EDUCATION and we might see some significant changes.

Oh and part of the deal would be to teach airmanship and situational awareness like they did 30+ years ago. Not much of each surfacing from many flying schools or airline training departments these days.:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

Could you two point out anywhere that indicates I don't show "considered empathy for other users."? Thanks.

You're both quite welcome to sit in my jumpseat at any time to see how I operate OCTA. I have used hundreds of kgs of fuel and time over the years to help out VFRs during arrivals and departures; fitting in, it's called. I've orbited over the top of places waiting to "get a slot" at busy regional airports. If you guys have a problem with Capt Blighs, then complain to someone else. Mind you, with Leadsled showing the bird to an A380 because he can, no wonder some of my ilk are becoming a little jaded with portions of the VFR fraternity...

It is a pity that you guys (Triadic, I'm surprised) can't argue the toss re the facts. Class F for example. What exactly is wrong with what I said above? Nothing, so you accuse me of being a Capn Bligh.

I am really concerned that most seem quite comfortable with RPT jets with over 100 seats operating in an unalerted See and be Seen environment.

I'm also concerned with the concept of one pilot using Comm 1 on ATC and the other on the CTAF. For goodness sake, the reason we have two pilots is to make the decisions twice as good. That can't happen when each is doing their own thing! And yes, Triadic, I did consider it once or twice. It's the one of the more dangerous things one could do. That is one of the reasons I dislike E; nobody has actually explained how, at Ballina, an RPT crew would reasonably cope with ATC on one freq giving them clearances for this and that down to 700ft and on the other them self-segregating with the VFR that was there (and listening to the well-intentioned firey). You guys read the brochures and believe it all. Just like the glossy "Class G" and "Class F". Try it and one day the wheels will fall off. And, of course, it'll be the hapless jet crew that gets thrown in the clink because they broke Leeadies law and didn't look out so as to See and Avoid the VFR they ran in to. The only reason Class E works is the big sky theory.

Teterboro: I'd quite like operating there. High pressure Class D with B on top. The guide recommends VFR plan to hold outside the zone for extended periods during 1300-2100 IIRC. Got any better examples than that, Thornbird?

As for change, I don't mind change. I like it when it's for the better. Nothing I have seen in the last 40 years of Australia's airspace design has particularly been for the better. Routine No-Radio at jet ports was madness and was never accepted by CASA, thank goodness. And the problem was?? There was none. Everybody goes about their business, talks on the radio. Only the selfish ones who refuse to fit in continue to bang on about it. Meanwhile, the industry was in turmoil for decades.

[LeadSled]

Well folks,

Ol' Bloggs has really nailed his colours to the to the foremast. An experienced RPT Captain and airspace and safety expert like Triadic doesn't know what he is talking about, but good ol' Bloggsie got it all taped.

The rest of the world is out of step, but Bloggsie has the answer. Actually, there is a very interesting book including the life and times of an MMA Captain of old, I'll just call him Captain Reg., who had quite a piece about people who think like Bloggsie. It wasn't praise.

Sort of explains why, in about 1996, AOPA inaugurated an annual award, names after a WA bloke some of you might guess, the award going to the person, whose efforts were above and beyond the call of duty in impeding aviation progress in the previous twelve months.

The trophy was a bone headed flightless bird, the CASAWARY, with its head buried in the sand.

We must be a sexist lot, come to think of it, it has never been awarded to other than a bloke.

Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

As an FSO, if I missed traffic, I was stood down, re-assessed and re-rated once my proficiency was deemed to be back up to par. Who carries the can if the baggage handler manning the Unicom misses traffic under Dick's new regime?

[The name is Porter]

Wouldn't cost that much to train a Cagro operator up. Wouldn't take much to have a fiery do a met observers course, train him or her on Cagro. (Good luck getting one of them to sit in that little tower all shift doing it though, I'm tipping they'll tell you to fark off, better things to do).

And good luck finding someone to stump up with the insurance premium to cover these 'Cagro' operators. Cos when it goes tits up, it's gunna cost somebody some serious coin.

Change the liability laws in Australia and you might have a chance.

[LeadSled]

And good luck finding someone to stump up with the insurance premium to cover these 'Cagro' operators. Cos when it goes tits up, it's gunna cost somebody some serious coin.

Change the liability laws in Australia and you might have a chance.

Folks,
Before you all start rushing of in every direction about liability and duty of care, I suggest you actually read some of the existing legislation on the subject.
Tootle pip!!

[The name is Porter]

Leady, any chance you could point us in that direction? Post a link to legislation? Ta.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I just love it when the coalition sits to the right of the speaker.....:hmm:

[andrewr]

The only reason Class E works is the big sky theory.
No, the only reason Class G works for IFR is the big sky theory.

Class E in Australia has been implemented (deliberately or accidentally) to provide no benefit to anyone.

Class E is supposed to replace Class G, on the principle that aircraft operating in IMC should have ATC assistance to avoid each other. It is not intended as a replacement for Class C/D*.

When the decision was made that Class E will be implemented WITHOUT providing additional service to IFR, the point of the project disappeared. After that it became a process of finding places on the chart to put a bit of Class E, so someone can tick their "Class E Implementation" box.

*Although once you have a choice between C/D/E/G instead of just C/D/G you will probably find airspace that is class C only because it can't be G, which might be changed to E.

[thorn bird]

Hey guys wonder if anyone else has had the thought that it would be nice if the base of CTA was printed on Jepps and Dap's.
May not be so important for bug smashers but noticed a few times in high performance aircraft the "oops" question "When do we hit CTA?". Much scabbling for maps, sometimes hard to find especially on Jepps.

[The name is Porter]

Geesus, you don't check that in your departure brief before you take off?? :ugh:

[Capn Bloggs]

noticed a few times in high performance aircraft the "oops" question "When do we hit CTA?". Much scabbling for maps, sometimes hard to find especially on Jepps.
I can see now why some suggest E to the ground... :hmm:

[Dick Smith]

Can anyone assist me with the radar coverage at Hervey Bay?

Does it drop down to the circuit area? If not what is the lower level of the coverage?

[Frank Arouet]

It amazes me that someone would put a multi million dollar fire station at Ballina to pick up the wreckage of any perceived or otherwise crash when a tower that may prevent that crash would seem more prudent. I apologise if the following piece of prose has been posted before and may bore people to the point of suicide, but it is apt;


‘ Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant,
But over its terrible edge there had slipped,
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally.
Some said, "Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
For it spread through the neighboring city,
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became moved with pity,
For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers on highway and alley
Gave pounds and gave pence not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.
Then an old sage remarked, "it’s a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing the results than to stopping the cause,
When they’d much better aim at prevention.
"Let us stop at its source all this hurt," cried he.
"Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally.
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.

[Awol57]

Why is there the perception that the only thing the ARFF would respond to is a mid air collision? I certainly can't talk you into a safe landing/takeoff from the tower.

[Capn Bloggs]

The truth is out there somewhere...


Ballina not overloaded

The Australian, 10 June 2015

Your headline "Airwaves choked as pilots eye safe space" (9/6) is misleading. In fact, the airwaves are mostly empty at Ballina. Jetstar has two flights a day, Rex two and Virgin one.

One or two general aviation aircraft an hour may use the airport - hardly "overloaded". Except at major airports with control towers, pilots routinely arrange their own separation for takeoffs and landings through radio contact. I am a flying instructor at a nearby airport. On the occasions when I have been in·the Ballina airport area when the rare airliner is around, we calmly arranged separation to the satisfaction of everyone. No sign of desperation.

Your mention of the situation where a Metroliner had to make a missed approach because of a helicopter on the runway in 2013 is hardly a reason for big changes at Ballina. The operation isn’t broken and definitely doesn’t need fixing.

Norm Sanders, Chief Flying instructor, Byron Flying Club.

[NOtimTAMs]

As a regular user of Ballina airport in all weather conditions, I absolutely agree with Norm's letter. Mostly empty airwaves....rare arrivals of 3 or more IFR aircraft in IMC .....

Here's the schedule for RPT into Ballina: http://ballinabyronairport.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Flight-Schedule-1st-26th-June2015.pdf.

Reckon you need a full-time CAGRO or tower for that, Dick? Nonsense!

Self separation has worked fine here and at other CTAF airfields that have RPT - and if a bit of coordination with the other pilots does your head in when you fly your personal jet in with a highly experienced aviator as co-pilot, then I suggest you hold at a suitable altitude above it all until everyone else has landed, or divert to land at the Gold Coast and drive the hour down for everyone else's safety.

Bloggs - I would be very surprised if you were getting clearances when below 10K' on approach to YBNA. Onward clearances can wait until after you land.... In any case, if a single pilot IFR can monitor two frequencies, then a two crew unit with TCAS should be fine.

All Dick's sh!t stirring is going to do is drive up costs to all who use the Ballina airport to no safety advantage. As Dick often asks - where's the safety case? The local Aeroclub guys, who have spent a large amount of private money on their clubhouse on the field are a bit upset at the prospect of a tower - most of the long term members now fly RecAus and won't be able to get into the controlled airspace if it goes that way...

CAGRO or tower, whichever way it goes - you'll get thanks for nothing, Dick, from the GA community who use Ballina airport....the very GA pilots whom you profess to be supporting....

[Rosebrook]

So glad of the previous post. I agree. I learned to fly at Ballina and still go there occasionally. It's unusual to have more than two aircraft in the vicinity at any one time. You might get to four including a commercial operator. I don't understand what justified tax payers funding a multi million fire station.

The near miss with the metro liner and heli 2013was just that..a near miss accident. They happen all the time all day long..it life. a procedural radio error and error caught in time. Flying school have now beefed up their radio checks.


I have experienced commercial operator radio error...on the ground they are on area I guess and not listening to ctaf. No big problem just deal with it with appropriate caution.


Dick..perusing this ifr to ground will only result in a d tower at Ballina and kill off the local ga a lot more a lot quicker. More unjustified tax payer funding. Over regulation is way more of a problem than this in killing off ga, but it doesn't need a tower at Ballina to make it worse.

[Lookleft]

In the days of Department of Transport if a jet service went to any destination it would automatically require a tower. I think it was when East West decided to operate F28s into Albury and Wagga is when they got their towers. I also think it was a helicopter pilot of note that decried the waste of taxpayers money in putting expensive infrastructure into regional airports just because a jet operated into these ports once a day. Apparently jets operated into regional airports in the US and they didn't need a tower.

I actually don't disagree with the idea of a Tower at Ballina and as Wagga,Albury and Tamworth have shown they are still thriving as airports. What I disagree with is the idea that the money needs to be spent on a fire station first.

As for this idea:

The near miss with the metro liner and heli 2013was just that..a near miss accident. They happen all the time all day long..it life.

:ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Lookleft
You are correct. As CAA Chairman I introduced the FAA Establishment and Disestablishment formula for Class D towers. This resulted in a number of towers closing, such as Wagga and Mt Isa. My problem with the situation at Ballina is once again the safety expenditure is being reversed. Instead of spending money on mitigating the chance of an accident, they have actually spent the money on a fire service that will pull people out of a burning wreck. Why not put in a Unicom first of all? If run correctly on the American and Canadian model, the cost will be zero. Then why not drop the Class E airspace down to a lower level? That, in fact, is a recommendation from the last CASA Safety Study. The cost is very small.

Personally I am completely opposed to the huge waste of money for a fire station at Ballina. It is totally ridiculous and a huge misallocation of resources. However, seeing a fire station exists and there are seventeen firemen on the payroll, why not at least provide a Unicom service in the way they do in the USA? As I have mentioned, the cost is zero and there will be a marked safety improvement.

[Frank Arouet]

A near miss as opposed to a near hit!

[Lookleft]

Personally I am completely opposed to the huge waste of money for a fire station at Ballina.

What I disagree with is the idea that the money needs to be spent on a fire station first.

It would seem that we are in complete agreement on this Dick. I am not opposed to the idea of a Unicom either, it seems to work at AYQ.

Frank-what happened at Sunny Coast between the Airbus and the helicopter was definitely a near hit!:ok:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re " In the days of Department of Transport if a jet service went to any destination it would automatically require a tower "

And...."Lookleft
You are correct"

Hey Dick (you agreed with him) and 'LL'......naughty naughty..... B/S personified!!!

I worked for many years at locations like Kalgoorlie, and Derby - "Derbs" - which 'looked after 'Broome' as well as 'Derbs', as you are very well aware - you actually visited us once.
You did not have to ask for a 'clearance' to 'Derbs' - you got 'AFIZ' service.

And each of those had JET RPT services.....as did Geraldton, Carnarvon, Learmonth, Karratha, Hedland, Kunners, etc etc

And, NONE of those had a 'tower'!
Some did, then didn't, then when Hedland Council funded it, did, then didn't again when it was found to be too expensive, then.....who knows....!!

We used to manage those from the FSU at the location. Or, in the case of Broome, it used to be managed from 'Derbs' long after the Broome FSU was closed. (Remote AFIZ)....

Then after the 'Big Cut' we managed these 'remote' AFIZs from Perth FSC...

Tower..??WOT Tower..?? Yeah, I am aware that some of these places have a 'Tower' again.....as to WHO is paying for it / them...?? Well, with NO 'Flight Service' or CAGRO, 'somebody' thought that they just 'had' to have 'something'....

In the 70's when I flew 'full time' out of Hedland, there were aeroplanes everywhere in the Pilbara.
Sometimes I was 'no 3 to land'......
Not so many now!

Keep it cleen now.....

No Cheers :sad:

Thanx again for......

[The name is Porter]

Derby's a bit of a ****hole Griffo, what did you get up to on your days off?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr P,

'Back in de good ole days'.....When it was a comparatively 'vibrant' town....(Comparatively!)

PLENTY to do..!!

Fishin' crabbin' & drinkin' & trips 'away' flights around the 'Horries' & the islands, swimmin' at CLQ....and not necessarily in that order......Gibb R was nice....as was Broome...

Really felt sorry for the people in Broome - they had 'nowhere' to go.....
Derbs peoples was 'good'..!!

:ok:

[LeadSled]

I think it was when East West decided to operate F28s into Albury

Lookleft,
Albury got the tower when Prince Charles was at Timbertops, the "Royals" only fly in controlled airspace, and have the same priority as the Governor General, in Australia.

Not absolutely certain, but I think the Wagga tower was a hangover from RAAF days, as was Camden, where DCA built a new tower when the RAAF tower burned down --- without consideration of whether Camden really needed one --- but when it is all taxpayer's money, who cares about the cost.

Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Prince Charles at Timbertops - 1966
Albury TWR - 1982

Anecdotedlly, Albury FSU staff - AFIZ and 30nm diameter FIA - 3 x FSO's
Albury TWR - smaller airspace - 8 x ATC

[Lookleft]

LS-Wagga didn't get a tower until the early 80's at the earliest. As TIEW states with Albury, Wagga was originally an AFIZ.

[no_one]

Comparing Airspace rules between countries is a little difficult, it isn’t just the letter C,E,D or G, but what the restrictions and responsibilities that go with each of them. Under the USA rules making Ballina a Class D tower and the airspace above class E would not restrict the movement of small GA aircraft to land at Balina or transit through the area. In the USA a transponder is not generally (there are some exceptions) required in class E. The only negative impact that adding a class D tower with E above would have is the cost and so a rational discussion about who pays and whether the benefit exceeds that cost can be had.

Under the Australian rules this change would result in a significant impact on a large number of users. Firstly a transponder is required in Australia in class E airspace. Adding a transponder to a Jabiru is proportionally as significant an impact as adding ADS-B to a citation. A large number of small GA users will need to pay quite a few thousand dollars to meet the equipment requirements transit that area.

Secondly pilots with RAAus pilot certificates are not allowed to fly in class D. This would have a very significant impact on the local flight school and maintenance facility. How could they continue to operate?

At every turn the Australian rule implementations create winners (in this case the IFR and RPT who have greater safety) and losers (the smaller GA and RAAus) who then have to fight it out. While the industry is fighting, CASA sit back and “consult” and no matter the outcome safety overall is diminished. CASA need to understand that more onerous rules often do not lead to greater safety. By requiring transponders universally in class E, it makes having larger areas of class E more costly and difficult to implement which leads to an overall reduction in safety.