Secret Unicom Trial at Hervey Bay

[Dick Smith]

I was fascinated to see the following letter which was placed in the Fraser Coast Chronical on Tuesday 9 June… see HERE (http://www.frasercoastchronicle.com.au/news/dick-smiths-campaign-not-supported-by-facts/2665700/)and below. Note in particular the comment I have highlighted:

DICK Smith's claim that if CASA doesn't allow ground staff to notify planes about obstacles or weather conditions at the airport then there will be people dying at Hervey Bay is rich in rhetoric but a bit short on fact.

The idea of allowing unqualified staff to give operational information to pilots is fraught with peril.
Incorrect, out of date or limited information provided on an ad-hoc basis is far more dangerous than no information at all.

What if the person involved is busy doing their primary job and is unaware of an aerodrome obstruction and then tells the inbound aircraft that all is well?

But the biggest risk to aircraft at Hervey Bay, or indeed any aerodrome where there is a high density of aircraft of varying performance and pilots of vastly different skill levels, is in the sky - not on the ground.

In 2009 Airservices Australia conducted a trial of Unicom at Hervey Bay.

This was in response to a high number of reported breakdowns in separation between aircraft (or "near misses" as some in the media would have it).

The trial, importantly, included a directed traffic information service, updates on weather and operational information.

Its hours of operation were based on the arrival and departure of RPT (airlines) aircraft.

It was conducted by three highly experienced aviation personnel (of which I was one), and all had the necessary CASA approvals to provide the service.

The Unicom staff were able to monitor the local airport radio frequency, note the aircraft positions, levels and intentions and then use this information to provide the traffic information service.

The carriage and use of radio is mandatory in the Hervey Bay/Maryborough areas, but this frequency is not monitored by Airservices Australia staff in Brisbane.

The trial was a resounding success, proving that the service was cost effective, needed and well received by the aviation industry.

Although the service had been proven, the arrival of the GFC and CASA failing to mandate it meant it was never implemented.

A Unicom service is needed now more than ever, but it needs to be a stand-alone service, preferably managed and provided by Airservices Australia using experienced, qualified and rated personal.

Mr Smith's wish that commercial jets using Hervey Bay be radar-controlled from Brisbane is impossible.

Due to the type of radar now used, not all aircraft are visible to the controller and the radio frequency in use cannot be monitored, so it cannot be known what other aircraft are there, what height they are at or what their intentions are.

Re the statement

It was conducted by three highly experienced aviation personnel ... and all had the necessary CASA approvals to provide the service.

Can anyone advise what approvals were required? Was it to have previously held an Air Traffic Controller Flight Service licence? And what was the cost of running this service per week, particularly noting the comment

Although the service had been proven, the arrival of the GFC and CASA failing to mandate it meant it was never implemented.

Of course, all of the Unicoms I have seen in the USA have no measurable cost – they use existing people at the airport.

[Ixixly]

I don't think Dick was ever suggesting just any old person jump on the radio and give it a go!! Pretty sure it was always a call for existing staff to be trained as CAGRs right?

It's quite funny how that article starts off having a go at Dick Smith for his rhetoric and then goes on to utilise its own!

[Dick Smith]

Correct. Just follow the proven FAA/ Canadian system by utilizing intelligent existing people at the airport.

Works incredibly well in those countries- why not australia.

[thunderbird five]

Not sure if there are any answers for you in here Dick...

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100077/herveybay-aero-study.pdf


:)

[Capn Bloggs]

Don't be ridiculous Dick. You're a businessman; do you really think you'd have one of your "existing" staff at the airport with enough spare time to monitor and provide the weather, let alone a traffic service? A baggage chucker or Check-in chick running the Unicom or just on the radio? You really need to get out into the real world and see what goes on these days. Most airports do not have spare people floating around to do what you got in the USA in the halcyon days of scantily-clad girls on the top of Follow-Me vans ushering you to the parking bay.

And what about the AOC holder and the hundreds of punters in the back? This is 2015 and any Tom, Dick or Harry spouting off on the radio giving his opinion on the traffic picture (:ugh:) is not going to wash, nor should it. Now your suggestion/political bludgeoning of the Firies doing it after doing a proper course made a bit of sense, but who's going to pay? The big boys certainly don't need the service so why should they pay?

I said it before and I'll say it again: we have Beepbacks and AWIS. Technology replacing unreliable humans. If the place requires a terminal traffic info service, put in a proper FSS (aka CA/GRO) or put in a tower.

And if you don't want to run into a hill when your GPS position gets corrupted, install a TAWS.

[jas24zzk]

Having done Ayers Rock under CA/GRS, they can save the money and shove it.

The idea of allowing unqualified staff to give operational information to pilots is fraught with peril.

Lets face facts....CASA won't employ anyone without a PPL minimum to do this job now, and they will probably have to complete a course CASA can't design.

No not a fan of CA/GRS...they can keep it!

[YPJT]

The CAGROs themselves withdrew the service at Jandakot because it was just too bloody dangerous.

[mjbow2]

do you really think you'd have one of your "existing" staff at the airport with enough spare time to monitor and provide the weather, let alone a traffic service?


Absolute crap Bloggs. Every RPT airport you fly to Bloggs, you radio your company personnel on the ground with an ETA and they tell you what bay to park on.

Your company personnel are already monitoring a radio and are already at the airport 'floating around' as you say, ready to talk to you on the radio, but suddenly if they were allowed to provide you with an airport advisory at the same time it becomes too onerous on them?

If your company reps were able to monitor the CTAF frequency and provide a Unicom service to those aircraft that request an advisory (Hint... thats you Bloggs in your 717) then safety is enhanced. So simple.

let alone a traffic service?

Contrary to what you think the service is supposed to do, it does not provide Air Traffic Control functions AT ALL. Do you understand this?


You try and tear down this simple well proven affordable measure with the most specious arguments that only goes to prove that your ignorance of how its done elsewhere and a pathological resistance makes you look foolish.

Whatever you think you know about how a Unicom service should work is just plain wrong. Its sad to think that younger pilots may give credence to your remarks merely because you fly a jet.


The FAA also doesn't agree with your assessment that Unicom services are "not going to wash". You might wish to familiarise yourself with Ops Spec C064 and C080 (a) 2. These require On Demand passenger, All Cargo and scheduled airline operations to be able to acquire "traffic advisories and the status of airport services and facilities" at uncontrolled airfields.


The Unicom is required by the regulations in the United States to enhance safety at uncontrolled airports.

Yes the person providing information might be the check in staff, it might be the fueler at the FBO or the mechanic at the local maintenance workshop but the total cost is the price of the radio itself. A very cheap safety measure.

No one is providing a directed traffic service or even a traffic information service. If the person talking on the radio on the ground is asked for an 'airport advisory' it is as simple as this;

Wind
Temperature
Visibility
Cloud ceiling
light aircraft heard in the vacinity/ Helicopter transiting area/
maintenance vehicle operating on taxiway
etc.


The Unicom operator does not need to know where other traffic is in the area. In fact as radio is not mandated for aircraft at uncontrolled airports in the US, its possible that the Unicom operator does not know where aircraft might be positioned. NO PROBLEM, the operator just alerts arriving and departing aircraft of other aircraft in the vicinity IF they know they are about. Otherwise the operator simply says 'no known' traffic or omits any reference to traffic in their advisory.


Simple, easy safety related information given via a Unicom service mandated by the regulations. Not an ATC function. Is this easy for you to understand Bloggs? We too should have this virtually free service right here in Oz.

[Desert Flower]

As far as I know I was the first person in Australia to provide a UNICOM service, starting from day one of the introduction of the CTAF. I did it in conjunction with my refueling business. I was given strict guidelines, plus I had to apply to add 126.7 to the license for my handheld radio in addition to my discrete frequency of 129.9. It was not a paid for doing it - it was a service I provided because I could see the need for it.

DF.

[717tech]

What kind of guidelines were you given?

Was it simply a matter of monitoring the frequency and noting each arrival/departures details and then passing this info on to others?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The Unicom operator does not need to know where other traffic is in the area. In fact as radio is not mandated for aircraft at uncontrolled airports in the US, its possible that the Unicom operator does not know where aircraft might be positioned. NO PROBLEM, the operator just alerts arriving and departing aircraft of other aircraft in the vicinity IF they know they are about. Otherwise the operator simply says 'no known' traffic or omits any reference to traffic in their advisory.

Then it's a completely pointless traffic service. Additionally, it's seems intended to be provided by a company rep to a company aircraft.

Your company personnel are already monitoring a radio and are already at the airport 'floating around' as you say, ready to talk to you on the radio, but suddenly if they were allowed to provide you with an airport advisory at the same time it becomes too onerous on them?

If your company reps were able to monitor the CTAF frequency and provide a Unicom service to those aircraft that request an advisory (Hint... thats you Bloggs in your 717) then safety is enhanced. So simple.

Can just imagine the local RPT operator being happy to provide a service to all the bug smashers that might call him. I doubt it. That's not what his business is about.

There's a hell of a difference between a Unicom and a CA/GRO. Having a quick look outside at the weather is a lot different to providing any meaningful traffic info.

I said it in another thread a while ago. The service was deemed to be unnecessary and was done away with. Let those that made that decision now come up with a solution and pay for it, rather than trying to get airlines or aerodrome operators to pick up the slack.

[Desert Flower]

I will have to see if I can find the booklet I was given - I think I still have it somewhere. The general rule was that I was not to use the area frequency except in the event of an emergency. I provided information on wind direction, speed, temperature etc. which all came from a direct telephone link to the AWS which the Met Bureau installed in my office. I also asked incoming aircraft if they required fuel, if I didn't already know that. On at least two occasions I was able to provide traffic locations to aircraft who were trying to communicate with foreign students without success. Also had several incidents of aircraft with unsafe landing gear indications, as well as a couple of crashes off aerodrome where it was quicker for me to use the radio to contact Flight Service than it was to use the phone.

DF.

[gerry111]

I suspect that for many of us VFR's in Australia, the Telstra 3G mobile phone network has made the Unicom idea largely obsolete. Particularly for a person in DF's capacity. It's wise perhaps to know a reliable person at your destination and ring them before or enroute for WX etc? Outback hotel and motel proprietors sure know whether it is raining, overcast or if there's a cyclone on the way. :)

[Pinky the pilot]

As far as I know I was the first person in Australia to provide a UNICOM service, starting from day one of the introduction of the CTAF. I did it in conjunction with my refueling business. I was given strict guidelines, plus I had to apply to add 126.7 to the license for my handheld radio in addition to my discrete frequency of 129.9. It was not a paid for doing it - it was a service I provided because I could see the need for it.
DF.

And, back in the mid `noughties` as a fairly regular visitor to the Airfield indicated in the above quote (on a weekly RPT flight) I can attest to the usefulness and benefit of Desert Flowers service!:ok::ok:

We never had any problem with the service DF provided and indeed welcomed it! As, I suspect, did everyone who ever flew into that particular strip when she was the refueller way back then.

Of course, the fact that we provided her with a good supply of Fruitcake slices and Minties may have gained us extra special service!:D

Betcha miss that, don`t you DF? Hell, I miss the run itself!!:{:{

[Desert Flower]

It's wise perhaps to know a reliable person at your destination and ring them before or enroute for WX etc?

Gerry, even though I no longer work out there I still have one pilot who will ring me before he departs Adelaide if he has any doubt about the forecast. Will also ring me enroute too if necessary. He trusts the old MK1 eyeball more than he trusts the weather forecasters!

DF.

[Desert Flower]

Of course, the fact that we provided her with a good supply of Fruitcake slices and Minties may have gained us extra special service!

Yes that could have had something to do with it Pinky! ;)

Betcha miss that, don`t you DF? Hell, I miss the run itself!!

Yep, I still dream about being out there. You'd think by now the Avgas/JetA1 would be out of my veins but it isn't. :{

DF.

[Pinky the pilot]

I suspect that for many of us VFR's in Australia, the Telstra 3G mobile phone network has made the Unicom idea largely obsolete. Particularly for a person in DF's capacity.

Quite possibly, gerry 111; However, on the run I indicated above (IFR RPT!) there were on rare occasions admittedly, times when we left our departure point and all indications were that DF`s location (which was 45 minutes to the North) was clear. However by the time we got to 20nm out, fog or low cloud had formed!

Her observations on more than one occasion proved invaluable!!:ok::ok:

[gerry111]

Pinky and DF,


My comments were not meant in any way as criticism of DF. Just that I believe communications technology has now moved on.

[Desert Flower]

My comments were not meant in any way as criticism of DF. Just that I believe communications technology has now moved on.

Gerry, I didn't take it as criticism. In some ways you're right, technology has moved on. But not all aerodromes have that technology.

DF.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Not really a secret trial either Dick.

Like CA/GRS, UNICOM (where provided) is intended only to be a tool to help enhance pilots’ situational awareness, and is not a traffic separation service. Unlike CA/GRS, UNICOMs are not designed to provide any traffic information (Airservices Australia, 2007). From December 2007 to March 2009, UNICOM services were trialled by Airservices Australia at a number of non-towered regional aerodromes where CTAF(R) was used (Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Port Macquarie, Wagga Wagga, Olympic Dam). During this trial, a special dispensation under CASR 139 also allowed these UNICOM services to provide basic traffic information to pilots.

From appendix C to this:

Safety in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2008/ar-2008-044(2).aspx)

[no_one]

I suspect that for many of us VFR's in Australia, the Telstra 3G mobile phone network has made the Unicom idea largely obsolete. Particularly for a person in DF's capacity. It's wise perhaps to know a reliable person at your destination and ring them before or enroute for WX etc? Outback hotel and motel proprietors sure know whether it is raining, overcast or if there's a cyclone on the way.

Wash your mouth out!!!! Such an unsafe thing as ringing someone where you are going and asking if the sun is shining is a strict liability offense punishable buy an $850 fine.

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 120 Weather reports not to be used if not made with authority (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s120.html)

[Alistair]

And if you don't want to run into a hill when your GPS position gets corrupted, install a TAWS.

Good luck with that.

Technology replacing unreliable humans

Oh and that one too.

Sorry for the thread drift (daydreaming about the good ol days of follow me vans)...If'n I was the big Cheese I'd go for the option that gives free minties!

[Pinky the pilot]

for the option that gives free minties!


Alistair; You would have had to fight Desert Flower for those if you had been at her A/D way back when we used to land there on the mail run.:D

Re your comments on Technology; I for one am becoming more and more sceptical with those who seemingly believe that new technology will make us all safer and more `effecient.`

I once read a comment that went along the lines of

`You can never make a machine so smart that some jerk won`t be too dumb to run it.`:ooh:

[Desert Flower]

`You can never make a machine so smart that some jerk won`t be too dumb to run it.`

That reminds me of a sign I saw once - "Intel inside, idiot outside!"

DF.

[Dick Smith]

Regulation 120. Incredible. See the front page of The Australian today.

How much is a penalty point?

Ok got it. $170.

[mjbow2]

Pilots forces to weather cloudy service on Lord Howe Island


Are AsA and CASA in cahoots to actively reduce safety at non towered airports? This is mindless stupidity. It is almost incomprehensible that anyone would resist having a Unicom service.

The US system uses AWIS and ASOS for weather information at uncontrolled airfiields which any Unicom operator can read out on the radio. As I experienced on many occasions both as a Unicom operator and an RPT pilot in the US the automated weather cannot do many things that a human can.


-Inform a pilot if a snow or rain squall line is approaching the airport.
-Inform a pilot that visibility is unlimited in one direction but reduced in the other.
-inform a pilot of the runway condition (wet/dry/contaminated)
- The previous aircraft landed with airframe icing.
-Sea fog observed nearby.
-Flock of birds observed feeding near threshold.

I used to be employed as a refueler at an FBO situated at an uncontrolled airfield the US Rocky Mountains. As just one of many staff who would answer pilot requests on the Unicom for an 'airfield advisory', I could answer any question a pilot might have that would aid their decision making particularly when weather was adverse.

I can assure readers that both as an RPT pilot and Unicom operator in the US, the information that can be gained from simple human observations was invaluable. Why are our authorities actively thwarting implementation this cheap safety addition in Australia?

For those pilots like Bloggs who don't believe in this measure. NO PROBLEM, when the Unicoms finally make it to our shores, Dont ask for a field advisory. Its that simple.

[Capn Bloggs]

Incredible. See the front page of The Australian today.

Incredible indeed. The more this goes on, the more discredited you lot become.

MJBOW2, you cannot be serious?

Pilots forces to weather cloudy service on Lord Howe Island
The last time I looked, you have to have a BAL of 0.0 to post on Prune. The readers don't have time to waste trying to decipher what is written... :)

Add to Dick's list of the evil empire one Sir Angus Houston. "Not available for comment" is right. Is there isn't anybody left? :{

NO PROBLEM, when the Unicoms finally make it to our shores, Dont ask for a field advisory. Its that simple.
I don't now and won't then. However, If they are properly trained and qualified, no problem. A Unicom operator who is an RPT pilot? Sounds fair. He should understand my job. Occasionally I ask my company compatriots already on the ground in Bullamakanka for an appraisal of the situation. Anybody else, I ignore. Enthusiastic amateurs have no place in RPT jet ops.

The reality is that it is you guys who are living in the past... not forgetting that we had world-class Flight Service Stations at all the major regional airports until Dick shut them down...

Gotta hand it to you guys though... front page of the WE Oz two weeks in a row... impressive, or is it a slow-news weekend(s)? :}

[LeadSled]

Occasionally I ask my company compatriots already on the ground in Bullamakanka for an appraisal of the situation.

Folks,
There's an admission of serial criminal behavior by good ol' Bloggsie and his criminal (sorry, professional) mates.
CASA, where are you, or is your attention limited to putting the Unicom operator at Lord Howe out of business.
From personal experience, I think the service at both Lord Howe and Norfolk is excellent, and much appreciated.
Tootle pip!!

[Capn Bloggs]

OMG! Did I just shoot myself in the foot?! :ouch: :8

I think the service at both Lord Howe and Norfolk is excellent, and much appreciated.
And I'll say the same for the AWIS' and Beepbacks at [insert the many unmanned Unicom airports I frequent here]. Thanks! :D

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. Surely we all want airports to be as safe as possible. I can understand why you fear so called un qualified personal giving traffic and other safety services.

It's because you have not experienced just how well the U.S. and Canadian non prescriptive Unicom system works.

Yes an AFIS would be great but the costs are far higher and we already have an industry that is very much effected by high costs.

My belief is we copy the success of others- certainly worked for me- so why not try and have a slightly open mind on these possible safety improvements.

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. Re beep backs. I came up with the concept and built the origional unit.

I then financed the next batches as there was great resistance to the concept

I installed a unit at Bundaberg after the horrific incident where two commercial pilots were in cloud attempting the same instrument approach at the same time .
One had dialed up the wrong CTAF frequency.

At first professional pilots objected to Leroy Kieth because , they claimed ,the "beep " was blocking out calls. I pointed out it was only one third of a second long.

The rest I'd history. Other countries don't have beep backs because they all have a minimum of a Unicom at airports serviced by airline traffic.

[Capn Bloggs]

I installed a unit at Bundaberg after the horrific incident where two commercial pilots were in cloud attempting the same instrument approach at the same time .
One had dialed up the wrong CTAF frequency.
We used to have remote AFIZ services at most of our ports at that time until you closed them down as well...

What happened was that you ripped out a perfectly good and safe system and replaced it with nothing, until the inevitable happened. Fair enough, our FSS system might have cost too much at the time but it has now been replaced by Beepbacks and AWIS. You're quite welcome to try to set up Unicoms (we've been through all of this before with Airspace 2000 so I question your motives this time, with no incidents that I know of since); the training and cost will make them unviable. Ask the airport manager at Ballina; "a firey Unicom would be great but I don't want to pay!".

[Dick Smith]

Have you ever thought for a second that there is a good chance you may not have had a job if those reforms did not take place?

The a Review of Resources resulted in CAA staffing being reduced by many thousands. Over a billion dollars has not been paid out by aviation businesses since then. Where was to come from? I know. You are just a pilot and that's someone else's problem!

I note the never ending advertisements in the aviation pages of The Aus for more and more CASA staff and Airservices now takes from our aviation companies nearly $1 billion dollars a year.

Unicoms are a low cost way of providing an importanut safety service. Bringing back 700 Flight Service Officers may result in you or your mates losing employment.

[Capn Bloggs]

Unicoms are a low cost way of providing an importanut safety service. Bringing back 700 Flight Service Officers may result in you🐴or your mates losing employment.

Fair enough, our FSS system might have cost too much at the time but it has now been replaced by Beepbacks and AWIS.

Read my lips, Dick.

Perhaps if CASA had more staff it'd get through the reform process quicker... :cool:

[LeadSled]

Perhaps if CASA had more staff it'd get through the reform process quicker... :cool:

Bloggs,
Believe me, the "lack of staff" in the glasshouse has nothing to do with the state of the "reform" process.
We have a "ratio of regulators" to aircraft that is world leading, if just numbers count.
Indeed, in terms of reform as understood in various government reform policies over the years, or even the dictionary definition of reform, what CASA is doing, and has been doing since about 2003 could not, even with the wildest stretch of imagination, be called "reform".
Tootle pip!!

[sunnySA]

off topic I know but Airservices now takes from our aviation companies nearly $1 billion dollars a year.
What other funding model are you proposing?

[The name is Porter]

Dick did a review of resources at CAA, if I remember correctly 3000 odd people were made redundant. CAA continued to function. Another review of resources is due. There are more titles at ASA than a Tony Abbott wet dream.

[Dick Smith]

SunnySA

You ask,
What other funding model are you proposing? Well, we could follow Coalition Government policy and introduce competition into rescue and firefighting services and also into the Class D towers. After all, Airservices was operating Class D towers in the USA on a competitive basis and saving US pilots quite a lot of money. We are the only country I know of in the world that has the rescue and firefighting services run from the capital city by a giant monopoly. In other countries the services are run by the airport on a competitive basis and the firefighters are multi-skilled, i.e. they do security work, operate the radio and perform lots of other productive tasks. A paper which was done by Russell Smith a number of years ago showed that the cost-per-tonne landed for rescue and firefighting services in Australia was just about double the cost in New Zealand. Years ago a number of air traffic controllers contacted me and said they could operate the Coffs Harbour tower for half the cost that Airservices was changing.

You can look at it this way – either save a lot of money for the industry or double the amount of safety by putting in twice the number of Class D towers and twice the number of firefighting services at the present cost.

What is wrong with a bit of competition? We all insist on it when we go and buy things at the shopping centre.

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs. You state that the " training and Cost" would make Unicoms unviable .

In the USA and Canada Unicom services are provided by existing personel at an airport at no measurable cost.

You should open your mind up and allow us to accept the best from overseas. I note you are not flying a Nomad- but a proven design from another country.

Now there is a hugely expensive fire station at Newman what could be more sensible than to have the Firies provide a Unicom service. Training would take all of a few hours.

[aroa]

On reading the LHI article its clearly evident (and from other examples) that BS bureaucratic process has precedence over practicality, commonsense and safety. The s should be removed from CAsA to reflect the reality.

Man, do we in this country need a revolution or what?
Industries buggered by monopoly agencies...with absolutely NO interest in their "clients"/customers, but ripping in the bucks and building empires.
And its not just in aviation, either. Which is our worry.

Talk to people hounded by "Workplace Health and Safety" (sic) and forced to introduce "systems" that interfere with, and add cost to the job in hand.

Cutting red tape and costs ?? BS.! All Governments are incapable of it.:mad: Federal, State and Local.

Ah, the Smart Country...I think not.!!:mad:

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I was under the impression that anyone could provide a Unicom now, if they wished. The question is - why don't they? Are you saying you want them mandated Dick?

[YPJT]

The question is - why don't they?

Maybe they don't want the added burden of having to have someone available to answer the radio if an aircraft calls. I had a UNICOM published a few years back but our circumstances warranted it and it wasn't all that difficult to operate. We had the staff and facilities. I can see how smaller airports who are one man shows would find it more difficult.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re " Bringing back 700 Flight Service Officers may result in you or your mates losing employment. "

Now Now Dick, there you go again.....

Did you know that, at the end of the year 2000, we had just 54total staff in Perth FSC, doing all of the remote AFIZ stuff, as well as the 'usual stuff' in between and 'on request'.... including our INTERNATIONAL HF service (2 consoles), With one of them functioning by 'remote' to Cocos via satellite link....

Times that by each of the other 'Regions' (4 I think....?) = maybe 200 or so...!

"I've told you a million times not to exaggerate so much"......comes to mind....

Anyhow....I've gorne fishin'.....
Cheers:ok:

p.s. Thanx for the 'R'......

But the Peanut Butter is OK, I still use it cause its 'Oz'.....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Strange how MOS139 specifies this (among other things) for a CA/GRO:
14.2.3.4 A permanent CA/GRS must be provided with the following facilities and documentation:
(a) a suitable work area that provides the operator with a full view of the manoeuvring area and circuit area;
yet many an FSU providing a local AFIS or centre providing an AFIS to a remote AFIZ did not have to, and most local ones didn't.
(I believe there was a perception amongst the ATC-dominated heirarchy of the old Departments that an FSO who could see the runway, circuit etc might start to "control" the movements).

[Mooneyman20c]

I was involved in the Unicom trials. The idea was to provide an information service that slotted in between nothing and a tower, and was trialled to be a safety enhancement service that was cost effective. Relayed traffic info only, basic weather observations only, with all operational issues at the absolute discression of the pilot, and the service being a secondary user of the ctaf frequency. Bit like an overseer./monitor. With no authority. The program was primarily to enhance safety in ctaf's that had RPT mixing with GA. My opinion is it worked for what it was and what it was meant to achieve, and considering .... a $3m tower op vs a $400k Unicom, class D vs G, cost recovery for a tower vs no cost recovery for Unicom. And we all have to remember that Airservices has an obligation to aviation safety and be pro active to achieve that.
Works in the U.S.
I think the intelligent question is not whether or not it works, which it did, but whether or not it's needed, and if so where.

[Dick Smith]

Crazy. Why did AsA do this knowing it would cost $400 k a year without looking at how the U.S. and Canadian system works at no cost.

I have found this in Australia. Never ever copy the success of others- design our own Nomad equivalent

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So what do you want Dick? A Unicom, which anyone can provide now, but mostly isn't, or a traffic service, which can be provided, but apart from one or two instances, isn't? If no one will provide a Unicom now, what makes you think they will provide one that includes traffic? While some pilots may think the service a great idea, obviously the ground operators (who are the ones who have to provide it) don't.

(And Canada still has Flight Service)

[QSK?]

Mooneyman20c:

Yes, the Unicom trial model was a good system but the trouble was the Airservices' inspired Unicom trial with a DTI service exemptions from CASA was no different to what was already being provided by CA/GRS at Ayers Rock and Broome aerodromes.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Not sure I understand your comment re 'DTI service exemptions' there Mr Q...

I worked as a CAGRO for BIA at Broome for a while, and the service was operated just like an AFIZ of old....

DTI and weather etc was the core, and we had an ATIS which we kept current with each pertinent change, so that we wouldn't have to repeat the obvious, and it could be obtained from a fair way out - prior to descent for the jets if need be.
Very handy in 'The Wet'.....

Cheers :ok:

"I can hr U........"l

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Mr 'Traffic .....'

Waaay back in those times, we (in Perth) heard that Canada had some towers in isolated areas which were costing too much, and not justified on a traffic numbers basis, so on a visit to OZ, they saw the 'remote AFIZ' idea in action, and introduced the same service operated from Centres, to replace the costly towers....

The communications 'safety net' was provided for less cost.

I'm glad to see that Canada still has Flight Service!!!
They went 'forwards, whilst 'we' went .......(?)

Cheers :sad:

[QSK?]

G'day Griffo:

My comment was referring to the (modified) Unicom trials conducted by Airservices back in '07 which were trialled at DU, WG, BU despite the fact that CA/GRS was already in place at AYQ and BRM.

That Unicom service trial was given an exemption by CASA for the operators (ex-ATS) to provide DTI just like CA/GROs, so there was no real service difference between CA/GRS and the Airservices' version of Unicom. I don't really understand what Airservices' or CASA's motives were at the time.

However, although the Airservices Unicom operators were given an approval to provide DTI, they weren't given CAR120 approvals by CASA.

[Dick Smith]

I would like to see Unicoms as they operate in Canada and the USA.

That is completely non prescriptive .

Can give any rellevent traffic and weather .

No. Not mandatory. The FAA told me no need to mandate- no Arline would operate by " calling in the blind" They are not irresponsible !

So different in Aus. Everyone wants everything to be prescriptive and mandatory. So sad.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I would like to see Unicoms as they operate in Canada and the USA.

That is completely non prescriptive .

Can give any rellevent traffic and weather .

No. Not mandatory. The FAA told me no need to mandate- no Arline would operate by " calling in the blind" They are not irresponsible !

So different in Aus. Everyone wants everything to be prescriptive and mandatory. So sad.

yr right has hijacked Dick's login.....

[majorca]

HELLO! Flight Service Vs Air Traffic Control. You presided over this Dick and you decided to get rid of Flight Service. What Cost Safety!!?? Remember those words? Now you want to introduce a bastardised, cheap, unprofessional, untrained version of what used to be a professional and honourable profession.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

THANX 'Q'.....

Hi Mr M,

You are correct!!

"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"
was the B/S Mantra of the time.....

Neither has occurred........

No Cheers :}:D

[dubbleyew eight]

Dick you are battling with people who once had highly paid cushy jobs on the government payroll.
they are as bitter as hell that their "professional positions" have vanished.

flight service units actually achieved 5/8ths of stuff all.
in all of my flying I've never seen the need to lodge a flight plan ever.

remember that the australian government once employed 15 people per aircraft on the register. what an amazing cost it must have been!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Oh dear Mr dubbya,

'Highly paid'..?? I wish.
And For some flights, nil flight plan required - for others they are!
Like for professionals....

No, I'm not bitter for myself, just the B/S of the day and the so called 'progress' and 'modernisation' of the air traffic system per se.....
When for GA, there is very little.

Nobody's safety was 'enhanced' and it did not / has not, cost less.

As a commercial pilot I have....
- Made a 'Mayday' to FS, and got the service I required at the time...
- Made a 'Mayday' to FS for another aircraft which I observed to crash, and got the service HE required at the time,
- Initiated more than a few 'SAR Phases', including 'Distress Phases' as an FSO and got the services going in a timely manner for the pilots & passengers who required them at the time,

I don't know where you 'operate', and I don't really care, but if you fly often enough in 'remote' areas of OZ, you will most likely have to call someone sometime for a bit of assistance....I hope you carry HF radio...its manned by
'Flightwatch' - used to be called FS.

And if / when you have to call ATC for assistance, I really do hope its 'when workload permits'.....
For Pans and Maydays of course, they will bend over backwards for you, as their 'highly paid' jobs description says they will.

Rotsa Ruck sunshine.....

No cheers:yuk:

[Pinky the pilot]

flight service units actually achieved 5/8ths of stuff all.

One of the most ignorant and idiotic things I have ever read on these boards!:=

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Post no 53......:D

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So it seems that since that the majority of ground operators don't see any value in providing a basic Unicom now, and the chances of them voluntarily providing an enhanced Unicom would be even less, it appears the the only way to get the service level you desire Dick is to mandate it. But wait..No. Not mandatory.so I would say that the service you get now, is the service you're going to get.