CASA Dispensation Decision Reversed by Airservices

[Dick Smith]

Reproduced below is an article that was published in The Australian newspaper this morning (Wednesday 8 July).

FLYERS BURNT BY AIR SAFETY U-TURN

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority promised charter aircraft operators an exemption from having to install a cripplingly expensive new air navigation system, but backed down after Airservices Australia reversed its position and insisted on no such breaks.

Documents obtained by The Australian show that two years ago, the then head of CASA, John McCormick, told one charter operator, Brad Edwards, that CASA as the safety regulator had reached an understanding with Airservices, the government body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, for exemptions to a mandate requiring the installation of the Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast system.

ADS-B is an advanced air navigation system based on satellite GPS, which relays aircraft positions via ground stations to air traffic controllers.

Airservices has sought to have all required aircraft carry the new system by 2017, three years before its full introduction in the US.

Aviation figures say that for smaller general aviation operators, the cost of installing ADS-B is at present prohibitive, because it requires aircraft owners to do complex engineering work.

Mr Edwards, who runs charter service Edwards Aviation with seven aircraft based in Armidale, NSW, sought along with other smaller operators to be exempted from installing ADS-B for a few years, until the economies of scale and mass production of the equipment in the US brought it down to a fraction of the cost.

“I could see it was going to cost me a big whack of money,” Mr Edwards said. “For one of my aircraft there were still no engineering solutions out there, so we said, ‘What are we going to do, we want an exemption’.”

Engineers had told him it would cost $125,000 to equip that aircraft with ADS-B, because the equipment manufacturer, Honeywell, had not designed the adaptation engineering for the aircraft type, and would not be doing so until the market developed in the US. “In five years, it would cost a tenth as much,” Mr Edwards said.

Mr McCormick met Mr Edwards in Armidale, and said CASA would arrange for an exemption for him and others in his sector of the aviation industry.

Soon after, Mr McCormick wrote to Mr Edwards. “I have spoken to (an aviation industry officer representing smaller air operators) and Airservices and the approach they have spoken of between themselves is to treat biz jets that are not ADS-B compliant in the same manner as Airservices dealt with non RVSM compliant aircraft when that initiative was introduced,” Mr McCormick wrote. RVSM refers to an advanced altimeter system, in relation to which exemptions were granted, and are still granted, to small operators, who are only required to accept occasionally being placed in second priority for flight clearances by air traffic controllers.

Mr Edwards said once he received the letter from Mr McCormick, “I went, you beauty, we can relax.”

But on a flight from Launceston to Uluru with Russian tourists, air traffic controllers kept his aircraft below 29,000 feet instead of the preferred cruising altitude of 37,000 feet, meaning it was burning twice the fuel. The controllers said he could not fly at the higher altitude because he had not installed ADS-B, and ignored his protestations that he had been granted an exemption by CASA.

Knowing the aircraft would not make it to Uluru, Mr Edwards touched down at Whyalla in South Australia to refuel.

“We were not going to make it,” Mr Edwards said.

He then spoke to CASA, but could not immediately get a ¬response to what had happened to his promised exemption.

He spoke to businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who contacted Mr McCormick. Mr McCormick told Mr Smith that Airservices had changed its mind and decided it did not want the exemptions granted. In a subsequent letter to Mr Smith, Mr McCormick wrote: “CASA took into consideration and accepted Airservices Australia’s safety arguments against exemptions.”

Mr Smith yesterday said: “CASA is the safety regulator, why are they letting a profit-making business decide safety issues?”

A CASA spokesman said: “CASA assesses all relevant information in making a decision about exemptions. In this case a relevant safety argument was made by Airservices that was accepted by CASA.”

Mr Edwards said, in all, he had been forced to spend $250,000 to equip his aircraft with ADS-B, with none of the benefits CASA and Airservices promised, such as more direct routes for aircraft.

“It’s had a very big impact of the viability of this business,” Mr Edwards said.

A spokesman for Airservices said CASA had put in the ADS-B mandate “following comprehensive consultation and support from key sections of the aviation community”.

“We have also spoken individually to a number of operators, including Mr Edwards,” the spokesman said.

I find it interesting that CASA would allow the exemption – in the same way that an RVSM exemption was allowed – but then it would be Airservices, the commercial profit making body, who would force a change of this position.

Procedural airspace across Australia is incredibly safe, especially because mandatory transponders and TCAS exist as well as the ICAO-approved huge separation standards required.

I have not previously been able to work out why Airservices were against allowing dispensations in this airspace – of course, other than for their friends in the military, but now I think I may know.

I received a phone call from a person who did not wish to be identified who told me that they believed the performance bonuses paid to Airservices management were linked to getting the ADS-B in at a certain date and not giving dispensations. This would be outrageous if it was true - surely it can’t be so. Can anyone throw some light on this? It seems strange that the safety regulator was happy to allow a dispensation but the commercial service provider wasn’t.

I wonder if Airservices management who stopped this dispensation coming in really understands the damage they are doing to aviation businesses with these quite staggering extra costs?

As I have said before, I see an industry being destroyed.

[sunnySA]

Dick,

ADSB is the future. Australian aviation is moving away from fixed route structures to more flexible use of airspace, user preferred route structures. This can only be delivered where the surveillance is either radar or ADSB. Fixed route structures are being phased out.

The transfer from £sd to decimal currency and the transfer from imperial to metric weren't easy, neither will the transfer to ADSB, but it is arguably for the better.

(AIC H24/14)
In order to take full advantage of this modern technology, Airservices Australia is installing additional ADS-B ground stations to enhance coverage and service provision for the lower level operations across continental Australia in addition to that currently available at or above FL290. As more ADS-B ground stations are added, some radars will be decommissioned as they reach their end of life date. Surveillance will be increasingly provided to ATC by ADS-B only. ADS-B fitment also facilitates the cockpit display of nearby traffic based on ADS-B transmissions thus increasing efficiency and safety.

Furthermore, air traffic control separation services are increasingly based on required navigation performance (RNP) standards as specified in CAO 20.91. Increased operational efficiency can be derived through early GNSS fitment allowing RNP derived separation to be applied. In addition, the progressive decommissioning of ground based navigation aids (reducing to the core backup network) will result in an increasing reliance on GNSS-based approaches.

Reducing the procedural separation standards from ICAO approved 10 minutes (lets say 60-100 miles) to ICAO approved 5 NM ADSB separation standard is a quantum leap in terms of airspace capacity, aircraft being able to operate at their preferred levels sooner and for longer, weather diversions, situational awareness.

Having to apply procedural separation standards between ADS-B and non-ADS-B aircraft outside of radar coverage is the crux of the matter. It means a high degree of complexity that voids many of the benefits that ADSB brings, and I believe that this is the reason for the mandate; a mandate gets to the end state sooner and with a shorter period of operating a hybrid system.

[Dick Smith]

So how come AsA readily agreed to give all military aircraft an exemption from the requirement and how come airline aircraft have a permanent exemption to fly up to three days with non operating ADSB equipment in the airspace above FL 290?

Sounds like a con to me.

And of course the FAA could have brought in the mandate 5 years earlier but decided not to do so industry had adequate time to design suitable inexpensive equipment. Which is happening.

Also notice how AsA have hardly put any ADSB stations in compared to the FAA. It's all about tokenism and about maximizing profits and bonuses to executives .

[Plazbot]

Speaking of airspace capacity, what formula does Airservices use to calculate sector capacities?

[le Pingouin]

Dick, the military aren't subject to civilian requirements anywhere in the world and play by their own rules. Nor are other state aircraft required to carry ADS-B, no matter which country they come from. It's nothing about "mates rates".

Who would pay for the extra ADS-B stations? The airlines would say bugger off, so it would be down to your friends in GA. Affordable safety Dick, affordable safety.

[megle2]

and the safety case put forward by ASA was .........

[Dick Smith]

Bet there wasn't one. But if there is I would love to see a copy. Please post it here!

[illusion]

Dick,
The RAAF B707's were never RVSM compliant but flew worldwide at all flight levels. Different rules....

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Same with some bis jets. But they were given a dispensation to continue flying in RVSM airspace.

So why won't AsA allow a similar dispensation for non ADSB compliant aircraft.?

That's what CASA wanted.

[parishiltons]

State aircraft are exempt by Commonwealth law

[le Pingouin]

So what is the difference between them and the corporate Jet traffic? Why can't everyone have an exemption the same way?

One is military, one is not. The military play by their own rules, as I said, that's the difference. The rest of us get to play by the civil ones.

[le Pingouin]

Yes. Same with some bis jets. But they were given a dispensation to continue flying in RVSM airspace.

So why won't AsA allow a similar dispensation for non ADSB compliant aircraft.?

That's what CASA wanted.

The amount of extra work involved in accommodating a non-RVSM aircraft is relatively small. The amount involved in accommodating non-ADS-B is considerably more.

[thorn bird]

I don't think anyone could argue that ADSB is a wonderful thing.

What I have trouble getting my head around is why in gods name did we decide to implement it long before the country where all the fixes will come from?

How on earth does the USA with their traffic density manage without ADSB?
Given Australia's traffic density why the hell did we need it ahead of the rest of the world other than to ensure fat bonuses for ASA executives.

The GA industry is left to devise its own fixes at considerable cost, which will have to be removed if our aircraft have to be sold overseas because our maintenance standards are not accepted by the rest of the world.

The economies of scale make it quite affordable for airlines, and no doubt they get a lot of free technical advice from aircraft manufacturers, a few bucks on the ticket price and away they go. Maybe the irishman could implement an ADSB levee.

For a GA aircraft flying 500 hours a year the proportional cost is enormous. Considering GA will receive no benefit from ADSB I can understand why some are a little upset.

[CaptainMidnight]

How on earth does the USA with their traffic density manage without ADSB?Because they have extensive radar coverage. Australia doesn't.

[Dick Smith]

We clearly did not have such extensive radar coverage as traffic densities are so low it was not justified.

Could it be that we went ahead before other countries so performance bonuses would be paid to AsA management.?

I think that's what happened anyway!

[le Pingouin]

We have vast tracts of gaffa criss-crossed by fixed routes that are inefficient for airlines to fly. Works for ATC without surveillance and low traffic levels.

Increase the traffic levels and introduce non-fixed routes (flex tracks and UPRs) and it comes to a point where it no longer works for ATC without surveillance. At least not without increasing controller numbers considerably. Solution, introduce surveillance.

Dick, when was the last time you saw how ATC is done?

[Dick Smith]

So it's a cost issue. Not a safety issue .

By bringing in ADSB requirements 5 years ahead of the country which manufactures most equipment results in far higher installation costs.

And this is a classic case of a monopoly supplier moving costs (ie extra staff) to the user ( ie aircraft owners)

Great if you can get away with it.

[Awol57]

Which managers are getting performance bonuses for introducing ADS-B? I've seen this mentioned a few times but curious who is actually getting them?

[sunnySA]

Dick Smith
So it's a cost issue. Not a safety issue.

I thought the two things were linked - affordable safety.

Its both a cost and a safety issue, its an ATC workload issue, its about delivering the future, moving from a fixed route structure to a more flexible route structure. User preferred routes that avoid volcanic eruptions, weather (turbulence, cyclones, thunderstorms) and save $$. My guess is that the Industry (big end of town) and Airservices, through ASTRA have looked at the cost of installing additional radar capability on the inside of the J curve and decided that ADSB provided the safest and lowest cost option to provide this additional (safety, efficiency and capacity) surveillance.

One enroute radar = how many ADSB sites?

[swh]

I dont understand why Airservices has a say at all in a CASA exemption. CASA is the regulator for the airports, airspace, pilots, controllers, operators, and ASA.

You can get exemptions in other areas as well, like a SAT phone instead of HF, a ADSB MEL which allows flight in the airspace for days.

My guess is that the Industry (big end of town) and Airservices, through ASTRA have looked at the cost of installing additional radar capability on the inside of the J curve and decided that ADSB provided the safest and lowest cost option to provide this additional (safety, efficiency and capacity) surveillance.

The difference between radar and ADSB is more like fixed line broadband and WIFI. ADSB is still in the early adoption phase, and we have not even tried to expand on its capabilities. It is the way of the future.

Eventually it will do more than just ATC. Once the network is in place, it can expanded to deliver a two way datalink service to every aircraft. The datalink for example could allow the transmission of the latest metars for the closest airports, and differential precision updates so aircraft can fly GLS approaches anywhere (there is already a low rate ILS like system based upon transponders called TLS).

Go back twenty years we used to take a photo on film, get it developed, and then talk about with our friends. Today we take a photo with our phone, and whatapp it away.

I think we will still need a primary radar around busy airspace to deal with aircraft failures which would prevent the transmission of ADSB, but the enroute SSR technology wise must be looking like a Motorola analogue brick phone compared to ADSB.

I think the eventual capabilities of the ADSB network have not even been thought of yet.

[alphacentauri]

Dick, (and others)

I think you guys misunderstand how an exemption works. Just because you have one, does not guarantee that you are going to be allowed to exercise it.

Let's use your example Dick. You got told by your mate at CASA that you could have an exemption. Do you actually have one? Did you do any safety work as to why you should be issued with one? I ask because CASA pretty much don't accept an exemption requests without some kind of safety work attached.....I am suspicious...

Lets say you actually have one and you rock up to FL290, PTT and request higher climb. EVERYBODY ELSE IN THAT SECTOR is ADSB equipped, They are all 5nm apart. Here comes you without ADSB and require 10min separation. The controller has a look and decides that without making it inefficient for EVERYBODY ELSE he can't accommodate you.What then?? Why do you think you have a god given right for access to airspace when you are non compliant? Why do you call conspiracy?

This is the role AsA play in the exemption. The exemption means that have to at least think about accommodating you before they refuse you.

According to you, he should move EVERYBODY ELSE out of the way to accommodate you. I wonder what QANTAS, Virgin and Rex would think about that...considering they are paying far more to be there than you.

If I was an Airline I would be telling you what you could do with the exemption.....

Exemption to airspace compliance does not guarantee access. An exemption is a tool to deal with a less than ideal situation....a toleration if you will. It does not mean equivalence.

My 2 cents worth

Alpha

[Piston_Broke]

Which managers are getting performance bonuses for introducing ADS-B?Good question. The claim has been bandied around here but no-one has been able to give specifics.

Thinking logically, perhaps the Air Services manager(s) likely to have got a performance bonus for delivering an ADS-B facility on time & in budget would be those directly involved in just that - technical facility installation and commissioning? Also logically, someone may have got a bonus for (e.g.) developing and delivering atc training in the use of ADS-B. Would these situations be unreasonable?

ADS-B was introduced some years ago of course, now it is only the introduction of the odd new site.

I dont understand why Airservices has a say at all in a CASA exemption. CASA is the regulator for the airports, airspace, pilots, controllers, operators, and ASA.CASA staff have always had a tendency to attempt to deflect blame to others including Air Services and not make themselves look the bad guys i.e. someone else is the reason something wasn't approved or got knocked back, not CASA.

[Lead Balloon]

alpha

So why doesn't the same argument apply to the airlines? Why do they get a permanent exemption to fly aircraft with U/S ADS for up to 3 days?

Or to the military?

I betcha they get "accommodated".

[alphacentauri]

Lead Balloon,

You are asking me to compare a guy, who knows the rules, and know he doesn't comply, and expects he has a right to access the airspace and then bitch about it when he doesn't

to

An airliner that is equipped and fully compliant, who now has to deal with a non normal mode of operation? I would think all airlines know that if they go non ADSB then they are rolling their dice and taking their chances.

I betcha they don't always get 'accomodated'. Same with Mil

So why doesn't the same argument apply to the airlines?

I think you'll find it does...

[Lead Balloon]

Then the exemption for the airlines should be punted.

[alphacentauri]

I don't follow the logic?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Short memory!

ICAO requirement to have airspace outcomes by a specific date.

I no longer have the time to dig up this stuff. It is all there on the net.

Dick, what you ask is not equivalent to RVSM. You are asking to revert 100nm square blocks of airspace around unequipped aircraft back to ...
.....wait for it.....dirt road...talk on the radio...airspace.

Regretfully, owners of aircraft with airline standard avionics are stuck with paying airline standard upgrade costs.

[Howabout]

With all due respect to those arguing from both sides, I can appreciate the opposite points of view. But I do, horror of horrors, agree with the most fundamental of points being made here by Dick.

And I post these comments as a retired observer.

Yes, positive surveillance is essential if the controller no longer has recourse to fixed routes to figure out lat-sep, etc, when aircraft are now flying flex-tracks/UPRs (I'll admit that I don't actually understand the difference).

It would clearly be a buggers muddle injecting non-ADS-B aircraft into a scenario where the old references no longer exist in respect of procedural certainty on fixed routes. And that argument is fine and beaut.

But I just do not understand why we had to jump the gun and impose exorbitant fitment penalties before US 'economies of scale' kicked in post-2020. I think that is Dick's basic point.

As regards the military 'exemption,' I had a little bit to do with that. The military never wanted to 'do their own thing.' It was timing with old airframes due for replacement and the original (2014) mandate would have cost the taxpayer a mozza - taxpayer dollars - to retrofit aircraft due to be retired by 2017. The military was always happy to get on board, but within a time-frame that was not financially crippling with new, appropriately equipped, aircraft due to come on line.

And there is a parallel there in respect of GA. The military would not accept the 2014 mandate due cost. Why the hell should GA be subjected to the the same sort of mandate to make us 'world leaders' before the technology is affordable after the US mandate.

Just cannot understand that one.

[CaptainMidnight]

I assume by "original (2014) mandate" you mean the upper airspace mandate of December 2013.

Perhaps CASA thought that by giving the industry advance notice of the mandates in 2009 and engaging in consultation then and along the way, that would be sufficient for the industry groups and their members to react and identify any issues.

Upper Airspace mandate 2013 | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ads-b/upper-airspace-mandate-2013/)

[Dick Smith]

Yes. It did give time for the high cost issues to be identified but then AsA would not budge.

The Boffins wanted to lead the world and bring in mandatory ADSB airspace before anyone else. I personally spoke to Greg Dunstan many times about this to no avail. Even John McCormack could get no change from AsA who claimed it would not be safe to even give one dispensation to a business aircraft .

The damage to our industry is substantial and ongoing. I am sure Greg had no intention of doing any damage- he no doubt thought that the huge extra costs of fitment with no measurable cost reductions would be found somewhere. But small private businesses are quite different to funding in a large government owned monopoly.

I am sure Greg and his group wanted to be known for leading the world with this technology - unfortunately I fear they will be well known for something quite different- substantial un intentional economic damage to a once viable Australian GA industry.

How about - re the military. They were listened to because they are powerful. GA was ignored because it was not. That's how bullies always work!

[Piston_Broke]

My recollection is vague on this point, but someone will know.

At a RAPAC some years back when the introduction of ADSB was announced I recall mention that there was to be a government subsidy for the fitment of "squitters" to GA aircraft.

What happened to that?

[Dick Smith]

ALPHACENTAURI - in your post (#22) you state,

According to you, he should move EVERYBODY ELSE out of the way to accommodate you. I wonder what QANTAS, Virgin and Rex would think about that...considering they are paying far more to be there than you.

Alphacentauri, I have never expected that. In fact, quite the opposite.

I have said that if a dispensation is given it should mean that the aircraft with the dispensation is the one that incurs the delay.

For example, if I planned a trip from Bankstown to Longreach I would naturally be able to fly up to flight level, say, 430 in the radar covered airspace and then my only problem would be a descent into Longreach. If that meant my descent had to be undertaken earlier so the ADS-B equipped aircraft were not affected in any way, I would accept that.

In fact, on the two flights I had planned to go to Longreach I noticed at the time that there were no aircraft that would have affected a climb or descent in the airspace.

When Airservices forces non-ADS-B equipped aircraft to fly at 290 or below they still have to be procedurally separated from other traffic so that means the controller must still be procedurally rated and the climb and descent below 290 must be done to procedural separation standards anyway.

I have spoken to controllers who have said that “any controller worth his salt” would be able to handle an occasional non-ADS-B equipped aircraft above flight level 290 in the non-radar airspace. After all, there could be military aircraft there and also an airline aircraft that has had a failed unit for three days.

[Dick Smith]

Check the weekend Australian this morning for many articles ( including one on the front page) about the airspace issue .

Also a good interview with the new CASA Chairman.

And an article by Jeff Griffiths , ex FAA deputy chief.of ATC

[Frank Arouet]

After two decades of false starts, Australia will embrace the safer US model of managing the nation­’s skies that will see greater control of airspace in regional areas and allow ground staff to provide pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and aircraft traffic information.

The Weekend Australian can reveal the Civil Aviation Safety Authority will also adopt a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with CASA managers instructed to employ greater commercial sense and flexibility to bring the industry with them on a path of reform.

The moves follow a sustained campaign by The Weekend Australian and several aviation figures, including businessman Dick Smith, to address longstanding air safety concerns following fatal air crashes in Victoria and Queensland a decade ago.

The sweeping new initiatives were revealed to The Weekend Australian by newly appointed CASA chairman Jeff Boyd in his first media interview since taking up his appointment last week. “We have become inward looking, but we’re just a dot in the world community,” Mr Boyd said. “We need to look outside of Australia.”

The new moves offer a promise to fix an air traffic control system judged by many in the aviation industry to be not as safe as it could be outside the major cities — and by some, including Mr Smith, to be dangerous.

In 2004 six people died when the plane they were flying in from Sydney’s Bankstown Airport to Benalla in Victoria crashed into a mountain, with air traffic controllers being alerted by an alarm that radar had detected the aircraft was off course but not intervening in part because it was flying in airspace not designated as under their control.

In 2005 another accident, which killed 15 people in an aircraft which crashed into a mountain while approaching a small airport at Lockhart River in Cape York, might have been prevented if, as occurs at similar airports in the US, ground staff who were not air traffic controllers had had radio contact with approaching aircraft and warned of bad weather in that direction.

As reported in The Weekend Australian in recent weeks, there are also concerns about uncontrolled airspace at Ballina, in northern NSW, where rapid growth in commercial passenger traffic has led to congestion, and where at least one near miss has occurred.
Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approache­s in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.

Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground.

The federal government had planned to move to the North American model in the early 2000s but the policy wasn’t followed through. Instead, a patchwork of protocols applies, with some areas and some airports designated as being under controlled airspace, but others not.

At many airports, some with substantial traffic, pilots are left to their own devices once under 8500 feet to sort out separation among themselves through radio contact, even though they may still be under radar coverage to much lower levels. Mr Smith had branded this situation as ridic­ulous and unsafe.

In addition to airspace reform, Mr Boyd will encourage CASA management, on a case-by-case basis, to allow exemptions and extensi­ons for aircraft owners to fit a costly new air navigation system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-­Broadcast, or ADS-B, if they can make a compelling practical and commercial case and safety is not compromised.

CASA will adopt a more flexible approach to a compulsory and expensive program of inspections of older Cessna light aircraft known as Supplementary Inspection Documents, or SIDS. It will consider making extensions because­ the size of the program has caused a bottleneck in the aircraft maintenance sector.

Mr Boyd told The Weekend Australian CASA had fallen into the trap of becoming “close to a ‘big R’ regulator”.

The organisation’s first priority remained enforcing a safe flying environment, but he would take a second look at any new regulations to determine if they amounted to “change for change’s sake”.

“You have to make sure it’s safe out there, that people are not doing the wrong thing,” Mr Boyd said.

“But you have to ask how the industry can comply with that rule or regulation, and whether, if it is going to cost them a lot of money, is it worth doing in terms of safety.”

Mr Boyd, a practising licensed aircraft mechanical engineer, former creator and owner of Brindabella Airlines, and a light aircraft pilot, is highly regarded.

The federal government appointed him CASA chairman after the Aviation Safety Regulatory Review report, chaired by veteran David Forsyth, called last year for wide reforms after criticising CASA for taking too hard a line and maintaining an adversarial approach to the industry, which had lost trust in the authority.

Late last year John McCormick, CASA’s director of air safety — essentially the authority’s chief executive — was succeeded by former senior RAAF officer Mark Skidmore, who is understood to share Mr Boyd’s view of the need for a new approach.

Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as cate­g­ory E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said.

Mr Boyd would not discuss spec­ifics, but The Weekend Australian can reveal CASA will recommend such a move for Ballina.

It is expected to recommend that the controlled airspace around Ballina be lowered from 8500 feet to 5000 feet, and that the airport install a radio operator to help pilots with local weather and air traffic inform­ation, something the airport’s management is keen to do.

Mr Boyd said he would sponsor a board directive to management to see if it could free up what the industry describes as absurdly tight rules, restricting what ground staff who are not serving or former air traffic controllers can provide pilots over the Unicom radio in the way of weather and traffic information. “If it’s used as supplementary flight safety information, we have no argument against it,” he said.

Some of the moves, such as liberating ground staff to man the Unicom, have been strongly resisted by the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, and the union is also disinclined to expand controlled airspace unless more controllers are employed.

The chairman of Airservices Australia, Angus Houston, has rejected calls from Mr Smith and others for the firefighters his organ­isation employs at airports without control towers to perform the radio operator function as they do at many regional US airports.

As revealed by The Australian this week, Airservices, the government-owned body which runs the country’s air traffic control and navigation system, insisted two years ago that CASA not grant exemptions or extensions for ADS­B, pulling out of an understanding with CASA, which as safety authority makes and enforces air regulations.

But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.

“We will look at it on a case-by-case basis to give some relief to these people,” he said.

[alphacentauri]

Alphacentauri, I have never expected that. In fact, quite the opposite.

Dick, every post you have ever written on this topic has indicated that is exactly what you have been expecting. You are non compliant with ADSB airspace, and still expect to have the same level of service.

In fact, on the two flights I had planned to go to Longreach I noticed at the time that there were no aircraft that would have affected a climb or descent in the airspace.

Unless you were sitting at the console....how did you 'notice' this?

Have you considered that the guy/gal at the console may not know that you have an exemption? I'll ask again...do you actually have an exemption? Because if you don't, or the atc people are not aware of it...then the current rules forbid you to be in that airspace.

I politely suggest that you take up le Pingouin's advice...go to BN CEN...sit at the console that operates that area. If after seeing it from the ATC perspective, you find that your operations can be accommodated, then we can continue the discussion...

Alpha

[Dick Smith]

Apha. You will not find one post on this site that even implies I want ADSB equipped aircraft to be delayed by non ADSB equipped aircraft.

However if ATC can cope with non equipped military aircraft in the airspace why can't they cope with a small number of GA aircraft?

My Cessna 208 has a $100,000 worth of upgrades including ADSB equipment and so far it has been a total waste of money with nil fuel savings from direct tracking changes.

If an Airline aircraft can fly for three days without ADSB why can't a GA plane fly for one flight?

It's all a con so AsA management can get $750,000 in performance bonuses I reckon.

[alphacentauri]

Alpha. You will not find one post on this site that even implies I want ADSB equipped aircraft to be delayed by non ADSB equipped aircraft.

You are right I won't. I will find many posts implying that you shouldn't cop a delay because of ADSB equipped aircraft.

If an Airline aircraft can fly for three days without ADSB why can't a GA plane fly for one flight?

If you had ADSB, you would probably also have an exemption allowing you to do the same thing. They can do it because they have an exemption....

I will ask again, do you have an exemption?

[Lead Balloon]

We know an airline aircraft "can" fly in this airspace for up to 3 days with unserviceable ADS, because of the exemption. But if that's acceptably "safe" and can be "accommodated", how can it be unacceptably unsafe or too disruptive for an aircraft without ADS to fly in that airspace at all?

Whether the equipment is fitted but not working, or not fitted at all, the objective level of risk and disruption created by each aircraft is the same.

The requirements and exemptions are, therefore, arbitrary. Unless one follows the money...

[Dick Smith]

Alpha. I have not attempted to fly in the non radar airspace and I do not have an exemption for that airspace .

No way am I going to pay Airservices the full en route charge while being forced to use double the fuel

[alphacentauri]

Lead Balloon, as I explained to you previously...its not the same argument

Dick, have you submitted a request for an exemption? If you did the required safety work, you might just get one...

I notice in the newspaper article Jeff Boyd says
But Mr Boyd said under the new approach CASA would consider doing so if the aircraft owner could provide a solid case based on business, and practicality and safety was not threatened.

Nothing has changed in that respect. That has always been the requirements when asking for an exemption.

Unless you have done none of the above, in which case I am not surprised you don't have one.

[c100driver]

We know an airline aircraft "can" fly in this airspace for up to 3 days with unserviceable ADS, because of the exemption.

The small bit that is missing is the MEL usually has a limitation on hours and sectors that can be flown with specific equipment U/S (in my case the aircraft is fitted with a dual system so an U/S ADS system is highly unlikely. It is derived from the manufacturer master MML and is approved by the regulator of the jurisdiction of the operator.

In the notes of the MEL of the aircraft I fly it requires the prior approval of the ATC unit prior to despatch. Presumably so that an alternate plan to manage the flight reporting can be put in place as a mitigation or a sod off gringo reply.

If you look at it as "we do comply with the equipment but it is unserviceable" v "we do not comply and have no intention of complying". Same result but different intention.

[Lead Balloon]

It is the same argument.

Is is not a different outcome in terms of objective risk and objective level of disruption.

The pilot of the aircraft with the U/S ADS/s and MEL that requires prior contact with an ATC unit contacts an ATC unit. The pilot without the ADS contacts an ATC unit. Both can be told to sod off.

Why, then, the exemption?

(That was a rhetorical question: I realise this has little to do with being objective.)

[sunnySA]

Dick Smith
Check the weekend Australian this morning for many articles ( including one on the front page) about the airspace issue .

Also a good interview with the new CASA Chairman.

And an article by Jeff Griffiths , ex FAA deputy chief.of ATC

On a wet weekend, some other readings, multiple letters to the editor and media releases.

my bad, see below for the correct links

[Piston_Broke]

Those links don't work - the second "http//" needs to be deleted.

Try these:

Response to The Australian (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/response-to-the-australian-4)
Transition to satellite technology and navaid decommissioning (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/transition-to-satellite-technology-and-navaid-decommissioning)
Tasmanian airspace safe and efficient (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/tasmanian-airspace-safe-and-efficient)
Response to The Australian (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/response-to-the-australian-3)
Response to the Australian (http://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/releases/response-to-the-australian-2)

Interesting that Ballina is still being raised as a problem, given this from a CFI there:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/561770-radar-coverage-ballina-6.html#post9009845