“Sir Angus Won’t Allow the Fireies to Provide a Unicom Service”.

[LeadSled]

Pilots back reforms for air space overhaul

The union representing pilots has thrown its weight behind an audacious move to transform management of the nation’s skies by adopting the safer US model *extending air traffic control over more airspace, particularly in *regional areas.
The move also has the clear support of Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who as minister *responsible for aviation will soon release a new airspace policy statement calling on aviation authorities to “adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia’s *aviation environment”.
But other aspects of the new *direction unveiled last week by the new chairman of the Civil Avia*tion Safety Authority, Jeff Boyd, have run into immediate resistance. The government organisation which controls the *nation’s air traffic, Airservices Australia, has reiterated its refusal to have the fire crews it employs at region*al airports man radios to provide *pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and air traffic inform*ation, defying moves by CASA to clear a regulatory path for them to do so.
The insistence of Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston that his organisation’s fire and rescue officers will not provide the Unicom radio advice service, as their US firefighter counterparts do at many regional airports, could result in higher air ticket prices.
Regional airports such as *Ballina on the NSW north coast which want to introduce a radio service will be forced, in the absenc*e of Airservices firefighters doing so, to hire retired air traffic controllers to perform the role, charging airlines the additional costs, which they will in turn pass on to passengers.
Sir Angus’s position pits him against Mr Boyd, who said he would sponsor a board directive aimed at freeing up the range of *information that ground staff — *including, potentially, fire fighters *— can provide to pilots.
Airservices and the air traffic controllers union, Civil Air, are united on the firefighters issue, with the union insisting on no changes to the current regulations, which prohibit any person who has not held a controller’s licence in the past 10 years from providing air traffic and weather information.
As revealed by The Weekend Australian, CASA will progressively review airspace around the country with a view to extending control where radar or other surveilla*nce technologies permit.
Unlike the airspace system in the US and Canada, where commercial aircraft throughout the two countries are always directed by air traffic controllers *almost to the runway, whether or not there is radar coverage, Australia has a patchwork system*.
Apart from the larger cities, controlled airspace generally only comes down to 8500 feet.
At this point controllers no longer direct aircraft and pilots are *required to talk to each other over the radio to establish each other’s position and work out manoeuvres to avoid colliding with each other.
CASA is expected to first *expand controlled airspace around Ballina, with a recom*mendation likely soon to lower the level above which controllers still direct traffic from 8500 feet to 5000 feet.
The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said pilots heartily endorsed the move.
“We absolutely support that. It gives greater protection to air traffic,” Mr Booth said.
He also praised a report by US air traffic control expert Jeff *Griffith, who was commissioned by The Australian last week to *review Australian airspace, 11 years after the federal government brought him here to help introduce a US-style national airspace system.
“This has not happened, but I strongly support this objective even today,” Mr Griffith wrote in his report.
Civil Air president Daryl Hickey said he was unable to comment because the union had not seen the specifics of the proposed airspace changes.
The manager of Ballina Byron Gateway Airport, Neil Weatherson, has said he would prefer the 17 firefighters based at the airport in a new $13.5 million station with its own viewing tower, to provide the radio service, since they were there anyway and well placed to do so.
But he said last week that because Airservices leadership showed no sign of budging, he would instead hire retired air traffic controllers to provide the local weather and traffic advice to *pilots.
This will require employing three or four new staff, at a cost Mr Weatherson said he would pass on to airlines as airport charge*s, to in turn be passed on to passengers.
An Airservices spokesman *reiterated the view expressed by Sir Angus that its firefighters’ prime duty was to be always ready to deal quickly with emergencies.
“Our services include rapid *response to any incident, anywhere on an airport, in less than three minutes,” Airservices said, adding that this included dealing with any medical incident.
The service made more than 6700 responses nationally last year, with 28 lives saved, the spokesman said.
Aviator and businessman Dick Smith, who has lobbied for firefighters to provide the radio service, described Airservices’ position as “outrageous’’.
“They have a monopoly on providing the fire service, so the airport can’t hire its own fire fighters and direct what duties they will perform, but Airservices won’t provide the radio service,’’ Mr Smith said.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Folks,
As I have noted on the GA thread, great to see the AFAP supporting E.

I find Sir Angus' position with the RFSS services inexplicable, and with the very greatest of respect to Sir Angus, in my opinion the Airservices official position is nonsensical.

Tootle pip!!

[Awol57]

I am curious as to how the states run this. I am fairly sure that in a turn out the bloke sitting in the FCC (the room with the view and I am presuming where the Unicom would be) once having activated the call out then goes and gets into a truck to respond. The lines etc then divert to Adelaide or the NOC or somewhere for relaying. Since the neither of the latter would be particuarly adept at being a unicom for any given airfield, there would need to be another ARFF member assigned to each station.

So I guess my question is, how do the Firies in the states do it? Do they have additional staff to supply the service? Does the service stop when they respond to something?

[Dick Smith]

Of course it stops when they respond to a crash- and that's not often. In the USA the Unicom is not prescriptively regulated. Just a fantastic zero cost improvement to safety.

In the USA like all other modern aviation countries the RFFS is run by the local airport and the Firies are multi skilled . They do lots of other jobs when aircraft are not landing or taking off. Just commonsense. The coalition decided to bring in this system under Mark Vaile but it never happened .

Under Mr Truss and his advisors nothing will change. Our current RFFS costs per tonne landed are about twice that of NZ where it is competitively provided.

[Deaf]

Does the service stop when they respond to something?

Probably.

The issue with fireies everywhere (not just aviation ones) is the requirement that you have well trained and expensive people who have to be available and so spend most of their time sitting around waiting.

No easy solution

[Howabout]

Despite my comments on another thread in respect of cost/benefit, those comments were couched in terms of current requirements as to who can provide traffic and WX advice and the concomitant on-costs. This is a different kettle of fish.

Provided that the information transmitted is of a general nature to enhance situational awareness, then I can't see a problem with the concept.

As an ex-controller, I would not endorse the specific - like 'suggest you extend downwind,' but I cannot see a downside with something like:

'We still haven't got the traffic.'

'He's mid-downwind now.'

'Thanks, got him.'

Firies ain't dumb-bums and are perfectly capable of providing that sort of general information to enhance situational awareness. If uniformity is required regarding giving general traffic info, one could produce a very simple CD, with graphics, explaining how general traffic info should be relayed. This is not rocket-science!

As for firies attending an emergency and not being able to continue the service, as mentioned elsewhere, the understanding would be that the service is provided on the 'basis of priorities.' And that can go in the regs to provide 'legal coverage.'

I just cannot see a problem with this one as regards cost/benefit. IMHO, there are benefits and the cost would be zip!

[Awol57]

Ok. I was just curious how they manage it.

Whilst a crash doesn't happen very often, that's not the only thing that would cause the ARFF to turn out. But doesn't mean something couldn't be implemented I guess.

[Howabout]

Awol, I disagree with Dick way more often than I agree; but this time, in my opinion, he is on the money.

No discernible on-costs if instituted, because the people are already in place and being paid anyway. And 'general advice' is not going to run someone into a hill.

Do you know what the firies do? They run drills to keep themselves up to speed, they maintain the equipment ready to go at a moment's notice, and they are thoroughly professional and respond in a heart-beat.

But, but, that's not more than a total few hours out of a whole working week.

The rest of the time, once they're prepped-up, it's dead set boredom; volley ball and cards waiting for something to happen.

I won't pre-empt the opinion of a firie, but my personal take is that they'd do the job and would probably enjoy the extra responsibility if covered in the regs (on a priority basis).

Just my opinion, but the firies could do this without a problem!

[skkm]

Whilst a crash doesn't happen very often, that's not the only thing that would cause the ARFF to turn out. But doesn't mean something couldn't be implemented I guess.

I don't see why providing Unicom services on a 'when practical' basis can't happen. Sure, if the firies need to be doing something else, go do it, but most of the time they are hanging around waiting. Having a Unicom most of the time is still a whole lot better than none of the time.

[LeadSled]

Whilst a crash doesn't happen very often, that's not the only thing that would cause the ARFF to turn out. But doesn't mean something couldn't be implemented I guess. So seldom, in fact, that there has never been a survivable accident on an Australian airfield, where the ARFF presence made any difference to the outcome.

This fact was the basis for the removal of fire services from capital city secondary airports and some others, many years ago. Since that time, the statistics have not changed. ARFF, in economist's term, is a classic case of economic waste, expensive regulation that produces no benefit.

A further fact, ARFF services at places like Ballina are NOT required by ICAO, foisting this cost on small airports is home grown regulation. ICAO only mandates ARFF services at international airports, and if it is a small international airport, filing a difference brings Australian into compliance with ICAO.

Has anybody got any current figures? The last ones I saw ( well out of date, now) for one small QLD regional airport was AUD$18.00 per passenger. In terms of present day fares, that is quite a percentage.

Running a UNICOM at Ballina is not going to overload the ARFF service.

Tootle pip!!

[Awol57]

I am definitely not saying the ARFF couldn't manage it. I was just wondering how it was implemented overseas. The guys in the station next door to me would have no dramas doing it (if there wasn't a tower) I was just more genuinely interested in how it works overseas.

[The name is Porter]

mmmm, firies working at aerodromes where they're likely to never put a fire out in a lifetime. Absolutely bloody ridiculous. I'm having trouble understanding how an ARFF facility can be justified when a tower isn't. And why there are towers at locations without ARFF? Not saying there should be, the whole thing is a massive wank.

Why shouldn't a firie provide a Unicom if they're going to be sitting on their arse waiting for that once in a lifetime fire. Why shouldn't they be doing ARO, or mowing the grass, or painting the gable markers?

[Pavement]

Never thought I would say this but I agree with Dick. Why is AsA providing the ARFF? Quite simply this should be the responsibility of the airport like some other countries. If AsA is cheapest then give them the tender. Why cant the fories do other tasks such as runway inspections, minor maintenance, unicom services, etc? Beats the hell out of sitting on their butts all day watching Ellen.
Of course this would never happen in Australia because we must have Trident because Trident is best and Australia must have the best!! (Yes Minister for the younger people)

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm having trouble understanding how an ARFF facility can be justified when a tower isn't. And why there are towers at locations without ARFF?Because the establishment of ARFF is a CASA requirement based on passenger numbers, not aircraft movements.

MOS Part 139 Chapter 2: Criteria for Establishment or Disestablishment of ARFFS.

Why is AsA providing the ARFF? Quite simply this should be the responsibility of the airport like some other countries.

The rest of MOS Part 139H details the standards required for ARFF, which if you take a look, will explain why an AD OPR would not want to do it themselves.

https://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2008C00128/Html/Text#param40

[Pavement]

The AD operator does not have to own and operate the ARFF. They can contract it out to the provider. Have you considered that our gold plated Part 139H is actually a bit over the top for most aerodromes? The only lives that get saved by an airport firie are in the terminal when grandma and grandpa cant cope with the pressure of going to see the grandkids.

[CaptainMidnight]

The AD operator does not have to own and operate the ARFF. They can contract it out to the provider. Have you considered that our gold plated Part 139H is actually a bit over the top for most aerodromes?I'm not defending the situation - just informing that ARFF is established per current CASA regs.

I seem to recall some years back Airservices or its predecessor CAA tried to divest itself of ARFF but no-one wanted to take it on.

[LeadSled]

------ how an ARFF facility can be justified when a tower isn't.

Porter,
They can't be justified on any rational basis, but what does rationality have to do with much Australian aviation regulation.
Irrational and unjustified is all to often the norm.
As mentioned previously, this cost is a classic example of economic waste, expenditure for absolutely no benefit.
Just what one might expect when the union writes the rules under an "air safety" camouflage net.
Tootle pip!!

[Savage175]

My understanding of Unicom services, is that they only provide ancillary communication services, such as calling for fuel trucks, taxis for crews and pax etc. So I don't really see the point of having a Firefighter do this task. Why not just employ a local who knows how to operate a phone and teach them to talk on a radio?

So no, I see no need or relevance in Firefighters being given this duty.

[27/09]

Unicom provide aerodrome and traffic information to aircraft arriving and departing the zone around the airfield. They do not provide any sort of control service.

Their job is not to only provide ancillary communication services, such as calling for fuel trucks, taxis for crews and pax etc

[Dick Smith]

Unicoms are totally non prescriptive in the USA. They provide known traffic and weather and anything else that is deemed useful .

Bring it on in Aus. CASA!

[The name is Porter]

I'm having trouble understanding how an ARFF facility can be justified when a tower isn't. And why there are towers at locations without ARFF

Because the establishment of ARFF is a CASA requirement based on passenger numbers, not aircraft movements.

MOS Part 139 Chapter 2: Criteria for Establishment or Disestablishment of ARFFS.

My trouble understanding is not based on mis-understanding CASA requirements based on pax numbers etc. My trouble understanding is based on the stupidity of having different establishment criteria for towers/ARFF.

Towers without an ARFF: The controllers are of good standard and are not expected to put 2 together in the immediate airport vicinity.

Towers with an ARFF: The controllers are **** and a midair is imminent.

Aerodrome with an ARFF & no tower: The pilots are **** & can't be trusted.

Aerodrome with no ARFF or tower: The pilots are awesome & don't need controllers or ARFF.

[sunnySA]

Just what one might expect when the union writes the rules under an "air safety" camouflage net.
LeadShed, which Union are you referring to? I think you have mentioned this previously on another thread, could you please elaborate on your assertions/specific concerns/allegations?

[Average Joe]

So ASA will be hiring more controllers then? If so, they're already balls to the wall trying to get through current demand.

[Dick Smith]

No. AsA won't need more controllors. I understand Ballina will put on three part time retired controllors to operate the CAGRO.

But yes. The RFFS establishment formulae is a croc. Huge MIS allocation of safety resources.

[sunnySA]

Dick, what were the criteria for the establishment of a ARFF service when you were Chairman of CASA?

[LeadSled]

Dick, what were the criteria for the establishment of a ARFF service when you were Chairman of CASA? SunnySA,
Probably that the airport be an international airport, to meet ICAO requirement.
I think the present ratbag criteria was put in place after Dick resigned, anybody have the actual timeline? The fact remains, these fire services are very costly economic waste. The circumstances under which they were established were, to say the least, very questionable under any rational process.
See my previous posts on the subject.
---your assertions/specific concerns/allegations?
None of the above, a statement of fact. I sat in conference room in Canberra that day, watched it all, the DoT Assistant Sec. sitting beside even agreed with me, but nobody else there was going to stand in the way of all hallowed "air safety".
It could almost be called "emotional blackmail" (not my term) but it all comes under "the mystique of air safety" --- for a full description of that term, see the first volume of the Lane Report in about 1986.

Tootle pip!!

[tyler_durden_80]

Just another band-aid solution to mask no infrastructure/resources

[Dick Smith]

I commissioned the Russel Smith report into RFFS. It recommended RFFS only at international airports.

If anyone wants a copy contact me and I will send it.

No. He is not related.

[Savage175]

It should be understood that specific RFF categories are required in order for airports to be utilised for ETOPS operations. Therefore there is a cost tradeoff. An airport that is virtually never used but had an RFF service may contribute to significant cost savings for airlines nominating it as an ETOPS alternate. Learmonth is a good example of such an airport.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
From The Australian today.

------------------------------------
The former head of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority says his five-year campaign for safer skies came up against repeated resistance from Airservices Australia, which dragged its heels against *reforming airspace management along US lines.
John McCormick, who stepped down from CASA last year, said that he met opposition each time he moved to have Airservices, the government-owned body that runs the nation’s air traffic control and navigation system, extend controlled airspace.
In his first interview since *leaving the aviation watchdog, Mr McCormick said Airservices seemed reluctant to implement measures that involved its air *traffic controllers directing aircraft over a wider range of airspace where reliable radar was available. “Their objections were not based on safety; to my belief, they were internal Airservices *issues,” Mr McCormick said.
In one case, Mr McCormick said, he had to issue a directive to have Airservices’ air traffic controllers take charge of aircraft around Avalon airport in Victoria, a move he believes may have *prevented a potential serious air accident.
Mr McCormick said he supported calls from businessman and aviator Dick Smith and others for Airservices to have its fire and rescue crews at regional airports without control towers to provide pilots with basic local air traffic and weather information via radio, as do their counterparts in the US.
Airservices chairman Angus Houston has vigorously opposed the suggestion.
Mr McCormick said it made sense because Airservices’ prime responsibility was air safety and the firefighters were its employees. “You have to say, ‘What are they there for … what do we want them to do’,” Mr McCormick said.
Mr McCormick, who started his career as a RAAF fighter pilot before becoming a Qantas pilot and later a senior executive with Cathay Pacific, put his weight behind restarting the effort begun in the early 2000s to move to the US and Canadian national airspace system.
In those countries, whether radar is available or not, commercial aircraft are always under direction by air traffic controllers almost right to the runway. “They say they have implemented it, but of course they haven’t,” Mr McCormick said of the unfulfilled plans to introduce the North American system.
Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.
The Airservices media unit yesterday refused to provide information or comment.
Mr McCormick’s decision to speak out follows a sustained campaign by The Australian raising issues of air safety and the administration of government aviation organisations.
While the new CASA chairman, Jeff Boyd, recently unveiled to this newspaper a reform agenda to embrace the US model, Mr Smith suspects he will encounter push-back from Airservices because of what he claims is a misguided assumption on its part that it would mean hiring more air traffic controllers.
Mr McCormick said he did succeed in some reform, such as improving airspace arrangements at the main secondary airports used for general aviation in each mainland capital.
At Avalon, not far from Melbourne’s Tullamarine airport, the situation was absurd, Mr McCormick said, because the radar coverage of the area was so good “you could see aircraft on the ground” but it was not being used for air traffic control down to the runway.
“I said that this was unacceptable. For various reasons, there was a bit of objection,” Mr McCormick said, referring to Airservices.
He said Airservices did not move fast to implement the CASA directive to bring Avalon under controlled airspace. “It took them a year. They hybrided their way towards it,” Mr McCormick said.
It was after controlled airspace was introduced at Avalon that air traffic controllers helped avoid what potentially could have been a major air accident, Mr McCormick said, after a Tiger Airways airline pilot decided on a go-around of the runway at night.
“In the subsequent missed approach procedure the radar controller noticed they were descending when they shouldn’t be,” Mr McCormick said. “The controller told them, then they arrested their descent. If that airspace wouldn’t have been changed, he or she would not have had the requirement to monitor that aircraft.”
It was a further example, Mr McCormick said, of how controlled airspace should be extended at least wherever reliable radar coverage was available.
In 2004, air traffic controllers did not intervene when a radar alarm warned them an aircraft was off-course in uncontrolled airspace, and it crashed into terrain near Benalla in Victoria with the loss of six lives.

[tyler_durden_80]

Mr McCormick met repeated resistance because it was, and remains, a horrible f*!king idea that would compromise instead of enhance safety...

[Howabout]

Hi Leady; seeing you posted the article, I have some questions that you may care to address.

Firstly, was this article written by someone that I'd never heard of before the debate restarted?

Secondly, and if so, can you elaborate on his qualifications to write on matters aviation?

Thirdly, and I am somewhat puzzled. My (personal) premise is that the writer does not have the background to editorialize. So I would be most grateful if you could explain to me how he can make the following authoritative assertion - there is no attribution and it is not a quote. As follows, and it is a bald statement of 'fact':

Australia still has a mishmash of regimes in which some airports are in designated controlled airspace, but most others, including some with significant airline traffic, are not, requiring pilots in cloud to talk to each other to work out their relative positions and avoid collisions.I repeat: 'Australia still has a mishmash....'

Now Leady, that last one has got me thinking. I may be out there where the buses don't run and I could be 180 off the beam; but I don't think so. What gives the writer the authority to make that assertion? In short, to editorialize?

Fourthly, and this question is based on my underlying assumptions as regards competency in respect of the above. If the journalist does not have the competency to editorialize, and he clearly has editorialized, has he been fed?

Fifthly, if he has been fed, I wonder whether his copy is vetted before publication. Just wondering, Leady. Do you think he has been fed and has had his articles vetted?

I dunno, Leady. It's only my personal take on what I regard as deficient journalism. That said, I'd be most appreciative to receive your thoughts on this one.

[CaptainMidnight]

I suspect someone is writing the articles for Mr. Higgins :)

And seeing as the material is being cross posted, in the interests of education, re AVV:

http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/532008-ads-b-mandate-atcs-responsible-deaths-22.html#post9055408

[Howabout]

Earth calling Leady regarding my post #31.

You see, Leady, I don't necessarily disagree with the contention that we have a 'mishmash.' We used to have a system of 'controlled' and 'uncontrolled' airspace that wasn't. Notwithstanding, and before you jump in, that is not the point of my previous post. So no 'red-herrings' please.

Let's just address what I put to you, OK?

My concern goes to a little thing called 'journalistic integrity.' Now, I know that you know what 'journalistic integrity' implies.

I am sure you will agree that, in a general sense, if a journalist has been influenced to take one side or another, and this is mere supposition on my part, then one's 'journalistic integrity' has been compromised.

And this is the issue, Leady, so please don't obfuscate on the side issues in respect of what I have put.

Mr Higgins has editorialized on an issue. And, from my perspective, he does not have the experience, history, or qualification to make the assertion that he did.

The most valuable asset a journalist can have is a thing called 'disinterestedness.' Sad the way our language has gone, but 'disinterestedness' implies an even-handed approach.

Once a journalist loses focus on that basic tenet, credibility and integrity are lost.

I feel some sympathy for the writer. From my perspective, he has let himself be manipulated. A 'good story' and column inches, but at what cost to his own credibility?

Integrity, once sacrificed, is impossible to regain.

I am sure that someone that I regard as a 'poor dupe' tunes into this forum.

[LeadSled]

Howabout,
Ean Higgins has certainly been doing a lot of talking to a lot of people, but I have only spoken to him once, but at some length.

Mostly, he asked questions, and I got the very strong impression that he was very well briefed, and caught on very quickly. I have no idea whether he has any previous aviation background, but it is quite clear, the very broad range of people, to whom he has spoken. Far more than have been featured in the articles (another one today, Thursday 23/07).

I would be very very surprised if anybody else was writing some or all of his copy, again to the best of my knowledge he is not even running technical matters by anybody I know prior to publication, a common enough practice by specialist journalists.
Tootle pip!!

[CaptainMidnight]

Perhaps he should join here or read the threads.

It might open his eyes towards more balanced reporting.

[LeadSled]

Midnight,
The thing is, aviation is not a democracy, that a large number of posters on various pprune threads are anti just about anything the yanks do, does not make them right and the yanks wrong. That is just one example.

The totally illogical and in some cases, hairbrained, objections to Class E airspace, and actually suggesting it is "less safe" than G, and anti E in general, the latter which I would guess is a majority of Australian pprune posters, makes no sense.

As I have often said, about the one thing I agreed with Mick Toller about, was his statement, words to the effect: " Australia is an aviation Galapagos, in splendid isolation, it has developed all sorts of strange and unique and wonderful mutations".

Even the fact that we have rather a poor safety record in Australia is not enough to get the message through that somebody else might be doing it a whole lot better, and we might learn something useful.

I notice Mr. Skidmore has been very quiet on matters airspace, UNICOM etc.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I would be surprised is Ean Higgins were not aware of pprune.

[Capn Bloggs]

Australia is an aviation Galapagos, in splendid isolation, it has developed all sorts of strange and unique and wonderful mutations".

Typical... EXpert... Didn't he start off the regulatory reform process, or was that Big Bill?

Higgin's opinings are the most one-sided, biased dribble I have read for a long time. Somebody must have mished his mash.

[OverRun]

One does miss Mike C who brought sense (and the CAGRO service) to the airspace debate.

[CaptainMidnight]

The totally illogical and in some cases, hairbrained, objections to Class E airspace, and actually suggesting it is "less safe" than G, and anti E in general, the latter which I would guess is a majority of Australian PPRuNe posters,Could it be that Australian PPRuNe posters are a reasonably accurate representation of Australian aviators, ATCs, engineers etc?

After some 15 years here, that strikes me as the case.

[LeadSled]

Could it be that Australian PPRuNe posters are a reasonably accurate representation of Australian aviators, ATCs, engineers etc?Midnight,
I think that is quite probable, which, in my opinion, tends to validate Mick's comment.

The very anti US tinge in the "regulator" and the sector goes back a long way (remember when US built aircraft were prohibited on "Imperial" routes, and when non-British built aircraft were subject a heavy tariff coming into Australia) at least to Kingsford-Smith, and was greatly reinforced with post WWII migration from UK to Australia.

Remember having to buy Rolls Royce built Continental 0-200 and 0-300, and they were garbage compared to US built engines, with about 70% of the TBO.

Re. more recent (late 1990s on) airspace management reform, to quote the then AFAP Technical Director to me, (late 1990s?)face to face and with witnesses, after he had just been sponsored to the US to see for himself:

" I don't care how well it works, we are not going to have septic (septic=septic tank=yank for those of you not into cockney rhyming slang) airspace in Australia".

--- what a balanced, open minded assessment. That is why I was so pleased to read the statement of the current AFAP President on the subject last week.

Bloggs,
Just so you can date the major starting point for the move to "real" regulatory reform, it was near enough to same time as AMATS, (1991??) when, amongst other things, we dropped the "nose" rule and adopted harmonization with ICAO cruising levels ---- over much domestic objection.

It is a thoroughgoing indictment of the resistance to change in Australia, that what "reform" has been "achieved" so far, with the exception of CASR Parts 21-35, is an operational and financial disaster.

NZ had a false start to reform at the same time, realised their mistakes (long before the recent EASA discovery)and started again, and were largely complete by about 1997 --- and they have been reaping the rewards of an ever expanding aviation sector ever since.

Tootle pip!!

[89 steps to heaven]

There have been claims that this is done in the USA. Could anyone advise which airports permit Fireies to provide traffic information in their spare time please?

[LeadSled]

89 steps,
Send Dick Smith an email, or give him a call, he will have a representative but not exhaustive list.
Tootle pip!!

[89 steps to heaven]

If Dick has a list, lets have it posted here so all can be informed. We need to have a proper look at the application so we can decided if there is merit in the idea.

[Dick Smith]

I am out in the Gibson Desert at the moment in the Long ranger so I don't have all the details to hand.

For a start the airport servicing Steamboat Springs is one example.

The FAA Unicom requirements are non prescriptive which allow and Even encourage giving any info which can improve safety. Traffic and weather info is commonly given by un qualified people and it works well.

[gcafinal]

I personally do not want anyone talking to me on the radio with unqualified opinion backed up by lack of standardisation and no formal training or proper understanding of flying procedures, particularly in an instrument environment. If I am flying to a destination where there are no weather reports, then I adopt the AIP procedures for the management of my fuel and decision making for diversion requirements. If I am visual then I have my own traffic awareness. If I am in a busy environment then I will have ATC. (Depends on your definition of "busy.") I do not want my judgement marred by some unqualified person. Up until 1989 we had a DCA service called "Flight Service." This was made redundant on the basis of cost. However, the costs were not that high, given the incredibly good world class standardised traffic/weather information and SAR alerting service we used to get. Recognition of its loss and the need for weather and traffic information came too late and instead of re-instating it, we saw the advent of Unicoms and CAGROs on the basis that this is what they do overseas (and we had better have something, whatever it is). Very poor substitutes from an air safety perspective. Frankly, I don't care what they do in the USA. They have the population base to financially support their technology. For the Australian airport operators, this is still a cost add-on. No one will do for free. Do you want a free service. What sort of service would that realistically be? I do not want airport fire officers doing pseudo ATC/FS duties unless as I said above, they have been formally trained and a new duty statement has been accepted and they are certified/licenced without further cost imposts. ARO's, Fire Officers, Groundsmen, Airport Cleaners? You must be joking! This whole matter was made worse in the late 1980s, when the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) was very poorly introduced by the then Department of Transport. Agencies like Local Councils suddenly discovered that they did not have the revenue to cope with running their newly acquired airports and overnight Australian Airports began cancelling their (then) airport licences to avoid compliance. Places like Port Hedland and Karratha tried to retain their ATC AND ARFFS but could not do so. We either have a dedicated service or we do not. We would not accept a Fire Officer as a 1st Officer on the flight deck because it is cheaper! The opportunity for increased threats caused by imposing these latent failures into an already threatened aviation environment is highly questionable. I certainly do not support untrained people distracting me on the radio while I am in flight, especially if I am in IMC.

[sunnySA]

hear. hear.

[Pinky the pilot]

gcafinal; Would you please repost your above posting, but broken up into more easily read paragraphs???:=

I really do find it hard to read in its current format!:hmm:

FWIW; From what I could see, I tend to agree with the basics of your argument.....I think!!

sunnySA; You have better reading skills than I.:ok:

[buckshot1777]

For the sake of clarity to not lose a good post, here you go, Pinky:

gcafinal said:
I personally do not want anyone talking to me on the radio with unqualified opinion backed up by lack of standardisation and no formal training or proper understanding of flying procedures, particularly in an instrument environment.

If I am flying to a destination where there are no weather reports, then I adopt the AIP procedures for the management of my fuel and decision making for diversion requirements. If I am visual then I have my own traffic awareness. If I am in a busy environment then I will have ATC. (Depends on your definition of "busy.") I do not want my judgement marred by some unqualified person.

Up until 1989 we had a DCA service called "Flight Service." This was made redundant on the basis of cost. However, the costs were not that high, given the incredibly good world class standardised traffic/weather information and SAR alerting service we used to get. Recognition of its loss and the need for weather and traffic information came too late and instead of re-instating it, we saw the advent of Unicoms and CAGROs on the basis that this is what they do overseas (and we had better have something, whatever it is). Very poor substitutes from an air safety perspective.

Frankly, I don't care what they do in the USA. They have the population base to financially support their technology. For the Australian airport operators, this is still a cost add-on. No one will do for free. Do you want a free service. What sort of service would that realistically be? I do not want airport fire officers doing pseudo ATC/FS duties unless as I said above, they have been formally trained and a new duty statement has been accepted and they are certified/licenced without further cost imposts. ARO's, Fire Officers, Groundsmen, Airport Cleaners? You must be joking!

This whole matter was made worse in the late 1980s, when the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) was very poorly introduced by the then Department of Transport. Agencies like Local Councils suddenly discovered that they did not have the revenue to cope with running their newly acquired airports and overnight Australian Airports began cancelling their (then) airport licences to avoid compliance. Places like Port Hedland and Karratha tried to retain their ATC AND ARFFS but could not do so.

We either have a dedicated service or we do not. We would not accept a Fire Officer as a 1st Officer on the flight deck because it is cheaper! The opportunity for increased threats caused by imposing these latent failures into an already threatened aviation environment is highly questionable. I certainly do not support untrained people distracting me on the radio while I am in flight, especially if I am in IMC.

Anyone got the actual wording in FAA documents re exactly what "traffic information" is claimed to be provided by UNICOMs in the U.S.?

Is it the same format and content traffic info as is passed by CAGROs and ATCs in Class G?

[QSK?]

Ah buckshot:

You pose a very intelligent question that is crucial to this Unicom debate because:

1. The US Code of Federal Regulations (Part 87 Subpart G) detail the regulatory requirements for the establishment and operation of Unicom in the US; and guess what?

2. The provision of traffic advisories is not mentioned, or even high on the list of services that Unicom operators are authorised to provide (eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=a456d6fcb12e72771feb0a84cedddb73;rgn=div6;vie w=text;node=47:5.0.1.1.2.7;idno=47;cc=ecfr))

So, although it would appear that many Unicom operators in the US are providing traffic advisories on pilot request, the question we should all be trying to find out is whether they are operating legally and what is their (or the airport's) legal liability exposure if something should go wrong?

Also the FAA's Advisory Circular AC90-42F does not list Unicom provision of traffic advisories as being a desired function:
8. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AERONAUTICAL ADVISORY STATIONS (UNICOM).
UNICOM stations may provide pilots, upon request, with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information.

In my view one would be stretching the regulatory interpretation that the provision of traffic advisories by Unicom would fall under the category of "...other necessary information"

Therefore, any international system that is being considered for potential deployment in Australia must be deployed in compliance with the associated home regulations, not in accordance with someone's perception of what is/is not allowed or happening in a foreign country.

Just because it is happening overseas, doesn't necessarily make it legal or appropriate for the Oz airspace environment.

[gcafinal]

QSK. If I may say so. Well said.

[89 steps to heaven]

From the airport website


Steamboat Springs Airport
The City of Steamboat Springs operates the Steamboat Springs Airport (SBS) as a general aviation facility serving private aircraft owners and charter companies since 1981. The airport is located northwest of Steamboat Springs at 3495 Airport Circle.

Note: all commercial flights land at the Yampa Valley Regional Airport in Hayden (HDN)

[buckshot1777]

2. The provision of traffic advisories is not mentioned, or even high on the list of services that Unicom operators are authorised to provide eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr;sid=a456d6fcb12e72771feb0a84cedddb73;rgn=div6;vie w=text;node=47:5.0.1.1.2.7;idno=47;cc=ecfr)Interesting reading.

So, although it would appear that many Unicom operators in the US are providing traffic advisories on pilot request, the question we should all be trying to find out is whether they are operating legally and what is their (or the airport's) legal liability exposure if something should go wrong?

The reason I asked the question is that a rumour is going around that when recently CASA asked the FAA what sort of traffic information UNICOMs in the U.S. were permitted to give aircraft, the FAA expressed interest and asked what locations were giving such info.

[Lead Balloon]

I could tell you about what aircraft I can see and what aircraft I've heard, but that would be dangerous because I'm not an expert. Safer to tell you nothing.

Better to reinstate FSUs. After all, they'll give you all of the traffic (except for NOSAR NO DETAILS, gliders etc) and the warm comfort of blissful ignorance.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm confused by what you are trying to say, Lead Balloon, unless it is having a swipe at Flight Service Officers.

From my experience, FS (as ATC now do) gave relevant traffic information based on their assessment and within AFIZ's, that included NOSAR and gliders, because within 15NM all traffic was full reporting and therefore required to make themselves known @ 30NM.

Vastly different from what a refueller, baggage handler or check-in staff could provide.

[Lead Balloon]

Not having a go at FSOs. By all means, bring them back.

I'm merely pointing out that the people who think FSUs knew of all traffic were blissfully ignorant of the reality.

Many aerodromes OCTA were not in AFIZs (but I'm guessing you knew that).

And I'll stand corrected, but I'm confident that there were exemptions for NORADO aircraft - e.g. gliders and aircraft without engine driven power sources - to operate in AFIZs.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm merely pointing out that the people who think FSUs knew of all traffic were blissfully ignorant of the reality.FSUs knew no more and no less than ATC currently do in the vast majority of unsurveilled Class G. In fact they would have known more than ATC currently do at major country ADs, due to the mandatory reporting requirements of AFIZs. but I'm confident that there were exemptions for NORADO aircraft - e.g. gliders and aircraft without engine driven power sources - to operate in AFIZs. There were indeed exemptions, however their operations were known to the FSUs.

Examples: An FSU would be advised by a club when gliders commenced and ceased operating, and also when (say) an individual glider from elsewhere was coming in.

Other no radio types wishing to enter or depart or operate in an AFIZ required an exemption (from Flight Standards I recall), which included specific timing and route to be flown, in a similar manner to how such types into GAAP ADs were handled.

In both these examples, FSUs would include reference to them in traffic information.

FSUs (and Briefing Offices at FSUs and at capital city GA ADs) aren't coming back, and I've always felt things went backwards when they were got rid of.

[Lead Balloon]

The exemptions always put the lie to all the safety flim flam. Examples: An FSU would be advised by a club when gliders commenced and ceased operating, and also when (say) an individual glider from elsewhere was coming in. Wow - so much safer being informed by an FSU that traffic includes multiple gliders operating at random levels on random tracks around e.g. the Dubbo AFIZ.

Appropriate response from pilots transiting the area? Keep a good lookout.

NOTAM of multiple gliders operating at random levels on random tracks, around Dubbo. Appropriate response from pilots transiting the area? Keep a good lookout.

There can be multiple gliders operating at random levels and random tracks out there any day any way. Appropriate response from pilots? Keep a good lookout.

FSU or not, expert CAGRO/UNICOM or not, mandatory radio carriage and use or not, there always was and always will be the risk of unknown traffic, and the appropriate way to deal with that risk will always be the same. The belief that gadgets and third parties can provide a completely reliable and complete traffic picture is blissful ignorance. Fortunately, the cumulative risks are so small in Australia that the bliss is rarely upset.

[2b2]

Could anyone advise which airports permit Fireies to provide traffic information in their spare time please?

anyone????

[Lead Balloon]

I do hope the government has saved us by banning it.

It is dangerous, because recipients of any information always blindly assume that the information is always complete and always accurate.

Just imagine the carnage that would ensue if a 'firey' broadcast to an incoming aircraft that "there is a light aircraft doing laps on the runway that faces towards the north". Imagine it!

Because the recipients would automatically take it to be complete and accurate traffic information, sudden death would be guaranteed when it turned out the light aircraft was actually doing laps on the runway facing south and there was another aircraft inbound.

At least the firies would be on hand to smother the charred bodies in slippery stuff (and run over a couple, just to make sure).

[le Pingouin]

So how does a pilot make use of information of unknown quality? Judge it reliable because the person giving it sounds like they know what they're talking about? At least the firies will be on hand when your judgement is wrong.

[Lead Balloon]

Precisely in the same way pilots use information of unknown quality now.

Precisely in the same way as pilots should be using information of known quality now.

And that is: Based on an assumption that the information could be incomplete or inaccurate, with the weight of the assumption depending on the source of the information.

And the money spent on firies at places like Ballina is, patently and demontrably, a misallocation of finite safety resources.