PDA

View Full Version : More from The Australian, Hobart


LeadSled
14th Jul 2015, 01:46
Folks,
The following from today's Australian.

Pretty amazing.

Tootle pip!!


Airservices Australia fails to follow own safety plan
Airservices Australia’s failure to provide reliable radar coverage to runway level at Hobart airport is an apparent breach of its own target. The airspace safety body has repeatedly dismissed concerns about the lack of reliable radar below 7000 feet at the Hobart and Launceston airports as unjustified.
This is despite warnings from experts that a tragedy is inevitable unless the situation is rectified — and the revelation that Airservices itself intended to provide radar coverage to ground-level at Hobart airport in a 2010 project developed in *response to a wave of earlier safety concerns.
Outlining the goals of a $6 million TASWAM (Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration) radar system in its 2009-10 annual report, Airservices said the project intended to provide radar surveillance “down to the surface at Hobart”.
But the system it actually *delivered cannot be relied upon below 7000 feet — despite the presence in Hobart of mountains and hills — because its coverage at lower levels is deemed inadequate by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
CASA yesterday confirmed that it had refused to approve the system’s use below 7000 feet because the “surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements”.
Asked if this was due to Airservices’ failure to provide a sufficient number of ground stations to support full coverage, CASA communications manager Peter Gibson declined to comment and said: “This is a question for Airservices.”
Airservices did not directly answer the question when contacted by The Australian but *insisted the system did work to ground level, despite not being accepted by CASA as sufficiently reliable in Hobart.
According to one air-traffic insider, who posted on the industry chat site pprune.org, Air*services reneged on its promise of reliable radar “down to the surface” to cut costs on the project. “(They) decided to try and save some money on the installation by using fewer ground stations than recommended by the suppliers,” he posted. “You get what you pay for.”
Airservices denied it had failed to deliver its own plans. “Below 7000 feet, aircraft are separated using ‘procedural’ standards (pilots reporting their location), however (they) remain displayed (on the radar system) and can be seen by air traffic controllers in Hobart, Launceston and our Melbourne air traffic control centre,” an Airservices spokesman said.
“The TASWAM was a successful project that delivered on its key objectives in a cost efficient and timely manner.”
But businessman and pilot Dick Smith, a former CASA chairman, told The Australian he believed Airservices had bungled the project by failing to install sufficient ground stations.
It was now trying to “cover-up” its failure, instead of installing more ground stations to satisfy CASA and deliver the long-promised radar coverage to the runway level. “It’s outrageous that $6m would be spent and Tasmanians are still getting a 1930s system — and it’s not safe,” Mr Smith said. “If they’ve got 90 per cent towards putting in a radar system, why not do the other 10 per cent? No one can say that having mountains and bad weather and not using radar is safe. It’s not safe. Luckily, we’ve got away without an accident. It (collision with hills and mountains) is the most common form of serious accident, and the cause of our last serious accident (in 2005) at Lockhart River (Queensland) that killed 15 people.”
Instead of radar to the runway, pilots inform air traffic control of their location below 7000 feet.
Mr Smith said he believed the system would inevitably lead to a disaster in Hobart similar to Lockhart River.
Airservices insists air traffic operations in Tasmania are “safe”. It says the system of pilots reporting their location to air-traffic control below 7000 feet is used at large regional airports, including Broome, Rockhampton, Alice Springs, Karratha, Coffs Harbour and Tamworth.
Mr Smith said few if any of these locations had the combination of mountainous topography and weather conditions of Tasmania. “They put this WAM radar system (in Tasmania) because we had some scares — two near-misses where planes were flying around in cloud — that were quite serious near-accidents,” he said.

Capn Bloggs
14th Jul 2015, 03:10
You should hang your head in shame, Tootle pop. That is the biggest load of nonsense I have read in a long time. Obviously Ean ?? was not sensationalistic enough. Bring on the new boy, Matthew! :ok: :D

buckshot1777
14th Jul 2015, 04:00
The Australian certainly seems to be swallowing what they are being fed.

As others have said elsewhere, it's a sad indictment of how PPRuNe has deteriorated from what it was up to 10 years ago, with some forums now being used to publish and push agendas.

Stanwell
19th Jul 2015, 02:42
Agreed, chaps.
What a load of...
But, please be gentle with the originator and publisher.
After all, they're only 'trying to earn a living'.
Ahem..

Dick Smith
19th Jul 2015, 08:52
Are you suggesting that there is truth in the Airservices claim that the system was only ever purchased to provide coverage above 6000' ?

Why would they spend $6m and not provide an approach service using the Tasmanian en route controllers that are already employed in the Melbourne centre? That's how it works in North America

AerocatS2A
19th Jul 2015, 10:29
I find it ironic that while Dick Smith is banging on about aligning our airspace system with that of the USA, there is a thread in Rumours and News about a mid air collision in the States that has some posters bagging the "obsolete" American system.

This recent F-16 and C150 collision could turn out to be as important as the PSA B727 midair, or the Allegheny DC9 Cherokee collision at KIND, ...to finally lead to long needed evolution of our obsolete airspace system, and improvement of our separation processes. The collision again points out the significant risk still inherent in our present antiquated Air Traffic Separation processes, still depending on a mixture of "see and be seen" and hand carrying 1:1 radar vectors

Chadzat
19th Jul 2015, 10:32
If I read another 'thats how they do it in the US' I will scream.

We are in AUSTRALIA. We do not have to blindy follow another jurisdictions airspace because it suits their levels of traffic and activity.

karrank
27th Jul 2015, 00:37
"Are you suggesting that there is truth in the Airservices claim that the system was only ever purchased to provide coverage above 6000' ?"

The situation as I remember was a bit more confused. The specification for the system only wanted high level coverage, and coverage for ground movement. The number of sites proposed by the contractor would have provided full coverage, with redundancy provided by the specification being met if some sites were broken. There was some public talk at the time about this remarkable fact and the possibilities attached.

The Authority bean counters eyed price tags and performance and deleted sites until minimum dollars would be spent and the specification covered. Hence the crap system delivered. I don't believe it was done to sabotage the system or prevent anybody's airspace ambitions, just another time, (like the TAAARTS fiasco, and the idiots who wrote the spec for that), that we unfortunately get what we ask for.

Lookleft
27th Jul 2015, 02:51
There is a good reason why most line checks in Jetstar include either Hobart or Launceston as one of the ports. Always a challenge because of procedural control. But at least Hobart has a ground frequency which makes up for the lack of radar coverage, much safer when you are on the ground. If the controllers are able to see us on whatever radar display they have then give them the tools to allow them to use it for traffic separation!!!!!

tyler_durden_80
27th Jul 2015, 06:32
Approach service using enroute controllers...?

Ignoring the different qualifications required (Not as simple as just taking an enroute controller and letting them use 3 miles instead of 5 and that's it...), AsA is flat out having enough enroute controllers to do enroute control.

TBM-Legend
27th Jul 2015, 11:39
It's amazing that in the 21st Century we don't have radar in Tassie>>

Dick Smith
29th Jul 2015, 13:30
For the $6 m spent it's clear we could have got a proper terminal survailance system

There's more to this than has come out.

UnderneathTheRadar
29th Jul 2015, 20:23
Departing out of YMLT the other day, got transferred from the (excellent) tower service at about 3000' to centre and identified immediately on transfer (i.e. well below 6000').

Presumably this means the system could see me - just not use it to control me? :sad:

le Pingouin
29th Jul 2015, 20:33
Why do you think $6million would have been adequate? A single radar is worth several times that.

c100driver
29th Jul 2015, 23:57
Approximate cost for a rotating radar head without site work and remote power is $18m USD. You could probably add $4m to complete site work.