CAGRS now established at BNK

[Al Timita]

For those not aware, a certified air/ground radio service (Ballina Radio) is now operating at Ballina airport

[Dick Smith]

Is it true that rather than it being a zero cost Unicom operated by the existing fire service as it is in the USA and Canada it costs over $100,000 per year giving ATCs retirement jobs?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Where do you get retired ATC for only $100k a year? Sounds like a bargain!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

YEP..!! You possibly get a ex 'FSO' for less...

Luvly Ballina....

Surfing in the morning....eaten by sharks by lunchtime...

p.s. thanx for ......

:ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

p.s. thanx for ......

Haven't you spent Dick's redundo yet, Griffo? It's been a while!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Ballinas ""Fact Sheet" says the service is to provide traffic blah blah for RPT ops and will typically operate 0800-1700 Their own published schedules show 1st op is at 0630, and last is at 2020, so either they won't provide coverage for all RPT movements (will CASA allow that), or the hours will be longer. So say 0600-2100. That would usually need 2 operators in 2 shifts daily, so probably at least 5 in total to give 7 day coverage and leave coverage. You won't get that for anywhere near just $100k. If the charge is added to the RPT pax head tax, GA in Ballina has just had a huge win for nothing. (along with the Fire Service they don't pay for) Nice one Dick :ok: But if it's on the landing and movement charges for all now, oops Dick, all that agitating in the media :eek: (for 12 RPT Movements a day - less than 1 an hour if they are open for all the RPTs)

[CaptainMidnight]

Curiously, even taking into account HDS, the RFF hours of operation are significantly different:

B3/17 REVIEW B2/17
CERTIFIED AIR/GROUND RADIO SERVICE (CA/GRS) OPR
HR 2200-0700 UTC DAILY (1HR EARLIER HDS)
FREQ 124.2 D CALL SIGN 'BALLINA RADIO'
CHANGES TO HR WILL BE ADVISED ON AAIS
AAIS AND AWIS AVBL VIA FREQ 134.8
FROM 03 030455 TO 05 260600 EST

C20/17 REVIEW C294/16
FIRE AND RESCUE CAT 6 OPR HOURS
MON 1915 - 1015
TUE 1915 - 1015
WED 1915 - 1015
THU 1915 - 1015
FRI 1915 - 1015
SAT 1915 - 0820
SUN 2045 - 1015
FROM 03 080000 TO 04 010820 EST

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

ARFF would be mandated to cover RPT (although curious close time since last REX arrival is sked 2020L) while CA/GRS must be whatever you want to pay for.

[Dick Smith]

Clearly sending our industry into bankruptcy. Unicoms in the USA and Canada have no cost. They use an available person at the airport. We were to copy that but the decision was hi jacked .

[Plazbot]

Clearly DICK. Clearly.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

But it's not NO cost. That available person is not there to do Unicom. They are there doing something for and being paid for by someone else. It's like free wifi and free healthcare and free education. Its only free to the end user, the costs are absorbed by someone else. Clearly, no one wants to absorb the costs of a Unicom, because hardly any one provides one.
I don't know how Ballina is funding its CAGRS, but lets say, like the Fire Service, its via an RPT pax head tax. Say it costs $400k to provide, BNK was forecast to have around 400k pax through its terminals these days, so that's a $1 on each ticket. Hardly bank breaking. So that means each and every other user of BNK gets a professional, certified, trained service, paid for by someone else. Just like the firies are. So that's a bit better than a half arsed guess by some random baggie who happens to be walking past the radio when you call.
So when you drop in in your C172, you get a dedicated Fire service, and (maybe) a dedicated traffic and weather service, for free! (Well, at least for you).

[Lead Balloon]

So when you drop in in your C172, you get a dedicated Fire service, and (maybe) a dedicated traffic and weather service, for free! (Well, at least for you).Horse ****.

The person who drops in is taxpayer. The amount of tax that person pays is more than it should be, as a consequence of the number of bloated leaches at executive level in Airservices who are diverting the amount of money that would otherwise be returned to government (probably to be sucked up by other bloated leaches anyway...). And the last time I looked, one or more of the RPT operators were enjoying a reduced or nil airways charges (but I confess that I haven't checked the current arrangements).

'User pays' is a scam, and the suggestion that users who are not paying a direct fee are not paying is inaccurate: They pay indirectly.

The discrepancy between RPT arrivals and RFFS hours will be explicable on the basis of some safety-irrelevant issue.

[Lead Balloon]

Sensible decision to delet those posts, Bloggs. :ok:

But I have copies of them...

[Capn Bloggs]

Bully for you, LB. Wasn't me, the mods did it. Surprised the mods let you get away with outright swearing on here. Sad really.

[Desert Flower]

Clearly sending our industry into bankruptcy. Unicoms in the USA and Canada have no cost. They use an available person at the airport. We were to copy that but the decision was hi jacked .
Clearly you have forgotten about Leigh Creek then Dick?

DF.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Unicoms............have no cost.

the suggestion that users who are not paying a direct fee are not paying is inaccurate: They pay indirectly.

Glad to see you agree with me. Now convince Dick. :cool:

[Dick Smith]

No. Not forgotten. You did a wonderful job and very much missed.

And there was no extra charge for the service.

If the existing RFFS provided the Unicom at Ballina there would be no measurable extra cost.

What is the rumoured cost of the new cagro at Ballina?

Clive Wilson still wants to provide a no charge unicom at Lord Howe but CASA will not give approval in writing .

[Stationair8]

Dick, isn't Clive Wilson also busy providing accurate forecasts and weather advice to pilots because of the BOM reduced the staff and their hours on YLHI.

*BoM celebrating another year of inaccurate aviation forecasting, while providing 7 day weather forecasts for one horse towns in the back of beyond.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So what is stopping him? I didn't think a Unicom needed CASA approval. Or is still a case that he is providing information that he is not legally qualified to provide. If he were to stick to that which a Unicom is authorized to provide I would imagine he would have no issues. You hint at a ASA/CASA conspiracy, ie details deleted from ERSA etc, but in truth it seems it is more local politics at play out there. Info in ERSA is provided by the AD OPR (and that is who removed his details) so obviously they don't want his services associated with the airport.
And he wouldn't be provided forecasts. Unless he is an Accredited Met Observer, the weather advice he can legally offer to pilots is extremely limited.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Nah 'Bloggsie'.

I bought a 'Jeep'....Sorry...."DH-82A Tiger".... YOU Know how it are....

Cheers :ok:

[Dick Smith]

No Clive Wilson no longer provides any service at Lord Howe Island. I will quote from the front page of The Australian newspaper, June 13, 2015.

“Then, last year, CASA would not renew what is known as his CAR 120 licence, which allowed him to provide detailed weather observations to pilots in a more proactive fashion, unless he took at $20,000 meteorological training course.”
A little later it says:

“Of aviation authorities’ efforts to smother Mr Wilson, Air Vice Marshal Evans said: “It is a great safety enhancement that isn’t part of the official safety environment so the bureaucracy tries to kill it.” An Airservices spokesman said Sir Angus was not available to comment.”

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. I introduced the Unicom as an important part of AMATS in1991.

It was to be non prescriptive. Just like the USA and Canada .

Very quickly CAA people said such a non prescriptive system could not be safe.

It's gone downhill since then. In the US unicoms give weather and traffic information with no limitations. They are fantastic.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

And it's now 26 years later, and the only one who seems to care about Unicoms is you Dick.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. Even after 15 were killed at Lockhart River where the groundsman had a radio but was not allowed to advise the aircrew that it was CAVOK to the east of the airport.

One day we will get North American type Unicoms. They are totally non prescriptive and work really well. The operator can give local WX and traffic . Fantastic

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK..now you are drawing a pretty long bow, Dick.

[Lookleft]

Dick you are the Donald Trump of Australian aviation. You just say outrageous things as though its the truth. Lockhart River was always an accident that was going to happen because of poor regulator oversight, no TAWs fitted and a PIC who had previously admitted to "shooting the hole" to get below cloud. Nowhere in that report does it state that the accident would not have occurred if a Unicom operator was at Lockhart River airport.:ugh:

[gerry111]

Why is it that some of the Australian very wealthy, expect those not to work for free?

[Dick Smith]

Certainly not me. The groundsman was already being paid. Same as the Firies at Ballina .

By not allowing US style Unicoms it's not as if we have lots of paid people performing the service . Most of our non twr airline airports have no Cagro or Unicom.

[Capn Bloggs]

Most of our non twr airline airports have no Cagro or Unicom.
Because they're not needed! You just don't get it, Dick. You need to move on from the 1950's USA mindset of friendly FBOs and follow-me girls.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Most of our non twr airline airports have no Cagro or Unicom.
Make that practically all.
But I'll bet that all those airlines have a company frequency that they use to communicate company info and maybe local conditions on. They just won't sit there all day doing it for everyone else, because it's NOT THEIR BUSINESS!

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Whatever we do make sure we don't copy the best from other countries. Those Unicoms that all US and Canadian airports have giving traffic and weather are not needed here. Our pilots are just that much better,!

[YPJT]

UNICOMs can be approved without any training or qualification of the operators except for a radio operator certificate.

Ive run one, also flown into some very good ones but also seen some real shockers. Such as a certain SW airport where the ground operator thought he had some ATC authority and directed a GA aircraft to hold to the south to let a larger RPT or charter in.

Or another one who used to like to use the term "clear to land".

then another operator who didn't understand how to interpret a windsock and gave a pilot completely wrong information about which rwy the wind was favouring.

[Dick Smith]

Yp. Good points. It's our Unicom operators that are incompetent compared to Unicom
Operators in the USA and Canada.

We will have to stick with the requirement that any operator who dares give WX or traffic info must have held an ATC or FS licence and gets paid I mint to provide the service .

Aussies are clearly inferior.

[The name is Porter]

Did you mean superior Dick? Because what I've always known is what an Australian doesn't know about aviation, isn't worth knowing. Clearly world leaders in everything aviation :ok:

[renegade154]

Interesting Dick how you tell blatant mistruths to the uninformed to try and push your point. The FAA regs clearly forbid your fantastic USA Unicoms from giving traffic information. They are allowed to do basically what a Unicom in Australia can do and no more.


I still remember very clearly when you spoke in the Hilton ballroom and talked about "Affordable Safety" and "Full cost recovery" and how the industry would have to pay.


Now you make out like it is someone else's doing and responsibility. Dick, you directly started the ball rolling on the demise of GA and services to the aviation industry. Step up be a man and take it on the chin instead of the crap you pedal on these forums.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It is worth noting the US is toying with the idea of privatising their ATC services. Interesting times ahead! I am not familiar with the level of charging for RPT service (or, even if there is any...or, how it is levied now) but will be very interested in this outcome.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

By the way...Renegade:ok::ok:

[sunnySA]

And Dick, at the BBQ who held for Sydney ATC one of the wife's of a controller asked you some pointed questions about affordable safety which you struggled to answer. Afterwards you came up to her to ask "why did you give me such a hard time".

[Capn Bloggs]

Interesting Dick how you tell blatant mistruths to the uninformed to try and push your point. The FAA regs clearly forbid your fantastic USA Unicoms from giving traffic information.
Dick! Is this true?

[Dick Smith]

Renegade154, I can see why you post anonymously. You simply don’t have the guts to put your real name behind what you are actually saying.

I can assure everyone that the myth propagated for over 20 years that you can’t give traffic information in the USA is just that – a myth.

Have a look at the US Aeronautical Information Manual (AIM) under ‘UNICOM Communications Procedures’:

“Phraseology – Frederick UNICOM Cessna eight zero one Tango Foxtrot (location on airport) taxiing to runway one niner, request wind and traffic information Frederick.”
While the FAA procedures are non-prescriptive, traffic information can be given – and is given all the time.

I find it amazing that people can keep anonymously posting disinformation to stop us from copying the best in the world.

[Capn Bloggs]

This document (which contains your quote, Dick):

https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/ac90-42F.pdf

in section 8 clearly does not mention traffic information.

I would be very careful basing a design of an airspace system on a sample radio call.

BTW, it's an "Airman's" information manual.

[YPJT]

Aussies are clearly inferior.

Dick,
I would say just not adequately trained in their where the line in the sand is.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Bloggs,

Dick has already trotted that furphy out before. As you have just now pointed out, and I have before, that is the ONLY instance of Unicoms delivering traffic that is mentioned in the entire FAA regs and AIM on the subject. They are quite prescribed and succinct on what they can and can't provide, and traffic is noticeably absent.
However, just one oft quoted instance in an example radio call...........

PS the example phraseology is for a taxing aircraft requesting traffic. This does not mean the Unicom is allowed to respond with it. There are no examples of what the Unicom operator should respond with, or what criteria they should apply when assessing it.

[Dick Smith]

The ignorance is staggering.

The FAA is non prescriptive with many regulations. There is no prescriptive limit on what can or cannot be said on a US Unicom.

Hundreds of Unicom operators on the US give traffic and weather information. They have no specific qualifications to do this. The system is fantastic. I ask Aussie pilots who have experienced the US Unicom system to come on this thread and clear up the gross ignorance from posters who are not even game to identify themselves and have been able to stop this excellent proven system from being introduced here.

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs, here is a quote from The Weekend Australian July 11-12, 2015, by Jeff Griffith:

“In the US, one of the most successful safety improvements is the UNICOM radio operator at small airports. This is a no-cost system using someone who is at the airport. It could be airport operations personnel, the flying school, a fixed base operator or the firefighting service. This option is not at present viable in Australia because regulations prevent such an operator from providing important traffic and weather information. If Australia moved to the US system, safety could substantially be improved at no measurable cost.”
So who is Jeff Griffith? An Australian aviation journalist? No, he is the former Assistant Director of Air Traffic Control at the FAA.

Another article in The Australian on 22 July 2015 mentions that the former CASA Director of Aviation Safety, John McCormick supported this:

“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 a basic local air traffic and weather information via radio, as do their counterparts in the US.”

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Interesting..., in that Advisory Circular that Bloggs found there is
"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. ..."

(note the word may)

and

"17. USE OF UNICOM FOR ATC PURPOSES. UNICOM SERVICE MAY BE USED FOR ATC PURPOSES, only under the following circumstances:
a. Revision to proposed departure time.
b. Takeoff, arrival, or flight plan cancellation time.
c. ATC clearance, provided arrangements are made between the ATC facility and the UNICOM licensee to handle such messages."

(note the lack of any traffic or separation information)

To my way of thinking, 'traffic' and or separation are ATC functions and therefor UNICOMs do not provide such functions, but I can interpret ", or other necessary information" in section 8 to mean that the UNICOM operator can/will/might/won't provide traffic and or separation.
ie. it's up to the UNICOM operator as to what information they want to provide.

[Plazbot]

So DICK, what are the FCC (not FAA) requirements for issuing a UNICOM license?

Hint, you need not one but TWO licenses to operate a UNICOM in the US.

This free ain't sounding so free no more right?

[Dick Smith]

With the further information that is coming onto this thread, everyone note post #35 by Renegade154, which in part says:

“The FAA regs clearly forbid your fantastic USA Unicoms from giving traffic information. They are allowed to do basically what a Unicom in Australia can do and no more.”
I would imagine Renegade154 is possibly one of the people in CASA who has prevented UNICOMS from working in Australia because of this disinformation which has gone on for over two decades.

[Dick Smith]

Biggles It's clear that your " way of thinking" is totally different to the FAA way of thinking.

Clearly giving traffic info is not an ATC function in FAA speak. Note a Unicom can even pass on an ATC clearance ( which has normally been provided by phone )

[Dick Smith]

Plazbot. You win. A US Unicom is probably more expensive than our $100k+ PA CAGRO manned by retired ATCs.

What with multiple licences being required..

Those dopey yanks should abolish Unicoms and go with cagros.

And it's clear from Bloggs that FAA Unicoms can't even give traffic or WX info so they are next to useless.

No wonder most GA aircraft are made in Aus- not USA.

[Plazbot]

Wasn't my question. I ask again DICK, what are the FCC requirements for UNICOM? We of course will be implementing them so you must know what they are.

[Capn Bloggs]

Plazbot. You win. A US Unicom is probably more expensive than our $100k+ PA CAGRO manned by retired ATCs.
You don't even understand why the CAGRO was put in there, do you? Do you really think a joe bloggs baggage chucker (or for that matter a firey) could serve any useful purpose at Ballina when it's busy? All he would do is get in the way (and be a menace to safety).

And it's clear from Bloggs that FAA Unicoms can't even give traffic or WX info
Read the document I posted. They can give weather. What does my old man say... "There are none so blind as those that will not see".

Going to YPBO tomorrow, will look out for the scantily-clad girl with the follow-me van offering me a cuppa with a "fill 'er up mate?" greeting!

[Car RAMROD]

Hundreds of Unicom operators on the US give traffic and weather information. They have no specific qualifications to do this. The system is fantastic.

I'd like my weather and traffic information to come from someone who knows what they are talking about thank you very much.

Following your line of logic there Dick, why don't we take it one step further and replace ATCs with people that aren't trained?


If you like it so much you could always move to the US :confused:

[thorn bird]

I really have some reservations about some of the posters on this thread.
I used to fly quite frequently to a little airport in the US called Fernandina beach.
It was a bit of a weekend retreat for the NY hoi paloi, very expensive condo's, resorts and golf courses. Friday afternoon the circuit was full of heavy metal traffic from NY.The airport was quite busy most times due to several maintenance businesses and quite a lot of training.
When you were cleared off centre with an instruction to call on the ground, you called the unicom. This was run by an ex navy carrier pilot, a paraplegic, in a wheelchair due to an unfortunate accident. He received no remuneration for his services, but he was there every day providing traffic information and weather information, I think that was his reason for getting out of bed every day.
Having flown all over the US from Alaska to Florida as well as Canada the local unicom operator provided useful service at no cost.

I sometimes wonder as I read some of the comments from the sky gods on here,
why are you so negative? Is this just a Dick bashing Phobia you have?
Does what he is suggesting cost you personally? or the operator you work for?
Does a unicom affect you or your operation in any way? In the US and Canada its provided at no cost to anyone, its up to you if you use the information provided.
Its only a dumb ass ill informed country like Australia takes a simple system and complicates it into a convoluted expensive mess.

A unicom may or may not provide any safety benefit at all, but does it really matter? it costs nothing so why are so many of you so negative? From my experience it might just save your neck one day, then again it might not.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

But I note that the Fernadina Beach unicom was not run by any of the firies, groundstaff, maintenance orgs, FBO's, or training schools ie, anyone actually working at the airport. It was basically a hobby for a guy with nothing else to do it seems. Good luck to him. However, as has been said a thousand times, there is nothing stopping anyone from providing a unicom now in Australia, especially if you have the requisite Met qualifications. Surely they have not said, "well if I can't pass traffic, I'm not going to do it!" Where are the hundreds of Unicoms all waiting to take your call and order your fuel, hotel and taxi? I would have thought all the other worthwhile duties of a unicom would still make it viable....er.......hang on......

Of course Unicom is no cost. It is always going to be no cost to the end user. But not on the other end. And it seems that even the supposed pittance isn't seen as worth it by those that actually do the paying.

[CaptainMidnight]

There is no prescriptive limit on what can or cannot be said on a US Unicom.The U.S FAR 47 Part 87 would suggest otherwise:

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=tDXGY12uWwAC&pg=PA216&lpg=PA216&dq=Code+of+Federal+Regulations+Titles+47,unicom&source=bl&ots=U9g3TRolKz&sig=bDsnxoZg-hVhpzHJlpOD3dxbGgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiz1oWZ5e7SAhUJwbwKHbopDTIQ6AEIKDAB#v=onepage&q=Code%20of%20Federal%20Regulations%20Titles%2047%2Cunicom&f=false

[Capn Bloggs]

This was run by an ex navy carrier pilot,
Quite happy to have that fellow providing me with info; he actually would know what he is talking about. I don't mean this in a disparaging way, but you are delusional if you think even 10% of people who work on the airports I frequent could provide anything like a safe service. In fact, it would be unsafe because of their lack of knowledge.

Give me a Beepback and an AWIB every time, unless it's busy, then give me a CAGRO. Then if it's really busy, an AFIZ. And then a tower. Gee willikers, a safe, graded-service system that works well. Who'da thought such a system could exist in ..... Australia? :rolleyes:

Well, well, well Captain Midnight, it seems that some USA experts don't have a clue about the system they are/were operating in, does it. Tut tut to them. :=

[Biggles_in_Oz]

Mr Smith.
I want to know what service or information a UNICOM can, or will, provide.
I do not want a service that is dependent on who turns-up, or how busy they are, or how they feel, when I request their services.

The USA has a heck of a lot of small airports, and their business model is to get fliers on the ground to use their services.,
ie. if outer-ButtFf airport provides a better UNICOM service than inner-ButtFf airport then there is commercial pressure for the inner-ButtFf UNICOM to improve their service to get more customers.

Australia simply does NOT have the population, or the number of aircraft, or the number of airports, to provide such an 'free-market' in aviation.

[Plazbot]

DICK threads run by the rule of 3s. He says the same thing 3 times. Gets ask a question by 3 people that don't receive answers. Goes off on 3 tangents. End up with him saying it's not him, it's us and disappears for 3 months. 3 dicksupports come along with the usual 'well struth he's a nice bloke and you gallahs should listen'. I die a little inside and around we go again.

I think we have ticked the boxes here. See you all again soon.

[27/09]

This thread illustrates four things.

Australia has more Skygods per head of population than the rest of the world.

For those who have never been exposed to the wide world, Australian procedures are always worlds best practice and never accept that something that works elsewhere may actually work in Australia.

Those that have been exposed to the wide world are much more enlightened.

Some posters always oppose Dick no matter what the argument is.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

This keeps bugging me. Two years ago Dick was bashing away at Radar coverage going into Ballina. He was more or less implying there should be a radar service down to the final fix for all IFR flights into Ballina. ADS-B got a guernsey as to it's perceived inadequacies. The new firey facility got a bit of a bashing...all in the background to this....Ballina is getting busier with RPT.

Now, the firies are ensconced...and Dick thinks things are sooooo quiet that they could be better employed keeping an eye on the circuit area and provide a Unicom service FOC....is this some ulterior motive to head off the need for a TWR and the resultant class D which will stop Dick migrations up and down the beautiful coastal beaches???

[Dick Smith]

Biggles. Main advantage of a Unicom is that it can check that an aircraft radio is actually working correctly.

Also can give traffic if an aircraft taxis out onto the runway giving the announcements on the wrong frequency as Qantas did at Ayers Rock.

[extralite]

As a regular flyer into Ballina the unicom seems like a sensible solution for the RPT. Sounds like a good idea to train up the firies to give an extra service (not saying it will ever happen). Dont think there are too may professions where you would need to do as little as airport firey at Ballina:).= Not knocking them by the way, sure they are great fellas/ladies and well trained but its not exactly going to be flat strap all day. Great job if you can get it.


This whole thread reminds me of this: https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

But cant people have a difference of opinion here and articulate point without taking cheap shots? Doesnt seem to happen when i talk with other pilots face to face. If someone has a different viewpoint so what, just argue politely why you disagree. Bringing up wealth-envy or off hand remarks from 20 years ago doesn't improve the argument. People get so worked up about any criticism of the current system you have to wonder why they are being so defensive. There are parts of our air traffic system that should be defended, but others are entitled to disagree.

I reckon a lot of it is just "knowledge signalling"..i know more about aviation that others. My last post i was commenting on something that was my job for almost 20 years and a couple of people started ranting how i didnt know the first thing about it. I dont know anything about being a 737 driver, so Im not going to jump on a related thread and tell them to harden up about rosters, you knew what you signed up for, the regs are fine, there is a robust fatigue management culture and we used to have it harder back in the day. Just because i know a little about it doesnt make me an expert. Maybe its the fatigue from pilots expressed in the thread above that makes them so angry here all the time.

Dick Smith and a few others fly in other countries a lot. Why is it so offensive to some people that he suggests other countries do some things better? I personally think Australian air traffic front line is great. But the regs they seem to have to operate under, in particular with military airspace (which I used to use..great swathes of airspace closed down so i could have a bit more room to maneuver close to base) is way to restrictive. Just an opinion.


I think the thread and its arguments are more about frustration with the current setup then the Unicom at Ballina. More just lack of trust in the system that now any change is seen as something bad. From wandering off to find a JP every 2 years to get a new photo signed for ASIC, bull**** notams that are so long and full of ass covering exercises such as a beacon inoperative 5nm away that few read them, licenses written in a code rather than just saying what it is..could go on and on. Most pilot are just tired of the bul**** stuff and want it simplified. That is not taking it back to "follow-me girls" (was there every such a thing?I remember follow me cars when flying into some USA airports but not girls) but just something to make it simpler. Just look how it took private companies like AVPLAN or OZRunways to simplify flight planning to what it should be by making a plugin to NAIPS while our bloated public service spend hundreds of millions re-writing regs that few pilot will ever read because every ass needs to be fully covered and blame sheeted back to the pilot who did not follow said regulations. if it werent for those companies we would still be logging in through Naips and converting English into code (I bet that comment gets some worked up :) But thank god for AVPLAN.OZrunways ) Probably being a bit harsh on CASA there, every now and then casa put out something we can understand.

Anyway im thankful that i fly for enjoyment now and not a living and those people that do it professionally good luck with it because it seems bloody grueling. But just because someone has to do it for a living doesn't mean their opinion is the only one that counts. Go easy on people who dont agree. Im amazed Dick Smith is even here commenting, let alone answering every nitpicky question that is thrown his way. Good to read everybody comments

[OZBUSDRIVER]

It wasn't Avplan to thank for the Web interface for NAIPS.

Extralite, you have to ask...Ballina has reached the threshold of pax numbers to lock in a dedicated RFFS...it isn't too far away and a TWR/Class D service will also be locked in...so why harp on about a Unicom?

Just to add, Ballina is shifting way past 460,000 pax a year so the criteria to trigger the study to form a safety case to implement the procedures to ascertain if funds should be allocated for the study and recommendations to begin designing and building a tower should be discussed at the very next meeting....

[Mr Approach]

A bit like extralite, I love PPrune because I learn what others are thinking, I can do without the personal abuse...but to turn to the subject.

Before Dick came along we had a Flight Service profession that had inherited legislation from the days when Australia was described by Flight International as the Police State of Aviation. Almost mandatory flight planning and traffic information everywhere. Dick brought a fresh pair of eyes and tried to turn Australia into a place where you could fly a plane just like you could drive a car or sail a boat. Just the regulation that was required to keep a reasonable standard of safety. Unfortunately he called it Affordable Safety because that is what it was, and has been caned for it ever since.

Dick brought MULTICOM and UNICOMS to Australia which is why we call them by their US names however there is no equivalent regulation to the FCC stuff quoted on this thread. CASA does regulate UNICOMS in a light way but as far as I am aware anyone can pop-up on the CTAF and offer a service. All they need (and this is the light regulation) is an Aviation Radio Operators Certificate (AROC) unless they are a pilot when the AROC privileges are included with the pilot licence. If you want to be a weather observer the BoM will train you and CASA will then approve you to pass the observation to pilots; this is the CAR120 approval. There are at the last count 22 UNICOMS advertised in ERSA, and AIP has some advice about what they can pass to pilots in the way of information. It is fine to say that anyone should be able to pass weather and traffic information but I suggest that people are thinking about a nice sunny sky and a couple of aircraft. Try thinking about a dirty rainy day, marginal VMC with scud-runners galore and a couple of pilots trying to make an instrument approach. Should someone at a UNICOM who is untrained take it upon themselves to give a weather observation or traffic information to a pilot who then got into some sort of dangerous situation, can you imagine the furore and where the buck would stop? At CASA, that's where, and quite rightly so because CASA is charged with oversight of our aviation system.

So due to political pressure (that's another word for you, Dick) CASA came up with the CA/GRS and some UNICOM trials to see how this level of service might work. I understand that there was universal condemnation of the UNICOM trials run by Airservices so CASA rejected the concept of regulated UNICOM but stuck with the CA/GRS. This is after all only a souped-up UNICOM where already trained radio operators are provided with a regulated minimum suite of equipment and certified to be able to provide weather and directed traffic information. In both the CA/GRS that currently exist they are ex FSOs or ex-ATCs because they are the only source we have of trained operators. (No - pilots are not similarly trained) I can only guess at what the cost of replicating ATC/FSO basic training would cost but I doubt that an off-the-street, which includes firemen and baggage handlers, CA/GRO could be trained for less that $30,000. Airport safety officers are in a slightly different category because many of them have BoM qualifications and could be CAR120 approved to pass weather, as by the way can any UNICOM operator - but not traffic. So it is possible to have this so-called no-cost service called a UNICOM but no-one seems to want to do it. On the other hand if you want to improve safety at an airport why not employ some retired ATCs or FSOs to provide traffic information?

It seems to me that we have is a good old-fashioned compromise that accepts that our system is different while trying to capture a good feature of a different system.

[renegade154]

Clearly giving traffic info is not an ATC function in FAA speak. Note a Unicom can even pass on an ATC clearance ( which has normally been provided by phone )



Unfortunately Dick, if you dig into the FAA regs a little further you will see references to ATC's passing Traffic Information.


The FAA regs specifically state that a UNICOM can not carry out ANY of the functions of an ATC. Exceptions to this are noted in the Regs, as per you alluding to UNICOM's being able to pass a clearance.... this can ONLY be done when requested to be relayed by an ATC. And if it is like our third party communicators then it must be relayed verbatim so that the UNICOM is purely a relay station.

The FAA regs are vague in relation to UNICOM's passing traffic information but if I apply your logic, of using the phraseology example, to reinforce that a UNICOM can pass traffic, then I can use my logic of Traffic Information being passed by ATC's, which is mentioned in the FAA regs, to reinforce that UNICOM's cannot legally carry out an ATC function of providing traffic advice.
However, this is all academic as I know that some UNICOM's in the States do pass traffic. If you care to research you will find, however, numerous articles on the problems caused by untrained, but probably enthusiastic, UNICOM operators providing incorrect/inadequate information which has led to incidents occurring.

Just to let you know Dick, I do not work for CASA but have been a professional in the industry for over 38 years. Yes I have worked within the restrictive regime of regulation in this country and I have also seen some of the ATC/FS operations overseas.


I actually don't care if UNICOM's are allowed to pass traffic as long as, THEY HAVE ADEQUATE TRAINING, unfortunately Dick your idea of an untrained person providing traffic information is fraught with danger.


One question I would have is who is going to protect the UNICOM operator from litigation when they cock up and are deemed to have contributed to deaths from an accident! Do UNICOM operators understand their duty of care, and the potential risk's to them. Every ATC and, in the past, FSO fully understands their liability and work to ensure their duty of care is fully and properly acquitted every working day.
I know you will be thinking I am being alarmist and a regulatory flunky but Dick, have you ever heard of safety systems and risk mitigation. If you understand the James Reason model of accident/incident development, occurrence and chains of events leading to them then I think you might just consider that an "untrained" operator passing traffic could just be the final hole in the barrier to stop an accident occurring.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

To be a CA/GRO you need to either hold or have held within the last 10 years an ATC or FSO Licence. That would pretty much count out most (if not all) ex-FSO's who didn't transfer to ATC :( I'd also reckon if anyone does qualify as an FSO, they wouldn't have been assessing and passing too much traffic in the last 10 years.

[Dick Smith]

Renegrade. Why wouldn't you just copy the US system where no prescibed training is required?

Also in the USA there has never been a situation on the FAA records where legal action has been taken against a Unicom operator.

And the US is a very litigious society.

But by being obsessed with insurance the original group running the CAGRO at Ayers Rock got charged $50 k PA for insurance. This was because the operators were trained,

Why wouldn't we just copy the best,

[le Pingouin]

Different legal system. Strict liability.

Next!

[Lead Balloon]

Strict liability has nothing to do with liability for common law negligence. Next.

Anyway, you've been told this many, many times Dick: If you want the US system, you have to import the entirety of the system.

Tell me this: When you fly around in the US, do you attract an avalanche of bills for landing fees, parking fees, terminal navigation charges and enroute charges?

You facilitated the biggest scam ever played on GA in Australia: "User Pays".

"User Pays" means the user pays four times: Income tax, GST, fuel excise and then all of the new stuff. Thanks for that.

[Dexta]

I actually don't care if UNICOM's are allowed to pass traffic as long as, THEY HAVE ADEQUATE TRAINING, unfortunately Dick your idea of an untrained person providing traffic information is fraught with danger.


"Passing traffic" has been mentioned a few times in this thread, what do you think is the definition of a UNICOM passing traffic information? Certainly a UNICOM wouldn't be able to say "ABC there is a C172 5 miles to the south at 2500' tracking 240" BUT a UNICOM would be able to say "ABC there is a C172 conducting circuits on 01" or "ABC there is an ultralight in the circuit on 24 and they are not radio equiped"
Do you think that that kind of "passing traffic" would be useful coming into an uncontrolled airfield?

[buckshot1777]

To be a CA/GRO you need to either hold or have held within the last 10 years an ATC or FSO Licence. That would pretty much count out most (if not all) ex-FSO's who didn't transfer to ATCFWIW I believe once granted, unless suspended or cancelled by CASA, one is considered to hold an ATC or FSO licence for life, irrespective of duties. It's just that the licence is not valid/current without a current rating/endorsement or current medical.

MOS Part 65 somewhere. Same as doctors I guess. Once trained and qualified, you are a doctor for life, though not necessarily current or fully competent :)

dexta

The fundamental thing is that CASR Part 139 prevents an aerodrome operator from operating an air/ground radio service unless it is a CAGRS. One of the functions of a CAGRS is to provide advice of relevant air traffic.

Under MOS 139 a UNICOM is not permitted to provide that advice. For specific trials of UNICOMs in the past, CASA had to grant exemptions to allow limited traffic advice.

With the specific example you quote, MOS 139 would suggest neither would be permitted by a UNICOM:

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

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

[renegade154]

Re the licensing requirement for CAGRO. I believevit says a"current" licence within the last ten years. To be current it must have a Class 3 medical attached. Anyone not using the licence is not going to go to the trouble of doing medicals.

Re Part 139 and who can operate a UNICOM and it's functions.... Watch this space before the end of the year! 😉

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Thanks Buckshot. I never knew that. I had to hand my licence over to the OIC when I took VR, I've always thought it was cancelled since then. I guess somewhere in the catacombs of AsA or CASA they have a record of it stamped into a clay tablet if I ever wanted to recover the Licence No. etc.

Its a pity the MOS 65 contains a typo (?) that repeats the ATC duration in the FS section:

Chapter 6 - ATC
6.1.2.1 An Air Traffic Controller Licence shall remain valid for the lifetime of the holder, provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met, unless the licence is suspended or cancelled by CASA.

Chapter 11 - Flight Service
11.1.2.1 An Air Traffic Controller Licence shall remain valid for the lifetime of the holder, provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met, unless the licence is suspended or cancelled by CASA.

Probably no one has ever noticed or cared :(

From MOS 139 (v1.14 2017):

Therefore, applicants for the issue of a CA/GRO Certificate must hold, or have held within the last ten years, an ICAO recognised Air Traffic Controller licence or an Australian Flight Service Officer licence.

Doesn't say it has to have been current.

There was this https://www.casa.gov.au/file/421/download?token=xdXflipk back in 2006 to widen the net, but I'm guessing it went nowhere as the current MOS hasn't changed. The rational for the NPC was that it was getting harder to find eligible candidates, so perhaps the "current" is implied/preferred, but it is not stated.

MOS 65 states that "provided the conditions specified in CASR Part 65 continue to be met", which seems to be holding a rating and carrying out the functions. A Class 3 medical is a pre-requisite for initial granting of the licence, and must be maintained while exercising it. Any ratings/endorsements or qualifications granted by the ATS provider are invalid when the holder ceases employment with the ATS provider. CASA can then use non proficiency or non medical currency to suspend or cancel the licence, but must notify the holder in writing after making them jump through some hoops. I have never been formally notified my licence has been cancelled.

Maybe the OIC threw it in his bin after I left his office, which is probably about as official as it will ever get.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Mr 'T',

The last 'current' FSO's were in Perth FSC, closed Dec 2000 - although a dedicated few stayed on to man / person the International Network until the Cocos freqs were transferred to BN, for a further few months or so.

Cheers :ok:

[le Pingouin]

Lead, strict liability has everything to do with anything CASA touches.

[Dick Smith]

Lead ballooon. I can see why you post your defamatory comments anonymously.

The Labor government introduced user pays before I had any involvement . I will post information that clearly shows my objections at the time.

I was then involved in reducing staff from 7000 to 3500 to reduce costs to the industry.

Stick to the truth .

[Car RAMROD]

Dick, what is the point in having untrained/unqualified people on the radio? Even if you aren't paying them, it's still a waste.

Just because you say something is the best, doesn't make it so.
You aren't in the tuna business are you, or mates with John West?

[Lead Balloon]

Lead ballooon. I can see why you post your defamatory comments anonymously.

The Labor government introduced user pays before I had any involvement . I will post information that clearly shows my objections at the time.

I was then involved in reducing staff from 7000 to 3500 to reduce costs to the industry.

Stick to the truth .If I am incorrect I apologise unreservedly.

I thought you and Boyd Munro championed "pay our way, have our say". Is my memory not serving me correctly?

[YPJT]

Dick, what is the point in having untrained/unqualified people on the radio? Even if you aren't paying them, it's still a waste.

Yes exactly, stick to answering questions about fuel, where to park and maybe calling a cab or the occasional request from a passing aircraft such as "... Unicom ABC, request from MEL Centre can you confirm XYZ is on the ground at your airport, if so ask them to cancel SARWATCH."

On one occasion I had to get on the radio to inform a pilot that was about to enter the runway that a B717 was on final for. Reason being, numbnut about to enter couldn't have been bothered to read NOTAMs advising of the CTAF change. At the time I had more than 10 years flying experience under my belt. I would suggest UNICOM operator with a freshly minted ROCP might not have the same level of situational awareness.