Port Hedland AFIS wind back

[Dick Smith]

Many will remember with the AMATS changes we removed the Aerodrome Flight Information Zones (AFIZ). In those days they were some enormous 15nm radius and everyone had to call in. Talk about a make jobs system!

I note that Port Hedland has been wound back to an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) and it looks like it is 20 miles in radius up to 8,000 feet. Does that mean someone flying 19 miles away from Port Hedland at 500 feet AGL and not going anywhere close to the airport, has to call up and give a position report?

I wonder when they will reintroduce flight planning for such aircraft.

Another make jobs system.

This is a rumour network. The rumour is that it costs about $600,000 to operate the Port Hedland AFIS. Is that correct or does anyone have a more accurate figure?

[Capn Bloggs]

I note that Port Hedland has been wound back to an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS)
Wound back from what, Dick?

[Captain Nomad]

It was 'wound back' from CTAF hey... :E

I doubt many people would know or care if there was someone 19 miles away at 500' AGL not going anywhere close to the airport...

[Car RAMROD]

How many years has the AFIS been operating, and it's only half wound back now?

[Dick Smith]

No. Half wound back when it was put in. What was wrong with a CTAF with a US style Unicom?

Why is it huge? To catch lots of aircraft to make it look busy?

FAA style class C only goes to 5nm at ground level.

[CaptainMidnight]

20 miles in radius up to 8,000 feet. How long does a jet take to do 20 miles - 4/5 minutes? Is that an enormous amount of time to receive and absorb the traffic info?The rumour is that it costs about $600,000 to operate the Port Hedland AFISAnd how much would a TWR service cost instead?

The AFIS was put in - some 4 or 5 years ago - because CASA considered the traffic levels justified it, but were - and I understand still are - not high enough to justify a TWR.

Sounds to me like a cost-effective alternative.

[Mr Approach]

Dick - I believe it was put in as an interim measure when Port Hedland was supposed to become a Tower. The traffic disappeared with the end of the mining boom and the interim AFIS has operated ever since staffed by ATCs from Karratha. The broadcast area is the same size as the Ayers Rock broadcast area.

FAA Class C can be 5nm because it is surrounded by Class E which contains the instrument approaches and missed approaches. Our Class D and C is bigger to do the same job becuase of the lack of Class E.

[Capn Bloggs]

No. Half wound back when it was put in. What was wrong with a CTAF with a US style Unicom?
Don't you mean wound too far forward? :confused:

What was wrong with a CTAF with a US style Unicom?
They tried to find someone who'd do it but because it didn't pay, they all said "stuff that, do you really think I'd sit around in this hell-hole yabbering to planes or nothing? I've got better things to do like train for fires...". :)

the interim AFIS has operated ever since staffed by ATCs from Karratha
They sound too relaxed... ;)

YPPD AFIS is the epitome of an uncontrolled aerodrome; short, sharp, concise and to the point traffic info by experienced aviation professionals keeping an eye on weather, and other things. It's a pleasure to operate into YPPD, and it's easy to see how a yank-style unicom (or the fireys, no offence) wouldn't work well.

[Lead Balloon]

So where is the AIP information that says it's anything other than an 'ordinary' CTAF? :confused:

[Capn Bloggs]

Class E
There's THAT word again! I knew it'd rear its ugly head before long in a Dick Smith thread! :{

[CaptainMidnight]

the interim AFIS has operated ever since staffed by ATCs from KarrathaUnless something has changed recently, it is - and always has been - staffed by ex-W.A. FSOs as CAGROs. So where is the AIP information that says it's anything other than an 'ordinary' CTAF?ERSA FAC Port Hedland.

[Captain Nomad]

So where is the AIP information that says it's anything other than an 'ordinary' CTAF?

A couple of options... AIP ERSA - Port Hedland - ATS Communications Facilities

Jepp ATC pg. AU-112 'Air Traffic Rules and Services - 8.8 Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS)'

[Lead Balloon]

So ERSA FAC says there's an 'AFIS' at YPPD. It has the same frequency as the CTAF. What are the operational rules that make it different from an 'ordinary' CTAF?

I understood that Dick was suggesting that there was some operational difference.

[Captain Nomad]

You need to also look at:

Jepp ATC pg. AU-112 'Air Traffic Rules and Services - 8.8 Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS)'
3rd Apr 2017 09:32

[Lead Balloon]

Gobbledegook to me.

I'll approach it a different way: What are the operational rules at an aerodrome with an AFIS that differ from the operational rules at an 'ordinary' CTAF.

[CaptainMidnight]

You're a bit of a worry LB.

AIP GEN 3.3-10 section para 2.8 .......

[Lead Balloon]

Please understand I don't fly that much in these hearts of darkness where this kind of weirdness flourishes.

I now see the ridiculousness to which Dick refers.

So the rule is that all aircraft departing, arriving or transiting a 'Broadcast Area' during AFIS hours must make a broadcast prior to or as soon as possible after entering the 'Broadcast Area'. The 'Broadcast Area' for YPPD is within 20 nms and surface to 8,000' AMSL.

What a joke.

This has got to be the result of a Cap'n Bloggs pet project. If so, well done Capn! Your own Nirvana with all those experienced aviation professionals pleasuring each other with all that talk.

[alphacentauri]

Captain Midnight,

No its definitely staffed by ATC's ex Karratha. They commute up there by road for their run of shifts and then drive home.

One of them frequents these boards....I'm sure he is reading with interest

[AbsoluteFokker]

Smells like MBZ! Works for me.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Back in the day, most AFIZ were at aerodromes that were predominantly origins, destinations, or waypoints which tended to concentrate the traffic. That's why they were established. There wasn't a whole lot of passing nearby traffic. As pointed out, most aircraft when they called inbound were only 5-8 minutes out, a jet maybe 3-4. Didn't seem an inordinate or troublesome impost, especially when straight in approaches got the nod. If you are going to have someone assess and pass traffic, weather and other relevant info, you have to give them time to do it. In most cases it was done far enough out for the pilot to then be able to concentrate on their approach and landing.
Why is it huge? To catch lots of aircraft to make it look busy?
If they are all coming from or going to the same place, it doesn't matter how big it is. You're not catching any more aircraft.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

The rumour is that it costs about $600,000 to operate the Port Hedland AFIS. Is that correct or does anyone have a more accurate figure?
Nah, thats just for the Ballina CAGRO, Hedland would have to go at least a mill. The ATC wouldn't get out of bed for less. :ok:

[Capn Bloggs]

This has got to be the result of a Cap'n Bloggs pet project. If so, well done Capn! Your own Nirvana with all those experienced aviation professionals pleasuring each other with all that talk.
Kindergarten must be out...

One of them frequents these boards....I'm sure he is reading with interest
Whoops! I take it all back!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re..."They tried to find someone who'd do it but because it didn't pay, they all said "stuff that, do you really think I'd sit around in this hell-hole yabbering to planes or nothing? I've got better things to do like train for fires...".

Nope..... I just went fishin' instead......Better for the mind......

'Nite Dick....
:ok:

[Lead Balloon]

What was the radius of an AFIZ 'back in the day'? As I recall it was 15nm.

Then the MBZs were invented. As I recall, some of them had 15nm radius and some 10nm.

I'm sure the huge volume of airspace covered by an AFIS 'Broadcast Area' of 20nm radius surface to 8,000' gives a lot of people a warm inner glow of increased safety. But what a joke.

[Capn Bloggs]

Stay calm, son, it'll be alright.

[CaptainMidnight]

No its definitely staffed by ATC's ex Karratha. They commute up there by road for their run of shifts and then drive home.OK things have clearly changed then. I remember the initial bunch who were definitely all W.A. ex FSOs being refamilled at the Airservices training college at ML, and they used to come up from PH for (I think) two week stints.

LB: the AFIS provided by CAGROs at places like PD, AYE & BNA is a big step up in service from absolutely nothing without going to a TWR. Surely given the level and types flying there deserve it?

Arrivals and Departures (http://www.porthedlandairport.com.au/arrivals-and-departures1.html)

If you are advocating the alternatives, UNICOM or TWR ........

Oh, and AFIZs (within which an AFIS was provided) were 15NM SFC-5000 (I think) with a requirement for all aircraft to call inbound @ 30NM.

When the FSU's closed down the AFIZs & AFIS remained for a while, the service being remotely provided from the remaining FSCs. Then MBZs came in, and the AFIZs and AFIS disappeared.

[Dick Smith]

This is a huge amount of money being drained out of our industry.

The reason we introduced AMATS in 1991 was to get the costs down.


By reversing the changes and going back to 1950s procedures when at least 50% was paid by the taxpayer will further damage our industry.

[Spodman]

Oh, and AFIZs (within which an AFIS was provided) were 15NM SFC-5000 (I think) with a requirement for all aircraft to call inbound @ 30NM.
Correct. I'm sure the huge volume of airspace covered by an AFIS 'Broadcast Area' of 20nm radius surface to 8,000' gives a lot of people a warm inner glow of increased safety. But what a joke.

When I worked there we had a spare console decorated with two VTC, one of Port Hedland, the other of London, in the same scale. In the area covered by London's international airports and a host of smaller ones Hedland had one, plus a farm house, plus some sand.

Not a waste of anything in particular. My sympathies to those that still have to work there.

[Lead Balloon]

When I worked there we had a spare console decorated with two VTC, one of Port Hedland, the other of London, in the same scale. In the area covered by London's international airports and a host of smaller ones Hedland had one, plus a farm house, plus some sand.But think about all the traffic to and from that farmhouse!

[le Pingouin]

Since when are FS and ATC not part of the aviation industry? Hmmm? I wear an ASIC, have medicals and speak the lingo! You us and bloody them divisiveness is half the damn problem. Any wonder why people like me detest you Dick.

$1.50 per passenger per flight is a huge drain is it Dick?

[Dick Smith]

But I luv ya la ping. I don't detest anyone. I quite like people with different views including ATCs.

I can see why you post anonymously .

I fully accept ATCs are an important part of our industry. I would just prefer they use their expensively gained skills to " control " IFR aircraft. Not just give a 1930s traffic service!

[SOPS]

Well I'm old school. The Port Headland tower worked well, as did Flight Service Units all around Australia. It wasn't broken, but it 'had to be fixed.' Anyway, I will just live as an old timer remembering the old times, when ATC and FSU provided services and we worked together as a team. ( And in the country stations, we all knew each other.)

[The name is Porter]

Well Dick, I'm ex ATC, left of my own accord, no redundancy payout, I don't detest you. I have seen the waste, those that work in the sheltered workshop and will never experience the cost imposition of stupid procedures, airspace, liabilities, work practices don't get it and never will, wasting your time mate.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

So you're actually in favour of more regulation? Yet you got rid of the Control Towers, but now want more control to the ground, you got rid of the professional traffic advisors, and now insist that any amateur with access to a mike can have a go.
The airspace is not the reason GA is practically dead in this country. Being unable to get traffic off Billy the Bag Snatcher when inbound to Turpentine Downs is not the greatest crisis faced by Australian aviation. Two private aerodrome operators (out of how many?) having a go at increasing safety by providing a CAGRS is not bringing the industry to its knees. You are bashing your head against the wall of things that don't matter.
Use your political clout to fix what is the problem - CASA.

If a frequency is retransmitted in the GAFA and there's no one to hear it, did it really get retransmitted at all?

[Rule3]

Holy Hatrack Batman, are you saying Port Headland no longer has a Tower? It did when I did my ATC outstation attachment there in 1972. MMA F28s, Gulfstream 2s,Choppers, BN2A to Goldsworthy several times a day. Watching the cars try to beat the ore trains to the crossing. Walkabout Hotel. Those were the days.

[Spodman]

I can see why you post anonymously ....as in checking out his other posts for something you can get him sacked for after you crack his id???

[le Pingouin]

Dick, mate, I'm just a veteran en-route controller with no particular influence. Whether I post anonymously or not is of no consequence. We've been here many times before. Shrug.

[Jabawocky]

The real safety risk here is;

a. And environment where the perceived enemy are the very ones unlikely to realise that such a thing exists.

b. The RPT pilots who come and go all week get very comfortable with the warm fuzzy feeling of extra safety from this unknown to the enemy MBZ/CAGRO/AFIS/AFIZ/Alphabet Soup airspace.


I dare say 99% of PPL/CPL folk who do not travel there daily would not even realise it exists. If asked off the top of my head about that aerodrome I would have believed it was a CTAF like every other one with RPT jets coming and going.

The safety folks around would say latent conditions for a pharque-up. but at least they will have a well buried rule that says who was at fault.

[ersa]

The guys in hedland , do 2 week stints from perth....Air services did a survey on port hedland about 3 odd years ago, with the mining boom/traffic increasing it was just below the threshold for a tower.

Its 20nm traffic circle on hedland, it works really well and informs the airlines of the helicopter movement from the port.

It will never be a towered aerodrome the traffic has died in the arse .

[CaptainMidnight]

I dare say 99% of PPL/CPL folk who do not travel there daily would not even realise it exists.Possibly so, but with an ounce of responsible and professional conduct as pilots, if & when they do have the need to go there they will look @ their charts, ERSA FAC YPPD - perhaps even NOTAM and WX - and educate themselves, same as we all should do when going to any unfamiliar area/location.

Those who do fly in the region should know about it. There was extensive education @ RAPAC & via the various industry associations.

Try dropping into KA or BRM and claim you didn't realise CTA & a TWR existed -

[Dick Smith]

Spodman. No actually. I have no interest in his ID.

Just amazed that he doesn't use his or her own name when making such comments.

It's called strength of conviction . And I simply don't believe his or her job would be at risk. If so a new employer is needed.

I have always promoted staff who dared to have a different idea and stand up in an open way . They have made me lots of money.

[Lead Balloon]

Possibly so, but with an ounce of responsible and professional conduct as pilots, if & when they do have the need to go there they will look @ their charts, ERSA FAC YPPD - perhaps even NOTAM and WX - and educate themselves, same as we all should do when going to any unfamiliar area/location.

Those who do fly in the region should know about it. There was extensive education @ RAPAC & via the various industry associations.

Try dropping into KA or BRM and claim you didn't realise CTA & a TWR existed -Not a valid comparison. CTA is not a new or revived concept. And the people who usually fly in the region aren't the people who need to know.

But for this thread I would not have known that the AFIZ concept had reared its head again, this time even larger for 'extra safety'. Heck, why not make the Broadcast Area 30nms radius up to the transition level, for even more 'safety'.

I agree with Jabba.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Polly wanna cracker...???

:}

[Capn Bloggs]

LB, get out of the air if that's your attitude. Read your ERSA or keep well away from anything with bitumen on it!

Not a valid comparison. CTA is not a new or revived concept. And the people who usually fly in the region aren't the people who need to know.
Yes it is! How would you know there was a tower there?

Rediculous.

[CaptainMidnight]

AFIZ's haven't been revived. What have been in place for many years are Broadcast Areas, some of which have a CAGRS/AFIS provided within.

How long has AYE been operating with a CAGRS/AFIS - 12 years?

Ditto AVV, BRM & KA for the months (in 2010?) before they went to CTR/CTA & TWR? And now BNA.

BAs and AFIS are not new or revised concepts, but yes, the AFIS shares similarities with the FSUs with AFIZs of old, but so what?

As I said in an earlier post, the AFIS was put in @ PD some 4 or 5 years ago because CASA considered the traffic levels justified it, but were not high enough to justify a TWR.

An AFIS is a considerable step up from no ATS. How much would a TWR service cost instead? Sounds to me like a cost-effective alternative.

What would you suggest instead of an AFIS?

[Jabawocky]

Possibly so, but with an ounce of responsible and professional conduct as pilots, if & when they do have the need to go there they will look @ their charts, ERSA FAC YPPD - perhaps even NOTAM and WX - and educate themselves, same as we all should do when going to any unfamiliar area/location.

Those who do fly in the region should know about it. There was extensive education @ RAPAC & via the various industry associations.

Try dropping into KA or BRM and claim you didn't realise CTA & a TWR existed -

Midnight,

I agree. Sitting here on the east coast, never going there I would not have the foggiest. Planning to fly in there I would read up. I expect most would. But I expect too much of the ones that are the threat too, those who don't which is why unique airspace (CTA/R is not) is a potential risk.

Otherwise :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

Yeah, nah all that NOTAM and ERSA stuff is lost on me.

I do get the rules and airmanship arguments.

I'm just raising a minor thing called "practical reality". Setting unnecessary traps is ... unnecessary.

We went through a similar silliness with the 'broadcast area' NOTAM for the Lake Eyre area that did not show up for places like William Creek. Incident after incident of pilots using 126.7 in the vicinity of and at William Creek instead of the frequency in the NOTAM for the area ensued. Of course the claim was that it was poor airmanship on the part of the pilots involved, rather than an obvious trap set by the fact that the NOTAM did not show up for William Creek. The rule purists said: There's no NOTAM service for William Creek! But the trap at the time was that if you polled NAIPS for NOTAMS for William Creek, it would return "No current NOTAMS".

All the fault of bad airmanship, of course.

And then, quietly and without any acknowledgement of the trap that had been set, the William Creek CTAF frequency was changed in ERSA to match the one in the 'broadcast area' NOTAM. Somebody finally accepted and engaged with practical reality and removed an unnecessary trap. Result? Far fewer pilots on the wrong CTAF.

My EFB software produces a 'composite' chart that combines and depicts WAC, VTC, VNC, all PRDs, FIA boundaries, class C, D and E airspace etc. That chart depicts YPPD as an ordinary CTAF. I'm guessing it does not depict AFIS "Broadcast Area" boundaries because that concept was revived after the software was designed.

That's a trap.

If I go to ERSA it shows there's an AFIS for YPPD. It does not say that there's an obligation to broadcast prior to or as soon as possible after entering the Broadcast Area. That obligation is in AIP and I had no idea that it had been revived.

Like Jabba, off the top of my head I would have said YPPD is a CTAF with some nice people on the ground who will pass on useful information.

It may make you feel better to delude yourself that I'm a cowboy at the margins, and that every aircraft in that 'Broadcast Area' are following the broadcast rules, but in case you are interested in safety I'm here to tell you that if people like me were labouring under the misconception that all the AFIZ and MBZ stuff died a death years ago, there's been yet another failure in industry education. It's not the people who operate in and out of these places all the time that need to be constantly educated about the revival of this stuff, but the people who are going there for the first time or the first time for a long time.

Last time I went to Uluru (around 4 years ago) I followed the broadcast procedures for the fly-around of Uluru and the Olgas published in ERSA. If there was some additional mandatory Broadcast Area there I was blissfully unaware of it and the nice person on the radio on the ground did not mention it. We and the other traffic managed to survive, however.

And I say again: A 20nm radius 8,000' 'Broadcast Area' is joke.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Incident after incident of pilots using 126.7 in the vicinity of and at William Creek instead of the frequency in the NOTAM for the area ensued.
So why weren't the pilots operating in the area aware of the NOTAM (and probably the relevant AIC too) for the area which told them which frequency to be on? Perhaps they didn't bother getting FIR NOTAMs? A question of airmanship perhaps?
An excerpt:
PILOTS OPR AT AD WI THE DESIGNATED AIRSPACE MUST MAKE BCST AS APPLICABLE TO NON TOWERED AD IN CLASS G AIRSPACE AS SPECIFIED IN AIP ON DISCRETE AREA BCST FREQ. THE DISCRETE BCST AREA INCLUDES LAKE EYRE NORTH, LAKE EYRE SOUTH, MAREE (YMRE) AND WILLIAM CREEK (YWMC)
SFC TO 5000FT AMSL
Seems pretty clear to me what frequency you should be on.

I would also suggest that the change in ERSA came about later because of the publication cycle, not because they were hiding anything. There can be a 6 month delay before a change shows up, sometimes longer. It's how that whole tricky NOTAM thing works.

My EFB software produces a 'composite' chart that combines and depicts WAC, VTC, VNC, all PRDs, FIA boundaries, class C, D and E airspace etc. That chart depicts YPPD as an ordinary CTAF. I'm guessing it does not depict AFIS "Broadcast Area" boundaries because that concept was revived after the software was designed.

That's a trap.
So stop relying on your out of date software to do everything for you. Read your NOTAMs. You are the dangerous one.

[Lead Balloon]

Yet pilots still used the wrong frequency. It went on over a number of publication cycles.

I'm trying to highlight why that happened. After all, it might be a safety issue.

It happened because a trap was set by contradictory information and a pig-headed refusal to engage with that problem.

If people want to delude themselves that putting something in a NOTAM or AIP Book is a guaranteed way of educating the industry and getting compliance with that thing, with no possible scope for confusion, they should get a job in CASA or Airservices.

Out of date software? Another refusal to engage with the problem. My "software" is a current EFB that is an approved sole source of current charts (and also happens to download all NOTAMS and other AIP information). The 'composite' chart depicts everything except those broadcast areas even though there is a mandatory procedure associated with those broadcast areas.

All the boundaries associated with mandatory procedures are depicted. Except one ...

That's a trap.

Maybe the people who write the software were, like me, blissfully ignorant of the revival of the AFIZ concept.

(And Captain Midnight, your assertion that it's not the revival of the AFIZ concept is sophistry.)

[Spodman]

I have always promoted staff who dared to have a different idea and stand up in an open way . They have made me lots of money. Is this why, since your time in this wonderful organisation, we have this as a condition of employment? You must at all times... ...Behave in a way that upholds Airservices Vision, Mission and Values and promotes the good reputation of Airservices;Which means, if one were wanting to criticise a decision or policy of Airservices YOU COULD NOT DO SO, (identifiably), IN THIS FORUM!

Not that I would ever want to.

[CaptainMidnight]

The 'composite' chart depicts everything except those broadcast areas even though there is a mandatory procedure associated with those broadcast areas.

All the boundaries associated with mandatory procedures are depicted. Except one ...Then I suggest you tell your EFB provider that
Broadcast Areas have been in place and charted for around 10 years
by omitting them they are presenting a safety issue, and
CASA will have an interest in their product omitting key operational information that appears on AIP charts.
sophistryI'll look that up in my Funk & Wagnalls :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

I thought the problem was poor airmanship...

The broadcast areas are depicted on the discrete ERC charts published on EFBs. However, unlike the boundaries of every other area they are not 'picked up' and depicted on the 'composite' chart.

I'm suggesting to you that the problem was not caused by and will not be solved by the EFB software alone. There's an education and regulatory systems issue here as well.

It manifested itself in the Lake Eyre area issue. The ERSA for William Creek said the CTAF was 126.7. When NAIPS was polled, it said "No current NOTAMS". In typical Australian aviation bureaucratic style, it was simply not acceptable or appropriate to publish a NOTAM for William Creek (and Marree) that changed the CTAF or 'pointed to' the FIR NOTAM. Not acceptable or appropriate. The pages and pages of other dross in FIR NOTAMS are fine. I'm assuming that one day the ADF FLIP will loom large as relevant info for civil aircraft. But a location-specific NOTAM to reduce the scope for known confusion? Not acceptable or appropriate. It's an airmanship issue.

Fortunately in the Lake Eyre area case the bureaucratic dinosaur eventually managed to change the CTAF frequency for William Creek (and Marree) in ERSA and mark the area on ERC.

[CaptainMidnight]

My final (?) comments on this one.

Your EFB not having the BAs on the "composite" chart is an issue and should be brought to their attention.

BAs have been in for many years (their introduction was proposed by AOPA), and I don't know if there are problems with them 10 years down the track to warrant an education campaign. If you are aware of specific problems, file a report or bring it up with your industry association.

Re William Creek. I'm aware of a situation some 6 (?) years ago unless its happened again since i.e. a BA established due sightseeing flights when Lake Eyre was in flood. There was fairly extensive education within SA at the time via reps @ RAPAC and the flying schools re frequency use.

The situation was complicated by the fact that 1) an FIA boundary went through Lake Eyre, and 2) Anna & William Creek were in the same CTAF. CASA had (and still do have) an issue with amending a CTAF frequency simply by issuing a NOTAM, because that creates a potential safety issue in addition to the one you are trying to address. If any pilot doesn't read that NOTAM you have a safety issue with aircraft being on different frequencies. CASA prefer to leave such changes until a chart release, hence it took a while to fully resolve.

Locations that NOTAMs are not issued for have always been problematic. The owners have no responsibility to issue NOTAMs and rely on pilots reading ERSA and contacting them. If a NOTAM was to be issued for a special reason, then there is the risk that pilots conducting future flights will assume there are no issues with the location when presented with NAIPS "No Current NOTAM". FIR NOTAM have to be read by all, hence information on such locations is usually issued as FIR.

[Capn Bloggs]

And regarding YPPD, there's plenty of info on the AFIS on the ERC Low and in ERSA to piqué one's interest if one was inclined to do so. ERSA even tells you the size of the BA for goodness sake.

For those of you who think the wishy-washy "in the vicinity" is better, the outcome at Mildura would have been different had there been a 20nm/8000ft Broadcast Area there. There would have been more time for the crew of the EJet to process the inbound call of the dive-bomber.

What has William Creek got to do with pilots not doing their homework and knowing that an AFIS exists at YPPD? Nevertheless, I was completely unaware of the William Creel issue but it appears that Midnight has explained it in an acceptable and appropriate manner.

We went through a similar silliness with the 'broadcast area' NOTAM for the Lake Eyre area
YPPD AFIS has nothing to do with frequency confusion.

It's not the people who operate in and out of these places all the time that need to be constantly educated about the revival of this stuff, but the people who are going there for the first time or the first time for a long time.
In that case, do your research! There's even a phone number for the AFIS!

[Lead Balloon]

I was suggesting that the Lake Eyre area and YPPD broadcast area education and regulatory system deficiencies were analogous, not identical.

If your response to my suggestion that those deficiencies exist in relation to broadcast areas is to say the problem is entirely one of my airmanship, that's fine. The risk of treating the problem in that way is all yours and your passengers down the back. Fortunately, for your passengers, the objective risks are so low that these misconceptions have no material effect.

I was wondering how long it would take for the assertion to be made that the outcome would have been different in the Mildura 'near miss' incident if there had been a broadcast area for Mildura. It's a mindset that assumes that a rule, once made, is:

(1) a rule universally known

(2) a rule universally understood, and

(3) a rule universally complied with.

I reckon that's why these 'broadcast areas' give people with that mindset the warm inner glow of 'safety'.

It's difficult to know how else to express my point rather than reiterate it. Best to put some more effort into educating pilots (and EFB suppliers) of the fact that the AFIZ has been resurrected, and what to do about it as a matter of practicality.

[Capn Bloggs]

I was wondering how long it would take for the assertion to be made that the outcome would have been different in the Mildura 'near miss' incident if there had been a broadcast area for Mildura.
Yair. Had that divebomber been "recommended" to call at 20nm instead of "in the vicinity" 1/ the Ejet would have been further away from the airport with more time for both of them to sort out what was going on or 2/ would have been so close that at 20nm the bomber would have not been an issue.

But whatever you reckon. Let's all just go NOCOM and get the eyeballs out, hey?

Best to put some more effort into educating pilots (and EFB suppliers) of the fact that the AFIZ has been resurrected, and what to do about it as a matter of practicality.
The flippin' YPPD AFIS was the subject of numerous AIP SUPPs over many many months (as was YPKA and YBRM) and is now plastered all over the ERC and ERSA. What more do you want?

I assume you have written to your EFB supplier about the William Creek issue?

[Lead Balloon]

Please slow down, take a deep breath and read what I've said.

The William Creek issue is now practically resolved, because the CTAF in ERSA has now been changed. The primary risk these days is pilots using 126.7 instead of the frequency published in ERSA.

If there was so much flippin' publicity, why is it that the EFB suppliers have not twigged to the idea that broadcast areas should be added to the 'composite' chart overlays?

Given your mindset, you just can't comprehend the fact that even in your warm and cosy broadcast area there could be aircraft on the wrong frequency, with the volume turned down or blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are in a broadcast area. Let's all just go NOCOM and get the eyballs out, hey?Let's not all just go NOCOM.

But please do "get the eyballs[sic] out".

I'm merely suggesting that there would be reduced risk of NOCOM aircraft in broadcast areas if there were better practical understanding of their existence.

[Capn Bloggs]

Please slow down, take a deep breath and read what I've said.
Yes, ranting and raving for post after post about the catastrophic disaster at William Creek and now all is resolved. Phew. Glad about that.

If there was so much flippin' publicity, why is it that the EFB suppliers have not twigged to the idea that broadcast areas should be added to the 'composite' chart overlays?
Dunno, better ask them, my Ozrunways has a nice green (or is it blue) dashed BA circle at YPPD. Oh wait. That's the ERC. Silly me.

[Lead Balloon]

So relax. There is no practical safety problem. I'm merely raising silly theoretical rather than real issues. :ok:

[Plazbot]

So some weekend warrior with a penchant for antiestablishment rhetoric tells us that he used some random program from back in the day to merge documents to tell him what to do as opposed to actually doing what a responsible pilot should and that shows that the Australian application and distribution of services is lacking?

No wonder you Terry Towling boys aren't taken seriously.

This **** head is just making it worse. Roflcopter picture goes here.

Minimum 4 rage posts to follow....... GO!!@

[alphacentauri]

LB,


If there was so much flippin' publicity, why is it that the EFB suppliers have not twigged to the idea that broadcast areas should be added to the 'composite' chart overlays?


The composite chart overlay is simply a stitching together of the raster product as supplied by Airservices. They are not at liberty to add or subtract to the data they supply in the EFP.


EFP suppliers are not data originators. The solution to the problem (if there is one) does not rest with them


Alpha

[Dexta]

*/Slightly Off Topic */
Re: William Creek & NOTAMS: Almost (if not all) Non registered & non certified airfields are PPR (Prior Permission Required) due to the fact it is extremely difficult to issue NOTAMS. After speaking with AirServices about a NOTAM (as we were closing a runway) it was basically impossible due to the fact that it all had to go through CASA and they would issue the NOTAM on our behalf if they felt it was required, which apparently they rarely do.
So for all those out there please give a call to the Aerodrome Operator before arriving (and not two months before arriving, try and call within a couple of hours of ETA) so that we can inform you of any changes, or special conditions (like BA's, Fly Neighbourly's etc) that might exist at the time.
8/ end Off Topic */

[Lead Balloon]

LB,

The composite chart overlay is simply a stitching together of the raster product as supplied by Airservices. They are not at liberty to add or subtract to the data they supply in the EFP.

EFP suppliers are not data originators. The solution to the problem (if there is one) does not rest with them

AlphaHi Alpha

I realise they are not data originators. The 'composite' charts they produce are sourced from the data from Airservices.

But for some reason e.g. PRDs that are depicted only on an ERC are 'picked up' and added as an overlay on the 'composite' charts, but the Broadcast Areas that are depicted on an ERC are not.

Anyway, I'm just a dangerous antidisestablishmentarian weekend warrior and the problem is entirely one of my bad airmanship.

Dexta: So typical of the Australian aviation bureacracy.

[Car RAMROD]

But nobody has complained about the broadcast area up in the Torres Strait. It's much bigger than Hedland at about 40nm and 8,500ft.

People have been going up there for the last what, 10+ years and getting it right. Yes even "dangerous weekend warriors" who were terrible on the radio were at least terrible on the correct frequency so they managed.

The system up there has worked.
Or is it only a "problem" at Port Hedland because there's a trained and certified professional on the ground with a radio who is able to give correct and usable advice?

Dick, please please please tell us what the real benefit (or point) of having an untrained, unlicensed person on the radio giving non-official advice is? Especially someone whose primary job at the airport is to do something else and for a fairly significant time period you probably won't get a hold of them. Clogging up the airways somewhat with repeated attempts to talk to them. Clogging up the airways with calls that are really of no benefit.


Dexta, what is this black magic/logic thing about calling an aerodrome operator for information of which you speak? :}

[alphacentauri]

LB,


You are going to have to spoon feed me mate. Please point out a PRD that is shown on a ERC that is not shown on a visual chart, but is shown on a visual composite?


BTW I am looking at Ozrunways and I can't readily find one....

[Lead Balloon]

R525 - the Parkes 'Dish' - is not on any WAC, VNC or VTC. But it is on the ERC.

Ditto R409A and B.

Ozrunways and AVPLAN depict them on their 'composite' chart.

[Capn Bloggs]

R525 - the Parkes 'Dish' - is not on any WAC, VNC or VTC. But it is on the ERC.
On my Ozrunways (Android) it's on the WAC: pink blob. It's on the 1:250,000: pink blob. It's on the Hybrid VFR: pink blob. It's not on the VNC or VTC because it there is no VNC or VTC for the area. :confused:

[Lead Balloon]

It's on your on your electronic WAC because it has been overlaid by the App. It's not on the paper WAC. (And yes: The Romeos I am using as examples are not on VNCs or VTCs.)

My point is: The composite charts will 'pick up' and depict every charted boundary associated with a mandatory procedure. All except one.

[Lead Balloon]

I will try to explain it a different way, Capn.

Does your Ozrunways WAC depict the boundary of the Broadcast Area for YPPD?

Is there any setting for any composite chart that you can select that will depict that boundary?

To put this an even different way, is the only chart in Ozrunways that depicts the Broadcast Area for YPPD the ERC?

[Capn Bloggs]

Yes yes yes LB just because I don't answer within 5 seconds doesn't mean I'll never be back, I do have a life outside Prune.

It's on your on your electronic WAC because it has been overlaid by the App. It's not on the paper WAC.
Point taken.

To put this an even different way, is the only chart in Ozrunways that depicts the Broadcast Area for YPPD the ERC?
Yes it is. So what? Too hard to click across to the ERC to see what is going on at YPPD (or many other places) for airspace, including shock horror the existence of a BA? Caution, there's a whole bunch of them in the NT!

As I asked before but didn't get an answer... how would you know about the existence of a tower at YPKA? Because you read about it on Prune? Come on.

Especially with these electronic gizmos, you have no excuse for not knowing what's going on at a location, especially a person of such intellect that uses "analogous" and "sophistry". :D

My point is: The composite charts will 'pick up' and depict every charted boundary associated with a mandatory procedure. All except one.
Well hop to it, get your local RAPAC to raise it with the powers-that-be. :ok:

[wishiwasupthere]

FFS, it's not hard. Even if you don't read ERSA before you fly in there, you're quickly going to realise it's not a regular CTAF when old mate responds to your inbound call.

Having said that, IMHO, I'm not sure how the traffic density post mining boom justifies the service at PD still being there.

[Lead Balloon]

[I]s the only chart in Ozrunways that depicts the Broadcast Area for YPPD the ERC?Yes it is. So what? Too hard to click across to the ERC to see what is going on at YPPD (or many other places) for airspace, including shock horror the existence of a BA? Caution, there's a whole bunch of them in the NT!Imagine I'm flying into YPPD for the first time in long time.

I'm looking at the lovely EFB composite chart that depicts all the topographical information, all of the ARFOR boundaries, all of the FIA boundaries, all of the CTA steps out of YPKA and associated Class E airspace (thus giving a gentle hint that there may be a tower at YPKA) and all of the PRDs on the Burrup Peninsula.

Why would I think anything other than those are the entirety of the boundaries of things with an associated mandatory requirement (subject of course to checking NOTAMS)?

Why would I think to check ERC rather than rely on the composite chart, when the point of the composite chart is precisely to avoid having to use multiple charts by displaying all of the important information on one composite chart?

All of you 'experts' can tsk tsk about airmanship this and ERSA and AIP the other thing all you like, but why is the trap there in the first place?

My overarching point in raising this particular issue was to suggest that maybe the reason for the anomaly is that, like me, the producers of the EFBs were blissfully unaware of the revival of the AFIZ/MBZ concept out in the various hearts of darkness. Group hug on a revival of the AFIZ/MBZ concept out there, plonk it on the charts and in AIP and the job's done. After all, all of the 'locals' know about it. No further flow-on effects.

But I'm just a dangerous antidisestablishmentarian weekend warrior.

[justanatc]

If it's your first time in a while, hopefully you look at ERSA and think, what's this AFIS business and give them a call and ask.

If that didn't happen, hopefully your composite chart gives you the CTAF frequency which you call up at say 10nm or whatever. Someone responds, says traffic is xxx (or no traffic), confirm you have received info xxx which you haven't because you didn't know about it. So they relay the info and advise you that there is a broadcast area 20nm to 8000'. And there it ends. It's a broadcast area in Class G airspace so you can't infringe it as you don't need a clearance.

Unlikely to be any follow up unless you were in someones immediate way, which at 10nm is generally unlikely, or you already knew about from monitoring the most appropriate frequency on the way.

[Capn Bloggs]

But I'm just a dangerous antidisestablishmentarian weekend warrior.
You can say that again...

[Lead Balloon]

If it's your first time in a while, hopefully you look at ERSA ....No need to hope. I look at ERSA (and MET and NOTAMS) for every aerodrome I fly to every time. .... and think what's this AFIS business and give them a call and ask.I know what "AFIS" stands for.

It's a service. If that didn't happen, hopefully your composite chart gives you the CTAF frequency which you call up at say 10nm or whatever. Someone responds, says traffic is xxx (or no traffic), confirm you have received info xxx which you haven't because you didn't know about it.No need to hope. I'll see that ERSA says "CTAF - ARFU 119" and I'll be monitoring that frequency from 40/50nms away (as well as the Area frequency).

The point is that to people who don't visit these places very often and are used to composite EFB charts that depict every charted boundary associated with a mandated procedure, YPPD 'looks' like a CTAF with no mandatory Broadcast Area.

Depending on what traffic I heard on the CTAF and my ETA, I might stumble into inadvertent compliance by making a call at 25nms. Or maybe I'd stumble into inadvertent non-compliance by making a call at 12nms.So they relay the info and advise you that there is a broadcast area 20nm to 8000'. And there it ends. It's a broadcast area in Class G airspace so you can't infringe it as you don't need a clearance.Yep.Unlikely to be any follow up unless you were in someones immediate way, which at 10nm is generally unlikely, or you already knew about from monitoring the most appropriate frequency on the way.Very unlikely as I would have been monitoring CTAF from a looong way away, plus Area.

As you can see from the above, I'm just a dangerous antidisestablishmentarian weekend warrior and any non-compliance with the mandatory broadcast requirements would be entirely my fault and a consequence of my poor airmanship.

[KittyKatKaper]

2 pages of grizzling from LB because their EFB software doesn't/cannot show *everything* in *one* image.

[mgahan]

I've been resisting the rant on regulation of aeronautical data but you guys have got to me at last.

It is an issue we faced when the AERU was first established and one I've seen several times recently, most recently here in paradise. After we beat up the recalcitrant (then) AIP Manager and got him to understand that his part of AirServices WAS going to be subject to regulation we looked the third party providers.

The assumption was (incorrectly) that they took the official data from an AIP and faithfully reproduced it in their "for sale" documents. Not so, we discovered very early in the checking: reformatting, word changes that changed the intent, missing information, additional information and so on.

The "official" and (hopefully*) fully regulated source of aeronautical data is the State AIP.

The regulator has the devil's own task in trying to bring those third party providers to task in providing only correct data in the form and meaning intended in the AIP.

My advice and practical application to several national regulators have been the best way to ensure the accuracy and integrity of third party providers is through the users. Sorry chaps and chapesses, that means a ramp check of documents to make sure they faithfully reproduce the regulated aeronautical data for a particular flight. Easily targeted when the regulator finds an incorrect data set in a commercially provided document or electronic package. Then commercial regulation takes over as the operator blows a fuse!! Ask Nigerian Airways about the ramp check on the flight about to leave for Port Harcourt in 2003. And wait for the eruption in the Pacific when one of the operators finds that the GNSS procedures they are using from a very popular third party provider are not certified.

Now, back to my weekend chores and monthly report.

MJG


*Remember, I work internationally and not much in Australia these days so my recent CAsA experience is limited.

[Lead Balloon]

No, actually, Kitty.

If you actually read and comprehend what I've written, I'm actually "grizzling" about the way in which the AFIZ/MBZ concept was revived.

I'm suggesting that the EFB producers may have been, like me, labouring under the same misconception about the demise of the concept. Why else would the mandatory broadcast areas not be depicted on the composite charts, when the producers have managed to overlay every other boundary on the composite charts.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm suggesting that the EFB producers may have been, like me, labouring under the same misconception about the demise of the concept. Why else would the mandatory broadcast areas not be depicted on the composite charts, when the producers have managed to overlay every other boundary on the composite charts. Why don't you ask them?

As I said earlier:Then I suggest you tell your EFB provider that

1.Broadcast Areas have been in place and charted for around 10 years
2.by omitting them they are presenting a safety issue, and
3.CASA will have an interest in their product omitting key operational information that appears on AIP charts.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

YAWN..........

Pass the popcorn please 'Luv'........

:(

[Lead Balloon]

Why don't you ask them?

As I said earlier:You're being very naughty, CM. :=

The EFB products do not omit key operational information that appears on AIP charts. The broadcast areas are depicted on ERCs.

However, unlike PRDs that are depicted on ERCs alone, the broadcast areas are not picked up and over-laid on composite charts. The lack of that functionality is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself.