New Radio Procedures at/near Ballina - CASA

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Email Received this morning, Tues 26/11....Be heard, be seen, be safe at Ballina

Flying in and out of Ballina will be changing from Thursday 5 December 2019.Due to the increase in air traffic in the area, all aircraft flying between the surface and 8,500 feet within 10 nautical miles will be required to make radio calls.This change is to improve the situational awareness of pilots flying in and out of Ballina.The Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) at Ballina, Lismore, Casino and Evans Head will remain unchanged (124.2 MHz).This information has been published via NOTAM for Ballina and a supplement (http://mailinglist.casa.gov.au/lists/lt.php?tid=cRpWBA8EBVVRDk5cVQQMS1ALAABMAFEHVhoOVg9WBA0BVAZSC AUfAFYJWwAJBA1LXVBWW0wMB1YEGlQLCQNMW1tXBANfBFpSAQBRGAlQClQFA VMBTF0BVFIaAlAPUExbXQRRTF0BUgMDXwcGCFBbUw) for the Aeronautical Information Package (AIP). Chart updates will occur in May next year. You can also view the instrument on the Federal Register of Legislation (http://mailinglist.casa.gov.au/lists/lt.php?tid=cRoEBQoEBV0FCU5WCQAKS1AEB1BMAQdRVBpSAltRUQBfVwAEA VUfAFYJWwAJBA1LXVBWW0wMB1YEGlQLCQNMW1tXBANfBFpSAQBRGAlQClQFA VMBTF0BVFIaAlAPUExbXQRRTF0BUgMDXwcGCFBbUw).Whilst this change is being implemented to improve pilot situational awareness, it is important to still maintain a good visual look out for other aircraft.If you are unsure of what radio calls to use in uncontrolled airspace, you can view our operations and non-controlled aerodromes (http://mailinglist.casa.gov.au/lists/lt.php?tid=cRoBUl8AUgdRC05UU1QAS1ABWVNMAAZUBRpUVlpWWAEIVg5SD wcfAFYJWwAJBA1LXVBWW0wMB1YEGlQLCQNMW1tXBANfBFpSAQBRGAlQClQFA VMBTF0BVFIaAlAPUExbXQRRTF0BUgMDXwcGCFBbUw) webpage and download our Be heard, be seen, be safe – radio procedures in non-controlled airspace (http://mailinglist.casa.gov.au/lists/lt.php?tid=cRpSBwpUAgENCk5cAFABS1BXB1VMAFRRBRoOC1wKUFxdUAJSW gMfAFYJWwAJBA1LXVBWW0wMB1YEGlQLCQNMW1tXBANfBFpSAQBRGAlQClQFA VMBTF0BVFIaAlAPUExbXQRRTF0BUgMDXwcGCFBbUw) booklet.
So.…Does this ,make Ballina airspace, 'Alphabet +'...?

Cheeerrrsss....

[transition_alt]

The only thing the Ballina Radio “CA/GRS” does is clog up the frequency and reduce safety IMO. Having old mate in his RA registered machine who takes another 5 minutes to tell us he’s at 500ft coastal won’t help.

Jets do fine at other aerodromes with private traffic.

Make it a controlled aerodrome.

[ramble on]

On average, 15 commercial movements a day, 1500 passengers a day, and in total over half a million people moved in the area over the last year and still no tower.......even to cover the commercial traffic.

Fascinating.

[Lookleft]

How many passengers does Hamilton Island have a day? Time to bite the bullet and just put a Tower in there. Apparently the Jetstar CEO has stated that if there is one more incident at BNA then they will withdraw from the route. Lets hope the next JQ incident is not on the Deep Water Horizon scale.

[gerry111]

1500 passengers a day, and in total over half a million people moved in the area over the last year

So all those RPT's were departing pax free? :E

[Lead Balloon]

I’ve some genius ideas: Let’s call these designated areas “Mandatory Broadcast Zones”. Heck, if there’s a dude or dudette on the ground providing information, let’s call the areas “Aerodrome Flight Information Zones”. Copyright Lead Balloon 2019.

15 commercial movements in a day? In one day? The mind boggles.

I recall around 120 aircraft departing at 30 second intervals during each leg of the Bicentennial Round Australia Air Race. All taking off from the same runway and all going to the same destination. Within 5 or so minutes after take off a cabin full of pilots couldn’t spot another aircraft in the sky.

Still fascinates me that some RPT pilots are prepared to fly in and out of aerodromes in G but balk at Class E airspace. Both rely on LCDs complying with the rules. I can’t see how the difference in airspace makes an LCD any more or less prone to error or compliant with the applicable rules.

[The name is Porter]

You smart bastard, if you hadn't of trademarked it I would have.

[Lead Balloon]

But the important issue is safety, TNIP. Could you imagine 15 commercial movements in a day at an aerodrome that isn’t in controlled airspace? Count them: 15!

[Vag277]

LB pay attention. It is not the fact of only 15 RPT mvts it is all the other traffic in the area. Air race departures are irrelevant. Time separated and same direction.. Do you have a better idea?

[Lead Balloon]

Yes: The 30 second separation in departures in the same direction was what caused the ‘safety’. No non-race aircraft in the sky of course. They were banned for the duration of the Race. Nobody else in the sky.

Departures at greater intervals in different directions would, presumably, be less ‘safe’?

I know you earnestly believe in this stuff Vag. Good for you. But your opinions are based on perceptions rather than experience in places where there’s real traffic density.

[Lead Balloon]

And before I forget: Let’s say out loud why Ballina (and Ayers Rock) don’t have a control tower:

Affordable safety.

[The Banjo]

I’ve some genius ideas: Let’s call these designated areas “Mandatory Broadcast Zones”. Heck, if there’s a dude or dudette on the ground providing information, let’s call the areas “Aerodrome Flight Information Zones”. Copyright Lead Balloon 2019.

15 commercial movements in a day? In one day? The mind boggles.

I recall around 120 aircraft departing at 30 second intervals during each leg of the Bicentennial Round Australia Air Race. All taking off from the same runway and all going to the same destination. Within 5 or so minutes after take off a cabin full of pilots couldn’t spot another aircraft in the sky.

Still fascinates me that some RPT pilots are prepared to fly in and out of aerodromes in G but balk at Class E airspace. Both rely on LCDs complying with the rules. I can’t see how the difference in airspace makes an LCD any more or less prone to error or compliant with the applicable rules.

The difference between an air race and an RPT jet is that there might be a bit more care factor in the broader community if 180 pax are killed in a midair compared with a two or three indulgees doing their thing in a light aircraft.

[Vag277]

So what is your betteridea?

[Lead Balloon]

But RPT aircraft with 180 pax on board are still mixing it with “indulgees doing their thing in a light aircraft” in G at Ballina and Ayers Rock, The Banjo. Yet no control zone and control tower. Why?

Surely the safety of air navigation and the safety of those 180 pax has no price, or a price that far exceeds the price of the establishment and maintenance of a control zone and control tower. Why have they not been established?

Why Vag?

[Capn Bloggs]

Is there a pilot forum where children are not allowed?

Glad to see a few more starters for a tower. :ok:

[Lead Balloon]

No Cap’n, there isn’t.

And the adults will understand why there is no controlled airspace or control tower around and at places like Ballina, Ayers Rock, Mildura ....

[Vag277]

Ask. mr smith

[Lead Balloon]

Mr Smith has no regulatory power.

CASA could make an instrument, tomorrow, imposing conditions on the holders of all pilots licences, prohibiting them from being the pilot in command of an RPT aircraft operating to or from an aerodrome in Class G airspace, or just Ballina or Ayers Rock. The safety of air demands it! Why is this not happening, Vag? The 180 passengers to which The Banjo referred are at risk NOW!

[The name is Porter]

But the important issue is safety, TNIP. Could you imagine 15 commercial movements in a day at an aerodrome that isn’t in controlled airspace? Count them: 15!

Mate, seriously, I'm flabbergasted, I don't know why some of the best nanny governments in the world are not onto this.

Why is there a Tower at Albury but not Wagga? and Ballina? and The (un-climable) Rock??

[extralite]

Ballina is the Byron Gateway. All sorts of non RPT traffic have enjoyed this beautiful part of our country for many decades. So a RPT pilot doesn't want 'old matey in his RA registered aircraft calling up he is coastal". Wow. Get over yourselves. That's what he is supposed to do. Just load the Rnav..Watch it fly the 10 mile finals and everyone gets out of the way. Seeya later 20 mins after as you head back to Sydney. Its not rocket science. t's never seems to be much of any issue except for the serial whingers. Sure the frequency is congested because 4 airfields are on the one frequency. . That is the source of most of our frustration. But constant whining about Ballina radio (who are totally professional in.my experience) through to anyone who is not flying RPT is a bore..It's not a safety issue IMO. .It's an ego issue as is so often the case in aviation where everyone thinks everyone else shouldn't be there or is at least a pain in their ass. It's a beautiful place and people other tHan RPT should have access to it.

It's odd because i find that in the real world, pilots and ATC are so professional and courteous almost all the time.. I am constantly impressed by ATC because it seems such a thankless job. Be nice to see more positivity here too but maybe the long hours doing the same thing tend to knock that out and i can understand that.

[Lead Balloon]

You’re sounding dangerously factual and objective, extralite.

The instrument mandates more talk on the radio. That’ll save everyone from the “indulgees doing their thing in a light aircraft”.

[triadic]

This matter was discussed at length at the relevant RAPAC's. As it was presented the issue was aircraft operating coastal in the vicinity of the RPT flight paths and not talking at all on the CTAF. The solution is what you now see. And yes, MBZ's were discussed!

[Lead Balloon]

Ah, so it seems some of the indulgees doing their own thing in light aircraft may have decided, on hearing reports from RPT aircraft, to manoeuvre so as to avoid the flight paths of those aircraft but not blab on the radio about it. Or maybe the indulgees doing their own thing in light aircraft were on the wrong frequency or had some other finger trouble. Either way, this could only be of concern to the RPT pilots if they were aware of the existence and location of the indulgees doing their own thing. I wonder how that could be possible, in the absence of blabbing on the radio...

And mandating more blabbing won’t fix wrong frequency selection or other finger trouble.

I do hope that pilots of RPT aircraft operating in and out of aerodromes in G take seriously the threat of indulgees doing their own thing in light aircraft on the wrong frequency or having some other finger trouble.

[Mr Approach]

IMO the CA/GRS model at Ballina is fundamentally flawed because it is not an air traffic service (ATS). If it was then Federal law (CASR Part 172) states it can only be provided by the Federal Government agency Airservices Australia. (Why?) Airservices is a prohibitively expensive agency because it has to support a Canberra bureaucracy, everything else required by ICAO, expensive ATS systems and provide a dividend to the Federal Treasury. (Is that why?) Therefore to fill the gap someone in CASA many years ago dreamt up the Certified Air Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS). Used sporadically for air displays at Avalon and in other places before it settled down to only one service at Ayers Rock; however this is not an ICAO-compliant service. An Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS), such as Port Hedland, and used elsewhere in Australia for many years as referred to in these posts, is ICAO-compliant, but it is an air traffic service so can only be provided by the previously mentioned very expensive Federal agency, Airservices. The fundamental difference between the CA/GRS and the AFIS is that the latter is integrated with Airservices other ATS units such as Melbourne and Brisbane Centres hence the duplication of traffic information is eliminated.

The CA/GRS is an aerodrome radio service under CASR Part 139, supplied by the airport, and therefore ignored by Airservices. This results in regulations that require pilots to communicate with each other on the CTAF, and if IFR, Airservices on the area frequency. The radio operator (CA/GRO) then attempts to give the same traffic to pilots as they are providing to each other, but directed, and at the same time radar controllers in Brisbane are also passing the IFR pilots IFR traffic and any VFR traffic they see on their displays (growing in number as more VFR aircraft fit ADS-B). The result is frequency congestion and triplicated traffic information. At Ayers Rock two elements present at Ballina do not exist; moderately high volumes of VFR traffic not actually operating at the primary airport but close enough to be traffic, and low level surveillance coverage. (Now also changing at Ayers Rock due the proliferation of VFR ADS-B equipment) so at Ayers Rock for the moment, the CA/GRS model seems to work. No-one in CASA will accept the argument that CA/GRS does not work in a busy environment because Australia does not have a low-cost alternative to Airservices Air Traffic Control (ATC) and therefore politically they have to pretend it works!

Other more sophisticated aviation nations have faced this dilemma but I will use the US because it resembles more closely the Australian wide-open spaces experience. There the FAA authorises non-government organisations to operate control towers, the so-called VFR Towers. Their job is to handle precisely the kind of issues that occur at Ballina while the local FAA ATC Centre looks after the IFR traffic. According to FAA statistics over 60% of the controllers are retirees from the FAA system, happy to have lower paying job in a less stressful environment.

Ballina could have such a Tower, however the Airservices model would need to replicate the Alice Springs/Hobart/Albury etc model which requires a procedural approach controller in the Tower. This increases the cost of everything - more equipment, more staff, more coordination. The only places Airservices does not do this is at the capital city GA airports that operate very much like VFR Towers.

All Ballina needs is someone in a glass box on stilts with a radio who can organise the local traffic so that pilots do not have to discuss separation with each other, maximise runway usage, and can ensure that itinerant RPT aircraft can operate safely into and out of the circuit area. This is what US VFR Towers do and we can do the same.

[Lead Balloon]

Yet another dangerously factual and objective post!

[Capn Bloggs]

Yet another Prune thread about to grind to a halt because of Lead Balloon's sniping and insults...

[Lead Balloon]

I’m fast coming to the view that you don’t ‘get’ irony, Cap’n. In case you don’t, my posts support - not snipe at - those of Mr Approach and extralite. And why would anyone be bothered with my posts if they have no substance?

I’m loving the new label “indulgee doing their thing in a light aircraft”. (Thanks to The Banjo.). Combined with ‘lowest common denominator’, we’re finally getting to the source of the problem. It’s those self-indulgent, inexperienced individuals who presume to be in uncontrolled airspace, causing concern and inconvenience to the Cap’n Bloggses of the world.

And remind me why you’re prepared to fly in and out of aerodromes in Class G, but you don’t like E over D?

[Sunfish]

Would I be wrong in thinking that Bloggs doesn’t want to share airspace with anyone?

[Lead Balloon]

You would be wrong. In fairness to the Cap’n, his happiness with sharing depends on the class of airspace, the rules for its use and the ATS provided therein.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Saw these guys (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGqv8EECMXJM&ved=2ahUKEwji4oHD_InmAhWWTX0KHWtODh8Qo7QBMAB6BAgAEAI&usg=AOvVaw3D2k71Tute_s-d9Z7VHoUE) at AV back in 2011. As more and more hulls become ADS-B, would this idea's time have finally come?

[Lead Balloon]

At the risk of being accused of sniping, I’d estimate a few years and a couple of $million to get the regulatory approvals to implement ‘remote’ ATC at an aerodrome in Australia.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Regulation? I think you are clutching at straws with that argument, LB. The argument is a technical adaptation to fit the regulation. Video is just another data stream alongside audio and ADS-B. Granted, the CASA just love to be prescriptive down to what colour map is current. BUT, a manned tower is a cost in manpower and facilities to accommodate that manpower. A room full of ten or twenty remote twr stations in ML and BN is no different to a room full of TAAATS consoles, technologically speaking. Time will tell if technology wins again. however, if you are arguing about CASA and AirServices penchant for re-inventing the wheel then..how long is a piece of string?

[Lead Balloon]

Who knows how long that piece of string is. And my hope is that it would be very short and cheap. But who’d be naive enough to bet money on that, versus disappearing into the aviation ‘Hall Of Doom’?

[CaptainMidnight]

Saw these guys (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://m.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DGqv8EECMXJM&ved=2ahUKEwji4oHD_InmAhWWTX0KHWtODh8Qo7QBMAB6BAgAEAI&usg=AOvVaw3D2k71Tute_s-d9Z7VHoUE) at AV back in 2011. As more and more hulls become ADS-B, would this idea's time have finally come?

Airservices trials digital aerodrome service technology (https://newsroom.airservicesaustralia.com/news/airservices-trials-digital-aerodrome-service-technology)

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Captain Midnight...to quote Hugh Jarse....whale oil beef hooked!

[Lead Balloon]

Since we’re now dealing with people who understand the fine nuances of the different things Airservices does, are you suggesting that there is any prospect - let’s say this side of the year 2030 - of a remote control tower capability being installed at a place like Ballina? This side of the year 2030?

It’s a very simple and precise question.

(And just to be clear: I reckon it would be great if it happened!)

[Mr Approach]

I agree that remote tower technology will become the normal, however like Lead Balloon I have not seen much progress. Örnsköldsvik Airport, controlled from the LFV Remote Tower Centre 123 km (76 mi) away in Sundsvall, opened in 2015, that was nearly five years ago. Airservices later trialled the technology at Alice Springs, remoted back to Melbourne, but then nothing!
Currently the Airservices web site tells us they have let a contract for Sydney Airport, I believe this may be to replicate the Heathrow contingency plan whereby the Heathrow Tower simulator can take over some 80% of the workload if the ATC Tower becomes unusable. (Not covered by any civil aviation regulations in Australia so regulatory approval will be interesting) Other wise there has been talk of replacing Canberra and Essendon with remote towers because the current ones need to be moved. There has also been speculation about Ballina - but is a presently uncontrolled airport a good place to start trials of remote tower technology?

The issue with remote towers is that they are just that. Exactly what you have now from a manned tower, but delivered from a remote location. The saving is purely in the cost of the building - a steel column capable of supporting a person or a steel column capable of supporting some cameras. (Very expensive cameras, by the way, and did I mention the high bandwidth/low latency data connection? Oh yes, the NBN!). Are there any other cost savings? Not in my opinon, until you can control more than one airport (as demonstrated in the video above), and that is a human factors nightmare unless the airports are very simple and have very low traffic levels. In Australia if airports are simple with very low traffic levels, unlike Sweden, we let RPT jets operate without restrictions with a CTAF and CAR 166E. (Except Ballina where apparently CAR 166E does not operate!)

So the chances of a remote tower at Ballina are just that, remote. And if there was one built tomorrow, under the Airservices airspace methodology it would have to include a procedural approach controller - Wow, I did not see that in the video!
My view of remote tower technology is that a lot of the technology will find it's way into the current ATC towers, that Airservices will try to use it where they need to build new Towers for other reasons, Canberra, Essendon, Sunshine Coast, but it is still too expensive for low traffic regional airports that proliferate in Australia. But I guess we will see.....

[Track Shortener]

remoted back to Melbourne

Adelaide, actually. Otherwise, I agree with your post wholeheartedly.

[Mr Approach]

Adelaide OK - doesn't exist anymore - all but the Tower moved to Melbourne - so trial will need to be repeated!
Talking of trials watch this little video and ask yourself where this research is going on in Australia, or if Airservices is even capable of such sophistication! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1vza1BqgbQ

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Just to help with some understanding where the regs may head. EASA (https://www.remote-tower.eu/wp/?cat=3) page on Remote Control Towers. It would appear a lot of the installations are as backups to the manned tower.

[Mr Approach]

We have moved this topic from Ballina to Remote Towers, so to revert to the subject of the post...............
Ballina is, like Wellcamp near Toowoomba, in a particularly difficult position from an air traffic control point of view.
It sits astride a well-worn aviation corridor sandwiched between Class C controlled airspace to the north, Class E above, and ADF R Area to the south. It also has retained an NDB which is used for IFR training and many VFR aircraft use the airspace to remain OCTA. It also has other airports using the CTAF plus private ALAs in proximity to them all.These combine to create a multi-use piece of airspace of far greater complexity than say Broome or Karratha. This is then exacerbated by scheduled passenger traffic, the protection of which is the primary role of CASA and Airservices.
Both have decided that the pilots of the public transport aircraft do not need any air traffic service (other than Airservices IFR traffic information in Class G airspace), deeming the risk to the passengers of the public transport aircraft to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), as required by the safety management systems they should be utilising.
There are a number of risk mitigators at CASA and Airservices disposal yet they choose to pick a non-ICAO compliant radio service which CASR regulations (CASR 172) states explicitly is NOT an air traffic service.
What else could they do?
1. Install surveillance, specifically SSR - this will detect all of the transponder/ADS-B equipped aircraft;
2. Control the IFR entry and departure tracks utilising either Class E or C airspace - either would do if there was surveillance;
3. Control Ballina aerodrome traffic with Class D airspace - this would capture everybody with a radio;
4. A combination of Class E and Class D - this would be the lowest risk option.
A cost/benefit analysis is then normally applied
I am not going to attempt that here, I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive?

[Sunfish]

Perhaps the solution is for VFR aircraft to get from Sydney to Brisbane via a VFR corridor via Alice Springs?

[The name is Porter]

We have moved this topic from Ballina to Remote Towers, so to revert to the subject of the post...............
Ballina is, like Wellcamp near Toowoomba, in a particularly difficult position from an air traffic control point of view.
It sits astride a well-worn aviation corridor sandwiched between Class C controlled airspace to the north, Class E above, and ADF R Area to the south. It also has retained an NDB which is used for IFR training and many VFR aircraft use the airspace to remain OCTA. It also has other airports using the CTAF plus private ALAs in proximity to them all.These combine to create a multi-use piece of airspace of far greater complexity than say Broome or Karratha. This is then exacerbated by scheduled passenger traffic, the protection of which is the primary role of CASA and Airservices.
Both have decided that the pilots of the public transport aircraft do not need any air traffic service (other than Airservices IFR traffic information in Class G airspace), deeming the risk to the passengers of the public transport aircraft to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), as required by the safety management systems they should be utilising.
There are a number of risk mitigators at CASA and Airservices disposal yet they choose to pick a non-ICAO compliant radio service which CASR regulations (CASR 172) states explicitly is NOT an air traffic service.
What else could they do?
1. Install surveillance, specifically SSR - this will detect all of the transponder/ADS-B equipped aircraft;
2. Control the IFR entry and departure tracks utilising either Class E or C airspace - either would do if there was surveillance;
3. Control Ballina aerodrome traffic with Class D airspace - this would capture everybody with a radio;
4. A combination of Class E and Class D - this would be the lowest risk option.
A cost/benefit analysis is then normally applied
I am not going to attempt that here, I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive?

Pretty much sums up Australian aviation agencies contempt for 'safety' processes. 1st world country, 3rd world infrastructure.

[Lead Balloon]

I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive?Yes, it is too expensive.

CASA, Airservices, ATSB and governments won’t call it for what it is, but that doesn’t change what it is: affordable safety. (There is a twist to the concept in Australia, though: The concept of “affordable” is affected by politics.)

Airlines and their pilots make the decision, all day every day, that the risks of flying in and out of places like Ballina (and Mildura and Wagga and..) are “worth” taking. Nobody is making them take those risks.

[Mr Approach]

Sorry, Lead, but affordable safety is only another term for a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you need to quote a ridiculous example to see what that means. For instance, close Ballina aerodrome, make everyone fly to the Gold Coast, then the problem goes away. Clearly that is silly because we can make Ballina much safer without closing it down - oh and incidentally not forcing holidaymakers to drive for an hour on the Pacific Highway - arguably a less safe practise than flying!
The issue here is that Airservices has a master plan, and it does not include any new non-ADSB surveillance or manned control towers. They are really not interested in providing services at places like Albury or Ballina because they do not make any money! Any service they do end up providing in such places is simply a spin-off from their main game which is making money for the Federal Government out of aviation or something the Department forces them to provide because otherwise it may embarrass the Minister and affect his/her chances of re-election (see current activity around Hobart for proof). Why else would the law forbid private enterprise from providing such services? As for CASA - just a rubber stamp working for the same department as Airservices; CASA's main game is administering AOCs.
Other countries with free-enterprise economies allow private sector air traffic services (ATS) where the private sector is best placed to provide such services. Why, for instance, is Sydney Airport not allowed to own the ILS although they own the runway lights? Why are they not allowed to build their own air traffic facilities and then tender the services out to specialist companies or even employ ATS staff them selves. Heathrow Airport does!
Funnily enough the Certified Air/Ground Services at Ballina and Ayers Rock are the closest we get to free-enterprise in our system - pity the company that provides the service is not allowed to operate control towers or even an Aerodrome Flight Information Service!

[Lead Balloon]

Sorry, Lead, but affordable safety is only another term for a cost/benefit analysis.No need to apologise. I already knew that. Sometimes you need to quote a ridiculous example to see what that means. For instance, close Ballina aerodrome, make everyone fly to the Gold Coast, then the problem goes away. Clearly that is silly because we can make Ballina much safer without closing it down - oh and incidentally not forcing holidaymakers to drive for an hour on the Pacific Highway - arguably a less safe practise than flying! But hang on: What has CASA assessed as the probabilities of a mid-air collision involving an RPT aircraft at e.g. Ballina, and what price does CASA attribute to each of the lives involved?

Absent those numbers, the assessment is meaningless.

[Mr Approach]

Lead, your last questions expose the myth that is Australia airspace policy.
The last published assessment of Ballina airspace by the Office of Airspace Regulation, is 2015. In it they said that the airspace (Class G) was fit for purpose but recommended a CA/GRS (Class G with a directed non-ATS traffic service!).
Now, according to AIP Supp H140/19 that arrangement is no longer fit for purpose because four VFR pilots failed to make the transmissions required under CAR 166C. So CASA introduces a Broadcast Area (Still Class G with a directed non-ATS traffic service) which is not an airspace change, it is a radio procedure change that eliminates non-radio equipped aircraft.
The AIP SUPP however only requires that pilots (not aircraft they are machines) make a radio call when departing, entering or transiting the broadcast area. This is essentially identical to CAR166C minus the "if the pilot has a radio" part.
As I have written previously CASA has run out of mitigaters to reduce the risk at Ballina - the probabilities of a mid-air are addressed in the AIP SUPP by stating that the number of movements are unchanged at 13,000 but the number of air transport movements has decreased by 12.7% so the risk has in terms of likelihood has actually reduced!
Now I am not arguing that nothing needs to be done, there is clearly a problem, I am only arguing that CASA does not seem to have the balls to tell Airservices to install some surveillance or impose positive air traffic control over the airspace in order to safeguard the fare-paying passengers.
I would only add that if these separation issues are coming from the airlines flying into Ballina, as I suspect they are, they should think very hard about whether they need to risk their reputations by using this particular airport.

[Lead Balloon]

The AIP SUPP however only requires that pilots (not aircraft they are machines) make a radio call when departing, entering or transiting the broadcast area. This is essentially identical to CAR166C minus the "if the pilot has a radio" part.... and minus the “whenever it is reasonably necessary” part.

CAR 166C does not mandate the radio calls that are now mandated by the new instrument.

124.2 is going to get very ‘chatty’. You’ll be able to hear the increased safety (except from those suffering finger trouble...)

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

What Ballina needs much more than an ATC tower is a parallel taxiway. It’s a very inefficient airport while jets have to roll through to the turning node at the end and back-track after landing RWY06, or backtrack from the apron to depart RWY24.

[Mr Approach]

250below10 - You are correct however a parallel taxiway is probably more expensive than a small (privately run) Class D control tower. Proof of this can be seen at airports such as Cairns, Gold and Sunny Coasts, Hobart, and so on, all of which have large (Government monopoly) Towers, but either limited or no parallel taxiways. In these cases the Tower is in fact a mitigator for the lack of a parallel taxyway as anyone who has operated through Cairns should be able to work out. The parallel taxiway only provides a mitigator against runway occupancy issues; this is only one factor in the complexity problem. A single person Class D Tower controller can mitigate against many other issues in on the ground, and in the air, as well as contributing to the smooth running of the airport. This, in my view a reason why the ATCs should be working for the airport, not the Government. There is, by the way, no reason why a privately run Tower should not operate as part of the overall ATC system and be able to provide clearnces, SSR codes, etc. The fact that this does not occur at Ballina and Ayres Rock is an artificial constraint imposed by the Federal Government (Airservices and CASA) in order to be able to claim that a CA/GRS is not an ATS.

Should anyone claim that a privately operated ATC service is not possible or unsafe, I would only ask them to consider whether privately operated airlines are safe, and why do the British CAA and US FAA allow them? Is it too expensive? The costs would be mainly ATC salaries, but the CA/GRS guys at Ballina are all retired ATCs, if that is affordable than so would be a Tower

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Cairns has a parallel taxiway for 2/3rds of the runway! Ballina has none. Straight off the apron onto the runway.

[Bodie1]

I propose a new model, revolutionary and puts the onus on the user. Yes, user pays. In the end the user ends up paying about 8 times but hey, it fools the public into thinking that those rich pilots can afford to pay, so they should.

Construct a parallel taxiway, a bloody beauty, fully lit, not just painted centrelines but that stuff that is raised and melted into the surface. And...............TOLL IT. Force anybody that uses it to pay, I dunno, $12.41 per pop, yearly CPI increases. E-tag on the dash, if you don't pay your bill, massive Police fine. Get the Police to do your dirty work on a private taxiway, shouldn't be a problem for VicPol especially, they love that ****.

Airport owner can just gift the property for the taxiway to the operator and mumble something like 'It costs us more to maintain than to operate it ourselves.' When reminded that they don't own it, the tax/rate payer does, mumble something like 'There's significant economic benefit in operating a public/private partnership and will cost us all less in the long run.'

Leave the old half-arsed taxiway in place, you know, you should have a choice on whether you use the tollway or not. But make sure it takes twice as long to get where you're going, put some traffic lights on it, make sure there's a few potholes. Nothing like a propstrike and associated bulk strip to make you realise you should stop your meaningless protest and just use the tolled taxiway.

Job done. I just made 4.3 million dollars in consulting fees.

[roundsounds]

On average, 15 commercial movements a day, 1500 passengers a day, and in total over half a million people moved in the area over the last year and still no tower.......even to cover the commercial traffic.

Fascinating.




take the Tower and it’s staff from Camden, next to no traffic midweek and would cope weekends.

[Pinky the pilot]

I propose a new model, revolutionary and puts the onus on the user. Yes, user pays. In the end the user ends up paying about 8 times but hey, it fools the public into thinking that those rich pilots can afford to pay, so they should.

Construct a parallel taxiway, a bloody beauty, fully lit, not just painted centrelines but that stuff that is raised and melted into the surface. And...............TOLL IT. Force anybody that uses it to pay, I dunno, $12.41 per pop, yearly CPI increases. E-tag on the dash, if you don't pay your bill, massive Police fine. Get the Police to do your dirty work on a private taxiway, shouldn't be a problem for VicPol especially, they love that ****.

Airport owner can just gift the property for the taxiway to the operator and mumble something like 'It costs us more to maintain than to operate it ourselves.' When reminded that they don't own it, the tax/rate payer does, mumble something like 'There's significant economic benefit in operating a public/private partnership and will cost us all less in the long run.'

Leave the old half-arsed taxiway in place, you know, you should have a choice on whether you use the tollway or not. But make sure it takes twice as long to get where you're going, put some traffic lights on it, make sure there's a few potholes. Nothing like a propstrike and associated bulk strip to make you realise you should stop your meaningless protest and just use the tolled taxiway.

Job done. I just made 4.3 million dollars in consulting fees.


Sadly, Bodie1, I suspect that your rant is more or less based on factual events!:uhoh::(
Right down to the consultancy fee bit!:mad:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

HO HO HO....
I actually started this thread becuz Oi Thort it might have bin 'important'......Well... to 'some' anyway.....'Specially those who operate into / out of Ballina NSW......in 'Fast Movers'....
(Relatively Speakin'...)

The effective 'WEF' date is almost 19 years to THE DAY that RHS actually got me 'redundo'd' outta there...(FS) ...FIS that is.
(Flight Service) & (Flight Information Service) provided by Air Traffic Services (Flight Service Officers) who USED to give FIS to ALL radio equipped aircraft - operating OCTA
(In WA anyway....the rest of OZ had long gone...)
(That's Outside Controlled Airspace) to the 'uninitiated' -

And - a "Special' service to those operating into / out of or in 'near proximity' to those AD's designated 'AFIZ'.
(Look it up if ya don't know wot they were....)

So, 'ere we are....still fighting over getting a 'suitable service' into / out of regional airports - like Ballina etc - with jet RPT traffic amongst 'lighties' ......
And, STILL NO SOLUTION!!!!

MERRY Christmas YOU Lot....and a VERY HAPPY 2021.....COVID notwithstanding..............

HO...HO...HO....
and.....Tks Again Dick, for the Big 'R'...........
I'm still enjoyin' it!!
CHEEERRRSSS,,,,

[TwoFiftyBelowTen]

Ahhh, the Holy Grail...
the big “R”!

[Pinky the pilot]

(Flight Service) & (Flight Information Service) provided by Air Traffic Services (Flight Service Officers) who USED to give FIS to ALL radio equipped aircraft - operating OCTA
(In WA anyway....the rest of OZ had long gone...)
(That's Outside Controlled Airspace) to the 'uninitiated' -

And - a "Special' service to those operating into / out of or in 'near proximity' to those AD's designated 'AFIZ'.

Ahh, the good old days where one could walk into an Office and actually get a printed forecast of the weather along your flight path, and also fill out a Flight plan, handing it to a real live Person who would cast his/her eagle eye over it:ok:. And woe betide you if you had made a mistake in any calculations!!:=

When lodging a Full Reporting Flight Plan was expected, even if flying a private flight under the VFR rules, and NoSar-no details was considered very poor airmanship!:=

Putting in an IFR plan was so flamin' easy an' all!:ooh: Just fill out the same form and circle I which was just to the left of the V.
.
Still have a couple of pads of Flight Plan forms. One, has 'Stolen from Ceduna FSU' written on it!:}

G'day Griffo.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanx Pinky,
I believe that a certain ex fso ex said Ceduna might still be lookin' for ya.....sumphin' about stolen Gummint property......
Cheerrsss....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Should anyone claim that a privately operated ATC service is not possible or unsafe,......... and why do the British CAA and US FAA allow them?
They're not really private. In the UK it seems to be one company that evolved from the Govt provider being sold off (the Govt still retains 49%), and the US ones have a lot of FAA involvement, ie pretty much pays for them

[Mr Approach]

Thanks TIEW - I understand the complexities, particularly in the US. However even there the Class D "VFR Tower" model allows for a simple operating environment, with minimal electronic assistance; the expensive equipment and the big pay cheques are kept in the Centres who separate the IFR aircraft.

The much-loved FS system, of which you were part, was overtaken by technology (see Pinky's comments). Apart from the elements that Pinky loved, the FS system still exists but is now utilising display screens with transponder/ADS-B information available, and the operators are also qualified ATCs who can in the same shift operate a control sector. A huge number of your colleagues made the transition and many still hold senior positions in the ATC Towers and Centres.

My view, often expressed on PPrune is that traffic information is the most basic of air traffic services. It may have served us well last century but the volumes and types of aircraft in the system are now larger and more complex. There is still a place for traffic information but Australia needs a graduated response as traffic levels increase so that something can be put in place before Class C airspace and an Airservices tower are needed! Regretably CASA and Airservices have painted themselves into a corner by opposing, for 30 years, everything that Dick wanted to introduce. Mangalore should change all that but I have no faith that the ATSB will say the things they ought to say - they are after all part of the same "deep state" apparatus that runs Australian aviation

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

the FS system still exists
Traffic to IFR in G. EVERYTHING else is long gone.
and the operators are also qualified ATCs who can in the same shift operate a control sector.
Which is their primary responsibility, not looking after traffic in G
Mangalore should change all
Ironic that when FS were responsible for traffic OCTA (and Mangaglore was f*cking busy with IFR traning back then) there wasn't a mid air, but now that the poor bloody ATC is expected to do everything, and radar/atsb coverage is the be all and end all, one happens.

[Capn Bloggs]

BA getting bigger:

s21-h03.pdf (airservicesaustralia.com) (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s21-h03.pdf)

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Lemme see now....IF we 'increase the size' from 10 to 15nm, then that will just 'that' much more time to 'see and avoid'.......
i.e. 5nm @ 120kt = 150 seconds extra.

There! That's Dun !
Now....where's me coffee..??

Cheeerrrsss.....

[cLeArIcE]

The situation at Ballina is bordering on criminal negligence. I Was hopeful now that Qf main line are flying there, perhaps someone in CASA/ ASA might see fit to change something. But yeah ... Thank God for those extra 5 nm. I feel safer already.

[Capn Bloggs]

Griffo, I was always uncomfortable with 10nm for CTAFs. Too close/late for "popups". 15nm is better. I don't understand the 30nm from Gold Coast bit; if you're not in CTA, why not keep the 15nm? Is Joe Bloggs expected to have the CG VOR on his GPS/2nd NAV? Confusing. If you're in CTA who cares where the BA is? ATC will "clear you to leave, call the CAGRO at 15nm", wouldn't they?

Put in a tower.

[Pinky the pilot]

There are times when I wonder if the old AFIZ and MBZ were better than that which has replaced them.:hmm:

Your comments, GRIFFO?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Aye Aye Cap'n.
Tower is the 'ultimate' solution....aka BME.... Class 'D'?.

However, Mr Pinky has a point.
The CAGRO ( Ex 'Elderly FSO / ATC') a la old 'AFIZ', is cheaper, and it worked OK for a loong time with those 'pesky' FK-28 thingies.
Call at 30nm inbound, or transiting.....

About 7 mins from the '30nm call' to the CIRA (FK-28's) - having rec'd 'A' or whatever, (which 'we' didnt have in 'those' days), and be given ONLY 'conflicting / pertinent traffic', means that, with ATIS, the talking is kept to the minimum.
Barons etc - about 10mins, and '210's about 12 mins.

This worked OK, even with sometimes 'multiple' FK-28 ops all converging at the same time......
T'was a 'thing' to behold....as to who streaked across the front windows first.............

However, it ain't gunna happen.
Tower is 'BEST'; you can wish for....so ya got an extra 5nm.....BIG DEAL!!!

[Lead Balloon]

Tower is the 'ultimate' solution....aka BME.... Class 'D'?.Egad, Griffo! You’ll give Bloggsie a conniption.

BME has E over D. The LCDs/indulgees flying in E across the top of BME are merely “encouraged” to contact the tower. It’s a recipe for disaster!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Aye 'Leadie', Oi rekkon he'll have a BIG ONE of 'those' when he sees the 1,500AGL 'E' (a la East Coast, announced today...) extended to 'Where he operates'......

It seems that the prediction of TCAS being the final / dependable traffic info (FIS) by default is 'a
'cummin TROO......

Cheeerrrsss....

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

BA getting bigger:

s21-h03.pdf (airservicesaustralia.com) (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s21-h03.pdf)
so CASA is aware that some aircraft are not making required broadcasts within the vicinity of Ballina, and the fix is to make the area that they are not making the required broadcasts in bigger?
Brilliant!

[Lead Balloon]

Pure genius.

[FPDO]

yeah mate quick n simple........

[FPDO]

The situation at Ballina is bordering on criminal negligence. I Was hopeful now that Qf main line are flying there, perhaps someone in CASA/ ASA might see fit to change something. But yeah ... Thank God for those extra 5 nm. I feel safer already.
yeah if its too dangerous for you to fly in there then simply don't fly there !

[McLimit]

yeah if its too dangerous for you to fly in there then simply don't fly there !

Has he/she got a choice? Simple solution for you perhaps.

[triadic]

My gut feeling is that it wont be long before CASA OAR put the acid on ASA to provided a TWR there.... busier than Coffs or Broome??

[McLimit]

My gut feeling is that it wont be long before CASA OAR put the acid on ASA to provided a TWR there.

Not a chance, I'll put money on it.

[triadic]

I didn't say there would be a TWR there, just that the OAR would put some pressure on ASA to provide something better. My guess is that as well as the OAR it will be political pressure for a class D zone. (remote maybe?) Time will tell.

[10JQKA]

The lhread on the lowering of Class E to1500 agl in the J-Curve mentions that BNA & MNG are proposed to be SAFIS (Class G).

[triadic]

I doubt that will happen without significant changes. Towers cost $$ and you can be sure that ASA don't want to spend any. What is the safest outcome for BNA.

As for MNG, an old style MBZ would be worth a try.