BNA/MNG SFIS info

[10JQKA]

https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/surveillance-flight-information-service

https://www.australianflying.com.au/latest/safis-flies-under-the-radar

Also this is nearby too,

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/stakeholder-engagement-group/ba-tyagarah-gc/

https://www.avsef.gov.au/sites/default/files/consultation/pdf/nsw_qld_avsef_-_proposed_broadcast_area_and_discrete_frequency_for_tyagarah _murwillumbah_and_gold_coast_flying_training_area.pdf

[Seabreeze]

So what point are you making? I could give references to thousands of uninteresting and irrelevant articles but I don't want to bore the s**t out of everyone.

[Geoff Fairless]

Hi Seabreeze - I think 10JQKA is trying to draw our attention to the second part of Airservices answer to the MNG mid-air.

We have already seen the crazily complicated Class E with varying base levels proposal, this time we are going to replace the Class G mandatory traffic service for IFR, which ICAO calls Class F, with another Class F service, an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) again without the required airspace classification F. (See Port Hedland AFIS classified as Class G airspace by CASA)

AS well as MNG they also intend to take over the BNA CA/GRS from the non-Airservices provider and replace it with an inferior remote service without additional surveillance being installed. The ATCs on twice the salary of the current CA/GROs employed by BNA airport will have no added ability to provide an AFIS because they do not have the ability to detect low-level non-ADSB traffic. I wonder how much they will charge for this service compared to the CA/GRS, the cost of which is borne by the airlines using BNA? The same as they charge for the AFIS at Port Hedland I assume.

Although it sounds as though the Minister's employees are "doing something" they will just make the airspace more complicated without actually achieving a reduction in risk. We all need to read this stuff and demand better

[Lead Balloon]

[T]hey will just make the airspace more complicated without actually achieving a reduction in risk.What else would you expect?

You could hope for better, but expecting better would make you more of an optimist than Pollyanna.

They are "doing something" and that's all that matters.

[CaptainMidnight]

The ATCs on twice the salary of the current CA/GROs employed by BNA airport will have no added ability to provide an AFIS because they do not have the ability to detect low-level non-ADSB traffic.And at least the CA/GROs can see the BNA movement area and immediate area, a.k.a. the AFIS guys at Hedland.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Breakdowns of separation at Mangalore occured in January 2021 and September 2011.
I'm assuming that the mid air was the January one. So prior to the midair, one breakdown of sep in the past 10 years? Sounds very knee-jerky to me.

Is there even such a thing as a "Breakdown of Separation" OCTA?

[dysslexicgod]

YMNG lies astride the main North / South route to the Melbourne basin via the Kilmore Gap (KMG) which is some 26 nm (say 15 min) South. High ground and Puckapunyal restricted area channel VFR aircraft along this route unless there is severe CAVOK.

Is Airservices ready to "process" this traffic?

[Geoff Fairless]

TIEW - No because there is no standard to "breakdown". This one only became famous because Jetstar wants a Tower at Ballina.

The British, who provide many radar services in Class G, call them an AIRPROX. They also have an AIRPROX committee that analyses the "breakdowns"/"close encounters" and recommends changes. Their advice could be a change to the service including introducing a controlled service.

Have a look at their very well-thought-out services on their web page. Basic, Traffic, De-confliction and it will change depending on the aircraft position. For instance, if you penetrate a Class D zone from Class G, the approach controller will automatically inform you that you are now subject to a radar control service. When you leave you will be transferred back to the Class G service and you get to nominate what you want. Very sophisticated stuff

[Geoff Fairless]

dysslexicgod - No Airservices is not ready to process the traffic, but that is the beauty of a flight information service.

All care, but no responsibility!

[triadic]

The SFIS (or whatever you want to call it) will not surface until it is shown to work and ASA have also laid on the table what the real alternatives (at least 2 maybe 3?) might be (to date there is nothing). And it will still have to get thru the OAR. It is obvious that this is a knee-jerk to the accident at MNG and the incident at BNA neither of which I doubt would have saved by this proposal. ASA are showing that they have lost a lot of experience of late which is sad! There is also a responsibility with CASA and pilot education and training which is not what it should be (or used to be).

[10JQKA]

The SFIS (or whatever you want to call it) will not surface until it is shown to work and ASA have also laid on the table what the real alternatives (at least 2 maybe 3?) might be (to date there is nothing). And it will still have to get thru the OAR.

triadic, this could be good to bring up at the webex meetings ?

[Geoff Fairless]

10JQKA - I attended the Class E Webex meeting and the Airservices' participants were only the project staff. The "change" managers, I know their names, were very likely listening in, as was the manager of OAR, but they chose to say nothing even though the whole concept was challenged.
You will find the project people have no power to do anything other than tell you what Airservices is going to do, listen to your replies, and then wait for the managers to tell them what to do. They will not be in a position to discuss alternatives, real or otherwise, and OAR will simply wait until Airservices tells the Minister and the new DAS what they want. The rubber stamp will then be exercised, yet again.

[Geoff Fairless]

Today I made the following short submission to Airservices about the proposed AFIS at Ballina

I was the CASA ATM Inspector that oversaw the introduction of the CA/GRS at Ballina and I have audited the CA/GRS at Ayers Rock twice and the AFIS at Port Hedland once, on behalf of CASA. I came to the conclusion that the operations at Ayers Rock and Port Hedland were fit for purpose and that the AFIS model was superior to the CA/GRS. I advised CASA management of my conclusions but also that I did not believe that the CA/GRS being introduced at Ballina would be successful. (There is not enough space here to list the reasons) I recommended to CASA OAR management and the ATM management that Ballina required a control tower with Class D airspace. An AFIS, provided by surveillance-equipped ATCs, will not be able to lower risk levels below those achieved by the current CA/GRS. When I last inspected this was staffed by personnel who have ATC licenses, albeit without current medicals, ratings, or endorsements. The surveillance in the Ballina area, unless it has been improved, does not detect non-ADSB equipped aircraft at lower levels and there will be no greater incentive for VFR pilots to lift their radio procedure activities than those that currently exist. In short, the airspace does not need another voice on the CTAF adding to the confusion. This is the major reported problem with the CA/GRS and an AFIS under Australian Class G procedures would have to operate the same way. The airspace has reached the point when ATC needs to be introduced to sequence aircraft around the Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) and manage runway operations. It need not be expensive if created within an overlying Class E airspace structure.

[cogwheel]

This thread needs to come to the top again. The planned introduction of the SFIS is further delayed.

[Gentle_flyer]

cogwheel,

News of a delay. Unbelievable!

Do tell………

[Geoff Fairless]

I have seen no news of a delay and the Airservices website still contains the following statement (my underlining):
"Airservices is proposing to first introduce the enhanced traffic service at Ballina and Mangalore on 17 June 2021"

I am not sure who writes this stuff for Airservices, but I have to assume it is authorised by the Executive General Manager Air Traffic Services (circa $500,000/per year) and the Chief Executive Officer (circa $800,000/per year). So let us consider the steps involved in no particular order:

Airservices completes consultation and presents an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to CASA OAR
CASA OAR studies ACP conducts consultation and presents a recommendation to CASA management
CASA management approves change and Airservices commences documentation amendments (when is the next RAPAC date, or shall we just issue an enormous NOTAM?)

(During this time Airservices having assumed approval have been busy sectorising the airspace, developing procedures, and training the controllers)

Landrum & Brown need to wind up the Ballina CA/GRS contract (Part 139) with Ballina Airport, Airservices needs to present a charging regime (Part 172) for pilots using the new services

Alternatively, both services could operate side by side!

Airservices then present a safety case to CASA (Concept, Design, Implementation? Oh what the heck, CASA don't know the difference, just send them something really heavy)
CASA ATM inspectors then need to audit the AFIS operations at Ballina and Mangalore, before operating certificates are signed and presented to Airservices

Clearly, I am missing something! How could the two most highly paid federal ATM bureaucrats have thought that these processes could be done, dusted, and in place by 17th June 2021? (I have even given them a free pass on their internal planning and training requirements)
Does anybody know the answer?

[10JQKA]

Geoff, "cogwheel" was talking about this in a related thread- "Jetstar & BNA again" in the "Australia,NZ and Pacific" forum.

[atcnews]

There is no ACP, there is no change to the service provided - it's class G FIS on the CTAF. The request is to create a mandatory broadcast area by CASA instrument. No new operating certificates required.

[Geoff Fairless]

Thanks ATC news - nice spin.

Q. If there is no change to the service being provided by Airservices at Ballina - then why is Airservices consulting with industry about this lack of any change?

Perhaps you are referring to the CA/GRS currently operating at Ballina, if so that is under CASR Part 139, which is not what Airservices is proposing, so there is a change.....
Or are you referring to the mandatory IFR traffic information service provided in Class G airspace, but I understood VFR traffic would also be subject to the service, so there is a change.....

This service is also advertised as being airport-specific, which in Ballina's case would exclude Lismore and Evan's Head. So it is not simply Class G FIS on the CTAF, this is an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) similar to Port Hedland, for which Airservices has approval on your Provider Certificate. (Note the underlined words below)
2.4.1 Content of an ATS Approved Provider Certificate
An ATS Approved Provider Certificate is to include the following details:
 The identity of the approved provider (name and address, and if a corporation, its ACN and registered office)
 A list of those ATS services approved under the certificate, together with details of their location, and aerodrome and airspace, as applicable
 The date of approval of the Certificate
 Conditions on the Certificate; including the condition that CASA has the right to undertake a safety audit of the provider’s operation at any time

Sorry, but if this is the agreement that Airservices has with CASA, then once again, Australian regulations are being ignored.

[CaptainMidnight]

Perhaps atcnews is referring to MNG.

There is already a BA in place at BNA.

[sunnySA]

AR2020-00010, 24 January 2020, Airspace at and around Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome
Reported concern regarding inadequate and ineffective air traffic service at and around Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome

Reporter's concern
The reporter raised a safety concern regarding an airspace safety risk at and around Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome, due to the volume of traffic and frequency congestion. The reporter advises that the mix of traffic at Ballina is complex, including a high number of general aviation aircraft, microlight aircraft, helicopter operations and Regular Public Transport (RPT) jets, as well as an increase in training aircraft in recent years.

A Certified Air Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS) was introduced at Ballina in 2016 following a supplementary airspace review in 2015; however, the reporter states that the CA/GRS has not decreased the airspace risk level nor has it alleviated the CTAF congestion. The reporter states that the CA/GRS at times increase the frequency congestion.

The reporter states that communication related incidents and separation issues are becoming more frequent and is concerned a mid-air collision is imminent, with the risk of high capacity aircraft being involved, not unforeseeable, unless an enhanced air traffic service is implemented.

Operator's response (Operator 1)
The aerodrome manager agreed that there is a mix of traffic at Ballina, including general aviation aircraft, microlight aircraft, helicopter operations and RPT jets, as well as an increase during recent years in training aircraft, both rotary and fixed wing. Ballina has a new fixed wing training provider that commenced operation in the past two years and the availability of NDB/RNAV approaches attracts training aircraft, including RPT and military, in addition to private and commercial operators. These combine to make Ballina airspace and communication frequencies very congested.

The manager believes the CA/GRS has improved the airspace risk level and that the number of incidents, in the form of separation issues is low. Frequency congestion does, however, continue to be an issue at busy periods with the CA/GRS / CTAF covering five airspace regions - where the majority of traffic in these areas is private VFR. . Complaints have been registered with airport operations that the CA/GRS contributes to frequency congestion and this has been brought to the attention of the CA/GRS operator (CA/GRO) in question.

The Ballina CTAF area does experience a number of (VFR) aircraft that fail to report their position, including when required to, within the new Broadcast Area.

We have not observed a marked increase in communication and separation issues, however, we acknowledge the requirement for RPT/IFR aircraft to maintain visual contact with traffic, significantly increases the flight-deck workload on approach into Ballina. Certainly an enhanced air traffic service would minimise the risk of an incident - especially with the airport's plans for carrier and destination expansion.

Operator's response (Operator 2)
Airservices’ response:
The OAR stated Frequency issues occur between aircraft at Lismore and Ballina. Airservices

Australia are investigating options to address the issue. This refers to an action item from the

Ballina Industry Meeting on 28 August 2019. The action was for Airservices to investigate the feasibility of a VHF retransmitter between Lismore and Ballina.

We have completed a review and found no implementation of a VHF repeater service in the aviation context within Australia. For this to be achieved a first-of-type system would need to be designed and risk assessed. As the identified communication issues surrounding Ballina involve frequencies on which we do not provide a service, the aerodromes could investigate the suitability of a single-frequency repeater independently of Airservices Australia.

In Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) Supplement H140/19 Effective 5 December 2019, OAR state that the CTAF at Ballina, Lismore, Casino and Evans Head will remain unchanged. OAR have not approached Airservices to request a different frequency to be allocated.

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)
The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) regularly monitors the incidents and traffic levels at Ballina.

In the 12 month period (1 December 2018 – 30 November 2019) there was one (1) communication related incident and two (2) other airspace related incidents in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
The number of incidents have decreased from the five incidents which occurred during the previous 12 month period.
In two of the three recent incidents (1 December 2018 – 30 November 2019), the CA/GRS provided a service to enhance situational awareness of the inbound RPT aircraft.

At a recent Aviation Safety Seminar held at Ballina, local stakeholders were asked about the service provided by the CA/GRS. All agreed that the service is a benefit and it is working well.

Frequency issues occur between aircraft at Lismore and Ballina. Airservices Australia are investigating options to address the issue.

ATSB comment

ATSB sought clarification from the regulator following the Airservices response, the regulator’s comments below:

The OAR has not approached Airservices for a discrete frequency for Ballina as a different frequency will not solve the underlying issues. The instrument approaches for Ballina and Lismore overlap and having both aerodromes on the same frequency enhances situational awareness. It is not appropriate for aircraft to operate in close proximity to each other and be on different radio frequencies.

The main issue at Ballina relates to radio communication – aircraft not broadcasting on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), over-transmissions, poor radio calls and congestion caused by aircraft at Lismore.

In December 2019, the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) declared a broadcast area within 10 nautical miles of Ballina aerodrome to reduce the risk related to pilot communication in the area.

The OAR monitors the traffic and incidents at Ballina aerodrome on a monthly basis. A significant change in traffic volume, mix, incidents or stakeholder feedback may trigger an airspace review by the OAR.

ATSB comment:
The ATSB has received significant feedback from several GA operators regarding airspace concerns at and around Ballina.

While the ATSB occurrence database supports the regulator’s statement that one of the underlying issues at Ballina is aircraft not broadcasting on the CTAF, the ATSB notes that communication (air-ground-air) issues are not a mandatory reportable matter under the Transport Safety Investigation Act, 2003 for non-air transport aircraft. As such, flight crews who encounter communication issues do not necessarily report them to the ATSB.

Feedback from multiple operators that regularly operate on the CTAF suggest that aircraft not broadcasting on the CTAF is usually due to the inability to make a transmission due to frequency congestion, often due to the CA/GRS.

Multiple operators have also indicated to the ATSB that while communication issues due to over use of the radio is prevalent, there is no mechanism to provide this feedback. The operators state that the Aviation Safety Seminars are not appropriate forums, due to them being facilitated by the aerodrome operator, who hold their leases; the presence of the CA/GRO’s; and no formal recording of specific concerns being raised.

Due to the volume of feedback the ATSB has received on this specific issue, the ATSB has asked CASA to consider establishing a mechanism for GA operators to provide CASA their generic concerns and/or details regarding specific incidents.

As at time of publishing, Airservices is planning on introducing enhanced traffic services, in Class G airspace, through the provision of the Surveillance Flight Information Service (SFIS) at selected regional non-towered aerodromes across Australia, including Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome.

[atcnews]

You are right that there is a change to the procedures and to who receives a service, but there is no change to the service provided - it's still FIS.

If you look at the Part 172 Provider Certificate (https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/CASA.172.0005-Revision-No1-SIGNED.pdf) you will see that no changes are needed to run a FIS for Mangalore from ML ATSC. For example you will not find Adelaide Approach listed, they come under "Melbourne ATSC". It's just a list of the physical locations the service is provided from.

[missy]

According to the Senates Estimates transcript (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates) - Tuesday, 25 May 2021, in December last year, Ballina was Australia's busiest airport. Hard to believe really given that Moorabbin recorded 21,378 movements.

The other "gem" from this committee was "a number of incidents have occurred (at Ballina), particularly over the last six months, where there have been close calls between Jetstar aircraft and hang gliders and things like that." Interestingly there is no corresponding "spike" of reported occurrences at Ballina, and what exactly are "things like that".

[triadic]

I am of the belief that ASA are under some pressure to come up with "something" that will, in their view reduce any risks of a collision. (and of course satisfy whoever is appling the pressure for change from above) However whatever they come up with has to be approved by CASA OAR so there is a need for everyone to work together in a transparent manner with industry and wide consultation thru AvSEF (formally RAPAC). This is going to take some time as any "change" in the airspace design or procedures at specific locations (unless a class D tower) will need to be the subject of a very widespread education program. This is not going to happen overnight. ASA obviously don't have the answers or perhaps the expertise/corporate histroy to think more broadly on how it might works best without a tower.

Maybe it is time to consider a change to the regs that would permit a tower to be provided by an organisation other than ASA? That might also be more cost effective?

"Airservices is proposing to first introduce the enhanced traffic service at Ballina and Mangalore on 17 June 2021"


Maybe they got the year wrong?

[missy]

Maybe it is time to consider a change to the regs that would permit a tower to be provided by an organisation other than ASA? That might also be more cost effective?
You might be right, perhaps it is time to consider this. It was an idea that was floated about 15 years ago (contestability) and AA at the time bundled all the Towers into the same Business Group, run on a shoe string, nil investment in the future, nil investment in preventative maintenance. Many a tower is still suffering from the neglect.
Deloittes (https://www2.deloitte.com/au/en/pages/public-sector/articles/contestability.html)
It could be that rather than being cost effective it might be a better, more customer focused service, or led to divergent and non-standard practices across the country.

Maybe they got the year wrong?
Nope, 17/6/21 is a Thursday which is the normal day for the introduction of or the updating of aeronautical databases.

[triadic]

missy, yes know that practice, however what I was eluding to is that it is now not very likely to occur this year, given all the boxes that need to be ticked.......

[Lead Balloon]

atcnews seems to me to be suggesting that no further boxes need to be ticked, because Airservices is already allowed to provide a FIS for Mangalore from ML ATSC. Not sure how that can also be so for the “change to the procedures and to who receives” the FIS.

Perhaps atcnews can expand/clarify?

[we_were_inverted]

Well seeing as the SFIS has been ‘shelved’ for now at BNA the latest option allegedly being explored (as I heard and understood it) is a ‘remote tower’ either being done by controllers from the Gold Coast tower or from the Airservices national operations cell.

This remote tower will have associated class C and E above, similar to YCFS. Watch this space I guess

[triadic]

See this link for further info: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/stakeholder-engagement-group/ybna-freq-congestion/

[10JQKA]

https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/surveillance-flight-information-service

Draft AIP-SUP now on above link.

[sunnySA]

In order to reduce residual airspace risk
What exactly does this mean? Is anyone able to qualify what the residual risk that is being mitigated?

[CaptainMidnight]

Have heard that for BNA at least, delayed till mid August AIRAC date at this stage.

Much to be done by Airservices before then.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A FIS in a FIA. What are the chances this gets expanded as a real good idea.

[cogwheel]

Back in the days of Flight Service we had an AFIZ and they worked well as there was only one frequency (no CTAF). The biggest problem now would be controllers providing a service and not trying to control.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Back in the days of Flight Service we had an AFIZ and they worked well as there was only one frequency (no CTAF). The biggest problem now would be controllers providing a service and not trying to control.
BUT, back in the day, when an aerodrome with an AFIZ got too busy, they put a TWR in ie Albury, Broome etc. That's off the table now, and they don't really have a viable alternative.

[sunnySA]

BUT, back in the day, when an aerodrome with an AFIZ got too busy, they put a TWR in ie Albury, Broome etc. That's off the table now, and they don't really have a viable alternative.
Then safety isn't the prime objective.

[Lead Balloon]

What exactly does this mean? Is anyone able to qualify what the residual risk that is being mitigated?
In the 2017 CASA OAR supplementary study of Ballina, Paragraph 6.6 is entitled Safety Assessment. This contains two statements:

6.6.1 Analysis of aerodrome activity at BBGA determined that the risk to airspace users in the BBGA area was highest between 0800 and1800 hrs which primarily covers daylight hours.

6.6.2 The likelihood of a safety incident between two aircraft after 1800 hrs was assessed as extremely low because all passenger transport movements are separated by time in their flight schedules and there are very few airspace users around BBGA after 1800 hrs.

Maybe the “residual airspace risk” is the delta between “extremely low” and “vanishingly small” or “zero”?

[missy]

6.6.2 The likelihood of a safety incident between two aircraft after 1800 hrs was assessed as extremely low because all passenger transport movements are separated by time in their flight schedules
Separated by time in their flight schedules!! International best practice!!
No allowance for diversions, air returns, additional non-scheduled traffic such as air ambulance.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

But they are outside controlled airspace. What are the standards which the "separation issue" has breached?

[10JQKA]

https://engage.airservicesaustralia.com/surveillance-flight-information-service

Updated info on portal, August 12 is now target date, they are running webex online consultation forums every week until then.

[Lead Balloon]

August 12 this year? I wouldn’t be betting the farm on it.

[triadic]

August 12 this year? I wouldn’t be betting the farm on it.

AGREED !

There are still a lot of boxes to be ticked and I don't believe CASA/OAR have yet sharpened their ticking pencil. The CASA proposal to have Lismore/Casino CTAFs on a different frequency still has to be agreed upon, one way or the other.

[Roger Gove]

But they are outside controlled airspace. What are the standards which the "separation issue" has breached?

Traffic,
We all know that "see and avoid" is the only form of separation that is needed in class G!
Once upon a time there was a thing called "airmanship" where a pilot was capable of aviating, navigating and communicating simultaneously.
This appears to have been overtaken by "screen time" in the new fangled semi autonomous glass screen aeroplanes.
RG

[Geoff Fairless]

I attended the Airservices briefing on "SFIS" on Tues the 15th, it is good to see them taking back airspace management from CASA. (I think they are as frustrated CASA OAR as the rest of us)

The impression I formed was that CASA had abrogated airspace responsibility for anything other than the top-down airspace reviews described in the Airspace legislation. Even then, as per Avalon, the OAR bosses want Airservices to come up with suggestions for change which OAR can then rubber-stamp. Funnily enough, that is probably better than the alternative which is CASA dreaming up more nonsense like CA/GRS!

I offered my qualified support at the briefing for a service that will be clearly superior to CA/GRS although hamstrung by some peculiar protocols. I won't go into details here but this service needs to become a real ATS that replaces the so-called "area" frequency where, as well as traffic information, clearances, SSR codes, etc. can be obtained. I believe that common sense will eventually prevail as pilots and controllers get used to the new service. There is also a need to standardise these Class G services. The procedures at Port Hedland AFIS, Ayers Rock CA/GRS, and these new services need to be the same. If Ayers Rock Radio, a CA/GRS, cannot be standardised then it needs to be replaced with a genuine "information" service linked to the ATS, which it currently is not.

This raises the most obvious anomoly voiced at the briefing, which was the statement from Airservices that CASA had forbidden them to use the ICAO recognised term Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS). The service will be on the allocated CTAF and use the aerodrome identifier as a callsign, followed by "Information". So what is it other than a remotely provided AFIS? This apparently is the reason for the invention of Surveillance FIS, a term not recognised by ICAO and probably requiring yet another "difference" to be filed. This is apparently another intervention by CASA who simply do not have the expertise to involve themselves in such decisions. (This is not intended to be a comment on individual members of OAR who are hard-working individuals with many and diverse skills). It is CASA management and processes that produce such weird interpretations.

[CaptainMidnight]

snip
the statement from Airservices that CASA had forbidden them to use the ICAO recognised term Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS).
snip
Probably because to comply with the ICAO definition of an AFIS, more local information is required to be available to ATC and provided to aircraft than Airservices is currently able to provide, other than Port Hedland.

ICAO: Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) (http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:aerodrome-flight-information-service-afis)

Before Airservices shut down the Flight Service centres I believe that FS did provide remote AFIS/AFIZ services from those centres for some locations (Mildura and Broken Hill come to mind) and the relevant consoles were equipped with readouts of the local met data i.e. QNH, wind speed & direction, temperature etc. and a preferred runway would be nominated.

[Lead Balloon]

Heaven forbid that Australia add another difference to the hundreds already notified: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/pending/icao/icao_standards.asp

[triadic]

According to the latest info, ASA will have a VHF repeater at BNA (already installed) operated from a consol in BNE and that operator will provide a service similar to the old AFIZ that is mentioned in the post by Geoff above. In addition the operator will have surveillance capability (Radar/SSR/ADSB) within the limits of the coverage there.. It will in fact be a sub-FIA based on the proposed area in the draft AIP SUP. The controller will have co-ord ability with other sectors etc. The CA/GRS will go. Cross reference to the CASA proposal on changing the frequency of Lismore/Casino CTAFs is in conflict with the ASA proposal. I guess CASA will review after their consultation closes on 11 July.
I think CASA have a problem with AFIS as it is a "service" and does not refer to an "area". What is proposed is a service provided within a defined area which may or may not have an ICAO definition(??). A class D zone would do the job, but nobody wants to pay for it.

[CaptainMidnight]

I think CASA have a problem with AFIS as it is a "service" and does not refer to an "area".

As I said, I suspect the CASA problem is that an AFIS requires the ATS operator to have displayed real-time local met info and the ability to provide this and other local operational info per the ICAO requirement I provided the link to.

I'm not aware of the YPPD facilities, but I assume they have this info etc. displayed and therefore they can advise aircraft of same and if so, it is an AFIS that is compliant with ICAO.

If the ATC sector that will cover the BNA Broadcast Area doesn't have this met info displayed and the ability to provide it and the other operational information, then my interpretation is that an AFIS would not be compliant.

FWIW from the CASA VFRG:

Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS)
An AFIS provides pilots with an alerting service, local traffic and operational information on the CTAF assigned to the particular aerodrome. Essential aerodrome information is provided by an Automatic Aerodrome Information Service (AAIS) broadcast on a dedicated frequency (similar to ATIS) during AFIS HRS. An AFIS is currently provided at Port Hedland.

All aircraft departing, arriving or transiting an AFIS broadcast area must make broadcasts prior to or as soon as possible after entering the broadcast area (see AIP ENR 1.1-44)

[missy]

ICAO: Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) (http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:aerodrome-flight-information-service-afis)

An ICAO AFIS sounds like exactly the service that should be provided.

1.1 Aerodrome flight information service (AFIS) is the term used to describe the provision of information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of aerodrome traffic at those aerodromes designated for use by international general aviation where the appropriate air traffic services authority determines that the provision of aerodrome control service is not justified, or is not justified on a 24-hour basis. [my bolding]

1.2 Basic elements of information provided to aircraft:

Meteorological information for aircraft about to take off or to land, including SIGMET information. E.g. the current surface wind direction and speed, QNH, air temperature, visibility.
The most suitable runway for use.
Information that is essential to the safe operation. E.g. Construction or maintenance work.
Information that is related with airdrome equipment or radio bearings. E.g. Navigation aids.
Any other information or messages contributing to safety.

[Awol57]

As I said, I suspect the CASA problem is that an AFIS requires the ATS operator to have displayed real-time local met info and the ability to provide this and other local operational info per the ICAO requirement I provided the link to.

I'm not aware of the YPPD facilities, but I assume they have this info etc. displayed and therefore they can advise aircraft of same and if so, it is an AFIS that is compliant with ICAO.

If the ATC sector that will cover the BNA Broadcast Area doesn't have this met info displayed and the ability to provide it and the other operational information, then my interpretation is that an AFIS would not be compliant.

FWIW from the CASA VFRG:
They do have met info and an ATIS which is kept up to date. All the operators there also are approved met observers. It's set up to run the same Karratha class D just without the control aspect.

[Geoff Fairless]

There is no information available to pilots about aerodromes that cannot be made available to ATC sectors.

In terms of the AWIS, I believe that 99% of AWIS in Australia send real-time data to their associated met offices so that Area forecasts, TAFs, and METARS can be generated. This would indicate that there is a digital stream of information that Airservices could tap into and display to the "SFIS' control positions. Airservices did this for their experimental Class E approach services at Rockhampton and Mackay.

Hence the only reasons why the AWIS for MNG and BNA is not being provided to ATC is either cost or dogma. The so-called preferred runway nomination could just follow the wind direction and speed, it is after all, just preferred. The real missing link is that no runway "oversight" can be provided, something that the CA/GRS does do. And are not the final approaches, runway surface, and departure tracks the most critical areas of conflict?

We can argue definitions all we like. What it boils down to is whether this service will make the MNG and BNA airspace safer places for jet transport operations. In my opinion no - if CASA "approves" or rubber-stamps this change they will not have mitigated a single risk that exists and the travelling public will be none the wiser. Come on Australia - it does not take a lot of effort or money to become a first-world aviation nation!

[missy]

Agreed. If there's a will, there's a way. Sydney TCU has AWIS data for Sydney Airport (in addition to the Tower of course). It's just data, AWIS could be sent, Nav Aid monitoring available, use the weather watch cameras.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainMidnight View Post (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/640403-bna-mng-sfis-info-3.html#post11066035)
ICAO: Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) (http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:aerodrome-flight-information-service-afis)
An ICAO AFIS sounds like exactly the service that should be provided.

Quote:
1.1 Aerodrome flight information service (AFIS) is the term used to describe the provision of information useful for the safe and efficient conduct of aerodrome traffic at those aerodromes designated for use by international general aviation where the appropriate air traffic services authority determines that the provision of aerodrome control service is not justified, or is not justified on a 24-hour basis. [my bolding]

1.2 Basic elements of information provided to aircraft:

Meteorological information for aircraft about to take off or to land, including SIGMET information. E.g. the current surface wind direction and speed, QNH, air temperature, visibility.
The most suitable runway for use.
Information that is essential to the safe operation. E.g. Construction or maintenance work.
Information that is related with airdrome equipment or radio bearings. E.g. Navigation aids.
Any other information or messages contributing to safety.

Interesting that traffic information, arguably what this is all about, is relegated to "any other information..." ie not specifically mentioned as something important enough to rate its own dot point.

[triadic]

It seems that Airservices want to provide a "service" that is more than the ICAO AFIS. To date indications are that "surveillance" is the prime difference from the ICAO AFIS and that as indicated above by TIEW that means traffic info at the very least. I have seen no specific mention regarding the other dot points It is clear that this proposal relates or will relate to a specific area or block of airspace that may not be presently defined by ICAO. It is clear that some of the ICAO definitions and standards need to be revisited. However it is said that the average time to get a change thru ICAO is seven years, so don't hold your breath.
Whatever that turns out to be it is likely that if CASA approves it, a difference with the ICAO standards will be required.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

From the same (1988) ICAO circular:7 Accommodation and equipment7.1 AFIS should be provided from a location where there is the best possible view of the aerodrome and the surrounding area.

7.2 The equipment for the AFIS unit should be similar to the aerodrome control tower.

[triadic]

7.1 AFIS should be provided from a location where there is the best possible view of the aerodrome and the surrounding area.

Only a couple of the old FSU's even complied with that!
One of the old DCA managers had a policy of building new units so they did NOT have a view of the aerodrome. But regardless, the old AFIZ did work- no CTAFs then so all on the same freq. Maybe the return of the AFIZ?

[10JQKA]

Just found this,

https://www.avsef.gov.au/national-proposal-re-establish-use-mandatory-broadcast-zone-mbz

[Lead Balloon]

Can anyone make a submission to AVSEF?

If yes, I'd like to propose that if MBZs are to be reinstated, they be called CTAF(R)s instead.

[Geoff Fairless]

Yes, Lead, anyone can make a submission on the web site <https://www.avsef.gov.au/>. Select your topic, click on make a submission and it will give you a contact email for the proposer. You can also do the same thing to Airservices on <engage.airservicesaustralia.com/>

My opinion - MBZs/CTAF(Rs) etc are just an excuse for a third world air traffic service (ATS). At what traffic level does pilot separation by radio become impossible and unsafe? I think we found that out at Mangalore, and nearly at Ballina.

Does the nation want a first world ATS? UK and USA have, even though the models are different. Aeroplanes are going too fast and randomly in relation to each other, voice calls and maps on knees or Ipads, are inadequate, particulalrly when in-cockpit training is also being conducted.
We know surveillance works, it has been in use for years. It does not matter whether it is passed by ATC like the UK Low Airspace Radar Service, or direct like the US Traffic Information Service - A or B, they both use ground based surveillance. If we are going for pilot separation than Australia simply needs more surveillance coverage of traffic areas that are becoming increasingly busy.

Another option, if surveillance is too expensive for a poor country like Australia, is for more Control Towers looking after the 5-10 NM around relatively busy aerodromes. Particulalrly where there is flying training and English language skills are still developing. The Federal Government can make a simple change to CASR Part 172 to make these possible, and in my opinion they might even be more cost effective than increased traffic surveillance. My logic behind that is that they should be owned by, and the ATCs work for, the aerodrome operator. ATC eyes on the runway and the circuit area, with oversight of the approach and departure tracks in conjunction with Airservices, is arguably the simplest way to ensure aerodrome safety. In the US these are colloquially called VFR Towers with Class D airspace, and in the UK simply an Air Traffic Zone (ATZ), quite small like our Metro Ds, or if military a MATZ and bigger because of aircraft size and speed. The UK recognises that an ATZ/MATZ is "controlled" even though there is no ICAO airspace allocation other than G. Pilots still have to follow instructions on the runways and in the circuit area.

[Roger Gove]

Bring back Flight Service I say!
It used to work well.
Mind you that was before the advent of glass cockpits and limited aviation English!
RG

[CaptainMidnight]

<snip>
more Control Towers looking after the 5-10 NM around relatively busy aerodromes.<snip>
they should be owned by, and the ATCs work for, the aerodrome operator.<snip>

Past history re the trial introduction of UNICOMs indicated that AD OPRs here didn't want to pay for them - which might explain why we have so few - and I don't know if the CA/GRS we have were voluntarily put in by the AD OPRs, or as a result of directives from CASA.

[Geoff Fairless]

Roger - Flight Service did not disappear, the responsibility was passed to ATC. This streamlined air traffic services (ATS) and meant that surveillance could be used to monitor traffic OCTA or what became Class G airspace. Most of the FSOs became ATCs. What did disappear was full reporting for VFR flights.

Captain - UNICOMs in Australia were crippled by CASA and Airservices trying to operate them as a Government "service", instead of the US practice where they are operated by airport employees, or businesses. The trials were universally panned by everyone involved so CASA just dropped the idea. They should remain something that is useful, but not ever considered to be part of the ATS. There are now only two CA/GRS, Ayers Rock, and Ballina. Ayers Rock has been there so long it's a mystery (to me anyway) why it was ever started; Ballina was a recommendation by CASA OAR until they found that their recommendations were just being filed because they can only authorise airspace! Ballina to their credit adopted it anyway. I understand that in both cases the airline operators agreed to cover the cost. As I understand it, Airservices does not charge operators at Port Hedland for the AFIS, the cost is absorbed. They have also stated that they would not charge directly for the SFIS at Ballina or Mangalore.

[Capn Bloggs]

Geoff, you can clear up your "mystery" by reading this. Clues within.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/153446/download?token=t5FQS21C

Flight Service did not disappear
AFIZs did. The bandaid replacement isn't a patch on what was provided beforehand.

Ballina was a recommendation by CASA OAR until they found that their recommendations were just being filed because they can only authorise airspace!
Yet CASA ordered ASA to put in an AFIS at YPPD, YBRM and YPKA and then a tower at YBRM and YPKA (as well as the CAGRO at YAYE).

UNICOMs in Australia were crippled by CASA and Airservices trying to operate them as a Government "service", instead of the US practice where they are operated by airport employees, or businesses. The trials were universally panned by everyone involved so CASA just dropped the idea.
You may think RPT jets should be getting critical met info from untrained, enthusiastic-amateur baggage chuckers, but a lot of us don't.

[Lead Balloon]

Yet CASA ordered ASA to put in an AFIS at YPPD, YBRM and YPKA and then a tower at YBRM and YPKA (as well as the CAGRO at YAYE).CASA "ordered" ASA to do something? Any clue or links as to the terms of that / those order/s and the power/s exercised?

These days CASA seems to be labouring under the misconception - or perhaps it is not a misconception - that CASA can't do anything about airspace or ATS arrangements unless ASA has made a recommendation to CASA to do it.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

My logic behind that is that they should be owned by, and the ATCs work for, the aerodrome operator.
So who at MNG is going to pay for a tower? They don't own the navaids, so can't charge for the overhead training, and there wouldn't be enough landings to cover the infrastructure costs. if you make it too expensive and restrictive, they'll just go somewhere else.
At what traffic level does pilot separation by radio become impossible and unsafe? I think we found that out at Mangalore
How many aircraft were on frequency at MNG? There's no mention of frequency congestion. Both pilots got traffic on each other. They didn't talk to each other. So the answer to what traffic level is dangerous - Two.

[Geoff Fairless]

Capt - I am not sure how my comment about UNICOMs became an opinion about the passing of critical met information. Under the old CAR120 (I'm not sure it still exists) a pilot could only accept such information from someone certified by the BoM and issued with an approval by CASA. Theoretically, a UNICOM operator could obtain such approval, however, how would the pilot know they had one?

TIEW
1 - CASA and Airservices legislation requires them to treat safety as the first priority - who is going to pay supposedly is a lower priority. Not sure who owns the navaids at MNG but I do know that Ballina airport owns the NDB at BNA! If I was them I would only switch it on when someone booked it for training.
2 - I did not mention frequency congestion, you have answered my question!

[Lead Balloon]

It's still there in the 1988 regulations:120 Weather reports not to be used if not made with authority

(1) The operator or pilot in command of an aircraft must not use weather reports of actual or forecasted meteorological conditions in the planning, conduct and control of a flight if the meteorological observations, forecasts or reports were not made with the authority of:
(a) the Director of Meteorology; or
(b) a person approved for the purpose by CASA.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.But note: The 1988 regulations are being rewritten, so the above will be gone and replaced by around the year 2000.

AIP GEN 3.5 para 4.4.2 says: "For the purpose of aircraft weather reporting and observing visibility for takeoff and landing at an aerodrome, the pilot in command shall be deemed an approved observer for that flight." Given the use of the very impressive words "shall" and "deemed", that seems to be an approval under CAR 120 for PICs in the limited purposes stated.

Dunno if UNICOMS get an approval.

I never look at those aerodrome webcams to see what the weather and WDI are doing. My understanding is that they shall have been deemed not to be approved. Hopefully they will be, by around the year 2000.

[Geoff Fairless]

Lead (is it Led or Leed?),
I used to issue CAR120 approvals for CASA although dozens of others also could, and the approval is specific to a person, not a job. They needed only to produce the BoM documentation proving they had "attended" the course, see <MA.9a Qualifications & Competencies, Aerodrome Weather Observers, Version 3.0>. I reiterate though, the CAR puts the onus, and the strict liability, on the pilot to "must not use", so how does the pilot know?. Regulations should target the person giving the weather advice.

A pilot is deemed to be able to make his/her own observations without "attending" the BoM course, however, note that only applies to their own flight. A PIC may not provide weather information to another PIC unless they have a CAR120 approval. Get your head around the logic in that one!

As for looking at things that are providing weather information. I, on behalf of CASA, agreed with the BoM that the person telling a pilot what an approved machine (such as an AWIS) was reading, did not constitute a weather observation. Weather instruments such as an AWIS are certified under 1(a) of CAR120 by the BoM. Therefore anyone is allowed to tell a pilot what, for instance, the QNH readout is displaying without having a qualification. I do not know the status of the weather cams but I think they are owned by Airservices, so you might be correct. Once again the same problem, how does a pilot know that something is "approved"?

[atcnews]

Ballina SUP now published - going live next month.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/aip/current/sup/s21-h80.pdf

[Dick Smith]

Back to the 1950s

I have a simple question.

Why hasn’t the FAA introduced SFIS,s ?

With ten times the traffic and similar radar coverage to our J curve there must be a reason why we have to be so much more complicated.

And the airlines will still be flying around in cloud attempting to do there own separation with low time IFR pilots with no separation standard.

Yes. I was involved in the removal of the AFIZ,s. That’s because under AMATS we were going to copy the best airspace system in the world. The US NAS.

Now we are inventing another unique system with airline passengers the guinea pigs.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

ATC provided AFIS. Imagine the cost savings! Is BNA SFIS by a dedicated resource, or is some poor bloody ATC got this on his plate as well? Is it workload permitting?

[triadic]

It is a dedicated positon in the Bris AACC. No other frequencies.

[Dick Smith]

I note that AsA wants VFR pilots to submit flight plans for operations in the area.

The more I look at it the more it looks like a giant backward step.

By getting VFR back in the system there will be pressure for charges to be introduced.

[triadic]

I think they will have to get used to "pop-ups".

[le Pingouin]

As a controller having a plan in the system makes it easier for us to provide the service you're wanting as it's somewhat cumbersome to create one. How is filing a flight plan before you depart any different to effectively filing one by radio? Either way you're still entered into the system.

[Lead Balloon]

And here we go again, again, again, and ...

[Dick Smith]

La P.

A pilot decides to fly VFR coastal at varying altitudes between 500’ and 5000’ depending on Wx and scenery from Maitland to Bundaberg.

What flight details should be filed ? Are you suggesting a full position plan?

[le Pingouin]

No, just for the portions where a service is expected. It's having a plan, any plan, in the system that makes it easier. Yes it's easier if it more or less follows the route you're taking and the actual departure time is within a couple of hours of your ETD but it's having an existing plan that speeds things up for us.

[sunnySA]

A pilot decides to fly VFR coastal at varying altitudes between 500’ and 5000’ depending on Wx and scenery from Maitland to Bundaberg. What flight details should be filed?
Plan DCT at a VFR level, it's just a plan, by being "in the system", with about 6 keyboard clicks the ATC at the console will access to your details vs probably 20-30 keyboard clicks.
It's about a more user friendly system, easier for the ATC which in turn makes it easier for the pilot = best service.

[alphacentauri]

Devils advocate....

Its Class G.....I don't want/expect a service. You don't need a 'plan in the system' to give me directed traffic.

[le Pingouin]

It's not all about you.......

[alphacentauri]

Then it shouldnt be Class G....

[Lead Balloon]

Spot on, Alpha.

[Dick Smith]

Wow. All the work I did 20 years ago so we could fly with relative freedom and less complication as they do in the USA , Canada and Europe has been wasted.

My book, which comes out in November tells how I attempted to bring in the overseas system to Australia.

I will have to do an update and explain my failure!

[Lead Balloon]

It is a failure, Dick.

If, just once, you used your political power to its full extent, you'd get all of what you want. But you seem to be unable to stop yourself from falling, over and over, for the tricks of the dumb and dumber political parties.

Old dogs; old tricks; really, really boring, pointless journeys in circles.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

It is a dedicated positon in the Bris AACC. No other frequencies.
Then why not make it proper control FFS. If you are going to provide a controller, then bloody control!

[sunnySA]

Ballina SUP now published - going live next month.

Standby for an amended version of the Ballina SUP.

[Dick Smith]

What is the lower level of the SSR coverage at Ballina?

[cogwheel]

Somewhere around 3000ft for primary & SSR

[Gentle_flyer]

Somewhere around 3000ft for primary & SSR
Cogwheel,

Thanks

Dick, There’s your answer! Has the penny dropped yet on AsA’s biggest confidence trick.

And fills in the blanks on the A320 / Jabiru incident! Going to be pretty hard for ATSB to cover this or MNG up now! Still only four killed….

Someone in AsA must have a smidgeon of morals and ethics as apparently the VFR traffic issuance to IFRs is now done and with far more accuracy according to people that monitor the relevant sector frequency above Ballina.

How interesting!

Ex FSO Griffo your time approaches….

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Sorry Matey,
I ain't leavin' the 'Wild West'....especially with dat dere Covid hangin' around.
And.....I've forgotten more than I ever knew......

Now, where ARE those f'n car keys..??
(Wots a car..??)

[Geoff Fairless]

Cogwheel,
Thanks for that altitude - is it the same over LIS?
If so, the Jabiru reported at 5300 feet at LIS so did ATC pick it up? (CA/GRO does not have any surveillance other than FR24)
We await the ATSB report with interest........

[missy]

Cogwheel,
Thanks for that altitude - is it the same over LIS?
If so, the Jabiru reported at 5300 feet at LIS so did ATC pick it up? (CA/GRO does not have any surveillance other than FR24)
We await the ATSB report with interest........
GF, you have more faith in ATSB than I do.

[Dick Smith]

The SFIS seems to me to be like buying a proven 747 or 777 and putting piston engines on them because that’s what we did in the 50s.

Surely we should be using ATCs to actually control and separate IFR aircraft. Not give a Flight Service traffic information service.

Maybe they could bring Griffitho over from the west to show them how to go back to the 50s and do it in style!

[le Pingouin]

That's hilarious - you're the one who transferred FS to ATC. We're ATSOs now, providing services in whichever class of airspace we work.

[Dick Smith]

Yes. I did. However that was part of the AMATS changes which placed class E to low level so the ATCs would be separating aircraft that were in IMC.

That did not go ahead because pilots and others believed that self separation in IMC was acceptably safe.

Maybe after Mangalore there could be a different view!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

That did not go ahead because pilots and others believed that self separation in IMC was acceptably safe.

Bloody WRONG...it was called Class G back then-

Executive Summary.

• Government responsibility for CSOs has been captured by proponents of "user pays" and "affordable safety".

The Class G Trials (https://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22publications%2Ftabledpapers%2FHSTP 07779_1998-01%22;src1=sm1) were an example of public policy being captured by sectional interests that included AOPA, ATC Executive Management and Mr. D. Smith.

! Australia has a "World's Best" system of Directed Traffic Information provided by Flight Service.

• Airservices Australia has promoted Airspace 2000 in part as justification for limitations of is expensive TAAATS project.

• The capture of policy making has allowed a section of the aviation community to become an "economic free rider"

• The senior management of CASA have shown themselves to be influenced if not captured by those whom they are to regulate.

• The tr ials were a safety fraud - the Safety Case had flaws in it.

• BASI's recommendation to terminate the trial is to be applauded.

• An airspace bureau within the Department of transport should design airspace, CASA should regulate implementation and management of policy to ensure safety and quality processes,

• Management of airspace should reside with RAAF and Airservices Australia.

• BASI should retain its current independant role as investigator.

[Dick Smith]

Looks a little biased to me. Who actually wrote that report. ? Affordable safety is a fact. Not an opinion.

[le Pingouin]

No, it was the simple integration of FS into ATC.

You slag off FS as 1950s level yet fully embrace 1910s unalerted see and avoid. Why aren't you vigorously pushing for VFR aircraft to adopt modern technology?

[Dick Smith]

If by “ modern technology “ you mean VFR aircraft should be fitted with extra expensive equipment.
I supported such an aim at my meeting with Mr McCormack a couple of months ago. I said it would cost less than 2 cents a litre on avtur to cover such costs.

He didn’t seem that enthusiastic!

[le Pingouin]

Oh so you're happy if someone else pays? That makes anything affordable. Looks like you'll just have to stick with Edwardian aviation.

[Dick Smith]

I quite like the idea of spreading the cost over those who benefit.

Le Ping. I can afford these upgrades but there are many who can’t and will simply leave aviation. It’s been happening for years.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

class E to low level so the ATCs would be separating aircraft that were in IMC.
But in reality, in Australia, they'd be mostly separating aircraft that weren't in IMC.

[missy]

But in reality, in Australia, they'd be mostly separating aircraft that weren't in IMC.
Why? If they're not in IMC then surely they are visual are then able to self separate.
Is there a reluctance to on behalf of the pilot community (or particular airlines or specific pilots) to report visual? Is this because responsibility for separation would then switch from the ATC to the pilot?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If they're not in IMC then surely they are visual are then able to self separate.
Then you don't need E.
Unfortunately, you don't turn airspace classification on and off with the weather.
If it's E, you're getting separated whether in IMC or not. My point is that there is a lot less aircraft in IMC in Aus than in the US.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

AAHH...Dick,
I've told ya a MILLION times NOT to exxagerate so much......
I reckon you would have NOT been flying 'in the 50's'...except in your dreams....just like 'yours truly'.

I have NO 'ordinary' idea of wot 'they' did in the 50's, and I suspect, neither does yerself - March '44 would have been a 'good year' for you??
Perhaps we should all go back to MORSE? - T'would save a LOT of unnecessary chatter.........

AND....Yer 2 cents / litre on fuel was PRECISELY what funded that nasty ole FLIGHT SERVICE thingy....you know, the one you got rid of because you reckoned 'we' cost too much.
It was all about the MONEY..
It was ALWAYS about the MONEY!.
NOW you want a 2 cent levy on fuel to fund WHAT??

Tell 'im 'es dreamin'......

Cheeerrrsss.... and tks again for the...........

[triadic]

We're ATSOs now, providing services in whichever class of airspace we work.

The interesting part of this proposal will be watching the "Controllers" providing what we used to call "Flight Service".....
I suspect the urge to 'control' will be difficult to overcome?

[Dick Smith]

Griffo. I loved Flight Service. Especially Dubbo FS when they would call me a taxi and put in my flight plan.

It was those Airlines who were the problem. They reckoned that GA should pay most of the FS cost because GA got most of the service.

I could see we were not going to have a GA industry if that happened! But we hardly have a GA industry anyway so we may have well kept FS.

But remember the big redundo!

[le Pingouin]

We've been doing so for nearly 25 years - FS literally went from being done by FSOs to being done by ATCs overnight. The large majority of en-route and TMA controllers provide services in class G every day.

[missy]

Then you don't need E.
Unfortunately, you don't turn airspace classification on and off with the weather.
If it's E, you're getting separated whether in IMC or not. My point is that there is a lot less aircraft in IMC in Aus than in the US.
It's not a change of airspace classification but a change to procedures, a bit like flying a GLS approach vs flying a visual approach, flying an independent visual approach to Sydney vs flying a visual approach, flying PRM approach to Sydney vs flying an ILS approach. They are different procedures in the same airspace classification and are WX / pilot / equipment dependent. Pilot and ATC procedures change to the circumstance.
And, yes, I understood your point regarding the WX in AUS being better than the WX IN USA.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Dick,
I do.....Every Day.......And...... I secretly 'lurve ya' for it...........
(But, I would NEVER NEVER NEVER admit it publicly...................)

BUT......by those days most, or if not ALL of those 'nasty' big aeroplanes - 'AIRLINES' types were 'TURBOS / JETS' and burned AVTUR...??.
As far as I am / was aware, the 2c levy for FS was based on AVGAS.....so the AIRLINES got us for FREE...??

Please correct me if I'm wrong.....

[Lead Balloon]

I think an excise was/is imposed on both Avgas and Jet A1 consumed in Australia. Hence, Jet A1 loaded onto an aircraft about to depart on an international flight was/is not subject to excise. But that's just a cloudy memory. Maybe others with more recent knowledge will correct me if I'm wrong.

There was a bunch of complexity around 'past period franchise fees' charged by states for fuel, tobacco etc, but I don't know whether that applied to Avgas and Jet A1 supplied in a state and, in any event, the High Court in the late 90s finally declared them to be unconstitutional duties of excise because only the Commonwealth has power to charge excise (whereupon the Commonwealth said "thank you very much", imposed its excise instead and pocketed the extra billions, thus contributing further to the vertical fiscal imbalance).

[Capn Bloggs]

If they're not in IMC then surely they are visual are then able to self separate.
What is your understanding of "Self-separate", Missy? How do you expect/think it works?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Especially Dubbo FS when they would ........ put in my flight plan.
They weren't doing you a favour. That was part of the job. You remember things called Briefing Offices?

[CaptainMidnight]

They weren't doing you a favour. That was part of the job. You remember things called Briefing Offices?

OT but the closure of the Briefing Offices particularly at the GA main airports e.g. YMMB YPPF YSBK etc. were a great loss to the industry. They were places where one could walk in and ask questions of an ATC or FSO - someone who knew what they were talking about - be educated on regs and procedures, and talk face to face with the MET person.

That loss of an education source is incalculable. Now students and pilots either have to muddle through themselves or ask their instructor, who sadly more often than not these days might not know much more than they.

And yes, instructors too used to come in to ask questions and to clarify things.

[10JQKA]

BNA SFIS begins operations 8am tomorrow.....in lockdown !

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1334/9945e131_2e46_4851_84a9_73d5ff0903ec_0b8c3b6358ef0c8c51ebd52 c74d36a2d8b94b0c0.jpeg

If it stops this happening, I’m all for it !!

[Capt Fathom]

Why hide the idents? They need to know.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I'm surprised it didn't stop happening very shortly after that screen shot.

[Squawk7700]

Why hide the idents? They need to know.

Believe me… they knew!!

[triadic]

So far the word is that the problems that existed with the cagro are still there. ie freq congestion - too much chat etc. any other updates??

[alphacentauri]

Of course they are, because they haven't actually changed anything in the system…..

Lets see, frequency congestion has been named as one of the ‘latent risks’ by the OAR.

Solution: mandate more radio calls on a separate dedicated frequency. Brilliant!!!

*facepalm*

[sunnySA]

The extra surveillance must be helping :confused:

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Well there haven't been any crashes, so so far it's a resounding success!! Back slaps all round!

[Squawk7700]

Well there haven't been any crashes, so so far it's a resounding success!! Back slaps all round!

It’s uber safe when there’s practically no aircraft flying around at the moment.

[CaptainMidnight]

For the introduction of a new service it is probably the best time to do so for all concerned, ATC & aviators.

It would be unwise to start at a time with high traffic levels without a lot of prior ATC sim time, ghosting etc.

And why delay introduction, waiting for traffic levels to pick up?

[mullokintyre]

Got an email last week asking if I wanted to submit something for consulation re the proposed changes to airspace classification.
It was set up in such a way that the participant virtually had to agree there was congestion at the Mangalore, and to say why.
The statement said among other things
​​​​​​"The study will review within a 25 nautical mile area of Mangalore, including nearby aerodromes Puckapunyal, Graytown, Euroa and Locksley Field,"
Unfortunately, there was no mention of Wahring, which is probably the closet of all the airfields.
There is a mix of RAA, fixed wing aircraft, both of the certified and sports variety plus gyros and a phalanx of gliders.
About 30 aircraft all up.
But somehow, CASA did not think the inhabitants of Wahring were required to be "consulted".
Not sure if the folk at CASA bothered to look at a map.
There are numerous private airfields scattered within this 25 NM sphere of influence, none of which were asked to contribute anything.
As is so often the case, it seems that someone has decided this was a good idea and thus conduct a bit of sham consultation to say that they consulted the relevant parties.
Its ridiculous that IFR pilots are required to practice instrument approaches using VOR, when there are so few available, much less being used.
The majority of students at mangalore are Chinese.
I doubt China will be putting in atoo many VOR's
Its the same with YSHT and its NDB.
There are regular testy discussions between pilots because the VFR guys have no idea what the IFR guys are talking about when they give their calls about interecptiing the outbound radial, or conducting the missed approach route.
When you are on a see and avoid lookout, it helps if you have an idea as to where you should be looking for IFR aircraft.
In this day and age of RNAV, GNSS, etc, why are we still mucking around with NDB and VOR?
Mick

[cogwheel]

It’s not the airspace that is the problem. It is the failure of many pilots, including instructors to understand the required procedures appropriate to the circumstances. It is also a failure of CASA to ensure that such procedures are taught and examined to a level which will help ensure the level of communications is undertaken in such a way the risks are minimised. It used to be covered under “airmanship” but seems that is not taught any more?

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

There are regular testy discussions between pilots because the VFR guys have no idea what the IFR guys are talking about when they give their calls about interecptiing the outbound radial, or conducting the missed approach route.
When you are on a see and avoid lookout, it helps if you have an idea as to where you should be looking for IFR aircraft.
According to one R Smith, you don't need a radio, so keep them eyes peeled.

[Dick Smith]

Traffic. Not sure if you are referring to me!

I have always been a strong supporter of radio fitment however I have advised that pilots remain vigilant to see and avoid because there are times when a radio may be faulty or on the wrong frequency

[jmilcon]

Hi Folks does anybody have any gossip on an incident at BNA last Thursday (16/9) involving an RPT and a Cessna Caravan?

[Lead Balloon]

Yes, somebody does.

[VH-FTS]

You mean the caravan that took off 06 while a Jetstar and Virgin were on approach to 24? Causes one to go around, then climbs through the level they agreed to maintain to separate from the second jet? All while SFIS does nothing because they don’t handle anything in the circuit...

[Piston_Broke]

Bring back the CA/GRS - if they haven't already packed up and left.

[jmilcon]

VH_FTS - many thanks. Mmm not a good look.