CASA-Draft Ballina airspace review 16/6/22 [Archive]

10JQKA

17th Jun 2022, 06:48

Lead Balloon

17th Jun 2022, 08:56

PPRuNeUser0201

17th Jun 2022, 09:15

Wow! Those are some pretty strong draft recommendations. Someone's a bit worried about the diameter of the roulette wheel at Ballina.

I'm struggling to understand the intent of establishing a control area "with a base which is as low as possible". Isn't 1' AGL 'possible'? Anyone with expertise care to expand?

taking a guess here, but I think you’ll find the SSR coverage is a bit dodgy down low, and the ADS-B isn’t enough to enable a surveillance control service in class C. Therefore what’s being suggested is to extend CTA to as long as the surveillance will allow, then the class D will take over.

CaptainMidnight

17th Jun 2022, 09:29

ICAO Annex 11:
2.10.3.2 A lower limit of a control area shall be established at a height above the ground or water of not less than
200 m (700 ft).

2.10.3.2.1 Recommendation.— The lower limit of a control area should, when practicable and desirable in order to
allow freedom of action for VFR flights below the control area, be established at a greater height than the minimum
specified in 2.10.3.2.

2.10.3.2.2 Recommendation.— When the lower limit of a control area is above 900 m (3 000 ft) MSL it should
coincide with a VFR cruising level of the tables in Appendix 3 to Annex 2.
Note.— This implies that the selected VFR cruising level be such that expected local atmospheric pressure variations do
not result in a lowering of this limit to a height of less than 200 m (700 ft) above ground or water.

Lead Balloon

17th Jun 2022, 10:53

Thanks heaps Flying higher and CM.

43Inches

17th Jun 2022, 11:11

https://www.casa.gov.au/have-your-say-ballina-airspace-review

Recommendations include the below.......

7, As an interim action pending the completion of Recommendation 8, CASA should make a determination to establish a control area around Ballina Byron Gateway Airport with a base which is as low as possible, and direct Airservices Australia to provide services within the control area. The services should be provided during all periods of scheduled Air Transport Operations and include an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), separation between IFR aircraft, VFR traffic information to all aircraft, and sequencing of all aircraft to and from the runway. CASA and Airservices Australia should jointly explore opportunities to detect non-cooperative aircraft or vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the runway. The services should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 15 June 2023.

8.CASA should make a determination that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport will become a controlled aerodrome with an associated control zone and control area, and direct Airservices Australia to provide an Aerodrome Control Service to the aerodrome. That service should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 30 November 2023.

9. CASA should prepare and finalise an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) for a control zone and control area steps in preparation for the implementation of Recommendations 7 and 8.

So does any of that stop a repeat of Jetstar vs Jabiru, yes and no...

7. Basically says class E airspace above Ballina, down to what altitude? VFR are still uncontrolled. All aircraft will be sequenced to land at Ballina, well Jabiru was not landing at Ballina, it was low away from the circuit transiting to Evans Head. So a big NO for that one.

8. Class D airspace, OK, some limited value it will reduce the chance of VFR conflict with IFR, but since we have already seen that conflict happen at other class D, marginal value.

9. is just piss farting around with airspace, which assumes a tower stack above Ballina, but still lots of VFR fanging around the area meaning chance of violations high and conflict.

So back to the original problem of identifying rogue aircraft in close proximity and mitigating collision chances. Where is the talk about increased ADSB coverage and Transponder mandating? Item 2 describes putting in a receiver at Ballina, down to runway surface, but whats the point if aircraft in the area are not squawking.

PPRuNeUser0201

17th Jun 2022, 11:46

So does any of that stop a repeat of Jetstar vs Jabiru, yes and no...

7. Basically says class E airspace above Ballina, down to what altitude? VFR are still uncontrolled. All aircraft will be sequenced to land at Ballina, well Jabiru was not landing at Ballina, it was low away from the circuit transiting to Evans Head. So a big NO for that one.

8. Class D airspace, OK, some limited value it will reduce the chance of VFR conflict with IFR, but since we have already seen that conflict happen at other class D, marginal value.

9. is just piss farting around with airspace, which assumes a tower stack above Ballina, but still lots of VFR fanging around the area meaning chance of violations high and conflict.

So back to the original problem of identifying rogue aircraft in close proximity and mitigating collision chances. Where is the talk about increased ADSB coverage and Transponder mandating? Item 2 describes putting in a receiver at Ballina, down to runway surface, but whats the point if aircraft in the area are not squawking.

I have today that I don’t agree with assessment.

Given the time it takes to get a tower built, an interim step with Class E is a positive and incremental improvement of SFIS.

In terms of Class D, this is much more than ‘limited value’, and is again, a larger incremental improvement over the situation today. In terms of airspace infringements and the like, why does that work at places like Albury, Hamo, Bankstown? Training, education and pilot professionalism. Class C has the same failings when you consider the lack of primary radar. This step will give the air transport operators a lot more assurance, which is what they need.

Remember also, for every incremental improvement the cost increases exponentially. And who’s gonna pay for something like mandated transponders, ads-b, class C levels of service. It’s not gonna happen and it’s not needed.

43Inches

17th Jun 2022, 12:22

As I've said many times Albury had a near miss with an ATR and PA28 only a few years ago. It was VMC in the circuit and only 3 aircraft in the airspace. The only thing that stopped the collision was TCAS and both aircraft having a transponder. The US has been going through the motions over what to do about high density close proximity CTAFs and the only repeated answer that has made the slightest difference is to advise all owners to have transponders and some form of ACAS/TCAS fitted. Controlled airspace is fine with limited predictable high traffic, the mix in that area is far from predictable, and a single controller will be swamped by one conflict, let alone multiple. That is what happened in Albury, instead of watching the two aircraft that could be in conflict the tower was trying to communicate with a troublesome aircraft. That happened with 1 aircraft causing a disruption, in the case of Ballina, and Lismore, Evans Head and all the little other strips the only way is to have some form of automated alerting, which can only be achieved with transponder based ACAS. Anything that relies on human transmission will be liable to all the problems of 1950s airspace, which has been sadly proven over and over again in the US with a high collision rate. All CTA does is reduce the amount of traffic, its not fixing the problem its just coordinating the big stuff and giving them a false sense that they are protected from rogue aircraft, which is far from the case without primary radar.

morno

17th Jun 2022, 12:36

So you support RPT jets flying into CTAF’s? Isn’t that fourth world thinking? Because I’ve flown in third world countries that wouldn’t even let that happen

43Inches

17th Jun 2022, 12:42

Never said that jets flying into busy CTAFs was ideal, my point is if you are doing all of this to lower the risk of repeat occurrences or collisions than its well proven that CTA only has a marginal improvement when it comes to separating Jets from rogue aircraft. Hence why TCAS was invented and mandated, however without having a mandate that all aircraft exposed to the area around jets have Transponders and use them you are just waiting for that rogue aircraft to strike again. The whole Jetstar vs Jabiru incident probably would have never occurred if the Jab had its transponder on, and it had one fitted.

PPRuNeUser0201

17th Jun 2022, 12:48

I guess thats why the C over D model is used. The class C will be used to a lower level than previous designs, (and is already rolled out around the country) then the tower looks after a more limited amount of Class D, most of which can be identified visually, with the help of a TSAD (or similar).

At the end of the day this is about get risk to ALARP. Sure, you can go the whole hog, but if that model is only used in Ballina it needs to be rolled out everywhere and the cost is simply prohibitive and really, not needed IF the ALARP is quantified and accepted.

43Inches

17th Jun 2022, 12:58

Costs of a transponder or equivalent that can transmit a signal a jets TCAS can interrogate are not that expensive, say compared to ADSB where you need GPS and other links. Its definitely cheaper than paying for more towers and airspace changes which will get recovered through higher airservices fees and CASA fees.

neville_nobody

17th Jun 2022, 13:23

So you support RPT jets flying into CTAF’s? Isn’t that fourth world thinking? Because I’ve flown in third world countries that wouldn’t even let that happen

Send them the bill for the full cost of operating it in Australia and they might have second thoughts about that.

cogwheel

17th Jun 2022, 13:52

Our rules only allow AirServices to provide ATC services. As in the USA I would be sure that if a licensed alternative was available, it could be provided somewhat cheaper. The Dept needs to be lobbied to look into this.

tossbag

17th Jun 2022, 14:02

Is there anybody interested in having a few dollars on the implementation of a tower service and approach service at Ballina?

Personally, I think the chances of a tower at Ballina are horsesh!t, an approach service, mmmm, goatsh!t to sheepsh!t.

I'm willing to run a book with the bets going in to a trust fund but you've got to weigh up the ROI. By the time a tower goes in there you may get a better return from an interest bearing bank deposit with a .015% interest rate.

cLeArIcE

17th Jun 2022, 18:24

So I wonder all arguments aside, how many Of the traveling public would be aware of the much higher risk they are exposed too (compared to almost every other RPT destination) each time they strap themselves into a 737/320 bound for BNK?
Are the families of 180 dead pax going to be so understanding on the continued inaction and the lack of a Tower / approach service? We all know the "big one" will happen eventually, just a matter of time. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly doesn't operate large aircraft into Ballina on a frequent basis.
Whilst I acknowledge the standard C over D approach is not perfect, can it be any worse than the status quo.

extralite

17th Jun 2022, 21:15

Totally right mate. They should for that reason go somewhere 45 mins drive up the road that does have CTA. Gold Coast. Almost equidistant to Byron. We really don't need every tin pot budget airline with loads of influencers bound for Byron Bay dropping into Ballina when the Gold Coast is right there. That's the problem.

Rename it "Gold Coast Byron Gateway" and problem solved for a fraction of the cost and complexity.

Lead Balloon

18th Jun 2022, 01:50

Some more question for those who may be in the know:

To the extent that the draft recommendations are about determination of airspace, isn't the CASA OAR brains trust the people with the power to determine airspace? The clue is in the name.

If yes, aren't those CASA OAR recommendations in fact recommendations to ...CASA OAR? If yes, WTF?

And what is the point of seeking comments on the recommendations? How can any comments made by anyone change the objective risks arising from the current airspace arrangements, or the costs of and the extent to which the implementation of the recommendations will mitigate those risks?

Sooner or later, someone's going to have to decide whether the costs of the recommendations are justified by the extent of the risk mitigation. Cold hard analysis of how many lives will be saved and how much they are worth. (Can't call it affordable safety, even though that is exactly what it is.) If it's not done that way, might as well do it on the advice of an astrologer.

malroy

18th Jun 2022, 04:20

As one of the earlier recommendations was for AsA to install an ADSB receiver at Ballina, there should be good surveillance coverage.
This opens the possibility of a Class D surveillance approach service with the tower only owning the circuit to 1000ft. While Ballina was slated (a long time ago) as a possible remote tower, I don't think that is possible in the timeframe given.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

18th Jun 2022, 04:26

This step will give the air transport operators a lot more assurance, which is what they need.
Lack of assurance doesn't seem to stop them (their companies) operating into BNA though.

The whole Jetstar vs Jabiru incident probably would have never occurred if the Jab had its transponder on, and it had one fitted.
It did have it on. Just wrong mode. That's why the A320 got a TCAS alert. Just didn't get resolution advice. They looked for the traffic, but couldn't see it. TCAS doesn't work miracles.

Traffic_Is_Er_Was

18th Jun 2022, 04:41

3 December 2021: For approximately 10 minutes around 10:40am (Local) the SFIS operator
considered the Ballina broadcast area to be running with unsustainably high workload “due to
multiple aircraft taxiing, arriving and departing, mostly without flight plans and mostly not in
surveillance coverage”. Note: The Review acknowledges that VFR aircraft are not required
to lodge a flightplan.

Aircraft included:
• Helicopter (VFR) - no flight plan, not in surveillance.
• Ultralight (VFR) - no flight plan, not in surveillance.
• Ultralight (VFR) - no flight plan, not in surveillance.
• Qantas B737 (IFR) - outbound.
• Virgin B737 (IFR) - inbound.
• Helicopter (VFR) - no flight plan, not in surveillance.
• Citation jet (IFR) - initially not in surveillance

He's only providing traffic. That's just an old time busy AFIZ (run without any surveillance) FFS

Geoff Fairless

18th Jun 2022, 05:21

To carry on from the thread I started, "CASA and Government mates, invent a new airspace classification!" This review is a breath of fresh air!

It is recommending what I recommended to CASA about five years ago when they sent me to Ballina to start work on authorising a CA/GRO. A CA/GRO would only add radio congestion to an already busy frequency. This was compounded by the troglodytes running OAR at the time, when they thought that a broadcast area would fix the problem. They then doubled down by making it twice the radius. (Equals four times the area contained within the circle, hence capturing even more traffic chatter) About that time they stopped inviting me to the discussions with Jetstar and others!

I'm not sure whether the trogs have moved on or whether the new CASA boss saw her public service career going down in flames, however here we are, at last!

The document describes Class E airspace above a Class D control zone, but somewhat confuses the possible with what would be nice to have. "The services should be provided during all periods of scheduled Air Transport Operations and include an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), separation between IFR aircraft, VFR traffic information to all aircraft, and sequencing of all aircraft to and from the runway." The last few words will not be possible until runway controllers, (That is, a Tower) is in operation. The operating hours of the airspace will also require a revolution - currently Jetstar in particular, seems to prefer operating when already establish Towers are off duty.

I shall be replying to their request for comment and will publish my comments on this thread.

bonez

19th Jun 2022, 00:48

Some more question for those who may be in the know:

To the extent that the draft recommendations are about determination of airspace, isn't the CASA OAR brains trust the people with the power to determine airspace? The clue is in the name.

If yes, aren't those CASA OAR recommendations in fact recommendations to ...CASA OAR? If yes, WTF?

Leady, I think you are close but the glass is a bit foggy! It is common knowledge that the OAR were on site for some time late last year and the gossip was that their report would be out early this year. Whatever was in the report, it was enough to keep it under wraps for almost six months. The one we see now is likely a modified version of the OAR report. I suspect that their report made recommendations that were not liked in some quarters (airservices?) such as a much earlier date for the tower? If you follow the CASA structure you will be aware that the manager of the OAR reports to a senior manager, who in turn reports to an Executive manager both of which have unknown qualifications/experience in airspace design and managment. So to answer your question, it is unknown if what we see is from the OAR or another person in the system (with their own ideas) as nobody puts their name to these documents any more. I would also suspect that any briefing to the CEO has been filtered accordingly (?}

Lead Balloon

19th Jun 2022, 02:25

The one we see now is likely a modified version of the OAR report.Well that is interesting.

That might explain why the start of recommendation 7 quoted in Australian Flying says, with my bolding: “As an interim action pending the completion of Recommendation 8, CASA should demand CTA around Ballina with a base which is as low as possible. ”, but that’s not what the start of recommendation 7 of the version posted on CASA’s website says. Maybe Australian Flying obtained a copy of the actual OAR draft report?

It is, of course, a patent nonsense for CASA to “demand” airspace of any kind anywhere in Australia. That would be a demand CASA would be making of … CASA. Perhaps the drafters of the OAR report quoted by Australian Flying didn’t realise that OAR is part of CASA?

On my reading of the Airspace regs, it looks like the only person with power to determine a volume of airspace to be e.g. CTA is the CEO of CASA! Those regs include power to delegate some powers (e.g. PRD) in and outside CASA, but no power to delegate the power to designate the ‘biggies’ - classes and the volumes of those classes of airspace.

Methinks there’s a game of pass the ticking and stinking parcel going on, in the hope that there will be a sufficient diffusion of responsibility if there’s a mid-air involving an RPT aircraft in the vicinity of Ballina and for the long and loud complaints that will be made about costs and access that will arise from the recommended arrangements. Methinks the ticking and stinking parcel is currently parked in Ms Spence’s lap and the consultation process is another diffusion of responsibility tactic.

Gne

19th Jun 2022, 02:57

These issues are going to continue until the basic flaw in the system is fixed - OAR has no place in CASA. The original recommendation from the AERU was that the office be embedded in the Department as it was more policy related than safety. If I remember correctly the recommendation was preceded by a statement along the lines of "..airspace is a non renewable national resource and should be managed as such in a strategic sense.".. That recommendation drew very strong push back from both CASA and Airservices and history tells us the result.

When the original OAR chief was announced two of the very obvious candidates (both Australian and both with considerable experience in the airspace policy business) were harangued by a (then and still now) senior bureaucrat in the Department because he thought they had not applied. Speaking to both of them later I came to understand that they had both applied but had been deleted from the list by the head hunters in the first pass before that list was passed to those charged with making the selection. "Why", , you may ask. The rumour is that the headhunters were "advised" by a very prominent Australian aviation personality that the head of OAR should not be an Australian and that an international candidate should be selected to ensure past history was not carried forward.

I have to agree with TIEW seven aircraft in a circuit area is not coming even close to busy.

Gne

Lead Balloon

19th Jun 2022, 03:40

Yes: The 'who' and the 'where they sit' has substantial importance, but I would suggest that the biggest issue is that there are no precise, objective risk/cost criteria by reference to which classes and volumes of airspace are determined in Australia - at least not that I can find publicly. And I don't count 'ALARP' as it is not sufficiently precise.

I am talking about actual probabilities of collisions and actual costs put on the lives lost and risk mitigation actions. Someone like alph centauri can articulate these criteria better than I can.

triadic

20th Jun 2022, 01:58

When the original OAR chief was announced two of the very obvious candidates (both Australian and both with considerable experience in the airspace policy business) were harangued by a (then and still now) senior bureaucrat in the Department because he thought they had not applied. Speaking to both of them later I came to understand that they had both applied but had been deleted from the list by the head hunters in the first pass before that list was passed to those charged with making the selection. "Why", , you may ask. The rumour is that the headhunters were "advised" by a very prominent Australian aviation personality that the head of OAR should not be an Australian and that an international candidate should be selected to ensure past history was not carried forward.

Yes, what a calamity (!) that was! He almost destroyed the then RAPAC process by not wanting to engage or consult on almost anything. Many had a party when he was shown the door.

triadic

20th Jun 2022, 02:10

These issues are going to continue until the basic flaw in the system is fixed - OAR has no place in CASA. The original recommendation from the AERU was that the office be embedded in the Department as it was more policy related than safety. If I remember correctly the recommendation was preceded by a statement along the lines of "..airspace is a non renewable national resource and should be managed as such in a strategic sense.".. That recommendation drew very strong push back from both CASA and Airservices and history tells us the result.

Gne you may well be correct. The issue now is how to change it? The OAR for better or worse is buried inside CASA with no direct report to the CEO. Sadly she must lean on the senior managers (in the iron ring) to provide some "infinite wisdom" but it is my belief that they are too entrenched protecting their own turf and not very much interested in the industry they are paid big dollars to regulate (not support). Only a strong case to Government will likely even get at move to the Dept looked at, let alone moved, but of course one could always try. I often wonder what some of these groups that are formed to advise the decision makers have on their table? Stuff that we as an industry see as important I guess.

Geoff Fairless

20th Jun 2022, 04:23

Leady, I think you are close but the glass is a bit foggy! It is common knowledge that the OAR were on site for some time late last year and the gossip was that their report would be out early this year. Whatever was in the report, it was enough to keep it under wraps for almost six months. The one we see now is likely a modified version of the OAR report. I suspect that their report made recommendations that were not liked in some quarters (airservices?) such as a much earlier date for the tower? If you follow the CASA structure you will be aware that the manager of the OAR reports to a senior manager, who in turn reports to an Executive manager both of which have unknown qualifications/experience in airspace design and managment. So to answer your question, it is unknown if what we see is from the OAR or another person in the system (with their own ideas) as nobody puts their name to these documents any more. I would also suspect that any briefing to the CEO has been filtered accordingly (?}
When I worked there, the manager OAR was acting and had been kept that way for years. I assumed this was to remind him of his place, because OAR actually has a different set of regulations, The Airspace Act, etc., to operate by, not the CAA and CASRs that govern CASA. In theory, he could operate independently, as, I believe, was intended.
When I arrived however, the manager OAR did report to an Executive Manager, who was, as noted above, brought in from overseas (the UK) to provide expertise. When he was moved on, OAR along with the rest of the Airservices oversight, CNS/ATM, was downgraded in the hierarchy by becoming a sub-set of the Operations Division, wherein lies all of the pilot fraternity.
I can confirm what is stated in the quote, when I left CASA, OAR answered to a retired civil ATC, who was subordinate to a retired military ATC, who was subordinate to a retired USAF pilot, whose accent you will hear in Senate Estimates hearings. I think the American became an Executive Manager.

Lead Balloon

20th Jun 2022, 05:52

Whatever the internal politics and power balances may happen to be or have been, the fact now is that Ms Spence has control over and therefore responsibility for the diameter of the roulette wheel in the vicinity of and at Ballina (and Mildura and....). The circa $40k per fortnight remuneration package will hopefully help her to sleep at night.

AnotherFSO

6th Jul 2022, 11:00

FWIW for the discussion:

Sydney Morning Herald Archive, Thursday, February 15, 1979

Flight ban lifted after rule change

By DAVID ROBERTSON, Transport Reporter

Airline pilots lifted their ban on flights into Australia's 39 uncontrolled airports late yesterday afternoon.

The Australian Federation of Airline Pilots lifted the ban after the Department of Transport promulgated new regulations covering light aircraft operating below 1,500 metres (5,000 feet).

Under the new rules, light aircraft pilots will have to broadcast their position at 32 kilometres (instead of 16km) from an uncontrolled airport. Flight Service Officers must inform scheduled passenger aircraft of any light aircraft in their vicinity.

The ban was imposed on Tuesday night and grounded scores of flights by Fokker F27s and smaller commuter aircraft.

It was lifted after members of the [Professional] Radio and Electronics Institute, who are Flight Service Officers, agreed to the amendments to air safety procedures for light aircraft.

Late last week, the pilots claimed rules issued in November — allowing light aircraft to fly in uncontrolled airspace below 1,500 metres (5,000 feet) without lodging a flight plan — had caused many near-misses. They said they would impose a ban unless the rules were changed.

A meeting between the pilots and the department established a basis for agreement, but officials of the Institute said they wanted more time to consider the situation. The pilots refused to wait and imposed the ban. Yesterday the Institute accepted the basis of agreement. The worst-affected of the domestic airlines. East-West Airlines and Airlines of NSW, were back to normal services last night.