Dick Smith: "Broome to get Control Tower"
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, hopefully if BRM does get a tower they can man it with Perth ATC.
That way when 2 A/C are inbound we can have 80kt speed reductions, radar vectors, last minute changes of runway and if you are really lucky, some holding thrown in for good measure.
then after landing you can wait to cross a runway while an A/C is on a 4 mile final at 90kts GS, whinge, moan grumble...............
That way when 2 A/C are inbound we can have 80kt speed reductions, radar vectors, last minute changes of runway and if you are really lucky, some holding thrown in for good measure.
then after landing you can wait to cross a runway while an A/C is on a 4 mile final at 90kts GS, whinge, moan grumble...............
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: On Top
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Head change
Under the NAS, MBZ's which are currently promulgated at busy airports and which cost nothing and promote safety hugely, will be taken from us - What a completely stupid idea!
Obviously the issue here is that Broome is going to lose its MBZ but will be too dangerously busy as a CTAF, therefore a tower is needed - at huge cost!
Question is - what about all the other MBZ's which as I say, cost nothing and promote safety hugely, but are just not quite as busy as Broome?
They become CTAFs - where you never will know who's just about to run into you, and were IFR jocks break visual at 1000' head to head with no-radio ultralights
In other words, the Broome tower is almost an admission by these unsupported NAS Fwits that NAS will be dangerous for us all.
Why the hell do we need this change - or is it change for change's sake - or change for Dick's sake.
Obviously the issue here is that Broome is going to lose its MBZ but will be too dangerously busy as a CTAF, therefore a tower is needed - at huge cost!
Question is - what about all the other MBZ's which as I say, cost nothing and promote safety hugely, but are just not quite as busy as Broome?
They become CTAFs - where you never will know who's just about to run into you, and were IFR jocks break visual at 1000' head to head with no-radio ultralights
In other words, the Broome tower is almost an admission by these unsupported NAS Fwits that NAS will be dangerous for us all.
Why the hell do we need this change - or is it change for change's sake - or change for Dick's sake.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dash 8
Windshear greetings
I was the idiot who sat next to you coming up on AN and talked about recent a/c incidents. Like you probably, I never did that again!!
Hope you and yours are well
Mike
I was the idiot who sat next to you coming up on AN and talked about recent a/c incidents. Like you probably, I never did that again!!
Hope you and yours are well
Mike
Guest
Posts: n/a
Capt Bloggs,
You are right. The Jet that went around set himself up by lack of judgement. Thats his problem.
The non standard calls give me the sh*ts too. You'd be amazed sitting beside some bloke in a jet, who was trained by the RAAF in his previous life, who doesn't know jack about RT procedures.
Broome works well. The ground operators are helpful and most lightie operators are the same. The only thing I would ask is that if you are talking to a jet jockey who spends most of his life flying in controlled airspace tell him where you are in bearing and distance. Local placenames and features don't mean jack to him.
You are right. The Jet that went around set himself up by lack of judgement. Thats his problem.
The non standard calls give me the sh*ts too. You'd be amazed sitting beside some bloke in a jet, who was trained by the RAAF in his previous life, who doesn't know jack about RT procedures.
Broome works well. The ground operators are helpful and most lightie operators are the same. The only thing I would ask is that if you are talking to a jet jockey who spends most of his life flying in controlled airspace tell him where you are in bearing and distance. Local placenames and features don't mean jack to him.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Aus
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there seem to be a few operators in Broome that fly the aircraft with the damn radio - never shutting up.
Broome needs a taxiway parallel to the runway capable of taking the jets before it needs a tower. Most of the go arounds are caused by the larger aircraft (wingspan greater than 15m) having to back track the entire length.
Broome doesn't need a tower. Traffic is no where near enough on Sunday to Friday. The only time you may think a guy in a tower may come in handy is during the peak period on a Saturday (12:00 to 14:00). Perhaps even this peak period may come to an end soon when Skywest start coming.
I'm not throwing mud at the CA/GRS. As I said, they do their job properly, in accordance with the job specification. They weren't to blame for the go-around, but my point was to illustrate the fact that this does happen, even with a CA/GRS. Woiuld it have happened with a tower? Who knows.
Titan - maybe "said" operator was in the forefront of my mind when I made the post. I'll cop that one on the chin.
As I said, Broome could do with some modification to how traffic is regulated. Maybe Bloggs, you are right - less verbal diarrhea. But how do you make that happen?
Titan - maybe "said" operator was in the forefront of my mind when I made the post. I'll cop that one on the chin.
As I said, Broome could do with some modification to how traffic is regulated. Maybe Bloggs, you are right - less verbal diarrhea. But how do you make that happen?
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Extract from the Airport Association newsletter for what it is worth, but I think they are more concerned with collecting charges than safety or security. Besides since when have aerodrome operators had an interest in airspace management?
WHY IS THE AAA SO OPPOSED TO ONE PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE NAS?
At the outset it should be made clear that the AAA is in favour of any airspace reform that is cost-effective for the Australian aviation industry, as a whole, provided that it in no way creates the potential or opportunity to compromise safety. That being said, what particular aspect of the NAS is causing so much concern to Australian airport owners/operators and why? In very simple terms the main objection is the proposal to move from the current MBZs to CTAFs at many Australian airports.
Why do we object? Well, on the issue of duty of care and negligence, in a landmark High Court decision, former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs said, "Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though not perhaps great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent." It could be argued that for airport owners to accept the proposed changes without resistance when they are aware of the dangers, may be construed as negligence.
On 12 June 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister (Hon. John Anderson, MP) issued a Press Release headed "National Airspace Reform Model Will Not Jeopardise Safety," in which he said: "NAS will not reduce the level of safety at Regional airports in Western Australia or anywhere else. NAS is about introducing the safe and proven airspace practices and procedures used in the world's largest aviation market – the US – to Australia." Mention is then made of comments aired in the WA Parliament that related to "just one of the almost 50 characteristics that make up NAS. This characteristic is the introduction, scheduled for November, of US Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) procedures at all non-towered airports."
Read on … "Consistent with US practice, non-radio equipped aircraft will be able to use certain airports which currently are open only to aircraft with radios. NAS will incorporate US CTAF procedures that will provide greater situational awareness and allow this to occur safely." Radio silence within the vicinity of an airport cannot, in our view, provide "greater situational awareness."
In this rather comprehensive media release, Deputy PM Anderson then made the following statement: "There is no question of safety being compromised. Each stage of the NAS will be introduced only after Australia's aviation safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has endorsed the safety case that covers each part of that stage." To date, to our knowledge, no such safety case has been conducted by anyone, other than an AAA member in WA who spent over $40,000 of their own money to commission a safety case specific to their own airport. This study was conducted by appropriately-qualified personnel and in accordance with AS4360:1999 Risk Management and CASA draft AC71-1(0).
In that 35-page report there is an interesting comment (but one of many): "CTAFs may be up to twice as risky as MBZs."
It behoves CASA, as this country's safety regulator, to ensure that an appropriate 'safety case' is undertaken on this particular aspect of the NAS. All affected airports are ready, willing and able to play an active part in the assessment process. All such safety cases must be site specific.
The question is rightly asked: "What facts are there to back your concerns and aren't we just transposing the proven US airspace system to Australia?" Well, for a start when comparing the airspace around airports (let's keep this real simple so that the Editor understands) in the US and Australia it is the classic apples and oranges scenario. Australia currently uses MBZs for regional flying, which includes 737s and 146s - the US does not. In the US, high capacity RPT jets are in 'controlled' airspace and the US, in addition to its major international and State Capital airports, has over another 450 airports with control towers. The Australian NAS proposes to mix jets with light aircraft (some without radios, which doesn't really bear thinking about in terms of risk and safety) on the basis of 'see and avoid' at designated airports. The US only do this with small aircraft at small airports. Another major difference between Australian and uncontrolled US airspace is that the US is subject to more active radar surveillance, which is not the case throughout Australia.
In all of the briefings around the country and literature released by the NAS-IG, not one mention is made of the safety implications in terms of airport/airfield ground operations and the likely conflict of ground staff and vehicles with aircraft, or of possible conflict between arriving and departing aircraft and those on the ground. This is a very serious issue which seems simply not to have been taken into account by the NAS-IG – or anyone else associated with airspace reform for that matter! The NAS MBZ to CTAF proposals (now delayed until mid 2004, if they are to be eventually implemented) affect at least 60 full-time MBZ airports and another 20 that revert to MBZ status after ATC tower hours. The MBZ airports concerned include Mt. Isa, Albury, Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Karratha, Armidale, Ballina, Broken Hill, Lismore, Gladstone, Devonport, Mildura, Mt. Gambier, Coffs Harbour, Port Hedland, to name but a few from the list of 60+ airports. Many of these airports have passenger numbers in excess of 150,000 per annum and RPT aircraft the size of B737s and larger.
The current MBZ radio procedures require: that broadcasts be made before entering the MBZ; upon entry; established in the circuit area if applicable; vacating runways; taxiing; rolling and departing the aerodrome. This system, that has worked safely for many years past, helps both pilots and those working on the ground, to gain an appreciation of the comings and goings of aircraft and enables them to either maintain appropriate separation or to remain clear of movement areas and strips.
Airside vehicles (maintenance vehicles, mowers, graders etc.) are fitted with radios on the MBZ frequency, as ground staff are constantly working on, and traversing the airfield. How are they able to develop situational awareness and keep clear of aircraft if they are not made aware of these movements? How are unintended incursions by ground vehicles to be avoided on busy regional airports in the absence of comprehensive radio communication? The AAA contends that the possible consequences are potentially tragic and entirely avoidable.
The only real and safe remedy is to modify the NAS proposal so that MBZs are retained and that radio broadcasts in relation to them continue to be mandatory. The point also needs to be made that if any CASA assessment is to be based on already agreed risk management principles, then either the existing regime should remain in place or a comprehensive qualitative safety case on a location specific basis should be conducted.
At present the Transport Aviation Security Bill is before Parliament. The resulting Act and Regulations will impose substantial obligations on airport owners and operators in relation to controlling airside access to certain airports. The NAS proposal allows access to airside by pilots (and their passengers) flying in and out with no mandatory requirement to identify their aircraft. At this time of heightened 'security awareness' the AAA finds it inconceivable that any Government could allow any aircraft flying in Australian airspace without a) a radio for communication purposes; and b) a mandatory requirement to use the radio when in the vicinity of an airport.
In recent correspondence from the NAS-IG to an AAA member, the following extract under the heading of MBZ vs CTAF should raise a few eyebrows!
"It should first be noted that the proposed replacement of MBZs with the CTAF has been rescheduled to mid 2004. The level of safety at MBZs is a continuing concern, particularly given the sense of security some pilots have that they are aware of all traffic in the area. More recommended calls will be available to pilots to indicate more clearly their position in the terminal areas. The simpler standard procedures should enable better situational awareness of all pilots in the terminal area.
As with all characteristics, the NAS Implementation Group will conduct a detailed implementation safety case on the move to the US CTAF procedure. Detailed hazard searches are conducted through industry briefings and formal workshops. The NAS Implementation Group works closely with the stakeholder agencies and subject matter experts to develop appropriate and effective strategies to mitigate any identified hazards.
A consolidated safety case is then presented to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for endorsement before the implementation proceeds.
This takes place within the overall content of the NAS Australian project in which we are copying the safe and proven US practice."
Well, well, have you ever read anything so confusing, and at variance with what the Deputy PM had to say on the matter? AAA members have attended many of the "industry briefings and formal workshops" and made their concerns known to the NAS-IG.
The AAA Chairman, John McArdle and CEO, Ken Keech accompanied by Messrs. Darryl Tonkin (Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport) and Ken Allcott (Sydney Airport) made a special trip to Canberra to 'brief' the NAS-IG on the proposal to move from MBZs to CTAFs and have high capacity jets 'mixing it' with non-radio equipped light aircraft. As one of the AAA contingent said after that particular meeting: "We would have been better off talking to a brick wall."
There are a great many other issues associated with this NAS program! We cannot help but speculate where the untimely departure of Mick Toller fits into all of this, particularly bearing in mind the personalities involved and their historical relationships. What 'responsibility' (if any) does the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) have in the NAS program? Why is CASA being singularly silent? Where is the Deputy Prime Minister getting his advice on what is happening out in the big wide world of Australian aviation, and does he appreciate the safety implications for voters in regional Australia? One could speculate that airports' liability insurance will significantly increase on the introduction of NAS.
Our public stance on this safety-related issue is to make everyone in the industry aware of our concerns and the reasons why we are so concerned. It would give us no comfort whatsoever at a later date to say to some Coroner in a far corner of Australia: "We told you so".
The AAA position in summary is simply this – all aircraft flying in Australian airspace must be equipped with a serviceable radio for communication purposes and it must be a mandatory requirement to use the radio when in the prescribed airspace of an airport that is operationally-certified or registered by CASA.
RECOMMENDED READING:
Report on Observations of the US NAS (NAS-IG, CASA, AA – Feb/Mar 2003)
Research Report "Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle" (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation – April, 1991)
"The Airspace Risk Model (ARM) MBZ/CTAF Analysis" (Civil Aviation Safety Authority – February 2002)
"Broome Terminal Airspace Aeronautical Study – Preliminary Analysis" (Kubu Australia Pty. Ltd., July 2003)
At the outset it should be made clear that the AAA is in favour of any airspace reform that is cost-effective for the Australian aviation industry, as a whole, provided that it in no way creates the potential or opportunity to compromise safety. That being said, what particular aspect of the NAS is causing so much concern to Australian airport owners/operators and why? In very simple terms the main objection is the proposal to move from the current MBZs to CTAFs at many Australian airports.
Why do we object? Well, on the issue of duty of care and negligence, in a landmark High Court decision, former Chief Justice Sir Harry Gibbs said, "Where it is possible to guard against a foreseeable risk which, though not perhaps great, nevertheless cannot be called remote or fanciful, by adopting a means which involves little difficulty or expense, the failure to adopt such means will in general be negligent." It could be argued that for airport owners to accept the proposed changes without resistance when they are aware of the dangers, may be construed as negligence.
On 12 June 2003 the Deputy Prime Minister (Hon. John Anderson, MP) issued a Press Release headed "National Airspace Reform Model Will Not Jeopardise Safety," in which he said: "NAS will not reduce the level of safety at Regional airports in Western Australia or anywhere else. NAS is about introducing the safe and proven airspace practices and procedures used in the world's largest aviation market – the US – to Australia." Mention is then made of comments aired in the WA Parliament that related to "just one of the almost 50 characteristics that make up NAS. This characteristic is the introduction, scheduled for November, of US Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) procedures at all non-towered airports."
Read on … "Consistent with US practice, non-radio equipped aircraft will be able to use certain airports which currently are open only to aircraft with radios. NAS will incorporate US CTAF procedures that will provide greater situational awareness and allow this to occur safely." Radio silence within the vicinity of an airport cannot, in our view, provide "greater situational awareness."
In this rather comprehensive media release, Deputy PM Anderson then made the following statement: "There is no question of safety being compromised. Each stage of the NAS will be introduced only after Australia's aviation safety regulator, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) has endorsed the safety case that covers each part of that stage." To date, to our knowledge, no such safety case has been conducted by anyone, other than an AAA member in WA who spent over $40,000 of their own money to commission a safety case specific to their own airport. This study was conducted by appropriately-qualified personnel and in accordance with AS4360:1999 Risk Management and CASA draft AC71-1(0).
In that 35-page report there is an interesting comment (but one of many): "CTAFs may be up to twice as risky as MBZs."
It behoves CASA, as this country's safety regulator, to ensure that an appropriate 'safety case' is undertaken on this particular aspect of the NAS. All affected airports are ready, willing and able to play an active part in the assessment process. All such safety cases must be site specific.
The question is rightly asked: "What facts are there to back your concerns and aren't we just transposing the proven US airspace system to Australia?" Well, for a start when comparing the airspace around airports (let's keep this real simple so that the Editor understands) in the US and Australia it is the classic apples and oranges scenario. Australia currently uses MBZs for regional flying, which includes 737s and 146s - the US does not. In the US, high capacity RPT jets are in 'controlled' airspace and the US, in addition to its major international and State Capital airports, has over another 450 airports with control towers. The Australian NAS proposes to mix jets with light aircraft (some without radios, which doesn't really bear thinking about in terms of risk and safety) on the basis of 'see and avoid' at designated airports. The US only do this with small aircraft at small airports. Another major difference between Australian and uncontrolled US airspace is that the US is subject to more active radar surveillance, which is not the case throughout Australia.
In all of the briefings around the country and literature released by the NAS-IG, not one mention is made of the safety implications in terms of airport/airfield ground operations and the likely conflict of ground staff and vehicles with aircraft, or of possible conflict between arriving and departing aircraft and those on the ground. This is a very serious issue which seems simply not to have been taken into account by the NAS-IG – or anyone else associated with airspace reform for that matter! The NAS MBZ to CTAF proposals (now delayed until mid 2004, if they are to be eventually implemented) affect at least 60 full-time MBZ airports and another 20 that revert to MBZ status after ATC tower hours. The MBZ airports concerned include Mt. Isa, Albury, Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Karratha, Armidale, Ballina, Broken Hill, Lismore, Gladstone, Devonport, Mildura, Mt. Gambier, Coffs Harbour, Port Hedland, to name but a few from the list of 60+ airports. Many of these airports have passenger numbers in excess of 150,000 per annum and RPT aircraft the size of B737s and larger.
The current MBZ radio procedures require: that broadcasts be made before entering the MBZ; upon entry; established in the circuit area if applicable; vacating runways; taxiing; rolling and departing the aerodrome. This system, that has worked safely for many years past, helps both pilots and those working on the ground, to gain an appreciation of the comings and goings of aircraft and enables them to either maintain appropriate separation or to remain clear of movement areas and strips.
Airside vehicles (maintenance vehicles, mowers, graders etc.) are fitted with radios on the MBZ frequency, as ground staff are constantly working on, and traversing the airfield. How are they able to develop situational awareness and keep clear of aircraft if they are not made aware of these movements? How are unintended incursions by ground vehicles to be avoided on busy regional airports in the absence of comprehensive radio communication? The AAA contends that the possible consequences are potentially tragic and entirely avoidable.
The only real and safe remedy is to modify the NAS proposal so that MBZs are retained and that radio broadcasts in relation to them continue to be mandatory. The point also needs to be made that if any CASA assessment is to be based on already agreed risk management principles, then either the existing regime should remain in place or a comprehensive qualitative safety case on a location specific basis should be conducted.
At present the Transport Aviation Security Bill is before Parliament. The resulting Act and Regulations will impose substantial obligations on airport owners and operators in relation to controlling airside access to certain airports. The NAS proposal allows access to airside by pilots (and their passengers) flying in and out with no mandatory requirement to identify their aircraft. At this time of heightened 'security awareness' the AAA finds it inconceivable that any Government could allow any aircraft flying in Australian airspace without a) a radio for communication purposes; and b) a mandatory requirement to use the radio when in the vicinity of an airport.
In recent correspondence from the NAS-IG to an AAA member, the following extract under the heading of MBZ vs CTAF should raise a few eyebrows!
"It should first be noted that the proposed replacement of MBZs with the CTAF has been rescheduled to mid 2004. The level of safety at MBZs is a continuing concern, particularly given the sense of security some pilots have that they are aware of all traffic in the area. More recommended calls will be available to pilots to indicate more clearly their position in the terminal areas. The simpler standard procedures should enable better situational awareness of all pilots in the terminal area.
As with all characteristics, the NAS Implementation Group will conduct a detailed implementation safety case on the move to the US CTAF procedure. Detailed hazard searches are conducted through industry briefings and formal workshops. The NAS Implementation Group works closely with the stakeholder agencies and subject matter experts to develop appropriate and effective strategies to mitigate any identified hazards.
A consolidated safety case is then presented to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority for endorsement before the implementation proceeds.
This takes place within the overall content of the NAS Australian project in which we are copying the safe and proven US practice."
Well, well, have you ever read anything so confusing, and at variance with what the Deputy PM had to say on the matter? AAA members have attended many of the "industry briefings and formal workshops" and made their concerns known to the NAS-IG.
The AAA Chairman, John McArdle and CEO, Ken Keech accompanied by Messrs. Darryl Tonkin (Kalgoorlie-Boulder Airport) and Ken Allcott (Sydney Airport) made a special trip to Canberra to 'brief' the NAS-IG on the proposal to move from MBZs to CTAFs and have high capacity jets 'mixing it' with non-radio equipped light aircraft. As one of the AAA contingent said after that particular meeting: "We would have been better off talking to a brick wall."
There are a great many other issues associated with this NAS program! We cannot help but speculate where the untimely departure of Mick Toller fits into all of this, particularly bearing in mind the personalities involved and their historical relationships. What 'responsibility' (if any) does the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) have in the NAS program? Why is CASA being singularly silent? Where is the Deputy Prime Minister getting his advice on what is happening out in the big wide world of Australian aviation, and does he appreciate the safety implications for voters in regional Australia? One could speculate that airports' liability insurance will significantly increase on the introduction of NAS.
Our public stance on this safety-related issue is to make everyone in the industry aware of our concerns and the reasons why we are so concerned. It would give us no comfort whatsoever at a later date to say to some Coroner in a far corner of Australia: "We told you so".
The AAA position in summary is simply this – all aircraft flying in Australian airspace must be equipped with a serviceable radio for communication purposes and it must be a mandatory requirement to use the radio when in the prescribed airspace of an airport that is operationally-certified or registered by CASA.
RECOMMENDED READING:
Report on Observations of the US NAS (NAS-IG, CASA, AA – Feb/Mar 2003)
Research Report "Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle" (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation – April, 1991)
"The Airspace Risk Model (ARM) MBZ/CTAF Analysis" (Civil Aviation Safety Authority – February 2002)
"Broome Terminal Airspace Aeronautical Study – Preliminary Analysis" (Kubu Australia Pty. Ltd., July 2003)
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"You'd be amazed sitting beside some bloke in a jet, who was trained by the RAAF in his previous life, who doesn't know jack about RT procedures."
Bloggs, get used to the "light twin visitors from the EAST" for one day they will be very much at home in the WEST!
As for the CA/GRS at Broome, I thinks it's an excellent service that's worth every cent at times.
AA
Thread Starter
Airspeed/Mulga,
And we had better be flying them!! As for you, Mulga, there are none so blind as those who will not see!!
Triadic,
It is a sad state of affairs when the AAA has to voice everybody's concerns about the NAS, regardless of their motives. The fact that NAS is not subject to an NPRM (even RAPACs have been cancelled to gag dissenters) is a scandal.
Good luck to the AAA.
Squiffy,
Re verbal dia..., I have used the term "cork it!" on my kids, and will soon start on FOs... The message being to TX at the two mandatory points (or 3 if doing a straight in) and otherwise don't waffle on. "Does he really need to hear what I am about to say?" if the answer is No, don't say it.
And we had better be flying them!! As for you, Mulga, there are none so blind as those who will not see!!
Triadic,
It is a sad state of affairs when the AAA has to voice everybody's concerns about the NAS, regardless of their motives. The fact that NAS is not subject to an NPRM (even RAPACs have been cancelled to gag dissenters) is a scandal.
Good luck to the AAA.
Squiffy,
Re verbal dia..., I have used the term "cork it!" on my kids, and will soon start on FOs... The message being to TX at the two mandatory points (or 3 if doing a straight in) and otherwise don't waffle on. "Does he really need to hear what I am about to say?" if the answer is No, don't say it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The AAA role in Airspace
There is an element of finances in the airport owners concern but it is not landing fees. Most busy airports have enough ground staff refuelers etc to log traffic.
The cost to a region of an aviation tragedy is immense, for a tourist destination its a disaster.
An who are many of the Pax? our community members. This is not about fees it safety and I am appauled that the AAA is the strongest voice fighting a stupid unnecessary increase in risk at uncontrolled airports. We use mandatory comms to replace the lack of Radar the USA have.
In the report listed in the AAA letter by Observers from NAS IG, CASA, AA they stated for all practical purposes the IFR(RPT) traffic is under possitive ATC and RADAR from block to Block,even in the small amount of G Class airspace where few RPT flights go.
John and Martha said they knew of no airport in the USA mainland with 737 RPT which was not towered.
No RADAR no TOWERS but nothing unique when comparing USA and Australian airspace so we can copy book their system!!!!
Good on the AAA, but where are the Heavy Metal Airlines, Regional airlines, Pilot Federation, AA Association, Even Sydney Airport has helped out the AAA with their expertise though I doubt they are going to CTAF procedures.
Its not money its Terminal Airspace Safety that is driving the AAA and the Quiet ones on this issue should hang their heads. This part of the NAS it BS and they know it.
The cost to a region of an aviation tragedy is immense, for a tourist destination its a disaster.
An who are many of the Pax? our community members. This is not about fees it safety and I am appauled that the AAA is the strongest voice fighting a stupid unnecessary increase in risk at uncontrolled airports. We use mandatory comms to replace the lack of Radar the USA have.
In the report listed in the AAA letter by Observers from NAS IG, CASA, AA they stated for all practical purposes the IFR(RPT) traffic is under possitive ATC and RADAR from block to Block,even in the small amount of G Class airspace where few RPT flights go.
John and Martha said they knew of no airport in the USA mainland with 737 RPT which was not towered.
No RADAR no TOWERS but nothing unique when comparing USA and Australian airspace so we can copy book their system!!!!
Good on the AAA, but where are the Heavy Metal Airlines, Regional airlines, Pilot Federation, AA Association, Even Sydney Airport has helped out the AAA with their expertise though I doubt they are going to CTAF procedures.
Its not money its Terminal Airspace Safety that is driving the AAA and the Quiet ones on this issue should hang their heads. This part of the NAS it BS and they know it.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Latest news on tower is Dep Prime Ministers office advises there probably will be a tower.
Not CASA not AA no study just tell the state gov looks like tower will be needed.
So if anyone wants a tower at their airport or ALA just get Dick to announce it and John will build and staff it at our expense!!!
Not CASA not AA no study just tell the state gov looks like tower will be needed.
So if anyone wants a tower at their airport or ALA just get Dick to announce it and John will build and staff it at our expense!!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith: "Broome to get Control Tower"
Are you serious Dick? Currently the Australian taxpayer (through DOTARS) pays Airservices Australia some $7m to compensate for the losses they incur operating regional control towers. Now you want to add another regional control tower simply because MBZs and CAGRS don't fit nicely into your precious NAS model. On top of the estimated $5m pa for new fire service infrastructure, which will eventually have to be recovered from the flying industry, you are now proposing that the industry and taxpayer should also cough up another $3m (estimated) for a control tower at BR. Who's going to pay for all this Dick? You, the airlines, me? Is this your new concept of "affordable safety"? I'm sure most pilots would agree that the CAGRS unit at BR (and also at AYE) provides a very friendly and effective service at a cost that offers significant value for money to the industry.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tower in Broome...great!
In 5 to 10 years time we can add Broome to the list of closed down towers when the gov starts cost cutting again. Just like Karratha and Port Hedland down the road.
In 5 to 10 years time we can add Broome to the list of closed down towers when the gov starts cost cutting again. Just like Karratha and Port Hedland down the road.
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How many of these troublesome jet movements (which seem to be the trigger for a tower) are scheduled through the middle of the night? i.e. when the tower probably won't be manned???
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: down on the farm
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me just quietly say,
MR SMITH,
BROOME DOES NOT NEED A TOWER!
Struth we don't even have engineers there, that's how much jet traffic we have and VB is even less and we promise not to fight each other if in the same airspace OCTA, OK.
MR SMITH,
BROOME DOES NOT NEED A TOWER!
Struth we don't even have engineers there, that's how much jet traffic we have and VB is even less and we promise not to fight each other if in the same airspace OCTA, OK.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: WOz
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BERNIE'S RECALL
Report from a spy close to Perth Tower that Bernie Smith's overseas jolly has been cut short and he has been recalled to Canberra after the viewing of the radar tapes from the VBA Maroochy incident by QFA safety team and the subsquent reaction by them.
Big announcement in the next day or so.
Heard anything up your way ****zu?
Big announcement in the next day or so.
Heard anything up your way ****zu?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read in the local rag today that Broome's MBZ is to stay. In fact, the article goes on to say that:
"last week, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed that the reforms removing the mandatory broadcasts were being rejected, effectively killing off the proposed new system."
Couldn't find any other reference to the 'roll backs' on any website (dicksmithflyer/casa)....
"last week, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed that the reforms removing the mandatory broadcasts were being rejected, effectively killing off the proposed new system."
Couldn't find any other reference to the 'roll backs' on any website (dicksmithflyer/casa)....