Dick Smith: "Broome to get Control Tower"
Thread Starter
Dick Smith: "Broome to get Control Tower"
As the NAS lurches from one farce to another, now Dick (and his new-found friends in ATC management wanting a tropical retirement pad) has decided that Broome needs a control tower. Why? In a report in The West Australian on 28Aug03, he says "because it's traffic level exceeded 100 jets a week". Currently the CAGRS works very well, and safely. The new tower would cost up to $20 per passenger! "I'm sure all passengers would be happy to pay this small amount to ensure higher safety". So much for NAS making regional aviation cheaper and revitalising the industry.
The state minister for planning and infrastructure, Allannah McTiernan, demonstrating a welcome understanding of the issue said "reforms to air services regulation were an absolute dog's breakfast". She said the federal govt had ignored concerns that the new system, based on a north american model, was inappropriate for WA and would have ramifications for struggling airports. "Rather than abandon the system, they have now decided Broome is going to get a full on tower...guess who pays for this??"
Have to agree with that!!
The state minister for planning and infrastructure, Allannah McTiernan, demonstrating a welcome understanding of the issue said "reforms to air services regulation were an absolute dog's breakfast". She said the federal govt had ignored concerns that the new system, based on a north american model, was inappropriate for WA and would have ramifications for struggling airports. "Rather than abandon the system, they have now decided Broome is going to get a full on tower...guess who pays for this??"
Have to agree with that!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A previous life
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suspect that this was the first that the operators of Broome Airport heard on the subject as well.
It would appear that the success of the Broome CA/GRS and MBZ are not consistent with the vision for the endstage of NAS of G airspace not having any traffic services...so it suits to now change tack and go for ATC at Broome with all the associated costs for GA (i.e. Airservice's Terminal Navigation charges that comes with class D) in addition to the cost of landing on the Aerodrome that presently includes a safe and cost effective service under CASA's new MOS Part 139 as provided by Broome Airport.
Normally, people would discuss the business operations of an airport with the owners of that business - but I guess this man thinks he knows best for all.
It would appear that the success of the Broome CA/GRS and MBZ are not consistent with the vision for the endstage of NAS of G airspace not having any traffic services...so it suits to now change tack and go for ATC at Broome with all the associated costs for GA (i.e. Airservice's Terminal Navigation charges that comes with class D) in addition to the cost of landing on the Aerodrome that presently includes a safe and cost effective service under CASA's new MOS Part 139 as provided by Broome Airport.
Normally, people would discuss the business operations of an airport with the owners of that business - but I guess this man thinks he knows best for all.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the end-state NAS, the only traffic you'll get in G is the self-same CAGRO. The spec says EVERYBODY will get traffic in the terminal area, from ATC, but not everybody will tell ATC where they are. This is of course, complete bollocks. CAGRO are here to stay.
A tower at BRM? Complete bollocks also.
A tower at BRM? Complete bollocks also.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heh guys, we have a very well run in tower here at Camden that is up for sale. Has very nice controllers to. Do you want it. We wanted it but the bean counters said not enough traffic. During the week now, Camden is MUCH more efficient. We have up to 5 runways operating simultaneously.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A controller at Broome, well that may not be a bad idea.
I remember seeing VFR C206/210 doing IMC takeoffs in heavy fog many times, and B737 & 146’s trying to fly around light aircraft.
Why not Broome? Mackay, Maroochydore and Coffs Harbour have one.
Maybe the locals don’t want to be policed.
The GA culture will never change.
I remember seeing VFR C206/210 doing IMC takeoffs in heavy fog many times, and B737 & 146’s trying to fly around light aircraft.
Why not Broome? Mackay, Maroochydore and Coffs Harbour have one.
Maybe the locals don’t want to be policed.
The GA culture will never change.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: down on the farm
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess someone thinks jets really need control towers.
We'll as a G/A pilot long ago and now on the 737, I would suggest I can not see the need. Sure a few drivers are uncomfortable as soon as they get off and ILS approach, but in real terms how is a tower going to help just because X number of jets use the airport per week?
The current set up does a great job and is more than enough I believe.
(Not with-standing a 500' go-around for a Bra that backtracked on me and didn't depart soon enough, isolated incident, but thanks again.)
Perhaps they could use the tower from Gove. Built at a massive cost and was never commissioned. I'ts been quite a few years since we operated there but I guess they probably still maintain it.
Bum ideas don't go away, they just lay forgotten untill the next idiot comes along.
We'll as a G/A pilot long ago and now on the 737, I would suggest I can not see the need. Sure a few drivers are uncomfortable as soon as they get off and ILS approach, but in real terms how is a tower going to help just because X number of jets use the airport per week?
The current set up does a great job and is more than enough I believe.
(Not with-standing a 500' go-around for a Bra that backtracked on me and didn't depart soon enough, isolated incident, but thanks again.)
Perhaps they could use the tower from Gove. Built at a massive cost and was never commissioned. I'ts been quite a few years since we operated there but I guess they probably still maintain it.
Bum ideas don't go away, they just lay forgotten untill the next idiot comes along.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Brisbane,Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can understand the reluctance to support an ATC manned tower at Broome based on cost however, I don't imagine that a CAGRO comes for free. Someone must pay his/her salary. Can anyone enlighten me on how much and who pays eg via landing costs, airport operator, local council?
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BME CA/GRS
The Broome CA/GRS costs 48cents per pax movement.
Not only did the airport owners get a suprise by Dicks Announcement.
AA CASA and NAS IG when asked that morning also knew nothing about it. !!!
It would be funny if not for the risks that ad hoc airspce reforms need to address
Not only did the airport owners get a suprise by Dicks Announcement.
AA CASA and NAS IG when asked that morning also knew nothing about it. !!!
It would be funny if not for the risks that ad hoc airspce reforms need to address
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear old Dick is obviously up to his usual stunts and is playing politics as the people in WA and BRM in particular have stuck a thorn in his side and he does not like it. He is just doing it to get some press and he is good at that as we know. If you think about it, establishing a tower at BRM or anywhere else for that matter is not a matter for the NASIG, Dick or any other individual, but one for CASA and the industry to determine.
Understand Dick and Chairman Forsyth (ASA) are in the west in the DS Caravan at this time (so watch out!!). No doubt this media release was timed to get some attention from the masses and the media who don't know better.
Have to agree with the WA Minister... "dogs breakfast" sadly, you bet it is!
Understand Dick and Chairman Forsyth (ASA) are in the west in the DS Caravan at this time (so watch out!!). No doubt this media release was timed to get some attention from the masses and the media who don't know better.
Have to agree with the WA Minister... "dogs breakfast" sadly, you bet it is!
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd rather pay the extra money that Dick is suggesting towards the Fire Service at the field, myself. Probably cost more per passenger than the unnecessary tower, though.
520.
520.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A previous life
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think you will find that RFF is already provided along with the CA/GRS that Broome Airport provide for the cost pax/landing charges that they apply now. - check out the ERSA. In fact I understand that Broome RFF sets the standard for CASA's part 139H for RFF provided by other than Airserivces Australia! (at a far more economical cost - because the RFF staff do more than just firires duties) Perhaps it is time for Broome Airport to explain to the uninitiated (including DS) how their operation runs - I think all will be plesantly surprised.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BRM RFFS
BRM is staffed and has Cat 6 vehicles.
For International flights the units are manned to achieve 3 min anywhere on areodrome ICAO req.
All staff are multi skilled during normal times first vehicle may take 5 mins. Unfortunately unannounced prangs are difficult even if 2 mins to site is achieved. None in Australia to my knowledge have been rescued.
For an announced emergency its full monty including all other emergency vehicles normal 2min response time. This happens 2-3 times per year.
The biggest was a Dash 8 without a nose wheel, happened to be there at the time, flew up with Dash8 Chief Pilot on AN that morning !!!
He got the Dash down very well landed on up hill section our RIV was there under 60 secs guys did a great job. No pax it was only a test flight after the a/c hit an eagle at 5000ft and was out of action for some months. The crew were able to get out before the RIV!! ie under 60 secs.
AN crew had stayed in their a/c the whole time, one helped with comms and the other once landing was iminent road on one support vehicle in case things got jammed and he might know something our guys didn't .
That why it saddens me to see all the 1989 stuff on this site, what happened that night is everyone helping aviators with a problem.
Hey we even made it with out Dick directing the traffic!!!!
For International flights the units are manned to achieve 3 min anywhere on areodrome ICAO req.
All staff are multi skilled during normal times first vehicle may take 5 mins. Unfortunately unannounced prangs are difficult even if 2 mins to site is achieved. None in Australia to my knowledge have been rescued.
For an announced emergency its full monty including all other emergency vehicles normal 2min response time. This happens 2-3 times per year.
The biggest was a Dash 8 without a nose wheel, happened to be there at the time, flew up with Dash8 Chief Pilot on AN that morning !!!
He got the Dash down very well landed on up hill section our RIV was there under 60 secs guys did a great job. No pax it was only a test flight after the a/c hit an eagle at 5000ft and was out of action for some months. The crew were able to get out before the RIV!! ie under 60 secs.
AN crew had stayed in their a/c the whole time, one helped with comms and the other once landing was iminent road on one support vehicle in case things got jammed and he might know something our guys didn't .
That why it saddens me to see all the 1989 stuff on this site, what happened that night is everyone helping aviators with a problem.
Hey we even made it with out Dick directing the traffic!!!!
Broome could do with some modification to how traffic is regulated. This week a jet made a very late go-around because a twin could not exit the runway fast enough after landing ahead.
Often the radio is so congested with multiple traffic advices from CA/GRS that it becomes a safety issue. The CA/GRS does the best it can, but ends up complicating the situation, with some pilots treating the service as a pseudo-tower, deferring to the "authority" on the radio. Compounding the latter, there seem to be a few operators in Broome that fly the aircraft with the damn radio - never shutting up.
With several large aircraft movements and a quintillion light aircraft movements per day, the place could do well with a tower - at least in the peak season.
Often the radio is so congested with multiple traffic advices from CA/GRS that it becomes a safety issue. The CA/GRS does the best it can, but ends up complicating the situation, with some pilots treating the service as a pseudo-tower, deferring to the "authority" on the radio. Compounding the latter, there seem to be a few operators in Broome that fly the aircraft with the damn radio - never shutting up.
With several large aircraft movements and a quintillion light aircraft movements per day, the place could do well with a tower - at least in the peak season.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squiffy,
Thanks for your post to be honest you are the first flight crew to advise of CA/GRS over use of comms. I'd like to get the CD recording of the period and give it to the team currently doing an independent safety report.
The consulting teamm includes exCASA and Heavy Metal pilots who could analysis this for us.
Could you kindly advise date and time.
Ta Walley2
Thanks for your post to be honest you are the first flight crew to advise of CA/GRS over use of comms. I'd like to get the CD recording of the period and give it to the team currently doing an independent safety report.
The consulting teamm includes exCASA and Heavy Metal pilots who could analysis this for us.
Could you kindly advise date and time.
Ta Walley2
Thread Starter
Squiffy,
If a jet did a go round behind a twin "late to vacate" then it ain't got nothing to do with the CAGRO: the jet crew stuffed it up, plain and simple. Don't blame the CAGRO for that. Perhaps the "light twin visitors from the East" DO need a tower...
You say the CAGRO "ends up complicating the situation". After my many times there with and without the CAGRO, I disagree, and things would be chaotic without him/her (onya L), especially if it was only a Dick Smith "I don't have to talk to any $rick" yank CTAF. And I can tell you what: a tower will cost you a fortune, AND you'll get more delays than now. Sure, the CAGRO may need a bit of fine-tuning, but in my extensive experience there, they are pretty good, and don't get in the way. No calls between aircraft are required at all until it actually gets to the separation/sequencing stage: you get the traffic picture in one fell swoop with no fuss.
What's needed is a bit less verbal diarrhoea by pilots (why do some jet pilots call at 15nm when they are joining on downwind??) and the system will work well.
Also, re "several large aircraft movements and a quintillion light aircraft movements per day": very few of the RPT flights are in the air at the same time, and those that are can quite easily manage the situation.
If a jet did a go round behind a twin "late to vacate" then it ain't got nothing to do with the CAGRO: the jet crew stuffed it up, plain and simple. Don't blame the CAGRO for that. Perhaps the "light twin visitors from the East" DO need a tower...
You say the CAGRO "ends up complicating the situation". After my many times there with and without the CAGRO, I disagree, and things would be chaotic without him/her (onya L), especially if it was only a Dick Smith "I don't have to talk to any $rick" yank CTAF. And I can tell you what: a tower will cost you a fortune, AND you'll get more delays than now. Sure, the CAGRO may need a bit of fine-tuning, but in my extensive experience there, they are pretty good, and don't get in the way. No calls between aircraft are required at all until it actually gets to the separation/sequencing stage: you get the traffic picture in one fell swoop with no fuss.
What's needed is a bit less verbal diarrhoea by pilots (why do some jet pilots call at 15nm when they are joining on downwind??) and the system will work well.
Also, re "several large aircraft movements and a quintillion light aircraft movements per day": very few of the RPT flights are in the air at the same time, and those that are can quite easily manage the situation.