Coffs Tower to close?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coffs Tower to close?
ASA have contacted all the RPT operators who operate into Coffs advising them they are conducting a feasibility study on the continued operation of the tower at Coffs. The airlines have been asked to comment and provide input on resaons for closing or keeping the tower open.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Related question. Which has more RPT and Scheduled movements, Coffs or Broome? RE the Broome Tower debate, if Coffs has less or more it should pretty much decide the outcome of that arguement and solve the study in one!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What number are we up to?
I think this is the 7th review of Coffs operations in 10 years; the numbers are always close; but there are more movements now than last time; Virgin 737s in there with more forecast and less ATCs 4 instead of 5. Can't see the numbers changing in anyway but up compared to the last one...
Bottle of Rum
Bottle of Rum
short flights long nights
As I posted a while ago.......I have this really crazy idea.
In places where there are a lot of RPT (Jet and TP), lets put in a tower. In places where there are less RPT, but mixed with a lot of GA stuff, lets put in something called a flight service unit. Or am I showing my age by knowing what a FSU was and did? (And by the way, they did A LOT, the loss of FSUs around Australia was a tradgedy.)
Other models for ATC may work, I currently fly in Europe and it does, BUT THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS TOTAL RADAR CONTROL.
I await comment
In places where there are a lot of RPT (Jet and TP), lets put in a tower. In places where there are less RPT, but mixed with a lot of GA stuff, lets put in something called a flight service unit. Or am I showing my age by knowing what a FSU was and did? (And by the way, they did A LOT, the loss of FSUs around Australia was a tradgedy.)
Other models for ATC may work, I currently fly in Europe and it does, BUT THE BIG DIFFERENCE IS TOTAL RADAR CONTROL.
I await comment
So why does the Coffs aero club no longer have an AOC?
I rented an aircraft from them once, and have called in there several times for fuel. Always found them very friendly and helpful, and would be sad to learn of the club's demise (if that is in fact the case).
I rented an aircraft from them once, and have called in there several times for fuel. Always found them very friendly and helpful, and would be sad to learn of the club's demise (if that is in fact the case).
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The good old days
Hey SOPS....
I saw the other post too...remember the days well. I was one of them in Derby and Weipa (as well as a couple of others).
I also remember when there wasn't' a tower in Coffs, or Wagga or Albury....ahh blisssssss.....
I saw the other post too...remember the days well. I was one of them in Derby and Weipa (as well as a couple of others).
I also remember when there wasn't' a tower in Coffs, or Wagga or Albury....ahh blisssssss.....
short flights long nights
Divingduck Oh for the "good old days". So goes the old story... IF IT AINT BROKE DONT FIX IT!!!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
leaving things alone...
SOPS
I too have given the old days a couple of thoughts recently...
Seems to my perhaps deluded thinking, that Australia had a booming GA sector, only one spoilt helicopter driver ever complained about the service, there were flight Service Officers at most of the main airports, and all the major ones.
When I started in the service industry, IFR received traffic on EVERYONE. Everyone that flew above 5000 ft had to submit a flight plan and even the od bugsmasher that requested traffic was given it (by law, not by FSO/ATC being a nice guy).
And that was in uncontrolled (or OCTA) airpspace. The controllers separated everyone (which is pretty much easier than letting them do it themselves...)
Seems to me that the sky is less safe than it used to be (Affordable safety perhaps?) Can't comment on the costs of this as opposed to the old system as I'm not a pilot, but I did ask that question on another thread and was roundly ignored.
The other thing that FSO's provided was a service to the industry...many of the Pro NAS crowd thought that they were an anachnonism and a waste of their money (if they ever paid anything) but what they fail to recognise is that in the US (the place that they continually hold up for comparison) has over 2000 Flight Service Specialists STILL working (I'm not sure on the actual numbers but I'm sure that someone out there knows).
We won't even get into the full radar coverage, full VHF coverage, towers in just about every aerodrome......
Bring back controlled and uncontrolled airspace and get rid of the alphabet soup!!!
right...back to the porridge a cup of tea and a nice lie down
I too have given the old days a couple of thoughts recently...
Seems to my perhaps deluded thinking, that Australia had a booming GA sector, only one spoilt helicopter driver ever complained about the service, there were flight Service Officers at most of the main airports, and all the major ones.
When I started in the service industry, IFR received traffic on EVERYONE. Everyone that flew above 5000 ft had to submit a flight plan and even the od bugsmasher that requested traffic was given it (by law, not by FSO/ATC being a nice guy).
And that was in uncontrolled (or OCTA) airpspace. The controllers separated everyone (which is pretty much easier than letting them do it themselves...)
Seems to me that the sky is less safe than it used to be (Affordable safety perhaps?) Can't comment on the costs of this as opposed to the old system as I'm not a pilot, but I did ask that question on another thread and was roundly ignored.
The other thing that FSO's provided was a service to the industry...many of the Pro NAS crowd thought that they were an anachnonism and a waste of their money (if they ever paid anything) but what they fail to recognise is that in the US (the place that they continually hold up for comparison) has over 2000 Flight Service Specialists STILL working (I'm not sure on the actual numbers but I'm sure that someone out there knows).
We won't even get into the full radar coverage, full VHF coverage, towers in just about every aerodrome......
Bring back controlled and uncontrolled airspace and get rid of the alphabet soup!!!
right...back to the porridge a cup of tea and a nice lie down
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Main GA operator in Coffs? Would that be referring to the 'jet centre' with no jets? 
The debate regarding the tower at Coffs has been ongoing. It has always been marginal in AirServices' 'cost/safety' analysis.
Coffs Tower handled 37,390 movements in 2002, a small number compared to airports like Maroocydore (73,458), Coolangatta (81,958) and even Tamworth (94,148).
To the best of my knowledge, Coffs receives around 8 RPT services a day and a little GA activity that I would doubt makes much contirbution to the overall number of movements at all.
The debate regarding the tower at Coffs has been ongoing. It has always been marginal in AirServices' 'cost/safety' analysis.
Coffs Tower handled 37,390 movements in 2002, a small number compared to airports like Maroocydore (73,458), Coolangatta (81,958) and even Tamworth (94,148).
To the best of my knowledge, Coffs receives around 8 RPT services a day and a little GA activity that I would doubt makes much contirbution to the overall number of movements at all.
Last edited by Oliver Klozof; 13th Oct 2003 at 11:40.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was at the closing of a couple of those WA FSU, and noticed a benefit of people at airports that doesn't get reflected in the price tag.
When one of the units was open I never knew there were any ultralights within 100km, yet the day we closed I saw one fly over the runways, orbit twice, and fly off. Nothing heard on the radio. Hmmmmmm
When the local millionaire wanted to visit his mate to the east he'd fly his helicopter west, then north of the racing club, so you could hear him, but not be required to officially note that he'd left the training area with his restricted licence again. After the first guy left the circuit the millionaire's helicopter zooms straight past over the airport and headed east. Nothing on the radio again.
Maybe people at aerodromes does achieve something? The current process of deciding which aerodromes deserve a tower and how they are funded is a joke but. Nobody wants to pay for airports or services, but want them (unless they have to pay for them)
When one of the units was open I never knew there were any ultralights within 100km, yet the day we closed I saw one fly over the runways, orbit twice, and fly off. Nothing heard on the radio. Hmmmmmm
When the local millionaire wanted to visit his mate to the east he'd fly his helicopter west, then north of the racing club, so you could hear him, but not be required to officially note that he'd left the training area with his restricted licence again. After the first guy left the circuit the millionaire's helicopter zooms straight past over the airport and headed east. Nothing on the radio again.
Maybe people at aerodromes does achieve something? The current process of deciding which aerodromes deserve a tower and how they are funded is a joke but. Nobody wants to pay for airports or services, but want them (unless they have to pay for them)
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ASA have contacted all the RPT operators who operate into Coffs advising them they are conducting a feasibility study on the continued operation of the tower at Coffs. The airlines have been asked to comment and provide input on resaons for closing or keeping the tower open.
Rich,
You mob just don't get it do you? The only reason they (RPT) would want a tower to stay open would be to get some positive separation from you!!
Taking the simplistic view, if there were no lighties, there would be no need for virtually any "service" to the RPT operators in the majority of the bush. They are quite capable of looking after/out for themselves.
You don't have a god-given right to operate willy-nilly when there are other users about. You cause half the problem, you pay for half the remedy. Otherwise, keep out of the airspace.
You mob just don't get it do you? The only reason they (RPT) would want a tower to stay open would be to get some positive separation from you!!
Taking the simplistic view, if there were no lighties, there would be no need for virtually any "service" to the RPT operators in the majority of the bush. They are quite capable of looking after/out for themselves.
You don't have a god-given right to operate willy-nilly when there are other users about. You cause half the problem, you pay for half the remedy. Otherwise, keep out of the airspace.
short flights long nights
Cant agree more Diving Duck, there seems to be this mad need to "asume" that Australian airspace is like the USA or Europe. Fact..it IS NOT (And I should know as I currently fly in them). I think the old "Call now 6565 with position" was still the best system for Oz, but some helicopter man got in the way. SOPS
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
The RPT are the Johhnie Come Lately in most cases.
I fly at a small airport, I have for 25 years. Just because an RPT decides to turn up doen't mean I should suddely fund the infrastructure they need!!! (The Coffs, Maroochy, Tamworth situation).
Next you'll be saying I should pay for new toilets for the RPT passengers cos i occasionally need to pee. No thanks, the tree behind the aero club and me have been mates for years!!
We got duped with user pays, the RPT passenger is the user 'mandating' a level of service, let them pay!
AK
The RPT are the Johhnie Come Lately in most cases.
I fly at a small airport, I have for 25 years. Just because an RPT decides to turn up doen't mean I should suddely fund the infrastructure they need!!! (The Coffs, Maroochy, Tamworth situation).
Next you'll be saying I should pay for new toilets for the RPT passengers cos i occasionally need to pee. No thanks, the tree behind the aero club and me have been mates for years!!
We got duped with user pays, the RPT passenger is the user 'mandating' a level of service, let them pay!
AK
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggsy:
There are several airports in this great nation of ours where RPT & G.A. happily co-exist without the need for a tower to hold RPT's hands.
IF the only reason to keep CH tower open is that RPT insist on a tower then RPT should pay for it.
IF RPT is not prepared to pay for it then CH could operate the same as a number of other locations.
8 x RPT services a day plus a handful of G.A. is not sufficient traffic to keep a tower open.
Simplistic enough for you?.
There are several airports in this great nation of ours where RPT & G.A. happily co-exist without the need for a tower to hold RPT's hands.
IF the only reason to keep CH tower open is that RPT insist on a tower then RPT should pay for it.
IF RPT is not prepared to pay for it then CH could operate the same as a number of other locations.
8 x RPT services a day plus a handful of G.A. is not sufficient traffic to keep a tower open.
Simplistic enough for you?.
Snarek,
Dick Smith/AOPA duped you on User Pays, now Dick Smith/AOPA is duping the fare-paying pax with NAS. Get the common thread??
No wonder GA is in decline, with an attitude like yours where you call RPT "Jonnie Come Latelies". Get your head out of the sand and accept there are other operations in the airspace as well as your own. You guys are the most self-centered lot I know. If you were in a schoolyard, you'd have the billy-oh beaten out of you for being so obnoxious!
RFG,
I was making no statement at all about whether the tower should be kept open, or whether RPT said they wanted it to be. It will come down to CASA who decides. But if the outcome is that the tower remains open, then all users should pay. This is the word from Dick (or has he changed his mind?).
Dick Smith/AOPA duped you on User Pays, now Dick Smith/AOPA is duping the fare-paying pax with NAS. Get the common thread??
No wonder GA is in decline, with an attitude like yours where you call RPT "Jonnie Come Latelies". Get your head out of the sand and accept there are other operations in the airspace as well as your own. You guys are the most self-centered lot I know. If you were in a schoolyard, you'd have the billy-oh beaten out of you for being so obnoxious!
RFG,
I was making no statement at all about whether the tower should be kept open, or whether RPT said they wanted it to be. It will come down to CASA who decides. But if the outcome is that the tower remains open, then all users should pay. This is the word from Dick (or has he changed his mind?).
