Geelong Advertiser re Avalon Airport
Thread Starter
Geelong Advertiser re Avalon Airport
I have placed the following article on PPRuNe so airline pilots can see what Lawrie Cox is saying:
This is very perplexing. I was asked by Danny Lannen of the Geelong Advertiser why airline pilots were not supporting the call for a radio operator or a tower at Avalon. I said that indeed they were, and that a Jetstar pilot had contacted me to say that the situation was not safe, and could I do something? They said that the only reason the tower was not manned was because of undue pressure to make profits.
Wouldn’t you have thought that upon interview, Lawrie Cox would have said words to the effect, “It’s good to see that Dick Smith has changed his mind and is now supporting control towers. We welcome his view and believe that the tower should be manned.”
By the way, my views have not changed at all. I am not a hypocrite. Yes, I was the CASA Chairman at the time the Mount Isa tower was closed down. That was because it did not meet the cost benefit formula as it had so few passengers and so few operations. My view is exactly the same today. I have continuously supported objective safety criteria which depend on collision risk. If the proper FAA cost benefit formula (as per NAS) was applied to Avalon, there would be no doubt that the tower should be manned. With over 1 million passengers per year it is just plain commonsense.
Does anyone know why the AFAP representative would be siding with the bosses (and airline profits) on this matter?
Does the AFAP need a spokesman who is a little less angry about the past, and more proactive about the future? Surely airline pilots would prefer an operating tower at Avalon.
I look forward to your replies.
This is very perplexing. I was asked by Danny Lannen of the Geelong Advertiser why airline pilots were not supporting the call for a radio operator or a tower at Avalon. I said that indeed they were, and that a Jetstar pilot had contacted me to say that the situation was not safe, and could I do something? They said that the only reason the tower was not manned was because of undue pressure to make profits.
Wouldn’t you have thought that upon interview, Lawrie Cox would have said words to the effect, “It’s good to see that Dick Smith has changed his mind and is now supporting control towers. We welcome his view and believe that the tower should be manned.”
By the way, my views have not changed at all. I am not a hypocrite. Yes, I was the CASA Chairman at the time the Mount Isa tower was closed down. That was because it did not meet the cost benefit formula as it had so few passengers and so few operations. My view is exactly the same today. I have continuously supported objective safety criteria which depend on collision risk. If the proper FAA cost benefit formula (as per NAS) was applied to Avalon, there would be no doubt that the tower should be manned. With over 1 million passengers per year it is just plain commonsense.
Does anyone know why the AFAP representative would be siding with the bosses (and airline profits) on this matter?
Does the AFAP need a spokesman who is a little less angry about the past, and more proactive about the future? Surely airline pilots would prefer an operating tower at Avalon.
I look forward to your replies.
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In fact, Dick, this would be the perfect location to establish and demonstrate a US style Class D tower. The proximity of overlying controlled airspace, the access to communications and surveillance, etc, and the existing facilities at the airport would reduce establishment costs significantly [hence weigh the Cost Benefit Analysis in a more positive direction].
No need for complex airspace such as exists in other so-called Class D towers - simply a 5NM radius control zone, ground level to 2500 feet, with overlying ML CTA adjusted accordingly.
Approach area extensions [as is US practice] can be designated to become effective when instrument approach procedures are required.
This is [should be] a no-brainer - and should not require the higher level ratings that CASA and Airservices demand of their controllers at existing so-called Class D towers.
Two shifts a day [6.30am to 8.30pm], equals 14 shifts a week [one man tower], equals 3 staff [with leave relief from ML]. 3 staff equals about $300k, including on-costs - which works out at around $0.30 per passenger - less than the cost of one cigarette, or one piece of chocolate, or 1/4 litre of petrol!
Allow another few cents for the facilities, which you would expect the Avalon airport operator to provide.
No need for complex airspace such as exists in other so-called Class D towers - simply a 5NM radius control zone, ground level to 2500 feet, with overlying ML CTA adjusted accordingly.
Approach area extensions [as is US practice] can be designated to become effective when instrument approach procedures are required.
This is [should be] a no-brainer - and should not require the higher level ratings that CASA and Airservices demand of their controllers at existing so-called Class D towers.
Two shifts a day [6.30am to 8.30pm], equals 14 shifts a week [one man tower], equals 3 staff [with leave relief from ML]. 3 staff equals about $300k, including on-costs - which works out at around $0.30 per passenger - less than the cost of one cigarette, or one piece of chocolate, or 1/4 litre of petrol!
Allow another few cents for the facilities, which you would expect the Avalon airport operator to provide.
I'll say it, “It’s good to see that Dick Smith has changed his mind and is now supporting control towers. We welcome his view and believe that the tower should be manned.”
Moderator
The nexus is an issue of safety:
Whether safety - particularly for heavy RPT aircraft - would be enhanced significantly to an extent to justify cost, by manning the Control Tower during periods of RPT operations.
The professional opinion of practicing airline pilots would be appropriate, without the usual thread drift into personalities.
This has been an issue in a number of threads. It is time for a professional, definitive, majority opinion.
Tail Wheel
Whether safety - particularly for heavy RPT aircraft - would be enhanced significantly to an extent to justify cost, by manning the Control Tower during periods of RPT operations.
The professional opinion of practicing airline pilots would be appropriate, without the usual thread drift into personalities.
This has been an issue in a number of threads. It is time for a professional, definitive, majority opinion.
Tail Wheel
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good point TW.
From past experience - and trying to put aside any pro/anti-Dick bias - the justifications for providing ATC at RPT locations revolved around the ubiquitous "FAA Cost Benefit Analysis Criteria" - something used by CASA, AsA, and its predecessors to either sustain, close, or deny tower services in Australia.
Again putting aside the DS connections, IF Avalon meets the FAA criteria for a tower service, and IF the facilities exist that COULD be used to provide a service, and IF AsA and CASA were willing to concede that there is a 'global best practice' service option available 'out there' - i.e., US Class D tower service in its entirety - and IF those entities were willing to facilitate its application - then shouldn't we try to provide a service to the RPT operations that will only increase at Avalon [Air Asia X comes to mind].
For once, I think DS has a very valid point - and all PPruNers should support his cry for some sort of control service at Avalon for RPT operations.
From past experience - and trying to put aside any pro/anti-Dick bias - the justifications for providing ATC at RPT locations revolved around the ubiquitous "FAA Cost Benefit Analysis Criteria" - something used by CASA, AsA, and its predecessors to either sustain, close, or deny tower services in Australia.
Again putting aside the DS connections, IF Avalon meets the FAA criteria for a tower service, and IF the facilities exist that COULD be used to provide a service, and IF AsA and CASA were willing to concede that there is a 'global best practice' service option available 'out there' - i.e., US Class D tower service in its entirety - and IF those entities were willing to facilitate its application - then shouldn't we try to provide a service to the RPT operations that will only increase at Avalon [Air Asia X comes to mind].
For once, I think DS has a very valid point - and all PPruNers should support his cry for some sort of control service at Avalon for RPT operations.
Moderator
Thank you WELLCONCERNED. Whilst the FAA no doubt has the mathematics down to a fine art, I think the issue requires an Australian solution. Would safety at Avalon be enhanced to an extent which would justify the cost by provision of a manned control tower during periods of air transport category RPT operations.
Or conversely, does the current status represent an unacceptable long term safety risk to the extent the cost of the service would be justified?
I'm not expressing an opinion either way - I defer to the professionals - I'm merely adjudicating on an issue which has had more than it's fair share of coverage on PPRuNe.
Or conversely, does the current status represent an unacceptable long term safety risk to the extent the cost of the service would be justified?
I'm not expressing an opinion either way - I defer to the professionals - I'm merely adjudicating on an issue which has had more than it's fair share of coverage on PPRuNe.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Controlled - but not by the Tower
Good to see you bouncing back Dick.
Your nothing if not resilient. You should have been an airline pilot.
As I see it though, you are beating a dead horse
I note your regard for the AFAP hasn't changed, in contrast with your claim now that you have changed your mind about manning Towers at places like Avalon. Mt. Isa excluded.
It seems you had contact from one Jetstar pilot. That isn't a ringing endorsement to man the Tower there.
As has been mentioned already, if you had been a bit more savvy in 1989, rather than being rock solid behind the hypocritical PM of the day, and his puppeteer, you wouldn't necessarily have a case to argue now.
But I suggest it's a dead duck, Dick
Your nothing if not resilient. You should have been an airline pilot.As I see it though, you are beating a dead horse
I note your regard for the AFAP hasn't changed, in contrast with your claim now that you have changed your mind about manning Towers at places like Avalon. Mt. Isa excluded.
It seems you had contact from one Jetstar pilot. That isn't a ringing endorsement to man the Tower there.
As has been mentioned already, if you had been a bit more savvy in 1989, rather than being rock solid behind the hypocritical PM of the day, and his puppeteer, you wouldn't necessarily have a case to argue now.
But I suggest it's a dead duck, Dick
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
…. this would be the perfect location to establish and demonstrate a US style Class D tower. The proximity of overlying controlled airspace, the access to communications and surveillance, etc, and the existing facilities at the airport would reduce establishment costs significantly [hence weigh the Cost Benefit Analysis in a more positive direction].
No need for complex airspace such as exists in other so-called Class D towers
- simply a 5NM radius control zone, ground level to 2500 feet, with overlying ML CTA adjusted accordingly.
.
Approach area extensions [as is US practice] can be designated to become effective when instrument approach procedures are required.
.
Approach area extensions [as is US practice] can be designated to become effective when instrument approach procedures are required.
This is [should be] a no-brainer - and should not require the higher level ratings that CASA and Airservices demand of their controllers at existing so-called Class D towers.
Two shifts a day [6.30am to 8.30pm], equals 14 shifts a week [one man tower], equals 3 staff [with leave relief from ML]. 3 staff equals about $300k, including on-costs - which works out at around $0.30 per passenger - less than the cost of one cigarette, or one piece of chocolate, or 1/4 litre of petrol!
.
Allow another few cents for the facilities, which you would expect the Avalon airport operator to provide.
.
Allow another few cents for the facilities, which you would expect the Avalon airport operator to provide.
From past experience - and trying to put aside any pro/anti-Dick bias - the justifications for providing ATC at RPT locations revolved around the ubiquitous "FAA Cost Benefit Analysis Criteria" - something used by CASA, AsA, and its predecessors to either sustain, close, or deny tower services in Australia.
.
Summary of Responses to what was the latest attempt to sort the wheat from the chaff
.
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/sor/sor0108as_intro-2.pdf (Comment 11 in particular re: FAA V’s Oz)
Again putting aside the DS connections,
IF Avalon meets the FAA criteria for a tower service,
and IF the facilities exist that COULD be used to provide a service,
and IF AsA and CASA were willing to concede that there is a 'global best practice' service option available 'out there'
- i.e., US Class D tower service in its entirety
- and IF those entities were willing to facilitate its application –
then shouldn't we try to provide a service to the RPT operations that will only increase at Avalon [Air Asia X comes to mind].
.
… in the meantime, here are the links to the most recent Part 71 NPRM … read it and then tell us why Dick won’t support it (if he is genuine in this AV campaign)
.
Airspace Regulation History
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/casrcreate/071.asp
.
The most recent interaction of NPRM (note the date, and reflect on those influencing policy at the time)
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/01_nprm.asp#nprm0108as
.
Summary of Respondents to that NPRM (Speakes volumes does this SoR)
http://rrp.casa.gov.au/sor/sor0108asD_responders-2.pdf
.
BTW … any further comment on the CEO thread??? … you know, like what sort of reform (AusNAS) type undertakings have been given to get the gurnsey!
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 24th Aug 2007 at 21:48.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stralya
Posts: 577
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with go low...
The concept of a Class D tower with overlaying ML CTA would appear a good concept given the proximity of heavy metal in the Melbourne Terminal Area and I think the "co-ord" is the important thing here...
May struggle with leave relief from ML TWR though, understand Air Services have plenty of problems with staffing.....
The concept of a Class D tower with overlaying ML CTA would appear a good concept given the proximity of heavy metal in the Melbourne Terminal Area and I think the "co-ord" is the important thing here...
May struggle with leave relief from ML TWR though, understand Air Services have plenty of problems with staffing.....
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like we've all been trumped.
According to news this morning, Mark Vaile has ordered an immediate inquiry - and you can bet "london to a brick on' that the tower will be staffed permanently within weeks.
Also likely that Broome will have ATC within 6 months.
A victory for common sense over statistics and endless studies.
Oh, and if Airservices can't staff the tower[s] - or try to use that as an excuse - then lets find someone who can provide ATC. It's done elsewhere - maybe one of the first tasks for the airspace authority should be to provide a regulatory framework that would allow economic and viable privately operated ATC services.
According to news this morning, Mark Vaile has ordered an immediate inquiry - and you can bet "london to a brick on' that the tower will be staffed permanently within weeks.
Also likely that Broome will have ATC within 6 months.
A victory for common sense over statistics and endless studies.
Oh, and if Airservices can't staff the tower[s] - or try to use that as an excuse - then lets find someone who can provide ATC. It's done elsewhere - maybe one of the first tasks for the airspace authority should be to provide a regulatory framework that would allow economic and viable privately operated ATC services.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With Avalon being claimed as tenth busiest airport in Australia now with over 1 million pax through per annum, an International Operator confirmed from early 2008 when International Terminal built - then Jetstar will no doubt move their Melbourne International operations to Avalon to lower costs. Surely it is only a question of when Avalon control tower will be manned full time for all passenger movements rather than if .
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... and still he skirts around the Part 71 issue
.
What are the trigger values for Part 71 D service Dick??
.
Comon Dick, tell us all why you won't support the gazetting of 71?
.
.. his response to Civilair:-
.
http://www.civilair.asn.au/_document...reply_ymav.pdf
.
Spin cycle - Select
.
What are the trigger values for Part 71 D service Dick??
.
Comon Dick, tell us all why you won't support the gazetting of 71?
.
.. his response to Civilair:-
.
http://www.civilair.asn.au/_document...reply_ymav.pdf
.
Spin cycle - Select
Last edited by Scurvy.D.Dog; 27th Aug 2007 at 09:21.
Dick
I was going to say that I don’t understand why you argue with the monkeys rather than the organ grinders. You know the organ grinders: they’re the one’s who’ve been in power for 10 years and could make NAS happen with the stroke of a government-controlled parliamentary pen.
But then I remembered that you’re so infected by the politics-dressed-up-as-safety virus that even you don’t comprehend when you’re being taken as a patsy by the government.
Here’s how I confirm the diagnosis: tell me what’s stopping the government passing a law today, establishing a tower at Avalon and appropriating enough money to keep it and a bunch of happy controllers running for a few years with a few million left over?
Is it lack of government power? – No.
Is it lack of money? – Hell no: they’re falling over themselves looking for excuses to spend it.
Is it fear of offending the unions? - Don’t make me laugh!
So what is it that’s stopping them Dick?
I was going to say that I don’t understand why you argue with the monkeys rather than the organ grinders. You know the organ grinders: they’re the one’s who’ve been in power for 10 years and could make NAS happen with the stroke of a government-controlled parliamentary pen.
But then I remembered that you’re so infected by the politics-dressed-up-as-safety virus that even you don’t comprehend when you’re being taken as a patsy by the government.
Here’s how I confirm the diagnosis: tell me what’s stopping the government passing a law today, establishing a tower at Avalon and appropriating enough money to keep it and a bunch of happy controllers running for a few years with a few million left over?
Is it lack of government power? – No.
Is it lack of money? – Hell no: they’re falling over themselves looking for excuses to spend it.
Is it fear of offending the unions? - Don’t make me laugh!
So what is it that’s stopping them Dick?
Thread Starter
I’ll tell you what is stopping them Creampuff – it is the point that just about everyone (other than Dick Smith) is saying that a tower, or even a radio operator, is not needed at Avalon.
When you get Qantas and Jetstar, plus Airservices Australia, the Civil Air union and the AFAP, either saying nothing or claiming that a tower is not necessary, it is pretty obvious that the Government finds itself in a difficult position.
Creampuff, why don’t you tell me why these otherwise normally responsible organisations are being quite irresponsible in this situation?
I look forward to your advice.
When you get Qantas and Jetstar, plus Airservices Australia, the Civil Air union and the AFAP, either saying nothing or claiming that a tower is not necessary, it is pretty obvious that the Government finds itself in a difficult position.
Creampuff, why don’t you tell me why these otherwise normally responsible organisations are being quite irresponsible in this situation?
I look forward to your advice.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When you get Qantas and Jetstar, plus Airservices Australia, the Civil Air union and the AFAP, either saying nothing or claiming that a tower is not necessary, it is pretty obvious that the Government finds itself in a difficult position.
.
Creampuff, why don’t you tell me why these otherwise normally responsible organisations are being quite irresponsible in this situation?
.
I look forward to your advice.
.
Creampuff, why don’t you tell me why these otherwise normally responsible organisations are being quite irresponsible in this situation?
.
I look forward to your advice.
.....
