Airservices’ impressive US Class D towers
If someone is to pay then it should be the people that benefit from the changes/ increased safety i.e. the fair paying passengers!!!
I'll say it another way. If there were no jets, there would be no need for a tower. If there were no lighties, there would be no need for a tower. Put both in there and there is a need for a tower. So therefore all should pay. Don't gouge the fare paying pax! Of course, life would be simpler if we just had a ticket and avgas tax like the hallowed US of A. But no, we had to have LSC.
It's the airlines that want it.
I Like that wheelchair ramp, XXX!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
So Capn Bloggs, are are saying you would be happy to fly into YMML at peak hour with no tower service in IMC in your heavy with wx just above ILS minimums providing there are no lighties allowed? I certainly wouldn't be.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WTF?
If the Airservices Act says that Airservices can take on “other commercial revenue” only utilising surplus capacity and given that Airservices runs these towers and bids on sandpit work and India infrastructure and various other overseas projects…
How can these “Impressive Class D Towers” and the Unicom trial etc. be justified if not a day goes by where considerable services inside Australia are not available due staff shortage (Flightwatch VHF, ATC TIBA procedures in upper and lower airspaces)????
How can these “Impressive Class D Towers” and the Unicom trial etc. be justified if not a day goes by where considerable services inside Australia are not available due staff shortage (Flightwatch VHF, ATC TIBA procedures in upper and lower airspaces)????
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why gouge anyone? Airservices Australia returned somewhere near $100M (dividends and tax last year) to fed g'mnt (general revenue); make them pay for it; but getting staff is still a different story.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
If, as you say, Lindsay Fox is so 'paranoid' about safety, why doesn't he fund the tower himself? Don't I remember the Howard government pushing through legislation to allow competition for tower operation? I seem to remember you putting a post on DickSmithFlyer encouraging controllers to form their own companies and take-on Airservices.
Surely, YMAV would be the perfect place for a privately-run D Class tower (with E over the top!). It is true that AOPA objects to a tower at AV because it would inevitably mean C class overhead, but they are unlikely to object to E over a D tower because it would make a good test case that could later be leveraged over other D towers. But I don't speak for AOPA.
Walrus
If, as you say, Lindsay Fox is so 'paranoid' about safety, why doesn't he fund the tower himself? Don't I remember the Howard government pushing through legislation to allow competition for tower operation? I seem to remember you putting a post on DickSmithFlyer encouraging controllers to form their own companies and take-on Airservices.
Surely, YMAV would be the perfect place for a privately-run D Class tower (with E over the top!). It is true that AOPA objects to a tower at AV because it would inevitably mean C class overhead, but they are unlikely to object to E over a D tower because it would make a good test case that could later be leveraged over other D towers. But I don't speak for AOPA.
Walrus
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think Mr. Smith has a valid point in at least iniating some sort of trial for E, maybe at Avalon. If it doesn't comprimise safety and there are the correct numbers of ATCs to staff it without taking from other areas then why not. At least we would get to see it and people could give informed opinions on suitability and function. We can then argue the pro's and cons with knowledge. How hard would it be to implement a trial and is the education factor going to cause a real problem? If not let's give it a go.
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs, you state:
I thought I should remind you of the facts. NAS 2b changed the airspace so that all Class C was adequately manned by air traffic controllers, with a full approach radar facility. This is as per every other modern aviation country in the world.
The introduction of NAS 2b was done totally by Airservices. They were the only people who had the legislative power to do so. They were the only people who had the cartographic skills to re-draw the maps. They were the only people who had the funding to publish the maps and send them out.
A number of months after they introduced the NAS 2b changes, it was pointed out that the change process they used was flawed – namely that they did not do their own safety study. Because of this they were advised to reverse the change. Otherwise the Board members could be held liable for an accident – i.e. total self-interest.
Capn Bloggs, you may ask if the way they did the safety study was flawed, whose responsibility do you think that may be? Would it not be Airservices?
The wind back resulted in air traffic controllers having to provide a Class C service, but without the additional staffing and without proper radar facilities. Minister John Anderson directed that this be corrected – i.e. that where Class C airspace exists over D that Airservices provide full approach radar and the adequate number of radar qualified controllers to man the system.
What did the Airservices management do? So far they have ignored the direction.
Of course, a number of airline pilots insisted that the air traffic controllers take on the additional responsibility without the proper staffing levels and the tools (radar) for the job. Why wouldn’t they? If they can hand the responsibility for separation to someone else, that is a good deal – especially if their airline does not have to pay any extra.
There is no doubt that the people who are exploited in this particular situation are the air traffic controllers responsible for the extra Class C airspace.
Capn Bloggs, do you realise that there are times when one controller in the Albury tower is not only responsible for all of the Class D airspace to 4,500 feet, but also responsible for full separation of IFR and VFR for airspace that is 90 miles across up to 8,500 feet?
We all know that if a collision occurs in any of this airspace, the air traffic controller will be held liable. In other words, the controller has been forced to do a job which controllers in other countries say is impossible without the proper radar and manning levels. However in Australia, because controllers accepted this with good grace in the past, they must accept it forevermore as traffic levels increase.
Capn Bloggs, do you agree that your airline bosses have run a very successful campaign to ensure that the proper approach radar and extra staffing is not provided by Airservices as per the Minister’s directive? This is purely for self-interest from your bosses. They don’t want to pay the cost of the proper service. They know that when the inevitable midair occurs, they won’t be held responsible – it will be the air traffic controller.
So far, despite intense lobbying by Qantas and others, Minister Anderson, Minister Truss, Minister Vaile, and hopefully Minister Albanese will not remove the directive for approach radar to be provided for Class C airspace. This directive will eventually be complied with and air traffic controllers will be properly protected and cease to be exploited in this particular way.
And as I recall, the major change management stuffup was the intro of NAS 2b by the Dick Smith protagonists, not the rollback.
The introduction of NAS 2b was done totally by Airservices. They were the only people who had the legislative power to do so. They were the only people who had the cartographic skills to re-draw the maps. They were the only people who had the funding to publish the maps and send them out.
A number of months after they introduced the NAS 2b changes, it was pointed out that the change process they used was flawed – namely that they did not do their own safety study. Because of this they were advised to reverse the change. Otherwise the Board members could be held liable for an accident – i.e. total self-interest.
Capn Bloggs, you may ask if the way they did the safety study was flawed, whose responsibility do you think that may be? Would it not be Airservices?
The wind back resulted in air traffic controllers having to provide a Class C service, but without the additional staffing and without proper radar facilities. Minister John Anderson directed that this be corrected – i.e. that where Class C airspace exists over D that Airservices provide full approach radar and the adequate number of radar qualified controllers to man the system.
What did the Airservices management do? So far they have ignored the direction.
Of course, a number of airline pilots insisted that the air traffic controllers take on the additional responsibility without the proper staffing levels and the tools (radar) for the job. Why wouldn’t they? If they can hand the responsibility for separation to someone else, that is a good deal – especially if their airline does not have to pay any extra.
There is no doubt that the people who are exploited in this particular situation are the air traffic controllers responsible for the extra Class C airspace.
Capn Bloggs, do you realise that there are times when one controller in the Albury tower is not only responsible for all of the Class D airspace to 4,500 feet, but also responsible for full separation of IFR and VFR for airspace that is 90 miles across up to 8,500 feet?
We all know that if a collision occurs in any of this airspace, the air traffic controller will be held liable. In other words, the controller has been forced to do a job which controllers in other countries say is impossible without the proper radar and manning levels. However in Australia, because controllers accepted this with good grace in the past, they must accept it forevermore as traffic levels increase.
Capn Bloggs, do you agree that your airline bosses have run a very successful campaign to ensure that the proper approach radar and extra staffing is not provided by Airservices as per the Minister’s directive? This is purely for self-interest from your bosses. They don’t want to pay the cost of the proper service. They know that when the inevitable midair occurs, they won’t be held responsible – it will be the air traffic controller.
So far, despite intense lobbying by Qantas and others, Minister Anderson, Minister Truss, Minister Vaile, and hopefully Minister Albanese will not remove the directive for approach radar to be provided for Class C airspace. This directive will eventually be complied with and air traffic controllers will be properly protected and cease to be exploited in this particular way.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 12th Dec 2007 at 22:33. Reason: To clarify the Board members' liability
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and there are the correct numbers of ATCs to staff it
That is the crux of the problem. Any trial will require extra ATC resources; where are we getting them from? Does having E solve any problems? My information is that IFR to IFR is not the issue, (As they are regularly captured by the IFR service (DTI) from ML RAS) it's the unknown VFRs that pose the biggest risk to an IFR; how does E make them more visible? Excluding the TCAS visibility assuming Tpndr is needed in class E; well except for when it isn't.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate,
During the introduction of NAS 2b, AOPA conceded that transponders would be mandatory in E class airspace. Support for that was traded for E over D. VFR traffic was royally shafted when the Airservices reneged on E over D but maintained the requirements for transponders in E.
Since that day, Airservices Australia has never been trusted.
Walrus
During the introduction of NAS 2b, AOPA conceded that transponders would be mandatory in E class airspace. Support for that was traded for E over D. VFR traffic was royally shafted when the Airservices reneged on E over D but maintained the requirements for transponders in E.
Since that day, Airservices Australia has never been trusted.
Walrus
Thread Starter
Walrus 7, you are exactly right in relation to the unique Australian additional transponder requirement. The Airservices people are totally unethical – but karma will get them.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: act
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember reading the Aiservices safety case justifying the rollback. I recall the monthly total of VFR aircraft overflying Albury (above the D) was 5 or 6 per month. Would that few aircrat really jusitfy increasing the airspace from E to C?
I also remember some "interesting" pilot and controller error rates used in the calculations to increase the chance of an IFR/VFR incident. I also spoke to 1 or 2 people from GA who were consulted and they were not impressed with these figures
Anyone else aware of/involved with this safety case?
I also remember some "interesting" pilot and controller error rates used in the calculations to increase the chance of an IFR/VFR incident. I also spoke to 1 or 2 people from GA who were consulted and they were not impressed with these figures
Anyone else aware of/involved with this safety case?
Thread Starter
Walrus 7, regarding the local airport operating the tower, I think I have changed my mind on that. Originally I thought that the limited competition would allow for some reduction in the cost. However after having seen what has happened at Bankstown Airport with the sell-off, I no longer believe this.
I see a situation where if the local airport owner runs the tower it would become like a mini Sydney Airport, ripping off huge profits from aviation and further destroying it.
I happen to like the present Government’s policy – that is, there should be more efficiency gains within Airservices and therefore an implied reduction in unnecessary overheads to reduce the cost of these towers.
Whether Lindsay Fox runs the tower at Avalon or whether it is run by Airservices, the people who pay will be the people who benefit from the extra safety at the airport. As I have said before, with over one million passengers per year it will be something like 50 cents per ticket – not really very much for the obvious safety benefit.
I see a situation where if the local airport owner runs the tower it would become like a mini Sydney Airport, ripping off huge profits from aviation and further destroying it.
I happen to like the present Government’s policy – that is, there should be more efficiency gains within Airservices and therefore an implied reduction in unnecessary overheads to reduce the cost of these towers.
Whether Lindsay Fox runs the tower at Avalon or whether it is run by Airservices, the people who pay will be the people who benefit from the extra safety at the airport. As I have said before, with over one million passengers per year it will be something like 50 cents per ticket – not really very much for the obvious safety benefit.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
The difference with BK is that BAL limited really don't want to operate an airport. They're clearly in it for whatever other development they can get out of it. Linfox do want to operate AV and EN as airports and therefore are unlikely to start charging their customers mega-bucks for tower charges. Having said that, they have increased the movement charges at EN to unreasonable levels from Jan 1 08 to discourage GA. But big operators have alternatives to both AV and EN (ML and MB) so there is some competition there. There is no alternative airport to BK ... expect the BAL-owned Camden. Hence, competition in the SY basin is stifled. I'm not sure the same is true of the ML basin.
Walrus
The difference with BK is that BAL limited really don't want to operate an airport. They're clearly in it for whatever other development they can get out of it. Linfox do want to operate AV and EN as airports and therefore are unlikely to start charging their customers mega-bucks for tower charges. Having said that, they have increased the movement charges at EN to unreasonable levels from Jan 1 08 to discourage GA. But big operators have alternatives to both AV and EN (ML and MB) so there is some competition there. There is no alternative airport to BK ... expect the BAL-owned Camden. Hence, competition in the SY basin is stifled. I'm not sure the same is true of the ML basin.
Walrus
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: sydney,NSW
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You said
It is clear from the paragraph below taken from LABOR’S STATEMENT ON AVIATION 2007, Martin Ferguson AM MP, Shadow Minister for Transport, CAMPAIGN 2007, that it is current Labor policy to remove the radar directive issued by the Howard Government to Airservices.
You said
So far, despite intense lobbying by Qantas and others, Minister Anderson, Minister Truss, Minister Vaile, and hopefully Minister Albanese will not remove the directive for approach radar to be provided for Class C airspace
Labor will withdraw the Howard Government’s unnecessary radar direction. That direction issued to Airservices would impose unjustifiable costs on industry and had no safety or business case rationale
Thread Starter
vans,
Yes, I had seen that part of Labor’s policy. We have to ask where could have that policy come from? It certainly wouldn’t have come from the air traffic controllers – surely, they wouldn’t want to have Class C airspace without proper manning and without the proper equipment.
It would have, at a guess, come from the airline industry. They have probably used their weight to try to get the directive removed. The airlines lobbied the other three Ministers and got nowhere, it will be interesting to see if they can clearly put profits in front of safety and win with the present Government – I some what doubt it.
Yes, I had seen that part of Labor’s policy. We have to ask where could have that policy come from? It certainly wouldn’t have come from the air traffic controllers – surely, they wouldn’t want to have Class C airspace without proper manning and without the proper equipment.
It would have, at a guess, come from the airline industry. They have probably used their weight to try to get the directive removed. The airlines lobbied the other three Ministers and got nowhere, it will be interesting to see if they can clearly put profits in front of safety and win with the present Government – I some what doubt it.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ar$eclown,
Nup, not a level of resistance, quite happy to do the class e bizzo, WITH THE PROPER RESOURCING!
It's 'experts' like you who think they know it all that put a bad taint on this stuff. Do you sit at a radar screen and see the VFR transponder errors and cringe when you can't contact them. The sphincter pucker is not pleasant. The level of 'education' to the GA industry prior to the e airspace trials was a disgrace.
I am not willing to sit on an airliner when I know that the primary means of avoidance is an RA from a TCAS unit. You must be happy with that?
I have said it before that there is a strong resistance to change here in Australia and garbage like this to cast doubt is a commonplace symptom of the level of resistance.
It's 'experts' like you who think they know it all that put a bad taint on this stuff. Do you sit at a radar screen and see the VFR transponder errors and cringe when you can't contact them. The sphincter pucker is not pleasant. The level of 'education' to the GA industry prior to the e airspace trials was a disgrace.
I am not willing to sit on an airliner when I know that the primary means of avoidance is an RA from a TCAS unit. You must be happy with that?
The introduction of NAS 2b was done totally by Airservices.
To quote from some RAPAC minutes:
Don Mitchell proposed the following motion:
‘The QLD RAPAC Convenor write to Mr. Mike Smith NAS Implementation Group and express concern that previous correspondence has been ignored on the issue of reduced safety by the introduction of NAS. We draw your attention to the following points and require that they be addressed in writing prior to the published implementation date of 27 Nov 03:
1. We perceive a safety issue caused by the deletion of frequency boundary demarcation.
2. Inadequate and insufficient training material of specific reference for instructors and trainers.
3. Timing of distribution of Instructor Pack and difficulty in interpretation of documentation distributed.’
‘The QLD RAPAC Convenor write to Mr. Mike Smith NAS Implementation Group and express concern that previous correspondence has been ignored on the issue of reduced safety by the introduction of NAS. We draw your attention to the following points and require that they be addressed in writing prior to the published implementation date of 27 Nov 03:
1. We perceive a safety issue caused by the deletion of frequency boundary demarcation.
2. Inadequate and insufficient training material of specific reference for instructors and trainers.
3. Timing of distribution of Instructor Pack and difficulty in interpretation of documentation distributed.’
MINUTES WESTERN AUSTRALIAN RAPAC MEETING 2003/02 26TH NOVEMBER 2003
5.4. NAS
A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.
• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.
• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.
• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.
• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.
• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.
• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.
• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.
• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.
• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.
• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.
5.4. NAS
A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.
• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.
• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.
• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.
• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.
• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.
• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.
• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.
• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.
• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.
• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.
Also the requirement for transponders, radios or NAV fit is not dictated by Airservices and never has been – that is and always has been a CASA responsibility.
Some still seem to have NFI as to what Airservices are responsible for (ATC, Flightwatch, NAVAIDs, AIS and AIP publication) vs. CASA (safety regulator, rulemaker, licensing, airworthiness, airport surveying and airspace regulation.
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
Feckwit
.. a person would have to be deaf, dumb, blind, inept and just plain feckin stupid to believe more efficency can be gained ..... there is nothing more that can be ripped out of towers
.... that sort of fool statement is utter bollocks ! 
.
... and CM is dead right ..... would you like more history post to show the hypocracy
there should be more efficiency gains within Airservices and therefore an implied reduction in unnecessary overheads to reduce the cost of these towers.
.
... and CM is dead right ..... would you like more history post to show the hypocracy