CASA experiments with lives at Avalon
Been into Broome lately Dick?
Also Dick, what was the name of the bloke that was running CASA in the 90's was advocating closing the tower at Launceston, Albury, Port Headland, etc to save costs and make flying cheaper?
Also Dick, what was the name of the bloke that was running CASA in the 90's was advocating closing the tower at Launceston, Albury, Port Headland, etc to save costs and make flying cheaper?
CASA experiments with lives at Avalon
Last edited by sunnySA; 30th Jan 2009 at 05:54. Reason: remove bolding
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Queenland, Australia
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rudder, on some occasions an departing A320 will reach 2000' on upwind. An overfly requirement of 4000' will ensure traffic clearance for departing a/c up to the MSA.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aulglarse,
Absolutely
I fly them all the time and know how they perform. The fact is you can limit your downwind altitude until clear like any other aircraft. Or climb straight ahead and then back over the top at an altitude that will not conflict. These thing are done all the time to work out conflicts. Like I said, I conduct training down there in these aircraft all the time and have never seen or had a problem.
The reality is that the system works now and aircraft are seperating themselves safely and efficiently without any limits on corridors or altitides.
If corridors can be made work then I can see some sense in limiting the workload in restricting the "likely" known position of the aircraft.
This is just a beat up because it would seem Dick wasn't asked his opinion. While I think overall he is well meaning, sometimes I think the motivation for bringing forward issues needs reassessing. The changes at Avalon are minor and tinkering around the edges but Dick almost wants a Royal commission to justify them. This is all just emotion. The raisning of these nitpicking issues only has people saying hear we go again rather than Dick is saying something so it must be important.
This has nothing to do with CASA not doing thier job. They have no evidence to show that there needs to be a change to the status quo and that actually means they are doing their job.
Absolutely
I fly them all the time and know how they perform. The fact is you can limit your downwind altitude until clear like any other aircraft. Or climb straight ahead and then back over the top at an altitude that will not conflict. These thing are done all the time to work out conflicts. Like I said, I conduct training down there in these aircraft all the time and have never seen or had a problem.
The reality is that the system works now and aircraft are seperating themselves safely and efficiently without any limits on corridors or altitides.
If corridors can be made work then I can see some sense in limiting the workload in restricting the "likely" known position of the aircraft.
This is just a beat up because it would seem Dick wasn't asked his opinion. While I think overall he is well meaning, sometimes I think the motivation for bringing forward issues needs reassessing. The changes at Avalon are minor and tinkering around the edges but Dick almost wants a Royal commission to justify them. This is all just emotion. The raisning of these nitpicking issues only has people saying hear we go again rather than Dick is saying something so it must be important.
This has nothing to do with CASA not doing thier job. They have no evidence to show that there needs to be a change to the status quo and that actually means they are doing their job.
Last edited by Rudder; 30th Jan 2009 at 03:26.
... what say you Richard? Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... but before you answer that .... answer this http://www.raaa.com.au/Issues/Articl...20Apr%2007.pdf
… and your riding instructions as a board member of the CASA will be what Richard??? 
But amongst all of this recent activity, the February SCC Airspace Users Group meeting stands out as a source of hope for the future. In stark contrast to the unpleasantness which characterised the NAS process in the past, at this meeting the representatives of various industry organisations from both the commercial and recreational segments generally agreed on a way forward for the regulation of airspace once CASA takes responsibility.
.
In general terms, the meeting agreed that CASA should embrace the regulatory processes developed post-NAS by Airservices’s AERU (Airspace and Environment Regulatory Unit). AERU, very much to its credit, recognised that decisions on airspace changes should only be made on the basis of fact, determined in a transparent process, instead of blind assertion as in the case of the NAS changes. Consequently it developed and implemented a risk-based process to identify and prioritise potential problem areas, and then by way of aeronautical studies conducted in accordance with ANZS 4360:2004, aimed to identify the most appropriate solutions to each particular problem. This process was developed to consider three main aspects: the safety and efficiency of the public transport system, the cost to the industry, and equity of access by all users.
The success of the AERU process is perhaps best illustrated by its effectiveness in resolving some recently expressed concerns about Avalon. There had been calls for a control tower to be established at Avalon to separate RPT aircraft from transiting VFR traffic. However, the AERU process determined that the actual problem occurred some 10 miles from the airport, and that creating a control zone, which would have cost industry dearly and could have impacted to some extent on GA’s access, would not have resolved the key problem. AERU’s aeronautical study based process determined that the issue would best be solved by some relatively minor changes including the provision of aVFR route past Avalon.
Thus through a proper review of the facts and the development and consideration of a range of options, the AERU process resulted in a solution which demonstrated the required enhancement of safety and efficiency, but (apart from the cost of the study itself) at no cost to the industry and with no restriction on access by GA.
In addition, AERU’s transparent and consultative approach meant that the decision was accepted as a matter of routine. It would be hard to find a better model for future airspace decisions. That the representatives of the various recreational and commercial groups at the meeting endorsed the adoption of this process by CASA, is cause for some optimism after the black days of the NAS debacle.
The continuation of NAS is still government policy, but no-one either in government or industry wants to see a repeat of the NAS2b or NAS2c fiascos. Those episodes were the result of trying to impose what we believe were safety reducing measures on an industry which philosophically is not prepared to accept reductions in safety. At the outset, the RAAA (along with other bodies) argued that the more contentious proposed NAS changes should be subjected to aeronautical studies, but the NAS Implementation Group refused to even countenance such an approach, to its cost and to the cost of the government, the industry and the travelling public.
One is entitled to ask the question “Why would a body charged with upgrading the national airspace system, supposedly in the national interest, refuse to conduct such a study or series of studies to prove the safety of the changes being proposed?”
There is a lesson here for all charged with safeguarding the travelling public. Today’s Australian aviation industry is maturing rapidly and is strongly focused on safety. Apart from a professional and ethical interest in safety, safe operations are increasingly critical to economic survival. The industry is now too sophisticated to allow safety to be trifled with as perhaps it once was in order to achieve political or ndustrial aims. It demands at least as professional an approach to matters of safety as it does to other
critical aspects of business. And it supports CASA’s move towards risk management.
AERU has demonstrated a professional method of dealing with airspace issues, based on transparent aeronautical studies conducted in accordance with that standard, and that method has been endorsed by both ‘sides’ of the airspace debate. If government can adopt an equally professional method of reviewing and implementing the rest of its proposed National Airspace System, (and all the signs, beginning with Warren Truss’s airspace discussion paper are good), then we can avoid a repetition of that unsavoury
series of events which we would all prefer to put behind us.
If that saga was the catalyst which brought us all to this point, then perhaps it may have been worth it. We look forward to the Minister’s Airspace Statement with guarded optimism.
.
In general terms, the meeting agreed that CASA should embrace the regulatory processes developed post-NAS by Airservices’s AERU (Airspace and Environment Regulatory Unit). AERU, very much to its credit, recognised that decisions on airspace changes should only be made on the basis of fact, determined in a transparent process, instead of blind assertion as in the case of the NAS changes. Consequently it developed and implemented a risk-based process to identify and prioritise potential problem areas, and then by way of aeronautical studies conducted in accordance with ANZS 4360:2004, aimed to identify the most appropriate solutions to each particular problem. This process was developed to consider three main aspects: the safety and efficiency of the public transport system, the cost to the industry, and equity of access by all users.
The success of the AERU process is perhaps best illustrated by its effectiveness in resolving some recently expressed concerns about Avalon. There had been calls for a control tower to be established at Avalon to separate RPT aircraft from transiting VFR traffic. However, the AERU process determined that the actual problem occurred some 10 miles from the airport, and that creating a control zone, which would have cost industry dearly and could have impacted to some extent on GA’s access, would not have resolved the key problem. AERU’s aeronautical study based process determined that the issue would best be solved by some relatively minor changes including the provision of aVFR route past Avalon.
Thus through a proper review of the facts and the development and consideration of a range of options, the AERU process resulted in a solution which demonstrated the required enhancement of safety and efficiency, but (apart from the cost of the study itself) at no cost to the industry and with no restriction on access by GA.
In addition, AERU’s transparent and consultative approach meant that the decision was accepted as a matter of routine. It would be hard to find a better model for future airspace decisions. That the representatives of the various recreational and commercial groups at the meeting endorsed the adoption of this process by CASA, is cause for some optimism after the black days of the NAS debacle.
The continuation of NAS is still government policy, but no-one either in government or industry wants to see a repeat of the NAS2b or NAS2c fiascos. Those episodes were the result of trying to impose what we believe were safety reducing measures on an industry which philosophically is not prepared to accept reductions in safety. At the outset, the RAAA (along with other bodies) argued that the more contentious proposed NAS changes should be subjected to aeronautical studies, but the NAS Implementation Group refused to even countenance such an approach, to its cost and to the cost of the government, the industry and the travelling public.
One is entitled to ask the question “Why would a body charged with upgrading the national airspace system, supposedly in the national interest, refuse to conduct such a study or series of studies to prove the safety of the changes being proposed?”
There is a lesson here for all charged with safeguarding the travelling public. Today’s Australian aviation industry is maturing rapidly and is strongly focused on safety. Apart from a professional and ethical interest in safety, safe operations are increasingly critical to economic survival. The industry is now too sophisticated to allow safety to be trifled with as perhaps it once was in order to achieve political or ndustrial aims. It demands at least as professional an approach to matters of safety as it does to other
critical aspects of business. And it supports CASA’s move towards risk management.
AERU has demonstrated a professional method of dealing with airspace issues, based on transparent aeronautical studies conducted in accordance with that standard, and that method has been endorsed by both ‘sides’ of the airspace debate. If government can adopt an equally professional method of reviewing and implementing the rest of its proposed National Airspace System, (and all the signs, beginning with Warren Truss’s airspace discussion paper are good), then we can avoid a repetition of that unsavoury
series of events which we would all prefer to put behind us.
If that saga was the catalyst which brought us all to this point, then perhaps it may have been worth it. We look forward to the Minister’s Airspace Statement with guarded optimism.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is now obvious to everyone that the Office of Airspace Regulation – rather than being an independent unit without fear or favour – is now simply an extension of the profit making arms of the airlines and Airservices.
Now the airspace is regulated by a crowd that just doesn't participate in things, having much more fun blagging people in the courts and fighting to keep the regs incomprehensible and complicated. How could you have expected a reasonable outcome by demanding that it be organised that way. Is anybody else surprised they have done nothing for a year or so? I'm not.
I agree the current TRA is complete bollocks and a bit like Mohamed Ali's left leg.*
Plaz, Would you go for a D tower at Port with E replacing the existing G above or would you insist on Class C above the D and become a martyr as Scurvy would?
ie- nothing or everything as per the Aussie ATC tradition!
ie- nothing or everything as per the Aussie ATC tradition!
Don't you believe any buggar that tries to tell you it would be safer though.
What Avalon needs are is a transit lane to the north and a transit lane to the south, keeping the lighties clear of the approaches and circuit area.
*It's not fair, and it's not right...
Thread Starter
Capcom, that crawling, cowtowing article by now departed RAAA CEO Terry Wesley- Smith was clearly written with one aim in mind - and it worked.
That is keep the Bureaucrats on side so that the multimillion subsidy for en -route charges remained and so that they would also not bring in the world accepted requirement for 10 - 30 pax RAAA Airline aircraft to be fitted with TCAS . That also worked.
Also it was clear that Wesley-Smith's mind was set in concrete- as many ex-military minds are.
I spoke to Wesley- Smith a number of times. It was clear that he was totally ignorant as to how Airspace in other leading aviation countries worked. In fact it was clear he had no interest in this.
He was fundamentalist when it came to Airspace reform. He is sure to be one of the posters on this thread desperately attempting to stop any change.
The AERU which he heaps so much praise on did no airspace reform at all- and that's why he thought it was so fantastic!
Spodman, I wiil repeat for possibly the tenth time, Class C is only "safer" if it properly staffed and proper equipment is provided.
In the AsA case an existing Class D controller, mostly one person who could already be overloaded with aerodrome traffic is also given the responsibilty for vast amounts of en-route C Airspace to 8500'.
This clearly must reduce the overall safety of the combined Airspace.
It appears to be only a very small number of really dumb controllers who keep insisting to AsA management that Dick Smith is wrong and that here in Australia one Class D controller can also handle vast amounts of Class C.
Just why these Controllers do this is beyond comprehension when you consider that in no other country are non radar tower controllers given such workload and responsibility.
Also as stated before it makes it clear to AsA management that some controllers are not very bright and can be exploited.
Fortunately there are new controllers coming along with lateral thinking ability and comonsense.
That is keep the Bureaucrats on side so that the multimillion subsidy for en -route charges remained and so that they would also not bring in the world accepted requirement for 10 - 30 pax RAAA Airline aircraft to be fitted with TCAS . That also worked.
Also it was clear that Wesley-Smith's mind was set in concrete- as many ex-military minds are.
I spoke to Wesley- Smith a number of times. It was clear that he was totally ignorant as to how Airspace in other leading aviation countries worked. In fact it was clear he had no interest in this.
He was fundamentalist when it came to Airspace reform. He is sure to be one of the posters on this thread desperately attempting to stop any change.
The AERU which he heaps so much praise on did no airspace reform at all- and that's why he thought it was so fantastic!
Spodman, I wiil repeat for possibly the tenth time, Class C is only "safer" if it properly staffed and proper equipment is provided.
In the AsA case an existing Class D controller, mostly one person who could already be overloaded with aerodrome traffic is also given the responsibilty for vast amounts of en-route C Airspace to 8500'.
This clearly must reduce the overall safety of the combined Airspace.
It appears to be only a very small number of really dumb controllers who keep insisting to AsA management that Dick Smith is wrong and that here in Australia one Class D controller can also handle vast amounts of Class C.
Just why these Controllers do this is beyond comprehension when you consider that in no other country are non radar tower controllers given such workload and responsibility.
Also as stated before it makes it clear to AsA management that some controllers are not very bright and can be exploited.
Fortunately there are new controllers coming along with lateral thinking ability and comonsense.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 31st Jan 2009 at 03:12.
Why is Avalon any different to Broome or Yulara? What about some of the regional airports that have no tower or radar, or the tower is closed due to staffing?
Thread Starter
Stationair, Avalon and the other airports you mention should be subject to the proven FAA Class D establishment and dis-establishment formula. This takes into account traffic, pax and other issues to come up with an objective, scientific result.
CASA no longer uses this formula as it can't easily be manipulated to appease stakeholders.
Their Avalon study utilises subjective "guesses" to come up with the result they want- ie one that doesn't offend the powerful.
CASA no longer uses this formula as it can't easily be manipulated to appease stakeholders.
Their Avalon study utilises subjective "guesses" to come up with the result they want- ie one that doesn't offend the powerful.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 31st Jan 2009 at 20:05.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
you do not help your reputation or argument by insulting Terry Wesley-Smith or his approach to airspace reform. Certainly I found him to be a genleman and willing to spend time examining an issue and seeking advise from his members and experts.
The RAAA is now one of the influential voices with regards air space reform and this was achieved by Terry. At meetings trying to get some studied approach to the NAS and NASIG, I have seen him stand up to Ministers and CASA. He is no crawler nor does he Kow-tow to Senior Execs or Ministers.
Dick, you raise a number of legitimate concerns that need to be answered.
What was the industy consultancy?
Has TCAS become a safety mitigator?
Where is the DAS for Avalon?
Is the DAS too subjective?
ATC COSTS. Allowing for support staff to cover leave etc, plus the inevitable taxes and charges, accomodation subsidies,including amortisation of capital investment. The cost to supply a 10 hour 7 days per week CAGRS service is around $750,000 pa. Therefore I would expect a D class tower to be less than 1 million.
For one I would like to see these questions answered by a post that directs us to the information raised by these questions.
Dick, for once we are not in direct conflict and I hope this post finds you and yours well. (that is not crawling and no one should believe I would Kow-tow to you!)
Cheers Mike
you do not help your reputation or argument by insulting Terry Wesley-Smith or his approach to airspace reform. Certainly I found him to be a genleman and willing to spend time examining an issue and seeking advise from his members and experts.
The RAAA is now one of the influential voices with regards air space reform and this was achieved by Terry. At meetings trying to get some studied approach to the NAS and NASIG, I have seen him stand up to Ministers and CASA. He is no crawler nor does he Kow-tow to Senior Execs or Ministers.
Dick, you raise a number of legitimate concerns that need to be answered.
What was the industy consultancy?
Has TCAS become a safety mitigator?
Where is the DAS for Avalon?
Is the DAS too subjective?
ATC COSTS. Allowing for support staff to cover leave etc, plus the inevitable taxes and charges, accomodation subsidies,including amortisation of capital investment. The cost to supply a 10 hour 7 days per week CAGRS service is around $750,000 pa. Therefore I would expect a D class tower to be less than 1 million.
For one I would like to see these questions answered by a post that directs us to the information raised by these questions.
Dick, for once we are not in direct conflict and I hope this post finds you and yours well. (that is not crawling and no one should believe I would Kow-tow to you!)
Cheers Mike
Thread Starter
Mike, In that case it would be less than $1 dollar per pax to provide class D at Avalon- ie easily affordable and well worth the cost I would reckon.
And if a CAGRS costs $750 k I would prefer to have proper class D with currently rated ATC's.
And don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from CASA- they have gone down a path of dishonest un- accountability of late.
And if a CAGRS costs $750 k I would prefer to have proper class D with currently rated ATC's.
And don't hold your breath waiting for an answer from CASA- they have gone down a path of dishonest un- accountability of late.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike, In that case it would be less than $1 dollar per pax to provide class D at Avalon- ie easily affordable and well worth the cost I would reckon.
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: A sand castle
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, you state:
Really??
I seem to recall another thread somewhere on these boards where ATC are suggesting quite the opposite.
Oh well, I must be mistaken. Obviously the vast majority of Australian ATC's are change resistant neandertals who dont have the slightest idea of the real issues.
Fortunately there are new controllers coming along
I seem to recall another thread somewhere on these boards where ATC are suggesting quite the opposite.
Oh well, I must be mistaken. Obviously the vast majority of Australian ATC's are change resistant neandertals who dont have the slightest idea of the real issues.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: vic
Age: 23
Posts: 297
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the case of CAGRO, as there are at Broome and Avalon, who employs them (ie airport owners and or operators) and are the employers absorbing the cost or are the costs passed on to the consumer plus a tidy profit margin? Because if that is the case then there must be a conflict of interest there at Avalon because the airport have stated that they do not want ATC?
I'm not saying that this is the case but maybe somebody, ie Dick, may have knowledge of how the CAGRO system works. To me it looks like private ATC but without the benefits of controlled airspace.
I'm not saying that this is the case but maybe somebody, ie Dick, may have knowledge of how the CAGRO system works. To me it looks like private ATC but without the benefits of controlled airspace.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well not really 
.
..... the ATC profession in OZ (Civilair postion on AusNAS 2b), AsA, CASA, ATSB, RAAA, RAA, ... anyone I missed in that group of 'just some'!
.
... all discharging their professional responsibilites against a backdrop of poorly implimented 'less safe' change for changes sake!
.
..... the ATC profession in OZ (Civilair postion on AusNAS 2b), AsA, CASA, ATSB, RAAA, RAA, ... anyone I missed in that group of 'just some'!
.
... all discharging their professional responsibilites against a backdrop of poorly implimented 'less safe' change for changes sake!