CASA experiments with lives at Avalon
Thread Starter
CASA experiments with lives at Avalon
Just over two weeks ago a NOTAM was issued informing pilots that the Avalon terminal airspace is now a TRA – a Temporary Restricted Area. The main change is that in the Class G airspace at Avalon, a transponder is now required for all aircraft. This is similar to the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation decision in relation to Williamtown.
What a great way of experimenting with human lives.
The manager of the Office of Airspace Regulation hails from the British CAA. Nowhere in the UK, or anywhere else in the world that I know, has a mandatory transponder requirement been used to protect airline passengers in uncontrolled airspace in busy terminal areas.
Has a proper safety case ever been performed? How would anyone know if a transponder was actually working?
It is total hypocrisy. The same people who are now with the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation were previously working at Airservices Australia, where they made the decision that a transponder was not allowed to be used as a safety mitigator for Class E airspace. Now they have moved on to CASA and are kowtowing to the airlines in every way they can, suddenly a transponder becomes a great safety mitigator – so great that not even Class C airspace is required.
There has been no industry consultation in relation to this decision. Don’t believe for a second that proper Class D controlled airspace could not be provided there in the time. I have heard a rumour that there is asbestos in the tower – big deal! If Airservices can provide a portable tower in Birdsville for the races, or even a portable tower for the Grand Prix in Melbourne, they could clearly provide a portable tower at Avalon.
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.
There will definitely be an accident soon. We must make sure that we hold these people responsible. They are operating under a cloud of secrecy and they try to not be accountable. They obviously have some support from above in CASA, but I would imagine that most of the decent CASA people are as horrified as I am.
What a great way of experimenting with human lives.
The manager of the Office of Airspace Regulation hails from the British CAA. Nowhere in the UK, or anywhere else in the world that I know, has a mandatory transponder requirement been used to protect airline passengers in uncontrolled airspace in busy terminal areas.
Has a proper safety case ever been performed? How would anyone know if a transponder was actually working?
It is total hypocrisy. The same people who are now with the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation were previously working at Airservices Australia, where they made the decision that a transponder was not allowed to be used as a safety mitigator for Class E airspace. Now they have moved on to CASA and are kowtowing to the airlines in every way they can, suddenly a transponder becomes a great safety mitigator – so great that not even Class C airspace is required.
There has been no industry consultation in relation to this decision. Don’t believe for a second that proper Class D controlled airspace could not be provided there in the time. I have heard a rumour that there is asbestos in the tower – big deal! If Airservices can provide a portable tower in Birdsville for the races, or even a portable tower for the Grand Prix in Melbourne, they could clearly provide a portable tower at Avalon.
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.
There will definitely be an accident soon. We must make sure that we hold these people responsible. They are operating under a cloud of secrecy and they try to not be accountable. They obviously have some support from above in CASA, but I would imagine that most of the decent CASA people are as horrified as I am.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: InDahAir
Posts: 314
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
They require transponder usage in the United States, even below 10,000, within thirty (30NM) miles of Class B terminal airports. Further restrictions include not allowing "Special" VFR or student pilots.
The Yanks now require transponder recertification every 24 months. They call it a "Static/transponder check".
Regards,
Kangaroo Court
They require transponder usage in the United States, even below 10,000, within thirty (30NM) miles of Class B terminal airports. Further restrictions include not allowing "Special" VFR or student pilots.
The Yanks now require transponder recertification every 24 months. They call it a "Static/transponder check".
Regards,
Kangaroo Court
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
.
Whilst not disagreeing with the thrust of your argument re: AV, there are a couple of relevant points:-
.
1. CASA (as I understand it) determined that a Class C tower service is required
2. AsA (apparently) could not come up with the service as determined in the time frame envisaged (how, why and for how long .. you would have to ask them ... I haven't a clue)
3. Mandatory TXPDR requirements as a supposed mitigator has been attempted, and used ... that being here in OZ and part of the now historical and nostalgic
AusNAS i.e. Class E ... and before you say CTA E is not OCTA G ... IFR/VFR conflict pairs are for all intents and purposes uncontrolled and possibly/probably unaltered i.e. same as they would be in G …. If I may, in raising this, is to highlight that your other valid arguments are able to be diluted with inconsistencies that distract from the real issue/s
.
Now, far be it for me to defend the OAR but ... if they say a C tower (as opposed to a C centre service) is the go (not that I personally support either of those classifications in this case), and the ANSP have not/cannot pony up ….. weeeeell
.
.... perhaps the OAR had no other option than to do the next best thing i.e. CA/GRS and TXPDR mandate (not that I personally support that classification in this case) whilst waiting for the ANSP? .... dunno?
.
Like so many things in life, if proper consultation occurs, and the industry understand the why and wherefore’s, then perhaps these issues would not bob-up as they do
.
So, where should the bone be pointed?
.
Whilst not disagreeing with the thrust of your argument re: AV, there are a couple of relevant points:-
.
1. CASA (as I understand it) determined that a Class C tower service is required
2. AsA (apparently) could not come up with the service as determined in the time frame envisaged (how, why and for how long .. you would have to ask them ... I haven't a clue)
3. Mandatory TXPDR requirements as a supposed mitigator has been attempted, and used ... that being here in OZ and part of the now historical and nostalgic
AusNAS i.e. Class E ... and before you say CTA E is not OCTA G ... IFR/VFR conflict pairs are for all intents and purposes uncontrolled and possibly/probably unaltered i.e. same as they would be in G …. If I may, in raising this, is to highlight that your other valid arguments are able to be diluted with inconsistencies that distract from the real issue/s.
Now, far be it for me to defend the OAR but ... if they say a C tower (as opposed to a C centre service) is the go (not that I personally support either of those classifications in this case), and the ANSP have not/cannot pony up ….. weeeeell
.
.... perhaps the OAR had no other option than to do the next best thing i.e. CA/GRS and TXPDR mandate (not that I personally support that classification in this case) whilst waiting for the ANSP? .... dunno?
.
Like so many things in life, if proper consultation occurs, and the industry understand the why and wherefore’s, then perhaps these issues would not bob-up as they do
.
So, where should the bone be pointed?
Thread Starter
Here is a bit more information. At a recent meeting in relation to Avalon, where Graeme Rogers of the Office of Airspace Regulation was present, it was claimed by the people at Avalon Airport that the provision of a control tower would cost approximately $2 million per year. If this charge was added onto Jetstar they would stop using Avalon!
This to me seems a classic example of manipulating figures to keep the status quo.
How could a Class D tower of the type Airservices operates at Lihue in Hawaii cost $2 million per annum? A more typical figure would be about $500,000 per annum – i.e. one quarter of their cost. $500,000 per annum would cost less than $1 per passenger, and I’m sure passengers would be happy to pay this to get acceptable safety levels.
It looks as if CASA is still misleading people by saying that the risk is not close to the aerodrome. In fact, I believe the risk at Avalon is in the circuit area and on the runway. That is why we have an aerodrome control service at airline airports.
I remember back in the old Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days – over 20 years ago – the regulator was full of this type of dishonesty. It is so sad that it seems to have crept back in again.
This to me seems a classic example of manipulating figures to keep the status quo.
How could a Class D tower of the type Airservices operates at Lihue in Hawaii cost $2 million per annum? A more typical figure would be about $500,000 per annum – i.e. one quarter of their cost. $500,000 per annum would cost less than $1 per passenger, and I’m sure passengers would be happy to pay this to get acceptable safety levels.
It looks as if CASA is still misleading people by saying that the risk is not close to the aerodrome. In fact, I believe the risk at Avalon is in the circuit area and on the runway. That is why we have an aerodrome control service at airline airports.
I remember back in the old Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days – over 20 years ago – the regulator was full of this type of dishonesty. It is so sad that it seems to have crept back in again.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Depending on the hours of coverage, you'd need approx 5 ATCs.
Top pay scale is ~$130k x 5 = $650k per annum, add on super and you're up for $708k.
Then you have to pay for the communications setup. Radios, ground links to ML Center/APP, maintenance of same (salary for the maintenance techs).
$2m sounds much closer to the mark than $500k
Top pay scale is ~$130k x 5 = $650k per annum, add on super and you're up for $708k.
Then you have to pay for the communications setup. Radios, ground links to ML Center/APP, maintenance of same (salary for the maintenance techs).
$2m sounds much closer to the mark than $500k
Thread Starter
At those costs I can see why we have about 50% of the towers of the USA when you compare traffic levels.
Maybe we need a little competition.
AsA run Class D towers in the USA subsidised by our industry here.
We need US companies to run towers at a loss here subsidised by the US!
Even if the tower cost $1 million PA thats only a little over $1 per PAX.
How much does it cost to run Albury tower with about 250k pax and no jets?
Maybe we need a little competition.
AsA run Class D towers in the USA subsidised by our industry here.
We need US companies to run towers at a loss here subsidised by the US!
Even if the tower cost $1 million PA thats only a little over $1 per PAX.
How much does it cost to run Albury tower with about 250k pax and no jets?
Dick, I am an ATC and there is no doubt there should be at least a D Tower at Avalon. Same with Broome, Port Macquarie, Ballina and Kunnanurra.
I bagsed port Mac by the way.
I bagsed port Mac by the way.
Thread Starter
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!
Gee Dick,
RE;
"I remember back in the old Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days – over 20 years ago – the regulator was full of this type of dishonesty. It is so sad that it seems to have crept back in again."
I can remember too....when the industry was told that that ole' F.S. thingy cost $80Million per year to operate - and 'we' had to get rid of it because it cost too much - 'Affordable.....What was that other word???'
Well NOBODY believed that figure either - so what has really changed??
AAh - HISTORY!! (seeing as you brought it up.)
RE;
"I remember back in the old Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom days – over 20 years ago – the regulator was full of this type of dishonesty. It is so sad that it seems to have crept back in again."
I can remember too....when the industry was told that that ole' F.S. thingy cost $80Million per year to operate - and 'we' had to get rid of it because it cost too much - 'Affordable.....What was that other word???'
Well NOBODY believed that figure either - so what has really changed??
AAh - HISTORY!! (seeing as you brought it up.)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How could a Class D tower of the type Airservices operates at Lihue in Hawaii cost $2 million per annum?
As for Jetstar pulling out of Avalon if a control tower went in there, well let them pull out.
The safety case or stats that determine a service should not be undermined by commercial imperative, cognisant of it but not undermined. Where would Jetstar go if they pulled out of AV, ML? not likely a cost reduction; or simply close down all ops on 100 odd flights a week (maybe more), huh?
I'm based in Europe now, even Ryanair the low cost "leader" doesn't fly to places without ATC unless absolutely avoidable; in some locations new ATC services have opened after they have signalled their intention to use the aerodrome.
But what is the regulator to do if the company it regulates won't provide the services that regulator requires? "GROW SOME BALLS CASA"...
Competition is not the answer unless the agenda is to crush the ATC wages claim, I'm not sure that is what you are pushing for?
What we need is recognition that ASA is a shambles, that the chronic staffing shortages are real and then we could perhaps concentrate on how to 1)fix the current 'real' problem and 2) get back to making improvements not simply cost cutting.
Dick I admire your passion for this I truly do, but unfortunately the situation in Oz is so bad that you need to make baby step changes, again, as big steps will simply dig the hole deeper at this point in time.
Plazbot, need a hand in PMQ? I'm there in 6 or so... Should be perfect timing...
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: P@$#ing distance from 2 borders
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plazbot,
I will take Ballina . 8 years in Europe , I'll come back for Ballina no problems. I might even be able to dust off the old Flight Service Licence
I will take Ballina . 8 years in Europe , I'll come back for Ballina no problems. I might even be able to dust off the old Flight Service Licence
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I'll step out of line.
Given that there have been Jetstar operations into Avalon for some years, can somebody show the stats to support the alarmist position taken here. I've operated large jets in there on training for quite some time and never had a problem or what could be seen as a safety issue.
Just because it doesn't happen overseas is not a reason. From what I can see, what is there now and proposed works fine. There just isn't the traffic to justify a tower.
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.
The most difficult thing about Avalon is not other practise IFR aircraft, but the fact that we have multiple bogies from multiple directions doing a vast array of different things but mostly transitting.
Make the airspace Glass C, the ground class G and provide lanes of entry. I view Avalon as workable, but inherently his risk, like Broome, but Broome just does not have the transitting aircraft.
The most difficult thing about Avalon is not other practise IFR aircraft, but the fact that we have multiple bogies from multiple directions doing a vast array of different things but mostly transitting.
Make the airspace Glass C, the ground class G and provide lanes of entry. I view Avalon as workable, but inherently his risk, like Broome, but Broome just does not have the transitting aircraft.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bula,
Good suggestion.
I think there is one already to the north. Not sure where you would put one to the south except on the other side of the bay. You could of course put them straight over the top at 2000 which is not going to conflict with approaching, departing aircraft and circuit traffic.
Good suggestion.
I think there is one already to the north. Not sure where you would put one to the south except on the other side of the bay. You could of course put them straight over the top at 2000 which is not going to conflict with approaching, departing aircraft and circuit traffic.
