Dick Smith's letter to the PM re Tasmania.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24-hour traffic control at airport - Local News - News - Politics - The Examiner Newspaper
LAUNCESTON Airport will be under 24-hour air traffic control within six months, Transport Minister Anthony Albanese announced last night.
The announcement coincided with the release of a Civil Aviation Safety Authority report that includes a review of airspace management and safety at Launceston Airport.
Launceston Airport's air safety was questioned this week by high-profile businessman and aviator Dick Smith for its lack of airspace control between 10pm and 6am, when aircraft are required to land without control tower assistance.
The concern relates to a 2008 incident at Launceston Airport in which two passenger aircraft had a near miss when attempting a late- night landing in bad weather.
Mr Albanese said the report identified "no imminent safety concerns", but that growing use of the airport required additional safety measures.
"All recommendations made by the independent safety regulator ... following its review of the existing air traffic control arrangements at 10 major regional airports will be implemented," Mr Albanese said.
"In the case of Launceston and Hobart this means all passenger aircraft flying into and out of these airports will at all times be supervised by an air traffic controller."
Opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss this week challenged Mr Albanese to release the Civil Aviation Safety Authority report, which he received several weeks ago, accusing him of using caretaker government protocol to keep the report under wraps.
Mr Albanese said the report in fact showed the failure of the former government to enforce a ministerial direction issued in 2004 by the then federal transport minister, John Anderson.
"That direction required Airservices to expand air traffic control surveillance at all 10 major regional airports," he said.
Under the new protocol, Launceston's airspace will be controlled by Melbourne Airport's air traffic control between 10pm and 6am.
LAUNCESTON Airport will be under 24-hour air traffic control within six months, Transport Minister Anthony Albanese announced last night.
The announcement coincided with the release of a Civil Aviation Safety Authority report that includes a review of airspace management and safety at Launceston Airport.
Launceston Airport's air safety was questioned this week by high-profile businessman and aviator Dick Smith for its lack of airspace control between 10pm and 6am, when aircraft are required to land without control tower assistance.
The concern relates to a 2008 incident at Launceston Airport in which two passenger aircraft had a near miss when attempting a late- night landing in bad weather.
Mr Albanese said the report identified "no imminent safety concerns", but that growing use of the airport required additional safety measures.
"All recommendations made by the independent safety regulator ... following its review of the existing air traffic control arrangements at 10 major regional airports will be implemented," Mr Albanese said.
"In the case of Launceston and Hobart this means all passenger aircraft flying into and out of these airports will at all times be supervised by an air traffic controller."
Opposition transport spokesman Warren Truss this week challenged Mr Albanese to release the Civil Aviation Safety Authority report, which he received several weeks ago, accusing him of using caretaker government protocol to keep the report under wraps.
Mr Albanese said the report in fact showed the failure of the former government to enforce a ministerial direction issued in 2004 by the then federal transport minister, John Anderson.
"That direction required Airservices to expand air traffic control surveillance at all 10 major regional airports," he said.
Under the new protocol, Launceston's airspace will be controlled by Melbourne Airport's air traffic control between 10pm and 6am.
Interesting. Safety report said C over D. Portable radar has been switched off, packed up and moved. That leaves only WAMLat as the primary means BLW 4500ft. The directive stipulated radar only. Does this mean the argument is now changing to include other technologies? Very interesting.
If you take the Minister's words literally ....
...there will be no change. IFRs are already being "supervised" by ATC in G Airspace.
But I daresay ... he means more than that ...
P.S. In the interests of transparent Government, as required by the Government's Airspace Policy, I'd really like to see CASA's report.
"In the case of Launceston and Hobart this means all passenger aircraft flying into and out of these airports will at all times be supervised by an air traffic controller."
But I daresay ... he means more than that ...
P.S. In the interests of transparent Government, as required by the Government's Airspace Policy, I'd really like to see CASA's report.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good point OZ. It did refer to radar and not WMLAT. On the other hand, IMHO, the amiable dolt that was conned into signing off on it wouldn't have known what he was signing off on anyway.
That said, in this day and age all technology that's available should be used if the benefit outweighs the cost - I agree with Dick on this point.
What I don't agree with is (my belief) that all this is being used to dump C and replace it with E - read the letter to the PM about 'the proper airspace classification.'
Page 4 -
(my bolding).
That said, in this day and age all technology that's available should be used if the benefit outweighs the cost - I agree with Dick on this point.
What I don't agree with is (my belief) that all this is being used to dump C and replace it with E - read the letter to the PM about 'the proper airspace classification.'
Page 4 -
The ATSB Report does not mention that Airservices Australia had recently commissioned a wide area multilateration “radar system” which gives even greater accuracy for Air Traffic Controllers to separate traffic and prevent controlled flights into terrain as long as the correct airspace is allocated.
If Dick changed the words from 'correct' to 'most appropriate' I'd have to agree with him.
What is 'incorrect' airspace ?
The only difference between us is that Dick already "knows" what airspace category is appropriate ... before any analysis takes place. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.
What is 'incorrect' airspace ?
The only difference between us is that Dick already "knows" what airspace category is appropriate ... before any analysis takes place. I'm willing to let the chips fall where they may.
And we all know that tower controllers grow on trees, 6 months for the introduction of 24/7 coverage, no wukkas Tones maaate.
Surely you wouldn`t add on the controlled airspace function down to ground level to the ML enroute sector (courtesy of a WAMLAT feed into the TAAATS machine, oops, no more radar) - um, who would then give the landing and takeoff clearances and provide aerodrome control?
If it is to be done from ML centre I smell tower airspace reclassified to E outside tower hours and one in / one out. Non? Oui?
Can`t wait for a detailed proposal (as opposed to pre-election hype) to surface, this will be fun to watch!
Surely you wouldn`t add on the controlled airspace function down to ground level to the ML enroute sector (courtesy of a WAMLAT feed into the TAAATS machine, oops, no more radar) - um, who would then give the landing and takeoff clearances and provide aerodrome control?
If it is to be done from ML centre I smell tower airspace reclassified to E outside tower hours and one in / one out. Non? Oui?
Can`t wait for a detailed proposal (as opposed to pre-election hype) to surface, this will be fun to watch!
Well, there's nothing on CASA's website or the Minister's website yet.
Although the Press Release about cancelling two AOCs was up on the site pretty damn quickly!
I guess we'll eventually get to hear about it ...
Although the Press Release about cancelling two AOCs was up on the site pretty damn quickly!
I guess we'll eventually get to hear about it ...
Kon,
That's exactly what is going to happen, as will Tobago, sure as anything. 
Surely you wouldn`t add on the controlled airspace function down to ground level to the ML enroute sector
Maralinga .... exaccerly!
You can promise anything you like ... knowing that the resources aren't there to provide it. You still come out looking like the good guy. ... "well, I tried !"
You can promise anything you like ... knowing that the resources aren't there to provide it. You still come out looking like the good guy. ... "well, I tried !"
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Orstraylia
Age: 60
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And whats the problem with that, assuming that the appropriate resources and staff are applied
If we are looking for the Tower to open 24/7 we need another controller or two. Not much of a problem normally but these are difficult times with the college delivering a steady dribble of trainees. Nowhere near enough to replace the continuing drift to the sandpit. ( i know of 4 resignations in the last few weeks, 3 in Vegas and 1 from the deep south. More to come i`m sure! )
If ML centre are going to look after the airspace when the Tower controller goes home then i`m assuming the contoller on duty will need an approach rating & some sort of endorsement. I`d hazard a guess and say no en-route controller currently looking after the airspace has an approach rating. i.e training/resources required.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Glass Gumtree
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If ML centre are going to look after the airspace when the Tower controller goes home then i`m assuming the contoller on duty will need an approach rating & some sort of endorsement.
Dick, I'm a little confused here. Airspace structure aside, your contention seems to be there's a surveillance system available in Tassie that isn't being used to its fullest extent. However, looking at the media reports, the only reported 'outcome' thus far appears to be
. Is this the outcome you wanted or is it the result of some sort of meet half way agreement?
Under the new protocol, Launceston's airspace will be controlled by Melbourne Airport's air traffic control between 10pm and 6am
Roger Sir - thank you for the back-up info, `tis wot I hear too 
As I have said, this will be fun to observe from the pleb stalls...
Freedom 7, you rock! - "remote ADC rating"...yeah, I can just see the new procedures;
"QFAxxx, no reported IFR traffic, visually verify runway clear, broadcast roll commencement on CTAF and Area frequencies, clear for take-off at pilot discretion, cross-check IWI, confirming clear for take-off"
As I have said, this will be fun to observe from the pleb stalls...
Freedom 7, you rock! - "remote ADC rating"...yeah, I can just see the new procedures;
"QFAxxx, no reported IFR traffic, visually verify runway clear, broadcast roll commencement on CTAF and Area frequencies, clear for take-off at pilot discretion, cross-check IWI, confirming clear for take-off"
Launceston to stay potentially lethal – Plane Talking
Folks,
The above link is to an article by Ben Sandilands on his Crikey blog. It is well worth a read, Ben is an influential aviation and transport journalist, and has been for over 30 years.
I rather suspect many of you will disagree with him, but his opinions are in the real world, not just the narrow inward looking little world of Australian domestic pilots and ATC.
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
The above link is to an article by Ben Sandilands on his Crikey blog. It is well worth a read, Ben is an influential aviation and transport journalist, and has been for over 30 years.
I rather suspect many of you will disagree with him, but his opinions are in the real world, not just the narrow inward looking little world of Australian domestic pilots and ATC.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it incomprehensible that the Virgin aircraft did not climb to 4100ft whilst holding? Common sense really.
I find it incomprehensible that this report took 2 years to complete, I could have had it done in a week or so.
I find it incomprehensible that CASA or ATSB didn't have a problem with the Virgin crews actions?
Who does Albanesse think he is kidding? Really, are people that stupid in Australia that they can't see through his 'fix'
I find it incomprehensible that this report took 2 years to complete, I could have had it done in a week or so.
I find it incomprehensible that CASA or ATSB didn't have a problem with the Virgin crews actions?
Who does Albanesse think he is kidding? Really, are people that stupid in Australia that they can't see through his 'fix'
Leadsled,
I know, you're the only one marching in step ..the rest of us are out of step.
Mr Sandilands' article is interesting. It appears that he has spent many hours pouring over PPRUNE. Also interesting are the comments on his article, especially the one from "Quizzical"
I love the '3 condom approach' reference, and those extra condoms are nice to have ... but even they come at a cost.
That's not to say you shouldn't wear them ... just that you have to be aware of, and calculate, that extra cost.... a cost benefit analysis.
I rather suspect many of you will disagree with him, but his opinions are in the real world, not just the narrow inward looking little world of Australian domestic pilots and ATC.
Mr Sandilands' article is interesting. It appears that he has spent many hours pouring over PPRUNE. Also interesting are the comments on his article, especially the one from "Quizzical"
I love the '3 condom approach' reference, and those extra condoms are nice to have ... but even they come at a cost.
That's not to say you shouldn't wear them ... just that you have to be aware of, and calculate, that extra cost.... a cost benefit analysis.
..the rest of us are out of step.
As far as the aviation scene in the developed world goes, you've got that on right, and sadly, it is not confined to matters airspace management.
The results are reflected in our long term (all aircraft, not just jets) safety record. A detailed study, based on ICAO definitions, not home grown, is not flattering to Australia. The jet incident record is nothing to write home to mother about, either.
Or perhaps you think the last two ICAO and FAA audits got it all wrong, and Australia is the only soldier in the battalion in step.??
Tootle pip!!