“Sir Angus Won’t Allow the Fireies to Provide a Unicom Service”.

[89 steps to heaven]

There have been claims that this is done in the USA. Could anyone advise which airports permit Fireies to provide traffic information in their spare time please?

[LeadSled]

89 steps,
Send Dick Smith an email, or give him a call, he will have a representative but not exhaustive list.
Tootle pip!!

[89 steps to heaven]

If Dick has a list, lets have it posted here so all can be informed. We need to have a proper look at the application so we can decided if there is merit in the idea.

[Dick Smith]

I am out in the Gibson Desert at the moment in the Long ranger so I don't have all the details to hand.

For a start the airport servicing Steamboat Springs is one example.

The FAA Unicom requirements are non prescriptive which allow and Even encourage giving any info which can improve safety. Traffic and weather info is commonly given by un qualified people and it works well.

[gcafinal]

Fire crews acting as FIS officers

I personally do not want anyone talking to me on the radio with unqualified opinion backed up by lack of standardisation and no formal training or proper understanding of flying procedures, particularly in an instrument environment. If I am flying to a destination where there are no weather reports, then I adopt the AIP procedures for the management of my fuel and decision making for diversion requirements. If I am visual then I have my own traffic awareness. If I am in a busy environment then I will have ATC. (Depends on your definition of "busy.") I do not want my judgement marred by some unqualified person. Up until 1989 we had a DCA service called "Flight Service." This was made redundant on the basis of cost. However, the costs were not that high, given the incredibly good world class standardised traffic/weather information and SAR alerting service we used to get. Recognition of its loss and the need for weather and traffic information came too late and instead of re-instating it, we saw the advent of Unicoms and CAGROs on the basis that this is what they do overseas (and we had better have something, whatever it is). Very poor substitutes from an air safety perspective. Frankly, I don't care what they do in the USA. They have the population base to financially support their technology. For the Australian airport operators, this is still a cost add-on. No one will do for free. Do you want a free service. What sort of service would that realistically be? I do not want airport fire officers doing pseudo ATC/FS duties unless as I said above, they have been formally trained and a new duty statement has been accepted and they are certified/licenced without further cost imposts. ARO's, Fire Officers, Groundsmen, Airport Cleaners? You must be joking! This whole matter was made worse in the late 1980s, when the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) was very poorly introduced by the then Department of Transport. Agencies like Local Councils suddenly discovered that they did not have the revenue to cope with running their newly acquired airports and overnight Australian Airports began cancelling their (then) airport licences to avoid compliance. Places like Port Hedland and Karratha tried to retain their ATC AND ARFFS but could not do so. We either have a dedicated service or we do not. We would not accept a Fire Officer as a 1st Officer on the flight deck because it is cheaper! The opportunity for increased threats caused by imposing these latent failures into an already threatened aviation environment is highly questionable. I certainly do not support untrained people distracting me on the radio while I am in flight, especially if I am in IMC.

[sunnySA]

hear. hear.

[Pinky the pilot]

gcafinal; Would you please repost your above posting, but broken up into more easily read paragraphs???

I really do find it hard to read in its current format!

FWIW; From what I could see, I tend to agree with the basics of your argument.....I think!!

sunnySA; You have better reading skills than I.

[buckshot1777]

For the sake of clarity to not lose a good post, here you go, Pinky:

gcafinal said:

I personally do not want anyone talking to me on the radio with unqualified opinion backed up by lack of standardisation and no formal training or proper understanding of flying procedures, particularly in an instrument environment.

If I am flying to a destination where there are no weather reports, then I adopt the AIP procedures for the management of my fuel and decision making for diversion requirements. If I am visual then I have my own traffic awareness. If I am in a busy environment then I will have ATC. (Depends on your definition of "busy.") I do not want my judgement marred by some unqualified person.

Up until 1989 we had a DCA service called "Flight Service." This was made redundant on the basis of cost. However, the costs were not that high, given the incredibly good world class standardised traffic/weather information and SAR alerting service we used to get. Recognition of its loss and the need for weather and traffic information came too late and instead of re-instating it, we saw the advent of Unicoms and CAGROs on the basis that this is what they do overseas (and we had better have something, whatever it is). Very poor substitutes from an air safety perspective.

Frankly, I don't care what they do in the USA. They have the population base to financially support their technology. For the Australian airport operators, this is still a cost add-on. No one will do for free. Do you want a free service. What sort of service would that realistically be? I do not want airport fire officers doing pseudo ATC/FS duties unless as I said above, they have been formally trained and a new duty statement has been accepted and they are certified/licenced without further cost imposts. ARO's, Fire Officers, Groundsmen, Airport Cleaners? You must be joking!

This whole matter was made worse in the late 1980s, when the Aerodrome Local Ownership Plan (ALOP) was very poorly introduced by the then Department of Transport. Agencies like Local Councils suddenly discovered that they did not have the revenue to cope with running their newly acquired airports and overnight Australian Airports began cancelling their (then) airport licences to avoid compliance. Places like Port Hedland and Karratha tried to retain their ATC AND ARFFS but could not do so.

We either have a dedicated service or we do not. We would not accept a Fire Officer as a 1st Officer on the flight deck because it is cheaper! The opportunity for increased threats caused by imposing these latent failures into an already threatened aviation environment is highly questionable. I certainly do not support untrained people distracting me on the radio while I am in flight, especially if I am in IMC.

Anyone got the actual wording in FAA documents re exactly what "traffic information" is claimed to be provided by UNICOMs in the U.S.?

Is it the same format and content traffic info as is passed by CAGROs and ATCs in Class G?

[QSK?]

Ah buckshot:

You pose a very intelligent question that is crucial to this Unicom debate because:

1. The US Code of Federal Regulations (Part 87 Subpart G) detail the regulatory requirements for the establishment and operation of Unicom in the US; and guess what?

2. The provision of traffic advisories is not mentioned, or even high on the list of services that Unicom operators are authorised to provide (eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations)

So, although it would appear that many Unicom operators in the US are providing traffic advisories on pilot request, the question we should all be trying to find out is whether they are operating legally and what is their (or the airport's) legal liability exposure if something should go wrong?

Also the FAA's Advisory Circular AC90-42F does not list Unicom provision of traffic advisories as being a desired function:

8. INFORMATION PROVIDED BY AERONAUTICAL ADVISORY STATIONS (UNICOM).
UNICOM stations may provide pilots, upon request, with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information.

In my view one would be stretching the regulatory interpretation that the provision of traffic advisories by Unicom would fall under the category of "...other necessary information"

Therefore, any international system that is being considered for potential deployment in Australia must be deployed in compliance with the associated home regulations, not in accordance with someone's perception of what is/is not allowed or happening in a foreign country.

Just because it is happening overseas, doesn't necessarily make it legal or appropriate for the Oz airspace environment.

[gcafinal]

QSK. If I may say so. Well said.

[89 steps to heaven]

Steamboat Springs

From the airport website


Steamboat Springs Airport
The City of Steamboat Springs operates the Steamboat Springs Airport (SBS) as a general aviation facility serving private aircraft owners and charter companies since 1981. The airport is located northwest of Steamboat Springs at 3495 Airport Circle.

Note: all commercial flights land at the Yampa Valley Regional Airport in Hayden (HDN)

[buckshot1777]

2. The provision of traffic advisories is not mentioned, or even high on the list of services that Unicom operators are authorised to provide eCFR ? Code of Federal Regulations

Interesting reading.

So, although it would appear that many Unicom operators in the US are providing traffic advisories on pilot request, the question we should all be trying to find out is whether they are operating legally and what is their (or the airport's) legal liability exposure if something should go wrong?

The reason I asked the question is that a rumour is going around that when recently CASA asked the FAA what sort of traffic information UNICOMs in the U.S. were permitted to give aircraft, the FAA expressed interest and asked what locations were giving such info.

[Lead Balloon]

I could tell you about what aircraft I can see and what aircraft I've heard, but that would be dangerous because I'm not an expert. Safer to tell you nothing.

Better to reinstate FSUs. After all, they'll give you all of the traffic (except for NOSAR NO DETAILS, gliders etc) and the warm comfort of blissful ignorance.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm confused by what you are trying to say, Lead Balloon, unless it is having a swipe at Flight Service Officers.

From my experience, FS (as ATC now do) gave relevant traffic information based on their assessment and within AFIZ's, that included NOSAR and gliders, because within 15NM all traffic was full reporting and therefore required to make themselves known @ 30NM.

Vastly different from what a refueller, baggage handler or check-in staff could provide.

[Lead Balloon]

Not having a go at FSOs. By all means, bring them back.

I'm merely pointing out that the people who think FSUs knew of all traffic were blissfully ignorant of the reality.

Many aerodromes OCTA were not in AFIZs (but I'm guessing you knew that).

And I'll stand corrected, but I'm confident that there were exemptions for NORADO aircraft - e.g. gliders and aircraft without engine driven power sources - to operate in AFIZs.

[CaptainMidnight]

I'm merely pointing out that the people who think FSUs knew of all traffic were blissfully ignorant of the reality.

FSUs knew no more and no less than ATC currently do in the vast majority of unsurveilled Class G. In fact they would have known more than ATC currently do at major country ADs, due to the mandatory reporting requirements of AFIZs.

but I'm confident that there were exemptions for NORADO aircraft - e.g. gliders and aircraft without engine driven power sources - to operate in AFIZs.

There were indeed exemptions, however their operations were known to the FSUs.

Examples: An FSU would be advised by a club when gliders commenced and ceased operating, and also when (say) an individual glider from elsewhere was coming in.

Other no radio types wishing to enter or depart or operate in an AFIZ required an exemption (from Flight Standards I recall), which included specific timing and route to be flown, in a similar manner to how such types into GAAP ADs were handled.

In both these examples, FSUs would include reference to them in traffic information.

FSUs (and Briefing Offices at FSUs and at capital city GA ADs) aren't coming back, and I've always felt things went backwards when they were got rid of.

[Lead Balloon]

The exemptions always put the lie to all the safety flim flam.

Examples: An FSU would be advised by a club when gliders commenced and ceased operating, and also when (say) an individual glider from elsewhere was coming in.

Wow - so much safer being informed by an FSU that traffic includes multiple gliders operating at random levels on random tracks around e.g. the Dubbo AFIZ.

Appropriate response from pilots transiting the area? Keep a good lookout.

NOTAM of multiple gliders operating at random levels on random tracks, around Dubbo. Appropriate response from pilots transiting the area? Keep a good lookout.

There can be multiple gliders operating at random levels and random tracks out there any day any way. Appropriate response from pilots? Keep a good lookout.

FSU or not, expert CAGRO/UNICOM or not, mandatory radio carriage and use or not, there always was and always will be the risk of unknown traffic, and the appropriate way to deal with that risk will always be the same. The belief that gadgets and third parties can provide a completely reliable and complete traffic picture is blissful ignorance. Fortunately, the cumulative risks are so small in Australia that the bliss is rarely upset.

[2b2]

Could anyone advise which airports permit Fireies to provide traffic information in their spare time please?

anyone????

[Lead Balloon]

I do hope the government has saved us by banning it.

It is dangerous, because recipients of any information always blindly assume that the information is always complete and always accurate.

Just imagine the carnage that would ensue if a 'firey' broadcast to an incoming aircraft that "there is a light aircraft doing laps on the runway that faces towards the north". Imagine it!

Because the recipients would automatically take it to be complete and accurate traffic information, sudden death would be guaranteed when it turned out the light aircraft was actually doing laps on the runway facing south and there was another aircraft inbound.

At least the firies would be on hand to smother the charred bodies in slippery stuff (and run over a couple, just to make sure).

[le Pingouin]

So how does a pilot make use of information of unknown quality? Judge it reliable because the person giving it sounds like they know what they're talking about? At least the firies will be on hand when your judgement is wrong.