Tower at Mildura
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tower at Mildura
Is there any talk about this?
This morning was extremely arduous having to operate in and out of there with 5 training aircraft, a couple GA aircraft, 2 rex SAABS, a QL -8D, a Virgin 737 and an aeromed. ML CEN ended up saying to the IFR aircraft that there are multiple VFR aircraft on ADS-B possibly up to 5, and it's all a bit of a blur where they are in the circuit.
I'm not out to dis the flight training there, I'm just curious to know if there is a plan to regulate the chaos that is Mildura CTAF at the moment? Possible at least give it its own discrete frequency so Wentworth and Horsham traffic aren't competing to get in their radio calls as well.
This morning was extremely arduous having to operate in and out of there with 5 training aircraft, a couple GA aircraft, 2 rex SAABS, a QL -8D, a Virgin 737 and an aeromed. ML CEN ended up saying to the IFR aircraft that there are multiple VFR aircraft on ADS-B possibly up to 5, and it's all a bit of a blur where they are in the circuit.
I'm not out to dis the flight training there, I'm just curious to know if there is a plan to regulate the chaos that is Mildura CTAF at the moment? Possible at least give it its own discrete frequency so Wentworth and Horsham traffic aren't competing to get in their radio calls as well.
Let’s change Mildura to Ballina and this post says the exact same thing we have all been saying for years.
It will take another 5 years of us bitching and moaning about safety for a “fix” of a certified air ground radio service to be put in.
It will take another 5 years of us bitching and moaning about safety for a “fix” of a certified air ground radio service to be put in.
Is there any talk about this?
This morning was extremely arduous having to operate in and out of there with 5 training aircraft, a couple GA aircraft, 2 rex SAABS, a QL -8D, a Virgin 737 and an aeromed. ML CEN ended up saying to the IFR aircraft that there are multiple VFR aircraft on ADS-B possibly up to 5, and it's all a bit of a blur where they are in the circuit.
I'm not out to dis the flight training there, I'm just curious to know if there is a plan to regulate the chaos that is Mildura CTAF at the moment? Possible at least give it its own discrete frequency so Wentworth and Horsham traffic aren't competing to get in their radio calls as well.
This morning was extremely arduous having to operate in and out of there with 5 training aircraft, a couple GA aircraft, 2 rex SAABS, a QL -8D, a Virgin 737 and an aeromed. ML CEN ended up saying to the IFR aircraft that there are multiple VFR aircraft on ADS-B possibly up to 5, and it's all a bit of a blur where they are in the circuit.
I'm not out to dis the flight training there, I'm just curious to know if there is a plan to regulate the chaos that is Mildura CTAF at the moment? Possible at least give it its own discrete frequency so Wentworth and Horsham traffic aren't competing to get in their radio calls as well.
How did you manage to survive, despite the “chaos”?
Do you know you’re not obliged to fly into these places? In fact, you’re under a duty not to, if the risk is ‘unacceptable’.
Don’t worry: If the risk becomes ‘unacceptable’, CASA will impose a condition on your pilot’s licence prohibiting you from operating in and out of Mildura. It’s all about ‘safety’, after all.
AHEM...…….The FSO would give 'Conflicting Traffic'.....so that those who need to know about each other....do.
Cheeerrrsss…..
(Onya Hoss)
Cheeerrrsss…..
(Onya Hoss)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Griffo, the ATC already does that. In these circumstances having an FSU would make jot difference. In fact, the ATC has more situational awareness to pass on (ADSB etc).
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cap'n, yes, when FS was axed the function was rolled over into ATC.
Unfortunately, at the time, FS weren't allowed to use surveillance. Now, the Centre Controller performs the traffic information service as well as the separation service. They use surveillance for both functions.
Unfortunately, at the time, FS weren't allowed to use surveillance. Now, the Centre Controller performs the traffic information service as well as the separation service. They use surveillance for both functions.
The show-stopping issue with that system is that ATC isn't on the CTAF. At least Griffo (if 50 years younger) would keep his finger on the pulse and beady eye out the window and be able to advise "conflicting" circuit traffic on the CTAF. RPT crews running two busy radios (ATC and CTAF) is a recipe for disaster.
A tower at Mildura would quite feasible if the aerodrome owner thought it would enhance safety at their aerodrome and entice new businesses to invest there. After all the airspace around an aerodrome should be considered as one of the assets used by the aerodrome to carry out it's business.
In a free-enterprise country it should be possible for the aerodrome to decide that it wants a controlled environment, and in accordance with ICAO requirements, go ahead an build a control tower and employ people to work there.
Unfortunately they cannot - decisions about such things are made by CASA in accordance with the wishes of the Minister (National Party - Mr McCormack). The aerodrome operator and people who fly there are merely "stakeholders". Basically unless an aerodrome passes one of the CASA milestones (See the Australian Airspace Policy Statement from the Minister) CASA will not consider mandating ATC.
This means that aerodromes that would benefit from providing a tower in order to build up a business, can only do so if A) CASA agrees, and B) Airservices agrees. (Don't be sidetracked by talk of digital towers, compared to a glass box on stilts with one controller looking after the circuit area, digital is prohibitively expensive). While CASA may be convinced, they are only a small part of the aviation scene. Because Airservices cost-recovers its services then the majority payers such as Qantas get to decide what Airservices spends their money on - and I can almost guarantee a control tower at Mildura is not even on the bottom half of their list.
It is past time that Australia threw off this stranglehold Government has over civil aviation and let the industry operate in a competitive, albeit with safety regulations, manner.
This post is only one example of where change can take place quite safely if the politicians started to get the right advice.
In a free-enterprise country it should be possible for the aerodrome to decide that it wants a controlled environment, and in accordance with ICAO requirements, go ahead an build a control tower and employ people to work there.
Unfortunately they cannot - decisions about such things are made by CASA in accordance with the wishes of the Minister (National Party - Mr McCormack). The aerodrome operator and people who fly there are merely "stakeholders". Basically unless an aerodrome passes one of the CASA milestones (See the Australian Airspace Policy Statement from the Minister) CASA will not consider mandating ATC.
This means that aerodromes that would benefit from providing a tower in order to build up a business, can only do so if A) CASA agrees, and B) Airservices agrees. (Don't be sidetracked by talk of digital towers, compared to a glass box on stilts with one controller looking after the circuit area, digital is prohibitively expensive). While CASA may be convinced, they are only a small part of the aviation scene. Because Airservices cost-recovers its services then the majority payers such as Qantas get to decide what Airservices spends their money on - and I can almost guarantee a control tower at Mildura is not even on the bottom half of their list.
It is past time that Australia threw off this stranglehold Government has over civil aviation and let the industry operate in a competitive, albeit with safety regulations, manner.
This post is only one example of where change can take place quite safely if the politicians started to get the right advice.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The show-stopping issue with that system is that ATC isn't on the CTAF.
At least Griffo (if 50 years younger) would keep his finger on the pulse and beady eye out the window and be able to advise "conflicting" circuit traffic on the CTAF.
RPT crews running two busy radios (ATC and CTAF) is a recipe for disaster.
FS was expensive and excessive but, rationalised, into a CAGRO type of thing, licenced and a supplement to ATC, would avoid the expense of a tower. And ATC's would love it, they wouldn't be caught in the peurile joke of a system where they're passing you traffic on ADSB VFR aircraft in the circuit. Griffo could do that, without looking out the window of course!
Oi !!
Oi resemble that remark...……
Cheeerrrsss
p.s. As a 'CAGRO' at BME, we were 'obliged' to look out the window, especially at taxying aircraft who were sometimes a bit 'late' in calling...….(Bugger)….
As a FSO, at KAL, the window was actually enlarged so that we could see out, but the old 'adage' remained.....don't you dare.
However - We got over that on many an occasion, and it was justified at the time.
At Derby for example, the FSU was two storey with a magnificent view, as was the Dubbo FSU.
Not all shared this quality however.
Wagga was virtually in a 'back room', whilst at Mildura, the building was built 'arse-about' - a mistake - and the MET man had the view over the runways.
Dems were de days...…..
p.p.s. Thanks again for the Redundo Dick...……..
Oi resemble that remark...……
Cheeerrrsss
p.s. As a 'CAGRO' at BME, we were 'obliged' to look out the window, especially at taxying aircraft who were sometimes a bit 'late' in calling...….(Bugger)….
As a FSO, at KAL, the window was actually enlarged so that we could see out, but the old 'adage' remained.....don't you dare.
However - We got over that on many an occasion, and it was justified at the time.
At Derby for example, the FSU was two storey with a magnificent view, as was the Dubbo FSU.
Not all shared this quality however.
Wagga was virtually in a 'back room', whilst at Mildura, the building was built 'arse-about' - a mistake - and the MET man had the view over the runways.
Dems were de days...…..
p.p.s. Thanks again for the Redundo Dick...……..
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 10th Jan 2020 at 14:23.
.. decisions about such things are made by CASA in accordance with the wishes of the Minister (National Party - Mr McCormack). ...
Because Airservices cost-recovers its services then the majority payers such as Qantas get to decide what Airservices spends their money on - and I can almost guarantee a control tower at Mildura is not even on the bottom half of their list.
I suppose that having taken the safety of air navigation into consideration as the most important consideration, CASA then takes other matters into consideration as less important considerations, and bingo! Aircraft full of fare paying pax get exposed to the ‘chaos’ of aerodromes in Class G airspace. According to ERSA, Mildura doesn’t even have an RFFS to hose surfactant over the charred remains. These folk will step up, though: https://news.cfa.vic.gov.au/-/brigad...gency-exercise
I still don’t understand why pilots fly in and out of the place, if it’s so dangerous. No one’s holding a gun to their head. Are they consulting with the SLF before exposing them to these risks?
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 11th Jan 2020 at 07:07.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We get extremely busy at The Rat at times, despite the number of aircraft operating there, personally, I don't think it requires a tower. It's just the bull**** song and dance about 'numbers' that irritate me. The movements tend to be clustered. When it comes down to it, the cultural emphasis on self separation is relying on radio calls to sort it all out, the anality of radio call perfection distracts from looking out the effing window and missing aircraft. Most of the time the aircraft is not in the position it states it's in, but the call sounded awesome and the content was complete.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 347
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We get extremely busy at The Rat at times, despite the number of aircraft operating there, personally, I don't think it requires a tower. It's just the bull**** song and dance about 'numbers' that irritate me. The movements tend to be clustered. When it comes down to it, the cultural emphasis on self separation is relying on radio calls to sort it all out, the anality of radio call perfection distracts from looking out the effing window and missing aircraft. Most of the time the aircraft is not in the position it states it's in, but the call sounded awesome and the content was complete.
Jets and Dash 8s cannot "look out the window and miss aircraft". Radio is all we've got to self-segregate before the "merge".
I don't understand what your point here is, Porter. Is it the 200k pax a year that doesn't justify a tower, because clustering makes the situation more hazardous but the stats will mask this.
Standard radio calls help: they cut down the dribble while providing only the necessities.
Originally Posted by Porter
It's just the bull**** song and dance about 'numbers' that irritate me. The movements tend to be clustered.
Standard radio calls help: they cut down the dribble while providing only the necessities.
Gosh: It appears I didn’t shut down the thread at #3 in accordance with my evil, LCD plan Bloggs.