Jetstar and Ballina again
My Ballina correspondent claims there have been go-rounds by RPTs on consecutive days this week due uncertainty of position and intentions of VFR traffic (not necessarily Jetstar in respect of this thread title, sorry)
I hope this is not commonplace!
I hope this is not commonplace!
Further to my last.... a VA B737 yesterday and a Fly Pelican Jetstream today.
A nearby flying school researches peak RPT times at Ballina and scrambles several of their fleet to be in the vicinity at those times. The candidates for this mission are those with the weakest command of the language and the poorest situational awareness.
A nearby flying school researches peak RPT times at Ballina and scrambles several of their fleet to be in the vicinity at those times. The candidates for this mission are those with the weakest command of the language and the poorest situational awareness.
Last edited by TwoFiftyBelowTen; 15th Apr 2021 at 20:18.
Have CPs or Training departments reached out and started the dialogue?
Too many sitting ducks.
Too many sitting ducks.
There are a couple of threads running elsewhere on Class E airspace that cover the issues at Ballina because this is a national problem, as many have alluded to in this thread.
When I worked for CASA, as an ATM Inspector, I was tasked with audits of the two CA/GRS units, Ayers Rock and Ballina, and the Airservices run AFIS at Port Hedland. I advised my superiors that of the two models AFIS was far superior, and when Ballina was being set up, that I considered an ATC Tower with Class D airspace was more suitable. Unfortunately because of the business model imposed on Airservices Australia by successive governments, ATC Towers are considered to be very expensive and because of the rules imposed on the controllers, very restrictive to non-airline flyers.
I would like to see Australia adopt a new model for a less expensive airport ATC solution. This would give airports the choice of setting up local ATC to enhance their service to their flying customers, have ATCs working for the airport and with the customers, in buildings that are more the C172s or BE58s of ATC instead of the A380s that Airservices prefers. And before you all start on about remote or digital towers, they too are also very expensive, require bandwidth that Australia lacks, need the same number of ATCs, and I would argue, add nothing in enhancements to a simple local control operation. I envisage a single-person operation such as Hamilton Island, Launceston, and Camden staffed by retired Airservices ATCs, happy to live in some beautiful little towns and not have to work night shifts. The Americans call them VFR Towers and support them with Class E-services provided from the nearest ATC Centre.
Why re-invent the wheel....?
When I worked for CASA, as an ATM Inspector, I was tasked with audits of the two CA/GRS units, Ayers Rock and Ballina, and the Airservices run AFIS at Port Hedland. I advised my superiors that of the two models AFIS was far superior, and when Ballina was being set up, that I considered an ATC Tower with Class D airspace was more suitable. Unfortunately because of the business model imposed on Airservices Australia by successive governments, ATC Towers are considered to be very expensive and because of the rules imposed on the controllers, very restrictive to non-airline flyers.
I would like to see Australia adopt a new model for a less expensive airport ATC solution. This would give airports the choice of setting up local ATC to enhance their service to their flying customers, have ATCs working for the airport and with the customers, in buildings that are more the C172s or BE58s of ATC instead of the A380s that Airservices prefers. And before you all start on about remote or digital towers, they too are also very expensive, require bandwidth that Australia lacks, need the same number of ATCs, and I would argue, add nothing in enhancements to a simple local control operation. I envisage a single-person operation such as Hamilton Island, Launceston, and Camden staffed by retired Airservices ATCs, happy to live in some beautiful little towns and not have to work night shifts. The Americans call them VFR Towers and support them with Class E-services provided from the nearest ATC Centre.
Why re-invent the wheel....?
😒😒 year in, year out🤬🤬 it never ends....
Thanks for your insight to the Ballina debacle. Hopefully something like you suggest will come to fruition and good old Ballina will be safer for everyone.
There are a couple of threads running elsewhere on Class E airspace that cover the issues at Ballina because this is a national problem, as many have alluded to in this thread.
When I worked for CASA, as an ATM Inspector, I was tasked with audits of the two CA/GRS units, Ayers Rock and Ballina, and the Airservices run AFIS at Port Hedland. I advised my superiors that of the two models AFIS was far superior, and when Ballina was being set up, that I considered an ATC Tower with Class D airspace was more suitable. Unfortunately because of the business model imposed on Airservices Australia by successive governments, ATC Towers are considered to be very expensive and because of the rules imposed on the controllers, very restrictive to non-airline flyers.
I would like to see Australia adopt a new model for a less expensive airport ATC solution. This would give airports the choice of setting up local ATC to enhance their service to their flying customers, have ATCs working for the airport and with the customers, in buildings that are more the C172s or BE58s of ATC instead of the A380s that Airservices prefers. And before you all start on about remote or digital towers, they too are also very expensive, require bandwidth that Australia lacks, need the same number of ATCs, and I would argue, add nothing in enhancements to a simple local control operation. I envisage a single-person operation such as Hamilton Island, Launceston, and Camden staffed by retired Airservices ATCs, happy to live in some beautiful little towns and not have to work night shifts. The Americans call them VFR Towers and support them with Class E-services provided from the nearest ATC Centre.
Why re-invent the wheel....?
When I worked for CASA, as an ATM Inspector, I was tasked with audits of the two CA/GRS units, Ayers Rock and Ballina, and the Airservices run AFIS at Port Hedland. I advised my superiors that of the two models AFIS was far superior, and when Ballina was being set up, that I considered an ATC Tower with Class D airspace was more suitable. Unfortunately because of the business model imposed on Airservices Australia by successive governments, ATC Towers are considered to be very expensive and because of the rules imposed on the controllers, very restrictive to non-airline flyers.
I would like to see Australia adopt a new model for a less expensive airport ATC solution. This would give airports the choice of setting up local ATC to enhance their service to their flying customers, have ATCs working for the airport and with the customers, in buildings that are more the C172s or BE58s of ATC instead of the A380s that Airservices prefers. And before you all start on about remote or digital towers, they too are also very expensive, require bandwidth that Australia lacks, need the same number of ATCs, and I would argue, add nothing in enhancements to a simple local control operation. I envisage a single-person operation such as Hamilton Island, Launceston, and Camden staffed by retired Airservices ATCs, happy to live in some beautiful little towns and not have to work night shifts. The Americans call them VFR Towers and support them with Class E-services provided from the nearest ATC Centre.
Why re-invent the wheel....?
1/. ASA business model as imposed by successive governments. Agreed. This business model requires that ASA provides a dividend to the government of the day. This distorts the allocation of safety $$. I have argued that a model more akin to the Canadian ANSP (NavCanada) would be better suited.
2/. VFR Towers. Great idea and with the number of VRs being handed at the moment there would be a long line of retired ATCs happy to live in (or commute to) some beautiful little towns. "Living the dream" (thanks Brian).
If CASA is not going to prohibit HCRPT from operating in and out of aerodromes in G, that’s it from a regulatory perspective.
As others have pointed out in the threads to which you referred, GF, the probabilities of a collision between a HCRPT aircraft and another aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G are whatever they are.
One thing is certain: The probabilities are not zero.
In a coherent system of cost/risk assessment and mitigation, that outcome would be because the cost of a HCRPT aircraft full of passengers lost once every X decades is less than the cost of running e.g. a D tower over the same period. Has that assessment been done by CASA? I very much doubt it.
I remain fascinated that the insurers of HCRPT operators allow operations in and out of aerodromes in G. I reckon their actuaries have done the assessment. Would be interesting to see the crunched number. Perhaps part of their risk mitigation strategy is action against CASA?
I reckon Ballina and Mildura have the roulette wheels with the fewest numbers. I hope neither of them comes up 00 in my life time.
As others have pointed out in the threads to which you referred, GF, the probabilities of a collision between a HCRPT aircraft and another aircraft in the vicinity of an aerodrome in G are whatever they are.
One thing is certain: The probabilities are not zero.
In a coherent system of cost/risk assessment and mitigation, that outcome would be because the cost of a HCRPT aircraft full of passengers lost once every X decades is less than the cost of running e.g. a D tower over the same period. Has that assessment been done by CASA? I very much doubt it.
I remain fascinated that the insurers of HCRPT operators allow operations in and out of aerodromes in G. I reckon their actuaries have done the assessment. Would be interesting to see the crunched number. Perhaps part of their risk mitigation strategy is action against CASA?
I reckon Ballina and Mildura have the roulette wheels with the fewest numbers. I hope neither of them comes up 00 in my life time.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another bizarre Airservices accomplishment is Avalon, where a tower controller clears an IFR aircraft for take-off in Class D airspace and the aircraft then has to fend for itself between 2500 and 4500 ft in class E airspace against VFR traffic before entering Class C airspace above 4500 ft. This is all in full view of the tower controller.
Why Class D airspace during tower hours is not continuous from ground level to 4500 ft is beyond reason.
Ballina, Mildura, Avalon - We seem determined to run to the scene of an accident
Why Class D airspace during tower hours is not continuous from ground level to 4500 ft is beyond reason.
Ballina, Mildura, Avalon - We seem determined to run to the scene of an accident
Though ‘bizarre’, I don’t think the airspace arrangements around Avalon result in HCRPT passengers being exposed to as high a risk as they are at places like Ballina and Mildura. Most of the VFRs transitting the Avalon area, miles from the circuit, will manage to carry and switch on a serviceable transponder, and primary radar will pick up those that don’t.
But don’t worry: CASA has proposed to Airservices that Airservices propose to CASA that the chunk of E at Avalon be removed. Only in the weird and whacky world of Australian aviation....
But don’t worry: CASA has proposed to Airservices that Airservices propose to CASA that the chunk of E at Avalon be removed. Only in the weird and whacky world of Australian aviation....
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don’t think the airspace arrangements around Avalon result in HCRPT passengers being exposed to as high a risk as they are at places like Ballina and Mildura
Is a TCAS alert generated when a HCRPT aircraft comes into close proximity to an aircraft without a transponder?
The oh-so-Australian irony is that a well-publicised and ATSB-investigated incident at Mildura a few years ago arose from a near miss alerted by TCAS, which investigation focussed on the aircraft that wasn’t the one that came closest to the HCRPT aircraft at the time. The aircraft that came closest didn’t need to be and wasn’t fitted with a transponder, thus didn’t generate a TCAS alert.
Only in the weird and whacky world that is Australian aviation...
The oh-so-Australian irony is that a well-publicised and ATSB-investigated incident at Mildura a few years ago arose from a near miss alerted by TCAS, which investigation focussed on the aircraft that wasn’t the one that came closest to the HCRPT aircraft at the time. The aircraft that came closest didn’t need to be and wasn’t fitted with a transponder, thus didn’t generate a TCAS alert.
Only in the weird and whacky world that is Australian aviation...
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another bizarre Airservices accomplishment is Avalon, where a tower controller clears an IFR aircraft for take-off in Class D airspace and the aircraft then has to fend for itself between 2500 and 4500 ft in class E airspace against VFR traffic before entering Class C airspace above 4500 ft. This is all in full view of the tower controller.
And the flying schools seem oblivious to the requirements of AIP ENR 3.2
However, it's actually the Avalon radar approach controller who owns the D and E airspace in the CTZ.
If deemed appropriate, the departing IFR is given a traffic statement prior to departure instruction, and then they can elect for an alternative to the issued SID.
It's surprising how many PICs of RPT jets don't request a more segregated option and are willing to back the big blue sky.
They’re just practising for the arrival and departure at the destination in G ....
I think the point is that its farcical to have a controller in an airport control tower (or the controller responsible for the airspace), not separating IFR and VFR in the same laterally defined airspace and at such low altitudes, especially given the very different performance capabilities at places like Avalon.
Lead Balloon - The point about transponders is theoretically irrelevant in 'E' airspace.
What price do we put on risk?
Lead Balloon - The point about transponders is theoretically irrelevant in 'E' airspace.
What price do we put on risk?
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Way north
Age: 47
Posts: 497
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
About Avalon:
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...ary-2020_0.pdf
Seems like they want to change the airspace classification.
https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...ary-2020_0.pdf
Seems like they want to change the airspace classification.
Who’s “they”?
It seems like the regulator (CASA) is now so bereft of expertise that it won’t do anything unless a proposal is submitted to it by (in this case) Airservices.
Must be terribly frustrating for CASA to be sitting there, chewing its corporate finger nails, unable to make a regulatory decision unless someone outside the regulator recommends the decision be made.
The subsequent inquiry will be comedy gold, albeit predictable.
It seems like the regulator (CASA) is now so bereft of expertise that it won’t do anything unless a proposal is submitted to it by (in this case) Airservices.
Must be terribly frustrating for CASA to be sitting there, chewing its corporate finger nails, unable to make a regulatory decision unless someone outside the regulator recommends the decision be made.
The subsequent inquiry will be comedy gold, albeit predictable.
