CASA-Draft Ballina airspace review 16/6/22
Thread Starter
CASA-Draft Ballina airspace review 16/6/22
https://www.casa.gov.au/have-your-say-ballina-airspace-review
Recommendations include the below.......
7, As an interim action pending the completion of Recommendation 8, CASA should make a determination to establish a control area around Ballina Byron Gateway Airport with a base which is as low as possible, and direct Airservices Australia to provide services within the control area. The services should be provided during all periods of scheduled Air Transport Operations and include an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), separation between IFR aircraft, VFR traffic information to all aircraft, and sequencing of all aircraft to and from the runway. CASA and Airservices Australia should jointly explore opportunities to detect non-cooperative aircraft or vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the runway. The services should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 15 June 2023.
8.CASA should make a determination that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport will become a controlled aerodrome with an associated control zone and control area, and direct Airservices Australia to provide an Aerodrome Control Service to the aerodrome. That service should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 30 November 2023.
9. CASA should prepare and finalise an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) for a control zone and control area steps in preparation for the implementation of Recommendations 7 and 8.
Recommendations include the below.......
7, As an interim action pending the completion of Recommendation 8, CASA should make a determination to establish a control area around Ballina Byron Gateway Airport with a base which is as low as possible, and direct Airservices Australia to provide services within the control area. The services should be provided during all periods of scheduled Air Transport Operations and include an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), separation between IFR aircraft, VFR traffic information to all aircraft, and sequencing of all aircraft to and from the runway. CASA and Airservices Australia should jointly explore opportunities to detect non-cooperative aircraft or vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the runway. The services should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 15 June 2023.
8.CASA should make a determination that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport will become a controlled aerodrome with an associated control zone and control area, and direct Airservices Australia to provide an Aerodrome Control Service to the aerodrome. That service should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 30 November 2023.
9. CASA should prepare and finalise an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) for a control zone and control area steps in preparation for the implementation of Recommendations 7 and 8.
Last edited by 10JQKA; 17th Jun 2022 at 07:05.
Wow! Those are some pretty strong draft recommendations. Someone's a bit worried about the diameter of the roulette wheel at Ballina.
I'm struggling to understand the intent of establishing a control area "with a base which is as low as possible". Isn't 1' AGL 'possible'? Anyone with expertise care to expand?
I'm struggling to understand the intent of establishing a control area "with a base which is as low as possible". Isn't 1' AGL 'possible'? Anyone with expertise care to expand?
Wow! Those are some pretty strong draft recommendations. Someone's a bit worried about the diameter of the roulette wheel at Ballina.
I'm struggling to understand the intent of establishing a control area "with a base which is as low as possible". Isn't 1' AGL 'possible'? Anyone with expertise care to expand?
I'm struggling to understand the intent of establishing a control area "with a base which is as low as possible". Isn't 1' AGL 'possible'? Anyone with expertise care to expand?
ICAO Annex 11:
2.10.3.2 A lower limit of a control area shall be established at a height above the ground or water of not less than
200 m (700 ft).
2.10.3.2.1 Recommendation.— The lower limit of a control area should, when practicable and desirable in order to
allow freedom of action for VFR flights below the control area, be established at a greater height than the minimum
specified in 2.10.3.2.
2.10.3.2.2 Recommendation.— When the lower limit of a control area is above 900 m (3 000 ft) MSL it should
coincide with a VFR cruising level of the tables in Appendix 3 to Annex 2.
Note.— This implies that the selected VFR cruising level be such that expected local atmospheric pressure variations do
not result in a lowering of this limit to a height of less than 200 m (700 ft) above ground or water.
200 m (700 ft).
2.10.3.2.1 Recommendation.— The lower limit of a control area should, when practicable and desirable in order to
allow freedom of action for VFR flights below the control area, be established at a greater height than the minimum
specified in 2.10.3.2.
2.10.3.2.2 Recommendation.— When the lower limit of a control area is above 900 m (3 000 ft) MSL it should
coincide with a VFR cruising level of the tables in Appendix 3 to Annex 2.
Note.— This implies that the selected VFR cruising level be such that expected local atmospheric pressure variations do
not result in a lowering of this limit to a height of less than 200 m (700 ft) above ground or water.
Thanks heaps Flying higher and CM.
https://www.casa.gov.au/have-your-say-ballina-airspace-review
Recommendations include the below.......
7, As an interim action pending the completion of Recommendation 8, CASA should make a determination to establish a control area around Ballina Byron Gateway Airport with a base which is as low as possible, and direct Airservices Australia to provide services within the control area. The services should be provided during all periods of scheduled Air Transport Operations and include an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), separation between IFR aircraft, VFR traffic information to all aircraft, and sequencing of all aircraft to and from the runway. CASA and Airservices Australia should jointly explore opportunities to detect non-cooperative aircraft or vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the runway. The services should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 15 June 2023.
8.CASA should make a determination that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport will become a controlled aerodrome with an associated control zone and control area, and direct Airservices Australia to provide an Aerodrome Control Service to the aerodrome. That service should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 30 November 2023.
9. CASA should prepare and finalise an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) for a control zone and control area steps in preparation for the implementation of Recommendations 7 and 8.
Recommendations include the below.......
7, As an interim action pending the completion of Recommendation 8, CASA should make a determination to establish a control area around Ballina Byron Gateway Airport with a base which is as low as possible, and direct Airservices Australia to provide services within the control area. The services should be provided during all periods of scheduled Air Transport Operations and include an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), separation between IFR aircraft, VFR traffic information to all aircraft, and sequencing of all aircraft to and from the runway. CASA and Airservices Australia should jointly explore opportunities to detect non-cooperative aircraft or vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the runway. The services should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 15 June 2023.
8.CASA should make a determination that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport will become a controlled aerodrome with an associated control zone and control area, and direct Airservices Australia to provide an Aerodrome Control Service to the aerodrome. That service should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 30 November 2023.
9. CASA should prepare and finalise an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) for a control zone and control area steps in preparation for the implementation of Recommendations 7 and 8.
7. Basically says class E airspace above Ballina, down to what altitude? VFR are still uncontrolled. All aircraft will be sequenced to land at Ballina, well Jabiru was not landing at Ballina, it was low away from the circuit transiting to Evans Head. So a big NO for that one.
8. Class D airspace, OK, some limited value it will reduce the chance of VFR conflict with IFR, but since we have already seen that conflict happen at other class D, marginal value.
9. is just piss farting around with airspace, which assumes a tower stack above Ballina, but still lots of VFR fanging around the area meaning chance of violations high and conflict.
So back to the original problem of identifying rogue aircraft in close proximity and mitigating collision chances. Where is the talk about increased ADSB coverage and Transponder mandating? Item 2 describes putting in a receiver at Ballina, down to runway surface, but whats the point if aircraft in the area are not squawking.
So does any of that stop a repeat of Jetstar vs Jabiru, yes and no...
7. Basically says class E airspace above Ballina, down to what altitude? VFR are still uncontrolled. All aircraft will be sequenced to land at Ballina, well Jabiru was not landing at Ballina, it was low away from the circuit transiting to Evans Head. So a big NO for that one.
8. Class D airspace, OK, some limited value it will reduce the chance of VFR conflict with IFR, but since we have already seen that conflict happen at other class D, marginal value.
9. is just piss farting around with airspace, which assumes a tower stack above Ballina, but still lots of VFR fanging around the area meaning chance of violations high and conflict.
So back to the original problem of identifying rogue aircraft in close proximity and mitigating collision chances. Where is the talk about increased ADSB coverage and Transponder mandating? Item 2 describes putting in a receiver at Ballina, down to runway surface, but whats the point if aircraft in the area are not squawking.
7. Basically says class E airspace above Ballina, down to what altitude? VFR are still uncontrolled. All aircraft will be sequenced to land at Ballina, well Jabiru was not landing at Ballina, it was low away from the circuit transiting to Evans Head. So a big NO for that one.
8. Class D airspace, OK, some limited value it will reduce the chance of VFR conflict with IFR, but since we have already seen that conflict happen at other class D, marginal value.
9. is just piss farting around with airspace, which assumes a tower stack above Ballina, but still lots of VFR fanging around the area meaning chance of violations high and conflict.
So back to the original problem of identifying rogue aircraft in close proximity and mitigating collision chances. Where is the talk about increased ADSB coverage and Transponder mandating? Item 2 describes putting in a receiver at Ballina, down to runway surface, but whats the point if aircraft in the area are not squawking.
Given the time it takes to get a tower built, an interim step with Class E is a positive and incremental improvement of SFIS.
In terms of Class D, this is much more than ‘limited value’, and is again, a larger incremental improvement over the situation today. In terms of airspace infringements and the like, why does that work at places like Albury, Hamo, Bankstown? Training, education and pilot professionalism. Class C has the same failings when you consider the lack of primary radar. This step will give the air transport operators a lot more assurance, which is what they need.
Remember also, for every incremental improvement the cost increases exponentially. And who’s gonna pay for something like mandated transponders, ads-b, class C levels of service. It’s not gonna happen and it’s not needed.
As I've said many times Albury had a near miss with an ATR and PA28 only a few years ago. It was VMC in the circuit and only 3 aircraft in the airspace. The only thing that stopped the collision was TCAS and both aircraft having a transponder. The US has been going through the motions over what to do about high density close proximity CTAFs and the only repeated answer that has made the slightest difference is to advise all owners to have transponders and some form of ACAS/TCAS fitted. Controlled airspace is fine with limited predictable high traffic, the mix in that area is far from predictable, and a single controller will be swamped by one conflict, let alone multiple. That is what happened in Albury, instead of watching the two aircraft that could be in conflict the tower was trying to communicate with a troublesome aircraft. That happened with 1 aircraft causing a disruption, in the case of Ballina, and Lismore, Evans Head and all the little other strips the only way is to have some form of automated alerting, which can only be achieved with transponder based ACAS. Anything that relies on human transmission will be liable to all the problems of 1950s airspace, which has been sadly proven over and over again in the US with a high collision rate. All CTA does is reduce the amount of traffic, its not fixing the problem its just coordinating the big stuff and giving them a false sense that they are protected from rogue aircraft, which is far from the case without primary radar.
So you support RPT jets flying into CTAF’s? Isn’t that fourth world thinking? Because I’ve flown in third world countries that wouldn’t even let that happen
Never said that jets flying into busy CTAFs was ideal, my point is if you are doing all of this to lower the risk of repeat occurrences or collisions than its well proven that CTA only has a marginal improvement when it comes to separating Jets from rogue aircraft. Hence why TCAS was invented and mandated, however without having a mandate that all aircraft exposed to the area around jets have Transponders and use them you are just waiting for that rogue aircraft to strike again. The whole Jetstar vs Jabiru incident probably would have never occurred if the Jab had its transponder on, and it had one fitted.
I guess thats why the C over D model is used. The class C will be used to a lower level than previous designs, (and is already rolled out around the country) then the tower looks after a more limited amount of Class D, most of which can be identified visually, with the help of a TSAD (or similar).
At the end of the day this is about get risk to ALARP. Sure, you can go the whole hog, but if that model is only used in Ballina it needs to be rolled out everywhere and the cost is simply prohibitive and really, not needed IF the ALARP is quantified and accepted.
At the end of the day this is about get risk to ALARP. Sure, you can go the whole hog, but if that model is only used in Ballina it needs to be rolled out everywhere and the cost is simply prohibitive and really, not needed IF the ALARP is quantified and accepted.
Costs of a transponder or equivalent that can transmit a signal a jets TCAS can interrogate are not that expensive, say compared to ADSB where you need GPS and other links. Its definitely cheaper than paying for more towers and airspace changes which will get recovered through higher airservices fees and CASA fees.
So you support RPT jets flying into CTAF’s? Isn’t that fourth world thinking? Because I’ve flown in third world countries that wouldn’t even let that happen
Our rules only allow AirServices to provide ATC services. As in the USA I would be sure that if a licensed alternative was available, it could be provided somewhat cheaper. The Dept needs to be lobbied to look into this.
Is there anybody interested in having a few dollars on the implementation of a tower service and approach service at Ballina?
Personally, I think the chances of a tower at Ballina are horsesh!t, an approach service, mmmm, goatsh!t to sheepsh!t.
I'm willing to run a book with the bets going in to a trust fund but you've got to weigh up the ROI. By the time a tower goes in there you may get a better return from an interest bearing bank deposit with a .015% interest rate.
Personally, I think the chances of a tower at Ballina are horsesh!t, an approach service, mmmm, goatsh!t to sheepsh!t.
I'm willing to run a book with the bets going in to a trust fund but you've got to weigh up the ROI. By the time a tower goes in there you may get a better return from an interest bearing bank deposit with a .015% interest rate.
So I wonder all arguments aside, how many Of the traveling public would be aware of the much higher risk they are exposed too (compared to almost every other RPT destination) each time they strap themselves into a 737/320 bound for BNK?
Are the families of 180 dead pax going to be so understanding on the continued inaction and the lack of a Tower / approach service? We all know the "big one" will happen eventually, just a matter of time. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly doesn't operate large aircraft into Ballina on a frequent basis.
Whilst I acknowledge the standard C over D approach is not perfect, can it be any worse than the status quo.
Are the families of 180 dead pax going to be so understanding on the continued inaction and the lack of a Tower / approach service? We all know the "big one" will happen eventually, just a matter of time. Anyone who thinks otherwise clearly doesn't operate large aircraft into Ballina on a frequent basis.
Whilst I acknowledge the standard C over D approach is not perfect, can it be any worse than the status quo.
Totally right mate. They should for that reason go somewhere 45 mins drive up the road that does have CTA. Gold Coast. Almost equidistant to Byron. We really don't need every tin pot budget airline with loads of influencers bound for Byron Bay dropping into Ballina when the Gold Coast is right there. That's the problem.
Rename it "Gold Coast Byron Gateway" and problem solved for a fraction of the cost and complexity.
Rename it "Gold Coast Byron Gateway" and problem solved for a fraction of the cost and complexity.
Last edited by extralite; 17th Jun 2022 at 21:47.
Some more question for those who may be in the know:
To the extent that the draft recommendations are about determination of airspace, isn't the CASA OAR brains trust the people with the power to determine airspace? The clue is in the name.
If yes, aren't those CASA OAR recommendations in fact recommendations to ...CASA OAR? If yes, WTF?
And what is the point of seeking comments on the recommendations? How can any comments made by anyone change the objective risks arising from the current airspace arrangements, or the costs of and the extent to which the implementation of the recommendations will mitigate those risks?
Sooner or later, someone's going to have to decide whether the costs of the recommendations are justified by the extent of the risk mitigation. Cold hard analysis of how many lives will be saved and how much they are worth. (Can't call it affordable safety, even though that is exactly what it is.) If it's not done that way, might as well do it on the advice of an astrologer.
To the extent that the draft recommendations are about determination of airspace, isn't the CASA OAR brains trust the people with the power to determine airspace? The clue is in the name.
If yes, aren't those CASA OAR recommendations in fact recommendations to ...CASA OAR? If yes, WTF?
And what is the point of seeking comments on the recommendations? How can any comments made by anyone change the objective risks arising from the current airspace arrangements, or the costs of and the extent to which the implementation of the recommendations will mitigate those risks?
Sooner or later, someone's going to have to decide whether the costs of the recommendations are justified by the extent of the risk mitigation. Cold hard analysis of how many lives will be saved and how much they are worth. (Can't call it affordable safety, even though that is exactly what it is.) If it's not done that way, might as well do it on the advice of an astrologer.
As one of the earlier recommendations was for AsA to install an ADSB receiver at Ballina, there should be good surveillance coverage.
This opens the possibility of a Class D surveillance approach service with the tower only owning the circuit to 1000ft. While Ballina was slated (a long time ago) as a possible remote tower, I don't think that is possible in the timeframe given.
This opens the possibility of a Class D surveillance approach service with the tower only owning the circuit to 1000ft. While Ballina was slated (a long time ago) as a possible remote tower, I don't think that is possible in the timeframe given.
This step will give the air transport operators a lot more assurance, which is what they need.
The whole Jetstar vs Jabiru incident probably would have never occurred if the Jab had its transponder on, and it had one fitted.