|
I’ve spent circa 15 years flying RPT in and out of busy non-controlled ports, including Mildura.
In all that time - not one TA or RA, or loss of separation, or missed approach. I understand the trepidation of some, but if you can’t get yourself in and out of an aerodrome by talking to and planning around other aircraft - should you really have the licence? It’s not rocket science. Use time and altitude to positively separate yourself from others. Fit around others and don’t expect right of way even if you’re bigger. And if it starts getting too hard or too close or you have doubts where other traffic is, just overfly at three thousand feet and rebuild your picture/start again. IMHO CAGROs can make life harder, and class D can be a real PITA. |
That should get the Cap’n riled up...
(Check your PM’s SP.) |
It also comes from a bit of common courtesy and understanding the mission of the other aircraft. Several times I've hit a CTAF, RPT operating, I'll get out of their way no problems, most of the time I've offered, the RPT will say, no worries, you go, we'll slow down.
It's a pity the Australian Pilot's love for the radio and the sound of their own voices, their innability to learn what's required in a read-back and the belief that the radio takes place of looking out the window isn't used for good instead of guarding your arse because you might get in trouble because a radio call is incorrect. |
Precisely, Slippery Pete, I agree. Except that you missed a "'t".
|
Hi On eyre and thanks for the reply. No offense taken.
You raise some interesting points. At the end of the day there only "x" amount of dollars to go around and i suspect that even it the powers that be said yep you guys can have a tower in (insert favorite location) but the users i.e airlines, flying schools,charter operators and private flying will have to pay for it then i just don't see it happening. Could the old system i.e flight service have developed/morphed/matured into an system that is user friendly and cost effective? We will never know. Please don't hate me but dare i say it. Affordable safety. Anyway just wanted to put my original comment into perspective/context based on my experiences. Fly safe and play hard. Cheers Greg |
Originally Posted by Mr Approach
(Post 10658710)
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. state government can go , federal government step back and local people step up ! |
From Hoss58 above - You raise some interesting points. At the end of the day there only "x" amount of dollars to go around and i suspect that even it the powers that be said yep you guys can have a tower in (insert favorite location) but the users i.e airlines, flying schools,charter operators and private flying will have to pay for it then i just don't see it happening. Could the old system i.e flight service have developed/morphed/matured into an system that is user friendly and cost effective? We will never know.
Hoss - we do know, the old flight service was re-invented by someone at CASA as a CA/GRS. Those exist at Ayers Rock and Ballina, and in the form of an AFIS at Port Hedland. However while the AFIS is an ATS run by Airservices the CA/GRS are not an ATS. They are however, all operated by either ex-FSOs or ex-ATCs. On top of that there are ATCs providing area flight information services using surveillance in Class G airspace. As seems typical of CASA these days, these arrangements are half-hearted, half-cocked and half-baked! There is very little logic applied only knee-jerk reactions as per the Broadcast Area announced at Ballina. However CASA has been seen to do something, even though it simply kicks the can down the road for someone else to pick up. I go back to my original point - we should not have to wait until an aerodrome becomes more risk prone (that is passes some ficticious marker created by Government officials, such as numbers of movements or passengers) before having those same bureaucrats get around to making an airspace assessment, then talk the Airservices' bureacrats into building a Taj Mahal populated by government-employed ATCs. The provision of a Tower (or an AFIS) should be part of the aerodrome owners planning as they develop their business. They then have a product to present to the market in order to attract public transport services, or a flying school, or a heavy aircraft maintenance operation, or an RFDS base, or whatever they have in mind. Waiting until the risk has already arrived is not the way that modern aviation nations do business. |
Approach, you're writing rubbish. Had Dick not got in the way, we would still have an AFIS at RPT ports. "Re-invented", "half-baked" and "half-cocked" is nonsense. CAGRS/AFIS (and beepbacks for that matter) are a logical step up from "nothingess" to improve safety as traffic increases or RPT pax need protecting. Ever heard of a Flight Service Station?
Your last paragraph is delusional, in my view. The only things driving everybody these days is the dollar and compliance with the regs. I challenge you to walk into the Ballina council (whatever it's called) and convince them to put in a tower when CASA doesn't require one. It is just not going to happen. There is very little logic applied only knee-jerk reactions as per the Broadcast Area announced at Ballina. However CASA has been seen to do something, even though it simply kicks the can down the road for someone else to pick up.
Originally Posted by Led Balon
That should get the Cap’n riled up...
|
Big Chinese carrier backed by Chinese government approached Mildura council to install a tower , another runway but want 50 year lease ? pilot training , maybe widebody direct flights one day ? 1000’s of local jobs . Chinese hear about weather , wineries and paddle boats and start visiting . Most would say no to that also . Not sure how we going to move forward when everything is to hard , expensive or anti Asia ?
|
What happens in two weeks, to whom, Cap’n? :confused:
|
Originally Posted by Toruk Macto
(Post 10663249)
Big Chinese carrier backed by Chinese government approached Mildura council to install a tower , another runway but want 50 year lease ? pilot training , maybe widebody direct flights one day ? 1000’s of local jobs . Chinese hear about weather , wineries and paddle boats and start visiting . Most would say no to that also . Not sure how we going to move forward when everything is to hard , expensive or anti Asia ?
‘There are any number of clowns who promise the same glorious future in exchange for your property. 99% are bull**** artists. Furthermore, no one is allowed to make money out of the Chinese except other chinese. |
I’m thinking the big financial institutions and multi nationals , the ones who run the place might disagree with you . Lots of money being made and it be a sad day for the big end of town if the communists where unseated .
If you can make the Chinese richer than they are already making themselves you will get richer . |
Hi Bloggs - some answers
- I offered my solution in my post of 13th. The Ballina CA/GRS staff are all ex-ATCs, all they need is some authority instead of the half-baked situation that currently exists. - I understand that Dick had to get rid of the FS organisation because no-one wanted to pay for it. So the FSOs who wanted to were re-trained as ATCs and IFR pilots now get a surveillance based traffic service OCTA (Class G) - Flight Service Stations are a US service that "communicates directly with pilots for pilot briefings, flight plans, inflight advisory services, search and rescue initiation, aircraft emergencies, and Notices to Airmen" (FAA web site). Australia had Flight Service Centres and Flight Service Units; we still have Flight Service Centres but they are part of the two Air Traffic Control Centres. - Whether an AFIS/CAGRS is useful depends on the rules and whether pilots know what they do. My experience is that because of the half-baked rules and that there are only three units in Australia most pilots (particularly of the PT jets) do not know the CA/GRS can provide directed and relevant traffic information. Because pilots are still obliged to talk to each other within the CTAF, even when there is an AFIS/CAGRS, the ground operator becomes just another voice on the frequency adding to workload. Hence the system is "half-baked" and "half-cocked". - Your final comment about putting in a tower when CASA does not require one, goes right back to our Australian view that we don't need to do something until the Government decides we should. My view is that the aerodrome operator/owner is the appropriate organisation to decide what is required at their airport. Are you trying to say that no airport has ever installed anything unless it was required by CASA? |
Mr Approach,
all they need is some authority instead of the half-baked situation that currently exists. The current situation is not half-baked. CAGRS/AFIS do/provide exactly what's in AIP and it is gin-clear. If the individuals are overstepping the mark, that is a standardisation issue, not a fault of the setup. Similarly, if pilots don't know what's going on that is again a standardisation issue. Because pilots are still obliged to talk to each other within the CTAF, Are you trying to say that no airport has ever installed anything unless it was required by CASA? |
Toruk - Have a look at "Zero Dollar Tourism". Many shops the tourist busses stop at in high tourist areas are owned by countrymen of the tourists shopping in them, and the profits of sale of said tourist knick knacks (that are manufactured in the Tourists' country) go straight back to the tourists' country via online digital payments. Admittedly some $ comes in like rates and the raw food, but that's hardly the hundreds of millions that councils get starry eyed over.
|
the mandatory calls (Balon, only two weeks, remember) Don’t tell me: Specific mandated broadcasts in CTAFs are coming back for everyone? Hooray! We’ll be saved (again) by mandatory blabbing on the CTAF. Just goes to show that everything old becomes new again. Hopefully the brains trust will come up with a genius idea to call it. Something like MBZ? |
Or perhaps a 'DBZ'.....?
OOHHH...…. |
Mr A asked the Cap’n:
Are you trying to say that no airport has ever installed anything unless it was required by CASA? Pretty much. You have operated sheltered life if you think Aussie airports are top-notch and have done everything they could to enhance safety/make pilot's lives easier. Mr A’s point was that even if Aussie airports wanted to be ‘top notch’ (why would some of them want to when they continue to make millions milking the public dry being mediocre?) they can’t be unless they make it through a regulatory quagmire created by CASA and Airservices. As to who has “operated sheltered life”: Cap’n, please tells us the various airports into which you’ve flown in other countries, and how often, as PIC with 100+ punters down the back. Or just an estimate of the numbers, in round figures, to start with. (Don’t get me wrong: You’re right in your implied assertion that Aussie airports aren’t top notch. The important question is: Why?) |
So Balon you had to have a good think about all that, even after you had a go a couple of hours ago, and then have another spray; yet another meaningless diatribe giving me a hard time.
One week and 6 days to go, Leddie. Hang in there. You'll make it! |
I’m waiting with bated breath! (Or, in PPRuNe-speak, I’m waiting with baited breathe.)
I’m gonna need all the hot air I can save up, if specific mandatory broadcasts are going to (re)mandated for aerodromes in G. Or are they going to announce the building of a tower at Mildura? Or are they going to announce you as the new DAS? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 04:34. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.