Dick Smith and Broome Airport
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith and Broome Airport
Dick,
I hope this message finds you and yours well. As you are aware there is some debate over the height and radius of the ATC to be installed at BME and KTA.
For the record we (BME) think as do most airline Chief Pilots and ATC that 25Nm and 4500ft is required and have asked CASA to give us the DAS that shows us this no cost addition to safety is incorrect and that Chief Justice Gibbs ruling on negligence does not apply.
To date I have not received a DAS from CASA for this terminal airspace change.
I hope an increase incidents and not a catastrophe will prove the point that the radius is too tight for effective ATC comms.
Cheers Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIAG
I hope this message finds you and yours well. As you are aware there is some debate over the height and radius of the ATC to be installed at BME and KTA.
For the record we (BME) think as do most airline Chief Pilots and ATC that 25Nm and 4500ft is required and have asked CASA to give us the DAS that shows us this no cost addition to safety is incorrect and that Chief Justice Gibbs ruling on negligence does not apply.
To date I have not received a DAS from CASA for this terminal airspace change.
I hope an increase incidents and not a catastrophe will prove the point that the radius is too tight for effective ATC comms.
Cheers Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIAG
G'day Mike
My thoughts posted on the other thread:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post5702390
My thoughts posted on the other thread:
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post5702390
CaptainMidnight
By the look at your post#1052 on the other thread, NAS rears its head again, you seem to think do-it-yourself calling-in-the-blind radio procedures in G are safer than having ATC in a tower actually controlling circuit area and runway traffic.
It would be great if this was the truth, however it is not so.
What many pilots don’t seem to understand is that the chance of colliding with another aeroplane thirty miles away from an aiport is many thousands of times less than the chance of colliding with an aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. That’s why non-radar towers throughout the world have very small amounts of airspace.
For example, in the USA it’s generally 4.3 miles radius 2,500 feet AGL. In the UK, the non-radar towers are generally two nautical miles radius and 2,000 feet.
At first thought it may seem that by making the airspace larger for the Controller that safety will be improved. Airspace safety experts from around the world who I have spoken to do not agree with this, and this is supported by the fact that our busy airports such as Bankstown, Moorabbin and Parafield have very small control zones.
Whenever I’ve spoken to FAA or UK airspace experts, they claim that non-radar towers should be responsible for a small amount of airspace so the ATC can concentrate where the collision risk is greater. Generally speaking, they say that by increasing the area and having overflying traffic calling or being involved in the ATC system will reduce safety as it dissipates the attention of the Controller from where it really matters.
Walley2
On this particular Broome issue I’ve spoken to a retired FAA ATC who resides on the west coast of the USA and is very much involved with Australia. His belief is that safety will certainly be decreased if the airspace is increased in size when compared with what has evolved with the US NAS.
Yes, it may work for a number of months or years. But one day, if the Controller’s attention is taken away from the circuit traffic because a VFR aircraft calls fifteen miles away when transiting, this will be the day when the accident happens and people are killed.
Of course there is a chance of a collision in the link airspace, however industry experience over decades with millions of flights shows that the chance of a collision in E airspace above D is incredibly small. That’s the only reason the US does not have a transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in E airspace over D where there is no radar coverage. About 50% of their 350 Class D aerodromes have no radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D. The reason they have told me that they have not introduced a mandatory transponder requirement for VFR so TCAS can be more effective in airline aircraft is that they have not experienced those types of accidents – they say most of their accidents involving airline aircraft are CFIT.
Walley2 of course, if your study shows that there is a measurable risk in the link airspace above 2,500 feet, then I will totally support putting in a proper system to minimise that risk. Of course, that needs to be Class C with a terminal radar facility. Anything less would be next to useless because the Controller would not know where the VFR aircraft was located (ie. “I’m over the 28th sandhill about 15 miles to the east heading north”).
Of course there is a cost increase with this, but I’m sure you as the airport owner would never put profits before passenger safety.
By the look at your post#1052 on the other thread, NAS rears its head again, you seem to think do-it-yourself calling-in-the-blind radio procedures in G are safer than having ATC in a tower actually controlling circuit area and runway traffic.
It would be great if this was the truth, however it is not so.
What many pilots don’t seem to understand is that the chance of colliding with another aeroplane thirty miles away from an aiport is many thousands of times less than the chance of colliding with an aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. That’s why non-radar towers throughout the world have very small amounts of airspace.
For example, in the USA it’s generally 4.3 miles radius 2,500 feet AGL. In the UK, the non-radar towers are generally two nautical miles radius and 2,000 feet.
At first thought it may seem that by making the airspace larger for the Controller that safety will be improved. Airspace safety experts from around the world who I have spoken to do not agree with this, and this is supported by the fact that our busy airports such as Bankstown, Moorabbin and Parafield have very small control zones.
Whenever I’ve spoken to FAA or UK airspace experts, they claim that non-radar towers should be responsible for a small amount of airspace so the ATC can concentrate where the collision risk is greater. Generally speaking, they say that by increasing the area and having overflying traffic calling or being involved in the ATC system will reduce safety as it dissipates the attention of the Controller from where it really matters.
Walley2
On this particular Broome issue I’ve spoken to a retired FAA ATC who resides on the west coast of the USA and is very much involved with Australia. His belief is that safety will certainly be decreased if the airspace is increased in size when compared with what has evolved with the US NAS.
Yes, it may work for a number of months or years. But one day, if the Controller’s attention is taken away from the circuit traffic because a VFR aircraft calls fifteen miles away when transiting, this will be the day when the accident happens and people are killed.
Of course there is a chance of a collision in the link airspace, however industry experience over decades with millions of flights shows that the chance of a collision in E airspace above D is incredibly small. That’s the only reason the US does not have a transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in E airspace over D where there is no radar coverage. About 50% of their 350 Class D aerodromes have no radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D. The reason they have told me that they have not introduced a mandatory transponder requirement for VFR so TCAS can be more effective in airline aircraft is that they have not experienced those types of accidents – they say most of their accidents involving airline aircraft are CFIT.
Walley2 of course, if your study shows that there is a measurable risk in the link airspace above 2,500 feet, then I will totally support putting in a proper system to minimise that risk. Of course, that needs to be Class C with a terminal radar facility. Anything less would be next to useless because the Controller would not know where the VFR aircraft was located (ie. “I’m over the 28th sandhill about 15 miles to the east heading north”).
Of course there is a cost increase with this, but I’m sure you as the airport owner would never put profits before passenger safety.
Dick,
When you say just plain dumb things like this:
It both, removes what credibility you have left, and reflects your limited knowledge of how Air Traffic Control works ... in the real world.
When you say just plain dumb things like this:
Walley2 of course, if your study shows that there is a measurable risk in the link airspace above 2,500 feet, then I will totally support putting in a proper system to minimise that risk. Of course, that needs to be Class C with a terminal radar facility. Anything less would be next to useless because the Controller would not know where the VFR aircraft was located (ie. “I’m over the 28th sandhill about 15 miles to the east heading north”).
Dick something puzzles me with your statement-
.
Why did you push so hard to get mandatory tranponder requirments here?
That’s the only reason the US does not have a transponder requirement for VFR aircraft in E airspace over D where there is no radar coverage
Why did you push so hard to get mandatory tranponder requirments here?
The most important point is that this airspace has a unique mandatory transponder requirement.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 20th May 2010 at 07:54.
you seem to think do-it-yourself calling-in-the-blind radio procedures in G are safer than having ATC in a tower actually controlling circuit area and runway traffic.
- at BRM aircraft don't call "in the blind", they talk to the CAGRO and get a directed traffic information service within the 30NMs and
- I made no mention of the ATC TWR service in Class D, which is clearly an improvement, however:
in particular "standard" Class E would mean no communication required with ATC for VFR - only at best monitoring - and as previously outlined even no-radio types could be in the E.
“I’m over the 28th sandhill about 15 miles to the east heading north”)
Peuce, how does a controller know if a vfr aircraft position is accurate in procedural class C when out of site?
Lets say we have C without radar to FL245 at Broome- similar to Alice.
A VFR aircraft calls up northbound when at 9500' about 30miles SE of Broome. How does ATC separate this aircraft from an inbound IFR coming from the west and descending from 14500' ? Must be really easy!
Lets say we have C without radar to FL245 at Broome- similar to Alice.
A VFR aircraft calls up northbound when at 9500' about 30miles SE of Broome. How does ATC separate this aircraft from an inbound IFR coming from the west and descending from 14500' ? Must be really easy!
About 50% of their 350 Class D aerodromes have no radar coverage in the E airspace immediately above the D.
There are literally dozens of Class D towers with TRSA radar services. A significant number of equivalent towers are are Class...wait for it...C!
Get your "facts" right, Dick. Can we believe anything you say?
Whenever I’ve spoken to FAA or UK airspace experts, they claim that non-radar towers should be responsible for a small amount of airspace so the ATC can concentrate where the collision risk is greater.
Once again, you demonstrate how out of touch with reality you are. A "Dick" zone at KTA or BME will be real fun with 3 jets and a couple of lighties all arriving at 5nm the same time. And you reckon the runway/circuit is the most dangerous place. Wrong. Oh, I forgot, the Enroute controller will be sequencing, using procedural standards, all the jets (except those that have chosen to go Free in E+). And don't worry about the bugsmashers also tracking for the airport/base/3nm final: "keep your eyeballs out and you'll be right". After all, the CARs ORDER me to lookout and prevent collisions.
Dick,
Please tell me that your are aware that we have been doing "procedural " Class C in Australia .... since ... since, before you put together your first transistor.
Basically, aircraft (both IFR & VFR) provide position reports. From that information, the Controller calculates potential conflicts and works on a plan to ensure the conflicts are removed or managed.
I can see a few quick ways to keep your examples apart:
A good current Controller would have another half dozen solutions up his sleeve. That scenario is not really a biggie.... as long as you know about both of them.
It's a pilot responsibility to provide accurate position reports.
If he doesn't .... well, he risks the life of himself and others.
What if forgets to put his gear down?
What if he has too much power on?
What if he's drunk?
What if his license is out of date?
........A VFR aircraft calls up northbound when at 9500' about 30miles SE of Broome. How does ATC separate this aircraft from an inbound IFR comming from the west and descending from 14500' ? Must be really easy!
Basically, aircraft (both IFR & VFR) provide position reports. From that information, the Controller calculates potential conflicts and works on a plan to ensure the conflicts are removed or managed.
I can see a few quick ways to keep your examples apart:
- Track the VFR over water, the IFR over land
- Assign levels that keep them apart
A good current Controller would have another half dozen solutions up his sleeve. That scenario is not really a biggie.... as long as you know about both of them.
So how does a controller know if a vfr aircraft position is accurate in procedural class C when out of site?
If he doesn't .... well, he risks the life of himself and others.
What if forgets to put his gear down?
What if he has too much power on?
What if he's drunk?
What if his license is out of date?
Last edited by peuce; 20th May 2010 at 08:14. Reason: Re-read your question
Bloggs, I support class C where safety requires it- always have.
But it needs to be properly manned and equipped.
Your so called "near misses" were not. At Brisbane both aircraft were on the radar frequency and the RA would not have been generated if the correct procedures were followed.
In Launy the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies and always had the other aircraft in site. Or are you now saying that alerted see and avoid does not give acceptable safety levels?
But it needs to be properly manned and equipped.
Your so called "near misses" were not. At Brisbane both aircraft were on the radar frequency and the RA would not have been generated if the correct procedures were followed.
In Launy the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies and always had the other aircraft in site. Or are you now saying that alerted see and avoid does not give acceptable safety levels?
Peuce, so how would ATC separate the aircraft at Broome with the example I have given?
The VFR would have to go 35 miles of course to track over water!
Is that what you call " no extra cost" class C.
The VFR would have to go 35 miles of course to track over water!
Is that what you call " no extra cost" class C.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick your argument about the tower concentrating on the 'circuit traffic' where the risk is greatest is completely undermined by this 'distracting' Class E mandatory broadcast area run from the Tower; how is the non circuit traffic workload less than Class C or Class D airspace? This hybrid 'new and unique' Australian outcome is a crock and you know it!
In Lony the VFR aircraft received a radio alerted traffic advisory on two frequencies and always had the other aircraft in site.
Or are you now saying that alerted see and avoid does not give acceptable safety levels?
You just don't get it, do you? When only one aircraft knows about the other, then there's a 50% chance that the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR is going to determine the outcome of the encounter. That is NOT Alerted See and Avoid, in my book.
And furthermore, this is exactly what'll happen in Broome and Karratha. The system is set up to fail.
Blockla , my argument is not undermined, my argument supports your view that it is a "crock"
What makes you believe that I support the "new and unique" system.
I have consistently supported proven systems- not experimentation!
What makes you believe that I support the "new and unique" system.
I have consistently supported proven systems- not experimentation!
Dick,
Bloody hell ... now my bodgey separation techniques are being used as NAS fodder!!
Okay, so I don't know up from down ... over in the west. However, even allowing for misplaced ocean, I don't think a 35nm diversion is likely. If it was, then let's step descend them both till the Tower can take over. Might cost him 50c extra??
Once Broome Control Zone is established, once Broome Tower is built, once a Controller has set up digs and once the procedures have been developed and once that Controller is rated ... ask that question again ... and you'll get the correct answer.... which I'm sure would be monetarily satisfactory.
BUT, say it was the proposed E above D ... would the answer be much different?
Bloody hell ... now my bodgey separation techniques are being used as NAS fodder!!
Okay, so I don't know up from down ... over in the west. However, even allowing for misplaced ocean, I don't think a 35nm diversion is likely. If it was, then let's step descend them both till the Tower can take over. Might cost him 50c extra??
Once Broome Control Zone is established, once Broome Tower is built, once a Controller has set up digs and once the procedures have been developed and once that Controller is rated ... ask that question again ... and you'll get the correct answer.... which I'm sure would be monetarily satisfactory.
BUT, say it was the proposed E above D ... would the answer be much different?
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick re your VFR v IFR.
Track the VFR north bound remaining east of the Great Northern Hwy til north of the BRM - DBY road then direct remaining north of the BRM-DBY road til 5-6nm when tower will see him. Keep the IFR coming straight to the VOR/NDB with a clearance limit of the xx DME/RNAV/or til visual (Lat sep chart displayed at tower to depict where lat sep exists/breaks down). Level assignment in accordance with LSALT/CTA steps.
That's called procedural separation and we did it in Hedland for 25 years. And I worked that out from Frankfurt with no maps. I am sure if some of the current procedural tower people had the time or inclination to answer your spurious, non events their solution would be even less restrictive than this one.
Track the VFR north bound remaining east of the Great Northern Hwy til north of the BRM - DBY road then direct remaining north of the BRM-DBY road til 5-6nm when tower will see him. Keep the IFR coming straight to the VOR/NDB with a clearance limit of the xx DME/RNAV/or til visual (Lat sep chart displayed at tower to depict where lat sep exists/breaks down). Level assignment in accordance with LSALT/CTA steps.
That's called procedural separation and we did it in Hedland for 25 years. And I worked that out from Frankfurt with no maps. I am sure if some of the current procedural tower people had the time or inclination to answer your spurious, non events their solution would be even less restrictive than this one.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: On a different Island
Age: 52
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What makes you believe that I support the "new and unique" system.
I have consistently supported proven systems- not experimentation!
I have consistently supported proven systems- not experimentation!
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick you say "...our busy airports such as Bankstown, Moorabbin and Parafield have very small control zones." Yes they do. But they are not typical procedural towers either. They are designed to encompass the circuit area and minimal transit areas to afford industry a place to train on circuits and in training areas. They are not designed to service airline or charter traffic over 7000kgs MTOW.
Another furphy.
Another furphy.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
and this is supported by the fact that our busy airports such as Bankstown, Moorabbin and Parafield have very small control zones.
Come on Dick tell me how they could be made any bigger and not impinge on Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.
Oz, pull the other one, if the VFR remains east of the highway it will be up to 15 nm from the tower when abeam.
The controller would have to have good eyes!
And what happens if he can't sight the VFR?
Get the IFR to start orbiting?
That's why C requires radar in other astute aviation countries.
The VFR was not inbound- it was heading north.
I remember how it was done at Port Headland - "Clearance not available -remain OCTA"
The controller would have to have good eyes!
And what happens if he can't sight the VFR?
Get the IFR to start orbiting?
That's why C requires radar in other astute aviation countries.
The VFR was not inbound- it was heading north.
I remember how it was done at Port Headland - "Clearance not available -remain OCTA"