Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Traffic Information and UNICOM v AFIS v ATC

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.
View Poll Results: At busy (currently NON controlled) airports, what level of service would you prefer?
ATC (i.e. Tower)
50
54.35%
AFIS
24
26.09%
Unicom
18
19.57%
Voters: 92. This poll is closed

Traffic Information and UNICOM v AFIS v ATC

Old 7th Sep 2007, 04:54
  #21 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Kiwiblue...that may not necessarily be the case either...I understand that some instructors from a local flight training establishment staff AR UNICOM...but they MAY just hold an FRTO...

Moral of the story is to always know who you're talking to and what their responsibilities are!!

Last edited by slackie; 7th Sep 2007 at 08:08. Reason: corectin mi p!ss po0r speling
slackie is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2007, 06:47
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
couldn't agree more
kiwiblue is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2007, 08:15
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I have been doing some research into this introduction of Unicom services and all previous posts regarding what and what not unicom operators can do is mostly correct. This service is solely the idea of airservices, no doubt as a revenue source. Amazingly airservices didn't even consult CASA about this. Since when can airservices do their own surveys - not published might I add - then decide that certain aerodromes "need" their unicom service? I thought CASA made the rules on airspace !

Lets have a look at what they say they are going to provide. Traffic information service. Under MOS part 139 , their operators can give ETA'S and ETD's of aircraft only. OK, I call 15 miles inbound - ABC, baron 15 nm on the 180 radial 2500' on decent estimating Wagga on the hour. Unicom - traffic is ACC, C172 estimating Wagga at zero five. I then call ACC, ask him his position,level and intentions. Then I can work out if he is relevant traffic for me or not and take action. Sounds OK so far. Now it is busy and I call inbound - the unicom operator gives me 10 eta's.( not unusual at Wagga or Dubbo). I then have to go to each aircraft, ascertain their positions, work out the relevant traffic and arrange separation. Meanwhile, the other 10 aircraft are trying to arrange their own separation from each other and we are all still trying to set up our aircraft for an approach ! Your Joking ! Imagine the frequency congestion this will cause as well as the extra workload on pilots. At least now, the only aircraft that are supposed to respond to me are conflicting aircraft. Unworkable at a busy aerodrome. Now the weather information service. Again under Mos part 139 unicom operators can only give "Factual" statements about the weather - I'm unsure what "Factual" really means but it seems that they can tell me its raining. Big deal . I want cloud bases, visibility, direction of storms and advice on the best way to make an approach. Everything else I can already get from the AWIS. So this is no service at all. Unless the unicom operators have met observers certificates - highly unlikey - they cant provide a weather service.

I have no doubt that a unicom service could be useful at aerodromes with low traffic and RPT aircraft, but under the current legislation, the unicom service is unworkable at busy regional airports with multiple RPT movements. The whole proposal by airservices seems to be badly researched by them and deceptive at best. Meanwhile, CASA developed a Certified Air-Ground Radio Service 8 years ago and this provides the same traffic information and weather information as flight service used to in an AFIZ - relevant traffic and real time weather observations. This is running very successfully at Broome and Ayers Rock - both airports with around 350,000 passengers a year - and is very popular with pilots. I wonder why airservices have failed propose this type of service - already proven and successful - instead of the unicom service which was designed to be used by unqualified airline staff - baggage handlers etc. for their own aircraft only? Unicom was never designed to provide traffic and weather information to all aircraft and busy aerodromes and this is why the legislation is so restrictive and with good reason.
crisper is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2007, 09:11
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Some points:
  • I understand that the trial at Wagga & Dubbo was DIRECTED by the Minister...could be wrong
  • If the Minister did direct it ...then CASA is bound by it too
  • If Minister directed it ... on whose persuasion?
  • ASA won't make any dosh out of it ... they have to pay for it
  • If it is a standard Unicom service, I agree with you .. a waste of time getting ETAs and then having to work out the rest yourself ... I belive a standard Unicom doesn't even give callsigns, only ... "Cessna doing circuits"
  • It has been billed as UNICOM PLUS ... so there may be some goodies attached
peuce is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2007, 09:36
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
From the information I have Puece, the minister has only approved the trials. It seems to me that he has been seriously misled by ASA.

1. He obviously has not been informed of the much more appropriate CAGRS service developed by CASA for these very aerodromes.

2. The fact that CASA only found out about it when they heard of the meeting at Wagga and decided they had better go an see what ASA are up to.
That seems deliberately deceptive to me.

Airservices also told the meeting at Wagga that the unicom operators would be recognised at CAGRO'S - that's another deception. To be a CAGRO you must have held an ATC or Flight Service licence in the preceeding 10 years. I bet they haven't told CASA about that one either!
crisper is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2007, 19:17
  #26 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Live in Taupiri, Waikato, work in the big smoke, New Zealand
Posts: 545
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Just be aware that the information I supplied at the start of this thread was based on NZ CAA Rules, not Aussie ones
slackie is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2007, 22:24
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Like most things ASA ... it's getting murkier and murkier ...
peuce is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2007, 00:32
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 54
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Please excuse my ignorance on aspects of this issue people, but I have a few questions. If there is an AWIS at the aerodrome does that give current wx? Is traffic passed via radio by other aircraft within 30nm? Apart from these two things it seems everything else a Unicom operator is allowed to do is related to logistics/ground support. Could someone please point out the safety advantages of a Unicom operator working within their guidelines? As opposed to listening to correct freq radio's and the AWIS. Is the reason CAGRO's are CAGRO's the lack of radar.

Is this about cost? It would seem if we were looking at safety I would have thought a tower would be best. What are the cost differences between the AFIS, tower and Unicom.

Sorry if I've drifted this a bit I'm just interested in the usefulness of someone who can't look out a window, listens to radios and reads wx. As opposed to a trained, competent CAGRO/tower.
Whiskey Oscar Golf is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2007, 01:51
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your not the only one unsure of the differences between the services Whisky Oscar Golf - unfortunately a lot of pilots have never had these services explained properly in the past, so don't feel ignorant . Now some answers :

1. AWIS gives wind speed and direction/ cloud base and approximate coverage/temperature and QNH. The main restriction with AWIS is that the sensor at the unit only has a very limited field of view and sometimes it will state "no cloud" when there is a lot of cloud out of its field of view. No substitute for a pair of eyes giving accurate cloud bases/types and visibility over an ATIS but in most circumstances quite OK.

2. Traffic passed by CAGRO'S is on first contact with all aircraft either at 30nm inbound ( dependant on the size of the CTAF) or when taxying for departure. This is presented in the same format as ATC does in G airspace from IFR to IFR and assessed for relevance using established traffic criteria. The main difference between ATC tower and CA/GRS is that CAGRO'S provide traffic information and NOT separation and only within the confines of the CTAF. They have no radar access .Most other services are the same. As far as Unicom goes, the traffic they can provide is restricted to ETA'S and ETD'S as explained in my previous thread. As this service has never been tested before in a busy CTAF its anyone's guess what advantages , if any, it will have.

3. Cost ? According to CASA documentation CA/GRS is between $50,000 to $100,000 a year and an ATC tower between $500,000 and 1 m a year - NPRM0006AS refers. This is mainly CAGRO'S/Controllers salary after initial set up costs. Unicom has yet to be costed at this time.

The level of safety for CAGRO and ATC is proven and tested. I personally feel the is no substitute for someone professionally trained with a full view of the movement and circuit areas. The safety provided by Unicom is so far untried - but I guess we will find out after the trials.

Hope this helps.
crisper is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2007, 06:47
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
crisper,

You state:
”The safety provided by UNICOM is so far untried”
Where have you been living? Obviously not in this world!

UNICOMs are proven all around the world, or are you not prepared to copy from others?

Have you ever noticed that all of the airline aircraft flying in Australia are actually made in other countries and were originally certified to the standards of those countries not Australia?

I have been attempting to bring in the North American style UNICOM for over 15 years with no success.

What happens if I pay for an air ticket for you to pop on a flight to North America, and look at a few of the thousands of operating UNICOMs which substantially improve safety, and are not operated by retired air traffic controllers or flight service officers.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2007, 07:19
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick, lets not get personal here. Unicom as proposed by Airservices must adhere to MOS Part 139 Chapter 14. I suggest you read that and make up your own mind on how it would work in busy CTAF's. I have no experience with FAA unicoms so I cannot give and informed opinion on them - but as you have, I would like a detailed explanation of how they work and, as I said before, maybe it may be a much better system than the one proposed by Airservices which is so restricted by current legislation. I stand by my statement that Unicom as proposed and forced to adhere to MOS139 is untried and not proven in Australia but I suppose we will all find out after the trials. And further more, I couldn't care less about ex FSO"s or ATC's operating the service as long as safety isn't compromised and pilots approve of the service. That decision will rest with Australian pilots not me.
crisper is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2007, 14:06
  #32 (permalink)  

Just Binos
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick, I'm a recently retired ATC who would be more than willing to take up your offer to fly me to the USA to investigate their operations of Unicoms. Of course I would require an assistant for this fact finding mission, in fact I have one in mind who used to work under you, and I would require considerable recompense, but I'm not going to let that get in the way of solid research. So let me get down to the elephant in the room.

Lawyers, Dick, lawyers.

Everthing is hunky dory until things go tits up, then everyone ducks for cover. I got out of ATC because I couldn't stand the constant barrage of useless arse-covering that bombarded us every week. While it may have been finally disseminated to us via email by carefully chosen hacks, it originated from lawyers and accountants.

Now if you can find a way to solve the question of who exactly is to blame when something goes badly wrong at a Unicom, a Cagro, or any other pseudo installation which once may have been called ATC or Flight Service, which you personally destroyed by bringing in your hatchet man Frank Baldwin, then perhaps a few of your detractors may have more faith in what you say.

Are you going to personally guarantee legal liability for these poor unfortunates? Are they even going to be allowed to tell incoming pilots it's raining without a Met Observer's Certificate? What's traffic? Anything within ten minutes? Five minutes? Half an hour? Or is it going to be left to the discretion of an unqualified operator?

We are talking about a society where you are not allowed to smoke within four (count 'em) metres of a licensed establishment; where alternate holes on a golf course are designated non smoking (why no allowance for wind?)

Now I know you agree with me on the foolishness of this unwarranted government interference into our private lives, but do you honestly think your beloved crusade for Unicoms is going to be any different, and if so, how? How are you going to protect the operators from the madness of litigation?

In short, Dick; **** or get off the pot.

(Hang on, I've just had a thought; let's train a separate group of qualified professionals to give non-control information to pilots operating outside the busier airports. Let's call them, ohh, I can't think of anything at the moment.......)
Binoculars is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 03:30
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Binoculars, one of the most litigious societies in the world is the United States. It has operated UNICOM services for over 50 years with tens of millions of movements, and last time I checked with the FAA (about 3 months ago) there was no known litigation against a UNICOM operator.

Surely we can copy something which is incredibly successful, adds to safety, and has no history of litigation. Alternatively, we can create problems which don’t exist and not benefit from this simple extra safety procedure.

By the way, if an airline aircraft is going in to an airport and asks another pilot what the weather is like (which often happens) are you really suggesting that the other pilot is at great risk of being sued? If this was so it would have happened already, as there are literally hundreds of such requests every week in Australia.

Quit trying to create problems which don’t exist - just copy procedures which are successfully used all around the world.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 07:31
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Binos,

Picking up on your thought…

Lets simplify the A and B and C and D and E and F airspace model that some **** shoved down our throats and dream up some sort of system that really is easy to understand and have names that reflect the type of airspace contained.

Something like “controlled airspace” for areas that really need it and “uncontrolled airspace” for the rest? Or is that too simple?

What about “AirborneTransportationCheck Airspace” and “FunctionalSubstantiveOracle Airspace”?

Lets minimise the “controlled airspace” (or whatever we call it – still working on a title) and have as much “uncontrolled” as possible. That way, egotistical pilots on their way back from Lord Howe Island in a light single can do what they like…but enter “Superfragalisticexpialidocious Airspace” (say over Sydney on a busy afternoon) and you coin up big time.

Hey, also lets charge for SARTIMEs too!!! Yeh, and lets charge the real cost of providing briefing materials – pilots pay for charts and docs after all….ok strike that last bit, clearly not everyone buys charts and docs (or gets briefing for that matter – refer TIBA thread!!!!)

Ok, ok ok, get back to back to simple…deep breath…
If you show up anywhere in the system and want any service, you pay up the full cost of providing that service.
Screw up and cause an incident and you pay up.
Screw up, cause an incident AND you are trying to cheat the system; you pay up double.

This charging system would all be in line with Australian Government cost recovery procedures that CASA cite on their Medical Certification Renewal Issue. The cost of service provision and investigation need to be charged to somewhere don’t it and the Gov does not pay Airservices for such things as “Community Service Obligations”

(Flight Service Obligation Airspace???)

And Bino’s probably best if your qualified professionals worked alongside the control qualified professionals and utilised the same type of fancy computer display of a combination of radar, flight plan tracks and ADSB derived info.

No names spring to mind for these professionals either….maybe something out of the airspace names perhaps?

…and Dick, just because something is used successfully overseas, it does not automatically mean that we should copy it…..

Gun legislation from the US
Drug legislation from Europe
Capital Punishment from Various countries
Whaling from Japan
Opium farming in Afghanistan
Genocide in Africa

We can debate the Success, Safety and litigation of all these things and each country would no doubt say they are all this and more.
JackoSchitt is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 07:57
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 1,140
Received 3 Likes on 1 Post
Jack, Maaate ...
You gotta stop smokin that stuff ...

Last edited by peuce; 17th Oct 2007 at 20:41.
peuce is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 11:40
  #36 (permalink)  

Just Binos
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely we can copy something which is incredibly successful, adds to safety, and has no history of litigation. Alternatively, we can create problems which don’t exist and not benefit from this simple extra safety procedure.
God, why didn't I think of that? Just let me get it finally straight, because I'm a bit slow. We can put someone utterly unqualified into a position of giving information to a pilot, and if it all goes tits up there will be no litigation because there hasn't been in the USA?

Hang on, what's that? Not unqualified? Well, that's I was asking in my dim way; what sort of qualifications will they have?

If you ask a fellow pilot the conditions at a field he has just departed from he will give you facts based on his own observations. As a pilot he has to have passed basic or advanced tests on his knowledge of such things as meteorology, so he is entirely qualilfied to do so. But more importantly, he is not being paid to provide that information. It is given on the basis of helping his fellow airman and implies no responsibility. So your analogy is untenable.

Far from introducing problems that don't exist into a simple situation, I am seeking answers to a few basic questions. Answer those questions then let's start to work out how we can achieve some results because believe it or not we share at least part of a belief that aviation is over-controlled in Australia. Saying in your usual simplistic manner that we will just copy the USA is avoiding the questions completely.

Again I reiterate my kind offer to use my very valuable time to travel at your expense to the US to do extensive research. Because that's just the sort of bloke I am.
Binoculars is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 13:20
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Binoculars

But more importantly, he is not being paid to provide that information. It is given on the basis of helping his fellow airman and implies no responsibility.
And the difference in responsibility between a unicom operator that is not directly paid for the information and a pilot that is not directly paid for the information is what?

Your statement could be interpreted to argue that the holder of a pilot's licence would be an appropriate qualification to operate a unicom.
werbil is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2007, 14:25
  #38 (permalink)  

Just Binos
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Your statement could be interpreted to argue that the holder of a pilot's licence would be an appropriate qualification to operate a unicom.
Indeed it could. And why would it not?

More to the point, are you suggesting these unicom operators will all be unpaid?
Binoculars is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 03:39
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
More to the point, are you suggesting these unicom operators will all be unpaid?
When I am flying I may not be being paid to provide "that information" but I am being paid to fly. I can't see anyone paying a person to only operate a unicom - if it is busy enough for that either a tower is required or a CAGRO would be more appropriate.

Using the example of YBHM (part time tower) it is very busy at times (busiest just after the tower closes) yet there are large periods of time where there is no traffic. During these periods other duties could be performed. The unicom does not have to be continuous - it could be started and stopped like YBHM tower which closes late afternoon and for lunch.

From a liability point of view as a pilot even though I am not paid for the information, if I gave dangerous or grossly negligent information I believe I could still be sued. Giving information to another person creates a duty of care to take reasonable care to provide that information.
werbil is offline  
Old 18th Oct 2007, 09:30
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,152
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Correct - one significant difference between a UNICOM and CAGRS is that
the UNICOM is not necessarily a dedicated service that will always be available when called; the nature of UNICOM is that it may be a secondary function to the commercial activities of the operator, e.g. refuelling, aircraft hire, pilot shop.
(CASA Summary of Responses - Regulatory Standards for Airspace - CASR Part 71).

A CAGRS on the other hand is a dedicated continuous service. So a UNICOM operator could indeed be away doing something (loading bags, refuelling) just when needed.

I recall a trial some years ago of one of the first UNICOMs here where I'm told the gent was a baggie for an airline. When the aircraft was inbound, he really didn't want to be manning the UNICOM but instead prepping the bags etc. etc. for quick turnaround outbound flight. If there was a competing airline there, would he have waited around for them too? I suspect not.

As I've quoted here before from the same document:
UNICOMs originated in the USA, however, CASA understands that the FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services;
and

The higher level services such as CA/GRS have certified, or licensed operators which provide a dedicated, continuous service provided by the aerodrome operator. Because of the higher level of competence that is required to obtain certification, CASA permits the assessment of traffic so that only relevant traffic is passed. In addition, the CA/GRS operators are qualified and authorised to provide meteorological observations including cloud and visibility assessments, and an approved source QNH which can be used for the purposes of lower instrument approach minima.

Those CA/GRS now in operation have been shown to enhance safety and have received a high level of pilot acceptance. CASA intends to retain the standards for CA/GRS service provision, as a cost effective service for use at high traffic density regional non-controlled aerodromes.
CaptainMidnight is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.