Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piston Broke,
Qantas asked for an amendment to the Arbey Two approach to ML, which lowered the CLL north of Melbourne. At first glance, it didn't make much difference, so there were few objections. However, when Qantas was asked why, they said it was for safety reasons and that their aircraft couldn't hold the existing approach profile safely.
Airservices, who were in charge of airspace when this happened, had previously said that no airspace changes would be made without a legitimate safety case. Qantas failed to supply said safety case and when Boeing were asked to comment, they (Boeing) scoffed at the suggestion that their aircraft couldn't hold the approach profile. Qantas ignored this and stuck to their guns.
Airservices, true to previous undertakings, released an announcement saying that in the absence of a legitimate safety case, the changes to the Arbey Two approach would be dropped.
A few weeks later we got an announcement that rescinded the previous announcement and the changes to the Arbey Two approach were implemented at lightning speed, despite the fact that no legitimate safety case existed and despite Boeing's undertakings regarding the performance of the aircraft.
What, or who, changed Airservices mind? The lowering of the CLL has had little effect on G class operations, but the fact that airspace was changed simply because Qantas wanted it done, ignoring all other stakeholders, is certainly of grave concern.
The very day the changes were implemented I happened to be touring ML Centre, and when they asked for questions I hit them with this. None of them knew anything about it until their supervisor stepped in with a no comment as to the reasons why the big backpeddle.
That is the chain of events as I remember them. I could be wrong on some points. Times, dates, document references could all be cited if anyone really wants them. It was all done above board and Airservices did make an initial attempt at due process, but only after they were pushed on the matter.
Walrus
Qantas asked for an amendment to the Arbey Two approach to ML, which lowered the CLL north of Melbourne. At first glance, it didn't make much difference, so there were few objections. However, when Qantas was asked why, they said it was for safety reasons and that their aircraft couldn't hold the existing approach profile safely.
Airservices, who were in charge of airspace when this happened, had previously said that no airspace changes would be made without a legitimate safety case. Qantas failed to supply said safety case and when Boeing were asked to comment, they (Boeing) scoffed at the suggestion that their aircraft couldn't hold the approach profile. Qantas ignored this and stuck to their guns.
Airservices, true to previous undertakings, released an announcement saying that in the absence of a legitimate safety case, the changes to the Arbey Two approach would be dropped.
A few weeks later we got an announcement that rescinded the previous announcement and the changes to the Arbey Two approach were implemented at lightning speed, despite the fact that no legitimate safety case existed and despite Boeing's undertakings regarding the performance of the aircraft.
What, or who, changed Airservices mind? The lowering of the CLL has had little effect on G class operations, but the fact that airspace was changed simply because Qantas wanted it done, ignoring all other stakeholders, is certainly of grave concern.
The very day the changes were implemented I happened to be touring ML Centre, and when they asked for questions I hit them with this. None of them knew anything about it until their supervisor stepped in with a no comment as to the reasons why the big backpeddle.
That is the chain of events as I remember them. I could be wrong on some points. Times, dates, document references could all be cited if anyone really wants them. It was all done above board and Airservices did make an initial attempt at due process, but only after they were pushed on the matter.
Walrus
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
He did get NAS Mark I over the line only for every professional pilot and probably a great many Private Pilots to realise that one required three Comms for his system to work.....it wont work in the future
Flew into Avalon regularly and didn't have a problem mingling my prop with jets....
Flew into Avalon regularly and didn't have a problem mingling my prop with jets....
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok
I'll probably get burnt here but I have to ask just why the industry is expected to fund the manning of a tower at Avalon just because someone doesn't want to use the perfectly good airport at Melbourne in order to save them money. If flying to melbourne I don't want to get lumbered with the trip into the city from Avalon, The GA pilots don't want the restrictions a tower would bring so why not simply tell the big boys to use the airport that is already equipped to deal with them! Talk about the tail wagging the dog!
I also wanted to refer back to one of Dicks earlier posts
This followed discussions about the number of passengers moved. Dick's case rests on something a paper advocates not on legislation or regulation (I'm sure Dick would have stated them if they were relevant). So the question arises "just what are the criteria?"
It strikes me that whatever they are we have not yet reached them or it would have happened. My concern here is that as Dick is so knowledgeable about subjects aviation related, surely this either proves there is a "Spin" happening as the title of the post suggests or Dick is overlooking the actual criteria out of ignorance.
Does anybody know the actual criteria.
I'll probably get burnt here but I have to ask just why the industry is expected to fund the manning of a tower at Avalon just because someone doesn't want to use the perfectly good airport at Melbourne in order to save them money. If flying to melbourne I don't want to get lumbered with the trip into the city from Avalon, The GA pilots don't want the restrictions a tower would bring so why not simply tell the big boys to use the airport that is already equipped to deal with them! Talk about the tail wagging the dog!
I also wanted to refer back to one of Dicks earlier posts
CaptainMidnight, you state:
Quote:
Number of pax per year is irrelevant in dictating the level of ATS. That's just scare tactics to the public who don't know any better.
I’m now looking at my latest CASA document on the matter. It is headed Air Traffic Control Towers Decision Criteria September 1998.
Quote:
The purpose of this paper
This paper advocates that Australia moves from the present cost benefit criterion for ATC towers to a criterion based on the number of fare paying passengers protected by the ATC tower service.
My case rests.
Surely it is clear how a tower or a UNICOM operator would know who is responsible for a carrier without any modulation – they would simply ask. More to the point, the pilot giving the call wouldn’t get an answer from the UNICOM or the tower, so they would know there was a problem and change to the other radio. Surely that is pretty basic.
Quote:
Number of pax per year is irrelevant in dictating the level of ATS. That's just scare tactics to the public who don't know any better.
I’m now looking at my latest CASA document on the matter. It is headed Air Traffic Control Towers Decision Criteria September 1998.
Quote:
The purpose of this paper
This paper advocates that Australia moves from the present cost benefit criterion for ATC towers to a criterion based on the number of fare paying passengers protected by the ATC tower service.
My case rests.
Surely it is clear how a tower or a UNICOM operator would know who is responsible for a carrier without any modulation – they would simply ask. More to the point, the pilot giving the call wouldn’t get an answer from the UNICOM or the tower, so they would know there was a problem and change to the other radio. Surely that is pretty basic.
It strikes me that whatever they are we have not yet reached them or it would have happened. My concern here is that as Dick is so knowledgeable about subjects aviation related, surely this either proves there is a "Spin" happening as the title of the post suggests or Dick is overlooking the actual criteria out of ignorance.
Does anybody know the actual criteria.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody know the actual criteria.
The Draft Part 71 was attempting to address the issue; but it appears, to this little black duck, that it has greatly suffered from political interference and is going back to the 'consultation phase'; which means at best it is more than 2 years away.
Why did it (part 71) suffer from political interference? Well, IMHO people with influence didn't like the criterions developed; so they used their influence to get it back to the "drawing board".
I agree with midnight that no of pax shouldn't alone determine the service level; 1 A380 a day at AYE shouldn't be enough for a TWR service; but the issue is where do you draw the line?
PART 71 attempted to link total movements vs RPT movements vs Pax numbers and once 2 of 3 columns were over X then something had to be done; that something may simply have been a 'study' to justify why keeping status quo was adequate.
The trigger points were effectively drafted around the stats at the time; providing no changes, just about everywhere.
But we're now talking 6 years old; so back to the drawing board and I bet the new numbers will mean, status quo.
It also did not consider UNICOM or CAGRO; or non tower D, or low level E.
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SM4 Pirate
Thanks for the hard information. Perhaps dick should spend his money on a safety case to prove his stance then. I for one would be more supportive of that than the current action.
I still don't see though why the RPT can't be forced to use Melbourne though as this would remove the problem completely.
By the way My appologies to Dick for the use of the word Ignorance as from the information you supplied it is now obvious there are not the criteria for him to know.
Thanks for the hard information. Perhaps dick should spend his money on a safety case to prove his stance then. I for one would be more supportive of that than the current action.
I still don't see though why the RPT can't be forced to use Melbourne though as this would remove the problem completely.
By the way My appologies to Dick for the use of the word Ignorance as from the information you supplied it is now obvious there are not the criteria for him to know.
... ask Dick what involvement he had in the .... delay .. redrafting etc
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does it really matter what part he played. The simple fact is he has been out of the driving seat long enough for his successors to have dealt with the matter.
Since this kind of situation can put so many at risk, the authorities have an obligation to set the limits as soon as possible to prevent safety being compromised. The whole idea of having a system in place is to be proactive about safety not reactive.
constantly going on about what Dick did when in the driving seat gets us nowhere. If his arguement is valid now we should perhaps accept the possibility that he is seeing things from a different perspective now he is on the outside. Whilst we may not agree with the tactics can anyone say he is basicly wrong?
My concern is that the industry ends up paying for services it does not need because of a situation created by greed. A moratorium on RPT flights into Avalon pending the resolution of the issue would certainly speed a resolution and would probably not inconvenience the travelling public at all.
Since this kind of situation can put so many at risk, the authorities have an obligation to set the limits as soon as possible to prevent safety being compromised. The whole idea of having a system in place is to be proactive about safety not reactive.
constantly going on about what Dick did when in the driving seat gets us nowhere. If his arguement is valid now we should perhaps accept the possibility that he is seeing things from a different perspective now he is on the outside. Whilst we may not agree with the tactics can anyone say he is basicly wrong?
My concern is that the industry ends up paying for services it does not need because of a situation created by greed. A moratorium on RPT flights into Avalon pending the resolution of the issue would certainly speed a resolution and would probably not inconvenience the travelling public at all.
R4+Z, you state in relation to trigger points to man the tower at Avalon:
Don’t you understand the facts? Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.
There is a study that has been previously used by Airservices to decide whether a tower is established. It is called the Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. If you want to contact me I will photocopy it and send you a copy.
The interesting thing is that in the case of Avalon, this particular study has not been performed. It hasn’t been performed because it would clearly show that manning the tower would meet the criteria. One of the reasons for this is that there is no need for the capital cost to build the tower – which quite often precludes a tower at many airports. In this particular case the tower already exists, and the cost is just the cost of manning it.
Ron Jeremy Porn Star, you believe that the US NAS requires three coms to work. This is like saying that a Boeing 767 requires a separate engineer, and an engineer’s position, to operate safely – and that is what happened originally in Australia. That was the start of Ansett going into bankruptcy.
In fact, you don’t need 3 coms for the US NAS to work properly, you just need to ask how it works, and the best people to ask are US air traffic controllers and US airline pilots. Of course this didn’t happen. There was a constant campaign of “It wasn’t built here so we are not going to ask anyone. We don’t want to know. We just want to keep the system that we were trained in.”
Even today there is a constant effort by people at Airservices, and many people at CASA, to make sure that no US professional aviator, or US professional air traffic controller, is involved in any way to explain how NAS actually works.
With this type of insecurity and ignorance, it is very difficult to move forward. It is amazing how we moved from 4 engine DC-6s to 2 engine 767s. Then again, we insisted on modifying the 767 (as stated above) because we were not prepared to ask advice from other experienced professionals.
It strikes me that whatever they are we have not yet reached them or it would have happened.
There is a study that has been previously used by Airservices to decide whether a tower is established. It is called the Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers. If you want to contact me I will photocopy it and send you a copy.
The interesting thing is that in the case of Avalon, this particular study has not been performed. It hasn’t been performed because it would clearly show that manning the tower would meet the criteria. One of the reasons for this is that there is no need for the capital cost to build the tower – which quite often precludes a tower at many airports. In this particular case the tower already exists, and the cost is just the cost of manning it.
Ron Jeremy Porn Star, you believe that the US NAS requires three coms to work. This is like saying that a Boeing 767 requires a separate engineer, and an engineer’s position, to operate safely – and that is what happened originally in Australia. That was the start of Ansett going into bankruptcy.
In fact, you don’t need 3 coms for the US NAS to work properly, you just need to ask how it works, and the best people to ask are US air traffic controllers and US airline pilots. Of course this didn’t happen. There was a constant campaign of “It wasn’t built here so we are not going to ask anyone. We don’t want to know. We just want to keep the system that we were trained in.”
Even today there is a constant effort by people at Airservices, and many people at CASA, to make sure that no US professional aviator, or US professional air traffic controller, is involved in any way to explain how NAS actually works.
With this type of insecurity and ignorance, it is very difficult to move forward. It is amazing how we moved from 4 engine DC-6s to 2 engine 767s. Then again, we insisted on modifying the 767 (as stated above) because we were not prepared to ask advice from other experienced professionals.
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
I appologised for using the word ignorant as I didn't want to give offence when I learned that the criteria didn't exist. Yet you treat me as ignorant by asking...
The problem here is that you don't seem to be working on facts. If as you say a study would show that manning of the tower is required but that the study has not been done because...
Then I think you are implying either corruption or undue influence on a government body. So if we are talking facts I suppose it comes down to either put up or shut up and I don't mean financially.
Isn't it ironic that in my last post I was basically trying to support you!
All that aside nobody has yet explained why we should be forced to fund a tower at Avalon when the cheaper fix is make them use Melbourne!
I appologised for using the word ignorant as I didn't want to give offence when I learned that the criteria didn't exist. Yet you treat me as ignorant by asking...
Don’t you understand the facts?
Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.
Isn't it ironic that in my last post I was basically trying to support you!
All that aside nobody has yet explained why we should be forced to fund a tower at Avalon when the cheaper fix is make them use Melbourne!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There isn't a snowball's chance in hell that Jetstar will put up with using ML for the capital city flights. There are too many of them and that will add significant landing fees to their costs. That's why the regional flights use ML and the capital city flights use AV. I suspect the regional flights don't use AV because doing so would probably increase the number of movements to a level that would force CASA to do the study.
Using AV with no tower would have been costed into business plan for Jetstar from the beginning, so they won't be keen to see a tower go in there.
To throw a CB in the overcast, there was talk at the airshow this year that Linfox was trying to woo Tiger into using AV as well. This would definitely cause CASA to take a longer look at ops down there. Does anyone know more about this and what ever became of the proposal?
Walrus
Using AV with no tower would have been costed into business plan for Jetstar from the beginning, so they won't be keen to see a tower go in there.
To throw a CB in the overcast, there was talk at the airshow this year that Linfox was trying to woo Tiger into using AV as well. This would definitely cause CASA to take a longer look at ops down there. Does anyone know more about this and what ever became of the proposal?
Walrus
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using AV with no tower would have been costed into business plan for Jetstar from the beginning, so they won't be keen to see a tower go in there.
What sort of horrible ATC charges would apply to upset that business case?
Qantas/Jetstar has enough influence to stop the study from being performed.
When this latest fuss started in late August, I recall the Minister and others stated in the press that a study had been done and that it indicated the present activity does not justify the activation of the TWR.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qantas asked for an amendment to the Arbey Two approach
Someone in ASA can correct me, but my recollection is that for some time Virgin, QF, Jetstar and some of the internationals had reported a problem as a result of one of the initial NAS changes, specifically due to the base of CTA north of 30 ML having lifted from 6500 to 8500. This meant that the heavies operated by these companies could no longer fly the normal 3 deg descent profile to ML RWY 16 without leaving CTA i.e. to stay in CTA (presumably with at least a 500ft buffer to the lower limit), they had to fly a significantly steeper than normal profile which added to the workload.
I recall Cathay and/or VB were the first to formally request remedial action, and QF supported the investigation. To address the problem, a small wedge of CTA base 7500 was added, which had industry support (apart from AOPA).
So I don't know why QF has been made out to be the sole company involved and the others ignored (becasue they certainly weren't), apart from fitting nicely with the line of CASA ASA ATSB DOTRS etc. etc all running scared of QF and them calling the shots.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB,
You are correct that both VB and Jetstar were involved, but only Qantas was listed by AERU as the proponent of the change, and therefore responsible for establishing the justification. CAthay gets no mention, but that doesn't mean they didn't raise the issue.
Keep in mind that most stakeholders, including AOPA, had no objection to the change. Most objection came from that fact that Airservices allowed due process to be circumvented. The beef lies there. The following is an extract from the AERU documents.
Proponent: Qantas Airways
The raising of the CTA step by Airservices from A075 to A085 at 30nm north of Melbourne has resulted in the inability of high performance jet aircraft to conduct a continuous decent approach (CDA) straight in RWY16. The aircraft most affected are the new generation B737-800, A330 and A320 aircraft which cannot operate to the aircraft's normal descent profile, while other aircraft including the B767 and B747 are all affected to some degree.
And, from the AERU brief
This initiative by Qantas is a proposal to ensure containment of flight profiles in ML CTA during straight-in approaches to Runway 16. The contention is that the airspace design criteria [300FT/NM – (2.82° gradient)] is not particularly suited for modern high performance aircraft to be contained in CTA during straight-in approaches.
So what Qantas said was that modern jets listed above that were designed to be able to fly the ICAO SARPS glideslope can't meet it, but only on the Arbey approach to Melbourne?
As I stated earlier, I have no objection to the change because it has had minimal impact. My objection remains that, even after AERU rejected the change because there was no justification, someone somewhere pushed it through regardless, despite guarantees that that wouldn't happen.
Walrus
You are correct that both VB and Jetstar were involved, but only Qantas was listed by AERU as the proponent of the change, and therefore responsible for establishing the justification. CAthay gets no mention, but that doesn't mean they didn't raise the issue.
Keep in mind that most stakeholders, including AOPA, had no objection to the change. Most objection came from that fact that Airservices allowed due process to be circumvented. The beef lies there. The following is an extract from the AERU documents.
Proponent: Qantas Airways
The raising of the CTA step by Airservices from A075 to A085 at 30nm north of Melbourne has resulted in the inability of high performance jet aircraft to conduct a continuous decent approach (CDA) straight in RWY16. The aircraft most affected are the new generation B737-800, A330 and A320 aircraft which cannot operate to the aircraft's normal descent profile, while other aircraft including the B767 and B747 are all affected to some degree.
And, from the AERU brief
This initiative by Qantas is a proposal to ensure containment of flight profiles in ML CTA during straight-in approaches to Runway 16. The contention is that the airspace design criteria [300FT/NM – (2.82° gradient)] is not particularly suited for modern high performance aircraft to be contained in CTA during straight-in approaches.
So what Qantas said was that modern jets listed above that were designed to be able to fly the ICAO SARPS glideslope can't meet it, but only on the Arbey approach to Melbourne?
As I stated earlier, I have no objection to the change because it has had minimal impact. My objection remains that, even after AERU rejected the change because there was no justification, someone somewhere pushed it through regardless, despite guarantees that that wouldn't happen.
Walrus
Captain Midnight, the facts are simple. The study was a sham. Have a look at it – I’ve read it thoroughly. It doesn’t mention anywhere the actual cost of manning a tower. For example, I think it is about $300 per hour, which the Army can afford for one of their King Airs doing circuits. My estimation is that it would cost between 30 cents and 50 cents per passenger for Jetstar to man the tower.
Why do they use a proper cost benefit study to close down Wagga tower, but they then use a sham study for Avalon, which doesn’t look at cost at all? The tower already exists, so instead of having the capital cost of building a tower, they simply have to pay the cost of manning it.
Good evidence of the report’s fraudulent nature is the fact that it says it is confidential. Why, 11 months after the preparation of a so-called safety study, should it be confidential? Is that so the public can’t read it?
I can assure you it is a con, and no doubt it will all come out when the inevitable accident occurs. Remember, for 15 years I have constantly said decisions on airspace should be made on a scientific and objective basis. That is, as risk moves up the scale, you have a higher category of airspace – not the reverse.
Why do they use a proper cost benefit study to close down Wagga tower, but they then use a sham study for Avalon, which doesn’t look at cost at all? The tower already exists, so instead of having the capital cost of building a tower, they simply have to pay the cost of manning it.
Good evidence of the report’s fraudulent nature is the fact that it says it is confidential. Why, 11 months after the preparation of a so-called safety study, should it be confidential? Is that so the public can’t read it?
I can assure you it is a con, and no doubt it will all come out when the inevitable accident occurs. Remember, for 15 years I have constantly said decisions on airspace should be made on a scientific and objective basis. That is, as risk moves up the scale, you have a higher category of airspace – not the reverse.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W7
My understanding is that was simply a matter of resources. A "proponent" was necessary, the internationals weren't in a collective really suitable for it, VB & Jetstar are run lean, and QF did have the resources and were prepared to put their hand up.
No, not exclusive to the Arbey approach, but any other scenario where a TD point is sufficiently close to CTR & CTA boundaries that the 2.82° gradient results in clipping steps. I don't know of any other scenario like it offhand. The approach to ML from the east west & south appear OK because the distance from the RWYs to the CTR/CTA edges is greater.
I'll leave the technical stuff to the airspace designers
only Qantas was listed by AERU as the proponent of the change,
So what Qantas said was that modern jets listed above that were designed to be able to fly the ICAO SARPS glideslope can't meet it, but only on the Arbey approach to Melbourne?
I'll leave the technical stuff to the airspace designers
Folks,
Genuine question, how does TCAS II ( A320 or whatever) get an RA from a C-172??
Tootle pip!!
-----A320, after departing without hitting any birds and making all broadcasts as required received an RA based on the proximity of the C172'.
Tootle pip!!
Grumpy
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: 35-21 South 149-06 East
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I still want to know what happened to the cheque sent to Kerry O'Brien which is why I started this thread.
Also Dick - when did you fix you vehicle and get back to Australia?
Also Dick - when did you fix you vehicle and get back to Australia?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PB,
Apparently the BADGR9 straight in approach to RWY 27 at ML is the same, but no complaints about that.
QF said that the problem with Arbey was high level winds prevailing on that approach, but the Met knew nothing about any such winds, and that they would have abated at the lower levels, and if not then they'd be using 34 not 16.
I'm not a technical person either. All this information was dug up by someone else and presented to me in plain English.
Another thing that rankled was that Airservices apparently took over the role of proponent halfway through the process at QF's request. Therefore, they were in the position of having to state the airlines' position to themselves.
No wonder they won!
Walrus
Apparently the BADGR9 straight in approach to RWY 27 at ML is the same, but no complaints about that.
QF said that the problem with Arbey was high level winds prevailing on that approach, but the Met knew nothing about any such winds, and that they would have abated at the lower levels, and if not then they'd be using 34 not 16.
I'm not a technical person either. All this information was dug up by someone else and presented to me in plain English.
Another thing that rankled was that Airservices apparently took over the role of proponent halfway through the process at QF's request. Therefore, they were in the position of having to state the airlines' position to themselves.
No wonder they won!
Walrus