Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
SM4 Pirate, you state that you agree with my sentiments, but you also state:
You obviously don’t know me. I have no agenda other than what I have publicly stated for over 25 years. That is, put the safety resources where the measurable risk is.
You state:
That is the most sensible question I have heard. In the study performed by Airservices dated 27 September 2006 and entitled In Confidence: Airservices Australia Aeronautical Study Avalon – In Confidence (yes, “In Confidence” is repeated) this is not covered in any way. It is the most basic point that you would look at in any genuine safety study, yet it is not mentioned in this study regarding Avalon.
You, I, and millions of others would say, “Hold on – what is the cost of manning the tower? Oh, it is only $300 per hour. In that time x numbers of Airbus aircraft will land with so many passengers. Oh, that means it is only 30 cents per passenger,” (or something possibly a little more or less). We would then say, “It is obvious that the tower can be manned at very little cost and it is also obvious that safety would be improved.”
This is not what happened. Nowhere in the huge Airservices study (of 80 pages) does it actually mention the cost of manning the tower.
Of course the cost is well known, because when the military do a bit of training with one of their King Airs, Airservices man the tower. Even when the Formula One freighter aircraft arrive, the tower is specially manned by Airservices. In fact, somewhere in the report it shows that a number of years ago the tower was manned 608 hours per year but it is now way down to 208 hours – despite the huge increase in RPT traffic and passenger numbers.
By the way, the FAA’s Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers is a very lengthy document, full of formulas, and results in a proper cost benefit study – by valuing human life – as to whether a tower is cost effective. Airservices are running these Class D towers in the USA at the present time using this cost benefit formula. Isn’t is fascinating that they have dumped this formula here, and use an “aeronautical study” that is “In Confidence” – so the public can’t actually see what is going on?
Most importantly, CASA has always been responsible for this, and they will be the ones who will be held accountable when an accident occurs. Remember, under Regulation 92, CASA has the power to give directions in relation to aerodromes. This power under Reg 92 has obviously been put there by Parliament so CASA will do its job – not shirk responsibility and blame someone else, but insist that safety resources be allocated correctly.
SM4 Pirate, give me a phone call and I will photocopy the document and post it to you. My numbers are 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221.
Yes, the proper Establishment and Discontinuance Formula has been used since Wagga was closed. It was most recently used to justify Hamilton Island tower remaining open.
Wizofoz, you state:
The remote AFIZ may have been (i.e. when the local operator was removed from the airport and it was “remoted” from a capital city using a satellite system). However, this doesn’t give any information on traffic which may be on the wrong frequency. When you had a local AFIZ, or you have a local UNICOM, the operator can state that they have just seen an aircraft – let’s say a Jetstar Airbus – taxi out without giving any radio calls.
As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do with “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time and completely negated the major safety advantage of the local AFIZ – i.e. a person at the aerodrome who could give local traffic, weather, and other pertinent information that only a local operator can give.
I'm always wary of your actual agenda.
You state:
Just so we know exactly whether it is economics or safety, what is the landing cost of a A320 at AMAV when the TOWER is active?
You, I, and millions of others would say, “Hold on – what is the cost of manning the tower? Oh, it is only $300 per hour. In that time x numbers of Airbus aircraft will land with so many passengers. Oh, that means it is only 30 cents per passenger,” (or something possibly a little more or less). We would then say, “It is obvious that the tower can be manned at very little cost and it is also obvious that safety would be improved.”
This is not what happened. Nowhere in the huge Airservices study (of 80 pages) does it actually mention the cost of manning the tower.
Of course the cost is well known, because when the military do a bit of training with one of their King Airs, Airservices man the tower. Even when the Formula One freighter aircraft arrive, the tower is specially manned by Airservices. In fact, somewhere in the report it shows that a number of years ago the tower was manned 608 hours per year but it is now way down to 208 hours – despite the huge increase in RPT traffic and passenger numbers.
By the way, the FAA’s Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria for Airport Traffic Control Towers is a very lengthy document, full of formulas, and results in a proper cost benefit study – by valuing human life – as to whether a tower is cost effective. Airservices are running these Class D towers in the USA at the present time using this cost benefit formula. Isn’t is fascinating that they have dumped this formula here, and use an “aeronautical study” that is “In Confidence” – so the public can’t actually see what is going on?
Most importantly, CASA has always been responsible for this, and they will be the ones who will be held accountable when an accident occurs. Remember, under Regulation 92, CASA has the power to give directions in relation to aerodromes. This power under Reg 92 has obviously been put there by Parliament so CASA will do its job – not shirk responsibility and blame someone else, but insist that safety resources be allocated correctly.
SM4 Pirate, give me a phone call and I will photocopy the document and post it to you. My numbers are 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221.
Yes, the proper Establishment and Discontinuance Formula has been used since Wagga was closed. It was most recently used to justify Hamilton Island tower remaining open.
Wizofoz, you state:
I always thought that the remote AFIZ system had to be THE most cost efficient form of traffic information.
As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do with “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time and completely negated the major safety advantage of the local AFIZ – i.e. a person at the aerodrome who could give local traffic, weather, and other pertinent information that only a local operator can give.
Dick Smith said:
"As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do with “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time and completely negated the major safety advantage of the local AFIZ – i.e. a person at the aerodrome who could give local traffic, weather, and other pertinent information that only a local operator can give".
Actually, FSOs weren't allowed to look out the window and give "actual" information ... in fact, many Flight Service Units were built so that they faced away from the runways.... and the temptation removed.
"As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do with “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time and completely negated the major safety advantage of the local AFIZ – i.e. a person at the aerodrome who could give local traffic, weather, and other pertinent information that only a local operator can give".
Actually, FSOs weren't allowed to look out the window and give "actual" information ... in fact, many Flight Service Units were built so that they faced away from the runways.... and the temptation removed.
Peuce, it sounds as if in those days the management of the Department of Civil Aviation was similar to the management at Airservices Australia. That is, trying to do everything to make sure they were not accountable for any accident, rather than ensuring the resources were allocated to reduce the chance of an accident.
Fortunately, the FSOs that I knew did everything they could to look out of the window. I’m particularly thinking of Dubbo, Coffs Harbour, Cooma and Charleville. At different times at these locations I have heard an FSO announce that there was an aircraft taxiing on the wrong frequency. This is a great safety advantage.
Remember, there are ATSB reports to show that a Qantas 737 departed Ayers Rock, even after the Air/Ground was installed, but gave all its calls on the company frequency. Luckily the Air/Ground operator was able to warn other aircraft.
Then at a later date, an Airbus took off from Avalon giving its calls on the wrong CTAF frequency. It would be interesting to know why the air crew ignored the beep back unit, or was the beep back not operating?
Fortunately, the FSOs that I knew did everything they could to look out of the window. I’m particularly thinking of Dubbo, Coffs Harbour, Cooma and Charleville. At different times at these locations I have heard an FSO announce that there was an aircraft taxiing on the wrong frequency. This is a great safety advantage.
Remember, there are ATSB reports to show that a Qantas 737 departed Ayers Rock, even after the Air/Ground was installed, but gave all its calls on the company frequency. Luckily the Air/Ground operator was able to warn other aircraft.
Then at a later date, an Airbus took off from Avalon giving its calls on the wrong CTAF frequency. It would be interesting to know why the air crew ignored the beep back unit, or was the beep back not operating?
As I have mentioned many times, I had nothing to do ith “remoting” the AFIZ – that decision was made before my time
- Chairman of the CAA in 1991
- who approved AMATS
- which included closure of the Flight Service Units
- which directly caused the remoting of AFIZs.
JackoSchitt
Agree with your sentiments entirely. However a small point - the restriction to CAGROs being ATC & FSOs is in the process of being lifted (if it hasn't already):
http://www.casa.gov.au/newrules/parts/139/as0609.asp
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks CaptainMidnight,
I vaguely remember this revision. But it still is not law yet from what I can find.
Interesting question is what "traffic parameters" do CA/GRO apply? anyone?
as for Dick "back flip" Smith...
I vaguely remember this revision. But it still is not law yet from what I can find.
Interesting question is what "traffic parameters" do CA/GRO apply? anyone?
as for Dick "back flip" Smith...
CaptainMidnight, stick with the facts. The decision to “remote” the AFIZ, and therefore sack the local Flight Service Officers, was made before my time and commenced before the AMATS decision in 1991.
The decision to go ahead with a major contract with Aussat and “remote” the AFIZ was one of the catalysts for moving to AMATS. You may remember the original educational material explained that there would be many local UNICOMs being set up to give information at airports. This was resisted then, and has been resisted furiously ever since.
I will say again – I was a great supporter of the local Flight Service AFIZ. I particularly liked the fact that you could drop in to a place like Charleville and have a cup of coffee. The friendly FSOs would often put in a flight plan for you, organise refuelling and also a taxi.
I remember every time I went to Dubbo I would be met by the local media, who had been sent by the local Flight Service staff to ask me about whether the local Flight Service would stay open. I always said that personally I preferred this, however I wondered how a general aviation industry that was about to be destroyed could keep affording a system.
Yes, I did introduce the AMATS changes, and they have saved about $100 million per year since then. This is about $1.6 billion over the last 16 years. Part of the AMATS changes was to replace the “remote” AFIZ with a local UNICOM operator. I have consistently supported this since 1991 – even though it has been resisted as stated above.
By the way, if the AMATS changes hadn’t been made, the GA industry would have been forced to pay this $1.6 billion. Obviously GA basically would not exist today if the changes had not been made.
In other countries it is the local UNICOM operator (provided at no cost) who provides the cup of coffee, assists with the flight plan, organises refuelling and a taxi, and even gives local weather and traffic. Why can’t we do that here?
The decision to go ahead with a major contract with Aussat and “remote” the AFIZ was one of the catalysts for moving to AMATS. You may remember the original educational material explained that there would be many local UNICOMs being set up to give information at airports. This was resisted then, and has been resisted furiously ever since.
I will say again – I was a great supporter of the local Flight Service AFIZ. I particularly liked the fact that you could drop in to a place like Charleville and have a cup of coffee. The friendly FSOs would often put in a flight plan for you, organise refuelling and also a taxi.
I remember every time I went to Dubbo I would be met by the local media, who had been sent by the local Flight Service staff to ask me about whether the local Flight Service would stay open. I always said that personally I preferred this, however I wondered how a general aviation industry that was about to be destroyed could keep affording a system.
Yes, I did introduce the AMATS changes, and they have saved about $100 million per year since then. This is about $1.6 billion over the last 16 years. Part of the AMATS changes was to replace the “remote” AFIZ with a local UNICOM operator. I have consistently supported this since 1991 – even though it has been resisted as stated above.
By the way, if the AMATS changes hadn’t been made, the GA industry would have been forced to pay this $1.6 billion. Obviously GA basically would not exist today if the changes had not been made.
In other countries it is the local UNICOM operator (provided at no cost) who provides the cup of coffee, assists with the flight plan, organises refuelling and a taxi, and even gives local weather and traffic. Why can’t we do that here?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I guess one of the reasons why Unicoms aren't prevalent in Australia is that the cost needs to be born by the aerodrome operator and given the restrictions imposed on the information they can provide, their value is low.
According to the Manual of Standards Part 139 14.4.1.3, a unicom can't tell an arriving aircraft what runway is in use, which is the most valuable piece of information you need at that time. They can't even provide warnings about glider or PJ ops.
And you can't pre-order your coffee either.
Walrus
According to the Manual of Standards Part 139 14.4.1.3, a unicom can't tell an arriving aircraft what runway is in use, which is the most valuable piece of information you need at that time. They can't even provide warnings about glider or PJ ops.
And you can't pre-order your coffee either.
Walrus
Dick,
I wonder how much of a dint would be put into that alleged bucket of $1.6 Billion savings if you deduct:
I don't think the final balance would be very flattering ....
I wonder how much of a dint would be put into that alleged bucket of $1.6 Billion savings if you deduct:
- The cost of setting up and running AusFIC (which was needed to replace part of the Flight Service function) ... over 16 years
- The cost of Controllers providing services (which Flight Service used to provide at a much lesser cost) in G Airspace ... over 16 years
I don't think the final balance would be very flattering ....
Walrus 7, you mention the restrictions that are imposed in Australia on the information that UNICOMs can give. As you probably know, under the proven FAA system there are no restrictions placed on UNICOMs. It is a non-prescriptive system which is entirely there to improve safety.
The Airways and Aerodromes Group at CASA have done everything they can to frustrate the introduction of the US style UNICOM. It is so sad because all the additional requirements and restrictions have led to fewer UNICOMs. I understand that they are now looking at a Certified Air/Ground Operator system where you have 20 or so hours of training – once again, making it more complicated than it needs to be.
One day we will get the US style UNICOM in Australia. It will be 20 years later than it should have been. I just hope we don’t have to wait for an unnecessary accident to bring in the change.
By the way, you don’t normally need to pay anyone extra to do this. Quite often it is someone already at the airport – like the Aero Club, the refuelling agent, or (dare I say it) the baggage handler – who operates the UNICOM.
Isn’t it amazing that CASA won’t even allow a trial of this simplified system without any prescriptive restrictions?
The Airways and Aerodromes Group at CASA have done everything they can to frustrate the introduction of the US style UNICOM. It is so sad because all the additional requirements and restrictions have led to fewer UNICOMs. I understand that they are now looking at a Certified Air/Ground Operator system where you have 20 or so hours of training – once again, making it more complicated than it needs to be.
One day we will get the US style UNICOM in Australia. It will be 20 years later than it should have been. I just hope we don’t have to wait for an unnecessary accident to bring in the change.
By the way, you don’t normally need to pay anyone extra to do this. Quite often it is someone already at the airport – like the Aero Club, the refuelling agent, or (dare I say it) the baggage handler – who operates the UNICOM.
Isn’t it amazing that CASA won’t even allow a trial of this simplified system without any prescriptive restrictions?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By the way, you don’t normally need to pay anyone extra to do this. Quite often it is someone already at the airport – like the Aero Club, the refuelling agent, or (dare I say it) the baggage handler – who operates the UNICOM.
In support of this I offer my own experience as both an FBO employee responsible for providing Unicom services and as a Cessna Citation pilot for a corporation. I would suggest that if we were to adopt the proven US style Unicoms, the Unicom operator would have a commercial advantage over other airport service providers.
As a corporate pilot I would use the Unicom services all the time, not only for airport information but to solicit services also. Fuel, catering, limo’s for the owners etc. Needless to say the first FBO I called was usually the one on the charted CTAF frequency.
As a Unicom operator near Aspen we would often get transient jet traffic that would divert from Aspen and Vail when the weather was marginal. The busiest day I recall was 31 corporate jets on a Sunday and we pumped over 20,000 gallons of jet fuel for the weekend. Had we NOT been the FBO running the Unicom I doubt we would have received all that business. The aircraft would most probably have called one of the FBO’s at Grand Junction and diverted there.
Interestingly enough the only other FBO on the airfield that day received 2 aircraft on their ramp! The point is even though we don’t have that kind of traffic calling into our FBO’s (do we actually have any in Australia?) just having the Unicom facility will prove to be commercially advantageous to a service provider. The running cost is negligible if anything.
Those 31 corporate aircraft were afforded a higher level of safety because we could give them real time information on the status of the airport (wind, temp, precip, unserviceable items, a blocked taxiway due to ramp congestion etc) including the runway condition (it snowed most of the day). Surely we can have this added level of safety for out RPT aircraft?
There is absolutely no reason that a Unicom operator must have the onerous requirements that people are suggesting including CASA it seems.
Again, I will be happy to donate the first $100. No make that $1000 to a program that sends either, controllers, CASA inspectors or policy makers over to the US to actually learn first hand how they utilize Unicoms safely. Or for that matter, I will donate it to any educational program that sends Aussie regulators/controllers to the US or brings US controllers to Australia to teach us how their entire airspace system works. The same system that I have been promised by parliament and that I believe will make our airspace safer and more efficient.
The removal of the full position reporting requirement, with all its incredible cost, for VFR aircraft which flew more than 50 miles, and also the removal of the local AFIZ (which I was not responsible for) have saved an enormous amount of money – and have to my knowledge not resulted in one extra fatality in the last 16 years.
Or can you show me a fatality that can be attributed to the removal of the full position requirement for VFR and the local AFIZ?
I look forward to seeing your evidence.
Or can you show me a fatality that can be attributed to the removal of the full position requirement for VFR and the local AFIZ?
I look forward to seeing your evidence.
Let's get something straight here.
Given the choice between no-one to talk to at an AD vs. a UNICOM there is an advantage for certain aspects, however a UNICOM is not and should not be a factor to address a deficiency in air traffic services required at a particular location, which was the source of the discussion here.
My underlining for emphasis:
Summary of Responses: Regulatory Standards for Airspace - CASR Part 71
So
Oh, and according to ERSA, there is a UNICOM at Avalon .........
Given the choice between no-one to talk to at an AD vs. a UNICOM there is an advantage for certain aspects, however a UNICOM is not and should not be a factor to address a deficiency in air traffic services required at a particular location, which was the source of the discussion here.
My underlining for emphasis:
Summary of Responses: Regulatory Standards for Airspace - CASR Part 71
CASA Response:
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers.
CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:
a) 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;
b) 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. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;
c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;
d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;
e) 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 includingcloud and visibility assessments, and an approved source QNH which can be used for the purposes of lower nstrument 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.
CASA has proposed a hierarchy of risk mitigators applicable to terminal airspace i.e. CTAF, AFRU, MBZ, CA/GRS, Class D and Class C control towers.
CASA has not included UNICOM in that hierarchy for the following reasons:
a) 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;
b) 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. Indeed provision is made for CTAF broadcasts should the operator not respond;
c) In Australia, as in the USA, Canada and New Zealand, the standards for UNICOM services limit the information that may be provided. The service is approved only to provide basic aerodrome and basic weather information, not to provide assessed, relevant traffic details, or meteorological observations. These limitations have been placed on UNICOM services because the operators are not necessarily certified to any standard other than that of a basic radio operator. CASA is not prepared to have UNICOM standards unique to Australia;
d) In regard to above point, the FAA AIM (4-1-9 d & e), makes a clear distinction between the ‘known traffic’ that may be passed by a FSS and the general traffic information that can be passed by a UNICOM, e.g. five aircraft operating in the pattern;
e) 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 includingcloud and visibility assessments, and an approved source QNH which can be used for the purposes of lower nstrument 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.
- why would anyone prefer a UNICOM over a CAGRS, and
- if the cost for the Airservices "enhanced" UNICOM is not much less than that of a CAGRS, why not provide the better service, which is part of the airspace and air traffic services risk mitigators?
Oh, and according to ERSA, there is a UNICOM at Avalon .........
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you probably know, under the proven FAA system...........
If we need another layer of information transfer, and I think that at some locations we certainly do, then the form and content of the information needs to be consistent at all locations, regardless of the organisation providing the service.
The removal of the full position reporting requirement, with all its incredible cost, for VFR aircraft which flew more than 50 miles, and also the removal of the local AFIZ (which I was not responsible for) have saved an enormous amount of money
I am not against change. I believe that we should always look back at how we have done business, look at how similar businesses work and assess how we can improve, but it has to be appropriate. Example, a computer controlled washing machine may be better than a rock next to a stream, but totally useless if there is no electricity (Not appropriate for the location).
The biggest changes we need is are a network charging structure, not location specific, make the charging attractive for non RPT operations to operate outside of the peak traffic times and be much more proactive in addressing issues before they become problems.
Now for something completely different.
Had a great meeting with a helicopter pilot today. We both asked the same question "Is there anything we do that causes you a problem or that we could do better? We both found out good things.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under the old rules, there was an avgas levy that raise $20m per annum. Yeh?
$18.4m of that figure, 92%, went to fund GAAP towers and only $1.6m of that, YES, $1.6m went to fund Flight Service of $20MILLION collected.
If any changes should have been made, the re-allocation of funds should have been top of the list.
To get rid of FS, CAA/AA and the Thicket of Idiots, chanted mantra like that FS cost $80m per year to run. The FSO’s union conclusively proved otherwise that the real figure was under $20m. Factor that into your grandstanding cost statements!
AMATS…NAS….What a joke. IF you want real reform of OZ aviation, you would REDUCE controlled airspace – not introduce MORE Controlled airspace and 7 different types of Controlled airspace at that!
Baggage handlers!!!! ROFLMTO!!! Oh please, stop it, your killing me!!!!
Control what needs controlling and broaden advisory services in a regulated manner rather than employ a "Dad’s Army".
As for mid-air collisions….have a good look and you will see that CTA or CTR are not a cure all for prevention.
Bankstown May 5 2002,
Coolangatta May 20 1988
Jandakot May 29 1989
Archerfield April 24 1988
Parafield February 1 1976
Bankstown March 13 1975
Etc…
Lastly, if no fatality occurred because AFIZ were removed…
…Then logically, there is TOTALLY no need for a ****com!!!!!
$18.4m of that figure, 92%, went to fund GAAP towers and only $1.6m of that, YES, $1.6m went to fund Flight Service of $20MILLION collected.
If any changes should have been made, the re-allocation of funds should have been top of the list.
To get rid of FS, CAA/AA and the Thicket of Idiots, chanted mantra like that FS cost $80m per year to run. The FSO’s union conclusively proved otherwise that the real figure was under $20m. Factor that into your grandstanding cost statements!
AMATS…NAS….What a joke. IF you want real reform of OZ aviation, you would REDUCE controlled airspace – not introduce MORE Controlled airspace and 7 different types of Controlled airspace at that!
Baggage handlers!!!! ROFLMTO!!! Oh please, stop it, your killing me!!!!
Control what needs controlling and broaden advisory services in a regulated manner rather than employ a "Dad’s Army".
As for mid-air collisions….have a good look and you will see that CTA or CTR are not a cure all for prevention.
Bankstown May 5 2002,
Coolangatta May 20 1988
Jandakot May 29 1989
Archerfield April 24 1988
Parafield February 1 1976
Bankstown March 13 1975
Etc…
Lastly, if no fatality occurred because AFIZ were removed…
…Then logically, there is TOTALLY no need for a ****com!!!!!
Dick,
My post was in response to the cost saving issue you raised and nothing in your second post has changed my position on that. Actually, I've done some quick and dirty sums and can easily find $1 Billion in costs for the first 2 items I detailed.
Oh, I forgot, also add in the salaries of the countless bureacrats & pilots who have been working on AMATS/NAS & (I've forgotten the other acronym... was it LLAMP?) for the past 16 years trying to re-engineer a new airspace system to replace the one that "didn't work" ( you're either in or you're out!) ...$$$$$
I think my case is getting even stronger ....
As for safety, I didn't mention any change in fatality levels ... I'm not sure there was any.
However, the safety levels (in a general sense) at uncontrolled aerodromes for RPT aircraft has decreased since the removal of Towers/AFIZs. Just ask the ATSB. They recommended to CASA that they look at ways of getting onsite traffic information back on the agenda. Hence Airservices' foray into establishing Unicom Plus. Wow boy ... now who is going to pay for that??? And how much?... $$$$$
My case is looking better all the time!
Okay, I'll stop being a smart arse for a moment.
Dick, how about we call it evens for the financials. Let's move on to the sytems. Do we have a better airspace system now than we did in 1991?
Yes, we have great new kit and better surveillance capabilities ... but do we pilots feel safer in the air? Do we feel that GA flight planning, discipline, professionalism and general awareness has improved since 1991? Do GA pilots understand the airspace system better? Do we have less VCAs? Do we have less pilots flying without their radios turned on? Are uncontrolled aerodrome procedures understood and carefully followed?
Do we finally have an airspace sytem that everyone agrees on and that will become a stable platform on which to improve economies and efficiencies?
I'm afraid, I don't see it.
To answer Mr mjbow2's question ... why don't we have US style Unicoms? I think he answered his own question ... there aren't the aircraft movement figures in Australia to support the investment (no matter what level that investment is ... there is some investment in time, equipment & procedures) required of an FBO.
My post was in response to the cost saving issue you raised and nothing in your second post has changed my position on that. Actually, I've done some quick and dirty sums and can easily find $1 Billion in costs for the first 2 items I detailed.
Oh, I forgot, also add in the salaries of the countless bureacrats & pilots who have been working on AMATS/NAS & (I've forgotten the other acronym... was it LLAMP?) for the past 16 years trying to re-engineer a new airspace system to replace the one that "didn't work" ( you're either in or you're out!) ...$$$$$
I think my case is getting even stronger ....
As for safety, I didn't mention any change in fatality levels ... I'm not sure there was any.
However, the safety levels (in a general sense) at uncontrolled aerodromes for RPT aircraft has decreased since the removal of Towers/AFIZs. Just ask the ATSB. They recommended to CASA that they look at ways of getting onsite traffic information back on the agenda. Hence Airservices' foray into establishing Unicom Plus. Wow boy ... now who is going to pay for that??? And how much?... $$$$$
My case is looking better all the time!
Okay, I'll stop being a smart arse for a moment.
Dick, how about we call it evens for the financials. Let's move on to the sytems. Do we have a better airspace system now than we did in 1991?
Yes, we have great new kit and better surveillance capabilities ... but do we pilots feel safer in the air? Do we feel that GA flight planning, discipline, professionalism and general awareness has improved since 1991? Do GA pilots understand the airspace system better? Do we have less VCAs? Do we have less pilots flying without their radios turned on? Are uncontrolled aerodrome procedures understood and carefully followed?
Do we finally have an airspace sytem that everyone agrees on and that will become a stable platform on which to improve economies and efficiencies?
I'm afraid, I don't see it.
To answer Mr mjbow2's question ... why don't we have US style Unicoms? I think he answered his own question ... there aren't the aircraft movement figures in Australia to support the investment (no matter what level that investment is ... there is some investment in time, equipment & procedures) required of an FBO.
Okay Scurvy, you've egged me on .... it's your fault!
And another thing ... did I mention Flightwatch ...
Now that on request flight information is going to be transferred from Flightwatch onto the ATC consoles ... somethings gotta give.
ATC instructions are, quiet rightly, that separation comes first. With the tightening of the rosters and less bums on seats, there can't be many Controllers who have much 'down time' to be reading out Area 30 forecasts and taking flightplans ... so, who does ... nobody ... you're on your own.
Another improvement in services since 1991 ...
My fear is that none of these discussions back and forth will provide any useful outcome. I really don't know how this is going to be sorted out. We shouldn't have to be debating these issues.
We should be spending our time doing what PPRUNE is really supposed to be for... whinging about Qantas management, bagging JetStar and complaining about the latest EBA negotiations!
And another thing ... did I mention Flightwatch ...
Now that on request flight information is going to be transferred from Flightwatch onto the ATC consoles ... somethings gotta give.
ATC instructions are, quiet rightly, that separation comes first. With the tightening of the rosters and less bums on seats, there can't be many Controllers who have much 'down time' to be reading out Area 30 forecasts and taking flightplans ... so, who does ... nobody ... you're on your own.
Another improvement in services since 1991 ...
My fear is that none of these discussions back and forth will provide any useful outcome. I really don't know how this is going to be sorted out. We shouldn't have to be debating these issues.
We should be spending our time doing what PPRUNE is really supposed to be for... whinging about Qantas management, bagging JetStar and complaining about the latest EBA negotiations!
Last edited by peuce; 4th Oct 2007 at 07:31.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Strangely .... the amount of traffic (ALL OF IT) at those locations is known 
... consider what operating rules applied, and what was considered contributory?
.
... and ......how many do you suppose would have occured WITHOUT ATC!
.
... how many have occured in recent years OCTA (including CA/GRS and UNICOM) .... I can think of 4 .... JT (outside twr hrs), MB (outside twr hrs), GLB G, HOX CTAF!
.
... can anyone find a link to the safety/CBA for the flightwatch changes??
... consider what operating rules applied, and what was considered contributory?.
... and ......how many do you suppose would have occured WITHOUT ATC!
.
... how many have occured in recent years OCTA (including CA/GRS and UNICOM) .... I can think of 4 ....
JT (outside twr hrs), MB (outside twr hrs), GLB G, HOX CTAF!.
... can anyone find a link to the safety/CBA for the flightwatch changes??
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is not what happened. Nowhere in the huge Airservices study (of 80 pages) does it actually mention the cost of manning the tower.
The fact that the RAAF can have tower opened 5 times a year (or whatever) for $300 per hour is very different from it being a permanently staffed location. i.e. Overtime, using staff at ML, EN, or MB is used to provide services at YMAV on a short term basis; this is far from sustainable for permanent or sudo-permanent staffing.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE QUESTION
I asked, What is the cost to the operator of landing and departing an A320 Airbus?
This has little to do with the cost of the service, right? But more about what is allowed to be charged courtesy of the past ACCC intervention.
This is the problem with user pays, it's not a true reflection of the cost of the business; thus this is significantly problematic when you have an operator that is in the business of money/profits first; such as ASA.
They are not allowed to go into businesses unless the CBA will pay off; having costs exceeding upwards of $500K per annum (absolute minimum) for an increase in revenue of $100K with a safety benefit (regardless of how you work it out) of $300K per annum (I'm guessing here) will equal a definite NO!
You wouldn't do it as an astute business man, would you?
I agree that YMAV deserves a TOWER, as does Broome and Ballina and Ayres Rock; but I believe in the IFATCA Policy, as quoted http://everyminutecountsblog.*******...e-held-in.html
In many parts of the world if RPT jets land at an aerodrome it has an operational tower.
But is this about revenue or safety?
If we changed the revenue stream to a passenger ticket tax, freight weight tax; we could probably remove all need for this profit regime that we have and have more money in the system, less money coming out of GA and more resources where we need them; of course then there are the issues relating to who and when's of that; and it doesn;t necessarily mean higher Ticket prices as all tickets currently have a ATC charge built in, which may be actually a significant profit factor on many full flights; but that's a whole other thread.