Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... can anyone find a link to the safety/CBA for the flightwatch changes??
More importantly, has CASA run the ruler over it?
It is another ATC managed "situation" that will "integrate" the vhf fightwatch service and ultimately provide no service at all.
Case in point? Look no futher than the "ATC-initated FIS" and Hazard Alerts debarkle.
SM4 Pirate,
Even if the tower costs $500,000 per annum, that would mean 50 cents per passenger because there are 1million of them per annum at Avalon.
I would certainly be happy to pay 50 cents to have someone in the tower rather than airlines flying around, sometimes in cloud blind calling and hoping that other aircraft are on frequency.
The point I was making is that the safety study was a sham because it never actually mentioned the cost of manning the tower – whether that be $300 per hour or $500,000 per year.
Isn’t it amazing that Civil Air and the AFAP also support Airservices on this and are not supporting my call for the tower to be manned. I wonder what type of back room deal has been done – no doubt, it will come out one day.
JackoSchitt,
Re: The flightwatch changes
From what I understand no proper safety or cost benefit study has been done. It appears that Airservices go ahead and make decisions in this way because no one stops them.
Even if the tower costs $500,000 per annum, that would mean 50 cents per passenger because there are 1million of them per annum at Avalon.
I would certainly be happy to pay 50 cents to have someone in the tower rather than airlines flying around, sometimes in cloud blind calling and hoping that other aircraft are on frequency.
The point I was making is that the safety study was a sham because it never actually mentioned the cost of manning the tower – whether that be $300 per hour or $500,000 per year.
Isn’t it amazing that Civil Air and the AFAP also support Airservices on this and are not supporting my call for the tower to be manned. I wonder what type of back room deal has been done – no doubt, it will come out one day.
JackoSchitt,
Re: The flightwatch changes
From what I understand no proper safety or cost benefit study has been done. It appears that Airservices go ahead and make decisions in this way because no one stops them.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 12th Oct 2007 at 00:59.
so-long,
I agree, I do not have any evidence of a back room deal and I will now withdraw the inference in relation to Civil Air.
Can I ask a question? Why doesn’t Civil Air insist that Airservices Australia, CASA or anyone, use the establishment and disestablishment formula to look at Avalon? After all Civil Air members have had the disadvantage of Wagga tower being closed down using that formula, why not have the advantage of a tower being opened using it!
I also believe my letter, which was published on the Civil Air website opens up the situation for dialogue. In particular, it says, “can we get together and discuss this issue”. This hasn’t happened yet. I am willing to fly to Melbourne or anywhere to do so.
I agree, I do not have any evidence of a back room deal and I will now withdraw the inference in relation to Civil Air.
Can I ask a question? Why doesn’t Civil Air insist that Airservices Australia, CASA or anyone, use the establishment and disestablishment formula to look at Avalon? After all Civil Air members have had the disadvantage of Wagga tower being closed down using that formula, why not have the advantage of a tower being opened using it!
I also believe my letter, which was published on the Civil Air website opens up the situation for dialogue. In particular, it says, “can we get together and discuss this issue”. This hasn’t happened yet. I am willing to fly to Melbourne or anywhere to do so.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 12th Oct 2007 at 04:40.
Pre-empting "so-long's" response ...
I don't believe that Civil Air is in a position to dictate to ASA, CASA or anyone on their business decisions.
Civil Air's only responsibility is to ensure that it's members are treated fairly and equitably by ASA.
I don't believe that Civil Air is in a position to dictate to ASA, CASA or anyone on their business decisions.
Civil Air's only responsibility is to ensure that it's members are treated fairly and equitably by ASA.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if the tower costs $500,000 per annum, that would mean 50 cents per passenger because there are 1million of them per annum at Avalon.
I would certainly be happy to pay 50 cents to have someone in the tower rather than airlines flying around, sometimes in cloud blind calling and hoping that other aircraft are on frequency.
I would certainly be happy to pay 50 cents to have someone in the tower rather than airlines flying around, sometimes in cloud blind calling and hoping that other aircraft are on frequency.
I fully support the argument for a TWR to go into YMAV; I too would happily pay the extra $5 (or whatever) to have ATC, but what hours of coverage, 1st to last JST Flight? etc; what about weekends?
How is GA effected by the new TWR service; will they be happy to have the TWR open so they can be told "Cleared Touch & Go", when there is no-one else around in 8/8 blue sky and the CTAF would be perfectly acceptable, Ca'CHING.
Last edited by SM4 Pirate; 12th Oct 2007 at 05:59.
I suggest $500k per year for a TWR is a tad light on. For a 5 person roster it wouldn't cover salaries. $800k - $1.2m would be more like it.
And I repeat what I said in an earlier thread - there is already a UNICOM at Avalon. What if any value it adds, I don't know.
And I repeat what I said in an earlier thread - there is already a UNICOM at Avalon. What if any value it adds, I don't know.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Unicom
Dick:
Relevant extracts from the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual for your info
It is interesting to note that information provided by a UNICOM can only be on pilot request and, significantly, there is no mention of traffic information. That sounds fairly prescriptive to me.
My highlighting of the quote for emphasis only.
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
1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground radio communication station which may provide airport information at public use airports where there is no tower or FSS.
2. On pilot request, UNICOM stations may provide pilots with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information. If the UNICOM frequency is designated as the CTAF, it will be identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
2. On pilot request, UNICOM stations may provide pilots with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information. If the UNICOM frequency is designated as the CTAF, it will be identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.
My highlighting of the quote for emphasis only.
Dick,
Instead of demanding that Civil Air sort it with ASA/CASA ...
It appears that putting your proposal on PPRUNE could have better results.
Case in point ... my post from earlier this year:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=103
It's probably just coincidence ...
Instead of demanding that Civil Air sort it with ASA/CASA ...
It appears that putting your proposal on PPRUNE could have better results.
Case in point ... my post from earlier this year:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=103
It's probably just coincidence ...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puece,
I couldn't agree with you more - makes a lot of commonsense to me. At Broome their are 2 CAGRO's providing services 7 days a week/ 11 hours a day. This is necessary at Broome because of the sheer volume of traffic. At some other airports it could be possible to have flexible hours dependant on traffic (RPT) movements further reducing costs.
The setup costs are minimal with modern technology these days and internet access. The main equipment required is 2 X vhf radios - 1 for CTAF freq and the other as a means of monitoring the adjoining freq in absence of coordination ( also as a backup ). A direct access to met - if met is on the airport via radio modem. And of course internet access for briefing/tafs/metars etc. Also flight strips and documents and thats about it.
As far as premises go, Wagga has a disused tower which has been used to provide CAGRO services for special events in the past - at no cost. Dubbo still has the old Flight service *tower* which would suffice there and is owned by council - again no cost. Ayers Rock have a pre-fab building, supplied again at minimal cost. Other airports might have similar facilities.
I strongly believe that the most efficient method of paying for the service is for the local councils to employ the staff and provide the service - after all they own the airports and facilities. This eliminates the contractor - middleman - further reduces costs and provides indemnity insurance. CAGRO's can also process the landing charges for the owner eliminating AVCHARGES. The council then charges a passenger head levy to cover the service- these already exist at many uncontrolled airports. At Wagga this would be under $1 per passenger - at Broome it is about 60c a passenger based on current RPT movements - surely not expensive for the level of safety it provides. This also means that pilots - RPT and GA - get the service for free as the RPT passengers pay for the service with no increase in landing fees. I can assure you it won't stop passengers flying to these destinations.
What is also required is for CASA to pressure councils to introduce the service when annual movements exceed a pre-determined level. These services have been operation at Ayers Rock and Broome for some 8 years now. Ayers Rock were made by CASA to introduce the service at the insistence of guess who ? Yes Dick Smith. The airport owner at Broome demanded that CASA legislate for the service there because of the increasing traffic volumes - unfortunately most other airport owners don't have this foresight or forward planning. Otherwise councils/airport owners will sit on their hands and do nothing - as they have done since the existence of CA/GRS - must we wait for an accident to happen involving an RPT at a regional aerodrome for councils/airport owners to be forced to introduce the service ? CAGRO'S could safely handle between 20,000 to 40,000 movements annually. Below which there may be a place for UNICOM - and after which an ATC tower may be required . Ballpark figures only . This plugs a huge gap that now exists in our ATS system and can be achieved at no cost to the industry.
I couldn't agree with you more - makes a lot of commonsense to me. At Broome their are 2 CAGRO's providing services 7 days a week/ 11 hours a day. This is necessary at Broome because of the sheer volume of traffic. At some other airports it could be possible to have flexible hours dependant on traffic (RPT) movements further reducing costs.
The setup costs are minimal with modern technology these days and internet access. The main equipment required is 2 X vhf radios - 1 for CTAF freq and the other as a means of monitoring the adjoining freq in absence of coordination ( also as a backup ). A direct access to met - if met is on the airport via radio modem. And of course internet access for briefing/tafs/metars etc. Also flight strips and documents and thats about it.
As far as premises go, Wagga has a disused tower which has been used to provide CAGRO services for special events in the past - at no cost. Dubbo still has the old Flight service *tower* which would suffice there and is owned by council - again no cost. Ayers Rock have a pre-fab building, supplied again at minimal cost. Other airports might have similar facilities.
I strongly believe that the most efficient method of paying for the service is for the local councils to employ the staff and provide the service - after all they own the airports and facilities. This eliminates the contractor - middleman - further reduces costs and provides indemnity insurance. CAGRO's can also process the landing charges for the owner eliminating AVCHARGES. The council then charges a passenger head levy to cover the service- these already exist at many uncontrolled airports. At Wagga this would be under $1 per passenger - at Broome it is about 60c a passenger based on current RPT movements - surely not expensive for the level of safety it provides. This also means that pilots - RPT and GA - get the service for free as the RPT passengers pay for the service with no increase in landing fees. I can assure you it won't stop passengers flying to these destinations.
What is also required is for CASA to pressure councils to introduce the service when annual movements exceed a pre-determined level. These services have been operation at Ayers Rock and Broome for some 8 years now. Ayers Rock were made by CASA to introduce the service at the insistence of guess who ? Yes Dick Smith. The airport owner at Broome demanded that CASA legislate for the service there because of the increasing traffic volumes - unfortunately most other airport owners don't have this foresight or forward planning. Otherwise councils/airport owners will sit on their hands and do nothing - as they have done since the existence of CA/GRS - must we wait for an accident to happen involving an RPT at a regional aerodrome for councils/airport owners to be forced to introduce the service ? CAGRO'S could safely handle between 20,000 to 40,000 movements annually. Below which there may be a place for UNICOM - and after which an ATC tower may be required . Ballpark figures only . This plugs a huge gap that now exists in our ATS system and can be achieved at no cost to the industry.
I had one of those moments down at the confectionary aisle at Coles this morning ...
IF, the ASA-proposed Unicom Pluses had access to Notam and Met product (as proposed in my February post), they could provide on-demand FIS to anyone within VHF range. That would take a lot of pressure off the ATCs as Flightwatch was shut down.
Bing!Bing!Bing!
Is that what all this is about? Are the ASA Unicoms being setup as a control/mitigator for the inherint risks in closing Flightwatch?
There had to be a reason
IF, the ASA-proposed Unicom Pluses had access to Notam and Met product (as proposed in my February post), they could provide on-demand FIS to anyone within VHF range. That would take a lot of pressure off the ATCs as Flightwatch was shut down.
Bing!Bing!Bing!
Is that what all this is about? Are the ASA Unicoms being setup as a control/mitigator for the inherint risks in closing Flightwatch?
There had to be a reason
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flightwatch is not closing.
Flightwatch was and remains always available on ATC FIA frequencies (Just like the Hazard Alert joke...er...."service")
ATC provides an effective and more efficient FIS - AIP SUP H62/07 says so - and they are taking over the primary provision of FIS.
If the unicorn areas are so busy, what makes you think that there will be time to pass weather and NOTAMs to the pilot too lazy to make a phone call?
Sorry, this whole thing is getting waaaaaay too silly for words - all so some AA manager can pull out a plum and say "What a good boy am I".
Flightwatch was and remains always available on ATC FIA frequencies (Just like the Hazard Alert joke...er...."service")
ATC provides an effective and more efficient FIS - AIP SUP H62/07 says so - and they are taking over the primary provision of FIS.
If the unicorn areas are so busy, what makes you think that there will be time to pass weather and NOTAMs to the pilot too lazy to make a phone call?
Sorry, this whole thing is getting waaaaaay too silly for words - all so some AA manager can pull out a plum and say "What a good boy am I".
Jack,
I think I've taken this thread off topic enough.
I have moved our discussion over to another more appropriate thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=295740
I think I've taken this thread off topic enough.
I have moved our discussion over to another more appropriate thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=295740
Last edited by peuce; 13th Oct 2007 at 19:28.
