Air Services Unicom Operators
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Services Unicom Operators
Anyone notice the advertisement on the Air Services website for unicom operators for Dubbo and Wagga Wagga.
Sounds like the old flight service operators from days gome by to me.
How the wheel turns.
Sounds like the old flight service operators from days gome by to me.
How the wheel turns.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get with the Program ASA
Can anyone tell me on what regulatory basis or direction is Airservices Australia (as a Government-owned entity) permitted to undertake these trials?
Also, as a pilot that is paying aeronautical charges to ASA, I would rather see my aeronautical charges being used to improve the delivery and quality of current ATS services by encouraging the recruitment of more ATC staff, thus avoiding the shutdown of services as occurred in WA low level sectors recently. This would appear to me to be more of a priority than wasting money on a speculative Unicom service which can be provided more economically and responsively by a range of private sector arrangements at the local airport.
Are these trials as a result of an aeronautical study undertaken for each location under the direction of CASA, or is Airservices simply responding to an invitation by the respective aerodrome owners/operators (ie the Councils)? I think the pilot community is entitled to know how its aeronautical charges are being spent by ASA and what the eventual operational benefits are.
I think the limited financial resources that ASA appears to have would be far better spent in the areas that require funding priority.
Also, as a pilot that is paying aeronautical charges to ASA, I would rather see my aeronautical charges being used to improve the delivery and quality of current ATS services by encouraging the recruitment of more ATC staff, thus avoiding the shutdown of services as occurred in WA low level sectors recently. This would appear to me to be more of a priority than wasting money on a speculative Unicom service which can be provided more economically and responsively by a range of private sector arrangements at the local airport.
Are these trials as a result of an aeronautical study undertaken for each location under the direction of CASA, or is Airservices simply responding to an invitation by the respective aerodrome owners/operators (ie the Councils)? I think the pilot community is entitled to know how its aeronautical charges are being spent by ASA and what the eventual operational benefits are.
I think the limited financial resources that ASA appears to have would be far better spent in the areas that require funding priority.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
your dead right QSK? Airservices have no right to be conducting private surveys and deciding that we need their services. They are a government business enterprise to make profits - thats why all regulatory responsibilities were removed from them and handed to CASA because of an obvious conflict of interest. Its no different than me, of joe bloggs aviation services, saying to aerodrome operators that I have decided that you need this Unicom service because of a survey I have done and, after a trial, I will be introducing it ! You know where I would be told to go. But, unfortunately most councils who operate aerodromes these days, are still under the impression that airservices run the show. Remember, they were the ones that created the current lack of air traffic services at regional aerodromes when they withdrew ATC towers and disbanded Flight Service at these airports in the first place.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I don't have any reference to this docs, I'm sure that ASA were told by the minister to do this; mostly in response to the YMAV debate; don't dare do it there you might prove more is needed.
Before the conspiracy theories start, let may say clearly that I knew nothing about the Airservices proposal until I saw a copy of the Minister’s press release.
However if it is a move to trial the US FAA approved non-prescriptive NAS UNICOM system I am all for it.
Looking at this and other threads on the subject it is obvious that the whole UNICOM issue was highjacked by people who wanted to create jobs for retired air traffic controllers and FSO’s. The proven FAA system as accepted by Federal cabinet has no prescriptive limitations on what a UNICOM may do.
Because of this, there are no insurance requirements or problems at all. The USA and Canada have many thousands of UNICOMs, which have been operating for decades without any problems - common sense prevails. They will give traffic information in any way they want to as it is up to the pilot to decide the information to accept. The non-prescriptive US system is a superb improver in safety however there has been enormous resistance to even trialling the system here.
If Airservices are going to force a safer system on a reluctant industry then good on them.
However if it is a move to trial the US FAA approved non-prescriptive NAS UNICOM system I am all for it.
Looking at this and other threads on the subject it is obvious that the whole UNICOM issue was highjacked by people who wanted to create jobs for retired air traffic controllers and FSO’s. The proven FAA system as accepted by Federal cabinet has no prescriptive limitations on what a UNICOM may do.
Because of this, there are no insurance requirements or problems at all. The USA and Canada have many thousands of UNICOMs, which have been operating for decades without any problems - common sense prevails. They will give traffic information in any way they want to as it is up to the pilot to decide the information to accept. The non-prescriptive US system is a superb improver in safety however there has been enormous resistance to even trialling the system here.
If Airservices are going to force a safer system on a reluctant industry then good on them.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you So-long. Dick once again is showing his opposition to anything ATC or Flight service related - what an insult to the professional people who perform these important functions - a retirement village ! I have seen these professionals at work for many years and I can assure you Dick it certainly is no retirement home. Maybe Airservices would be better off setting up training courses for CAGRO'S/Unicom operators - possibly as a lead-in to ATC towers - this training is long overdue. As for Unicom, I am sure there is a place for it in our system. But under current legislation, not at busy aerodromes like Wagga. It would be more suited to, as Dick has suggested in the past, airports such as Lockhart River and other low traffic volume areas.
so-long,
I am not blaming air traffic controllers for this one.
I know the people at CASA who changed the certified air ground requirements from “a pilot or any person who could be trained” to that of a person “who previously held an air traffic control or flight service licence.”
These people were creating jobs for retired air traffic controllers and FSO’s. They made the change at the time Mick Toller was the CEO and he did not even know it had been made until a number of years later.
I can assure you there has been an ongoing campaign by people within the bureaucracy to ensure that the simple proven highly safe non-prescriptive US UNICOM system never exists here in Australia. Of course, they will eventually lose.
By the way, I understand it is ex air traffic controllers at Airservices who are promoting the new non-prescriptive trial at Dubbo and Wagga. I have all praise for this.
I am not blaming air traffic controllers for this one.
I know the people at CASA who changed the certified air ground requirements from “a pilot or any person who could be trained” to that of a person “who previously held an air traffic control or flight service licence.”
These people were creating jobs for retired air traffic controllers and FSO’s. They made the change at the time Mick Toller was the CEO and he did not even know it had been made until a number of years later.
I can assure you there has been an ongoing campaign by people within the bureaucracy to ensure that the simple proven highly safe non-prescriptive US UNICOM system never exists here in Australia. Of course, they will eventually lose.
By the way, I understand it is ex air traffic controllers at Airservices who are promoting the new non-prescriptive trial at Dubbo and Wagga. I have all praise for this.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crisper I couldn't agree more...like most people when they heard of this Airservices shonk I thought this smacks of Dick Smith but now on here he says that he knew nothing of it,so, it must be true yeah sure Dick just another one of your Seniors moments Dick....I don't recall that..nah wasn't me
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The reason the criteria was changed if I recall Dick, was at the insistence of airline pilots not some conspiracy against you from CASA - CASA actually listen to the industry sometimes you know. Pilots refused to receive traffic and weather information from unqualified personnel. Strangely, a few years back CASA asked the industry about lowering standards for CAGRO'S and this was rejected - by Airservices as well ! Work that one out given the current unicom proposal put forward by them. Anyway, I am interested in how the FAA unicom system works. Maybe you could give us some info as to how they deliver traffic, if it is assessed for relevance or not and if they do, what methods they use to do this - flight strips, logs or just pieces of paper and/or memory. And how busy are the airports that they operate from - 25,000 movements a year or just low traffic volume airports with few RPT's ?. What you propose may be a lot better than the Unicom that Airservices are proposing ? I'm interested in more details of your experiences with their system.
crisper,
You state:
Are you joking?
I have been campaigning for the tower to be manned at Avalon and I have also been campaigning for more Class E airspace which requires air traffic controllers to give an air traffic control separation service, not an old out dated traffic information service to IFR.
Why would we need training courses to be set up for CAGRO’s/UNICOM operators when the most proven system in the world doesn’t require this. Or are you suggesting that Australian’s are somehow not as bright as American’s?
You state:
"Dick once again is showing his opposition for anything ATC or Flight Service related."
I have been campaigning for the tower to be manned at Avalon and I have also been campaigning for more Class E airspace which requires air traffic controllers to give an air traffic control separation service, not an old out dated traffic information service to IFR.
Why would we need training courses to be set up for CAGRO’s/UNICOM operators when the most proven system in the world doesn’t require this. Or are you suggesting that Australian’s are somehow not as bright as American’s?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wollongong NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, the casual observer may notice that I am not operating under a pseudonym, anything I have to say can be happily attributed to me.
I trained as a Flight Service Officer in 1978, and in 1999 conducted the CA/GRS trial at Ayers Rock… for my sins, I am still there.
A few people have asked me to weigh in on the Unicom discussion, so, for what it is worth here is my bit;
The present system of services in “G” airspace, as most of you are aware is nothing, or CA/GRS. From what I understand the intent of Unicom is to provide a level of service between those. If this is conducted under the rules for Unicom in MOS there will be a good deal of frequency congestion, but, as it was pointed out correctly by Airservices, if this is the case it will show itself in a trial. I do feel it is important that any trial be reviewed by an independent panel of pilots and operators, and not just “rubber stamped” as suitable.
With the CA/GRS operation, we determine from all of the traffic in the vicinity which ones will be “relevant” and pass only those to the individual aircraft. This is how the frequency congestion is minimised. A Unicom operator under the present rules will not be allowed to make these distinctions and inbound pilots must be given traffic on all aircraft, relevant or otherwise. Another consideration is the weather. Unless the Unicom operator is an authorized met observer, or has an authority issued by CASA, they can not provide opinions or trends on the weather, they can only issue factual statements such as a METAR/SPECI or general observation like “nice day” or “raining”.
If the Unicom service was to be introduced with a common sense approach it could work quite well, but unfortunately I don’t think that the operators will be free to make too many decisions. If the rules were changed it could be a very good thing, but then it would be a duplicate of the CA/GRS, why duplicate the service?
Both ATC and the proposed Unicom are inflexible. CA/GRS is not. With ATC there are many rules which they must follow. With the proposed Unicom there are many things that they will not be allowed to do. The CA/GRS is not prescriptive other than being required during the hours of RPT operations and a few other bits of things. It was designed to enhance the then MBZ procedures. We have the flexibility to make the system work, usually by helping, sometimes by screaming at pilots, like the guy in the Baron that tried to land into a backtracking B737 declaring he had plenty of room. The short story is we make it work with minimum intervention, and we can be flexible. CTAF procedures apply at all times, and pilots are free to disregard any information we provide.
What we need is a service that will allow trained people to make sound judgments based on their training and experience and stop trying to prescribe every eventuality. That also goes for many other areas of Australian aviation.
The CA/GRS at Ayers Rock and Broome are well thought out cost effective services and are generally well accepted. The regulatory framework is in place, and whilst we are told that it will not be mandated at any airport in the near future, any airport can on application to CASA introduce the service. This should be considered for expansion in “G” airspace. Personally it won’t matter much to me as I will be retiring soon. (Circuit Area Wollongong, Cancel SAR).
One other item regarding “retirement homes”, if any of you were around when Australian aviation had the world’s only “Operational Control Service” you may remember that it was very much a retirement centre. It consisted of many “past it” ATCs, assisted by their equally clapped out FSO underlings, not all were in that category by any means, but many of the ranks were not up to the job any more (it comes to us all). Their job was in Operational Control Centres (OCCs) and briefing offices checking professional pilot's flight plans to make sure they had enough fuel, and had provided for any required alternates or OPRs, (operational requirements, ML req additional 30 holding due busy). When they were satisfied as to the pilot’s competence they would then pronounce “Operational Approval”. Curiously it only applied to IFR flights, low time VFR pilots had to manage on their own. It was something of an embarrassment when dealing with international airline pilots. Frequently at Bankstown briefing and at the Sydney International Briefing office the staff outnumbered the customers. On the upside however, they did provide much needed knowledge during SAR exercises as most had a wealth of experience to offer. But don’t kid yourself, it was very much a retirement home. The system has changed, and improved since my time as a FSO but like any other profession some operators are more competent than others, and even the good ones have bad days. Just like pilots.
I trained as a Flight Service Officer in 1978, and in 1999 conducted the CA/GRS trial at Ayers Rock… for my sins, I am still there.
A few people have asked me to weigh in on the Unicom discussion, so, for what it is worth here is my bit;
The present system of services in “G” airspace, as most of you are aware is nothing, or CA/GRS. From what I understand the intent of Unicom is to provide a level of service between those. If this is conducted under the rules for Unicom in MOS there will be a good deal of frequency congestion, but, as it was pointed out correctly by Airservices, if this is the case it will show itself in a trial. I do feel it is important that any trial be reviewed by an independent panel of pilots and operators, and not just “rubber stamped” as suitable.
With the CA/GRS operation, we determine from all of the traffic in the vicinity which ones will be “relevant” and pass only those to the individual aircraft. This is how the frequency congestion is minimised. A Unicom operator under the present rules will not be allowed to make these distinctions and inbound pilots must be given traffic on all aircraft, relevant or otherwise. Another consideration is the weather. Unless the Unicom operator is an authorized met observer, or has an authority issued by CASA, they can not provide opinions or trends on the weather, they can only issue factual statements such as a METAR/SPECI or general observation like “nice day” or “raining”.
If the Unicom service was to be introduced with a common sense approach it could work quite well, but unfortunately I don’t think that the operators will be free to make too many decisions. If the rules were changed it could be a very good thing, but then it would be a duplicate of the CA/GRS, why duplicate the service?
Both ATC and the proposed Unicom are inflexible. CA/GRS is not. With ATC there are many rules which they must follow. With the proposed Unicom there are many things that they will not be allowed to do. The CA/GRS is not prescriptive other than being required during the hours of RPT operations and a few other bits of things. It was designed to enhance the then MBZ procedures. We have the flexibility to make the system work, usually by helping, sometimes by screaming at pilots, like the guy in the Baron that tried to land into a backtracking B737 declaring he had plenty of room. The short story is we make it work with minimum intervention, and we can be flexible. CTAF procedures apply at all times, and pilots are free to disregard any information we provide.
What we need is a service that will allow trained people to make sound judgments based on their training and experience and stop trying to prescribe every eventuality. That also goes for many other areas of Australian aviation.
The CA/GRS at Ayers Rock and Broome are well thought out cost effective services and are generally well accepted. The regulatory framework is in place, and whilst we are told that it will not be mandated at any airport in the near future, any airport can on application to CASA introduce the service. This should be considered for expansion in “G” airspace. Personally it won’t matter much to me as I will be retiring soon. (Circuit Area Wollongong, Cancel SAR).
One other item regarding “retirement homes”, if any of you were around when Australian aviation had the world’s only “Operational Control Service” you may remember that it was very much a retirement centre. It consisted of many “past it” ATCs, assisted by their equally clapped out FSO underlings, not all were in that category by any means, but many of the ranks were not up to the job any more (it comes to us all). Their job was in Operational Control Centres (OCCs) and briefing offices checking professional pilot's flight plans to make sure they had enough fuel, and had provided for any required alternates or OPRs, (operational requirements, ML req additional 30 holding due busy). When they were satisfied as to the pilot’s competence they would then pronounce “Operational Approval”. Curiously it only applied to IFR flights, low time VFR pilots had to manage on their own. It was something of an embarrassment when dealing with international airline pilots. Frequently at Bankstown briefing and at the Sydney International Briefing office the staff outnumbered the customers. On the upside however, they did provide much needed knowledge during SAR exercises as most had a wealth of experience to offer. But don’t kid yourself, it was very much a retirement home. The system has changed, and improved since my time as a FSO but like any other profession some operators are more competent than others, and even the good ones have bad days. Just like pilots.
Last edited by John T Cooper; 12th Oct 2007 at 13:11.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are your suggesting that we open up ATC towers at regional airports such as Wagga, Dubbo, Ballina etc etc? I thought you would be against this because of the cost to industry. I am trying to suggest the proven and cost effective alternatives to a full ATC tower at busy regional aerodromes as opposed to what we have now in most busy CTAF'S - nothing ! A lot of regional operators dont want ATC towers because of cost and the restrictions of controlled airspace on their operations. But they also dont want someone who is given no training and a radio set and then thinks " hey look at me I'm an Air Traffic Controller ".
And to suggest that I would think that we are not as bright as Americans is just another of your stupid statements. Our system evolved because of the lack of radar coverage ,the huge expanse of remote airspace in Australia and our small population. This cannot be compared to the good old US of A which you could never seem to grasp. In fact, maybe we would be better compared to Canada in this regard - they still have Flight Service don't they?
So , explain how " this most proven system in the world" operates and how it has relevance to Australia or don't you understand how it works either.
And to suggest that I would think that we are not as bright as Americans is just another of your stupid statements. Our system evolved because of the lack of radar coverage ,the huge expanse of remote airspace in Australia and our small population. This cannot be compared to the good old US of A which you could never seem to grasp. In fact, maybe we would be better compared to Canada in this regard - they still have Flight Service don't they?
So , explain how " this most proven system in the world" operates and how it has relevance to Australia or don't you understand how it works either.
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=113
UNICOMs add little value, they ARE limited as to what they can provide, and as a result are not a factor in airspace or air traffic services safety mitigators.
UNICOMs add little value, they ARE limited as to what they can provide, and as a result are not a factor in airspace or air traffic services safety mitigators.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Captain Midnight . Thats exactly the point I have been trying to get across without the degeneration into the jobs for the boys bulls**t. It's all about providing the appropriate level of services required to maintain safety given the level of complexity and traffic mix within a CTAF - be it ATC, CA/GRS or Unicom.
Out of interest, if an aerodrome operator wanted to offer a UNICOM service;
What hours of operation would be required? Or would it just be determined by the AD operator to meet demand, ie during RPT services?
Is there a specific application and approval process to go through, apart from a licence from ACMA and the operator to be suitably trained and qualified?
What hours of operation would be required? Or would it just be determined by the AD operator to meet demand, ie during RPT services?
Is there a specific application and approval process to go through, apart from a licence from ACMA and the operator to be suitably trained and qualified?
Jack,
You said on another thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=134
I believe that Flightwatch (which is a bunch of people) will be closing ... FIS (the service) will remain ... on the ATC Consoles.
However, you do make a good point about the Unicom Operator providong WX & Notams. One of the problems with these airports is frequency congestion, so adding in this service would compound the problem. Also, it is really an ATS service/role and the Aerodrome Operators ( who are supposed to eventually start picking up the bill) wouldn't be too keen on paying their operators to do ASA's work.
In the end it is all supposition and I suppose we have to wait and see what ASA really has in mind ... when they eventually tell us.
You said on another thread:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=134
I believe that Flightwatch (which is a bunch of people) will be closing ... FIS (the service) will remain ... on the ATC Consoles.
However, you do make a good point about the Unicom Operator providong WX & Notams. One of the problems with these airports is frequency congestion, so adding in this service would compound the problem. Also, it is really an ATS service/role and the Aerodrome Operators ( who are supposed to eventually start picking up the bill) wouldn't be too keen on paying their operators to do ASA's work.
In the end it is all supposition and I suppose we have to wait and see what ASA really has in mind ... when they eventually tell us.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With the CA/GRS operation, we determine from all of the traffic in the vicinity which ones will be “relevant” and pass only those to the individual aircraft.
What is "relevant"?
...is it just "the vibe"?
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce,
I was told that flightwatch VHF discrete frequencies will be partially decommissioned and partially transferred to ATC and they will be supplemented by ATC FIA frequencies to enable ATC to continue to provide FIS.
Thus the two flightwatch staff required to do the standalone VHF monday to friday will not be required but maybe more ATCs will be to take the flightwatch VHF off the busy ATC consoles? good plan??
CBA anyone?.....ANYONE!!!!!
But what about HF? is that coming to an ATC console too? From what I understand, most of the flightwatch work is done on 6 seperate domestic and international hf networks
Gees, that would be hillarious to watch the ATCs sep and "do" HF.....I'd like to see that.
I was told that flightwatch VHF discrete frequencies will be partially decommissioned and partially transferred to ATC and they will be supplemented by ATC FIA frequencies to enable ATC to continue to provide FIS.
Thus the two flightwatch staff required to do the standalone VHF monday to friday will not be required but maybe more ATCs will be to take the flightwatch VHF off the busy ATC consoles? good plan??
CBA anyone?.....ANYONE!!!!!
But what about HF? is that coming to an ATC console too? From what I understand, most of the flightwatch work is done on 6 seperate domestic and international hf networks
Gees, that would be hillarious to watch the ATCs sep and "do" HF.....I'd like to see that.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft arriving with 10mins of each other - lateral 15mn - vertical 1000ft - as well aircraft climbing or decending through another aircraft's level- of course commonsense prevails regarding inbound and outbound tracks