Air Services Unicom Operators
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wollongong NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What criteria are applied in the determination of "relevant" traffic.
What is "relevant"?
Cheers,
John.
What is "relevant"?
The CAAP for CA/GRS defines relevant traffic as;
"Aircraft that the CA/GRO knows to be operating within the MBZ and that may constitute a hazard to a broadcasting aircraft."
This has obviously has not been updated since the demise of MBZs, and probably should read "within the vicinity of a CTAF(R) aerodrome".
We use experienced people, and could train others if we were allowed to, who can make these determinations. To achive this we start off with a basic criteria of any aircraft with 10nm and 1000ft. However, if a light twin is departing to the east and a slower aircraft is arriving from the west and would get within 5nm of each other we would not pass it as the slow one is not going to catch up with the quicker one. Conversly, if a C172 departed AYE for AS and was 15nm distant when a faster aircraft departed on the same track and altitude, that traffic would be passed as they will meet and pass before arriving as AS. The key word is "flexibility".
It is just common sense really. We disregard any traffic that is clearly not going to conflict just as the pilot would. We do however keep a continual eye on the situation as it is always changing and we update as required.
The current Unicom rules will not allow this. On first contact at a Unicom aerodrome, taxiing or inbound, the Unicom operator must pass everything they have and let the pilot sort it out. CA/GRS sorts it out for the pilots.
Cheers,
John.
Last edited by John T Cooper; 14th Oct 2007 at 09:20.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wollongong NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Are the dimensions of the Alice CA/GRS the same as the Tower's airspace?
Roughly described as a rectangle 10nm x 3nm centered on the ARP?"
Alice Springs has a control zone with ATC. Ayers Rock has the CA/GRS and is a long way from Alice. When it was an MBZ it was a zone of airspace 20nm radius and 5000ft AGL. Now it is a CTAF there is no defined airspace, a CTAF is a frequency. The only reference to spatial limits is that aircraft must call within 20nm in the case of AYE and 30nm at BME, the vertical limits are not really defined, just if the pilot considers him/herself clear.
Roughly described as a rectangle 10nm x 3nm centered on the ARP?"
Alice Springs has a control zone with ATC. Ayers Rock has the CA/GRS and is a long way from Alice. When it was an MBZ it was a zone of airspace 20nm radius and 5000ft AGL. Now it is a CTAF there is no defined airspace, a CTAF is a frequency. The only reference to spatial limits is that aircraft must call within 20nm in the case of AYE and 30nm at BME, the vertical limits are not really defined, just if the pilot considers him/herself clear.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no CA/GRS at Alice Springs. It is at Ayers Rock and operates on the CTAF which is 20nm radius of AYE. Extended to 20nm to encompass the traffic at the rock and the olgas.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTC - An interesting thread apart from you railing off against the old Ops Control. As I understand it all IFR aircraft require some sort of OPS Control I believe it is even defined by ICAO. Remember the old Initiation, Continuation, Termination or Diversion of a flight. The controllers and the FSO's providing the briefing and "control" may have been older but they were doing a job required by the Australian Government, so leave them out of this. The job was in keeping with the old DCA's (Donald George Anderson) iron fisted control over aviation, indeed Australia was once called the Police State of Aviation by Flight International. It was part and parcel of the Government controlled duopoly, parallel schedules and very high air fares that we all enjoyed.
My point is that to some extent things don't seem to have changed! We are all so used to being told what to do by way of regulations and proscribed actions that the idea that a bloke (or sheila) with a microphone couldn't give pilots enough information for them to work out what was going on, is completely foreign to us. Could he or she give us a reasonable summation of the weather, of course they could, what about which runway everyone else was using, easy, and what about the other aircraft, no problem. Of course I'm not talking about the local cab driver (no offence meant to cab drivers) who happened to be waiting for a fare. The operator would have to be an aviation oriented person with some experience. Say, an instructor, the fuel truck driver, the airline or charter operators agent. Even an ex-air traffic controller, God forbid! But, why does it have to be a dedicated person?
To me a unicom is simply a basic information service, a CA/GRS is another name for a FISO and then you get to ATC. Personally I think we need IFR approach control services at these airports long before any airport based service such as CA/GRS or Tower are needed. Unfortunately Class E airspace doesn't include enough regulation and proscription for our "aviation police state" pre-disposition. Consequently we make do with jet transport aircraft making IMC instrument approaches in Class G airspace while trying to work out where the scud-runners are coming from, info from Unicom or CA/GRS notwithstanding.
My point is that to some extent things don't seem to have changed! We are all so used to being told what to do by way of regulations and proscribed actions that the idea that a bloke (or sheila) with a microphone couldn't give pilots enough information for them to work out what was going on, is completely foreign to us. Could he or she give us a reasonable summation of the weather, of course they could, what about which runway everyone else was using, easy, and what about the other aircraft, no problem. Of course I'm not talking about the local cab driver (no offence meant to cab drivers) who happened to be waiting for a fare. The operator would have to be an aviation oriented person with some experience. Say, an instructor, the fuel truck driver, the airline or charter operators agent. Even an ex-air traffic controller, God forbid! But, why does it have to be a dedicated person?
To me a unicom is simply a basic information service, a CA/GRS is another name for a FISO and then you get to ATC. Personally I think we need IFR approach control services at these airports long before any airport based service such as CA/GRS or Tower are needed. Unfortunately Class E airspace doesn't include enough regulation and proscription for our "aviation police state" pre-disposition. Consequently we make do with jet transport aircraft making IMC instrument approaches in Class G airspace while trying to work out where the scud-runners are coming from, info from Unicom or CA/GRS notwithstanding.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Wollongong NSW
Age: 76
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it all IFR aircraft require some sort of OPS Control I believe it is even defined by ICAO. Remember the old Initiation, Continuation, Termination or Diversion of a flight.
I do remember that. It is just that in other parts of the world, and now here, pilots or the operating company provide that responsibility for themselves, as they should. As to the OCCs, whist I did have a bit of a go at the old Ops folks, I also pointed out their value and wealth of experience which was often crucial in SAR exercises, sorry if I touched a nerve.
To me a unicom is simply a basic information service, a CA/GRS is another name for a FISO and then you get to ATC. Personally I think we need IFR approach control services at these airports long before any airport based service such as CA/GRS or Tower are needed.
I don’t think we need “IFR approach control” everywhere that we have jet transport ops, this add unnecessary cost that no one want to pay. An “IFR approach aid” at these uncontrolled airports would be a better and more cost effective option. In the US there are a great many airports in G airspace that have ILS. No ATC, just tune it in, broadcast intentions, and use it. We don’t need ATC everywhere there is an ILS. The main problem in G airspace for jet transport aircraft is that they are difficult to see out of. They are designed primarily to be operated in a controlled environment. Spotting a light aircraft is difficult and a ground based information service with visual surveillance works well, (although the visual surveillance at AYE is soon to be diminished). The limitation with this service is the amount of traffic a FIS, (Unicom, CA/GRS) can handle before full aerodrome control is required.
However, getting back on topic, if this new Unicom derivative is to be introduced, as we are advised at a level below CA/GRS, it would be more cost effective to have a remote location running several airports from one room sharing resources and equipment as per the old “centres”. This would obviously be with no visual surveillance but could easily provide estimates and pass met information as is required. As things stand now under the present Unicom rules the operators will not be able to do anything other than pass estimates and factual statements about the weather (TAFs etc), there should be no need for a visual aspect to that job. If visual surveillance is required it could then be upgraded to CA/GRS and when it gets beyond that it can be upgraded to full aerodrome control. It could also be downgraded under the same system, AYE and BME handle more traffic than some of the quieter ATC towers at times. The workload and complexity of traffic, weather, and terrain should determine which level of service is required, preferably by an aerodrome study.
I do remember that. It is just that in other parts of the world, and now here, pilots or the operating company provide that responsibility for themselves, as they should. As to the OCCs, whist I did have a bit of a go at the old Ops folks, I also pointed out their value and wealth of experience which was often crucial in SAR exercises, sorry if I touched a nerve.
To me a unicom is simply a basic information service, a CA/GRS is another name for a FISO and then you get to ATC. Personally I think we need IFR approach control services at these airports long before any airport based service such as CA/GRS or Tower are needed.
I don’t think we need “IFR approach control” everywhere that we have jet transport ops, this add unnecessary cost that no one want to pay. An “IFR approach aid” at these uncontrolled airports would be a better and more cost effective option. In the US there are a great many airports in G airspace that have ILS. No ATC, just tune it in, broadcast intentions, and use it. We don’t need ATC everywhere there is an ILS. The main problem in G airspace for jet transport aircraft is that they are difficult to see out of. They are designed primarily to be operated in a controlled environment. Spotting a light aircraft is difficult and a ground based information service with visual surveillance works well, (although the visual surveillance at AYE is soon to be diminished). The limitation with this service is the amount of traffic a FIS, (Unicom, CA/GRS) can handle before full aerodrome control is required.
However, getting back on topic, if this new Unicom derivative is to be introduced, as we are advised at a level below CA/GRS, it would be more cost effective to have a remote location running several airports from one room sharing resources and equipment as per the old “centres”. This would obviously be with no visual surveillance but could easily provide estimates and pass met information as is required. As things stand now under the present Unicom rules the operators will not be able to do anything other than pass estimates and factual statements about the weather (TAFs etc), there should be no need for a visual aspect to that job. If visual surveillance is required it could then be upgraded to CA/GRS and when it gets beyond that it can be upgraded to full aerodrome control. It could also be downgraded under the same system, AYE and BME handle more traffic than some of the quieter ATC towers at times. The workload and complexity of traffic, weather, and terrain should determine which level of service is required, preferably by an aerodrome study.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTC - You didn't touch a nerve with me I just wanted to set the record straight about just what OPS Control was and then make my point about the aviation straight-jacket.
I do however have to challenge your statement about ILS installations in Class G airspace by quoting the FAA definition of Class E & G:
CLASS E Airspace
The fifth airspace to discuss is Class E Airspace which is generally that airspace that is not Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. If an aircraft is flying on a Federal airway below 18,000 feet, it is in Class E airspace. Class E airspace is also the airspace used by aircraft transiting to and from the terminal or en route environment normally beginning at 14,500 feet to 18,000 feet. Class E airspace ensures IFR aircraft remain in controlled airspace when approaching aircraft without Class D airspace or when flying on "Victor airways" -- federal airways that are below 18,000 feet. NOTE: VFR aircraft can fly up to 17,500 feet IF they can maintain VFR weather clearance criteria (and the aircraft is equipped to fly at 17,500 feet).
CLASS G Airspace
Class G Airspace is uncontrolled airspace. IFR aircraft will not operate in Class G airspace*. VFR aircraft can operate in Class G airspace.
Please note the Class G comment about IFR in G! The American philosophy is to protect IFR aircraft making IFR approaches in IMC down to the minima. If the airport has an ILS then the Class E goes to the ground. The practise is that in IMC a VFR aircraft would have to request a special VFR clearance into or out of the Class E zone. This would not be granted if an IFR aircraft was departing or making an approach.
As for the cost, I agree with you, however you have to have a philosophy. Correction, you can get by in a philosophy-free environment if you are blessed with heaps of VMC and pragmatic ad-hocery. You are in a good position to see that in action!
I do however have to challenge your statement about ILS installations in Class G airspace by quoting the FAA definition of Class E & G:
CLASS E Airspace
The fifth airspace to discuss is Class E Airspace which is generally that airspace that is not Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. If an aircraft is flying on a Federal airway below 18,000 feet, it is in Class E airspace. Class E airspace is also the airspace used by aircraft transiting to and from the terminal or en route environment normally beginning at 14,500 feet to 18,000 feet. Class E airspace ensures IFR aircraft remain in controlled airspace when approaching aircraft without Class D airspace or when flying on "Victor airways" -- federal airways that are below 18,000 feet. NOTE: VFR aircraft can fly up to 17,500 feet IF they can maintain VFR weather clearance criteria (and the aircraft is equipped to fly at 17,500 feet).
CLASS G Airspace
Class G Airspace is uncontrolled airspace. IFR aircraft will not operate in Class G airspace*. VFR aircraft can operate in Class G airspace.
Please note the Class G comment about IFR in G! The American philosophy is to protect IFR aircraft making IFR approaches in IMC down to the minima. If the airport has an ILS then the Class E goes to the ground. The practise is that in IMC a VFR aircraft would have to request a special VFR clearance into or out of the Class E zone. This would not be granted if an IFR aircraft was departing or making an approach.
As for the cost, I agree with you, however you have to have a philosophy. Correction, you can get by in a philosophy-free environment if you are blessed with heaps of VMC and pragmatic ad-hocery. You are in a good position to see that in action!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Mr.Approach for your information on "G" airspace on the USA - very interesting.
If IFR aircraft cannot operate in "G"" airspace , how do IFR RPT aircraft make instrument approaches into uncontrolled airports in the USA? I am wondering if these aerodromes must be either "E" or maybe "F" airspace only.
If IFR aircraft cannot operate in "G"" airspace , how do IFR RPT aircraft make instrument approaches into uncontrolled airports in the USA? I am wondering if these aerodromes must be either "E" or maybe "F" airspace only.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crisper - I lifted the definition from a US flying school website and it is either is error or perhaps is saying that if you want to fly in US Class G airspace by definition you are VFR because it only seems to exist at low level. Here is the US AIM definition with VFR and IFR requirements:
Section 3. Class G Airspace
3-3-1. General
Class G airspace (uncontrolled) is that portion of airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace.
3-3-2. VFR Requirements
Rules governing VFR flight have been adopted to assist the pilot in meeting the responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. Minimum flight visibility and distance from clouds required for VFR flight are contained in 14 CFR Section 91.155.
(See TBL 3-1-1.)
3-3-3. IFR Requirements
a. Title 14 CFR specifies the pilot and aircraft equipment requirements for IFR flight. Pilots are reminded that in addition to altitude or flight level requirements, 14 CFR Section 91.177 includes a requirement to remain at least 1,000 feet (2,000 feet in designated mountainous terrain) above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown.
To answer your question ATC will separate the IFR aircraft in the Class E airspace containing the instrument approach. Certain classes of IFR aircraft can cancel their IFR flight plan and proceed VFR, hence in Class E airspace, cease to be separated. Other classes of IFR aircraft, or in accordance with company rules, never cancel IFR. However when they reach the instrument approach minima they become visual to perform a circling approach and are now in Class G airspace. (Note, as I wrote previously if the instrument approach is an ILS then the Class E extends to ground level, effectively a Class E control zone) ATC have rules to ensure that IFR aircraft are talking on the CTAF at non-towered airports:
4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower
Aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan, landing at an airport without an operating control tower will be advised to change to the airport advisory frequency when direct communications with ATC are no longer required. Towers and centers do not have nontower airport traffic and runway in use information. The instrument approach may not be aligned with the runway in use; therefore, if the information has not already been obtained, pilots should make an expeditious change to the airport advisory frequency when authorized.
So that was the long answer, the short one is that if the Class E airspace base is 700 feet, typically an NDB or VOR based approach, then the airport is in Class G airspace. If the approach is an ILS then the airport is in Class E airspace. There is no Class F airspace in the USA that I am aware of.
To get back to the thread, can a unicom give the information the pilot requires? This is the US AIM section:
Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)
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.
UNICOM Communications Procedures
1. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the following practices will help reduce frequency congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions, help identify the location of aircraft in the traffic pattern, and enhance safety of flight:
(a) Select the correct UNICOM frequency.
(b) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling in each transmission.
(c) Speak slowly and distinctly.
(d) Report approximately 10 miles from the airport, reporting altitude, and state your aircraft type, aircraft identification, location relative to the airport, state whether landing or overflight, and request wind information and runway in use.
(e) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
(f) Report leaving the runway.
Section 3. Class G Airspace
3-3-1. General
Class G airspace (uncontrolled) is that portion of airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace.
3-3-2. VFR Requirements
Rules governing VFR flight have been adopted to assist the pilot in meeting the responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. Minimum flight visibility and distance from clouds required for VFR flight are contained in 14 CFR Section 91.155.
(See TBL 3-1-1.)
3-3-3. IFR Requirements
a. Title 14 CFR specifies the pilot and aircraft equipment requirements for IFR flight. Pilots are reminded that in addition to altitude or flight level requirements, 14 CFR Section 91.177 includes a requirement to remain at least 1,000 feet (2,000 feet in designated mountainous terrain) above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown.
To answer your question ATC will separate the IFR aircraft in the Class E airspace containing the instrument approach. Certain classes of IFR aircraft can cancel their IFR flight plan and proceed VFR, hence in Class E airspace, cease to be separated. Other classes of IFR aircraft, or in accordance with company rules, never cancel IFR. However when they reach the instrument approach minima they become visual to perform a circling approach and are now in Class G airspace. (Note, as I wrote previously if the instrument approach is an ILS then the Class E extends to ground level, effectively a Class E control zone) ATC have rules to ensure that IFR aircraft are talking on the CTAF at non-towered airports:
4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower
Aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan, landing at an airport without an operating control tower will be advised to change to the airport advisory frequency when direct communications with ATC are no longer required. Towers and centers do not have nontower airport traffic and runway in use information. The instrument approach may not be aligned with the runway in use; therefore, if the information has not already been obtained, pilots should make an expeditious change to the airport advisory frequency when authorized.
So that was the long answer, the short one is that if the Class E airspace base is 700 feet, typically an NDB or VOR based approach, then the airport is in Class G airspace. If the approach is an ILS then the airport is in Class E airspace. There is no Class F airspace in the USA that I am aware of.
To get back to the thread, can a unicom give the information the pilot requires? This is the US AIM section:
Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)
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.
UNICOM Communications Procedures
1. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the following practices will help reduce frequency congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions, help identify the location of aircraft in the traffic pattern, and enhance safety of flight:
(a) Select the correct UNICOM frequency.
(b) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling in each transmission.
(c) Speak slowly and distinctly.
(d) Report approximately 10 miles from the airport, reporting altitude, and state your aircraft type, aircraft identification, location relative to the airport, state whether landing or overflight, and request wind information and runway in use.
(e) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
(f) Report leaving the runway.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is US UNICOM Permitted to Give Traffic Information?
Dick Smith:
You will note from MrApproach's post the following reference from the AIM
it would appear that traffic information IS NOT recognised by the FAA as being a prime UNICOM function.
Bolding is for emphasis only.
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....etc
Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM).....2. On pilot request, UNICOM stations may provide pilots with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information.
Bolding is for emphasis only.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Cooper wrote
MOS 139 Chapter 14 Specifies
Obvious Question: What is the basis for the provision of CA/GRO at any aerodrome outside an MBZ?
Mr Cooper wrote
So clearly the provision of CA/GRO services is not supported by CASA at this point in time.
Given the vague "relevant traffic" and the lack of supporting MOS, the whole thing sounds shonky IMHO.
The CAAP for CA/GRS defines relevant traffic as;
"Aircraft that the CA/GRO knows to be operating within the MBZ and that may constitute a hazard to a broadcasting aircraft."
"Aircraft that the CA/GRO knows to be operating within the MBZ and that may constitute a hazard to a broadcasting aircraft."
14.2.3.1 A CA/GRS must provide the following services to aircraft within airspace designated as an MBZ area in which the aerodrome is located:
(a) advice of relevant air traffic in the MBZ airspace or on the aerodrome;
(a) advice of relevant air traffic in the MBZ airspace or on the aerodrome;
Mr Cooper wrote
This has obviously has not been updated since the demise of MBZs, and probably should read "within the vicinity of a CTAF(R) aerodrome".
Given the vague "relevant traffic" and the lack of supporting MOS, the whole thing sounds shonky IMHO.
Obvious Question: What is the basis for the provision of CA/GRO at any aerodrome outside an MBZ?
So clearly the provision of CA/GRO services is not supported by CASA at this point in time.
There would be an Instrument or amendment somewhere declaring references to MBZ be CTAF-R in CASRs and other documents such as MOSs, somewhere around the time CTAF-Rs came in.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the references to 139....lets have a look at them...
139.400 and 139.405 reflect the creation of the CA/GRO but that service still needs to "meet the standards for a CA/GRS set out in the Manual of Standards" (139.410)
And that MOS reflects MBZs not CTAFs. 139.390 Definitions:
"air/ground radio service means an aerodrome radio information
service that provides aircraft operating in the MBZ of an aerodrome
with the services and information specified in section 14.2 of the
Manual of Standards."
"certified air/ground radio service, or CA/GRS, in relation to an
aerodrome, means an air/ground radio service for the aerodrome
certified in accordance with regulation"
And if the people running the show don't know exactly what regs they operate under, how then can they comply?
If that is bush lawyer speak, so be it, but "Rules is Rules Macca" and it would ba a "can O worms" if the holes in the cheese line up.
If it looks like a shonk...
139.400 and 139.405 reflect the creation of the CA/GRO but that service still needs to "meet the standards for a CA/GRS set out in the Manual of Standards" (139.410)
And that MOS reflects MBZs not CTAFs. 139.390 Definitions:
"air/ground radio service means an aerodrome radio information
service that provides aircraft operating in the MBZ of an aerodrome
with the services and information specified in section 14.2 of the
Manual of Standards."
"certified air/ground radio service, or CA/GRS, in relation to an
aerodrome, means an air/ground radio service for the aerodrome
certified in accordance with regulation"
And if the people running the show don't know exactly what regs they operate under, how then can they comply?
If that is bush lawyer speak, so be it, but "Rules is Rules Macca" and it would ba a "can O worms" if the holes in the cheese line up.
If it looks like a shonk...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jacko,
I can assure you that CASA created the CA/GRS service and are fully supportive of it - in fact the service was developed to provide real traffic and weather information services at busy CTAF's in much the same way that flight service used to provide in AFIZ'S. To say that the service is a "shonk" because of the reference to MBZ'S instead of CTAF"S is drawing a very long bow - it only means that the documents need to be updated and I am sure you will find many other such references in CASA documents that also need to be updated as well. It doesn't mean that all regulations and documents with references to MBZ'S are invalid. The CA/GRS service has been proven to be very effective and well received by pilots where it operates - just ask any Qantas pilot who flies into Broome or Ayers Rock. And I hope that the CA/GRS service will be expanded by CASA in the new reorganization of airspace now taking place - the traffic and weather information services that CA/GRS provides seem to be much more appropriate to busy regional airports in Australia than the Unicom as proposed by airservices in my opinion. Even more so when you consider the high speed turboprop and jet services expanding into these aerodromes at the moment and into the future.
And thanks to Mr. Approach and Capt. Midnight for your information on unicoms in the USA. From what I can see, this service does not provide any real services required for a significant safety improvement at busy Australian airports - unless of course you find calling taxis and making coffee is important as Mr. Smith appears to think it is.
I can assure you that CASA created the CA/GRS service and are fully supportive of it - in fact the service was developed to provide real traffic and weather information services at busy CTAF's in much the same way that flight service used to provide in AFIZ'S. To say that the service is a "shonk" because of the reference to MBZ'S instead of CTAF"S is drawing a very long bow - it only means that the documents need to be updated and I am sure you will find many other such references in CASA documents that also need to be updated as well. It doesn't mean that all regulations and documents with references to MBZ'S are invalid. The CA/GRS service has been proven to be very effective and well received by pilots where it operates - just ask any Qantas pilot who flies into Broome or Ayers Rock. And I hope that the CA/GRS service will be expanded by CASA in the new reorganization of airspace now taking place - the traffic and weather information services that CA/GRS provides seem to be much more appropriate to busy regional airports in Australia than the Unicom as proposed by airservices in my opinion. Even more so when you consider the high speed turboprop and jet services expanding into these aerodromes at the moment and into the future.
And thanks to Mr. Approach and Capt. Midnight for your information on unicoms in the USA. From what I can see, this service does not provide any real services required for a significant safety improvement at busy Australian airports - unless of course you find calling taxis and making coffee is important as Mr. Smith appears to think it is.
Noticed a report on the Unicom Trial has been published:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...erf_review.pdf
Some interesting recommendations:
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...erf_review.pdf
Some interesting recommendations:
- That the Unicom Operator should (has done) move into Wagga Tower to gain situational awareness ... doooh!!! Why this wasn't done at the beginning is laughable
- Expand trial to Karratha, Hervey Bay and Port Macquarie
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: aussie
Age: 51
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAGRO
Part of the issue with the CAGRO should be to provide "relevant" traffic at an "appropriate" time...
If someone calls taxi at a CTAF with multiple CCT traffic I have the discretion to remain quiet and let the CCT mob sort it out then let him know later if the potential conflict still exists..
For the CAGRO (as I understand) they are obliged to pass all "relevant" traffic on first contact.. so when ABC calls taxi and the CAGRO passes 6 or more aircraft as traffic alot has happened by the time anyone else can get a word in..
this causes a lot of headaches for the CCT guys.. 1 is slow to vacate.. the next guy is now in the go around and turning downwind again number 3 now short final and the next on crosswind whilst none have been able to trasmit anything..
If the CAGRO had said "ABC multiple CCT traffic stanby for details" the frequency could be left available for the CCT traffic...
eg keep it moving mate i'm now SHORT final behind you...
Forcing one guy to pass all traffic all the time does not always help (in my opinion).. I guess the Jet guys want it.. perhaps pass traffic to them only..and others on request..
If someone calls taxi at a CTAF with multiple CCT traffic I have the discretion to remain quiet and let the CCT mob sort it out then let him know later if the potential conflict still exists..
For the CAGRO (as I understand) they are obliged to pass all "relevant" traffic on first contact.. so when ABC calls taxi and the CAGRO passes 6 or more aircraft as traffic alot has happened by the time anyone else can get a word in..
this causes a lot of headaches for the CCT guys.. 1 is slow to vacate.. the next guy is now in the go around and turning downwind again number 3 now short final and the next on crosswind whilst none have been able to trasmit anything..
If the CAGRO had said "ABC multiple CCT traffic stanby for details" the frequency could be left available for the CCT traffic...
eg keep it moving mate i'm now SHORT final behind you...
Forcing one guy to pass all traffic all the time does not always help (in my opinion).. I guess the Jet guys want it.. perhaps pass traffic to them only..and others on request..
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QSK?
MrApproach highlighted the section of the FAA AIM that deals with this.
Specifically
it would appear that traffic information IS NOT recognised by the FAA as being a prime UNICOM function.
Specifically
Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)
1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground ...
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.
1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground ...
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.
