Who is Mike Taylor? He should be famous.
Thread Starter
I have spoken to Lindsay personally about this and he is perfectly happy to pay for the cost of manning the tower if that is what is required te ensure an acceptable level of safety.
The cost is not in the millions of dollars. When Qantas or the military do training at Avalon the cost of manning the tower is about $380 per hour.
Airservices even man the tower when the Formula ! cars are airfreighted in.
And if the CASA safety study for Avalon is flawed why don't you do something constructive to get it corrected - or won't they take any notice of someone who isn't even game to put a name to the objection!
The cost is not in the millions of dollars. When Qantas or the military do training at Avalon the cost of manning the tower is about $380 per hour.
Airservices even man the tower when the Formula ! cars are airfreighted in.
And if the CASA safety study for Avalon is flawed why don't you do something constructive to get it corrected - or won't they take any notice of someone who isn't even game to put a name to the objection!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obviously I am not making myself clear.
Is the existing tower at Avalon capable of use under normal OH&S guidelines or does it need work to become an 0600-2300 daily workplace?
If it is not 'ready use' what is the estimated cost of enabling the tower to enable occupation? Who pays - Mike Taylor or Linfox?
I am not concerned about the staffing - that is recoverable from the airlines.
Lindsay is prepared to pay? Organisational confusion reigns supreme it seems, or at least did in June:
"XXXX from Linfox/Avalon put the view that from the Aerodrome owner’s perspective the minimum necessary for compliance with the determination was preferred in order to minimize costs to the commercial users of the aerodrome.
They don’t want Avalon to loose its price advantage and potentially its airline customers to Tullamarine. This minimum service would be a Class C radar terminal service from Melbourne Centre (ML TMA) and no Tower (ADC) service."
Edited to add, despite my better judgement:
Your persistence in NASdebation, Dick, is second only to your persistence in wanting to flush out details of other posters.
I'll quite happily put my name on anything I write to CASA, likewise while I'm on this forum I'll post as myself. Learn to live with it, Dick - read the forum rules. By the way - I have written to CASA about the Avalon study - it's a crock and I suggested that my research showed that.
If you were not a protected species you'd have worn out your welcome for prodding other posters long ago. To (mis)quote a moderator rushing to your defence earlier in this thread, this thread is about Mike Taylor not about Dick Smith - and thus by association, other individual posters.
Is the existing tower at Avalon capable of use under normal OH&S guidelines or does it need work to become an 0600-2300 daily workplace?
If it is not 'ready use' what is the estimated cost of enabling the tower to enable occupation? Who pays - Mike Taylor or Linfox?
I am not concerned about the staffing - that is recoverable from the airlines.
Lindsay is prepared to pay? Organisational confusion reigns supreme it seems, or at least did in June:
"XXXX from Linfox/Avalon put the view that from the Aerodrome owner’s perspective the minimum necessary for compliance with the determination was preferred in order to minimize costs to the commercial users of the aerodrome.
They don’t want Avalon to loose its price advantage and potentially its airline customers to Tullamarine. This minimum service would be a Class C radar terminal service from Melbourne Centre (ML TMA) and no Tower (ADC) service."
Edited to add, despite my better judgement:
Your persistence in NASdebation, Dick, is second only to your persistence in wanting to flush out details of other posters.
I'll quite happily put my name on anything I write to CASA, likewise while I'm on this forum I'll post as myself. Learn to live with it, Dick - read the forum rules. By the way - I have written to CASA about the Avalon study - it's a crock and I suggested that my research showed that.
If you were not a protected species you'd have worn out your welcome for prodding other posters long ago. To (mis)quote a moderator rushing to your defence earlier in this thread, this thread is about Mike Taylor not about Dick Smith - and thus by association, other individual posters.
Thread Starter
And by the way , I do have special priviledges at Gundaroo and Williamtown.
I just believe it would be fairer if all pilots were treated equally. Thats what I have been working for for over two decades.
And all of the costs for avalon will be cost recoverable from the Airlines -thats how astute businessmen operate.
I just believe it would be fairer if all pilots were treated equally. Thats what I have been working for for over two decades.
And all of the costs for avalon will be cost recoverable from the Airlines -thats how astute businessmen operate.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 25th Sep 2008 at 12:14.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick
Still have not answered my question - you are very reticent when facts roll out.
Yes, I note your edit - businesses need to speculate to accumulate.
I wonder then why Linfox are pushing for no tower? Could it be because in your push for a tower, in the forlorn hope of D, Linfox is now committed to a big $ speculation to get the tower up to scratch but know that if C arrives Jetstar might as well use YMML at the price so the $ could be an investment at risk?
Didn't you take Linfox O/S to see D in operation? Why are they not pushing for D instead of NO tower?
Still have not answered my question - you are very reticent when facts roll out.
Yes, I note your edit - businesses need to speculate to accumulate.
I wonder then why Linfox are pushing for no tower? Could it be because in your push for a tower, in the forlorn hope of D, Linfox is now committed to a big $ speculation to get the tower up to scratch but know that if C arrives Jetstar might as well use YMML at the price so the $ could be an investment at risk?
Didn't you take Linfox O/S to see D in operation? Why are they not pushing for D instead of NO tower?
Thread Starter
landof4x,
I’ll say it again, it doesn’t affect me being held at Williamtown as I can well afford the extra flying time. It is the people who are not wealthy who are affected and the commercial operators who end up with a non-viable aviation business because of unnecessary waste that I am concerned about.
It is also the safety implication, when two or three aircraft are held orbiting over a busy beach.
By the way I am not a ‘retired’ pilot. I fly virtually every day and use my CJ3 and Agusta 109E in my commercial businesses.
I believe I have taken more action in relation to Broome than anyone I know. For example, look here (see here) and go to chapter 19. It will become apparent to you that I have campaigned relentlessly to have a manned tower at Broome.
I have met the so-called safety people at Qantas and Virgin, all to completely no avail. All they want to do is keep the status quo so their profits can be maximised. Why else would Jetstar be against manning the tower at Avalon and why wouldn’t Qantas be prepared to pay a small amount extra to go from the certified air ground operator at Broome to a properly manned Class D tower?
I have had lots of publicity in the media, including the 7.30 Report, in relation to Broome, whereas there has been no similar coverage of holding at Williamtown.
I’ll say it again, it doesn’t affect me being held at Williamtown as I can well afford the extra flying time. It is the people who are not wealthy who are affected and the commercial operators who end up with a non-viable aviation business because of unnecessary waste that I am concerned about.
It is also the safety implication, when two or three aircraft are held orbiting over a busy beach.
By the way I am not a ‘retired’ pilot. I fly virtually every day and use my CJ3 and Agusta 109E in my commercial businesses.
I believe I have taken more action in relation to Broome than anyone I know. For example, look here (see here) and go to chapter 19. It will become apparent to you that I have campaigned relentlessly to have a manned tower at Broome.
I have met the so-called safety people at Qantas and Virgin, all to completely no avail. All they want to do is keep the status quo so their profits can be maximised. Why else would Jetstar be against manning the tower at Avalon and why wouldn’t Qantas be prepared to pay a small amount extra to go from the certified air ground operator at Broome to a properly manned Class D tower?
I have had lots of publicity in the media, including the 7.30 Report, in relation to Broome, whereas there has been no similar coverage of holding at Williamtown.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now where was I - shopping list, car keys, wallet - whoops, sorry, I got confused and lost track of what the thread is about. Seems endemic.
Dick, if we could briefly return to Mike Taylor, you keep dodging my question about the tower per se at AV, not the ATC bodies therein.
Does Mike Taylor have the clout to direct Linfox - a private enterprise organisation - to bring the tower up to scratch? Does Linfox have the clout to push for D not C rather than their last listed preference of NO tower? If not, what now?
Dick, if we could briefly return to Mike Taylor, you keep dodging my question about the tower per se at AV, not the ATC bodies therein.
Does Mike Taylor have the clout to direct Linfox - a private enterprise organisation - to bring the tower up to scratch? Does Linfox have the clout to push for D not C rather than their last listed preference of NO tower? If not, what now?
Goodonya Landof4x you stick to your 36 seat fast turbo-prop, I'm aware of QF and other airline JET captains visiting the Broome Cagro's and thanking them for the service. You seem to be a whinger and one who seems to find the negative side and things will never be quite right will they Tosser!
Thread Starter
I would like to see a tower at Broome just like the towers that AsA operate in the USA. Both airline and GA pilots like them as there are no unnecessary delays or frequency congestion.
The US ATC's like them too because they can really move a lot of metal safely.
When I am back in a position of influence we will get one up and going quickly!
The US ATC's like them too because they can really move a lot of metal safely.
When I am back in a position of influence we will get one up and going quickly!
Thread Starter
I think it will most likely be at least 5 years away.
They unfortunately will do a lot more damage to our industry before the anger is so great that change will be allowed.
They unfortunately will do a lot more damage to our industry before the anger is so great that change will be allowed.
Landof4X
I respect constructive criticism, but your unwarranted comment drew my response ("with nothing other than a sh*t-house, hindrance of a CAGRO"). The Broome CAGROs actually put in serious time and aren't deserving of your personalised vitriole - play the ball mate, not the man, which regrettably this thread started out doing. And no I'm not QF.
I respect constructive criticism, but your unwarranted comment drew my response ("with nothing other than a sh*t-house, hindrance of a CAGRO"). The Broome CAGROs actually put in serious time and aren't deserving of your personalised vitriole - play the ball mate, not the man, which regrettably this thread started out doing. And no I'm not QF.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like P51D,
I was also offended by the comment made by lando4x about the Broome Cagro's. It seems everytime Cagro's are mentioned on Prune, 4X has to have some negative comment regarding Broome and the Ca/grs service there. I can only presume that he was once at Broome as a new pilot and obviously had some run-in with the Cagro there at the time and has forever held a grudge - real professional attitude eh?
As for Broome being dangerous, well show me the incident reports to justify your concerns ? CASA certainly don't think so. Broome does get busy, normally around the lunchtime RPT's, but the RELEVANT traffic information service given by the Cagro's greatly reduces the frequency congestion and is more than sufficient in the majority of circumstances - take away the Ca/grs and just think about all the unneccessary aircraft to aircraft transmissions and overtransmitting on the CTAF that would take place if everyone had to ask the positions of each other when its busy and then work out if they are relevant traffic or not? The cagro assesses the positions of every aircraft , against a set traffic criteria, and only gives the conflicting aircraft as traffic. Saves a lot of frequency congestion and pilot workload I would have thought ! This is pretty simple stuff, even for 4X.
And Dick,
I really find it hard to understand your about face at times. Wasn't it you when in charge of CASA, who instigated the development of the Cagro service? Wasn't it you who demanded that a Cagro service was introduced at AYE on safety grounds? I would have thought that you should be supporting the introduction of more Cagro services at many regional airports, given your previous involvement in its development and its cost effectiveness as a safety enhancement service. Yet in recent posts, you now support class D towers at both Broome and Ayers Rock. Whatever happened to "affordable safety" ? Have you thought about the huge increase in costs of providing a class D tower with at least 5 controllers, as opposed to only 2 cagro's at these locations, for the very few times throughout the year that the increase in saftey is warranted ? And then there is cost of constructing Control Towers, extra taxiways and various other infrastructure required before ATC would even consider providing class D tower. I have no doubt that in the future that this will be required, but current movements suggest that the need for an ATC service is still some years away. Maybe you should do a bit of research and ask a few of the local GA operators as well as Qantas/Virgin/Skywest/Air North pilots what they think of the Cagro service at these aerodromes and if they are willing to pay the extra cost of an ATC tower at these locations. After all, they are the pilots who actually USE the aerodromes everyday - and then maybe you would have a better appreciation of how well the Cagro service is supported at Broome and Ayers Rock.
I was also offended by the comment made by lando4x about the Broome Cagro's. It seems everytime Cagro's are mentioned on Prune, 4X has to have some negative comment regarding Broome and the Ca/grs service there. I can only presume that he was once at Broome as a new pilot and obviously had some run-in with the Cagro there at the time and has forever held a grudge - real professional attitude eh?
As for Broome being dangerous, well show me the incident reports to justify your concerns ? CASA certainly don't think so. Broome does get busy, normally around the lunchtime RPT's, but the RELEVANT traffic information service given by the Cagro's greatly reduces the frequency congestion and is more than sufficient in the majority of circumstances - take away the Ca/grs and just think about all the unneccessary aircraft to aircraft transmissions and overtransmitting on the CTAF that would take place if everyone had to ask the positions of each other when its busy and then work out if they are relevant traffic or not? The cagro assesses the positions of every aircraft , against a set traffic criteria, and only gives the conflicting aircraft as traffic. Saves a lot of frequency congestion and pilot workload I would have thought ! This is pretty simple stuff, even for 4X.
And Dick,
I really find it hard to understand your about face at times. Wasn't it you when in charge of CASA, who instigated the development of the Cagro service? Wasn't it you who demanded that a Cagro service was introduced at AYE on safety grounds? I would have thought that you should be supporting the introduction of more Cagro services at many regional airports, given your previous involvement in its development and its cost effectiveness as a safety enhancement service. Yet in recent posts, you now support class D towers at both Broome and Ayers Rock. Whatever happened to "affordable safety" ? Have you thought about the huge increase in costs of providing a class D tower with at least 5 controllers, as opposed to only 2 cagro's at these locations, for the very few times throughout the year that the increase in saftey is warranted ? And then there is cost of constructing Control Towers, extra taxiways and various other infrastructure required before ATC would even consider providing class D tower. I have no doubt that in the future that this will be required, but current movements suggest that the need for an ATC service is still some years away. Maybe you should do a bit of research and ask a few of the local GA operators as well as Qantas/Virgin/Skywest/Air North pilots what they think of the Cagro service at these aerodromes and if they are willing to pay the extra cost of an ATC tower at these locations. After all, they are the pilots who actually USE the aerodromes everyday - and then maybe you would have a better appreciation of how well the Cagro service is supported at Broome and Ayers Rock.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: brewery
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day lando4x,
Let me address a few of your concerns regarding CAGRO's at Broome. I can only speak of my experience over the last couple of years at Broome and it seems that circumstances may have changed somewhat since you last flew into Broome.
Firstly, regarding schedules. Broome traffic can get busy at anytime during the day, but recent changes to schedules mean that the main traffic peak is around 11:30 am until 2pm. This is when the traffic mix of RPT's and GA aircraft is at it's peak now, and cagros were initially established to address this diverse traffic mix, At most other times the traffic is mainly GA aircraft only. If it wasn't for RPT's there would be no cagro service.
Secondly, Frequency congestion. CAAP no. airways-3(2) para 3.1 states "A CA/GRO responds to the first broadcast an aircraft makes when arriving,departing or transitting the CTAF. Thereafter, the CA/GRO does not normally respond unless and aircraft specifically calls the service" In other words, once a pilot makes and initial call on the CTAF , that aircraft will be given traffic which will conflict with his/her aircraft from the CA/GRO and from then on, the pilot is required to listen out and copy any additional traffic which conflicts and respond if need be. Their is NO requirement for the CA/GRO to address aircraft already on the CTAF and update them with traffic because, as you state, those aircraft should already be listening out. In this way, frequency congestion is greatly reduced. This is where CA/GRO procedures differ from the old AFIZ and current ATC procedures of recipricol traffic and it was designed this way to specifically reduce congestion. I cannot speak for the previous CA/GRO's and procedures you may have encounted at Broome , but I can assure you this is how the system works at Broome now, and works well.
Thirdly, regarding safety at Broome. CASA has recently conducted a study at Broome and were very impressed with the CA/GRO service and, I understand may be recommending that the service be expanded to other aerodromes as a result. These findings should be published soon in their present review of air traffic services at regional aerodromes. Given the amount of traffic at Broome, there are very few incident reports submitted and certainly a lot less than many other regional airports with no service at all.
And in reference to a ATC tower, local operators are not in favour of this as it would cause substantial delays in their operations. You would no doubt be aware of the lack of a southern taxyway and numerous traffic crossing north to south etc. With a tower there would be no more following each other down the runway, no crossing whilst backtracking, separation standards applied in the circuit, I could go on and on. And I very much doubt if ATC would want to establish at tower at Broome without a southern full length taxyway for RPT's and other improvements to assist traffic flow .
I hope next time you visit Broome, you experience how the CA/GRO service is of great assistance to local pilots and why we want it to stay for the immediate future.
P.S. I think the CA/GRO whom you refer to is looooong gone
Let me address a few of your concerns regarding CAGRO's at Broome. I can only speak of my experience over the last couple of years at Broome and it seems that circumstances may have changed somewhat since you last flew into Broome.
Firstly, regarding schedules. Broome traffic can get busy at anytime during the day, but recent changes to schedules mean that the main traffic peak is around 11:30 am until 2pm. This is when the traffic mix of RPT's and GA aircraft is at it's peak now, and cagros were initially established to address this diverse traffic mix, At most other times the traffic is mainly GA aircraft only. If it wasn't for RPT's there would be no cagro service.
Secondly, Frequency congestion. CAAP no. airways-3(2) para 3.1 states "A CA/GRO responds to the first broadcast an aircraft makes when arriving,departing or transitting the CTAF. Thereafter, the CA/GRO does not normally respond unless and aircraft specifically calls the service" In other words, once a pilot makes and initial call on the CTAF , that aircraft will be given traffic which will conflict with his/her aircraft from the CA/GRO and from then on, the pilot is required to listen out and copy any additional traffic which conflicts and respond if need be. Their is NO requirement for the CA/GRO to address aircraft already on the CTAF and update them with traffic because, as you state, those aircraft should already be listening out. In this way, frequency congestion is greatly reduced. This is where CA/GRO procedures differ from the old AFIZ and current ATC procedures of recipricol traffic and it was designed this way to specifically reduce congestion. I cannot speak for the previous CA/GRO's and procedures you may have encounted at Broome , but I can assure you this is how the system works at Broome now, and works well.
Thirdly, regarding safety at Broome. CASA has recently conducted a study at Broome and were very impressed with the CA/GRO service and, I understand may be recommending that the service be expanded to other aerodromes as a result. These findings should be published soon in their present review of air traffic services at regional aerodromes. Given the amount of traffic at Broome, there are very few incident reports submitted and certainly a lot less than many other regional airports with no service at all.
And in reference to a ATC tower, local operators are not in favour of this as it would cause substantial delays in their operations. You would no doubt be aware of the lack of a southern taxyway and numerous traffic crossing north to south etc. With a tower there would be no more following each other down the runway, no crossing whilst backtracking, separation standards applied in the circuit, I could go on and on. And I very much doubt if ATC would want to establish at tower at Broome without a southern full length taxyway for RPT's and other improvements to assist traffic flow .
I hope next time you visit Broome, you experience how the CA/GRO service is of great assistance to local pilots and why we want it to stay for the immediate future.
P.S. I think the CA/GRO whom you refer to is looooong gone
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This post began with Dick asking "who is Mike Taylor?"
Well, every chance is he will be on the new CASA board together with the Chairman who most likely will be a former Labour state Premier.
Other members, CM, Hank, a "victim's representative",a leading aviation lawyer and the CEO.
And for CEO? The American headhunters Spencer Stuart are currently talking to. He is ex a major airline safety department.
Governance in this whole exercise is questionable, but not surprising, Mike is driving it. Both Mike and BB, that's right, Bruce, are on the CEO interview panel. Given that Bruce told us at the RAAA conference that he has done an outstanding job, will he support (select) a candidate who wants or proposes change because CASA is again in the 'hall of doom'?
Now Dick, forget towers for the moment, this is something to worry about!
Well, every chance is he will be on the new CASA board together with the Chairman who most likely will be a former Labour state Premier.
Other members, CM, Hank, a "victim's representative",a leading aviation lawyer and the CEO.
And for CEO? The American headhunters Spencer Stuart are currently talking to. He is ex a major airline safety department.
Governance in this whole exercise is questionable, but not surprising, Mike is driving it. Both Mike and BB, that's right, Bruce, are on the CEO interview panel. Given that Bruce told us at the RAAA conference that he has done an outstanding job, will he support (select) a candidate who wants or proposes change because CASA is again in the 'hall of doom'?
Now Dick, forget towers for the moment, this is something to worry about!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What Broome needs before a tower is a full lenght taxy way parallel to 10/28 which will take rpt jets. With 10 departures, the runway is occupied for a considerable time while the jet enters and backtracks, the same with a landing on 28. It becomes necessary to space yourself out further to allow for the back track. This wider circuit then puts the GA aircraft out further etc etc. There has been numerous rpt aircraft carry out missed approaches through aircraft backtracking.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And for CEO? The American headhunters Spencer Stuart are currently talking to. He is ex a major airline safety department.
Other members, CM, Hank, a "victim's representative",a leading aviation lawyer and the CEO.
Sure is something to worry about, Ex Labour Premier any one want money on John Brumby, and welcome back to CASA Peter Ilyk, god help us all.
