Unicom
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: HK
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unicom
Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08
The following instruments were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 22 September 2008: CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08. Instrument CASA EX40/08 applies to the provision of a UNICOM service by Airservices Australia (AA) at Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Olympic Dam, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga Aerodromes. It exempts AA from compliance with subregulation 139.385 (2) and regulation 139.395 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in respect of paragraph 14.4.1.3 of Part 139 of the Manual of Standards. It came into effect on 23 September 2008. Instrument CASA EX65/08 allows properly qualified and eligible Airservices Australia air traffic controllers at peak times of the year to perform air traffic control functions for up to 21 days without holding the relevant licence or rating for the function, pending its issue by CASA. It comes into effect on 1 October 2008.
This and other instruments are available on the CASA website:
Legislative instruments and exemptions – Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments
The following instruments were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 22 September 2008: CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08. Instrument CASA EX40/08 applies to the provision of a UNICOM service by Airservices Australia (AA) at Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Olympic Dam, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga Aerodromes. It exempts AA from compliance with subregulation 139.385 (2) and regulation 139.395 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in respect of paragraph 14.4.1.3 of Part 139 of the Manual of Standards. It came into effect on 23 September 2008. Instrument CASA EX65/08 allows properly qualified and eligible Airservices Australia air traffic controllers at peak times of the year to perform air traffic control functions for up to 21 days without holding the relevant licence or rating for the function, pending its issue by CASA. It comes into effect on 1 October 2008.
This and other instruments are available on the CASA website:
Legislative instruments and exemptions – Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The trial is finishing a month early, end of March 2009.
Does anyone have any news as to how it operated, good, bad, who gives a %^&* ?
As I don't operate into any of the ports trialled and this has gone veeery quiet, some info would be good!
Does anyone have any news as to how it operated, good, bad, who gives a %^&* ?
As I don't operate into any of the ports trialled and this has gone veeery quiet, some info would be good!
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have been into and out of Hervey Bay quit a bit of late and I must say the Unicom was more of a hinderence to me. I would like to think my airwork and radio usage in a CTAF R is a pretty good standard and I often interact with RPT Jets and Q400's and all works very well. The difference being when transponder equipped, and with precise and helpful radio work, seperation is fine. They feel confident you are who you say and where you say and if you offer to hold a height or tack somewhere to give them space they are confident in you doing exactly that. They can see you on TCAS and once you are considered reliable it takes stress out of their operations.
Listening to the same crews dealing with a trike or other ultralight machine without a transponder and a less than convincing position/intention broadcast, you can here the RPT guys and girls focus very hard on them and its clearly more of a distraction to all.
So in a perfect world it should not be a problem, but to the RPT crews I think they like to get early advice as to who is known to be buzzing around the aerodrome from the UNICOM in one condensed manner, and then deal with it as they get closer rather than 6 or seven different and messy radio chats.
Of course ADSB on every flying machine would have really cleared this up and painted a much better picture to the RPT guys........... but lets not go there
Jabaless
Listening to the same crews dealing with a trike or other ultralight machine without a transponder and a less than convincing position/intention broadcast, you can here the RPT guys and girls focus very hard on them and its clearly more of a distraction to all.
So in a perfect world it should not be a problem, but to the RPT crews I think they like to get early advice as to who is known to be buzzing around the aerodrome from the UNICOM in one condensed manner, and then deal with it as they get closer rather than 6 or seven different and messy radio chats.
Of course ADSB on every flying machine would have really cleared this up and painted a much better picture to the RPT guys........... but lets not go there
Jabaless
Jaba,
While I agree that
was it really ever going to happen/could it ever happen on a
?
I have an idea. Some aircraft types don't mix well. It is obviously not practical (you know, affordable safety and all that) to put in a tower. Install a CAGRO/AsA Unicom (NOT the refueller or Linda on check-in, Dick) for traffic and when a Hi Cap RPT arrives, everybody else get/remain clear. No dogfights in the circuit=safe ops for all.
While I agree that
Of course ADSB on every flying machine would have really cleared this up and painted a much better picture to the RPT guys
trike or other ultralight machine without a transponder
I have an idea. Some aircraft types don't mix well. It is obviously not practical (you know, affordable safety and all that) to put in a tower. Install a CAGRO/AsA Unicom (NOT the refueller or Linda on check-in, Dick) for traffic and when a Hi Cap RPT arrives, everybody else get/remain clear. No dogfights in the circuit=safe ops for all.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Gooday Bloggs, I fear this will attract some of the ANTI ADSB brigade, but in short yes the trikes and drifters and Jabiru's and Savannah's can power a small radio, and can also power the ADSB out unit. There is no valid reason why not. Some may have reasons but none valid.
As for the aircraft type mix, they all can work together OK....it takes airmanship and following the rules. For the RPT folk who really do need an extra layer of protection due to fare paying pax and their speed and size, ADSB in, or at least TCAS and 100% Mode C is really all you need.
The unicom is probably a great help to them as I have observed. We just need some RPT drivers like yourself who operate into YHBA or anywhere else there is a trial Unicom and plenty of RPT/RFDS/GA/RAA traffic to add some useful comments.
Jabaless
As for the aircraft type mix, they all can work together OK....it takes airmanship and following the rules. For the RPT folk who really do need an extra layer of protection due to fare paying pax and their speed and size, ADSB in, or at least TCAS and 100% Mode C is really all you need.
The unicom is probably a great help to them as I have observed. We just need some RPT drivers like yourself who operate into YHBA or anywhere else there is a trial Unicom and plenty of RPT/RFDS/GA/RAA traffic to add some useful comments.
Jabaless
the trikes and drifters and Jabiru's and Savannah's can power a small radio, and can also power the ADSB out unit.
A radio and a transponder would suffice though IMO.
I have had a fair amount of experience at Broome with it's Unicom oops CAGRO. I think they work well provided the operator doesn't go overboard. Good stepping stone from a CTAF R to a tower. Oh yes, now I remember, I also had a lot of experience with AFIZs, both local and remote, until they got dicked by someone... They also worked well.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Crikey!
We won't need an eyesight test shortly.
Well I just posted on another thread that I support an evolutionary introduction of ADSB. Always have and always will. This sort of post doesn't give credit for the facts that have been said over and over again.
Indeed it borders on mischief to bundle such a quote into a past debate on whether or not a subsidy would eventuate or not, and what the demonstrated value is at low levels and any cost benefit analysis based on facts not hysteria.
I'm with Bloggs in that TCAS and Txp work OK for me now. Even a 3 tier vertical separation in the circuit helps the Mk 1 eyeball.
We won't need an eyesight test shortly.
I fear this will attract some of the ANTI ADSB brigade
Indeed it borders on mischief to bundle such a quote into a past debate on whether or not a subsidy would eventuate or not, and what the demonstrated value is at low levels and any cost benefit analysis based on facts not hysteria.
I'm with Bloggs in that TCAS and Txp work OK for me now. Even a 3 tier vertical separation in the circuit helps the Mk 1 eyeball.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Gooday Frank, welcome to the thread mate!
Who said I was referring to you sir!
Heck so am I!!! I believe everything that flies Should/SHALL have a mode C Transponder now. But there are far too many out there that rebel against such a crazy idea.
The deal with the other offer would have effectively fitted ALL aircraft with one (ADSB + ModeC) and they should not have had a need to whinge about paying for it.
So seems we can agree on something!
Jabaless
Crikey!
We won't need an eyesight test shortly.
Quote:
I fear this will attract some of the ANTI ADSB brigade
Well I just posted on another thread that I support an evolutionary introduction of ADSB. Always have and always will. This sort of post doesn't give credit for the facts that have been said over and over again.
We won't need an eyesight test shortly.
Quote:
I fear this will attract some of the ANTI ADSB brigade
Well I just posted on another thread that I support an evolutionary introduction of ADSB. Always have and always will. This sort of post doesn't give credit for the facts that have been said over and over again.
I'm with Bloggs in that TCAS and Txp work OK for me now.
The deal with the other offer would have effectively fitted ALL aircraft with one (ADSB + ModeC) and they should not have had a need to whinge about paying for it.
So seems we can agree on something!
Jabaless
Last edited by Jabawocky; 10th Mar 2009 at 07:20.
Straight in Approaches Mandatory...... Short for SAM.
This will keep the boys at Amberley alert.
" Hervey Bay Unicom.....FTDK .....a Bonza, 10 miles inbound at..... received..... request SAM....."
This will keep the boys at Amberley alert.
" Hervey Bay Unicom.....FTDK .....a Bonza, 10 miles inbound at..... received..... request SAM....."
sterile airspace xinhau???? Methinks you are giving UNICOM extraordinary powers.
The Unicom Services concept involves a skilled Unicom station operator providing the following information:
Advisory traffic information in the immediate terminal airspace and movement area.
Meteorological information such as factual statements about the weather.
Emergency services alerting.
Other aerodrome information as requested by pilots which could include runway surface conditions and availability of fuel services.
Nup, nothing about sterile airspace...you thinking of changing UNICOM to a defacto primary control zone?
EDIT-wonder if anyone else noticed the same guy posting under two different names
The Unicom Services concept involves a skilled Unicom station operator providing the following information:
Advisory traffic information in the immediate terminal airspace and movement area.
Meteorological information such as factual statements about the weather.
Emergency services alerting.
Other aerodrome information as requested by pilots which could include runway surface conditions and availability of fuel services.
Nup, nothing about sterile airspace...you thinking of changing UNICOM to a defacto primary control zone?
EDIT-wonder if anyone else noticed the same guy posting under two different names
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As far as UNICOM goes then, the consensus seems to be "Who Gives a F#$%!!"
As far as getting everyone into the 21st century, I remember when seat belts, .05 and helmets became mandatory. It was the end of the world as we know it and the cost would be prohibitive.
I am sick and tired of the religious zealots saying it’s their god given right to do what they did in the 50’s and 60’s. In this day and age, if they can afford an aircraft of any type, they can afford the safety that comes with it!
IF NOT DON’T FLY
We will all be safer.
As far as getting everyone into the 21st century, I remember when seat belts, .05 and helmets became mandatory. It was the end of the world as we know it and the cost would be prohibitive.
I am sick and tired of the religious zealots saying it’s their god given right to do what they did in the 50’s and 60’s. In this day and age, if they can afford an aircraft of any type, they can afford the safety that comes with it!
IF NOT DON’T FLY
We will all be safer.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Welcome aboard TwoDogs
Join the club............and spread that word to the Anti progress folk.
And some folk say "We should not rush in".........rush we did at a snails pace, I recall at least one small Aussie mob who were in the ADSB development phase way back in 2004 and most likely were starting a few years before that!
If everything in aviation progressed at the rate some would have us travelling at we would all be thinking the DH Dragon was the latest and greatest airliner built rather than A380's and B787's.
Jabaless
Join the club............and spread that word to the Anti progress folk.
And some folk say "We should not rush in".........rush we did at a snails pace, I recall at least one small Aussie mob who were in the ADSB development phase way back in 2004 and most likely were starting a few years before that!
If everything in aviation progressed at the rate some would have us travelling at we would all be thinking the DH Dragon was the latest and greatest airliner built rather than A380's and B787's.
Jabaless
I have limited experience with Unicom type facilities.
1) Ayers Rock - relative little traffic - a jet or two inbound - quite useful.
2) Broome - reasonably busy (in my experience) but apparently only moderately busy for the locals - I found the Unicom service to be a real nuisance - could hardly get a word in - kept wishing the guy would shut up.
I think it is obvious why the aviation industry is resistant to change. It is a relatively conservative industry and needs to be so for safety reasons.
Those of us who have been around in aviation for a few years have seen change for the sake of change - much of it now abandoned or changed so many times that nobody is able to remember which version we a working to.
Dr
1) Ayers Rock - relative little traffic - a jet or two inbound - quite useful.
2) Broome - reasonably busy (in my experience) but apparently only moderately busy for the locals - I found the Unicom service to be a real nuisance - could hardly get a word in - kept wishing the guy would shut up.
I think it is obvious why the aviation industry is resistant to change. It is a relatively conservative industry and needs to be so for safety reasons.
Those of us who have been around in aviation for a few years have seen change for the sake of change - much of it now abandoned or changed so many times that nobody is able to remember which version we a working to.
Dr
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My most recent UNICOM experience:
Advisory traffic information in the immediate terminal airspace and movement area.
Got that - would have anyway all aircraft in the area were IFR.
Meteorological information such as factual statements about the weather.
The aircraft on the ground gave me that. Unicom operator only had access to the auto-met data which was 20 minutes old.
Emergency services alerting.
Didn't need that, but it would have been available from Centre if required anyway.
Other aerodrome information as requested by pilots which could include runway surface conditions and availability of fuel services.
Had to ring the refueller myself when I got there - outstanding service.
I have limited experience with Unicom type facilities. 1) Ayers Rock - relative little traffic - a jet or two inbound - quite useful. 2) Broome - reasonably busy (in my experience)
Yes you probably do have limited UNICOM experience - possibly none. Both Broome and Rock have CAGRO services. Different legislation and level of service.
As mentioned before the AFIZ and remote AFIZ were excellent. They provided a slightly better level of service that we now have from a CAGRS and somewhat more the we get from the unicom.
Advisory traffic information in the immediate terminal airspace and movement area.
Got that - would have anyway all aircraft in the area were IFR.
Meteorological information such as factual statements about the weather.
The aircraft on the ground gave me that. Unicom operator only had access to the auto-met data which was 20 minutes old.
Emergency services alerting.
Didn't need that, but it would have been available from Centre if required anyway.
Other aerodrome information as requested by pilots which could include runway surface conditions and availability of fuel services.
Had to ring the refueller myself when I got there - outstanding service.
I have limited experience with Unicom type facilities. 1) Ayers Rock - relative little traffic - a jet or two inbound - quite useful. 2) Broome - reasonably busy (in my experience)
Yes you probably do have limited UNICOM experience - possibly none. Both Broome and Rock have CAGRO services. Different legislation and level of service.
As mentioned before the AFIZ and remote AFIZ were excellent. They provided a slightly better level of service that we now have from a CAGRS and somewhat more the we get from the unicom.