Merged: Willy ATCO's get 4 weeks holiday, meanwhile CAGRO At Newcastle saves the day!
C-Change, Ok well put you've converted me.
I can see we will end up like Dick just said, 2 towers for 1 runway.
Only we still aint got anyone to put in them.
We must be the laughing stock of the western world.
What am I saying? I know we are.Just look at our fast diminishing manufacturing industry. We reduce tarriffs that protect our own then hope everyone else will do the same. Fair Dinkum my old dad would roll over in his grave if he knew what's going on.
I can see we will end up like Dick just said, 2 towers for 1 runway.
Only we still aint got anyone to put in them.
We must be the laughing stock of the western world.
What am I saying? I know we are.Just look at our fast diminishing manufacturing industry. We reduce tarriffs that protect our own then hope everyone else will do the same. Fair Dinkum my old dad would roll over in his grave if he knew what's going on.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This debate just shows how screwed up the system now is.
When I worked as a lacky clerk for the great people in DCA Airways Operations Branch (Jack Walsh, Ian Rolley, Ray Soden, Ray Aleaxander, Ray Clarke...etc) in the early 70's, the policy was turbo jet RPT had to have ATC, even if it meant there was only going to be two or four movements a day. Broome and Devonport were projects at the time. The tax payer footed the bill. The expertise to oversee the operation was there. For other reasons, those projects never got up, but Karratha, Albury and Wagga did.
It was over the top in terms of policy, but that's how it was. At least there was a policy.
The difference now is that the vested interests have changed. Dick, I recall, restructured the then CAA, under the banner of "affordable safety". In doing so, we now have the decimated CASA that today does not have the resources to manage the real time need for change.
Airservices have gone the same way, but the difference is that they're profit motivated. They have seen fit to decimate the coal face to put in a highly paid level of management who cannot control planes and who are incapable of managing projects. What happens above them, God only knows.
How does the tune go.......?"............what are they good for! Absolutely NOTHIN' "
What is the CAGRO at AV supposed to achieve. Some wag thinks a third person in the loop may make the difference. Well, in terms of the primary mitigators, they have no influence. They cannot know if an aircraft is on the wrong frequency, or a transponder is not on etc etc. The weather's available on the AWIB, so why are they there? The irony is, those chaps are extremely qualified and experienced ex Tower controllers who could do the full separating job on their heads. Ya gotta laugh.
One can understand why the airlines don't want to pay for the "service" when no-one else is going to. This is Dicks great contradiction. They pay but he (or GA) doesn't.
The legalities of Airservices personnel manning military facilities is all another ball game. No doubt the obstacles can be hurdled, but neither CASA, DoD or AsA have the resources or know how or competence or just plain motivation to do so. AsA certainly doesn't have the controllers to do it anyway.
So, if it ends in a coroners court, the same old whingers, backed by an army of legal buzzards, will still be out there, just as they are now with a current case.
Rant off, have a Merry, Merry Xmas everyone.
When I worked as a lacky clerk for the great people in DCA Airways Operations Branch (Jack Walsh, Ian Rolley, Ray Soden, Ray Aleaxander, Ray Clarke...etc) in the early 70's, the policy was turbo jet RPT had to have ATC, even if it meant there was only going to be two or four movements a day. Broome and Devonport were projects at the time. The tax payer footed the bill. The expertise to oversee the operation was there. For other reasons, those projects never got up, but Karratha, Albury and Wagga did.
It was over the top in terms of policy, but that's how it was. At least there was a policy.
The difference now is that the vested interests have changed. Dick, I recall, restructured the then CAA, under the banner of "affordable safety". In doing so, we now have the decimated CASA that today does not have the resources to manage the real time need for change.
Airservices have gone the same way, but the difference is that they're profit motivated. They have seen fit to decimate the coal face to put in a highly paid level of management who cannot control planes and who are incapable of managing projects. What happens above them, God only knows.
How does the tune go.......?"............what are they good for! Absolutely NOTHIN' "
What is the CAGRO at AV supposed to achieve. Some wag thinks a third person in the loop may make the difference. Well, in terms of the primary mitigators, they have no influence. They cannot know if an aircraft is on the wrong frequency, or a transponder is not on etc etc. The weather's available on the AWIB, so why are they there? The irony is, those chaps are extremely qualified and experienced ex Tower controllers who could do the full separating job on their heads. Ya gotta laugh.
One can understand why the airlines don't want to pay for the "service" when no-one else is going to. This is Dicks great contradiction. They pay but he (or GA) doesn't.
The legalities of Airservices personnel manning military facilities is all another ball game. No doubt the obstacles can be hurdled, but neither CASA, DoD or AsA have the resources or know how or competence or just plain motivation to do so. AsA certainly doesn't have the controllers to do it anyway.
So, if it ends in a coroners court, the same old whingers, backed by an army of legal buzzards, will still be out there, just as they are now with a current case.
Rant off, have a Merry, Merry Xmas everyone.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen up, Willy HAVE been operating on weekends for months due to traffic.Check the Notams.
Newcastle(Willy RAAF) are no longer Mon-Fri bankers hours with POETS day on Friday. This crowd work hard.
Throw some civvies in there to help them out.
There are a hell of a lot of us (me included) who would be happy to leave the toxic environment of ASA to work part-time down there to facillitate the provision of services outside Willys' core hours.
C-Change you are correct ASA have dropped the ball, they no longer think of themselves as an Air Nav Service Provider but as a business, the dollar is God.
Future prediction- they are moving towards an upper airspace/lower airspace model.
Upper airspace (separation=dollars) lower airspace(traffic statement=no dollars) they will then ask the government (only shareholder) to subsidise the loss making area (regional).
Newcastle(Willy RAAF) are no longer Mon-Fri bankers hours with POETS day on Friday. This crowd work hard.
Throw some civvies in there to help them out.
There are a hell of a lot of us (me included) who would be happy to leave the toxic environment of ASA to work part-time down there to facillitate the provision of services outside Willys' core hours.
C-Change you are correct ASA have dropped the ball, they no longer think of themselves as an Air Nav Service Provider but as a business, the dollar is God.
Future prediction- they are moving towards an upper airspace/lower airspace model.
Upper airspace (separation=dollars) lower airspace(traffic statement=no dollars) they will then ask the government (only shareholder) to subsidise the loss making area (regional).
Last edited by max1; 14th Dec 2008 at 09:36.
This is a bit off topic but why is it so hard to recruit ATC trainees?
I mean I would have thought it would be a great job for any school leaver with an interest in aviation. How hard can it be to learn if as I'm led to believe it takes 2 years to train one. It takes 4 years to train an apprentice and even then they are raw just as an ATC'er would be but that's where working with experianced guys come in. I believe you only need HRC to get in as with a trade these days ( the technical trades anyway) and I bet the maths is a lot less.
I always here kids say there are no jobs for school leavers, why can't the powers that be start tapping into that resource?
I would have thought a full time job even on a training wage would beat part time at the supermarket or servo.
I mean I would have thought it would be a great job for any school leaver with an interest in aviation. How hard can it be to learn if as I'm led to believe it takes 2 years to train one. It takes 4 years to train an apprentice and even then they are raw just as an ATC'er would be but that's where working with experianced guys come in. I believe you only need HRC to get in as with a trade these days ( the technical trades anyway) and I bet the maths is a lot less.
I always here kids say there are no jobs for school leavers, why can't the powers that be start tapping into that resource?
I would have thought a full time job even on a training wage would beat part time at the supermarket or servo.
Galah, believe it or not , you only need one person to make a decision at CASA so that a tower service is provided.
That one person obviously does not exist.
Put more people on and there will be even less chance of a decision!
That one person obviously does not exist.
Put more people on and there will be even less chance of a decision!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Agree with C-Change completely (who put it much more diplomatically than I did with my first rant - once more, apologies for that).
Willy is DOD and its provision of service and allowances for civvy aviation into a military airbase may have actually done more harm than good in the long run, by allowing for the band-aid fix of getting RPT/GA in and out without raising eyebrows or questions.
Why pay for a completely civvy airfield when you have RAAF tarmac you can use and blue-shirted controllers you can talk to? Well maybe because every Chrissie the ADF goes into stand-down mode (or at least it tries to)
I'm also a little unsure about two towers/one airstrip as an answer. That may solve the ATC issue, but not the airfield ownership one. Should the RAAF be mobilised for any reason and Willy goes full operational then DOD can (and is of course fully entitled to) simply close the airfield to all non-military aircraft. Sure it's a worst case scenario, but they sometimes happen.
IMHO the answer is for Newcastle Council to bite the bullet and realise that RPT and GA demand warrants a proper civilian airfield, independent of the vagaries of military responsibility.
As for ATC recruitment. The issue appears (as with all things aviation related) to be made up of many different facets. However the chief of these seem to be:
a) The initial aptitude testing hasn't really changed in content in the last 10-15 years (at least), despite the changes to ATC systems, the removal of old-school flight strip procedural control and a focused move away from the ENROUTE to APPROACH to TOWER ziggarut and towards aptitude streaming (hey if you're great at being a tower controller maybe you shouldn't be forced into the enroute section you can't hack just because that's the way it's always been done)
Short version, the feeling these days is that the testing is too difficult and returning the wrong kind of trainee (course attrition rates are still huge, way over %50)
b) There's simply not the money in it in Australia that there is overseas. Those school-leavers truly serious about a career in ATC scan foreign countries before ever turning to the ASA page, and
c) Even if we suddenly found ten times the number of wiling and able students, ASA simply don't have enough people to train them.
Willy is DOD and its provision of service and allowances for civvy aviation into a military airbase may have actually done more harm than good in the long run, by allowing for the band-aid fix of getting RPT/GA in and out without raising eyebrows or questions.
Why pay for a completely civvy airfield when you have RAAF tarmac you can use and blue-shirted controllers you can talk to? Well maybe because every Chrissie the ADF goes into stand-down mode (or at least it tries to)
I'm also a little unsure about two towers/one airstrip as an answer. That may solve the ATC issue, but not the airfield ownership one. Should the RAAF be mobilised for any reason and Willy goes full operational then DOD can (and is of course fully entitled to) simply close the airfield to all non-military aircraft. Sure it's a worst case scenario, but they sometimes happen.
IMHO the answer is for Newcastle Council to bite the bullet and realise that RPT and GA demand warrants a proper civilian airfield, independent of the vagaries of military responsibility.
As for ATC recruitment. The issue appears (as with all things aviation related) to be made up of many different facets. However the chief of these seem to be:
a) The initial aptitude testing hasn't really changed in content in the last 10-15 years (at least), despite the changes to ATC systems, the removal of old-school flight strip procedural control and a focused move away from the ENROUTE to APPROACH to TOWER ziggarut and towards aptitude streaming (hey if you're great at being a tower controller maybe you shouldn't be forced into the enroute section you can't hack just because that's the way it's always been done)
Short version, the feeling these days is that the testing is too difficult and returning the wrong kind of trainee (course attrition rates are still huge, way over %50)
b) There's simply not the money in it in Australia that there is overseas. Those school-leavers truly serious about a career in ATC scan foreign countries before ever turning to the ASA page, and
c) Even if we suddenly found ten times the number of wiling and able students, ASA simply don't have enough people to train them.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ToA,
Bit of thread drift here, but the move away from controllers having exposure to all streams Enroute/Tower/ then Approach had nothing to do with aptitude and everything to do with cutting training costs, saving money.
This has led to a lack of a career path for controllers and further disenchantment with the job.
There are people who have been on the same sectors for 10-20 years. To put it in a flying context. Say Qantas hired a pilot and the pilot found out that to save costs he/she would be a Dash8 FO and will fly SY-CB-SY twice a day , 4 on 2 off.
This pilot after years of service, doing extra in the office, giving up their days off to help out, etc then applies for Command but finds out that due to a lack of F/Os they cannot be released to take up Command training even though they are number 1 on the applicant list.
However number 19 (from outside the organization or currently flying a desk) is the first one that they can release and gets the spot. This is what has been happening at ASA for years.
You get a better type of controller when they have had exposure to all the streams, think about the efficiencies if the Surface Movement Controller(SMC) at Sydney is smart enough to sequence the aircraft to the holding points, or intersection departures so that you get a good mix of Northbound/Southbound/ jet/ turbo props. If the Aerodrome Departures Controller (ADC) is aware of the Radar Departures job that they may be giving them a bunch of headaches depending on how they fire off the mix of departures.
Even in the enroute stream, you can make a difference down the track to another controller if you realise that, of the 2 aircraft you are sending off radar that the leading aircraft who is higher will be wanting descent first but there will be no separarion standard to do this, so you swap the levels of the two aircraft to save a problem down the track. The reason you know this is because you have been the poor scmuck who has been handed this before.
P.S. Where could you put an airport close enough to Newcastle that would allow RPT jet operations, and wouldn't conflict with Willy airspace?
Bit of thread drift here, but the move away from controllers having exposure to all streams Enroute/Tower/ then Approach had nothing to do with aptitude and everything to do with cutting training costs, saving money.
This has led to a lack of a career path for controllers and further disenchantment with the job.
There are people who have been on the same sectors for 10-20 years. To put it in a flying context. Say Qantas hired a pilot and the pilot found out that to save costs he/she would be a Dash8 FO and will fly SY-CB-SY twice a day , 4 on 2 off.
This pilot after years of service, doing extra in the office, giving up their days off to help out, etc then applies for Command but finds out that due to a lack of F/Os they cannot be released to take up Command training even though they are number 1 on the applicant list.
However number 19 (from outside the organization or currently flying a desk) is the first one that they can release and gets the spot. This is what has been happening at ASA for years.
You get a better type of controller when they have had exposure to all the streams, think about the efficiencies if the Surface Movement Controller(SMC) at Sydney is smart enough to sequence the aircraft to the holding points, or intersection departures so that you get a good mix of Northbound/Southbound/ jet/ turbo props. If the Aerodrome Departures Controller (ADC) is aware of the Radar Departures job that they may be giving them a bunch of headaches depending on how they fire off the mix of departures.
Even in the enroute stream, you can make a difference down the track to another controller if you realise that, of the 2 aircraft you are sending off radar that the leading aircraft who is higher will be wanting descent first but there will be no separarion standard to do this, so you swap the levels of the two aircraft to save a problem down the track. The reason you know this is because you have been the poor scmuck who has been handed this before.
P.S. Where could you put an airport close enough to Newcastle that would allow RPT jet operations, and wouldn't conflict with Willy airspace?
C-Change or Toa, Please tell me this, Willy is a fighter base I know but I believe a training base, right or not? Why does it have to be at Newcastle or has is just always been so why change it?
Why couldn't the entire Raaf base be relocated to Edinburgh as there is plenty of land around it to accomodate the extra infrastructure along with the Orions ( believe me Edinburgh aint busy).
That then allows Willy to become a civil airport.
I know we still need more controllers but that problem we have whatever we do but we won't need to spend billions either as both airports are existing and only need upgrading.
The Raaf are free to do their thing undisturbed.
Newcastle has a proper airport.
Now blow me out the water.........
PS no need to apologise before Toa it is all good healthy debate
Why couldn't the entire Raaf base be relocated to Edinburgh as there is plenty of land around it to accomodate the extra infrastructure along with the Orions ( believe me Edinburgh aint busy).
That then allows Willy to become a civil airport.
I know we still need more controllers but that problem we have whatever we do but we won't need to spend billions either as both airports are existing and only need upgrading.
The Raaf are free to do their thing undisturbed.
Newcastle has a proper airport.
Now blow me out the water.........
PS no need to apologise before Toa it is all good healthy debate
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce - A bloody big 'BOOM BOOM!'
Should have occured to me, but didn't.
I've just gotta ask why Dick is devoting so much time to Newcastle with CAGRO, when TIBA scares the crap out of me a hell of a lot more when I'm down the back and don't know whether I'm subject to ATC or survival by russian roulette.
Should have occured to me, but didn't.
I've just gotta ask why Dick is devoting so much time to Newcastle with CAGRO, when TIBA scares the crap out of me a hell of a lot more when I'm down the back and don't know whether I'm subject to ATC or survival by russian roulette.
TIBA also scares me greatly. I am doing every thing I can about this behind the scenes. In the case of Newcastle it was obvious that CASA had failed us and public exposure could save the day.
The experts also tell me there is a far greater chance of a mid air below 5000' than above.
Notice Bruce Byrons "spin" press release on my web site.
With a leader like that there will be no chance of fixing the safety problems until after an accident.
The experts also tell me there is a far greater chance of a mid air below 5000' than above.
Notice Bruce Byrons "spin" press release on my web site.
With a leader like that there will be no chance of fixing the safety problems until after an accident.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Williamtown
Mt,
Willy has two roles. It is a training base but it is also a fully operational fighter base. Without going into too much detail, the squadrons are broken into two training and two operational squadrons, with another operational sqn up in good old Tindal.
It was located there at the end of WWII due to its then room but also its proximity to Syd. Remember we are going back to P51 days. In the same sense today, that fighter base still covers the bulk of the population, within an hour or so flying time. Thats why it will not move anywhere soon. They can be over Syd pretty quickly if need be or as they did in the Comm. games, a sqn was based at ESL and flew CAPS over Melbourne.
Yes, in principle the base could be moved but rightly so, there would be a national outcry. The amount of infrastructure on that base is massive. All the support, maintenance, logistics etc is huge and it would run into 1 or 2 Billion real quick if it was relocated. Remember the Seasprite was just one aircraft type and that cost 1 billion on its own. Nth of that RWY is a little city based around fairly heavy industry. The economic benefit to the Newcastle community is huge and both state and fed gov. realise it. The money a military base brings to the local community is massive. Thats why Hawksbury city council kick up a stink every time there is talk of RIC moving. They want it to stay put just like the councils around Willy do.
Also ( I know this will get some reactions) but why should the tax payer fund a massive relocation of a major fighter base to appease a private corporation ? Lets face it, they don't and didn't spend a cent to build or maintain the base but get the RWYS, lights, ATC (when avbl) for jack **** and make a bucket load of money in the process.
Then there is the massive chunk of airspace east of the coast that they use to practice how best to kill each other, whilst head to head at closing speeds greater than 1000kts. They needs lots of room, its close to home in the event of any problems and would be almost impossible to acquire that amount of airspace somewhere else these days without causing a riot. Yes, you could move it all to the NT but we wouldn't have many fighter pilots either. Its not everyones cup of tea up there. EDN could also be used but they would need to travel further to operate over water, which is the majority of there ops.
Mate the list could go for another week but of course it could be done and if the elected ministers said to defence "move it", then it would happen but the cost would be masssive.
In regards to Newcastle Airport, go back 10-15 yrs when todays traffic was first predicted and our Gov. could/should have built a seperate civilain airport to service the Hunter region and we wouldn't have this problem.
Thats now very unlikely to happen and a solution has to be found and it can still work well if resourced properly. There is no reason why another RWY couldn't be built, except for the NIMBY brigade, there are heaps of options.
That alone is another thread on how poorly treated aviation infrastructure is in this country. Have a look at BK, HOX etc. The land is worth money to developers and nothing else.
Anyway enough from me, like you said, good healthy debate.
C
Willy has two roles. It is a training base but it is also a fully operational fighter base. Without going into too much detail, the squadrons are broken into two training and two operational squadrons, with another operational sqn up in good old Tindal.
It was located there at the end of WWII due to its then room but also its proximity to Syd. Remember we are going back to P51 days. In the same sense today, that fighter base still covers the bulk of the population, within an hour or so flying time. Thats why it will not move anywhere soon. They can be over Syd pretty quickly if need be or as they did in the Comm. games, a sqn was based at ESL and flew CAPS over Melbourne.
Yes, in principle the base could be moved but rightly so, there would be a national outcry. The amount of infrastructure on that base is massive. All the support, maintenance, logistics etc is huge and it would run into 1 or 2 Billion real quick if it was relocated. Remember the Seasprite was just one aircraft type and that cost 1 billion on its own. Nth of that RWY is a little city based around fairly heavy industry. The economic benefit to the Newcastle community is huge and both state and fed gov. realise it. The money a military base brings to the local community is massive. Thats why Hawksbury city council kick up a stink every time there is talk of RIC moving. They want it to stay put just like the councils around Willy do.
Also ( I know this will get some reactions) but why should the tax payer fund a massive relocation of a major fighter base to appease a private corporation ? Lets face it, they don't and didn't spend a cent to build or maintain the base but get the RWYS, lights, ATC (when avbl) for jack **** and make a bucket load of money in the process.
Then there is the massive chunk of airspace east of the coast that they use to practice how best to kill each other, whilst head to head at closing speeds greater than 1000kts. They needs lots of room, its close to home in the event of any problems and would be almost impossible to acquire that amount of airspace somewhere else these days without causing a riot. Yes, you could move it all to the NT but we wouldn't have many fighter pilots either. Its not everyones cup of tea up there. EDN could also be used but they would need to travel further to operate over water, which is the majority of there ops.
Mate the list could go for another week but of course it could be done and if the elected ministers said to defence "move it", then it would happen but the cost would be masssive.
In regards to Newcastle Airport, go back 10-15 yrs when todays traffic was first predicted and our Gov. could/should have built a seperate civilain airport to service the Hunter region and we wouldn't have this problem.
Thats now very unlikely to happen and a solution has to be found and it can still work well if resourced properly. There is no reason why another RWY couldn't be built, except for the NIMBY brigade, there are heaps of options.
That alone is another thread on how poorly treated aviation infrastructure is in this country. Have a look at BK, HOX etc. The land is worth money to developers and nothing else.
Anyway enough from me, like you said, good healthy debate.
C
have nothing to do with the military but the sort of details you provide speaks volumes to me. 
Ok C-Change thanks for your time and effort you have excelled once again.I have my head around the problem now.I have the feeling what the Minister of Defence should have done is told AsA to either provide ATC for 4 weeks even from a temporary tower like they do at airshows etc or the airport is closed and carried through with it. The public outcry would have got their arses moving. Trouble is the politicians would have taken the blame if the airservice stopped and we can't have that now can we.
The country is stuffed, we are run by a bunch of useless incompetent overpaid wimps.
The country is stuffed, we are run by a bunch of useless incompetent overpaid wimps.
The problem is not with the Minister for Defence but with the CASA Office of Airspace Regulation.
Everyone knew that they would keep producing fake safety cases to allow the airport to operate without ATC - and thats what happened.
Everyone knew that they would keep producing fake safety cases to allow the airport to operate without ATC - and thats what happened.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 15th Dec 2008 at 22:14.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Question for Dick:
Will the RAAF CAGRO at Williamtown be using the radar display for traffic information purposes? I didn't think that radar was part of the service. Aircraft need to be positively identified if you are going to provide such a service. Brisbane Centre (125.7), who hold the radar ident on IFR aircraft in and out, will not be coordinating at all with the Willy CAGRO.
Will the RAAF CAGRO at Williamtown be using the radar display for traffic information purposes? I didn't think that radar was part of the service. Aircraft need to be positively identified if you are going to provide such a service. Brisbane Centre (125.7), who hold the radar ident on IFR aircraft in and out, will not be coordinating at all with the Willy CAGRO.
I was told that the military CAGRO will be looking at a display from the approach radar.
This means if an aircraft gives an incorrect position report or does not give one at all the operator may be able to give a safety alert.
I understand it also has a primary display so non transponder aircraft may be visible on the display.
Also an experienced operator may be able to warn a pilot re a CFIT potential problem, ie why are you at 500' 10 miles out?
Of course it should be proper ATC - but CASA allowed that chance to be missed.
This means if an aircraft gives an incorrect position report or does not give one at all the operator may be able to give a safety alert.
I understand it also has a primary display so non transponder aircraft may be visible on the display.
Also an experienced operator may be able to warn a pilot re a CFIT potential problem, ie why are you at 500' 10 miles out?
Of course it should be proper ATC - but CASA allowed that chance to be missed.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Dick. I'm just trying to figure out how it will work. Without coordination with Brisbane Centre, the operator won't know for sure what transponder codes will be issued to what IFR (or VFR doing Flight Following) aircraft. How will the system couple an aircraft callsign with an aircraft code?
When you speak of CFIT, the underlying assumption is that the mode C altitude readout of the aircraft has been verified. This is why ATC asks a/c to "verify level"/"verifiy altitude". Again, without a positive ident or verification of level, I don't know how a CAGRO can provide the service.
When you speak of CFIT, the underlying assumption is that the mode C altitude readout of the aircraft has been verified. This is why ATC asks a/c to "verify level"/"verifiy altitude". Again, without a positive ident or verification of level, I don't know how a CAGRO can provide the service.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick vs CASA
Dick,
I find great irony in your reaction to CASA OAR decisions.
Prior to your monumentally successful (not) NAS policy, Airservices Australia managed airspace internally (I make no comment on how well it did that job).
Post NAS the Department (DOTARS at the time) created a dedicated airspace policy section and publicly stated that never again would they allow someone from outside the Government or bureacracies (i.e. you) to make decisions on airspace policy.
So what did we get, a dedicated airspace policy section inside Airservices (AERU) with associated staff and costs, an explicit Arspace Act (2007) and Australian Airspace Policy Statement (2007) accompanied by a Senate RRAT Committee Inquiry and ulitmately the establishment of a separate section in CASA (OAR).
You should be proud of the lengths the Government went to keep you out of airspace policy. It appears it may not have been as successful as they hoped, but there is no accounting for Ministers' scared of an adverse headline.
Now as I understand it, you take issue with OAR's relativley qualitative risk-based study approach that is applied on a case by case basis. You seem to prefer a straight quantitative approach using establishment and disestablishment criteria.
OARs current approach has its genisis in the AERU. When it came time to discuss CASR Part 71 (remember that - it is no longer due to the creation of the above mentioned apparatii) the use of trigger criteria for the classification of airspace or other levels of service (eg CTAF (R) or CAGRS) was strongly opposed by the GA lobby. They preferred the qualitative risk based approach that AERU were developing. The "heavy" end were in favour of trigger criteria. As it transpired a risk-based, case by case study approach was preferred in the AAPS and used by the OAR.
Who knows what the result would be if the trigger criteria approach was preferred? My guess is that it would not be what you think.
To all,
What is the difference between the situation on December 10th described in the CASA press release:
and now. Is it merely that the RAAF ATC staff are providing a CAGRS or are they providing ATS in accordance with Class C airspace?
I find great irony in your reaction to CASA OAR decisions.
Prior to your monumentally successful (not) NAS policy, Airservices Australia managed airspace internally (I make no comment on how well it did that job).
Post NAS the Department (DOTARS at the time) created a dedicated airspace policy section and publicly stated that never again would they allow someone from outside the Government or bureacracies (i.e. you) to make decisions on airspace policy.
So what did we get, a dedicated airspace policy section inside Airservices (AERU) with associated staff and costs, an explicit Arspace Act (2007) and Australian Airspace Policy Statement (2007) accompanied by a Senate RRAT Committee Inquiry and ulitmately the establishment of a separate section in CASA (OAR).
You should be proud of the lengths the Government went to keep you out of airspace policy. It appears it may not have been as successful as they hoped, but there is no accounting for Ministers' scared of an adverse headline.
Now as I understand it, you take issue with OAR's relativley qualitative risk-based study approach that is applied on a case by case basis. You seem to prefer a straight quantitative approach using establishment and disestablishment criteria.
OARs current approach has its genisis in the AERU. When it came time to discuss CASR Part 71 (remember that - it is no longer due to the creation of the above mentioned apparatii) the use of trigger criteria for the classification of airspace or other levels of service (eg CTAF (R) or CAGRS) was strongly opposed by the GA lobby. They preferred the qualitative risk based approach that AERU were developing. The "heavy" end were in favour of trigger criteria. As it transpired a risk-based, case by case study approach was preferred in the AAPS and used by the OAR.
Who knows what the result would be if the trigger criteria approach was preferred? My guess is that it would not be what you think.
To all,
What is the difference between the situation on December 10th described in the CASA press release:
The procedures being used during the holiday period are an enhancement of those used every weekend at Newcastle when air traffic control is not provided.
Between 13 December 2008 and 10 January 2009 there will be a CASA-certified air-ground radio operator to provide pilots with traffic and other information seven days a week. It will be mandatory for pilots to contact the radio operator and all aircraft must carry and use radar transponders.
Between 13 December 2008 and 10 January 2009 there will be a CASA-certified air-ground radio operator to provide pilots with traffic and other information seven days a week. It will be mandatory for pilots to contact the radio operator and all aircraft must carry and use radar transponders.