BOM Draft TAF review
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Around
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BOM Draft TAF review
Looks Like 78 Aerodromes may lose funding for a TAF service unless they are willing to fork out the $20-65K per annum to keep it.
TAF Review
Once again the small operators are the ones who will have to fork out either in increased charges to keep the TAF service or in Fuel carried for alternates.
TAF Review
For the majority of these aerodromes (where an instrument approach procedure exists) most aircraft will be required to carry additional fuel to fly to an alternate aerodrome. It therefore becomes a cost-benefit analysis for the aerodrome owner or operator on whether to proceed with a contractual TAF service.
One I know intimately has
1/. AVGAS available
2/. 3 approved flying schools
3/. 2 resident charter companies operating 9 IFR twins (piston and turbine)
4/. more than 4000 IFR movements per year, never mind the VFR GA and RAAus
5/. Nearest IFR alternates 52, 58 and 69.5 nm away and all in significantly different met areas.
No, we don't have RPT but at the stroke of the pen we go from category D to "Nil"???
1/. AVGAS available
2/. 3 approved flying schools
3/. 2 resident charter companies operating 9 IFR twins (piston and turbine)
4/. more than 4000 IFR movements per year, never mind the VFR GA and RAAus
5/. Nearest IFR alternates 52, 58 and 69.5 nm away and all in significantly different met areas.
No, we don't have RPT but at the stroke of the pen we go from category D to "Nil"???
4000 movements per annum? I can see the bean counters salivating already, why "that is only ten bucks per movement". What they will fail to see is the camel already overburdened with straws. My heart bleeds for the industry.
Tch Tch Mr swh.....
You 'know' ASA Policy....they are the ONLY 'certified'(?) provider of MET info.
ALL met info for 'official' aviation services can be obtained ONLY from ASA.
Even though it comes straight from BOM...via....to U!
Cheers
You 'know' ASA Policy....they are the ONLY 'certified'(?) provider of MET info.
ALL met info for 'official' aviation services can be obtained ONLY from ASA.
Even though it comes straight from BOM...via....to U!
Cheers
Support the general idea of rationalization, but consideration needs to be given to operations and particular routes. - especially to avoid "gaps" in coverage where significant wx can happen in a hurry.
Not having a taf for ylec will kill a few. The weather can be different either side of the flinders ranges and the port Augusta forecast won't help if you are trying to pick a trend.
Similarly perhaps malacoota.
And of course Bass strait locations
Them there is Latrobe valley which can be fogbound when everything else is clear.
Just my opinion.....
Not having a taf for ylec will kill a few. The weather can be different either side of the flinders ranges and the port Augusta forecast won't help if you are trying to pick a trend.
Similarly perhaps malacoota.
And of course Bass strait locations
Them there is Latrobe valley which can be fogbound when everything else is clear.
Just my opinion.....
Last edited by Sunfish; 2nd Jan 2013 at 18:22.
Either cough up or carry an alternate.....Blackmail from a state owned service? What's next? Subscription fee for access to aviation weather through the ASA website?
Wasn't safety information stipulated as FOC? So, now, weather is operational information? Bludy ALP
Wasn't safety information stipulated as FOC? So, now, weather is operational information? Bludy ALP
Whilst I am always keen for a bit of AsA bashing, I don't think this is coming from AsA. The TAF's are generated by BOM and just forwarded and published on the AsA system. You can get TAF's from the BOM website as well (yes I know its not authorised). The expense side of providing TAF (ie infrastructure and software) is held by BOM not AsA
The TAF review has come from BOM not AsA. In fact AsA are pushing BOM to expand and upgrade their weather services through out the country, but so far BOM are not coming to the party. As an example, AsA are trying to implement BARO-VNAV approaches Australia-wide to help us get the ICAO tick in the box for APV. Unfortunately we can only publish BARO-VNAV to aerodromes with an AWIS/AWIB/ATIS. AsA has been trying to get BOM to upgrade all the aerodromes, but BOM has pretty much told AsA to 'bang it squarely'
Looks like the issue is at the BOM end. Unfortunately, withdrawal of TAF's means that minima at 78 aerodromes will be going up another 50ft. All this in an era where we should be lowering minima not increasing it
Disappointing
The TAF review has come from BOM not AsA. In fact AsA are pushing BOM to expand and upgrade their weather services through out the country, but so far BOM are not coming to the party. As an example, AsA are trying to implement BARO-VNAV approaches Australia-wide to help us get the ICAO tick in the box for APV. Unfortunately we can only publish BARO-VNAV to aerodromes with an AWIS/AWIB/ATIS. AsA has been trying to get BOM to upgrade all the aerodromes, but BOM has pretty much told AsA to 'bang it squarely'
Looks like the issue is at the BOM end. Unfortunately, withdrawal of TAF's means that minima at 78 aerodromes will be going up another 50ft. All this in an era where we should be lowering minima not increasing it
Disappointing
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Running up that hill
Posts: 308
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the FAQ
Sounds like they are saying they don't have the staff/equipment to do the job properly. To increase safety they will do less so it's done properly. Wish I could do my job that way.
PS is "Safety is paramount" now one of those phrases in corporate communications that automatically ring alarm bells?
9. Is the TAF review focused on cost savings rather than safety?
Safety is paramount to the TAF Review and is a major driver for undertaking the review. The TAF Review has identified that the quality of TAFs would be improved, and safety enhanced, by ensuring that all TAF sites meet minimum observation requirements that exceed the current observational infrastructure at many aerodromes.
The review intends to ensure all TAF services are supported by adequate observations and that forecasting staff are able to both monitor the large number of observations and be responsive to changes to the forecast conditions.
The proposed changes will improve the quality of aviation weather services and provide capacity for additional services as required by the industry.
Safety is paramount to the TAF Review and is a major driver for undertaking the review. The TAF Review has identified that the quality of TAFs would be improved, and safety enhanced, by ensuring that all TAF sites meet minimum observation requirements that exceed the current observational infrastructure at many aerodromes.
The review intends to ensure all TAF services are supported by adequate observations and that forecasting staff are able to both monitor the large number of observations and be responsive to changes to the forecast conditions.
The proposed changes will improve the quality of aviation weather services and provide capacity for additional services as required by the industry.
PS is "Safety is paramount" now one of those phrases in corporate communications that automatically ring alarm bells?
Last edited by Nautilus Blue; 3rd Jan 2013 at 22:55.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Central Hub
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It'll be interesting to lose YRTI as an planning alternate for the west cost fog that is forecast nearly every night of autumn. Given Perth BoMs abysmal record for forecasting around Perth of late I wonder how they plan to "improve" the service without offering an alternative?
Originally Posted by Ex FSO GRIFFO
You 'know' ASA Policy....they are the ONLY 'certified'(?) provider of MET info.
Originally Posted by Nautilus Blue
Sounds like they are saying they don't have the staff/equipment to do the job properly.
Originally Posted by avconnection
It'll be interesting to lose YRTI as an planning alternate for the west cost fog that is forecast nearly every night of autumn.
The BoM has been in a bit of turmoil for some time. Over the past five years or so a number of cashed up opertors have wanted to pay for the installation and maintenance of an approved TAF AWIS/AWIB weather station. The unit within the bureau the provided the expertise to supply and install these systems was disbanded a few years back meaning some mining airports have resorted to the off the shelf Dick Smith all singing all dancing weather stations.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Tropical Australia
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The BoM has chosen to replace the human weather observer with Automated Weather Systems (AWS). These AWS can provide a greater quantity of less precise or reliable information at a cheaper cost than the human observer. The poor forecaster sitting in an office 100s of km away does not know how reliable the info is and basing a forecast on it is largely guesswork. So who pays if the TAF is wrong? Not the forecaster is it? I can understand BoM (and ASA) reducing their liabilities by reducing TAF services but perhaps this is just the start of a campaign to apply for increased funding? The aviation industry needs the service, BoM (ASA) are willing to supply it but claim they don’t have the resources. So, when the funding is provided, they will install more automated (unreliable) junk and the cycle continues. If was up to me, I’d prefer to see humans on site verify the automated output so that the forecaster could be more certain of the reliability of the info and go ahead and provide the TAF. Many airports have Aerodrome Reporting Officers on duty, why not train them up to be co-operative weather observers? The co-op observers of days gone by did a good job and at least if anyone was unsure of the conditions, you could ring them and ask. You can’t do that with an automated sensor!
This post raises many issues.
The first is, why is Aviation singled out for cost recovery? Guys with boats of similar passenger carrying capability, complexity and value as my aircraft don't pay for marine forecasts. Farmers don't pay for agricultural forecasts. Why isn't this considered part of our country's basic infrastructure?
Secondly, Fundamentally the BOM has been given a budget based (at least in part) on the fees that we collectively give them to deliver a level of service. How is it that they can unilaterally change the level of service because it suits them?
Thirdly, I think we should be seeing more benefit from new technology and more benefit from productivity improvements. If we could get the same sort of radio / internet based weather services as the US we would care less about reduction in TAF's. How long has the US had NEXRAD? How long has the US had satellite weather services? Can't we at least get a trial somewhere in the J curve?
Fourthly (and a little off topic) is that, in my opinion, our weather forecasts have deteriorated and become "political". The consumer forecasts have always had a bias toward not admitting they got it wrong by changing forecasts, but the aviation forecasts were immune from this. That no longer seems to be so. More and more, I find that my judgement applied to the predictive MSL charts gets a better result. It also used to be that there seemed to be a more accurate forecast issues at 6am than the late night forecasts from the day before. I presume as the day staff came on-board. Now that seems to be slipping until 9am.
and the final rant is back on TAF's. I think the broader value of TAF's beyond landing is not fully recognised. They can be pretty useful to check en-route to fine tune the area forecast, although I seem to see TAF's that are in stark contrast to the AWS or METAR's more and more regularly.
I don't hugely mind the move to AWS, but predominantly they are accessible by phone. We seem to be slowly but steadily moving a lot of aviation services to the mobile phone network, which gets AsA off the hook from providing proper VHF based services.
When are we going to arrest the slide toward 3rd world levels of government services & infrastructure?
The first is, why is Aviation singled out for cost recovery? Guys with boats of similar passenger carrying capability, complexity and value as my aircraft don't pay for marine forecasts. Farmers don't pay for agricultural forecasts. Why isn't this considered part of our country's basic infrastructure?
Secondly, Fundamentally the BOM has been given a budget based (at least in part) on the fees that we collectively give them to deliver a level of service. How is it that they can unilaterally change the level of service because it suits them?
Thirdly, I think we should be seeing more benefit from new technology and more benefit from productivity improvements. If we could get the same sort of radio / internet based weather services as the US we would care less about reduction in TAF's. How long has the US had NEXRAD? How long has the US had satellite weather services? Can't we at least get a trial somewhere in the J curve?
Fourthly (and a little off topic) is that, in my opinion, our weather forecasts have deteriorated and become "political". The consumer forecasts have always had a bias toward not admitting they got it wrong by changing forecasts, but the aviation forecasts were immune from this. That no longer seems to be so. More and more, I find that my judgement applied to the predictive MSL charts gets a better result. It also used to be that there seemed to be a more accurate forecast issues at 6am than the late night forecasts from the day before. I presume as the day staff came on-board. Now that seems to be slipping until 9am.
and the final rant is back on TAF's. I think the broader value of TAF's beyond landing is not fully recognised. They can be pretty useful to check en-route to fine tune the area forecast, although I seem to see TAF's that are in stark contrast to the AWS or METAR's more and more regularly.
I don't hugely mind the move to AWS, but predominantly they are accessible by phone. We seem to be slowly but steadily moving a lot of aviation services to the mobile phone network, which gets AsA off the hook from providing proper VHF based services.
When are we going to arrest the slide toward 3rd world levels of government services & infrastructure?
Well, the situation is...I TOLD YOU SO! (Hmmm...maybe that should read..there was only ever one way this was going to turn out.)
Thin edge of the wedge was accepting the changes to aviation charging regimes in the interest of "FLY FREE IN G" No fuel levy..(still with us) No nav charges...(well , those that actually use IFR procedures still pay) Local governemnt control of local aerodromes will be cheaper to operate...(!) Private enterprise will deliver cheaper better services for GAAP....(!!!!!)
Did I mention maps? Flight Services with no replacement, CASA fees and charges...AVMED costs...landing fees...aerodrome sales and closures...GST...
And now the BOM want their slice of the pie...had to happen sooner or later...whats next...we have received your maday call...rescue will be enacted with the receipt of a valid credit card number.....key in your number at the end of the tone...
Politically, aviation was sold a pup in the 80's...no one then had the balls..or the widespread collective knowledge supplied by the internet to combat such a rapacious government money grab.
Thin edge of the wedge was accepting the changes to aviation charging regimes in the interest of "FLY FREE IN G" No fuel levy..(still with us) No nav charges...(well , those that actually use IFR procedures still pay) Local governemnt control of local aerodromes will be cheaper to operate...(!) Private enterprise will deliver cheaper better services for GAAP....(!!!!!)
Did I mention maps? Flight Services with no replacement, CASA fees and charges...AVMED costs...landing fees...aerodrome sales and closures...GST...
And now the BOM want their slice of the pie...had to happen sooner or later...whats next...we have received your maday call...rescue will be enacted with the receipt of a valid credit card number.....key in your number at the end of the tone...
Politically, aviation was sold a pup in the 80's...no one then had the balls..or the widespread collective knowledge supplied by the internet to combat such a rapacious government money grab.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 4th Jan 2013 at 09:28.
Politically, aviation was sold a pup in the 80's
But I agree. Aircraft pay search & rescue levies, but boats & bush walkers do not. We pay airnav charges to go places but cars and boats do not. We pay for a special regime of medicals, but truck drivers and sea captains do not. we pay for airnavigation beacons, but boats do not pay for lighthouses, beacons and buoys. The list goes on.
Not even going to dig up that past any more....methinks the goal is looking forward and trying to hold on to what we have left. Safety was a promise! that needs to be held....
Food for thought...If said outfits do pay for said service....is it then bound by copyright and unavailable for use outside said outfit?
Food for thought...If said outfits do pay for said service....is it then bound by copyright and unavailable for use outside said outfit?