Secret Unicom Trial at Hervey Bay
I was under the impression that anyone could provide a Unicom now, if they wished. The question is - why don't they? Are you saying you want them mandated Dick?
The question is - why don't they?
Re " Bringing back 700 Flight Service Officers may result in you or your mates losing employment. "
Now Now Dick, there you go again.....
Did you know that, at the end of the year 2000, we had just 54total staff in Perth FSC, doing all of the remote AFIZ stuff, as well as the 'usual stuff' in between and 'on request'.... including our INTERNATIONAL HF service (2 consoles), With one of them functioning by 'remote' to Cocos via satellite link....
Times that by each of the other 'Regions' (4 I think....?) = maybe 200 or so...!
"I've told you a million times not to exaggerate so much"......comes to mind....
Anyhow....I've gorne fishin'.....
Cheers
p.s. Thanx for the 'R'......
But the Peanut Butter is OK, I still use it cause its 'Oz'.....
Now Now Dick, there you go again.....
Did you know that, at the end of the year 2000, we had just 54total staff in Perth FSC, doing all of the remote AFIZ stuff, as well as the 'usual stuff' in between and 'on request'.... including our INTERNATIONAL HF service (2 consoles), With one of them functioning by 'remote' to Cocos via satellite link....
Times that by each of the other 'Regions' (4 I think....?) = maybe 200 or so...!
"I've told you a million times not to exaggerate so much"......comes to mind....
Anyhow....I've gorne fishin'.....
Cheers
p.s. Thanx for the 'R'......
But the Peanut Butter is OK, I still use it cause its 'Oz'.....
Strange how MOS139 specifies this (among other things) for a CA/GRO:
yet many an FSU providing a local AFIS or centre providing an AFIS to a remote AFIZ did not have to, and most local ones didn't.
(I believe there was a perception amongst the ATC-dominated heirarchy of the old Departments that an FSO who could see the runway, circuit etc might start to "control" the movements).
14.2.3.4 A permanent CA/GRS must be provided with the following facilities and documentation:
(a) a suitable work area that provides the operator with a full view of the manoeuvring area and circuit area;
(a) a suitable work area that provides the operator with a full view of the manoeuvring area and circuit area;
(I believe there was a perception amongst the ATC-dominated heirarchy of the old Departments that an FSO who could see the runway, circuit etc might start to "control" the movements).
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: NSW Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unicom
I was involved in the Unicom trials. The idea was to provide an information service that slotted in between nothing and a tower, and was trialled to be a safety enhancement service that was cost effective. Relayed traffic info only, basic weather observations only, with all operational issues at the absolute discression of the pilot, and the service being a secondary user of the ctaf frequency. Bit like an overseer./monitor. With no authority. The program was primarily to enhance safety in ctaf's that had RPT mixing with GA. My opinion is it worked for what it was and what it was meant to achieve, and considering .... a $3m tower op vs a $400k Unicom, class D vs G, cost recovery for a tower vs no cost recovery for Unicom. And we all have to remember that Airservices has an obligation to aviation safety and be pro active to achieve that.
Works in the U.S.
I think the intelligent question is not whether or not it works, which it did, but whether or not it's needed, and if so where.
Works in the U.S.
I think the intelligent question is not whether or not it works, which it did, but whether or not it's needed, and if so where.
Thread Starter
Crazy. Why did AsA do this knowing it would cost $400 k a year without looking at how the U.S. and Canadian system works at no cost.
I have found this in Australia. Never ever copy the success of others- design our own Nomad equivalent
I have found this in Australia. Never ever copy the success of others- design our own Nomad equivalent
So what do you want Dick? A Unicom, which anyone can provide now, but mostly isn't, or a traffic service, which can be provided, but apart from one or two instances, isn't? If no one will provide a Unicom now, what makes you think they will provide one that includes traffic? While some pilots may think the service a great idea, obviously the ground operators (who are the ones who have to provide it) don't.
(And Canada still has Flight Service)
(And Canada still has Flight Service)
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mooneyman20c:
Yes, the Unicom trial model was a good system but the trouble was the Airservices' inspired Unicom trial with a DTI service exemptions from CASA was no different to what was already being provided by CA/GRS at Ayers Rock and Broome aerodromes.
Yes, the Unicom trial model was a good system but the trouble was the Airservices' inspired Unicom trial with a DTI service exemptions from CASA was no different to what was already being provided by CA/GRS at Ayers Rock and Broome aerodromes.
Not sure I understand your comment re 'DTI service exemptions' there Mr Q...
I worked as a CAGRO for BIA at Broome for a while, and the service was operated just like an AFIZ of old....
DTI and weather etc was the core, and we had an ATIS which we kept current with each pertinent change, so that we wouldn't have to repeat the obvious, and it could be obtained from a fair way out - prior to descent for the jets if need be.
Very handy in 'The Wet'.....
Cheers
"I can hr U........"l
I worked as a CAGRO for BIA at Broome for a while, and the service was operated just like an AFIZ of old....
DTI and weather etc was the core, and we had an ATIS which we kept current with each pertinent change, so that we wouldn't have to repeat the obvious, and it could be obtained from a fair way out - prior to descent for the jets if need be.
Very handy in 'The Wet'.....
Cheers
"I can hr U........"l
Hi Mr 'Traffic .....'
Waaay back in those times, we (in Perth) heard that Canada had some towers in isolated areas which were costing too much, and not justified on a traffic numbers basis, so on a visit to OZ, they saw the 'remote AFIZ' idea in action, and introduced the same service operated from Centres, to replace the costly towers....
The communications 'safety net' was provided for less cost.
I'm glad to see that Canada still has Flight Service!!!
They went 'forwards, whilst 'we' went .......(?)
Cheers
Waaay back in those times, we (in Perth) heard that Canada had some towers in isolated areas which were costing too much, and not justified on a traffic numbers basis, so on a visit to OZ, they saw the 'remote AFIZ' idea in action, and introduced the same service operated from Centres, to replace the costly towers....
The communications 'safety net' was provided for less cost.
I'm glad to see that Canada still has Flight Service!!!
They went 'forwards, whilst 'we' went .......(?)
Cheers
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Griffo:
My comment was referring to the (modified) Unicom trials conducted by Airservices back in '07 which were trialled at DU, WG, BU despite the fact that CA/GRS was already in place at AYQ and BRM.
That Unicom service trial was given an exemption by CASA for the operators (ex-ATS) to provide DTI just like CA/GROs, so there was no real service difference between CA/GRS and the Airservices' version of Unicom. I don't really understand what Airservices' or CASA's motives were at the time.
However, although the Airservices Unicom operators were given an approval to provide DTI, they weren't given CAR120 approvals by CASA.
My comment was referring to the (modified) Unicom trials conducted by Airservices back in '07 which were trialled at DU, WG, BU despite the fact that CA/GRS was already in place at AYQ and BRM.
That Unicom service trial was given an exemption by CASA for the operators (ex-ATS) to provide DTI just like CA/GROs, so there was no real service difference between CA/GRS and the Airservices' version of Unicom. I don't really understand what Airservices' or CASA's motives were at the time.
However, although the Airservices Unicom operators were given an approval to provide DTI, they weren't given CAR120 approvals by CASA.
Thread Starter
I would like to see Unicoms as they operate in Canada and the USA.
That is completely non prescriptive .
Can give any rellevent traffic and weather .
No. Not mandatory. The FAA told me no need to mandate- no Arline would operate by " calling in the blind" They are not irresponsible !
So different in Aus. Everyone wants everything to be prescriptive and mandatory. So sad.
That is completely non prescriptive .
Can give any rellevent traffic and weather .
No. Not mandatory. The FAA told me no need to mandate- no Arline would operate by " calling in the blind" They are not irresponsible !
So different in Aus. Everyone wants everything to be prescriptive and mandatory. So sad.
When you live....
I would like to see Unicoms as they operate in Canada and the USA.
That is completely non prescriptive .
Can give any rellevent traffic and weather .
No. Not mandatory. The FAA told me no need to mandate- no Arline would operate by " calling in the blind" They are not irresponsible !
So different in Aus. Everyone wants everything to be prescriptive and mandatory. So sad.
That is completely non prescriptive .
Can give any rellevent traffic and weather .
No. Not mandatory. The FAA told me no need to mandate- no Arline would operate by " calling in the blind" They are not irresponsible !
So different in Aus. Everyone wants everything to be prescriptive and mandatory. So sad.
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: melbourne
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HELLO! Flight Service Vs Air Traffic Control. You presided over this Dick and you decided to get rid of Flight Service. What Cost Safety!!?? Remember those words? Now you want to introduce a bastardised, cheap, unprofessional, untrained version of what used to be a professional and honourable profession.
THANX 'Q'.....
Hi Mr M,
You are correct!!
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"
was the B/S Mantra of the time.....
Neither has occurred........
No Cheers
Hi Mr M,
You are correct!!
"Your Safety Will Be Enhanced And It Will Cost You Less"
was the B/S Mantra of the time.....
Neither has occurred........
No Cheers
Join Date: May 2013
Location: have I forgotten or am I lost?
Age: 71
Posts: 1,126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick you are battling with people who once had highly paid cushy jobs on the government payroll.
they are as bitter as hell that their "professional positions" have vanished.
flight service units actually achieved 5/8ths of stuff all.
in all of my flying I've never seen the need to lodge a flight plan ever.
remember that the australian government once employed 15 people per aircraft on the register. what an amazing cost it must have been!
they are as bitter as hell that their "professional positions" have vanished.
flight service units actually achieved 5/8ths of stuff all.
in all of my flying I've never seen the need to lodge a flight plan ever.
remember that the australian government once employed 15 people per aircraft on the register. what an amazing cost it must have been!
Oh dear Mr dubbya,
'Highly paid'..?? I wish.
And For some flights, nil flight plan required - for others they are!
Like for professionals....
No, I'm not bitter for myself, just the B/S of the day and the so called 'progress' and 'modernisation' of the air traffic system per se.....
When for GA, there is very little.
Nobody's safety was 'enhanced' and it did not / has not, cost less.
As a commercial pilot I have....
- Made a 'Mayday' to FS, and got the service I required at the time...
- Made a 'Mayday' to FS for another aircraft which I observed to crash, and got the service HE required at the time,
- Initiated more than a few 'SAR Phases', including 'Distress Phases' as an FSO and got the services going in a timely manner for the pilots & passengers who required them at the time,
I don't know where you 'operate', and I don't really care, but if you fly often enough in 'remote' areas of OZ, you will most likely have to call someone sometime for a bit of assistance....I hope you carry HF radio...its manned by
'Flightwatch' - used to be called FS.
And if / when you have to call ATC for assistance, I really do hope its 'when workload permits'.....
For Pans and Maydays of course, they will bend over backwards for you, as their 'highly paid' jobs description says they will.
Rotsa Ruck sunshine.....
No cheers
'Highly paid'..?? I wish.
And For some flights, nil flight plan required - for others they are!
Like for professionals....
No, I'm not bitter for myself, just the B/S of the day and the so called 'progress' and 'modernisation' of the air traffic system per se.....
When for GA, there is very little.
Nobody's safety was 'enhanced' and it did not / has not, cost less.
As a commercial pilot I have....
- Made a 'Mayday' to FS, and got the service I required at the time...
- Made a 'Mayday' to FS for another aircraft which I observed to crash, and got the service HE required at the time,
- Initiated more than a few 'SAR Phases', including 'Distress Phases' as an FSO and got the services going in a timely manner for the pilots & passengers who required them at the time,
I don't know where you 'operate', and I don't really care, but if you fly often enough in 'remote' areas of OZ, you will most likely have to call someone sometime for a bit of assistance....I hope you carry HF radio...its manned by
'Flightwatch' - used to be called FS.
And if / when you have to call ATC for assistance, I really do hope its 'when workload permits'.....
For Pans and Maydays of course, they will bend over backwards for you, as their 'highly paid' jobs description says they will.
Rotsa Ruck sunshine.....
No cheers
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 20th Jun 2015 at 02:52.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 101 Likes
on
59 Posts
flight service units actually achieved 5/8ths of stuff all.
So it seems that since that the majority of ground operators don't see any value in providing a basic Unicom now, and the chances of them voluntarily providing an enhanced Unicom would be even less, it appears the the only way to get the service level you desire Dick is to mandate it. But wait..
so I would say that the service you get now, is the service you're going to get.
No. Not mandatory.
