Secret Unicom Trial at Hervey Bay
Thread Starter
Secret Unicom Trial at Hervey Bay
I was fascinated to see the following letter which was placed in the Fraser Coast Chronical on Tuesday 9 June… see HERE and below. Note in particular the comment I have highlighted:
Re the statement
Can anyone advise what approvals were required? Was it to have previously held an Air Traffic Controller Flight Service licence? And what was the cost of running this service per week, particularly noting the comment
Of course, all of the Unicoms I have seen in the USA have no measurable cost – they use existing people at the airport.
DICK Smith's claim that if CASA doesn't allow ground staff to notify planes about obstacles or weather conditions at the airport then there will be people dying at Hervey Bay is rich in rhetoric but a bit short on fact.
The idea of allowing unqualified staff to give operational information to pilots is fraught with peril.
Incorrect, out of date or limited information provided on an ad-hoc basis is far more dangerous than no information at all.
What if the person involved is busy doing their primary job and is unaware of an aerodrome obstruction and then tells the inbound aircraft that all is well?
But the biggest risk to aircraft at Hervey Bay, or indeed any aerodrome where there is a high density of aircraft of varying performance and pilots of vastly different skill levels, is in the sky - not on the ground.
In 2009 Airservices Australia conducted a trial of Unicom at Hervey Bay.
This was in response to a high number of reported breakdowns in separation between aircraft (or "near misses" as some in the media would have it).
The trial, importantly, included a directed traffic information service, updates on weather and operational information.
Its hours of operation were based on the arrival and departure of RPT (airlines) aircraft.
It was conducted by three highly experienced aviation personnel (of which I was one), and all had the necessary CASA approvals to provide the service.
The Unicom staff were able to monitor the local airport radio frequency, note the aircraft positions, levels and intentions and then use this information to provide the traffic information service.
The carriage and use of radio is mandatory in the Hervey Bay/Maryborough areas, but this frequency is not monitored by Airservices Australia staff in Brisbane.
The trial was a resounding success, proving that the service was cost effective, needed and well received by the aviation industry.
Although the service had been proven, the arrival of the GFC and CASA failing to mandate it meant it was never implemented.
A Unicom service is needed now more than ever, but it needs to be a stand-alone service, preferably managed and provided by Airservices Australia using experienced, qualified and rated personal.
Mr Smith's wish that commercial jets using Hervey Bay be radar-controlled from Brisbane is impossible.
Due to the type of radar now used, not all aircraft are visible to the controller and the radio frequency in use cannot be monitored, so it cannot be known what other aircraft are there, what height they are at or what their intentions are.
The idea of allowing unqualified staff to give operational information to pilots is fraught with peril.
Incorrect, out of date or limited information provided on an ad-hoc basis is far more dangerous than no information at all.
What if the person involved is busy doing their primary job and is unaware of an aerodrome obstruction and then tells the inbound aircraft that all is well?
But the biggest risk to aircraft at Hervey Bay, or indeed any aerodrome where there is a high density of aircraft of varying performance and pilots of vastly different skill levels, is in the sky - not on the ground.
In 2009 Airservices Australia conducted a trial of Unicom at Hervey Bay.
This was in response to a high number of reported breakdowns in separation between aircraft (or "near misses" as some in the media would have it).
The trial, importantly, included a directed traffic information service, updates on weather and operational information.
Its hours of operation were based on the arrival and departure of RPT (airlines) aircraft.
It was conducted by three highly experienced aviation personnel (of which I was one), and all had the necessary CASA approvals to provide the service.
The Unicom staff were able to monitor the local airport radio frequency, note the aircraft positions, levels and intentions and then use this information to provide the traffic information service.
The carriage and use of radio is mandatory in the Hervey Bay/Maryborough areas, but this frequency is not monitored by Airservices Australia staff in Brisbane.
The trial was a resounding success, proving that the service was cost effective, needed and well received by the aviation industry.
Although the service had been proven, the arrival of the GFC and CASA failing to mandate it meant it was never implemented.
A Unicom service is needed now more than ever, but it needs to be a stand-alone service, preferably managed and provided by Airservices Australia using experienced, qualified and rated personal.
Mr Smith's wish that commercial jets using Hervey Bay be radar-controlled from Brisbane is impossible.
Due to the type of radar now used, not all aircraft are visible to the controller and the radio frequency in use cannot be monitored, so it cannot be known what other aircraft are there, what height they are at or what their intentions are.
It was conducted by three highly experienced aviation personnel ... and all had the necessary CASA approvals to provide the service.
Although the service had been proven, the arrival of the GFC and CASA failing to mandate it meant it was never implemented.
I don't think Dick was ever suggesting just any old person jump on the radio and give it a go!! Pretty sure it was always a call for existing staff to be trained as CAGRs right?
It's quite funny how that article starts off having a go at Dick Smith for his rhetoric and then goes on to utilise its own!
It's quite funny how that article starts off having a go at Dick Smith for his rhetoric and then goes on to utilise its own!
Thread Starter
Correct. Just follow the proven FAA/ Canadian system by utilizing intelligent existing people at the airport.
Works incredibly well in those countries- why not australia.
Works incredibly well in those countries- why not australia.
Don't be ridiculous Dick. You're a businessman; do you really think you'd have one of your "existing" staff at the airport with enough spare time to monitor and provide the weather, let alone a traffic service? A baggage chucker or Check-in chick running the Unicom or just on the radio? You really need to get out into the real world and see what goes on these days. Most airports do not have spare people floating around to do what you got in the USA in the halcyon days of scantily-clad girls on the top of Follow-Me vans ushering you to the parking bay.
And what about the AOC holder and the hundreds of punters in the back? This is 2015 and any Tom, Dick or Harry spouting off on the radio giving his opinion on the traffic picture (
) is not going to wash, nor should it. Now your suggestion/political bludgeoning of the Firies doing it after doing a proper course made a bit of sense, but who's going to pay? The big boys certainly don't need the service so why should they pay?
I said it before and I'll say it again: we have Beepbacks and AWIS. Technology replacing unreliable humans. If the place requires a terminal traffic info service, put in a proper FSS (aka CA/GRO) or put in a tower.
And if you don't want to run into a hill when your GPS position gets corrupted, install a TAWS.
And what about the AOC holder and the hundreds of punters in the back? This is 2015 and any Tom, Dick or Harry spouting off on the radio giving his opinion on the traffic picture (
) is not going to wash, nor should it. Now your suggestion/political bludgeoning of the Firies doing it after doing a proper course made a bit of sense, but who's going to pay? The big boys certainly don't need the service so why should they pay?I said it before and I'll say it again: we have Beepbacks and AWIS. Technology replacing unreliable humans. If the place requires a terminal traffic info service, put in a proper FSS (aka CA/GRO) or put in a tower.
And if you don't want to run into a hill when your GPS position gets corrupted, install a TAWS.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having done Ayers Rock under CA/GRS, they can save the money and shove it.
Lets face facts....CASA won't employ anyone without a PPL minimum to do this job now, and they will probably have to complete a course CASA can't design.
No not a fan of CA/GRS...they can keep it!
The idea of allowing unqualified staff to give operational information to pilots is fraught with peril.
No not a fan of CA/GRS...they can keep it!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
do you really think you'd have one of your "existing" staff at the airport with enough spare time to monitor and provide the weather, let alone a traffic service?
Absolute crap Bloggs. Every RPT airport you fly to Bloggs, you radio your company personnel on the ground with an ETA and they tell you what bay to park on.
Your company personnel are already monitoring a radio and are already at the airport 'floating around' as you say, ready to talk to you on the radio, but suddenly if they were allowed to provide you with an airport advisory at the same time it becomes too onerous on them?
If your company reps were able to monitor the CTAF frequency and provide a Unicom service to those aircraft that request an advisory (Hint... thats you Bloggs in your 717) then safety is enhanced. So simple.
let alone a traffic service?
Contrary to what you think the service is supposed to do, it does not provide Air Traffic Control functions AT ALL. Do you understand this?
You try and tear down this simple well proven affordable measure with the most specious arguments that only goes to prove that your ignorance of how its done elsewhere and a pathological resistance makes you look foolish.
Whatever you think you know about how a Unicom service should work is just plain wrong. Its sad to think that younger pilots may give credence to your remarks merely because you fly a jet.
The FAA also doesn't agree with your assessment that Unicom services are "not going to wash". You might wish to familiarise yourself with Ops Spec C064 and C080 (a) 2. These require On Demand passenger, All Cargo and scheduled airline operations to be able to acquire "traffic advisories and the status of airport services and facilities" at uncontrolled airfields.
The Unicom is required by the regulations in the United States to enhance safety at uncontrolled airports.
Yes the person providing information might be the check in staff, it might be the fueler at the FBO or the mechanic at the local maintenance workshop but the total cost is the price of the radio itself. A very cheap safety measure.
No one is providing a directed traffic service or even a traffic information service. If the person talking on the radio on the ground is asked for an 'airport advisory' it is as simple as this;
Wind
Temperature
Visibility
Cloud ceiling
light aircraft heard in the vacinity/ Helicopter transiting area/
maintenance vehicle operating on taxiway
etc.
The Unicom operator does not need to know where other traffic is in the area. In fact as radio is not mandated for aircraft at uncontrolled airports in the US, its possible that the Unicom operator does not know where aircraft might be positioned. NO PROBLEM, the operator just alerts arriving and departing aircraft of other aircraft in the vicinity IF they know they are about. Otherwise the operator simply says 'no known' traffic or omits any reference to traffic in their advisory.
Simple, easy safety related information given via a Unicom service mandated by the regulations. Not an ATC function. Is this easy for you to understand Bloggs? We too should have this virtually free service right here in Oz.
As far as I know I was the first person in Australia to provide a UNICOM service, starting from day one of the introduction of the CTAF. I did it in conjunction with my refueling business. I was given strict guidelines, plus I had to apply to add 126.7 to the license for my handheld radio in addition to my discrete frequency of 129.9. It was not a paid for doing it - it was a service I provided because I could see the need for it.
DF.
DF.
What kind of guidelines were you given?
Was it simply a matter of monitoring the frequency and noting each arrival/departures details and then passing this info on to others?
Was it simply a matter of monitoring the frequency and noting each arrival/departures details and then passing this info on to others?
The Unicom operator does not need to know where other traffic is in the area. In fact as radio is not mandated for aircraft at uncontrolled airports in the US, its possible that the Unicom operator does not know where aircraft might be positioned. NO PROBLEM, the operator just alerts arriving and departing aircraft of other aircraft in the vicinity IF they know they are about. Otherwise the operator simply says 'no known' traffic or omits any reference to traffic in their advisory.
Your company personnel are already monitoring a radio and are already at the airport 'floating around' as you say, ready to talk to you on the radio, but suddenly if they were allowed to provide you with an airport advisory at the same time it becomes too onerous on them?
If your company reps were able to monitor the CTAF frequency and provide a Unicom service to those aircraft that request an advisory (Hint... thats you Bloggs in your 717) then safety is enhanced. So simple.
If your company reps were able to monitor the CTAF frequency and provide a Unicom service to those aircraft that request an advisory (Hint... thats you Bloggs in your 717) then safety is enhanced. So simple.
There's a hell of a difference between a Unicom and a CA/GRO. Having a quick look outside at the weather is a lot different to providing any meaningful traffic info.
I said it in another thread a while ago. The service was deemed to be unnecessary and was done away with. Let those that made that decision now come up with a solution and pay for it, rather than trying to get airlines or aerodrome operators to pick up the slack.
I will have to see if I can find the booklet I was given - I think I still have it somewhere. The general rule was that I was not to use the area frequency except in the event of an emergency. I provided information on wind direction, speed, temperature etc. which all came from a direct telephone link to the AWS which the Met Bureau installed in my office. I also asked incoming aircraft if they required fuel, if I didn't already know that. On at least two occasions I was able to provide traffic locations to aircraft who were trying to communicate with foreign students without success. Also had several incidents of aircraft with unsafe landing gear indications, as well as a couple of crashes off aerodrome where it was quicker for me to use the radio to contact Flight Service than it was to use the phone.
DF.
DF.
I suspect that for many of us VFR's in Australia, the Telstra 3G mobile phone network has made the Unicom idea largely obsolete. Particularly for a person in DF's capacity. It's wise perhaps to know a reliable person at your destination and ring them before or enroute for WX etc? Outback hotel and motel proprietors sure know whether it is raining, overcast or if there's a cyclone on the way. 
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: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
As far as I know I was the first person in Australia to provide a UNICOM service, starting from day one of the introduction of the CTAF. I did it in conjunction with my refueling business. I was given strict guidelines, plus I had to apply to add 126.7 to the license for my handheld radio in addition to my discrete frequency of 129.9. It was not a paid for doing it - it was a service I provided because I could see the need for it.
DF.
DF.
We never had any problem with the service DF provided and indeed welcomed it! As, I suspect, did everyone who ever flew into that particular strip when she was the refueller way back then.
Of course, the fact that we provided her with a good supply of Fruitcake slices and Minties may have gained us extra special service!
Betcha miss that, don`t you DF? Hell, I miss the run itself!!
It's wise perhaps to know a reliable person at your destination and ring them before or enroute for WX etc?
DF.
Of course, the fact that we provided her with a good supply of Fruitcake slices and Minties may have gained us extra special service!
Betcha miss that, don`t you DF? Hell, I miss the run itself!!
DF.
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: 2,966
Received 92 Likes
on
53 Posts
I suspect that for many of us VFR's in Australia, the Telstra 3G mobile phone network has made the Unicom idea largely obsolete. Particularly for a person in DF's capacity.
Her observations on more than one occasion proved invaluable!!
My comments were not meant in any way as criticism of DF. Just that I believe communications technology has now moved on.
DF.
Not really a secret trial either Dick.
From appendix C to this:
Safety in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes
Like CA/GRS, UNICOM (where provided) is intended only to be a tool to help enhance pilots’ situational awareness, and is not a traffic separation service. Unlike CA/GRS, UNICOMs are not designed to provide any traffic information (Airservices Australia, 2007). From December 2007 to March 2009, UNICOM services were trialled by Airservices Australia at a number of non-towered regional aerodromes where CTAF(R) was used (Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Port Macquarie, Wagga Wagga, Olympic Dam). During this trial, a special dispensation under CASR 139 also allowed these UNICOM services to provide basic traffic information to pilots.
Safety in the vicinity of non-towered aerodromes