Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Amazing Spin by Airservices re. Lack of Radar in Tasmania

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Amazing Spin by Airservices re. Lack of Radar in Tasmania

Old 8th Jul 2015, 06:54
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Amazing Spin by Airservices re. Lack of Radar in Tasmania

Following the article on Monday 6 July in The Australian, “Pilots Told to Switch Off $6m Radar System” (see below), the spin doctors at Airservices have come up with the most extraordinary claims. In effect they are saying that the multilateration system was never designed to work below 6,000 feet - see HERE. I reckon if you’d believe that you’d believe anything!

I love it! They also say,

Procedural separation of aircraft is a procedure used at a number of airports around the country where traffic volumes permit, including many large regional airports.
Yes, but they don’t mention that every other capital city airport has a proper radar control service right to the runway. Why would you bother to spend $6 million on a radar service for Tasmania and not actually provide a separation service below 6,000 feet?

The most likely truthful explanation is that the contract did not go as planned. I can imagine the low morale associated with working for such an organisation. They simply fib their way out by stating the ridiculous.

The contractor for the multilateration system, upon its completion, stated what they thought was the truth. These are their words from their website (see Tasmania Airspace Now Controlled With High Accuracy Wide Area Multilateration | Brolair International ) :

Enroute surveillance of air traffic across the island and down to the surface at Hobart and Launceston Airports
Watch this space … we’ll try and get the truth to come out. But it may be difficult.

Surely someone must know what is going on? Presumably they did not put enough multilateration stations in or could it be that they located them in the wrong areas?

To spend $6 million of the industry’s money and not even get a service below 6,000 feet is totally ridiculous.

What do others think?

Here is the article from Monday’s newspaper:

Tasmanian pilots told to switch off $6m radar system

A multi-million-dollar, state-of-the-art navigation system installed by Airservices Australia in Tasmania still leaves pilots at the mercy of pre-radar, 1950s-era, air traffic control procedures which are considered inefficient and not as safe.

Aviation industry figures say the failure to use the system for radar-style surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart makes it a waste of money and makes those airports virtually unique among big Australian cities.

Some sources said Airservices had intended to use the system for surveillance approaches but was knocked back by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority because it was not reliable enough, while others said Airservices did not want to take on the air-traffic controllers union, which would resist such a move. Airservices has denied both these suggestions.

The Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system, or TASWAM, was introduced after a near midair collision at Launceston between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light aircraft years ago.

After the near miss, CASA insisted on the installation of transportable radar at Launceston, while Airservices worked towards a long-term solution.

In 2006, Airservices announced TASWAM, which uses triangulation from radio transmitter ground stations to pinpoint aircraft through their transponders, and the system was made operational five years ago.

But rather than guide aircraft all the way to the runway, pilots are told as they descend through 7000 feet that they are no longer covered by radar-standard surveillance. Instead, they are required to switch to the local towers in Launceston and Hobart for procedural approaches.

Whereas under “radar certif*ied surveillance approaches” aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers using precise positioning on radar screens, procedural approaches require the controllers to rely on the pilots informing them of their positions.

Procedural separation is far less efficient because controllers have to allow much greater distance between aircraft, often about 20 nautical miles, rather than five miles under radar surveillance separation.

The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said procedural separation meant it was more likely aircraft would exper*ience air-traffic delays in Tasmania.

While he insisted the procedural standard was entirely safe and equipment on modern airliners provided excellent and reliab*le situational awareness, he said “a radar environment would probably give you a higher level of safety”.

Captain Booth, who has been flying to Tasmania for more than a decade, said he understood TASWAM had been commissioned to introduce radar-*style air-traffic control in Tasmania, but “it never worked well enough for CASA to sign it off”.

A CASA spokesman said the authority had approved Air*services to use TASWAM above 7000 feet, but “the surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements to allow air-traffic control to apply surveillance procedures”.

When TASWAM was announced, media releases from Airservices and the manufacturers of the system, Sensis Corporation — which is now part of the Swedish Saab group — gave a clear impression that surveillance approaches were the objective, talking about “accurate coverage of 150m or better from the ground level”.

“Sensis WAM’s precise surveillance of aircraft enables air traffic controllers to implement five nautical miles of aircraft separation for safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation standards,” a Sensis press release said.

Asked the separation standard in Tasmania below 7000 feet, an Airservices spokesman said “in most cases, 20 nautical miles”.

However, Airservices said it had never intended to use TASWAM, which cost $6 million, for surveillance approaches, saying it had achieved the goal of “improved situational awareness for controllers”.

Saab spokesman Sebastian Carlsson declined to comment.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 10:31
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Dick, I could give you a bunch of really good answers, from accurate and reliable sources in both places.

But, who am I and what would I know about aviation…..
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 11:03
  #3 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Jaba. Could you send me a private message. Or even give me a phone call?

A free jar of OzeNuts would be coming you way!

I would imagine there must be plenty of glowing statements about 7 years ago re how fantastic the multilateration system was going to be.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 11:50
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
If AsA ordered a new "terminal area survailance system" for Hobart and Launy what airspace dimensions would that normally cover?

What is the "Terminal Area" for an airport? Surely someone can help with this?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 12:41
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 494
Received 17 Likes on 7 Posts
Terminal area is normally considered to be 30nm, well at least that is where the automated nav spec changes in most rnav systems.
alphacentauri is online now  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 13:09
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick. The tower controllers have the screens for the TASWAM but not the training to be able to use them. So centre can use it for separation but for the handover to the towers at around 45 miles traffic has to be at procedural spacing. I have heard that there have been issues with its accuracy preventing its use for terminal separation. I have no idea whether that is true or not, just what I heard.
PLovett is offline  
Old 8th Jul 2015, 21:17
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Class C into D, you get what you get because of the airspace and not because of the multi-lat. The MLAT does give the tower guys and girls greater confirmation, comfort and assurance that what they are doing to D rules is working now, and in a few minutes time because they have good SA.

What about YBSU? I think they were the first D to get a feed after a CHOGM event.

Broome ? do they have anything at all?

Whats the point here?
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 00:18
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Happy with procedural separation if it means not equipping ADSB but claim it's not safe in TAS and Ballina?
rr007 is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 00:20
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Whats the point here?
Dick is continuing his publicity campaign for president. That's the point.

they don’t mention that every other capital city airport has a proper radar control service right to the runway.
Hobart is not a capital city and plenty of towers have identification services down to the top of D.

Why would you bother to spend $6 million on a radar service for Tasmania and not actually provide a separation service below 6,000 feet?
Because of the extra millions it'll cost to provide a "radar" approach service! Have you ever flown in a procedural environment during climb and descent?

Ever heard of affordable safety?
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 00:35
  #10 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
Bloggsey. I love the way you always support the status quo.

"We have never had a terminal radar service in Tassie so we never need to"

Forget that the most common form of fatal accident by airline pilots is a controlled flight into terrain and the best way of preventing such accidents as per the NTSB is to use ATC with radar.!

And what is the capital city of Tasmania?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 00:58
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Dick
"We have never had a terminal radar service in Tassie so we never need to"
Clean your glasses, Dick, I never said that. When all of you lighty jokers get your ADS-B, we can have REAL safety improvements, which will include big-brother monitoring to prevent CFIT by private pilots.

Originally Posted by Dick
Forget that the most common form of fatal accident by airline pilots is a controlled flight into terrain
No it isn't. LOC is. Stick to the facts or step out of the way.

Originally Posted by Dick
And what is the capital city of Tasmania?
That place just down the road from where your famed Class E airspace nearly creamed hundreds of Virgin passengers because a private pilot thought he was better at ATC than ATC themselves.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 01:03
  #12 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 66
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
And what is the capital city of Tasmania?
Hobart, the only capital city in Australia without an AFP presence at the airport, thanks to federal govt. funding cuts.
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 03:24
  #13 (permalink)  
swh

Eidolon
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Some hole
Posts: 2,171
Received 24 Likes on 13 Posts
Dick,

They would probably install a combined Thales STAR2000 + RSM970S, giving around 250 mn of secondary radar, and 60-90 mn of primary radar. The primary radar is what most people call terminal radar, not to be confused with terminal airspace.

Claret,

The AFP seen at most airports in the states are state police dressed in AFP uniforms.
swh is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 04:21
  #14 (permalink)  

Bottums Up
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: dunnunda
Age: 66
Posts: 3,440
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
That may be so SWH but at HBA we have neither AFP officers dressed as AFP officers. TasPol officers dressed as AFP officers, nor TasPol officers dressed as TasPol officers.

Unless on a routine pass through, the airport is void of a police presence, which probably persuaded a recalcitrant passenger yesterday to utter words to the affect, "you've got no effin' police here so what are you effin' gunna do about it"?

Fortunately, at the time, there was a large police presence nearby in Cambridge and said 'lady' and her family are enjoying a 48 hour travel ban. However, most times, if the authorities are required, it's a phone call to Police Comms, and get into the queue.
Capt Claret is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 07:40
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,161
Received 126 Likes on 92 Posts
Dick Smith
We have never had a terminal radar service in Tassie so we never need to"

Forget that the most common form of fatal accident by airline pilots is a controlled flight into terrain and the best way of preventing such accidents as per the NTSB is to use ATC with radar.!
SWH
They would probably install a combined Thales STAR2000 + RSM970S, giving around 250 mn of secondary radar, and 60-90 mn of primary radar.
Yep, can just see Emirates and all the other International airlines agreeing to that one. You only have to look at their submissions to the current debate about the Long Term Pricing Regime and network costs.

I'm sure the boys and girls in LT & HB would love the extra surveillance capability of primary radar but at what cost? And what other projects would have to be delayed or cancelled to provide sufficient project resources, technical staff and $$$.

Dick Smith
Presumably they did not put enough multilateration stations in or could it be that they located them in the wrong areas?
There is some truth to this, remembering that Tasmania has large areas of National Park and wilderness (I've seen all the glossy pictures in Australian Geographic) and so sometimes the locations might be a compromise, next best option. And with ADSB sites, more is better but once again $$. Contractors usually underestimate the number of sites required, often this is a "ploy" to gain contract variations, a bit like building a swimming pool and the contractor saying we needed extra steel, extra concrete, extra tiles, larger pump, higher pool fence.
sunnySA is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 09:31
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,152
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm told by someone who doesn't wish to be identified that the reason TASWAM doesn't deliver is because to save money and increase their bonuses, Airservices managers deliberately had it installed without a key piece of equipment, a Gonkulator.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 9th Jul 2015, 14:01
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Originally Posted by Capt Mid
to save money and increase their bonuses, Airservices managers deliberately had it installed without a key piece of equipment, a Gonkulator.
Typical, although can you blame them? They cost the earth at Dick Smiths. I can get them on Ebay for half that; if you're prepared to run them on MEL occasionally (ie you get what you pay for/affordable safety) I'll do you a deal!
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 01:20
  #18 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,599
Likes: 0
Received 65 Likes on 26 Posts
The last two posts are rediculous and probably intended to get the thread locked so the truth is not exposed.

This is a hidden bomb. AsA have expended millions of dollars on a system that was purchased to provide terminal survailance but clearly does not work as planned.

Why was SAAB SENSIS paid for this? Who was responsible for this major waste of industry money? Were AsA performance bonuses paid that year?

Let's hope SAAb are not being considered for other Government work until this is resolved.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 01:40
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 1A
Posts: 8,532
Received 72 Likes on 41 Posts
Shock! Horror! Humour is not permitted on Prune!

Lighten up, Dick. Laughter is the best medicine.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 10th Jul 2015, 02:12
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,560
Received 5 Likes on 4 Posts
Dick, are you inferring raising HB and LT to class C airspace?
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.