What's happening at Ballina?

[Dick Smith]

If you remember, Sir Angus Houston refused to allow the fire fighters at Ballina to operate a Unicom radio, as they do in the USA. The last I heard is that the airport is going to employ retired air traffic controllers to provide the Unicom service.

I mention that everywhere else in the world I know of, this service is provided completely free of charge from someone who just happens to be at the airport.

I have phoned the airport management and left messages but can’t get a return phone call. Can anyone advise what’s happening? Are we to have a Unicom and if it’s to be a paid for service with retired air traffic controllers, what will the cost be per year? I would imagine that will be added on to the landing fees for the airport.

This of course will result in even less people flying to Ballina.

[Lookleft]

Keep an eye on the ATSB website Dick and you will see that a lot has been happening in Ballina!

[Dick Smith]

Are you suggesting there have been safety incidents? Hope not.

[Checkboard]

fewer people

[Dick Smith]

Look left. Can't see anything on the ATSB site. Any hints?

[Lookleft]

Try this Investigation: AO-2016-003 - Traffic management event involving Airbus A320, VH-VQS and Beech Aircraft Corporation, VH-EWL at Ballina/Byron Gateway Airport, NSW on 14 January 2016

[Capn Bloggs]

She'll be right, eh Dick?
If those three aircraft were provided with

this service is provided completely free of charge from someone who just happens to be at the airport.

there would have been no problem! They all would have had frequency confirmation so they would have known about each other! Oh, hang on, they did already. They would all have had a service! Oh, hang on, was the person "who just happened to be at the airport" providing a traffic service? I hope not, based on the outcome. Let's introduce E airspace! Oh, hang on, was one of them VFR? Dang! VFR "don't exist" in Class E.

If you're so paranoid about Ballina, either put in a trained service provider like a CAGRO (shock horror... retired ATCs), or put in a tower!!

[Dick Smith]

Yair. Must agree. Can't possibly utilise one of the AsA employed Firies to provide a Unicom service like they do all over North America .

We in Australia know so much more. Blogs is correct An expensive tower or ATC operated A/G is the only way to go.

Thanks heavens for Bloggs - maximise cost - one of the reasons RFAC clubs have dropped from over 100 to less than 50. Mum would have been shocked.

[Capn Bloggs]

So Dick, let's see, how would the fireys have prevented the incident that Lookleft has pointed you to?

Originally Posted by Dick Smith

Blogs is correct An expensive tower or ATC operated A/G is the only way to go.

Thanks heavens for Bloggs - maximise cost - one of the reasons RFAC clubs have dropped from over 100 to less than 50. Mum would have been shocked.

That's pretty disgusting, Dick. Especially since you attempted but failed, to destroy the RFACA in the 80s. She achieved far more for her cause, with dignity and with the respect of the highest of politicians, than you ever will. Disgraceful.

[CaptainMidnight]

From my reading of the ATSB summary, neither a UNICOM or CAGRS would have had any bearing on the situation except add to the frequency use.

[Lead Balloon]

But lucky there was an RFFS to hose fire retardant over the bodies, if there'd been a mid-air.

[LeadSled]

She achieved far more for her cause, with dignity and with the respect of the highest of politicians, than you ever will. Disgraceful.

Bloggs,
Wonderful and loyal sentiment, but a long way from the facts.
The RFAC was, and to a large degree still is, a wet blanket on any progress.
The RFAC opposed the rules changes in 1998, that gave us all the growth in Recreational Aviation.
The RFAC opposed every cost saving measure Dick proposed, including a 13.8 cents per litre levy, imposed on every avgas user, to support Secondary towers, when Jet A users paid Nil/Zero/Zilch to use the same airfields. RNAC paid 13.8 cents per litre to subsidize RACNSW.
The RFAC opposed every simplification of rules proposed by Dick, and opposed US style rules.
The RFAC largely destroyed itself, that is why so many aero clubs quit RFAC and affiliated with the AOPA of the day.
I have (as you well know) been around for a long time, and not one single thing comes to mind, that the RFAC has done, to arrest the CASA directed demise of GA.
Tootle pip!!

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

I would imagine that will be added on to the landing fees for the airport.

Which is how user pays works, is it not?

[2b2]

Can't possibly utilise one of the AsA employed Firies to provide a Unicom service like they do all over North America .

When this came up before someone asked for a list of the places this happens. I may have missed the answer but I think Steamboat Springs or somewhere like that was the only place mentioned.

Does anyone have some other examples where the firies do this (preferably available on LiveATC or a similar feed)?

[Dick Smith]

I don't have a list because in the USA every airport with RPT traffic has a Unicom on a no cost basis. Always someone already at the airport like the FBO operator or refueler.

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Leadsled

Bloggs,
Wonderful and loyal sentiment, but a long way from the facts.

Arr, good to see B2 is back.

For your edcuation, Sled, it's RFACA.

Dick, answer the question, or has the cat got your tongue...

So Dick, let's see, how would the fireys have prevented the incident that Lookleft has pointed you to?

[CaptainMidnight]

When this came up before someone asked for a list of the places this happens. I may have missed the answer but I think Steamboat Springs or somewhere like that was the only place mentioned.

My recollection is that when this came up earlier (or it may have been at a RAPAC), it was said that when CASA queried the FAA re the nature of the traffic information being provided by U.S. UNICOMs, the FAA expressed interest in exactly which stations were doing so.

Which suggested they weren't supposed to be providing traffic information, or that the nature of the information being provided was only supposed to be of a very general nature, and not directed and specific to the extent of that provided by the Australian CAGRS, which is based on specific traffic criteria.

[Dick Smith]

Sounds like complete rubbish. The FAA has no problems with any info being given by a Unicom operator. Why not bring up the " insurance problems" furphy as well !

[Capn Bloggs]

Originally Posted by Midnight

From my reading of the ATSB summary, neither a UNICOM or CAGRS would have had any bearing on the situation except add to the frequency use.

Actually, I think a CAGRO (or AFIS as is at YPPD) would have had a good chance of preventing it. With their aviation knowledge and understanding of keeping aeroplanes apart, the unfolding conflict would quite possibly have been spotted and advised to the crews.

Certainly, Dick's idea that a firey or baggage-chucker would or could have helped in that situation is simply nonsensical codswallop.

Hey LeedSleed, you're quiet on this incident. What's your solution?

[Lead Balloon]

My solution is certainly not wasting millions on an RFFS.