Port Hedland AFIS wind back
The rumour is that it costs about $600,000 to operate the Port Hedland AFIS. Is that correct or does anyone have a more accurate figure?
Originally Posted by Leady slipping the boot in
This has got to be the result of a Cap'n Bloggs pet project. If so, well done Capn! Your own Nirvana with all those experienced aviation professionals pleasuring each other with all that talk.
One of them frequents these boards....I'm sure he is reading with interest
Re..."They tried to find someone who'd do it but because it didn't pay, they all said "stuff that, do you really think I'd sit around in this hell-hole yabbering to planes or nothing? I've got better things to do like train for fires...".
Nope..... I just went fishin' instead......Better for the mind......
'Nite Dick....
Nope..... I just went fishin' instead......Better for the mind......
'Nite Dick....
What was the radius of an AFIZ 'back in the day'? As I recall it was 15nm.
Then the MBZs were invented. As I recall, some of them had 15nm radius and some 10nm.
I'm sure the huge volume of airspace covered by an AFIS 'Broadcast Area' of 20nm radius surface to 8,000' gives a lot of people a warm inner glow of increased safety. But what a joke.
Then the MBZs were invented. As I recall, some of them had 15nm radius and some 10nm.
I'm sure the huge volume of airspace covered by an AFIS 'Broadcast Area' of 20nm radius surface to 8,000' gives a lot of people a warm inner glow of increased safety. But what a joke.
No its definitely staffed by ATC's ex Karratha. They commute up there by road for their run of shifts and then drive home.
LB: the AFIS provided by CAGROs at places like PD, AYE & BNA is a big step up in service from absolutely nothing without going to a TWR. Surely given the level and types flying there deserve it?
Arrivals and Departures
If you are advocating the alternatives, UNICOM or TWR ........
Oh, and AFIZs (within which an AFIS was provided) were 15NM SFC-5000 (I think) with a requirement for all aircraft to call inbound @ 30NM.
When the FSU's closed down the AFIZs & AFIS remained for a while, the service being remotely provided from the remaining FSCs. Then MBZs came in, and the AFIZs and AFIS disappeared.
Thread Starter
This is a huge amount of money being drained out of our industry.
The reason we introduced AMATS in 1991 was to get the costs down.
By reversing the changes and going back to 1950s procedures when at least 50% was paid by the taxpayer will further damage our industry.
The reason we introduced AMATS in 1991 was to get the costs down.
By reversing the changes and going back to 1950s procedures when at least 50% was paid by the taxpayer will further damage our industry.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, and AFIZs (within which an AFIS was provided) were 15NM SFC-5000 (I think) with a requirement for all aircraft to call inbound @ 30NM.
I'm sure the huge volume of airspace covered by an AFIS 'Broadcast Area' of 20nm radius surface to 8,000' gives a lot of people a warm inner glow of increased safety. But what a joke.
Not a waste of anything in particular. My sympathies to those that still have to work there.
But think about all the traffic to and from that farmhouse!
Since when are FS and ATC not part of the aviation industry? Hmmm? I wear an ASIC, have medicals and speak the lingo! You us and bloody them divisiveness is half the damn problem. Any wonder why people like me detest you Dick.
$1.50 per passenger per flight is a huge drain is it Dick?
$1.50 per passenger per flight is a huge drain is it Dick?
Thread Starter
But I luv ya la ping. I don't detest anyone. I quite like people with different views including ATCs.
I can see why you post anonymously .
I fully accept ATCs are an important part of our industry. I would just prefer they use their expensively gained skills to " control " IFR aircraft. Not just give a 1930s traffic service!
I can see why you post anonymously .
I fully accept ATCs are an important part of our industry. I would just prefer they use their expensively gained skills to " control " IFR aircraft. Not just give a 1930s traffic service!
short flights long nights
Well I'm old school. The Port Headland tower worked well, as did Flight Service Units all around Australia. It wasn't broken, but it 'had to be fixed.' Anyway, I will just live as an old timer remembering the old times, when ATC and FSU provided services and we worked together as a team. ( And in the country stations, we all knew each other.)
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well Dick, I'm ex ATC, left of my own accord, no redundancy payout, I don't detest you. I have seen the waste, those that work in the sheltered workshop and will never experience the cost imposition of stupid procedures, airspace, liabilities, work practices don't get it and never will, wasting your time mate.
So you're actually in favour of more regulation? Yet you got rid of the Control Towers, but now want more control to the ground, you got rid of the professional traffic advisors, and now insist that any amateur with access to a mike can have a go.
The airspace is not the reason GA is practically dead in this country. Being unable to get traffic off Billy the Bag Snatcher when inbound to Turpentine Downs is not the greatest crisis faced by Australian aviation. Two private aerodrome operators (out of how many?) having a go at increasing safety by providing a CAGRS is not bringing the industry to its knees. You are bashing your head against the wall of things that don't matter.
Use your political clout to fix what is the problem - CASA.
If a frequency is retransmitted in the GAFA and there's no one to hear it, did it really get retransmitted at all?
The airspace is not the reason GA is practically dead in this country. Being unable to get traffic off Billy the Bag Snatcher when inbound to Turpentine Downs is not the greatest crisis faced by Australian aviation. Two private aerodrome operators (out of how many?) having a go at increasing safety by providing a CAGRS is not bringing the industry to its knees. You are bashing your head against the wall of things that don't matter.
Use your political clout to fix what is the problem - CASA.
If a frequency is retransmitted in the GAFA and there's no one to hear it, did it really get retransmitted at all?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: UAE
Posts: 210
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Holy Hatrack Batman, are you saying Port Headland no longer has a Tower? It did when I did my ATC outstation attachment there in 1972. MMA F28s, Gulfstream 2s,Choppers, BN2A to Goldsworthy several times a day. Watching the cars try to beat the ore trains to the crossing. Walkabout Hotel. Those were the days.
Dick, mate, I'm just a veteran en-route controller with no particular influence. Whether I post anonymously or not is of no consequence. We've been here many times before. Shrug.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The real safety risk here is;
a. And environment where the perceived enemy are the very ones unlikely to realise that such a thing exists.
b. The RPT pilots who come and go all week get very comfortable with the warm fuzzy feeling of extra safety from this unknown to the enemy MBZ/CAGRO/AFIS/AFIZ/Alphabet Soup airspace.
I dare say 99% of PPL/CPL folk who do not travel there daily would not even realise it exists. If asked off the top of my head about that aerodrome I would have believed it was a CTAF like every other one with RPT jets coming and going.
The safety folks around would say latent conditions for a pharque-up. but at least they will have a well buried rule that says who was at fault.
a. And environment where the perceived enemy are the very ones unlikely to realise that such a thing exists.
b. The RPT pilots who come and go all week get very comfortable with the warm fuzzy feeling of extra safety from this unknown to the enemy MBZ/CAGRO/AFIS/AFIZ/Alphabet Soup airspace.
I dare say 99% of PPL/CPL folk who do not travel there daily would not even realise it exists. If asked off the top of my head about that aerodrome I would have believed it was a CTAF like every other one with RPT jets coming and going.
The safety folks around would say latent conditions for a pharque-up. but at least they will have a well buried rule that says who was at fault.
The guys in hedland , do 2 week stints from perth....Air services did a survey on port hedland about 3 odd years ago, with the mining boom/traffic increasing it was just below the threshold for a tower.
Its 20nm traffic circle on hedland, it works really well and informs the airlines of the helicopter movement from the port.
It will never be a towered aerodrome the traffic has died in the arse .
Its 20nm traffic circle on hedland, it works really well and informs the airlines of the helicopter movement from the port.
It will never be a towered aerodrome the traffic has died in the arse .
I dare say 99% of PPL/CPL folk who do not travel there daily would not even realise it exists.
Those who do fly in the region should know about it. There was extensive education @ RAPAC & via the various industry associations.
Try dropping into KA or BRM and claim you didn't realise CTA & a TWR existed -