Port Hedland AFIS wind back
Thread Starter
Spodman. No actually. I have no interest in his ID.
Just amazed that he doesn't use his or her own name when making such comments.
It's called strength of conviction . And I simply don't believe his or her job would be at risk. If so a new employer is needed.
I have always promoted staff who dared to have a different idea and stand up in an open way . They have made me lots of money.
Just amazed that he doesn't use his or her own name when making such comments.
It's called strength of conviction . And I simply don't believe his or her job would be at risk. If so a new employer is needed.
I have always promoted staff who dared to have a different idea and stand up in an open way . They have made me lots of money.
Possibly so, but with an ounce of responsible and professional conduct as pilots, if & when they do have the need to go there they will look @ their charts, ERSA FAC YPPD - perhaps even NOTAM and WX - and educate themselves, same as we all should do when going to any unfamiliar area/location.
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 -
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 -
But for this thread I would not have known that the AFIZ concept had reared its head again, this time even larger for 'extra safety'. Heck, why not make the Broadcast Area 30nms radius up to the transition level, for even more 'safety'.
I agree with Jabba.
LB, get out of the air if that's your attitude. Read your ERSA or keep well away from anything with bitumen on it!
Yes it is! How would you know there was a tower there?
Rediculous.
Not a valid comparison. CTA is not a new or revived concept. And the people who usually fly in the region aren't the people who need to know.
Rediculous.
AFIZ's haven't been revived. What have been in place for many years are Broadcast Areas, some of which have a CAGRS/AFIS provided within.
How long has AYE been operating with a CAGRS/AFIS - 12 years?
Ditto AVV, BRM & KA for the months (in 2010?) before they went to CTR/CTA & TWR? And now BNA.
BAs and AFIS are not new or revised concepts, but yes, the AFIS shares similarities with the FSUs with AFIZs of old, but so what?
As I said in an earlier post, the AFIS was put in @ PD some 4 or 5 years ago because CASA considered the traffic levels justified it, but were not high enough to justify a TWR.
An AFIS is a considerable step up from no ATS. How much would a TWR service cost instead? Sounds to me like a cost-effective alternative.
What would you suggest instead of an AFIS?
How long has AYE been operating with a CAGRS/AFIS - 12 years?
Ditto AVV, BRM & KA for the months (in 2010?) before they went to CTR/CTA & TWR? And now BNA.
BAs and AFIS are not new or revised concepts, but yes, the AFIS shares similarities with the FSUs with AFIZs of old, but so what?
As I said in an earlier post, the AFIS was put in @ PD some 4 or 5 years ago because CASA considered the traffic levels justified it, but were not high enough to justify a TWR.
An AFIS is a considerable step up from no ATS. How much would a TWR service cost instead? Sounds to me like a cost-effective alternative.
What would you suggest instead of an AFIS?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Possibly so, but with an ounce of responsible and professional conduct as pilots, if & when they do have the need to go there they will look @ their charts, ERSA FAC YPPD - perhaps even NOTAM and WX - and educate themselves, same as we all should do when going to any unfamiliar area/location.
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 -
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 -
I agree. Sitting here on the east coast, never going there I would not have the foggiest. Planning to fly in there I would read up. I expect most would. But I expect too much of the ones that are the threat too, those who don't which is why unique airspace (CTA/R is not) is a potential risk.
Otherwise
Yeah, nah all that NOTAM and ERSA stuff is lost on me.
I do get the rules and airmanship arguments.
I'm just raising a minor thing called "practical reality". Setting unnecessary traps is ... unnecessary.
We went through a similar silliness with the 'broadcast area' NOTAM for the Lake Eyre area that did not show up for places like William Creek. Incident after incident of pilots using 126.7 in the vicinity of and at William Creek instead of the frequency in the NOTAM for the area ensued. Of course the claim was that it was poor airmanship on the part of the pilots involved, rather than an obvious trap set by the fact that the NOTAM did not show up for William Creek. The rule purists said: There's no NOTAM service for William Creek! But the trap at the time was that if you polled NAIPS for NOTAMS for William Creek, it would return "No current NOTAMS".
All the fault of bad airmanship, of course.
And then, quietly and without any acknowledgement of the trap that had been set, the William Creek CTAF frequency was changed in ERSA to match the one in the 'broadcast area' NOTAM. Somebody finally accepted and engaged with practical reality and removed an unnecessary trap. Result? Far fewer pilots on the wrong CTAF.
My EFB software produces a 'composite' chart that combines and depicts WAC, VTC, VNC, all PRDs, FIA boundaries, class C, D and E airspace etc. That chart depicts YPPD as an ordinary CTAF. I'm guessing it does not depict AFIS "Broadcast Area" boundaries because that concept was revived after the software was designed.
That's a trap.
If I go to ERSA it shows there's an AFIS for YPPD. It does not say that there's an obligation to broadcast prior to or as soon as possible after entering the Broadcast Area. That obligation is in AIP and I had no idea that it had been revived.
Like Jabba, off the top of my head I would have said YPPD is a CTAF with some nice people on the ground who will pass on useful information.
It may make you feel better to delude yourself that I'm a cowboy at the margins, and that every aircraft in that 'Broadcast Area' are following the broadcast rules, but in case you are interested in safety I'm here to tell you that if people like me were labouring under the misconception that all the AFIZ and MBZ stuff died a death years ago, there's been yet another failure in industry education. It's not the people who operate in and out of these places all the time that need to be constantly educated about the revival of this stuff, but the people who are going there for the first time or the first time for a long time.
Last time I went to Uluru (around 4 years ago) I followed the broadcast procedures for the fly-around of Uluru and the Olgas published in ERSA. If there was some additional mandatory Broadcast Area there I was blissfully unaware of it and the nice person on the radio on the ground did not mention it. We and the other traffic managed to survive, however.
And I say again: A 20nm radius 8,000' 'Broadcast Area' is joke.
I do get the rules and airmanship arguments.
I'm just raising a minor thing called "practical reality". Setting unnecessary traps is ... unnecessary.
We went through a similar silliness with the 'broadcast area' NOTAM for the Lake Eyre area that did not show up for places like William Creek. Incident after incident of pilots using 126.7 in the vicinity of and at William Creek instead of the frequency in the NOTAM for the area ensued. Of course the claim was that it was poor airmanship on the part of the pilots involved, rather than an obvious trap set by the fact that the NOTAM did not show up for William Creek. The rule purists said: There's no NOTAM service for William Creek! But the trap at the time was that if you polled NAIPS for NOTAMS for William Creek, it would return "No current NOTAMS".
All the fault of bad airmanship, of course.
And then, quietly and without any acknowledgement of the trap that had been set, the William Creek CTAF frequency was changed in ERSA to match the one in the 'broadcast area' NOTAM. Somebody finally accepted and engaged with practical reality and removed an unnecessary trap. Result? Far fewer pilots on the wrong CTAF.
My EFB software produces a 'composite' chart that combines and depicts WAC, VTC, VNC, all PRDs, FIA boundaries, class C, D and E airspace etc. That chart depicts YPPD as an ordinary CTAF. I'm guessing it does not depict AFIS "Broadcast Area" boundaries because that concept was revived after the software was designed.
That's a trap.
If I go to ERSA it shows there's an AFIS for YPPD. It does not say that there's an obligation to broadcast prior to or as soon as possible after entering the Broadcast Area. That obligation is in AIP and I had no idea that it had been revived.
Like Jabba, off the top of my head I would have said YPPD is a CTAF with some nice people on the ground who will pass on useful information.
It may make you feel better to delude yourself that I'm a cowboy at the margins, and that every aircraft in that 'Broadcast Area' are following the broadcast rules, but in case you are interested in safety I'm here to tell you that if people like me were labouring under the misconception that all the AFIZ and MBZ stuff died a death years ago, there's been yet another failure in industry education. It's not the people who operate in and out of these places all the time that need to be constantly educated about the revival of this stuff, but the people who are going there for the first time or the first time for a long time.
Last time I went to Uluru (around 4 years ago) I followed the broadcast procedures for the fly-around of Uluru and the Olgas published in ERSA. If there was some additional mandatory Broadcast Area there I was blissfully unaware of it and the nice person on the radio on the ground did not mention it. We and the other traffic managed to survive, however.
And I say again: A 20nm radius 8,000' 'Broadcast Area' is joke.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 5th Apr 2017 at 12:39. Reason: Added "(around 4 years ago)"
Incident after incident of pilots using 126.7 in the vicinity of and at William Creek instead of the frequency in the NOTAM for the area ensued.
An excerpt:
PILOTS OPR AT AD WI THE DESIGNATED AIRSPACE MUST MAKE BCST AS APPLICABLE TO NON TOWERED AD IN CLASS G AIRSPACE AS SPECIFIED IN AIP ON DISCRETE AREA BCST FREQ. THE DISCRETE BCST AREA INCLUDES LAKE EYRE NORTH, LAKE EYRE SOUTH, MAREE (YMRE) AND WILLIAM CREEK (YWMC)
SFC TO 5000FT AMSL
Seems pretty clear to me what frequency you should be on.
I would also suggest that the change in ERSA came about later because of the publication cycle, not because they were hiding anything. There can be a 6 month delay before a change shows up, sometimes longer. It's how that whole tricky NOTAM thing works.
My EFB software produces a 'composite' chart that combines and depicts WAC, VTC, VNC, all PRDs, FIA boundaries, class C, D and E airspace etc. That chart depicts YPPD as an ordinary CTAF. I'm guessing it does not depict AFIS "Broadcast Area" boundaries because that concept was revived after the software was designed.
That's a trap.
That's a trap.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 5th Apr 2017 at 16:46.
Yet pilots still used the wrong frequency. It went on over a number of publication cycles.
I'm trying to highlight why that happened. After all, it might be a safety issue.
It happened because a trap was set by contradictory information and a pig-headed refusal to engage with that problem.
If people want to delude themselves that putting something in a NOTAM or AIP Book is a guaranteed way of educating the industry and getting compliance with that thing, with no possible scope for confusion, they should get a job in CASA or Airservices.
Out of date software? Another refusal to engage with the problem. My "software" is a current EFB that is an approved sole source of current charts (and also happens to download all NOTAMS and other AIP information). The 'composite' chart depicts everything except those broadcast areas even though there is a mandatory procedure associated with those broadcast areas.
All the boundaries associated with mandatory procedures are depicted. Except one ...
That's a trap.
Maybe the people who write the software were, like me, blissfully ignorant of the revival of the AFIZ concept.
(And Captain Midnight, your assertion that it's not the revival of the AFIZ concept is sophistry.)
I'm trying to highlight why that happened. After all, it might be a safety issue.
It happened because a trap was set by contradictory information and a pig-headed refusal to engage with that problem.
If people want to delude themselves that putting something in a NOTAM or AIP Book is a guaranteed way of educating the industry and getting compliance with that thing, with no possible scope for confusion, they should get a job in CASA or Airservices.
Out of date software? Another refusal to engage with the problem. My "software" is a current EFB that is an approved sole source of current charts (and also happens to download all NOTAMS and other AIP information). The 'composite' chart depicts everything except those broadcast areas even though there is a mandatory procedure associated with those broadcast areas.
All the boundaries associated with mandatory procedures are depicted. Except one ...
That's a trap.
Maybe the people who write the software were, like me, blissfully ignorant of the revival of the AFIZ concept.
(And Captain Midnight, your assertion that it's not the revival of the AFIZ concept is sophistry.)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have always promoted staff who dared to have a different idea and stand up in an open way . They have made me lots of money.
You must at all times... ...Behave in a way that upholds Airservices Vision, Mission and Values and promotes the good reputation of Airservices;
Not that I would ever want to.
The 'composite' chart depicts everything except those broadcast areas even though there is a mandatory procedure associated with those broadcast areas.
All the boundaries associated with mandatory procedures are depicted. Except one ...
All the boundaries associated with mandatory procedures are depicted. Except one ...
- Broadcast Areas have been in place and charted for around 10 years
- by omitting them they are presenting a safety issue, and
- CASA will have an interest in their product omitting key operational information that appears on AIP charts.
sophistry
I thought the problem was poor airmanship...
The broadcast areas are depicted on the discrete ERC charts published on EFBs. However, unlike the boundaries of every other area they are not 'picked up' and depicted on the 'composite' chart.
I'm suggesting to you that the problem was not caused by and will not be solved by the EFB software alone. There's an education and regulatory systems issue here as well.
It manifested itself in the Lake Eyre area issue. The ERSA for William Creek said the CTAF was 126.7. When NAIPS was polled, it said "No current NOTAMS". In typical Australian aviation bureaucratic style, it was simply not acceptable or appropriate to publish a NOTAM for William Creek (and Marree) that changed the CTAF or 'pointed to' the FIR NOTAM. Not acceptable or appropriate. The pages and pages of other dross in FIR NOTAMS are fine. I'm assuming that one day the ADF FLIP will loom large as relevant info for civil aircraft. But a location-specific NOTAM to reduce the scope for known confusion? Not acceptable or appropriate. It's an airmanship issue.
Fortunately in the Lake Eyre area case the bureaucratic dinosaur eventually managed to change the CTAF frequency for William Creek (and Marree) in ERSA and mark the area on ERC.
The broadcast areas are depicted on the discrete ERC charts published on EFBs. However, unlike the boundaries of every other area they are not 'picked up' and depicted on the 'composite' chart.
I'm suggesting to you that the problem was not caused by and will not be solved by the EFB software alone. There's an education and regulatory systems issue here as well.
It manifested itself in the Lake Eyre area issue. The ERSA for William Creek said the CTAF was 126.7. When NAIPS was polled, it said "No current NOTAMS". In typical Australian aviation bureaucratic style, it was simply not acceptable or appropriate to publish a NOTAM for William Creek (and Marree) that changed the CTAF or 'pointed to' the FIR NOTAM. Not acceptable or appropriate. The pages and pages of other dross in FIR NOTAMS are fine. I'm assuming that one day the ADF FLIP will loom large as relevant info for civil aircraft. But a location-specific NOTAM to reduce the scope for known confusion? Not acceptable or appropriate. It's an airmanship issue.
Fortunately in the Lake Eyre area case the bureaucratic dinosaur eventually managed to change the CTAF frequency for William Creek (and Marree) in ERSA and mark the area on ERC.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 5th Apr 2017 at 23:48.
My final (?) comments on this one.
Your EFB not having the BAs on the "composite" chart is an issue and should be brought to their attention.
BAs have been in for many years (their introduction was proposed by AOPA), and I don't know if there are problems with them 10 years down the track to warrant an education campaign. If you are aware of specific problems, file a report or bring it up with your industry association.
Re William Creek. I'm aware of a situation some 6 (?) years ago unless its happened again since i.e. a BA established due sightseeing flights when Lake Eyre was in flood. There was fairly extensive education within SA at the time via reps @ RAPAC and the flying schools re frequency use.
The situation was complicated by the fact that 1) an FIA boundary went through Lake Eyre, and 2) Anna & William Creek were in the same CTAF. CASA had (and still do have) an issue with amending a CTAF frequency simply by issuing a NOTAM, because that creates a potential safety issue in addition to the one you are trying to address. If any pilot doesn't read that NOTAM you have a safety issue with aircraft being on different frequencies. CASA prefer to leave such changes until a chart release, hence it took a while to fully resolve.
Locations that NOTAMs are not issued for have always been problematic. The owners have no responsibility to issue NOTAMs and rely on pilots reading ERSA and contacting them. If a NOTAM was to be issued for a special reason, then there is the risk that pilots conducting future flights will assume there are no issues with the location when presented with NAIPS "No Current NOTAM". FIR NOTAM have to be read by all, hence information on such locations is usually issued as FIR.
Your EFB not having the BAs on the "composite" chart is an issue and should be brought to their attention.
BAs have been in for many years (their introduction was proposed by AOPA), and I don't know if there are problems with them 10 years down the track to warrant an education campaign. If you are aware of specific problems, file a report or bring it up with your industry association.
Re William Creek. I'm aware of a situation some 6 (?) years ago unless its happened again since i.e. a BA established due sightseeing flights when Lake Eyre was in flood. There was fairly extensive education within SA at the time via reps @ RAPAC and the flying schools re frequency use.
The situation was complicated by the fact that 1) an FIA boundary went through Lake Eyre, and 2) Anna & William Creek were in the same CTAF. CASA had (and still do have) an issue with amending a CTAF frequency simply by issuing a NOTAM, because that creates a potential safety issue in addition to the one you are trying to address. If any pilot doesn't read that NOTAM you have a safety issue with aircraft being on different frequencies. CASA prefer to leave such changes until a chart release, hence it took a while to fully resolve.
Locations that NOTAMs are not issued for have always been problematic. The owners have no responsibility to issue NOTAMs and rely on pilots reading ERSA and contacting them. If a NOTAM was to be issued for a special reason, then there is the risk that pilots conducting future flights will assume there are no issues with the location when presented with NAIPS "No Current NOTAM". FIR NOTAM have to be read by all, hence information on such locations is usually issued as FIR.
And regarding YPPD, there's plenty of info on the AFIS on the ERC Low and in ERSA to piqué one's interest if one was inclined to do so. ERSA even tells you the size of the BA for goodness sake.
For those of you who think the wishy-washy "in the vicinity" is better, the outcome at Mildura would have been different had there been a 20nm/8000ft Broadcast Area there. There would have been more time for the crew of the EJet to process the inbound call of the dive-bomber.
What has William Creek got to do with pilots not doing their homework and knowing that an AFIS exists at YPPD? Nevertheless, I was completely unaware of the William Creel issue but it appears that Midnight has explained it in an acceptable and appropriate manner.
YPPD AFIS has nothing to do with frequency confusion.
In that case, do your research! There's even a phone number for the AFIS!
For those of you who think the wishy-washy "in the vicinity" is better, the outcome at Mildura would have been different had there been a 20nm/8000ft Broadcast Area there. There would have been more time for the crew of the EJet to process the inbound call of the dive-bomber.
What has William Creek got to do with pilots not doing their homework and knowing that an AFIS exists at YPPD? Nevertheless, I was completely unaware of the William Creel issue but it appears that Midnight has explained it in an acceptable and appropriate manner.
We went through a similar silliness with the 'broadcast area' NOTAM for the Lake Eyre area
It's not the people who operate in and out of these places all the time that need to be constantly educated about the revival of this stuff, but the people who are going there for the first time or the first time for a long time.
I was suggesting that the Lake Eyre area and YPPD broadcast area education and regulatory system deficiencies were analogous, not identical.
If your response to my suggestion that those deficiencies exist in relation to broadcast areas is to say the problem is entirely one of my airmanship, that's fine. The risk of treating the problem in that way is all yours and your passengers down the back. Fortunately, for your passengers, the objective risks are so low that these misconceptions have no material effect.
I was wondering how long it would take for the assertion to be made that the outcome would have been different in the Mildura 'near miss' incident if there had been a broadcast area for Mildura. It's a mindset that assumes that a rule, once made, is:
(1) a rule universally known
(2) a rule universally understood, and
(3) a rule universally complied with.
I reckon that's why these 'broadcast areas' give people with that mindset the warm inner glow of 'safety'.
It's difficult to know how else to express my point rather than reiterate it. Best to put some more effort into educating pilots (and EFB suppliers) of the fact that the AFIZ has been resurrected, and what to do about it as a matter of practicality.
If your response to my suggestion that those deficiencies exist in relation to broadcast areas is to say the problem is entirely one of my airmanship, that's fine. The risk of treating the problem in that way is all yours and your passengers down the back. Fortunately, for your passengers, the objective risks are so low that these misconceptions have no material effect.
I was wondering how long it would take for the assertion to be made that the outcome would have been different in the Mildura 'near miss' incident if there had been a broadcast area for Mildura. It's a mindset that assumes that a rule, once made, is:
(1) a rule universally known
(2) a rule universally understood, and
(3) a rule universally complied with.
I reckon that's why these 'broadcast areas' give people with that mindset the warm inner glow of 'safety'.
It's difficult to know how else to express my point rather than reiterate it. Best to put some more effort into educating pilots (and EFB suppliers) of the fact that the AFIZ has been resurrected, and what to do about it as a matter of practicality.
I was wondering how long it would take for the assertion to be made that the outcome would have been different in the Mildura 'near miss' incident if there had been a broadcast area for Mildura.
But whatever you reckon. Let's all just go NOCOM and get the eyeballs out, hey?
Best to put some more effort into educating pilots (and EFB suppliers) of the fact that the AFIZ has been resurrected, and what to do about it as a matter of practicality.
I assume you have written to your EFB supplier about the William Creek issue?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 6th Apr 2017 at 05:14. Reason: Eyeballs!
Please slow down, take a deep breath and read what I've said.
The William Creek issue is now practically resolved, because the CTAF in ERSA has now been changed. The primary risk these days is pilots using 126.7 instead of the frequency published in ERSA.
If there was so much flippin' publicity, why is it that the EFB suppliers have not twigged to the idea that broadcast areas should be added to the 'composite' chart overlays?
Given your mindset, you just can't comprehend the fact that even in your warm and cosy broadcast area there could be aircraft on the wrong frequency, with the volume turned down or blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are in a broadcast area.
Let's not all just go NOCOM.
But please do "get the eyballs[sic] out".
I'm merely suggesting that there would be reduced risk of NOCOM aircraft in broadcast areas if there were better practical understanding of their existence.
The William Creek issue is now practically resolved, because the CTAF in ERSA has now been changed. The primary risk these days is pilots using 126.7 instead of the frequency published in ERSA.
If there was so much flippin' publicity, why is it that the EFB suppliers have not twigged to the idea that broadcast areas should be added to the 'composite' chart overlays?
Given your mindset, you just can't comprehend the fact that even in your warm and cosy broadcast area there could be aircraft on the wrong frequency, with the volume turned down or blissfully ignorant of the fact that they are in a broadcast area.
Let's all just go NOCOM and get the eyballs out, hey?
But please do "get the eyballs[sic] out".
I'm merely suggesting that there would be reduced risk of NOCOM aircraft in broadcast areas if there were better practical understanding of their existence.
Please slow down, take a deep breath and read what I've said.
If there was so much flippin' publicity, why is it that the EFB suppliers have not twigged to the idea that broadcast areas should be added to the 'composite' chart overlays?
So relax. There is no practical safety problem. I'm merely raising silly theoretical rather than real issues.
So some weekend warrior with a penchant for antiestablishment rhetoric tells us that he used some random program from back in the day to merge documents to tell him what to do as opposed to actually doing what a responsible pilot should and that shows that the Australian application and distribution of services is lacking?
No wonder you Terry Towling boys aren't taken seriously.
This **** head is just making it worse. Roflcopter picture goes here.
Minimum 4 rage posts to follow....... GO!!@
No wonder you Terry Towling boys aren't taken seriously.
This **** head is just making it worse. Roflcopter picture goes here.
Minimum 4 rage posts to follow....... GO!!@