Ballina incident – be vigilant and keep a good lookout
Bloggsie,
Indeed, where is the tower??
If the establishment criteria have long since been "established"??
The way I read it, Dick supports a Class D tower where one is needed, are you suggesting otherwise.
Have you, perhaps, considered that the airline operators through Ballina have lobbied long, hard and successfully to avoid the cost recovery implications of a tower.
I still wonder, to this day, if you and your mates understand the risk management basis of ICAO (or FAA -- fundamentally the same, as ICAO SARPS were are based on US demonstrated successful practices and procedures) of G through A airspace ---- the separation assurance criteria is the SAME in each "class" of airspace.
And, as for the so called "precautionary principle" --- that nonsense is the very antithesis of rational risk management ---- as the development of the law (both legislation and case law) since the "Gibbs" decision on "duty of care" illustrates --- a pity certain pilot group's and ATC equivalent thinking has not progress in the same logical way.
Tootle pip!!
Indeed, where is the tower??
If the establishment criteria have long since been "established"??
The way I read it, Dick supports a Class D tower where one is needed, are you suggesting otherwise.
Have you, perhaps, considered that the airline operators through Ballina have lobbied long, hard and successfully to avoid the cost recovery implications of a tower.
I still wonder, to this day, if you and your mates understand the risk management basis of ICAO (or FAA -- fundamentally the same, as ICAO SARPS were are based on US demonstrated successful practices and procedures) of G through A airspace ---- the separation assurance criteria is the SAME in each "class" of airspace.
And, as for the so called "precautionary principle" --- that nonsense is the very antithesis of rational risk management ---- as the development of the law (both legislation and case law) since the "Gibbs" decision on "duty of care" illustrates --- a pity certain pilot group's and ATC equivalent thinking has not progress in the same logical way.
Tootle pip!!
Rumours are that Airservices is looking at the feasibility of Ballina being Australia’s first digital tower and that the CEO is finished with constructing expensive vertical concrete towers.
Europe’s now rolling them out.
First Digital Tower in UK Commissioned
Seems the ATC ‘s can be put in a cheap windowless box somewhere and timeshare their attention across multiple digital tower airports based on demand of movements.
Thoughts?
Europe’s now rolling them out.
First Digital Tower in UK Commissioned
Seems the ATC ‘s can be put in a cheap windowless box somewhere and timeshare their attention across multiple digital tower airports based on demand of movements.
Thoughts?
Leddie you old ideologue. 
Err, he's been all for the firies running the Unicom as the panacea of all Ballina's ills. Surely a man of his stature would have come to that position in the full knowledge of the actual number of movements vs what the criteria for a tower is? After all, he was the boss of the CAA for a while!
Why would they care? Chuck another $2 onto each ticket; "problem" solved. You think safety is costly... yes, you knew that already. Sorry.
So the risk at say Longreach is the same as at Ballina. Of course. Ideological nonsense that relies on one critical thing: that the number of aircraft in the airspace are appropriate to the classification. Nice in theory but it doesn't work that way. Ballina/Control Towers are a case in point. The risk goes up and up until the airspace is recategorised, then the risk goes back down. If the airspace is allocated correctly, then the risk will be the same. Alphabet airspace is all nonsense anyway; once you get to Class D, what effective difference is there? All aircraft are known and need a clearance. The farce is highlighted by the current AsA gnashing of teeth over the bottom of Class A and C. Seriously, who cares if VFR can go up to FL990? They need a clearance and a transponder anyway, so what does it matter what the airspace is called?
Duty of Care? I would have thought over-service ie Class D vs under-service CTAF/CAGRO would be the order of the day...
The way I read it, Dick supports a Class D tower where one is needed, are you suggesting otherwise.
Have you, perhaps, considered that the airline operators through Ballina have lobbied long, hard and successfully to avoid the cost recovery implications of a tower.
I still wonder, to this day, if you and your mates understand the risk management basis of ICAO (or FAA -- fundamentally the same, as ICAO SARPS were are based on US demonstrated successful practices and procedures) of G through A airspace ---- the separation assurance criteria is the SAME in each "class" of airspace.
Duty of Care? I would have thought over-service ie Class D vs under-service CTAF/CAGRO would be the order of the day...
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 4th Feb 2019 at 00:05. Reason: Typo
That's why they put the Firies in there first 
Digital Firies can go in everywhere else now. And virtual water is great in such a dry continent. Of course it's fire suppression characteristics are not as good as actually being there, but think of the savings!
Digital Firies can go in everywhere else now. And virtual water is great in such a dry continent. Of course it's fire suppression characteristics are not as good as actually being there, but think of the savings!
Leddie you old ideologue.
Err, he's been all for the firies running the Unicom as the panacea of all Ballina's ills. Surely a man of his stature would have come to that position in the full knowledge of the actual number of movements vs what the criteria for a tower is? After all, he was the boss of the CAA for a while!
But not as a substitute for a Class D tower, if the establishment criteria has been "established.
Why would they care? Chuck another $2 onto each ticket; "problem" solved. You think safety is costly... yes, you knew that already. Sorry.
No, I don't "know" that, but I do know the ferocious lobbying to reduce Airservices charges at every level.
The risk goes up and up until the airspace is recategorised, then the risk goes back down.
But always remains below the separation assurance level !!! BUT YOUR MOB DON'T ACCEPT THAT!!
If the airspace is allocated correctly, then the risk will be the same.
And if you manage your aeroplane, you minimise the risk of plowing into at hill, landing short, staying on the runway etc., etc. Of course it depend on doing it properly!!
Alphabet airspace is all nonsense anyway; once you get to Class D, what effective difference is there? All aircraft are known and need a clearance.
Not in E and F, if it follows ICAO SARPs, remember apart from a few major Class Bs and C or D towers, most US low level airspace is Class E --- and it works.
The farce is highlighted by the current AsA gnashing of teeth over the bottom of Class A and C. Seriously, who cares if VFR can go up to FL990? They need a clearance and a transponder anyway, so what doesn't it matter what the airspace is called?
That I agree with, it is the AsA "Safety Management System" that is a farce, when in both cases, the assessed separation assurance criteria is "vanishingly small", and if it is anything like the last time I was directly involved, several orders of magnitude below the ICAO criteria ---- arguing that one zero is lower/less than/ "safer" than another zero.
.
Err, he's been all for the firies running the Unicom as the panacea of all Ballina's ills. Surely a man of his stature would have come to that position in the full knowledge of the actual number of movements vs what the criteria for a tower is? After all, he was the boss of the CAA for a while!
But not as a substitute for a Class D tower, if the establishment criteria has been "established.
Why would they care? Chuck another $2 onto each ticket; "problem" solved. You think safety is costly... yes, you knew that already. Sorry.
No, I don't "know" that, but I do know the ferocious lobbying to reduce Airservices charges at every level.
The risk goes up and up until the airspace is recategorised, then the risk goes back down.
But always remains below the separation assurance level !!! BUT YOUR MOB DON'T ACCEPT THAT!!
If the airspace is allocated correctly, then the risk will be the same.
And if you manage your aeroplane, you minimise the risk of plowing into at hill, landing short, staying on the runway etc., etc. Of course it depend on doing it properly!!
Alphabet airspace is all nonsense anyway; once you get to Class D, what effective difference is there? All aircraft are known and need a clearance.
Not in E and F, if it follows ICAO SARPs, remember apart from a few major Class Bs and C or D towers, most US low level airspace is Class E --- and it works.
The farce is highlighted by the current AsA gnashing of teeth over the bottom of Class A and C. Seriously, who cares if VFR can go up to FL990? They need a clearance and a transponder anyway, so what doesn't it matter what the airspace is called?
That I agree with, it is the AsA "Safety Management System" that is a farce, when in both cases, the assessed separation assurance criteria is "vanishingly small", and if it is anything like the last time I was directly involved, several orders of magnitude below the ICAO criteria ---- arguing that one zero is lower/less than/ "safer" than another zero.
.
The only reason I have used red is to highlite, I am not "seeing red".
Tootle pip!!
Would you like to justify the above assertion with a risk management justification, cost/benefit included.
I will admit that the then Australian practice of IFR and VFR flying at the same altitudes/levels greatly increased the collision risk.
Then explain why ICAO/US/CA/most of the rest of the world have got it wrong, and Australia pre-AMATS was the only soldier in the battalion in step??
Tootle pip!!
Regular into Ballina. GA. Bit of respect to the guys that do Ballina. More than firies with a radio. Very professional. ex ATC . I think the system there works very well considering the mix of aircraft enjoying this beautiful part of the world. Only criticism I have heard is they relay traffic info too often to every aircraft entering but that's just the system and the ctaf freq is shared with 4 other airfields so that doesn't help. But as for Ballina radio operators..fantastic imo. We can be a negative lot sometimes . ASIC card ridiculousness on the other hand...
Last edited by extralite; 3rd Feb 2019 at 03:18.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
tio540,
Would you like to justify the above assertion with a risk management justification, cost/benefit included.
I will admit that the then Australian practice of IFR and VFR flying at the same altitudes/levels greatly increased the collision risk.
Then explain why ICAO/US/CA/most of the rest of the world have got it wrong, and Australia pre-AMATS was the only soldier in the battalion in step??
Tootle pip!!
Would you like to justify the above assertion with a risk management justification, cost/benefit included.
I will admit that the then Australian practice of IFR and VFR flying at the same altitudes/levels greatly increased the collision risk.
Then explain why ICAO/US/CA/most of the rest of the world have got it wrong, and Australia pre-AMATS was the only soldier in the battalion in step??
Tootle pip!!
Are you familiar with the term, quadrantal?
