Ballina incident – be vigilant and keep a good lookout
Thread Starter
Ballina incident – be vigilant and keep a good lookout
All the proponents of “radio-arranged separation” on this site insist that we keep frequency boundaries on charts (which no other country has) so VFR pilots can talk to other aircraft rather than remain vigilant and look out. Despite this, it is clear that see and avoid is unbelievably important. See this Ballina incident report from the ATSB.
It was I who introduced the Civil Aviation Regulation 163A with the wording:
The Qantas pilots at the time totally rejected this and said it was impossible for them to keep a good lookout – because they said sometimes the workload in the cockpit was so high – so they attempted to get the Department at the time to change the wording to say see and avoid “where practicable”. This wasn’t accepted.
Of course it meant that Civil Air (the air traffic controllers’ union)before the change was made would not allow a simple traffic information for VFR aircraft in ‘controlled’ airspace (as it was called then) because they said that they could be held responsible if two aircraft collided. This was because the air traffic controllers were given a percentage of the responsibility for a mid-air collision involving a Navair aircraft that occurred in the Bankstown control zone on 13 March 1974.
All my early flying in my helicopter to the Darling Harbour helipad required full IFR type separation with other helicopters by Sydney approach. Pilots would sit on the ground for ten minutes whilst another helicopter came in. One day I remember holding for five minutes with two other helicopters at Hornsby so they could be let in at 3 mile separation intervals. It was totally ridiculous.
Eventually I was able to force through (yes, force) a change to the regulations which exist today. They are just common sense.
However there are still some who are completely obsessed with “radio-arranged separation”. I have been up in the cockpit with them. They spend most of their time looking down, writing down call signs, rather than actually looking out. They are no doubt the ones on the RAPAC who supported the reverse of the airspace design where frequency boundaries were put back on the charts and are now doing everything they can to keep them there.
Then again, one day, possibly after few brain transplants, we will be able to move to the international simpler system where the ICAO airspace classes are used as they are actually designed.
By the way, is it true that the air/ground at Ballina costs about $200,000 per year – draining that money out of our industry – whereas if we used the US system, the existing firies would provide the service (as they do at Steamboat Springs) for zero extra cost?
In 1991 I tried to bring in the US non-prescriptive UNICOM systems. They can give traffic information, weather, absolutely anything they want to that complies with common sense. It is a fantastic system at no cost. We still have troglodytes resisting change – their minds are set in concrete.
It was I who introduced the Civil Aviation Regulation 163A with the wording:
“When weather conditions permit, the flight crew of an aircraft must, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under the Instrument Flight Rules or Visual Flight Rules, maintain vigilance so as to see, and avoid, other aircraft."
Of course it meant that Civil Air (the air traffic controllers’ union)before the change was made would not allow a simple traffic information for VFR aircraft in ‘controlled’ airspace (as it was called then) because they said that they could be held responsible if two aircraft collided. This was because the air traffic controllers were given a percentage of the responsibility for a mid-air collision involving a Navair aircraft that occurred in the Bankstown control zone on 13 March 1974.
All my early flying in my helicopter to the Darling Harbour helipad required full IFR type separation with other helicopters by Sydney approach. Pilots would sit on the ground for ten minutes whilst another helicopter came in. One day I remember holding for five minutes with two other helicopters at Hornsby so they could be let in at 3 mile separation intervals. It was totally ridiculous.
Eventually I was able to force through (yes, force) a change to the regulations which exist today. They are just common sense.
However there are still some who are completely obsessed with “radio-arranged separation”. I have been up in the cockpit with them. They spend most of their time looking down, writing down call signs, rather than actually looking out. They are no doubt the ones on the RAPAC who supported the reverse of the airspace design where frequency boundaries were put back on the charts and are now doing everything they can to keep them there.
Then again, one day, possibly after few brain transplants, we will be able to move to the international simpler system where the ICAO airspace classes are used as they are actually designed.
By the way, is it true that the air/ground at Ballina costs about $200,000 per year – draining that money out of our industry – whereas if we used the US system, the existing firies would provide the service (as they do at Steamboat Springs) for zero extra cost?
In 1991 I tried to bring in the US non-prescriptive UNICOM systems. They can give traffic information, weather, absolutely anything they want to that complies with common sense. It is a fantastic system at no cost. We still have troglodytes resisting change – their minds are set in concrete.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 7th Sep 2018 at 05:41.
Dick, for God’s sake.
I suffered through your AMATS changes back in the 90’s and a perfectly good system got stuffed.
The premise of see and avoid in high performance aeroplanes is a nice idea but flawed. Small aeroplanes particularly are difficult to see from bigger aeroplanes, large multi crew aeroplanes are not easy aeroplanes to see out of with lots of metal that hide things outside the aircraft.
I don’t have an answer, but the big sky “wouldn’t hit in a fit” theory doesn’t work
I suffered through your AMATS changes back in the 90’s and a perfectly good system got stuffed.
The premise of see and avoid in high performance aeroplanes is a nice idea but flawed. Small aeroplanes particularly are difficult to see from bigger aeroplanes, large multi crew aeroplanes are not easy aeroplanes to see out of with lots of metal that hide things outside the aircraft.
I don’t have an answer, but the big sky “wouldn’t hit in a fit” theory doesn’t work
A few corrections:
I recall RAPAC were informed some years back that the Airservices firies including their union didn't want to provide UNICOM services anywhere, a function they weren't selected or hired for nor trained or paid to do.
All the proponents of “radio-arranged separation” on this site insist that we keep frequency boundaries on charts (which no other country has, because unlike Australia, they don't have Flight Information Areas in Class G airspace, in which ATC provide an Air Traffic Service) so IFR and VFR pilots can talk to other aircraft, rather than in addition to remaining vigilant and maintaining a look out. Despite this, It is clear that radio-alerted see and avoid is unbelievably important.
<snip>
By the way, is it true that the air/ground at Ballina costs about $200,000 per year – draining that money out of our industry – whereas if we used the US system, the existing firies would provide the service (as they do at Steamboat Springs) for zero extra cost?
<snip>
By the way, is it true that the air/ground at Ballina costs about $200,000 per year – draining that money out of our industry – whereas if we used the US system, the existing firies would provide the service (as they do at Steamboat Springs) for zero extra cost?
I would think the CA/GRS at Ballina costs a lot more than $200k. If you had your way Dick, the Firies wouldn't be there to do it either. It would be Sharon at reception (during business hours, exc Public Holidays and weekends), who is getting paid by someone, so there is a cost.
One has to question the logic of the chopper doing circuits, landing "two-thirds" down the runway. I suspect his final flight path would be very high relative to the 208 when checking final/lining up through their wing, and almost impossible to see.
Also, the CAGRO didn't pipe up when the 208 started to enter the runway? They are not ATC but that shouldn't stop them broadcasting a hazard if they see one developing.
Otherwise, hampster wheel...
Also, the CAGRO didn't pipe up when the 208 started to enter the runway? They are not ATC but that shouldn't stop them broadcasting a hazard if they see one developing.
Otherwise, hampster wheel...
Reading the report, I don't think the CA/GRO had time to broadcast anything. The 208's reply to his traffic advice was over transmitted by the traffic itself responding to the 208 entering the RWY. The 208 pilot acknowledged the traffic at the same time as entering the RWY. The incident had already occurred by the time the 208 pilot finished his transmission.
Thread Starter
Snakecharmer. You say that my AMATS changes stuffed up a perfectly good system.
Since those changes many hundreds of millions of dollars has been saved by our industry.
Despite claims made by some before the changes went ahead not one life has been lost that can be attributed to the changes.
More importantly for the first time pilots flying in radar covered uncontrolled airspace were allowed to communicate directly to the person with the radar screen.
Probably would have saved the lives of those on board MDX if the changes had been introduced earlier!
Yep. Let’s bring back the old system. Who needs radar.
Since those changes many hundreds of millions of dollars has been saved by our industry.
Despite claims made by some before the changes went ahead not one life has been lost that can be attributed to the changes.
More importantly for the first time pilots flying in radar covered uncontrolled airspace were allowed to communicate directly to the person with the radar screen.
Probably would have saved the lives of those on board MDX if the changes had been introduced earlier!
Yep. Let’s bring back the old system. Who needs radar.
I'm not saying it can't work. I'm saying it is not without cost. Why are there very few Unicoms now Dick? Disregarding the hard stuff like reliably reporting weather or traffic, if it was that easy, why doesn't every aerodrome have one so that you can book a taxi or order your lunch prior to arrival? Could it be that there is actually no one interested in doing it?
Dick, it would be interesting to see the forensic accounting of supposed savings, because I somehow doubt the “hundreds of millions” claim.
i am sure there were savings, and I am also sure you are right that no lives have been lost, but I suspect you will be correct until you aren’t.
It only takes one accident.
The reality is that no system is perfect, that people don’t like change and whatever anyone does will be wrong in the eyes of some people, and there are savings to be made, I am just not convinced the areas you chose with AMATS were the right ones.
i am sure there were savings, and I am also sure you are right that no lives have been lost, but I suspect you will be correct until you aren’t.
It only takes one accident.
The reality is that no system is perfect, that people don’t like change and whatever anyone does will be wrong in the eyes of some people, and there are savings to be made, I am just not convinced the areas you chose with AMATS were the right ones.
Last edited by Snakecharma; 9th Sep 2018 at 06:19.
Thread Starter
Traffic The reason the FAA non prescriptive Unicoms do not operate here is classic resistance to change.
I have made a few dollars and had success in three different businesses because I ask advice and copy the success of others.
We have Jet Airline aircraft flying into non tower airports in Australia using a “ calling in the blind - fail dangerous “ system.
FAA style Unicoms would solve that problem. We hardly have any CAGROs because of the law of affordable safety.
I have made a few dollars and had success in three different businesses because I ask advice and copy the success of others.
We have Jet Airline aircraft flying into non tower airports in Australia using a “ calling in the blind - fail dangerous “ system.
FAA style Unicoms would solve that problem. We hardly have any CAGROs because of the law of affordable safety.
And I'm saying who is going to provide the FAA-style Unicom, when they don't see any value in providing a much simpler one now? What is in it for them? While you keep insisting it is "no cost", ultimately the person providing the Unicom has to see a value in it, ie, a return on investment, or they will not waste the resources. There is obviously very little return, so that justifies the lack of provision. It is not worth the cost (note - cost, not no cost).
How? Would it be mandated that the Unicom be manned prior to and after the arrival and departure of the jet? Wonder what that will cost? Ah that's right, it's no cost. I forgot. Will they have to have appropriately licensed operators and equipment to transmit in the Aviation Band. Wonder what that will cost? Ah that's right, it's no cost. I forgot. Doesn't sound so simple now. What if Joe the refueller is out checking the filters on the truck and misses a taxi call? Is the traffic he then provides complete, or is there always a question mark over it? If it's just about the jets, then what about a Unicom for everyone else, or aren't they important enough? Who oversees the Unicom operator? How does anyone know he/she knows what they are talking about? What is the application and vetting process? Wonder what that will cost? Ah that's right, it's no cost. I forgot. Someone giving wrong information is more dangerous than getting no information. Will CASA come and take their "approval" off them if they stuff up? Will CASA undertake random assessments to ensure safety is not being compromised by allowing anyone with a pulse to get on the radio? It sounds like the operators better have some insurance in case they bugger up. Wonder what that will cost? Ah that's right, it's no cost. I forgot.
Maybe it's because we don't actually need that many.
FAA style Unicoms would solve that problem.
We hardly have any CAGROs because of the law of affordable safety.
Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 9th Sep 2018 at 10:04.
Dick, there weren’t 3000 FSO’s so clearly there were other areas of the operation where reductions were made.
Given it was unlikely that all 3000 were sitting there twiddling their thumbs, and just as unlikely that all 7000 of the then CAA staff members were completely under utilised, then someone else needed to do at least some of the work those “redundant” people were doing. So there is a fair chance that much of the non FSO work was farmed out to others, such as contractors etc, who were unlikely to be prepared to do it for nothing, so therefore had to be paid. Granted they were no longer employees and granted there looked to be savings, but how much of those savings were merely money being moved from one bucket to another?
It is a fairly common corporate strategy to “re-align” or “restructure” business units to make them “leaner and more efficient” - I can think of one airline that congratulated itself for reducing costs and complexity by removing a fleet from service (at great expense) only to subcontract the flying to a third party, who strangely, made more profit than the operator itself, on paper looks clever but at the end of the day someone needs to make a profit and if the work is being shopped to a third party so they can make a profit it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense.
A long winded parallel, but the fact is that it would be highly unlikely that the removal of 3000 people would not result in a reduction of the service provided (which it did). So those services which would no longer be provided by the CAA/ASA must be provided by someone else, at a cost and supposedly at a profit to the new provider.
So let’s not kid ourselves that there were hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result of the changes, because I seriously doubt that there was, but what there was a significant reduction in the services provided to the aviation industry and more directly to the services provided to pilots in this country.
Finally, how many of the 3000 were employees transferred to CASA when it was devolved from the CAA, just after the AMATS changes? Because that sure as **** has not been a cost saving venture!
Given it was unlikely that all 3000 were sitting there twiddling their thumbs, and just as unlikely that all 7000 of the then CAA staff members were completely under utilised, then someone else needed to do at least some of the work those “redundant” people were doing. So there is a fair chance that much of the non FSO work was farmed out to others, such as contractors etc, who were unlikely to be prepared to do it for nothing, so therefore had to be paid. Granted they were no longer employees and granted there looked to be savings, but how much of those savings were merely money being moved from one bucket to another?
It is a fairly common corporate strategy to “re-align” or “restructure” business units to make them “leaner and more efficient” - I can think of one airline that congratulated itself for reducing costs and complexity by removing a fleet from service (at great expense) only to subcontract the flying to a third party, who strangely, made more profit than the operator itself, on paper looks clever but at the end of the day someone needs to make a profit and if the work is being shopped to a third party so they can make a profit it doesn’t make a huge amount of sense.
A long winded parallel, but the fact is that it would be highly unlikely that the removal of 3000 people would not result in a reduction of the service provided (which it did). So those services which would no longer be provided by the CAA/ASA must be provided by someone else, at a cost and supposedly at a profit to the new provider.
So let’s not kid ourselves that there were hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result of the changes, because I seriously doubt that there was, but what there was a significant reduction in the services provided to the aviation industry and more directly to the services provided to pilots in this country.
Finally, how many of the 3000 were employees transferred to CASA when it was devolved from the CAA, just after the AMATS changes? Because that sure as **** has not been a cost saving venture!
Last edited by Snakecharma; 9th Sep 2018 at 14:07.
So let’s not kid ourselves that there were hundreds of millions of dollars as a direct result of the changes, because I seriously doubt that there was, but what there was a significant reduction in the services provided to the aviation industry and more directly to the services provided to pilots in this country.
Finally, how many of the 3000 were employees transferred to CASA when it was devolved from the CAA, just after the AMATS changes? Because that sure as **** has not been a cost saving venture!
ASA Annual Report Year Ended 30 June 1998
Payments to Suppliers/Employees $512M
ASA Annual Report Year Ended 30 June 2002
Payments to Employees $299M
Payments to Suppliers $96M
I note CASA dont publish a 1998 report online, but looking at 2002 their employee costs went from $54M the year before to $64M that year. Clearly there were significant savings made, alhough its hard to break out costs when its mixed with supplier costs which would have increased as TAATS etc was being implemented.
Markis10: In the 1998 report, payments to employees is separated out in note 2 to the financials (on p103) as Staff Remuneration 336m (prev year 339), additional remun due deferral Airspace 2000 4m, and separation and redundo 8m (prev year 8m).
In the 1999 report (p51), staff remun 316m, early separations 4m.
Hint. In each pdf report do a word search on the phrase 'staff remuneration'.
In the 1999 report (p51), staff remun 316m, early separations 4m.
Hint. In each pdf report do a word search on the phrase 'staff remuneration'.
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Bradd
Age: 62
Posts: 159
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With all due respect to Dick, and I mean that. It's a bit disingenuous to claim all the staff costs savings as savings to industry, This was all part of the big wind down of government involvement in aviation which included many hundreds of tech experts who maintained things like lights and Vasis and district airport Inspectors who carried out surveillance and aerodrome approach surveys, and regional airport firies who carried out runway inspections.These positions were lost to the ASA balance sheet, but the work still had to be done. Many local governments soon found that the 'chalice' of a free airport was a little poisoned, as they had to acquire and pay the expertise to carry out these functions. And unlike the FAA, in Oz this wasn't underwritten by the Feds any more. So the charges were passed on to users with much continuing gnashing of teeth, and ASA was reduced to the point where I think they now have 2 radio techs and one liney left. But I think one of the radio techs might be leaving.
Markis10, a non verbose reply to your post.
Who exactly did/does the work no longer done by employees who were separated from what was then the CAA? Obviously the flight service officers were removed, but lots of other category staff were removed - as I said there weren’t 3000 FSO’s.
A simple fact check, as you so politely put it, should reveal the answer.
Someone is still doing the work (as fieldmouse has suggested) but they have simply been removed from the CAA/ASA balance sheet. I am reasonably confident they aren’t doing it for free.
Who exactly did/does the work no longer done by employees who were separated from what was then the CAA? Obviously the flight service officers were removed, but lots of other category staff were removed - as I said there weren’t 3000 FSO’s.
A simple fact check, as you so politely put it, should reveal the answer.
Someone is still doing the work (as fieldmouse has suggested) but they have simply been removed from the CAA/ASA balance sheet. I am reasonably confident they aren’t doing it for free.
Airmanship. Anyone remember that? The first consideration of airmanship is LOOKOUT., then 0listen and talk.
I've watched experienced pilots cover the windscreen with newspaper. (Pigmentation issues), reading books, etc. "VFR on instruments" is another concern.
We owe it to our passengers, ourselves and others to do our best, when able. Most of us could have done better, in the past if we're honest.
I've watched experienced pilots cover the windscreen with newspaper. (Pigmentation issues), reading books, etc. "VFR on instruments" is another concern.
We owe it to our passengers, ourselves and others to do our best, when able. Most of us could have done better, in the past if we're honest.
Pottering about, as you do, I just found that Ballina had, wait for it, 509,579 RPT pax movements in 2017, after a steady upwards trajectory for the last 7 years. The Class D tower review criteria is... 350,000 (that number of pax was passed in 2012).
Where's the tower, Dick?
PS Arr, yes, the old Steamboat Springs, where the Firies run the Unicom. Let's have a look:
https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSBS
Not one RPT movement, let alone a jet, all bugsmashers, most based on the field. Great comparison for Ballina not.
Where's the tower, Dick?
PS Arr, yes, the old Steamboat Springs, where the Firies run the Unicom. Let's have a look:
https://www.airnav.com/airport/KSBS
Not one RPT movement, let alone a jet, all bugsmashers, most based on the field. Great comparison for Ballina not.