Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

New Radio Procedures at/near Ballina - CASA

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

New Radio Procedures at/near Ballina - CASA

Old 30th Nov 2019, 07:17
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 86
We have moved this topic from Ballina to Remote Towers, so to revert to the subject of the post...............
Ballina is, like Wellcamp near Toowoomba, in a particularly difficult position from an air traffic control point of view.
It sits astride a well-worn aviation corridor sandwiched between Class C controlled airspace to the north, Class E above, and ADF R Area to the south. It also has retained an NDB which is used for IFR training and many VFR aircraft use the airspace to remain OCTA. It also has other airports using the CTAF plus private ALAs in proximity to them all.These combine to create a multi-use piece of airspace of far greater complexity than say Broome or Karratha. This is then exacerbated by scheduled passenger traffic, the protection of which is the primary role of CASA and Airservices.
Both have decided that the pilots of the public transport aircraft do not need any air traffic service (other than Airservices IFR traffic information in Class G airspace), deeming the risk to the passengers of the public transport aircraft to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), as required by the safety management systems they should be utilising.
There are a number of risk mitigators at CASA and Airservices disposal yet they choose to pick a non-ICAO compliant radio service which CASR regulations (CASR 172) states explicitly is NOT an air traffic service.
What else could they do?
1. Install surveillance, specifically SSR - this will detect all of the transponder/ADS-B equipped aircraft;
2. Control the IFR entry and departure tracks utilising either Class E or C airspace - either would do if there was surveillance;
3. Control Ballina aerodrome traffic with Class D airspace - this would capture everybody with a radio;
4. A combination of Class E and Class D - this would be the lowest risk option.
A cost/benefit analysis is then normally applied
I am not going to attempt that here, I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive?
Mr Approach is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2019, 10:12
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,528
Perhaps the solution is for VFR aircraft to get from Sydney to Brisbane via a VFR corridor via Alice Springs?
Sunfish is offline  
Old 30th Nov 2019, 12:10
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 822
We have moved this topic from Ballina to Remote Towers, so to revert to the subject of the post...............
Ballina is, like Wellcamp near Toowoomba, in a particularly difficult position from an air traffic control point of view.
It sits astride a well-worn aviation corridor sandwiched between Class C controlled airspace to the north, Class E above, and ADF R Area to the south. It also has retained an NDB which is used for IFR training and many VFR aircraft use the airspace to remain OCTA. It also has other airports using the CTAF plus private ALAs in proximity to them all.These combine to create a multi-use piece of airspace of far greater complexity than say Broome or Karratha. This is then exacerbated by scheduled passenger traffic, the protection of which is the primary role of CASA and Airservices.
Both have decided that the pilots of the public transport aircraft do not need any air traffic service (other than Airservices IFR traffic information in Class G airspace), deeming the risk to the passengers of the public transport aircraft to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), as required by the safety management systems they should be utilising.
There are a number of risk mitigators at CASA and Airservices disposal yet they choose to pick a non-ICAO compliant radio service which CASR regulations (CASR 172) states explicitly is NOT an air traffic service.
What else could they do?
1. Install surveillance, specifically SSR - this will detect all of the transponder/ADS-B equipped aircraft;
2. Control the IFR entry and departure tracks utilising either Class E or C airspace - either would do if there was surveillance;
3. Control Ballina aerodrome traffic with Class D airspace - this would capture everybody with a radio;
4. A combination of Class E and Class D - this would be the lowest risk option.
A cost/benefit analysis is then normally applied
I am not going to attempt that here, I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive?
Pretty much sums up Australian aviation agencies contempt for 'safety' processes. 1st world country, 3rd world infrastructure.
The name is Porter is online now  
Old 30th Nov 2019, 22:41
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,838
I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive?
Yes, it is too expensive.

CASA, Airservices, ATSB and governments won’t call it for what it is, but that doesn’t change what it is: affordable safety. (There is a twist to the concept in Australia, though: The concept of “affordable” is affected by politics.)

Airlines and their pilots make the decision, all day every day, that the risks of flying in and out of places like Ballina (and Mildura and Wagga and..) are “worth” taking. Nobody is making them take those risks.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2019, 02:30
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 86
Sorry, Lead, but affordable safety is only another term for a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you need to quote a ridiculous example to see what that means. For instance, close Ballina aerodrome, make everyone fly to the Gold Coast, then the problem goes away. Clearly that is silly because we can make Ballina much safer without closing it down - oh and incidentally not forcing holidaymakers to drive for an hour on the Pacific Highway - arguably a less safe practise than flying!
The issue here is that Airservices has a master plan, and it does not include any new non-ADSB surveillance or manned control towers. They are really not interested in providing services at places like Albury or Ballina because they do not make any money! Any service they do end up providing in such places is simply a spin-off from their main game which is making money for the Federal Government out of aviation or something the Department forces them to provide because otherwise it may embarrass the Minister and affect his/her chances of re-election (see current activity around Hobart for proof). Why else would the law forbid private enterprise from providing such services? As for CASA - just a rubber stamp working for the same department as Airservices; CASA's main game is administering AOCs.
Other countries with free-enterprise economies allow private sector air traffic services (ATS) where the private sector is best placed to provide such services. Why, for instance, is Sydney Airport not allowed to own the ILS although they own the runway lights? Why are they not allowed to build their own air traffic facilities and then tender the services out to specialist companies or even employ ATS staff them selves. Heathrow Airport does!
Funnily enough the Certified Air/Ground Services at Ballina and Ayers Rock are the closest we get to free-enterprise in our system - pity the company that provides the service is not allowed to operate control towers or even an Aerodrome Flight Information Service!
Mr Approach is offline  
Old 1st Dec 2019, 07:44
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,838
Sorry, Lead, but affordable safety is only another term for a cost/benefit analysis.
No need to apologise. I already knew that.
Sometimes you need to quote a ridiculous example to see what that means. For instance, close Ballina aerodrome, make everyone fly to the Gold Coast, then the problem goes away. Clearly that is silly because we can make Ballina much safer without closing it down - oh and incidentally not forcing holidaymakers to drive for an hour on the Pacific Highway - arguably a less safe practise than flying!
But hang on: What has CASA assessed as the probabilities of a mid-air collision involving an RPT aircraft at e.g. Ballina, and what price does CASA attribute to each of the lives involved?

Absent those numbers, the assessment is meaningless.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 01:03
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2016
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 86
Lead, your last questions expose the myth that is Australia airspace policy.
The last published assessment of Ballina airspace by the Office of Airspace Regulation, is 2015. In it they said that the airspace (Class G) was fit for purpose but recommended a CA/GRS (Class G with a directed non-ATS traffic service!).
Now, according to AIP Supp H140/19 that arrangement is no longer fit for purpose because four VFR pilots failed to make the transmissions required under CAR 166C. So CASA introduces a Broadcast Area (Still Class G with a directed non-ATS traffic service) which is not an airspace change, it is a radio procedure change that eliminates non-radio equipped aircraft.
The AIP SUPP however only requires that pilots (not aircraft they are machines) make a radio call when departing, entering or transiting the broadcast area. This is essentially identical to CAR166C minus the "if the pilot has a radio" part.
As I have written previously CASA has run out of mitigaters to reduce the risk at Ballina - the probabilities of a mid-air are addressed in the AIP SUPP by stating that the number of movements are unchanged at 13,000 but the number of air transport movements has decreased by 12.7% so the risk has in terms of likelihood has actually reduced!
Now I am not arguing that nothing needs to be done, there is clearly a problem, I am only arguing that CASA does not seem to have the balls to tell Airservices to install some surveillance or impose positive air traffic control over the airspace in order to safeguard the fare-paying passengers.
I would only add that if these separation issues are coming from the airlines flying into Ballina, as I suspect they are, they should think very hard about whether they need to risk their reputations by using this particular airport.
Mr Approach is offline  
Old 2nd Dec 2019, 01:56
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 2,838
The AIP SUPP however only requires that pilots (not aircraft they are machines) make a radio call when departing, entering or transiting the broadcast area. This is essentially identical to CAR166C minus the "if the pilot has a radio" part.
... and minus the “whenever it is reasonably necessary” part.

CAR 166C does not mandate the radio calls that are now mandated by the new instrument.

124.2 is going to get very ‘chatty’. You’ll be able to hear the increased safety (except from those suffering finger trouble...)
Lead Balloon is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.