New Radio Procedures at/near Ballina - CASA
You’re sounding dangerously factual and objective, extralite.
The instrument mandates more talk on the radio. That’ll save everyone from the “indulgees doing their thing in a light aircraft”.
The instrument mandates more talk on the radio. That’ll save everyone from the “indulgees doing their thing in a light aircraft”.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This matter was discussed at length at the relevant RAPAC's. As it was presented the issue was aircraft operating coastal in the vicinity of the RPT flight paths and not talking at all on the CTAF. The solution is what you now see. And yes, MBZ's were discussed!
Ah, so it seems some of the indulgees doing their own thing in light aircraft may have decided, on hearing reports from RPT aircraft, to manoeuvre so as to avoid the flight paths of those aircraft but not blab on the radio about it. Or maybe the indulgees doing their own thing in light aircraft were on the wrong frequency or had some other finger trouble. Either way, this could only be of concern to the RPT pilots if they were aware of the existence and location of the indulgees doing their own thing. I wonder how that could be possible, in the absence of blabbing on the radio...
And mandating more blabbing won’t fix wrong frequency selection or other finger trouble.
I do hope that pilots of RPT aircraft operating in and out of aerodromes in G take seriously the threat of indulgees doing their own thing in light aircraft on the wrong frequency or having some other finger trouble.
And mandating more blabbing won’t fix wrong frequency selection or other finger trouble.
I do hope that pilots of RPT aircraft operating in and out of aerodromes in G take seriously the threat of indulgees doing their own thing in light aircraft on the wrong frequency or having some other finger trouble.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 26th Nov 2019 at 21:16.
IMO the CA/GRS model at Ballina is fundamentally flawed because it is not an air traffic service (ATS). If it was then Federal law (CASR Part 172) states it can only be provided by the Federal Government agency Airservices Australia. (Why?) Airservices is a prohibitively expensive agency because it has to support a Canberra bureaucracy, everything else required by ICAO, expensive ATS systems and provide a dividend to the Federal Treasury. (Is that why?) Therefore to fill the gap someone in CASA many years ago dreamt up the Certified Air Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS). Used sporadically for air displays at Avalon and in other places before it settled down to only one service at Ayers Rock; however this is not an ICAO-compliant service. An Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS), such as Port Hedland, and used elsewhere in Australia for many years as referred to in these posts, is ICAO-compliant, but it is an air traffic service so can only be provided by the previously mentioned very expensive Federal agency, Airservices. The fundamental difference between the CA/GRS and the AFIS is that the latter is integrated with Airservices other ATS units such as Melbourne and Brisbane Centres hence the duplication of traffic information is eliminated.
The CA/GRS is an aerodrome radio service under CASR Part 139, supplied by the airport, and therefore ignored by Airservices. This results in regulations that require pilots to communicate with each other on the CTAF, and if IFR, Airservices on the area frequency. The radio operator (CA/GRO) then attempts to give the same traffic to pilots as they are providing to each other, but directed, and at the same time radar controllers in Brisbane are also passing the IFR pilots IFR traffic and any VFR traffic they see on their displays (growing in number as more VFR aircraft fit ADS-B). The result is frequency congestion and triplicated traffic information. At Ayers Rock two elements present at Ballina do not exist; moderately high volumes of VFR traffic not actually operating at the primary airport but close enough to be traffic, and low level surveillance coverage. (Now also changing at Ayers Rock due the proliferation of VFR ADS-B equipment) so at Ayers Rock for the moment, the CA/GRS model seems to work. No-one in CASA will accept the argument that CA/GRS does not work in a busy environment because Australia does not have a low-cost alternative to Airservices Air Traffic Control (ATC) and therefore politically they have to pretend it works!
Other more sophisticated aviation nations have faced this dilemma but I will use the US because it resembles more closely the Australian wide-open spaces experience. There the FAA authorises non-government organisations to operate control towers, the so-called VFR Towers. Their job is to handle precisely the kind of issues that occur at Ballina while the local FAA ATC Centre looks after the IFR traffic. According to FAA statistics over 60% of the controllers are retirees from the FAA system, happy to have lower paying job in a less stressful environment.
Ballina could have such a Tower, however the Airservices model would need to replicate the Alice Springs/Hobart/Albury etc model which requires a procedural approach controller in the Tower. This increases the cost of everything - more equipment, more staff, more coordination. The only places Airservices does not do this is at the capital city GA airports that operate very much like VFR Towers.
All Ballina needs is someone in a glass box on stilts with a radio who can organise the local traffic so that pilots do not have to discuss separation with each other, maximise runway usage, and can ensure that itinerant RPT aircraft can operate safely into and out of the circuit area. This is what US VFR Towers do and we can do the same.
The CA/GRS is an aerodrome radio service under CASR Part 139, supplied by the airport, and therefore ignored by Airservices. This results in regulations that require pilots to communicate with each other on the CTAF, and if IFR, Airservices on the area frequency. The radio operator (CA/GRO) then attempts to give the same traffic to pilots as they are providing to each other, but directed, and at the same time radar controllers in Brisbane are also passing the IFR pilots IFR traffic and any VFR traffic they see on their displays (growing in number as more VFR aircraft fit ADS-B). The result is frequency congestion and triplicated traffic information. At Ayers Rock two elements present at Ballina do not exist; moderately high volumes of VFR traffic not actually operating at the primary airport but close enough to be traffic, and low level surveillance coverage. (Now also changing at Ayers Rock due the proliferation of VFR ADS-B equipment) so at Ayers Rock for the moment, the CA/GRS model seems to work. No-one in CASA will accept the argument that CA/GRS does not work in a busy environment because Australia does not have a low-cost alternative to Airservices Air Traffic Control (ATC) and therefore politically they have to pretend it works!
Other more sophisticated aviation nations have faced this dilemma but I will use the US because it resembles more closely the Australian wide-open spaces experience. There the FAA authorises non-government organisations to operate control towers, the so-called VFR Towers. Their job is to handle precisely the kind of issues that occur at Ballina while the local FAA ATC Centre looks after the IFR traffic. According to FAA statistics over 60% of the controllers are retirees from the FAA system, happy to have lower paying job in a less stressful environment.
Ballina could have such a Tower, however the Airservices model would need to replicate the Alice Springs/Hobart/Albury etc model which requires a procedural approach controller in the Tower. This increases the cost of everything - more equipment, more staff, more coordination. The only places Airservices does not do this is at the capital city GA airports that operate very much like VFR Towers.
All Ballina needs is someone in a glass box on stilts with a radio who can organise the local traffic so that pilots do not have to discuss separation with each other, maximise runway usage, and can ensure that itinerant RPT aircraft can operate safely into and out of the circuit area. This is what US VFR Towers do and we can do the same.
Yet another dangerously factual and objective post!
I’m fast coming to the view that you don’t ‘get’ irony, Cap’n. In case you don’t, my posts support - not snipe at - those of Mr Approach and extralite. And why would anyone be bothered with my posts if they have no substance?
I’m loving the new label “indulgee doing their thing in a light aircraft”. (Thanks to The Banjo.). Combined with ‘lowest common denominator’, we’re finally getting to the source of the problem. It’s those self-indulgent, inexperienced individuals who presume to be in uncontrolled airspace, causing concern and inconvenience to the Cap’n Bloggses of the world.
And remind me why you’re prepared to fly in and out of aerodromes in Class G, but you don’t like E over D?
I’m loving the new label “indulgee doing their thing in a light aircraft”. (Thanks to The Banjo.). Combined with ‘lowest common denominator’, we’re finally getting to the source of the problem. It’s those self-indulgent, inexperienced individuals who presume to be in uncontrolled airspace, causing concern and inconvenience to the Cap’n Bloggses of the world.
And remind me why you’re prepared to fly in and out of aerodromes in Class G, but you don’t like E over D?
You would be wrong. In fairness to the Cap’n, his happiness with sharing depends on the class of airspace, the rules for its use and the ATS provided therein.
At the risk of being accused of sniping, I’d estimate a few years and a couple of $million to get the regulatory approvals to implement ‘remote’ ATC at an aerodrome in Australia.
Regulation? I think you are clutching at straws with that argument, LB. The argument is a technical adaptation to fit the regulation. Video is just another data stream alongside audio and ADS-B. Granted, the CASA just love to be prescriptive down to what colour map is current. BUT, a manned tower is a cost in manpower and facilities to accommodate that manpower. A room full of ten or twenty remote twr stations in ML and BN is no different to a room full of TAAATS consoles, technologically speaking. Time will tell if technology wins again. however, if you are arguing about CASA and AirServices penchant for re-inventing the wheel then..how long is a piece of string?
Who knows how long that piece of string is. And my hope is that it would be very short and cheap. But who’d be naive enough to bet money on that, versus disappearing into the aviation ‘Hall Of Doom’?
Saw these guys at AV back in 2011. As more and more hulls become ADS-B, would this idea's time have finally come?
Since we’re now dealing with people who understand the fine nuances of the different things Airservices does, are you suggesting that there is any prospect - let’s say this side of the year 2030 - of a remote control tower capability being installed at a place like Ballina? This side of the year 2030?
It’s a very simple and precise question.
(And just to be clear: I reckon it would be great if it happened!)
It’s a very simple and precise question.
(And just to be clear: I reckon it would be great if it happened!)
I agree that remote tower technology will become the normal, however like Lead Balloon I have not seen much progress. Örnsköldsvik Airport, controlled from the LFV Remote Tower Centre 123 km (76 mi) away in Sundsvall, opened in 2015, that was nearly five years ago. Airservices later trialled the technology at Alice Springs, remoted back to Melbourne, but then nothing!
Currently the Airservices web site tells us they have let a contract for Sydney Airport, I believe this may be to replicate the Heathrow contingency plan whereby the Heathrow Tower simulator can take over some 80% of the workload if the ATC Tower becomes unusable. (Not covered by any civil aviation regulations in Australia so regulatory approval will be interesting) Other wise there has been talk of replacing Canberra and Essendon with remote towers because the current ones need to be moved. There has also been speculation about Ballina - but is a presently uncontrolled airport a good place to start trials of remote tower technology?
The issue with remote towers is that they are just that. Exactly what you have now from a manned tower, but delivered from a remote location. The saving is purely in the cost of the building - a steel column capable of supporting a person or a steel column capable of supporting some cameras. (Very expensive cameras, by the way, and did I mention the high bandwidth/low latency data connection? Oh yes, the NBN!). Are there any other cost savings? Not in my opinon, until you can control more than one airport (as demonstrated in the video above), and that is a human factors nightmare unless the airports are very simple and have very low traffic levels. In Australia if airports are simple with very low traffic levels, unlike Sweden, we let RPT jets operate without restrictions with a CTAF and CAR 166E. (Except Ballina where apparently CAR 166E does not operate!)
So the chances of a remote tower at Ballina are just that, remote. And if there was one built tomorrow, under the Airservices airspace methodology it would have to include a procedural approach controller - Wow, I did not see that in the video!
My view of remote tower technology is that a lot of the technology will find it's way into the current ATC towers, that Airservices will try to use it where they need to build new Towers for other reasons, Canberra, Essendon, Sunshine Coast, but it is still too expensive for low traffic regional airports that proliferate in Australia. But I guess we will see.....
Currently the Airservices web site tells us they have let a contract for Sydney Airport, I believe this may be to replicate the Heathrow contingency plan whereby the Heathrow Tower simulator can take over some 80% of the workload if the ATC Tower becomes unusable. (Not covered by any civil aviation regulations in Australia so regulatory approval will be interesting) Other wise there has been talk of replacing Canberra and Essendon with remote towers because the current ones need to be moved. There has also been speculation about Ballina - but is a presently uncontrolled airport a good place to start trials of remote tower technology?
The issue with remote towers is that they are just that. Exactly what you have now from a manned tower, but delivered from a remote location. The saving is purely in the cost of the building - a steel column capable of supporting a person or a steel column capable of supporting some cameras. (Very expensive cameras, by the way, and did I mention the high bandwidth/low latency data connection? Oh yes, the NBN!). Are there any other cost savings? Not in my opinon, until you can control more than one airport (as demonstrated in the video above), and that is a human factors nightmare unless the airports are very simple and have very low traffic levels. In Australia if airports are simple with very low traffic levels, unlike Sweden, we let RPT jets operate without restrictions with a CTAF and CAR 166E. (Except Ballina where apparently CAR 166E does not operate!)
So the chances of a remote tower at Ballina are just that, remote. And if there was one built tomorrow, under the Airservices airspace methodology it would have to include a procedural approach controller - Wow, I did not see that in the video!
My view of remote tower technology is that a lot of the technology will find it's way into the current ATC towers, that Airservices will try to use it where they need to build new Towers for other reasons, Canberra, Essendon, Sunshine Coast, but it is still too expensive for low traffic regional airports that proliferate in Australia. But I guess we will see.....
Adelaide OK - doesn't exist anymore - all but the Tower moved to Melbourne - so trial will need to be repeated!
Talking of trials watch this little video and ask yourself where this research is going on in Australia, or if Airservices is even capable of such sophistication!
Talking of trials watch this little video and ask yourself where this research is going on in Australia, or if Airservices is even capable of such sophistication!
Just to help with some understanding where the regs may head. EASA page on Remote Control Towers. It would appear a lot of the installations are as backups to the manned tower.