Accident Near Mangalore Airport - Possibly 2 Aircraft down
Airservices is a Service Provider; they should never have had the function in the first place.
If there wasn't staffing (ATC or FIS), it really isn't too different from the CTAFs of today, except with a big wooden sign of "No NORDO allowed" out front.
Which I guess would explain why everyone hated it... No real benefit, and extra expense of a radio, all to then have to do everything yourself anyways
Isn’t the ultimate problem that the government instrumentalities won’t take responsibility for anything? Even the promulgation of rules regarding separation.
All I’m hearing is “it’s not AtC’s fault it’s not CASAS fault”! This sounds like a rehearsal for when a B737 collides with a C172.
The regulators are paralysed because they fear liability. Their directions are therefore not aimed at preventing you and me from colliding; they are directed at ensuring they can’t be blamed.
All I’m hearing is “it’s not AtC’s fault it’s not CASAS fault”! This sounds like a rehearsal for when a B737 collides with a C172.
The regulators are paralysed because they fear liability. Their directions are therefore not aimed at preventing you and me from colliding; they are directed at ensuring they can’t be blamed.
While I can't fully decode what was meant here because it's not quite written in English, the general idea is they are calling you a hypocrite. Probably something to do with the fact that you were calling someone out for telling you how good they are literally one post after you told everyone how good you were.
I was called out for saying I knew what I was talking about. Seems to be a bit of a problem in Australia. Saying in public that you might know a bit.
I then found it amusing, that after being chastised for you know, saying that I might know what I'm talking about, that the next batch of posts contained a statement that this poster, might know what he/she was talking about.
Considering the Canadian solution - get permission to enter the zone five minutes out, why couldnt we at least produce an upgraded, minimally intelligent AWIS - like box that can broadcast information on who is inbound, in circuit or outbound when polled by a transmission? Solar power, batteries, a software defined radio dongle and a raspberry Pi computer should be able to do it.
For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.
That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.
For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.
That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.
Considering the Canadian solution - get permission to enter the zone five minutes out, why couldnt we at least produce an upgraded, minimally intelligent AWIS - like box that can broadcast information on who is inbound, in circuit or outbound when polled by a transmission? Solar power, batteries, a software defined radio dongle and a raspberry Pi computer should be able to do it.
For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.
That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.
For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.
That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.
Arguably, worse, since now you have an extra computer voice talking whenever a new plane pipes up, with potentially wrong data.
I still think that the key part would be to add a VHF transmitter/receiver and a ADSB receiver that's linked to the AirServices systems. Should cost significantly less than a tower, while increasing the visibility of existing movements. That would also provide data, so at least decisions could be made on that basis, instead of estimates.
The full Canadian system would be nice, but, having seen how the Australian system works, I'm not sure it would get done anytime soon due to the minimum FIS staffing requirement. (Fun fact: where I was flying, there was up to 5 airports "controlled" by 1 FIS at quieter times. When it got busier, it was as few as 1 per airport)
I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.
As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?
It may come as a surprise to you, Cap’n, but just because it’s a public holiday where you are does not mean it’s a public holiday everywhere. I’m at my primary school desk practising my times tables (and lobbying for a reinstatement of AFIZs).
Yet Airservices did have the function. For a long time.
I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.
As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?
I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.
As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?
Class E to 1,200’.
There’s a reason for airspace designation having originally been done in Airservices and why moving it to CASA was not and is not a panacea.
Let’s take the option of reinstating the AFIZ system. CASA could do that with a stroke of a pen. Same with making various chunks of airspace around aerodromes E or D. But....
CASA’s stroke of a pen cannot create and fund the resources to deliver the required AFIS. Service provision - the ‘S’ in ‘AFIS’ - is up to an ANSP. Ditto ATC in E or D.
Accordingly, unless an ANSP is willing and able to and does provide the services necessary for the chunk of airspace designated by the regulator, the designation is practically meaningless. Either the designated airspace cannot be used because the required service is not provided, or the airspace reverts to good ‘ol G (or, more accurately, what Australia calls G).
So you can see the ostensibly compelling argument: Let Airservices designate airspace because, as a matter practicality, Airservices gets to decide whether or not the airspace gets ‘serviced’.
The purists - as you can see in this thread - say the regulator should designate airspace based upon objective risk and international standards. Quite so. Who’d argue with that? However, it follows either that: (1) the kind of risks to which passengers are exposed on RPT flights in and out of places like Mildura don’t justify anything other than Australian G, or (2) the regulator is too timid, for political reasons, to ‘upgrade’ the surrounding airspace.
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 2nd Mar 2020 at 08:58.
I'm not saying that AirServices will choose to do so, having seen the kind of bureaucratic wrangling that it takes to get anything done. But starting by putting a VHF/ADSB at the busier aerodromes (and redesignating airspace as E down to the ground in CZ when operational) at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction. What happens after is a matter of community engagement (badgering for a tower may not go anywhere; badgering for an AFIZ as a middle ground might) and ASA resourcing it appropriately.
I'm not saying it's not a pipe dream, based on what I've seen so far of the two agencies, but it's at least somewhat more achievable than some folks' demands of "towers, everywhere!"
If we're bringing back things, can we get the open cockpits mandated by regulation? The sound of the air rushing past (and the smell of exhaust) need to be a mandatory part of flying again!
But starting by putting a VHF/ADSB at the busier aerodromes (and redesignating airspace as E down to the ground in CZ when operational) at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction.
Originally Posted by Ballon
Alas, objectively sensible suggestions like that are laughably impracticable in the aviation Galapagos that is Australia.
Care to post a link to the inquiry into airspace arrangements to which I can make or could have made a submission, Cap’n?
