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

BNA/MNG SFIS info

Old 2nd Jul 2021, 05:14
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 19
Bring back Flight Service I say!
It used to work well.
Mind you that was before the advent of glass cockpits and limited aviation English!
RG
Roger Gove is offline  
Old 2nd Jul 2021, 06:38
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,117
Originally Posted by Geoff Fairless View Post
<snip>
more Control Towers looking after the 5-10 NM around relatively busy aerodromes.<snip>
they should be owned by, and the ATCs work for, the aerodrome operator.<snip>
Past history re the trial introduction of UNICOMs indicated that AD OPRs here didn't want to pay for them - which might explain why we have so few - and I don't know if the CA/GRS we have were voluntarily put in by the AD OPRs, or as a result of directives from CASA.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2021, 03:55
  #63 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 62
Roger - Flight Service did not disappear, the responsibility was passed to ATC. This streamlined air traffic services (ATS) and meant that surveillance could be used to monitor traffic OCTA or what became Class G airspace. Most of the FSOs became ATCs. What did disappear was full reporting for VFR flights.

Captain - UNICOMs in Australia were crippled by CASA and Airservices trying to operate them as a Government "service", instead of the US practice where they are operated by airport employees, or businesses. The trials were universally panned by everyone involved so CASA just dropped the idea. They should remain something that is useful, but not ever considered to be part of the ATS. There are now only two CA/GRS, Ayers Rock, and Ballina. Ayers Rock has been there so long it's a mystery (to me anyway) why it was ever started; Ballina was a recommendation by CASA OAR until they found that their recommendations were just being filed because they can only authorise airspace! Ballina to their credit adopted it anyway. I understand that in both cases the airline operators agreed to cover the cost. As I understand it, Airservices does not charge operators at Port Hedland for the AFIS, the cost is absorbed. They have also stated that they would not charge directly for the SFIS at Ballina or Mangalore.

Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2021, 09:10
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,134
Geoff, you can clear up your "mystery" by reading this. Clues within.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/153446/...token=t5FQS21C

Flight Service did not disappear
AFIZs did. The bandaid replacement isn't a patch on what was provided beforehand.

Ballina was a recommendation by CASA OAR until they found that their recommendations were just being filed because they can only authorise airspace!
Yet CASA ordered ASA to put in an AFIS at YPPD, YBRM and YPKA and then a tower at YBRM and YPKA (as well as the CAGRO at YAYE).

UNICOMs in Australia were crippled by CASA and Airservices trying to operate them as a Government "service", instead of the US practice where they are operated by airport employees, or businesses. The trials were universally panned by everyone involved so CASA just dropped the idea.
You may think RPT jets should be getting critical met info from untrained, enthusiastic-amateur baggage chuckers, but a lot of us don't.




Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 3rd Jul 2021, 09:22
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,597
Yet CASA ordered ASA to put in an AFIS at YPPD, YBRM and YPKA and then a tower at YBRM and YPKA (as well as the CAGRO at YAYE).
CASA "ordered" ASA to do something? Any clue or links as to the terms of that / those order/s and the power/s exercised?

These days CASA seems to be labouring under the misconception - or perhaps it is not a misconception - that CASA can't do anything about airspace or ATS arrangements unless ASA has made a recommendation to CASA to do it.

Last edited by Lead Balloon; 3rd Jul 2021 at 09:34.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 4th Jul 2021, 04:20
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,550
My logic behind that is that they should be owned by, and the ATCs work for, the aerodrome operator.
So who at MNG is going to pay for a tower? They don't own the navaids, so can't charge for the overhead training, and there wouldn't be enough landings to cover the infrastructure costs. if you make it too expensive and restrictive, they'll just go somewhere else.
At what traffic level does pilot separation by radio become impossible and unsafe? I think we found that out at Mangalore
How many aircraft were on frequency at MNG? There's no mention of frequency congestion. Both pilots got traffic on each other. They didn't talk to each other. So the answer to what traffic level is dangerous - Two.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2021, 06:54
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 62
Capt - I am not sure how my comment about UNICOMs became an opinion about the passing of critical met information. Under the old CAR120 (I'm not sure it still exists) a pilot could only accept such information from someone certified by the BoM and issued with an approval by CASA. Theoretically, a UNICOM operator could obtain such approval, however, how would the pilot know they had one?

TIEW
1 - CASA and Airservices legislation requires them to treat safety as the first priority - who is going to pay supposedly is a lower priority. Not sure who owns the navaids at MNG but I do know that Ballina airport owns the NDB at BNA! If I was them I would only switch it on when someone booked it for training.
2 - I did not mention frequency congestion, you have answered my question!
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 5th Jul 2021, 07:54
  #68 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,597
It's still there in the 1988 regulations:
120 Weather reports not to be used if not made with authority

(1) The operator or pilot in command of an aircraft must not use weather reports of actual or forecasted meteorological conditions in the planning, conduct and control of a flight if the meteorological observations, forecasts or reports were not made with the authority of:
(a) the Director of Meteorology; or
(b) a person approved for the purpose by CASA.

Penalty: 5 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
But note: The 1988 regulations are being rewritten, so the above will be gone and replaced by around the year 2000.

AIP GEN 3.5 para 4.4.2 says: "For the purpose of aircraft weather reporting and observing visibility for takeoff and landing at an aerodrome, the pilot in command shall be deemed an approved observer for that flight." Given the use of the very impressive words "shall" and "deemed", that seems to be an approval under CAR 120 for PICs in the limited purposes stated.

Dunno if UNICOMS get an approval.

I never look at those aerodrome webcams to see what the weather and WDI are doing. My understanding is that they shall have been deemed not to be approved. Hopefully they will be, by around the year 2000.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 6th Jul 2021, 00:40
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 62
Lead (is it Led or Leed?),
I used to issue CAR120 approvals for CASA although dozens of others also could, and the approval is specific to a person, not a job. They needed only to produce the BoM documentation proving they had "attended" the course, see <MA.9a Qualifications & Competencies, Aerodrome Weather Observers, Version 3.0>. I reiterate though, the CAR puts the onus, and the strict liability, on the pilot to "must not use", so how does the pilot know?. Regulations should target the person giving the weather advice.

A pilot is deemed to be able to make his/her own observations without "attending" the BoM course, however, note that only applies to their own flight. A PIC may not provide weather information to another PIC unless they have a CAR120 approval. Get your head around the logic in that one!

As for looking at things that are providing weather information. I, on behalf of CASA, agreed with the BoM that the person telling a pilot what an approved machine (such as an AWIS) was reading, did not constitute a weather observation. Weather instruments such as an AWIS are certified under 1(a) of CAR120 by the BoM. Therefore anyone is allowed to tell a pilot what, for instance, the QNH readout is displaying without having a qualification. I do not know the status of the weather cams but I think they are owned by Airservices, so you might be correct. Once again the same problem, how does a pilot know that something is "approved"?
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2021, 01:42
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12
Ballina SUP now published - going live next month.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...up/s21-h80.pdf
atcnews is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2021, 06:57
  #71 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,381
Back to the 1950s

I have a simple question.

Why hasnít the FAA introduced SFIS,s ?

With ten times the traffic and similar radar coverage to our J curve there must be a reason why we have to be so much more complicated.

And the airlines will still be flying around in cloud attempting to do there own separation with low time IFR pilots with no separation standard.

Yes. I was involved in the removal of the AFIZ,s. Thatís because under AMATS we were going to copy the best airspace system in the world. The US NAS.

Now we are inventing another unique system with airline passengers the guinea pigs.

Last edited by Dick Smith; 16th Jul 2021 at 07:14.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2021, 07:47
  #72 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,550
ATC provided AFIS. Imagine the cost savings! Is BNA SFIS by a dedicated resource, or is some poor bloody ATC got this on his plate as well? Is it workload permitting?
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 18th Jul 2021, 09:17
  #73 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,061
It is a dedicated positon in the Bris AACC. No other frequencies.
triadic is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 02:20
  #74 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,381
I note that AsA wants VFR pilots to submit flight plans for operations in the area.

The more I look at it the more it looks like a giant backward step.

By getting VFR back in the system there will be pressure for charges to be introduced.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 02:34
  #75 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,061
I think they will have to get used to "pop-ups".
triadic is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 02:55
  #76 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,732
As a controller having a plan in the system makes it easier for us to provide the service you're wanting as it's somewhat cumbersome to create one. How is filing a flight plan before you depart any different to effectively filing one by radio? Either way you're still entered into the system.

Last edited by le Pingouin; 19th Jul 2021 at 03:11.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 03:06
  #77 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,597
And here we go again, again, again, and ...
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 03:14
  #78 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,381
La P.

A pilot decides to fly VFR coastal at varying altitudes between 500í and 5000í depending on Wx and scenery from Maitland to Bundaberg.

What flight details should be filed ? Are you suggesting a full position plan?
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 03:34
  #79 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: YMML
Posts: 1,732
No, just for the portions where a service is expected. It's having a plan, any plan, in the system that makes it easier. Yes it's easier if it more or less follows the route you're taking and the actual departure time is within a couple of hours of your ETD but it's having an existing plan that speeds things up for us.
le Pingouin is offline  
Old 19th Jul 2021, 03:36
  #80 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: SA
Age: 60
Posts: 359
Originally Posted by Dick Smith View Post
A pilot decides to fly VFR coastal at varying altitudes between 500’ and 5000’ depending on Wx and scenery from Maitland to Bundaberg. What flight details should be filed?
Plan DCT at a VFR level, it's just a plan, by being "in the system", with about 6 keyboard clicks the ATC at the console will access to your details vs probably 20-30 keyboard clicks.
It's about a more user friendly system, easier for the ATC which in turn makes it easier for the pilot = best service.
sunnySA is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.