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 13th May 2021, 04:22
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 65
BNA/MNG SFIS info

https://engage.airservicesaustralia....mation-service

https://www.australianflying.com.au/...nder-the-radar

Also this is nearby too,

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...a-tyagarah-gc/

https://www.avsef.gov.au/sites/defau...ining_area.pdf
10JQKA is offline  
Old 13th May 2021, 11:28
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sydney
Posts: 243
So what point are you making? I could give references to thousands of uninteresting and irrelevant articles but I don't want to bore the s**t out of everyone.
Seabreeze is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 00:19
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Hi Seabreeze - I think 10JQKA is trying to draw our attention to the second part of Airservices answer to the MNG mid-air.

We have already seen the crazily complicated Class E with varying base levels proposal, this time we are going to replace the Class G mandatory traffic service for IFR, which ICAO calls Class F, with another Class F service, an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) again without the required airspace classification F. (See Port Hedland AFIS classified as Class G airspace by CASA)

AS well as MNG they also intend to take over the BNA CA/GRS from the non-Airservices provider and replace it with an inferior remote service without additional surveillance being installed. The ATCs on twice the salary of the current CA/GROs employed by BNA airport will have no added ability to provide an AFIS because they do not have the ability to detect low-level non-ADSB traffic. I wonder how much they will charge for this service compared to the CA/GRS, the cost of which is borne by the airlines using BNA? The same as they charge for the AFIS at Port Hedland I assume.

Although it sounds as though the Minister's employees are "doing something" they will just make the airspace more complicated without actually achieving a reduction in risk. We all need to read this stuff and demand better
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 02:29
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,712
[T]hey will just make the airspace more complicated without actually achieving a reduction in risk.
What else would you expect?

You could hope for better, but expecting better would make you more of an optimist than Pollyanna.

They are "doing something" and that's all that matters.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 02:52
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,123
The ATCs on twice the salary of the current CA/GROs employed by BNA airport will have no added ability to provide an AFIS because they do not have the ability to detect low-level non-ADSB traffic.
And at least the CA/GROs can see the BNA movement area and immediate area, a.k.a. the AFIS guys at Hedland.
CaptainMidnight is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 08:50
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: QLD - where drivers are yet to realise that the left lane goes to their destination too.
Posts: 2,573
Breakdowns of separation at Mangalore occured in January 2021 and September 2011.
I'm assuming that the mid air was the January one. So prior to the midair, one breakdown of sep in the past 10 years? Sounds very knee-jerky to me.

Is there even such a thing as a "Breakdown of Separation" OCTA?

Last edited by Traffic_Is_Er_Was; 14th May 2021 at 09:03.
Traffic_Is_Er_Was is offline  
Old 14th May 2021, 11:21
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: kennel
Posts: 1
YMNG lies astride the main North / South route to the Melbourne basin via the Kilmore Gap (KMG) which is some 26 nm (say 15 min) South. High ground and Puckapunyal restricted area channel VFR aircraft along this route unless there is severe CAVOK.

Is Airservices ready to "process" this traffic?
dysslexicgod is offline  
Old 15th May 2021, 00:48
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
TIEW - No because there is no standard to "breakdown". This one only became famous because Jetstar wants a Tower at Ballina.

The British, who provide many radar services in Class G, call them an AIRPROX. They also have an AIRPROX committee that analyses the "breakdowns"/"close encounters" and recommends changes. Their advice could be a change to the service including introducing a controlled service.

Have a look at their very well-thought-out services on their web page. Basic, Traffic, De-confliction and it will change depending on the aircraft position. For instance, if you penetrate a Class D zone from Class G, the approach controller will automatically inform you that you are now subject to a radar control service. When you leave you will be transferred back to the Class G service and you get to nominate what you want. Very sophisticated stuff
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 15th May 2021, 00:50
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
dysslexicgod - No Airservices is not ready to process the traffic, but that is the beauty of a flight information service.

All care, but no responsibility!
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 15th May 2021, 05:00
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,062
The SFIS (or whatever you want to call it) will not surface until it is shown to work and ASA have also laid on the table what the real alternatives (at least 2 maybe 3?) might be (to date there is nothing). And it will still have to get thru the OAR. It is obvious that this is a knee-jerk to the accident at MNG and the incident at BNA neither of which I doubt would have saved by this proposal. ASA are showing that they have lost a lot of experience of late which is sad! There is also a responsibility with CASA and pilot education and training which is not what it should be (or used to be).
triadic is offline  
Old 16th May 2021, 12:48
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 65
Originally Posted by triadic View Post
The SFIS (or whatever you want to call it) will not surface until it is shown to work and ASA have also laid on the table what the real alternatives (at least 2 maybe 3?) might be (to date there is nothing). And it will still have to get thru the OAR.
triadic, this could be good to bring up at the webex meetings ?
10JQKA is offline  
Old 17th May 2021, 03:41
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
10JQKA - I attended the Class E Webex meeting and the Airservices' participants were only the project staff. The "change" managers, I know their names, were very likely listening in, as was the manager of OAR, but they chose to say nothing even though the whole concept was challenged.
You will find the project people have no power to do anything other than tell you what Airservices is going to do, listen to your replies, and then wait for the managers to tell them what to do. They will not be in a position to discuss alternatives, real or otherwise, and OAR will simply wait until Airservices tells the Minister and the new DAS what they want. The rubber stamp will then be exercised, yet again.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 23rd May 2021, 08:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Today I made the following short submission to Airservices about the proposed AFIS at Ballina

I was the CASA ATM Inspector that oversaw the introduction of the CA/GRS at Ballina and I have audited the CA/GRS at Ayers Rock twice and the AFIS at Port Hedland once, on behalf of CASA. I came to the conclusion that the operations at Ayers Rock and Port Hedland were fit for purpose and that the AFIS model was superior to the CA/GRS. I advised CASA management of my conclusions but also that I did not believe that the CA/GRS being introduced at Ballina would be successful. (There is not enough space here to list the reasons) I recommended to CASA OAR management and the ATM management that Ballina required a control tower with Class D airspace. An AFIS, provided by surveillance-equipped ATCs, will not be able to lower risk levels below those achieved by the current CA/GRS. When I last inspected this was staffed by personnel who have ATC licenses, albeit without current medicals, ratings, or endorsements. The surveillance in the Ballina area, unless it has been improved, does not detect non-ADSB equipped aircraft at lower levels and there will be no greater incentive for VFR pilots to lift their radio procedure activities than those that currently exist. In short, the airspace does not need another voice on the CTAF adding to the confusion. This is the major reported problem with the CA/GRS and an AFIS under Australian Class G procedures would have to operate the same way. The airspace has reached the point when ATC needs to be introduced to sequence aircraft around the Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) and manage runway operations. It need not be expensive if created within an overlying Class E airspace structure.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2021, 01:34
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 366
This thread needs to come to the top again. The planned introduction of the SFIS is further delayed.
cogwheel is offline  
Old 6th Jun 2021, 08:33
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 64
cogwheel,

News of a delay. Unbelievable!

Do tell………
Gentle_flyer is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 02:02
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
I have seen no news of a delay and the Airservices website still contains the following statement (my underlining):
"Airservices is proposing to first introduce the enhanced traffic service at Ballina and Mangalore on 17 June 2021"

I am not sure who writes this stuff for Airservices, but I have to assume it is authorised by the Executive General Manager Air Traffic Services (circa $500,000/per year) and the Chief Executive Officer (circa $800,000/per year). So let us consider the steps involved in no particular order:
  • Airservices completes consultation and presents an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to CASA OAR
  • CASA OAR studies ACP conducts consultation and presents a recommendation to CASA management
  • CASA management approves change and Airservices commences documentation amendments (when is the next RAPAC date, or shall we just issue an enormous NOTAM?)
    • (During this time Airservices having assumed approval have been busy sectorising the airspace, developing procedures, and training the controllers)
  • Landrum & Brown need to wind up the Ballina CA/GRS contract (Part 139) with Ballina Airport, Airservices needs to present a charging regime (Part 172) for pilots using the new services
    • Alternatively, both services could operate side by side!
  • Airservices then present a safety case to CASA (Concept, Design, Implementation? Oh what the heck, CASA don't know the difference, just send them something really heavy)
  • CASA ATM inspectors then need to audit the AFIS operations at Ballina and Mangalore, before operating certificates are signed and presented to Airservices
Clearly, I am missing something! How could the two most highly paid federal ATM bureaucrats have thought that these processes could be done, dusted, and in place by 17th June 2021? (I have even given them a free pass on their internal planning and training requirements)
Does anybody know the answer?
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 02:49
  #17 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: The Rio
Posts: 65
Geoff, "cogwheel" was talking about this in a related thread- "Jetstar & BNA again" in the "Australia,NZ and Pacific" forum.
10JQKA is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 06:26
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 12
There is no ACP, there is no change to the service provided - it's class G FIS on the CTAF. The request is to create a mandatory broadcast area by CASA instrument. No new operating certificates required.
atcnews is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 07:43
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Thanks ATC news - nice spin.

Q. If there is no change to the service being provided by Airservices at Ballina - then why is Airservices consulting with industry about this lack of any change?
  • Perhaps you are referring to the CA/GRS currently operating at Ballina, if so that is under CASR Part 139, which is not what Airservices is proposing, so there is a change.....
  • Or are you referring to the mandatory IFR traffic information service provided in Class G airspace, but I understood VFR traffic would also be subject to the service, so there is a change.....
This service is also advertised as being airport-specific, which in Ballina's case would exclude Lismore and Evan's Head. So it is not simply Class G FIS on the CTAF, this is an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) similar to Port Hedland, for which Airservices has approval on your Provider Certificate. (Note the underlined words below)
2.4.1 Content of an ATS Approved Provider Certificate
An ATS Approved Provider Certificate is to include the following details:
 The identity of the approved provider (name and address, and if a corporation, its ACN and registered office)
 A list of those ATS services approved under the certificate, together with details of their location, and aerodrome and airspace, as applicable
 The date of approval of the Certificate
 Conditions on the Certificate; including the condition that CASA has the right to undertake a safety audit of the provider’s operation at any time


Sorry, but if this is the agreement that Airservices has with CASA, then once again, Australian regulations are being ignored.
Geoff Fairless is offline  
Old 8th Jun 2021, 08:41
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,123
Perhaps atcnews is referring to MNG.

There is already a BA in place at BNA.
CaptainMidnight 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.