Dangerous spin by Richard Smith?
 

Kudos to Dick for putting his money where his mouth is.

VH-Cheer Up, thanks for your support. If you want to read the full letter, see here. I suggest you especially look at Attachment D showing the incidents that are now occurring at Avalon. It is amazing that the ATSB does not say anything.

What about Broome? I understand that this is arguably the most dangerous airport in Australia; multiple jet RPT flights, VFR lighties, no radar, no tower, TPRXs not required...

I can't see what's "dangerous" about Dicks' assertions; certainly not 'spin'. I actiually agree with him.

Here's the problem that I have: most of the incidents in Attachment D don't have anything to do with the classification of the airspace. It even mentions the Connie shutting down No.2 at the Avalon Airshow this year when the tower was most certainly manned. Then there's the birdstrikes. Do the birds know it's uncontrolled airspace? If you thresh out some of the chaff in the list of incidents, not a lot of it has anything to do with the classification of the airspace at Avalon.

As a simple GA pilot, I find myself transitting AV often, and the ability to fly right over the top is just brilliant. No doubt a tower wouldn't let us do that (as they don't at Melbourne without climbing to 6000 first). We have no chance of regulating for drongoes. Those who transit AV without calling probably transit BDG, SHT, LTV and all the other major CTAFs without calling also. Flying silent over one of the latter is much more dangerous that flying silent over AV because the traffic concentration is higher. Come to think if it, it's more dangerous overflying PCK!

If there are any JQ boys in the air at the time, we've always managed to sort things out without any risk to anyone. Is there really a need for a tower at AV given that the majority of the incidents here wouldn't have been avoided had it been manned?

Walrus

In the last 12 months, I have probably flown over (through) AV about 20 odd times at different times of the day.

In all cases I have made the recommended broadcasts and, to the best of my memory, I have only ever presented a traffic confliction once to any other aircraft.

The rest of the time, the silence has been golden. I certainly wouldn't think that AV even warrants CA/GRS - let alone a tower!

Walrus 7, you don’t link the bird strikes with someone in the tower. I understand from talking to air traffic controllers that at controlled airports they often advise the safety officer that there are birds at the threshold if there is a jet on its way in. It appears that he drives out and encourages the birds to move away. It sounds to me as if that is worthwhile for safety.

QSK, are you really suggesting that airports with up to a million passenger movements per year can operate without any air traffic control and without even a UNICOM operator? What would happen if your radio stopped transmitting when you were making the recommended broadcast? How would you know? The carrier would still operate the beep-back, but there may be no modulation.

So if Avalon doesn’t require a tower for safety, why do we have towers at places like Coffs Harbour and Hamilton Island? Is it sensible to place our towers where air traffic controllers want to live and work, not where the risk is highest?

Dick,

Yes, I see your point on the birds. But why can't JQ's ground staff do that now? Birds are a problem at every airport in the world, but how many of them need a tower for it. Hamilton Is and Coffs probably need towers because the number of movements dictates it. I haven't checked on that but I suspect that's the case.

Walrus

Number of pax per year is irrelevant in dictating the level of ATS. That's just scare tactics to the public who don't know any better.

The level of ATS & airspace classification is dictated by traffic levels. And even the FAA don't consider UNICOMs in determining the level of ATS required at a particular AD. And how would the Tower - and least of all a UNICOM operator - know who's responsible? A dead carrier could be coming from anywhere, if there is one at all. Radar surveillance would (and does) detect unidentified traffic and is passed as part of RAS if it is relevant.

Keeerist, that is the sort of letter that my email spam control sends to the Junk bin with all the other offers of gazillions of dollars if I send my bank details or register as a bazillion dollar lottery winner.

I guess Kerry's email spam control does the same and if Kerry is as smart as I think he is, to stop the voices in his head too, he'll keep on his aluminium foil hat with the spiky horns.

Blood on his hands indeed. :ugh::ugh::rolleyes::{

Spin you say, spinning spin doesn't cut it either.

Mr Smith grow up, you do your oftentimes worthy causes no good at all with that sort of tripe. There may well be some sense in what you say but it sure is hard to find it amongst the rhetoric.

If it is supposedly uncontrolled, how come one of the incidents is the Avalon ADC not coordinating with ML App?

I just finished reading the list Attachment D. Every single one that is not a bird running into a plane is a case of someone doing the wrong thing. There is not one instance of everybody doing what they were supposed to do and something stuffing up. An example of this would be "at 2312 C172 broadcast intentions on CTAF as required. A320, after departing without hitting any birds and making all broadcasts as required received an RA based on the proximity of the C172'.:ugh:

Grasping at straws again.:rolleyes:

I'm at a loss to understand how the manning of the tower at Avalon would increase safety levels.

Is it going to fix bird strikes, Rabbit strikes and mid-Hare collisions?

I suggest that the C172 "Contamination" could be fixed by more English classes at YPCK. They won't talk because they don't understand and don't know what to say or do in reply anyway. But perhaps I'm being unfair.

I've never had any trouble transiting over YMAV, but I have had to do an orbit from time to time over that way to obtain some separation from the odd C172 who either can't or won't communicate.

CaptainMidnight, you state:

I’m now looking at my latest CASA document on the matter. It is headed Air Traffic Control Towers Decision Criteria September 1998.

My case rests.

Surely it is clear how a tower or a UNICOM operator would know who is responsible for a carrier without any modulation – they would simply ask. More to the point, the pilot giving the call wouldn’t get an answer from the UNICOM or the tower, so they would know there was a problem and change to the other radio. Surely that is pretty basic.

I only have one radio:eek: so what would I do:{

SQ

Tobzalp, no, I’m not grasping at straws again. Surely one of the advantages of air traffic control in the tower is that there is a “fail/safe”, not a “fail/dangerous” system. Are you suggesting that the airport cannot be made safer with air traffic controllers manning the tower? Or do you think the 30 or 40 cents per head it would cost is too expensive?

Squawk6969 – der! You would check your microphone selector, the speaker selector, check your frequency was correct, and then you would be extremely vigilant knowing that you had a faulty radio. If you were landing, you would watch for a green light from the tower if it was manned.

By the way, where is Civil Air? Why haven’t they made a statement supporting the fact that ATC should man Avalon tower for safety purposes?

Where is Civil Air?

Like me, probably sitting in front of the TV with a cold beer or two getting ready for the Rugby World Cup. They know that any serious indication of funding for a tower at Avalon will be followed immediately by a huge bellow for privatised tower services and will have nothing to do with them.

Does anyone know exactly what the criterion for a tower is nowadays? I was always under the impression that it was 100,000 movements, but if that was the case then we'd only have 10 towers in the country, and none at Darwin, Hobart, Essendon and Canberra among most of the regionals.

Walrus

And you may care to squawk 7600 as well ;)