Air Services Unicom Operators
 

Anyone notice the advertisement on the Air Services website for unicom operators for Dubbo and Wagga Wagga.

Sounds like the old flight service operators from days gome by to me.

How the wheel turns.

Try this
 

Get with the Program ASA
 

Can anyone tell me on what regulatory basis or direction is Airservices Australia (as a Government-owned entity) permitted to undertake these trials?

Also, as a pilot that is paying aeronautical charges to ASA, I would rather see my aeronautical charges being used to improve the delivery and quality of current ATS services by encouraging the recruitment of more ATC staff, thus avoiding the shutdown of services as occurred in WA low level sectors recently. This would appear to me to be more of a priority than wasting money on a speculative Unicom service which can be provided more economically and responsively by a range of private sector arrangements at the local airport.

Are these trials as a result of an aeronautical study undertaken for each location under the direction of CASA, or is Airservices simply responding to an invitation by the respective aerodrome owners/operators (ie the Councils)? I think the pilot community is entitled to know how its aeronautical charges are being spent by ASA and what the eventual operational benefits are.

I think the limited financial resources that ASA appears to have would be far better spent in the areas that require funding priority.

your dead right QSK? Airservices have no right to be conducting private surveys and deciding that we need their services. They are a government business enterprise to make profits - thats why all regulatory responsibilities were removed from them and handed to CASA because of an obvious conflict of interest. Its no different than me, of joe bloggs aviation services, saying to aerodrome operators that I have decided that you need this Unicom service because of a survey I have done and, after a trial, I will be introducing it ! You know where I would be told to go. But, unfortunately most councils who operate aerodromes these days, are still under the impression that airservices run the show. Remember, they were the ones that created the current lack of air traffic services at regional aerodromes when they withdrew ATC towers and disbanded Flight Service at these airports in the first place.

Whilst I don't have any reference to this docs, I'm sure that ASA were told by the minister to do this; mostly in response to the YMAV debate; don't dare do it there you might prove more is needed.

Before the conspiracy theories start, let may say clearly that I knew nothing about the Airservices proposal until I saw a copy of the Minister’s press release.

However if it is a move to trial the US FAA approved non-prescriptive NAS UNICOM system I am all for it.

Looking at this and other threads on the subject it is obvious that the whole UNICOM issue was highjacked by people who wanted to create jobs for retired air traffic controllers and FSO’s. The proven FAA system as accepted by Federal cabinet has no prescriptive limitations on what a UNICOM may do.

Because of this, there are no insurance requirements or problems at all. The USA and Canada have many thousands of UNICOMs, which have been operating for decades without any problems - common sense prevails. They will give traffic information in any way they want to as it is up to the pilot to decide the information to accept. The non-prescriptive US system is a superb improver in safety however there has been enormous resistance to even trialling the system here.

If Airservices are going to force a safer system on a reluctant industry then good on them.

I agree with you So-long. Dick once again is showing his opposition to anything ATC or Flight service related - what an insult to the professional people who perform these important functions - a retirement village ! I have seen these professionals at work for many years and I can assure you Dick it certainly is no retirement home. Maybe Airservices would be better off setting up training courses for CAGRO'S/Unicom operators - possibly as a lead-in to ATC towers - this training is long overdue. As for Unicom, I am sure there is a place for it in our system. But under current legislation, not at busy aerodromes like Wagga. It would be more suited to, as Dick has suggested in the past, airports such as Lockhart River and other low traffic volume areas.

so-long,

I am not blaming air traffic controllers for this one.

I know the people at CASA who changed the certified air ground requirements from “a pilot or any person who could be trained” to that of a person “who previously held an air traffic control or flight service licence.”

These people were creating jobs for retired air traffic controllers and FSO’s. They made the change at the time Mick Toller was the CEO and he did not even know it had been made until a number of years later.

I can assure you there has been an ongoing campaign by people within the bureaucracy to ensure that the simple proven highly safe non-prescriptive US UNICOM system never exists here in Australia. Of course, they will eventually lose.

By the way, I understand it is ex air traffic controllers at Airservices who are promoting the new non-prescriptive trial at Dubbo and Wagga. I have all praise for this.

Crisper I couldn't agree more...like most people when they heard of this Airservices shonk I thought this smacks of Dick Smith but now on here he says that he knew nothing of it,so, it must be true yeah sure Dick just another one of your Seniors moments Dick....I don't recall that..nah wasn't me:=

The reason the criteria was changed if I recall Dick, was at the insistence of airline pilots not some conspiracy against you from CASA - CASA actually listen to the industry sometimes you know. Pilots refused to receive traffic and weather information from unqualified personnel. Strangely, a few years back CASA asked the industry about lowering standards for CAGRO'S and this was rejected - by Airservices as well ! Work that one out given the current unicom proposal put forward by them. Anyway, I am interested in how the FAA unicom system works. Maybe you could give us some info as to how they deliver traffic, if it is assessed for relevance or not and if they do, what methods they use to do this - flight strips, logs or just pieces of paper and/or memory. And how busy are the airports that they operate from - 25,000 movements a year or just low traffic volume airports with few RPT's ?. What you propose may be a lot better than the Unicom that Airservices are proposing ? I'm interested in more details of your experiences with their system.

crisper,

You state:
Are you joking?

I have been campaigning for the tower to be manned at Avalon and I have also been campaigning for more Class E airspace which requires air traffic controllers to give an air traffic control separation service, not an old out dated traffic information service to IFR.

Why would we need training courses to be set up for CAGRO’s/UNICOM operators when the most proven system in the world doesn’t require this. Or are you suggesting that Australian’s are somehow not as bright as American’s?

Firstly, the casual observer may notice that I am not operating under a pseudonym, anything I have to say can be happily attributed to me.

I trained as a Flight Service Officer in 1978, and in 1999 conducted the CA/GRS trial at Ayers Rock… for my sins, I am still there.

A few people have asked me to weigh in on the Unicom discussion, so, for what it is worth here is my bit;

The present system of services in “G” airspace, as most of you are aware is nothing, or CA/GRS. From what I understand the intent of Unicom is to provide a level of service between those. If this is conducted under the rules for Unicom in MOS there will be a good deal of frequency congestion, but, as it was pointed out correctly by Airservices, if this is the case it will show itself in a trial. I do feel it is important that any trial be reviewed by an independent panel of pilots and operators, and not just “rubber stamped” as suitable.

With the CA/GRS operation, we determine from all of the traffic in the vicinity which ones will be “relevant” and pass only those to the individual aircraft. This is how the frequency congestion is minimised. A Unicom operator under the present rules will not be allowed to make these distinctions and inbound pilots must be given traffic on all aircraft, relevant or otherwise. Another consideration is the weather. Unless the Unicom operator is an authorized met observer, or has an authority issued by CASA, they can not provide opinions or trends on the weather, they can only issue factual statements such as a METAR/SPECI or general observation like “nice day” or “raining”.

If the Unicom service was to be introduced with a common sense approach it could work quite well, but unfortunately I don’t think that the operators will be free to make too many decisions. If the rules were changed it could be a very good thing, but then it would be a duplicate of the CA/GRS, why duplicate the service?

Both ATC and the proposed Unicom are inflexible. CA/GRS is not. With ATC there are many rules which they must follow. With the proposed Unicom there are many things that they will not be allowed to do. The CA/GRS is not prescriptive other than being required during the hours of RPT operations and a few other bits of things. It was designed to enhance the then MBZ procedures. We have the flexibility to make the system work, usually by helping, sometimes by screaming at pilots, like the guy in the Baron that tried to land into a backtracking B737 declaring he had plenty of room. The short story is we make it work with minimum intervention, and we can be flexible. CTAF procedures apply at all times, and pilots are free to disregard any information we provide.

What we need is a service that will allow trained people to make sound judgments based on their training and experience and stop trying to prescribe every eventuality. That also goes for many other areas of Australian aviation.

The CA/GRS at Ayers Rock and Broome are well thought out cost effective services and are generally well accepted. The regulatory framework is in place, and whilst we are told that it will not be mandated at any airport in the near future, any airport can on application to CASA introduce the service. This should be considered for expansion in “G” airspace. Personally it won’t matter much to me as I will be retiring soon. (Circuit Area Wollongong, Cancel SAR).

One other item regarding “retirement homes”, if any of you were around when Australian aviation had the world’s only “Operational Control Service” you may remember that it was very much a retirement centre. It consisted of many “past it” ATCs, assisted by their equally clapped out FSO underlings, not all were in that category by any means, but many of the ranks were not up to the job any more (it comes to us all). Their job was in Operational Control Centres (OCCs) and briefing offices checking professional pilot's flight plans to make sure they had enough fuel, and had provided for any required alternates or OPRs, (operational requirements, ML req additional 30 holding due busy). When they were satisfied as to the pilot’s competence they would then pronounce “Operational Approval”. Curiously it only applied to IFR flights, low time VFR pilots had to manage on their own. It was something of an embarrassment when dealing with international airline pilots. Frequently at Bankstown briefing and at the Sydney International Briefing office the staff outnumbered the customers. On the upside however, they did provide much needed knowledge during SAR exercises as most had a wealth of experience to offer. But don’t kid yourself, it was very much a retirement home. The system has changed, and improved since my time as a FSO but like any other profession some operators are more competent than others, and even the good ones have bad days. Just like pilots.

Are your suggesting that we open up ATC towers at regional airports such as Wagga, Dubbo, Ballina etc etc? I thought you would be against this because of the cost to industry. I am trying to suggest the proven and cost effective alternatives to a full ATC tower at busy regional aerodromes as opposed to what we have now in most busy CTAF'S - nothing ! A lot of regional operators dont want ATC towers because of cost and the restrictions of controlled airspace on their operations. But they also dont want someone who is given no training and a radio set and then thinks " hey look at me I'm an Air Traffic Controller ".

And to suggest that I would think that we are not as bright as Americans is just another of your stupid statements. Our system evolved because of the lack of radar coverage ,the huge expanse of remote airspace in Australia and our small population. This cannot be compared to the good old US of A which you could never seem to grasp. In fact, maybe we would be better compared to Canada in this regard - they still have Flight Service don't they?

So , explain how " this most proven system in the world" operates and how it has relevance to Australia or don't you understand how it works either.

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=113

UNICOMs add little value, they ARE limited as to what they can provide, and as a result are not a factor in airspace or air traffic services safety mitigators.

Thanks Captain Midnight . Thats exactly the point I have been trying to get across without the degeneration into the jobs for the boys bulls**t. It's all about providing the appropriate level of services required to maintain safety given the level of complexity and traffic mix within a CTAF - be it ATC, CA/GRS or Unicom.

Out of interest, if an aerodrome operator wanted to offer a UNICOM service;
What hours of operation would be required? Or would it just be determined by the AD operator to meet demand, ie during RPT services?
Is there a specific application and approval process to go through, apart from a licence from ACMA and the operator to be suitably trained and qualified?

Jack,

You said on another thread:

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showpos...&postcount=134


I believe that Flightwatch (which is a bunch of people) will be closing ... FIS (the service) will remain ... on the ATC Consoles.

However, you do make a good point about the Unicom Operator providong WX & Notams. One of the problems with these airports is frequency congestion, so adding in this service would compound the problem. Also, it is really an ATS service/role and the Aerodrome Operators ( who are supposed to eventually start picking up the bill) wouldn't be too keen on paying their operators to do ASA's work.

In the end it is all supposition and I suppose we have to wait and see what ASA really has in mind ... when they eventually tell us.

What criteria are applied in the determination of "relevant" traffic.

What is "relevant"?

...is it just "the vibe"?

Peuce,

I was told that flightwatch VHF discrete frequencies will be partially decommissioned and partially transferred to ATC and they will be supplemented by ATC FIA frequencies to enable ATC to continue to provide FIS.

Thus the two flightwatch staff required to do the standalone VHF monday to friday will not be required but maybe more ATCs will be to take the flightwatch VHF off the busy ATC consoles? good plan??:hmm:

CBA anyone?.....ANYONE!!!!!

But what about HF? is that coming to an ATC console too? From what I understand, most of the flightwatch work is done on 6 seperate domestic and international hf networks

Gees, that would be hillarious to watch the ATCs sep and "do" HF.....I'd like to see that. :*

Aircraft arriving with 10mins of each other - lateral 15mn - vertical 1000ft - as well aircraft climbing or decending through another aircraft's level- of course commonsense prevails regarding inbound and outbound tracks

What criteria are applied in the determination of "relevant" traffic.

What is "relevant"?







Cheers,

John.

Are the dimensions of the Alice CA/GRS the same as the Tower's airspace?

Roughly described as a rectangle 10nm x 3nm centered on the ARP?

"Are the dimensions of the Alice CA/GRS the same as the Tower's airspace?

Roughly described as a rectangle 10nm x 3nm centered on the ARP?"

Alice Springs has a control zone with ATC. Ayers Rock has the CA/GRS and is a long way from Alice. When it was an MBZ it was a zone of airspace 20nm radius and 5000ft AGL. Now it is a CTAF there is no defined airspace, a CTAF is a frequency. The only reference to spatial limits is that aircraft must call within 20nm in the case of AYE and 30nm at BME, the vertical limits are not really defined, just if the pilot considers him/herself clear.

There is no CA/GRS at Alice Springs. It is at Ayers Rock and operates on the CTAF which is 20nm radius of AYE. Extended to 20nm to encompass the traffic at the rock and the olgas.

JTC - An interesting thread apart from you railing off against the old Ops Control. As I understand it all IFR aircraft require some sort of OPS Control I believe it is even defined by ICAO. Remember the old Initiation, Continuation, Termination or Diversion of a flight. The controllers and the FSO's providing the briefing and "control" may have been older but they were doing a job required by the Australian Government, so leave them out of this. The job was in keeping with the old DCA's (Donald George Anderson) iron fisted control over aviation, indeed Australia was once called the Police State of Aviation by Flight International. It was part and parcel of the Government controlled duopoly, parallel schedules and very high air fares that we all enjoyed.

My point is that to some extent things don't seem to have changed! We are all so used to being told what to do by way of regulations and proscribed actions that the idea that a bloke (or sheila) with a microphone couldn't give pilots enough information for them to work out what was going on, is completely foreign to us. Could he or she give us a reasonable summation of the weather, of course they could, what about which runway everyone else was using, easy, and what about the other aircraft, no problem. Of course I'm not talking about the local cab driver (no offence meant to cab drivers) who happened to be waiting for a fare. The operator would have to be an aviation oriented person with some experience. Say, an instructor, the fuel truck driver, the airline or charter operators agent. Even an ex-air traffic controller, God forbid! But, why does it have to be a dedicated person?

To me a unicom is simply a basic information service, a CA/GRS is another name for a FISO and then you get to ATC. Personally I think we need IFR approach control services at these airports long before any airport based service such as CA/GRS or Tower are needed. Unfortunately Class E airspace doesn't include enough regulation and proscription for our "aviation police state" pre-disposition. Consequently we make do with jet transport aircraft making IMC instrument approaches in Class G airspace while trying to work out where the scud-runners are coming from, info from Unicom or CA/GRS notwithstanding.

As I understand it all IFR aircraft require some sort of OPS Control I believe it is even defined by ICAO. Remember the old Initiation, Continuation, Termination or Diversion of a flight.

I do remember that. It is just that in other parts of the world, and now here, pilots or the operating company provide that responsibility for themselves, as they should. As to the OCCs, whist I did have a bit of a go at the old Ops folks, I also pointed out their value and wealth of experience which was often crucial in SAR exercises, sorry if I touched a nerve.

To me a unicom is simply a basic information service, a CA/GRS is another name for a FISO and then you get to ATC. Personally I think we need IFR approach control services at these airports long before any airport based service such as CA/GRS or Tower are needed.

I don’t think we need “IFR approach control” everywhere that we have jet transport ops, this add unnecessary cost that no one want to pay. An “IFR approach aid” at these uncontrolled airports would be a better and more cost effective option. In the US there are a great many airports in G airspace that have ILS. No ATC, just tune it in, broadcast intentions, and use it. We don’t need ATC everywhere there is an ILS. The main problem in G airspace for jet transport aircraft is that they are difficult to see out of. They are designed primarily to be operated in a controlled environment. Spotting a light aircraft is difficult and a ground based information service with visual surveillance works well, (although the visual surveillance at AYE is soon to be diminished). The limitation with this service is the amount of traffic a FIS, (Unicom, CA/GRS) can handle before full aerodrome control is required.

However, getting back on topic, if this new Unicom derivative is to be introduced, as we are advised at a level below CA/GRS, it would be more cost effective to have a remote location running several airports from one room sharing resources and equipment as per the old “centres”. This would obviously be with no visual surveillance but could easily provide estimates and pass met information as is required. As things stand now under the present Unicom rules the operators will not be able to do anything other than pass estimates and factual statements about the weather (TAFs etc), there should be no need for a visual aspect to that job. If visual surveillance is required it could then be upgraded to CA/GRS and when it gets beyond that it can be upgraded to full aerodrome control. It could also be downgraded under the same system, AYE and BME handle more traffic than some of the quieter ATC towers at times. The workload and complexity of traffic, weather, and terrain should determine which level of service is required, preferably by an aerodrome study.

JTC - You didn't touch a nerve with me I just wanted to set the record straight about just what OPS Control was and then make my point about the aviation straight-jacket.

I do however have to challenge your statement about ILS installations in Class G airspace by quoting the FAA definition of Class E & G:

CLASS E Airspace

The fifth airspace to discuss is Class E Airspace which is generally that airspace that is not Class A, B, C, or D. Class E airspace extends upward from either the surface or a designated altitude to the overlying or adjacent controlled airspace. If an aircraft is flying on a Federal airway below 18,000 feet, it is in Class E airspace. Class E airspace is also the airspace used by aircraft transiting to and from the terminal or en route environment normally beginning at 14,500 feet to 18,000 feet. Class E airspace ensures IFR aircraft remain in controlled airspace when approaching aircraft without Class D airspace or when flying on "Victor airways" -- federal airways that are below 18,000 feet. NOTE: VFR aircraft can fly up to 17,500 feet IF they can maintain VFR weather clearance criteria (and the aircraft is equipped to fly at 17,500 feet).

CLASS G Airspace

Class G Airspace is uncontrolled airspace. IFR aircraft will not operate in Class G airspace*. VFR aircraft can operate in Class G airspace.

Please note the Class G comment about IFR in G! The American philosophy is to protect IFR aircraft making IFR approaches in IMC down to the minima. If the airport has an ILS then the Class E goes to the ground. The practise is that in IMC a VFR aircraft would have to request a special VFR clearance into or out of the Class E zone. This would not be granted if an IFR aircraft was departing or making an approach.

As for the cost, I agree with you, however you have to have a philosophy. Correction, you can get by in a philosophy-free environment if you are blessed with heaps of VMC and pragmatic ad-hocery. You are in a good position to see that in action!

Thanks Mr.Approach for your information on "G" airspace on the USA - very interesting.

If IFR aircraft cannot operate in "G"" airspace , how do IFR RPT aircraft make instrument approaches into uncontrolled airports in the USA? I am wondering if these aerodromes must be either "E" or maybe "F" airspace only.

Crisper - I lifted the definition from a US flying school website and it is either is error or perhaps is saying that if you want to fly in US Class G airspace by definition you are VFR because it only seems to exist at low level. Here is the US AIM definition with VFR and IFR requirements:

Section 3. Class G Airspace

3-3-1. General

Class G airspace (uncontrolled) is that portion of airspace that has not been designated as Class A, Class B, Class C, Class D, or Class E airspace.

3-3-2. VFR Requirements

Rules governing VFR flight have been adopted to assist the pilot in meeting the responsibility to see and avoid other aircraft. Minimum flight visibility and distance from clouds required for VFR flight are contained in 14 CFR Section 91.155.
(See TBL 3-1-1.)

3-3-3. IFR Requirements

a. Title 14 CFR specifies the pilot and aircraft equipment requirements for IFR flight. Pilots are reminded that in addition to altitude or flight level requirements, 14 CFR Section 91.177 includes a requirement to remain at least 1,000 feet (2,000 feet in designated mountainous terrain) above the highest obstacle within a horizontal distance of 4 nautical miles from the course to be flown.

To answer your question ATC will separate the IFR aircraft in the Class E airspace containing the instrument approach. Certain classes of IFR aircraft can cancel their IFR flight plan and proceed VFR, hence in Class E airspace, cease to be separated. Other classes of IFR aircraft, or in accordance with company rules, never cancel IFR. However when they reach the instrument approach minima they become visual to perform a circling approach and are now in Class G airspace. (Note, as I wrote previously if the instrument approach is an ILS then the Class E extends to ground level, effectively a Class E control zone) ATC have rules to ensure that IFR aircraft are talking on the CTAF at non-towered airports:

4-1-5. Communications Release of IFR Aircraft Landing at an Airport Without an Operating Control Tower

Aircraft operating on an IFR flight plan, landing at an airport without an operating control tower will be advised to change to the airport advisory frequency when direct communications with ATC are no longer required. Towers and centers do not have nontower airport traffic and runway in use information. The instrument approach may not be aligned with the runway in use; therefore, if the information has not already been obtained, pilots should make an expeditious change to the airport advisory frequency when authorized.

So that was the long answer, the short one is that if the Class E airspace base is 700 feet, typically an NDB or VOR based approach, then the airport is in Class G airspace. If the approach is an ILS then the airport is in Class E airspace. There is no Class F airspace in the USA that I am aware of.

To get back to the thread, can a unicom give the information the pilot requires? This is the US AIM section:

Information Provided by Aeronautical Advisory Stations (UNICOM)
1. UNICOM is a nongovernment air/ground radio communication station which may provide airport information at public use airports where there is no tower or FSS.
2. On pilot request, UNICOM stations may provide pilots with weather information, wind direction, the recommended runway, or other necessary information. If the UNICOM frequency is designated as the CTAF, it will be identified in appropriate aeronautical publications.

UNICOM Communications Procedures
1. In communicating with a UNICOM station, the following practices will help reduce frequency congestion, facilitate a better understanding of pilot intentions, help identify the location of aircraft in the traffic pattern, and enhance safety of flight:
(a) Select the correct UNICOM frequency.
(b) State the identification of the UNICOM station you are calling in each transmission.
(c) Speak slowly and distinctly.
(d) Report approximately 10 miles from the airport, reporting altitude, and state your aircraft type, aircraft identification, location relative to the airport, state whether landing or overflight, and request wind information and runway in use.
(e) Report on downwind, base, and final approach.
(f) Report leaving the runway.

Is US UNICOM Permitted to Give Traffic Information?
 

Dick Smith: You will note from MrApproach's post the following reference from the AIM it would appear that traffic information IS NOT recognised by the FAA as being a prime UNICOM function.

Bolding is for emphasis only.

Mr Cooper wrote
MOS 139 Chapter 14 Specifies

Obvious Question: What is the basis for the provision of CA/GRO at any aerodrome outside an MBZ?

Mr Cooper wrote

So clearly the provision of CA/GRO services is not supported by CASA at this point in time.

Given the vague "relevant traffic" and the lack of supporting MOS, the whole thing sounds shonky IMHO.

Assuming you mean legal basis, CASR 139.400, 139.405 Bush Lawyering 101?

There would be an Instrument or amendment somewhere declaring references to MBZ be CTAF-R in CASRs and other documents such as MOSs, somewhere around the time CTAF-Rs came in.

Thanks for the references to 139....lets have a look at them...

139.400 and 139.405 reflect the creation of the CA/GRO but that service still needs to "meet the standards for a CA/GRS set out in the Manual of Standards" (139.410)

And that MOS reflects MBZs not CTAFs. 139.390 Definitions:

"air/ground radio service means an aerodrome radio information
service that provides aircraft operating in the MBZ of an aerodrome
with the services and information specified in section 14.2 of the
Manual of Standards."

"certified air/ground radio service, or CA/GRS, in relation to an
aerodrome, means an air/ground radio service for the aerodrome
certified in accordance with regulation"

And if the people running the show don't know exactly what regs they operate under, how then can they comply?

If that is bush lawyer speak, so be it, but "Rules is Rules Macca" and it would ba a "can O worms" if the holes in the cheese line up.

If it looks like a shonk...

Jacko,
I can assure you that CASA created the CA/GRS service and are fully supportive of it - in fact the service was developed to provide real traffic and weather information services at busy CTAF's in much the same way that flight service used to provide in AFIZ'S. To say that the service is a "shonk" because of the reference to MBZ'S instead of CTAF"S is drawing a very long bow - it only means that the documents need to be updated and I am sure you will find many other such references in CASA documents that also need to be updated as well. It doesn't mean that all regulations and documents with references to MBZ'S are invalid. The CA/GRS service has been proven to be very effective and well received by pilots where it operates - just ask any Qantas pilot who flies into Broome or Ayers Rock. And I hope that the CA/GRS service will be expanded by CASA in the new reorganization of airspace now taking place - the traffic and weather information services that CA/GRS provides seem to be much more appropriate to busy regional airports in Australia than the Unicom as proposed by airservices in my opinion. Even more so when you consider the high speed turboprop and jet services expanding into these aerodromes at the moment and into the future.


And thanks to Mr. Approach and Capt. Midnight for your information on unicoms in the USA. From what I can see, this service does not provide any real services required for a significant safety improvement at busy Australian airports - unless of course you find calling taxis and making coffee is important as Mr. Smith appears to think it is.

Noticed a report on the Unicom Trial has been published:

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...erf_review.pdf

Some interesting recommendations:

1. That the Unicom Operator should (has done) move into Wagga Tower to gain situational awareness ... doooh!!! Why this wasn't done at the beginning is laughable :ugh:
2. Expand trial to Karratha, Hervey Bay and Port Macquarie

CAGRO
 

Part of the issue with the CAGRO should be to provide "relevant" traffic at an "appropriate" time...

If someone calls taxi at a CTAF with multiple CCT traffic I have the discretion to remain quiet and let the CCT mob sort it out then let him know later if the potential conflict still exists..

For the CAGRO (as I understand) they are obliged to pass all "relevant" traffic on first contact.. so when ABC calls taxi and the CAGRO passes 6 or more aircraft as traffic alot has happened by the time anyone else can get a word in..

this causes a lot of headaches for the CCT guys.. 1 is slow to vacate.. the next guy is now in the go around and turning downwind again number 3 now short final and the next on crosswind whilst none have been able to trasmit anything..

If the CAGRO had said "ABC multiple CCT traffic stanby for details" the frequency could be left available for the CCT traffic...

eg keep it moving mate i'm now SHORT final behind you...

Forcing one guy to pass all traffic all the time does not always help (in my opinion).. I guess the Jet guys want it.. perhaps pass traffic to them only..and others on request..

QSK?

MrApproach highlighted the section of the FAA AIM that deals with this.

Specifically