Lookleft - settle down, son.

I'm not having a go at you or RPT pilots in general, or even at Jetstar in particular - one of my best mates is a J* captain. Just pointing out in what I thought was a semi-humourous and ironic way the other side of the RPT/jet vs GA coin at non-towered airports such as Ballina.

WRT the radio call issue: there have been senior Jetstar ops people come along to present at a few CASA/Airservices aviation seminars that I have been to in several locations. On at least two occasions that I recall the issue of IFR radio calls that were unintelligible to the uninitiated was raised (not by me, BTW) and the Jetstar ops rep response was that "that makes sense, that should be easy to fix". My J* mate has raised the issue as well. Obviously for reasons you state, it's not easy to change the culture, even for minor issues like this..

No problems NTM the reality is we are in furious agreement over the poor standard of radio calls. You should ask your J* friend for a copy of the radio cheat sheet J* produced several years ago. It included such gems as"visual on top". :ok:

Bloggs,
Got the message on E in the US??

I notice you still obviously believe you have or should have right of way over "VFR", only when you agree to get off the road in your "private" car, while there is a bus or truck there, and only proceed in your "private" car when there is no "scheduled or un-scheduled public transport" anywhere in the area, will I agree that you should have any prior right to airspace.

Since the advent of E, every flight I have conducted in the US, in anything from a T-6 to a B747-438, and quite a variety in between, has transited E airspace. Before E it was still called controlled airspace, VFR exempt.

Why don't you look up a few airways charts, see how much E is used in other countries, not just the USA.

I was reminded today of a very vociferous opponent of E, when it was first proposed in Australia. Said person (well known around RNAC) conducted regular tours of groups of Australian pilots around the the US, he didn't even know he had been flying in E for years.

no_one,
Add KSFO/PHNL and every off line place I went to over the years on non-sched. or freighter services.

Blokes like Bloggs just don't get it, and sadly, never will.

And that is all part of the reason why we have such a lousy safety record in Australia --- we seem to be completely "culturally" unable to adopt risk management allocated and cost benefit justified use of finite resources to produce the best air safety outcomes --- to minimise the risk.

Tootle pip!!

Class E etc. in the US .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airspac...(United_States

Still don't know what it has to do with Dick having an IFR bad hair day at an airport that randomly happened to be Ballina. Surely he can't be calling for radar control services in *every* location where there are 4 IFR aircraft near an airport in IMC, can he? Of course, if everyone had ADSB out and in.....problem solved. :}:}

If we can do mobile phones for $100, why can't a smart cookie develop ADSB-out for everything aviation? Sure, add another zero onto the cost, but wouldn't a decommission of maybe 3 or 4 VORs/NDBs pay for that?

i.e. is it really that hard to develop a device that does ADSB-out at low cost?

Add a cheap tablet that interfaces via bluetooth to an ADSB-in receiver (say, coupled with OzRunways or similar) and - wow- our situational awareness suddenly improved 100 fold.

Now that's safety improvement.

google that...
 

A F....Latest international gliding mag has a couple of articles about ADS B ...and the cost.
Google intend to apply there elctronic smarts to produce something to cost about 500 bucks or less, therefore affordable for all.

Of course in the Land of Oz where the air is funny peculiar and ADS B is mandateds by '16... in the US of A by '20 and they will have the benefit of some of the amazing developments soon to come.

Another article re tiny watch size digital radios..Come in Dick Tracey !

Such a thing already exists for this part and the cost is less than $50 if you already have Ozrunways.

ADS-Pi: Low-Cost ADS-B IN for OzRunways

Even in the 'so called' J curve radar coverage is limited. I'm sure your local ATC would be only too happy to give you traffic & avoidance advice...........if they had the radar coverage. Class E to the ground with an approach service would also give them valuable experience to take overseas with them :E

ADSB is now giving coverage to the ground in the West Sale/East Sale area. Radar at around F110-120. Class E to the ground with an approach service would be awesome but 1 in 1 out? Would you be happy with that? Would you be happy with the local VFR dood (in VMC of course) flying through your IMC approach?

Porter,
It happens now in G, so the only thing that changes is that the radar man is going to give you the VFR traffic. Do you have a problem with having that information, and positive separation from other IFR traffic??

Don't forget that law (and, hopefully, your sense of self preservation) requires IFR aircraft to keep their eyes out the window, particularly (obviously) in G,E and D. Being an IFR flight does not absolve you from keeping a lookout.

As to the lower levels of radar coverage around Sale, don't confuse the actual coverage with what is selected to be presented on a TAAAAAAATS screen, as was demonstrated years ago, after a celebrated "near miss" at Williamtown.

As has been said, time and again, E works just fine in the rest of the world, what is the problem in Australia that so many domestic pilots seem to believe it would higher risk than "do it yourself ATC" in G.

Tootle pip!!

I'm on your side LeadSled! There needs to be a bit of cultural change for E to work in Australia the way it's intended to. Unfortunately, cultural change is woefully managed by both CASA & ASA.

Just out of interest, why would ADSB coverage to the ground be presented on a TAAATS screen but radar be filtered out? An ATC uses the same surveillance separation standard for both.

no_one - that ADSB-in interface is brilliant - that sort of thing is exactly what is required for real-world use (perhaps with a couple more levels of redundancy)... e.g. OzRunways can take input from multiple sources and display when discrepancies occur (eg. aircraft xyz has travelled at 900 knots since its last reported location when comparing source A versus source B) etc.

Yep. Throw the book at the jet crew waffling around trying to get their aeroplane on the ground when they clobber something that is a tenth of their size because they couldn't see it behind the iron-mongery that holds the cockpit in place...

No it doesn't! In Class G (actually F) we're all on the same frequency in the CTAF; in class E I have ATC directing me around the sky on a clearance on one radio and the VFR blabbing to me on the CTAF! I really am worried about the inability of some here to understand that!

I'm all for CA/GROs or Class D; just keep the enthusiastic amateurs off the airwaves. Things are busy enough as it is in the terminal area already.

Lookout doesn't work and nor does simultaneous comms on two radios in two-pilot ops!

No it's nothing like class F

ICAO class F lists no radio for VFR.

That would send you berserk !

Yes, well, ICAO Class G has no radio for VFR either. So what shall we call it... Class H?

The fact that you and LeedSlud cannot come to grips with is that well before Alphabet soup airspace was invented, Australians created a useable, practical and cost-effective airspace system. We didn't have millions of radars, we didn't have millions of dollars to spend, nor did we need millions of miles of controlled airspace.

To placate the obsession of some to comply with what is done do O/S, we had to have a name. So "someone" thought G would be best, when in fact F is far more appropriate as it accurately describes services to IFR. Of course, "G" has served the argument of critics of our system that "IFR are on their own" well, when in fact our Class G provides so much more than crummy old ICAO G. But let's not let the facts get in the way of a good story eh...

Next... :hmm:

Bloggs, with all due respect, I believe you are a victim of the Australian Culture which does not like change of any sort. You would of course be aware that the only thing that is constant in Aviation is change!!

Whilst we could always return to the days of Flight Service, that we know is not going to happen. Yes, having Class F was discussed at length many times and I agree it would be more appropriate in many areas than G, but that is what the decision makers at the time decided, so we live with that (for the moment at least??) Many still live in the world of FS and want that to work in today's airspace model. Those folk need a big wake up call - this is 2015 and not 1980! (mind you, there were many things that were done much better back then, than now, but CASA don't have the corporate knowledge and history of what happened back then in the good old days of DCA - maybe if they did, it might be different?)

The fact that Class E works elsewhere in the world is at least a good reason to examine it in the Australian context. The real problem with its introduction is that those that even supported the ICAO menu of airspace classes did not at the time understand fully the implications of the change/s and how to introduce it across the board. For many that operated in upper airspace etc there was little or no change. However as we know the changes in what was OCTA did change and that is what we now have to deal with. I have operated in Class E and it is not an issue, provided you understand how it works and appreciate that VFRs may be about, hopefully monitoring the correct frequency.

Again, this brings about the amount of education required at all levels and the ability to address the culture issues that you and others don't seem to acknowledge. CASA have never appreciated the entrenched culture within this industry and have certainly never applied the required resources to bring about effective change (hello...look at the mess of Part 61..!)

Part of the problem is addressing pilots in the airlines that don't operate in E/G very often and they still believe it to be OCTA as it was years ago. Wrong! Some of the folk that wont let this happen are in fact senior pilots with the major carriers and it is very difficult to even talk to them about this as many don't accept they should be lectured to on this, or anything else for that matter. If CASA can get thru that gate, they will be doing well, but since they presently have very little credibility and very few pilots with appropriate experience I will not hold my breath. Maybe the new DAS can change that, but it like most things will take time.

By the way, have you ever in a two-crew op tried to work it so that one pilot has ATC as primary and the other pilot has the CTAF as primary - using the volume controls. I have, and it works well if briefed correctly.

The use of radio as discussed previously, is in this country, close to out of control with far too many transmissions and many that don't mean anything to anybody but the one doing the talking !! You need to get value for money out of every time you press the PTT. Again education and a change of culture is the key to getting it right. :ugh:

Maybe we should introduce some F so that we have an excuse for a major education program?? The question is: are CASA up to that?? Certainly the OAR have little understanding of what is out there in the real world, so it would have to come from elsewhere.

Triadic:
I never said I wanted FS back. I'm quite happy with my beepback, AWIB and tablet update from the NIS. A CA/GRO is an appropriate step up from a CTAF. Speaking of FS, what on earth could justify Firies yakking on the CTAF? I have the utmost respect for their primary job, but having one of them in action on a busy CTAF throwing in their two-bobs worth is not going to help anyone :Hey guys, just letting you know there's a loud on the top of that hill! Don't run into it!". If a CTAF is that busy (Ballina), put in a CA/GRO (properly trained, not "a couple of units of the ATCO course") or a tower.

Completely missed my point. We have a class F service in our uncontrolled airspace now. The term "Class F" didn't suit the master plan which was to use the "Class G" term to complain about our unsafe operations OCTA by Dick Smith and Richard Woodward; exactly as is occurring now (as well as some nit-picking bureaucrat who noted that Class F is "temporary" on the way to implementing Class E).

You can't be serious? Until someone goes whizzing past your windscreen? Is Class E supposed to raise even further the hairs on the back of my neck Because I know that even if I do spot a lighty, if he's on a collision course with me, I will probably be unable to avoid him. Class E means "VFR exempt" = non-participation. The whole idea is that VFR can do as they please talking to no-one. Get them on frequency and get them talking to me.

The implications? No radar and no ADS-B = procedural control, not to mention how many extra ATC sectors required?

You cannot be serious again... the reason we have two pilots is that the decisions are better; two heads are better than one. How can that occur with what is effectively single-pilot comms? "ATC says do this!" "But Captain, there's a lighty turning right!" "What? where is he again?!"

You don't change an airspace system because people talk too much.

And the major education program would be what... "Err, we're really operating in what ICAO would call Class F with it's IFR Air Traffic Advisory Service, so... nothing's changed...continue on as per normal..."

Oh dear Blogsie,
you sound just like that regional captain that "Instructed" me to hold East of the field until he had departed on an absolute CAVOK day, then got all snarky because I told him I was just entering the holding pattern overhead before conducting a practice NDB approach. Mate with due respect RPT do not own the skies over Australia, (the RAAF does).
Maybe a sabbatical to the USA to see how airspace is supposed to work might enlighten you. An afternoon doing circuits at Teterborough at half past four on a Friday afternoon should convince you.

hi Blogsie, yes I have to agree with thorny - you sound like a check captain that I used to work with - had blinkers on all day and never thought outside the box, nor considered empathy for other users.

From what you say, you are an example of the problem - CULTURE CHANGE AND EDUCATION and we might see some significant changes.

Oh and part of the deal would be to teach airmanship and situational awareness like they did 30+ years ago. Not much of each surfacing from many flying schools or airline training departments these days.:ok:

Could you two point out anywhere that indicates I don't show "considered empathy for other users."? Thanks.

You're both quite welcome to sit in my jumpseat at any time to see how I operate OCTA. I have used hundreds of kgs of fuel and time over the years to help out VFRs during arrivals and departures; fitting in, it's called. I've orbited over the top of places waiting to "get a slot" at busy regional airports. If you guys have a problem with Capt Blighs, then complain to someone else. Mind you, with Leadsled showing the bird to an A380 because he can, no wonder some of my ilk are becoming a little jaded with portions of the VFR fraternity...

It is a pity that you guys (Triadic, I'm surprised) can't argue the toss re the facts. Class F for example. What exactly is wrong with what I said above? Nothing, so you accuse me of being a Capn Bligh.

I am really concerned that most seem quite comfortable with RPT jets with over 100 seats operating in an unalerted See and be Seen environment.

I'm also concerned with the concept of one pilot using Comm 1 on ATC and the other on the CTAF. For goodness sake, the reason we have two pilots is to make the decisions twice as good. That can't happen when each is doing their own thing! And yes, Triadic, I did consider it once or twice. It's the one of the more dangerous things one could do. That is one of the reasons I dislike E; nobody has actually explained how, at Ballina, an RPT crew would reasonably cope with ATC on one freq giving them clearances for this and that down to 700ft and on the other them self-segregating with the VFR that was there (and listening to the well-intentioned firey). You guys read the brochures and believe it all. Just like the glossy "Class G" and "Class F". Try it and one day the wheels will fall off. And, of course, it'll be the hapless jet crew that gets thrown in the clink because they broke Leeadies law and didn't look out so as to See and Avoid the VFR they ran in to. The only reason Class E works is the big sky theory.

Teterboro: I'd quite like operating there. High pressure Class D with B on top. The guide recommends VFR plan to hold outside the zone for extended periods during 1300-2100 IIRC. Got any better examples than that, Thornbird?

As for change, I don't mind change. I like it when it's for the better. Nothing I have seen in the last 40 years of Australia's airspace design has particularly been for the better. Routine No-Radio at jet ports was madness and was never accepted by CASA, thank goodness. And the problem was?? There was none. Everybody goes about their business, talks on the radio. Only the selfish ones who refuse to fit in continue to bang on about it. Meanwhile, the industry was in turmoil for decades.

Well folks,

Ol' Bloggs has really nailed his colours to the to the foremast. An experienced RPT Captain and airspace and safety expert like Triadic doesn't know what he is talking about, but good ol' Bloggsie got it all taped.

The rest of the world is out of step, but Bloggsie has the answer. Actually, there is a very interesting book including the life and times of an MMA Captain of old, I'll just call him Captain Reg., who had quite a piece about people who think like Bloggsie. It wasn't praise.

Sort of explains why, in about 1996, AOPA inaugurated an annual award, names after a WA bloke some of you might guess, the award going to the person, whose efforts were above and beyond the call of duty in impeding aviation progress in the previous twelve months.

The trophy was a bone headed flightless bird, the CASAWARY, with its head buried in the sand.

We must be a sexist lot, come to think of it, it has never been awarded to other than a bloke.

Tootle pip!!

As an FSO, if I missed traffic, I was stood down, re-assessed and re-rated once my proficiency was deemed to be back up to par. Who carries the can if the baggage handler manning the Unicom misses traffic under Dick's new regime?

Wouldn't cost that much to train a Cagro operator up. Wouldn't take much to have a fiery do a met observers course, train him or her on Cagro. (Good luck getting one of them to sit in that little tower all shift doing it though, I'm tipping they'll tell you to fark off, better things to do).

And good luck finding someone to stump up with the insurance premium to cover these 'Cagro' operators. Cos when it goes tits up, it's gunna cost somebody some serious coin.

Change the liability laws in Australia and you might have a chance.

Folks,
Before you all start rushing of in every direction about liability and duty of care, I suggest you actually read some of the existing legislation on the subject.
Tootle pip!!

Leady, any chance you could point us in that direction? Post a link to legislation? Ta.

I just love it when the coalition sits to the right of the speaker.....:hmm:

No, the only reason Class G works for IFR is the big sky theory.

Class E in Australia has been implemented (deliberately or accidentally) to provide no benefit to anyone.

Class E is supposed to replace Class G, on the principle that aircraft operating in IMC should have ATC assistance to avoid each other. It is not intended as a replacement for Class C/D*.

When the decision was made that Class E will be implemented WITHOUT providing additional service to IFR, the point of the project disappeared. After that it became a process of finding places on the chart to put a bit of Class E, so someone can tick their "Class E Implementation" box.

*Although once you have a choice between C/D/E/G instead of just C/D/G you will probably find airspace that is class C only because it can't be G, which might be changed to E.

Hey guys wonder if anyone else has had the thought that it would be nice if the base of CTA was printed on Jepps and Dap's.
May not be so important for bug smashers but noticed a few times in high performance aircraft the "oops" question "When do we hit CTA?". Much scabbling for maps, sometimes hard to find especially on Jepps.

Geesus, you don't check that in your departure brief before you take off?? :ugh:

I can see now why some suggest E to the ground... :hmm:

Can anyone assist me with the radar coverage at Hervey Bay?

Does it drop down to the circuit area? If not what is the lower level of the coverage?

Ballina fire station.
 

It amazes me that someone would put a multi million dollar fire station at Ballina to pick up the wreckage of any perceived or otherwise crash when a tower that may prevent that crash would seem more prudent. I apologise if the following piece of prose has been posted before and may bore people to the point of suicide, but it is apt;


‘ Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant,
But over its terrible edge there had slipped,
A duke and full many a peasant.
So the people said something would have to be done,
But their projects did not at all tally.
Some said, "Put a fence around the edge of the cliff,"
Some, "An ambulance down in the valley."
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day,
For it spread through the neighboring city,
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became moved with pity,
For those who slipped over that dangerous cliff;
And the dwellers on highway and alley
Gave pounds and gave pence not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.
Then an old sage remarked, "it’s a marvel to me
That people give far more attention
To repairing the results than to stopping the cause,
When they’d much better aim at prevention.
"Let us stop at its source all this hurt," cried he.
"Come, neighbors and friends, let us rally.
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
With the ambulance down in the valley.

Why is there the perception that the only thing the ARFF would respond to is a mid air collision? I certainly can't talk you into a safe landing/takeoff from the tower.

The truth is out there somewhere...

As a regular user of Ballina airport in all weather conditions, I absolutely agree with Norm's letter. Mostly empty airwaves....rare arrivals of 3 or more IFR aircraft in IMC .....

Here's the schedule for RPT into Ballina: http://ballinabyronairport.com.au/wp...h-June2015.pdf.

Reckon you need a full-time CAGRO or tower for that, Dick? Nonsense!

Self separation has worked fine here and at other CTAF airfields that have RPT - and if a bit of coordination with the other pilots does your head in when you fly your personal jet in with a highly experienced aviator as co-pilot, then I suggest you hold at a suitable altitude above it all until everyone else has landed, or divert to land at the Gold Coast and drive the hour down for everyone else's safety.

Bloggs - I would be very surprised if you were getting clearances when below 10K' on approach to YBNA. Onward clearances can wait until after you land.... In any case, if a single pilot IFR can monitor two frequencies, then a two crew unit with TCAS should be fine.

All Dick's sh!t stirring is going to do is drive up costs to all who use the Ballina airport to no safety advantage. As Dick often asks - where's the safety case? The local Aeroclub guys, who have spent a large amount of private money on their clubhouse on the field are a bit upset at the prospect of a tower - most of the long term members now fly RecAus and won't be able to get into the controlled airspace if it goes that way...

CAGRO or tower, whichever way it goes - you'll get thanks for nothing, Dick, from the GA community who use Ballina airport....the very GA pilots whom you profess to be supporting....

Ballina
 

So glad of the previous post. I agree. I learned to fly at Ballina and still go there occasionally. It's unusual to have more than two aircraft in the vicinity at any one time. You might get to four including a commercial operator. I don't understand what justified tax payers funding a multi million fire station.

The near miss with the metro liner and heli 2013was just that..a near miss accident. They happen all the time all day long..it life. a procedural radio error and error caught in time. Flying school have now beefed up their radio checks.


I have experienced commercial operator radio error...on the ground they are on area I guess and not listening to ctaf. No big problem just deal with it with appropriate caution.


Dick..perusing this ifr to ground will only result in a d tower at Ballina and kill off the local ga a lot more a lot quicker. More unjustified tax payer funding. Over regulation is way more of a problem than this in killing off ga, but it doesn't need a tower at Ballina to make it worse.

In the days of Department of Transport if a jet service went to any destination it would automatically require a tower. I think it was when East West decided to operate F28s into Albury and Wagga is when they got their towers. I also think it was a helicopter pilot of note that decried the waste of taxpayers money in putting expensive infrastructure into regional airports just because a jet operated into these ports once a day. Apparently jets operated into regional airports in the US and they didn't need a tower.

I actually don't disagree with the idea of a Tower at Ballina and as Wagga,Albury and Tamworth have shown they are still thriving as airports. What I disagree with is the idea that the money needs to be spent on a fire station first.

As for this idea:

:ugh:

Lookleft
You are correct. As CAA Chairman I introduced the FAA Establishment and Disestablishment formula for Class D towers. This resulted in a number of towers closing, such as Wagga and Mt Isa. My problem with the situation at Ballina is once again the safety expenditure is being reversed. Instead of spending money on mitigating the chance of an accident, they have actually spent the money on a fire service that will pull people out of a burning wreck. Why not put in a Unicom first of all? If run correctly on the American and Canadian model, the cost will be zero. Then why not drop the Class E airspace down to a lower level? That, in fact, is a recommendation from the last CASA Safety Study. The cost is very small.

Personally I am completely opposed to the huge waste of money for a fire station at Ballina. It is totally ridiculous and a huge misallocation of resources. However, seeing a fire station exists and there are seventeen firemen on the payroll, why not at least provide a Unicom service in the way they do in the USA? As I have mentioned, the cost is zero and there will be a marked safety improvement.

A near miss as opposed to a near hit!

It would seem that we are in complete agreement on this Dick. I am not opposed to the idea of a Unicom either, it seems to work at AYQ.

Frank-what happened at Sunny Coast between the Airbus and the helicopter was definitely a near hit!:ok:

Re " In the days of Department of Transport if a jet service went to any destination it would automatically require a tower "

And...."Lookleft
You are correct"

Hey Dick (you agreed with him) and 'LL'......naughty naughty..... B/S personified!!!

I worked for many years at locations like Kalgoorlie, and Derby - "Derbs" - which 'looked after 'Broome' as well as 'Derbs', as you are very well aware - you actually visited us once.
You did not have to ask for a 'clearance' to 'Derbs' - you got 'AFIZ' service.

And each of those had JET RPT services.....as did Geraldton, Carnarvon, Learmonth, Karratha, Hedland, Kunners, etc etc

And, NONE of those had a 'tower'!
Some did, then didn't, then when Hedland Council funded it, did, then didn't again when it was found to be too expensive, then.....who knows....!!

We used to manage those from the FSU at the location. Or, in the case of Broome, it used to be managed from 'Derbs' long after the Broome FSU was closed. (Remote AFIZ)....

Then after the 'Big Cut' we managed these 'remote' AFIZs from Perth FSC...

Tower..??WOT Tower..?? Yeah, I am aware that some of these places have a 'Tower' again.....as to WHO is paying for it / them...?? Well, with NO 'Flight Service' or CAGRO, 'somebody' thought that they just 'had' to have 'something'....

In the 70's when I flew 'full time' out of Hedland, there were aeroplanes everywhere in the Pilbara.
Sometimes I was 'no 3 to land'......
Not so many now!

Keep it cleen now.....

No Cheers :sad:

Thanx again for......