And what I have repeatedly asked you Dick, is why are there are not more UNICOMS in Australia, when it is already perfectly legal to operate one?

I understand it's not possible to give a US style Unicom service here .

For example Clive Wilson at Lord Howe can no longer provide a WX and traffic advisory service he has in the past.

His details were removed from the ERS a few years ago.

Someone from CASA has told him verbally that he can go ahead and give the service but he has asked for confirmation in writing and this is not forthcoming .

If CASA allowed FAA style Unicoms we would not need expensive CAGROs

On the first point, I was intimately involved and had to tow the party line, being in uniform at that time. I had to sit there and watch incidents that were caused by nothing other than blind compliance to ideology. Why the hell was C converted to E that almost led to disaster at Launy when the Airservices guys were providing a totally competent, safe separation service with C for no extra cost? A degradation of service that put peoples' lives at risk. Ideology!

There was another incident close to Darwin, where two Metros almost created an aluminium shower because C was converted to E with zero justification. That one was never reported because it complied with E rules, and the company had them both go VFR in E to 'save costs.' A head-on narrowly avoided because a bunch of switched-on controllers in Darwin (the dreaded RAAF) picked up on what was going on. That one still haunts me.

As regards the second point - a total waste of time.

You are always on TX, never on RX.

The C was converted to E at Launceston so the Tower Controllor could concentrate where the risk is highest. That is near and on the runway. That's no doubt why Broome has E over D as do all other modern aviation countries.

C over D is clearly " upside down " airspace because the risk is obviously higher where traffic gets closer together.

You want it that way because that's how it was in the past. Your mind is set in concrete and you have no understanding of risk management.

The so called " serious incident" was not an incident at all. The VFR pilot had the Virgin aircraft sighted at all relevant times and was always going to remain clear. That's how alerted see and avoid is supposed to work.

The Virgin pilot never sighted the VFR aircraft and if we did not have our safer mode C class E transponder mandate no incident would ever have been reported because the Vigin pilots would never have known the VFR aircraft was present.

One day we will kill people because a Controllor at a place like Albury is attempting to separate aircraft in Class C en route airspace above while two aircraft collide on the runway due to the fact that the high workload is moved to the low risk area. It's the only reason that other modern aviation countries place the higher classification airspace where the collision risk is greater- that is closer to the runway . Just commonsense while we resist any change.

In effect. If in 1949 we just had controlled airspace and un controlled airspace we must never ever change that by following the experience in countries where traffic densities are thirty times higher

More importantly. The reason we are not using the existing radar rated controllers in the Melbourne Centre to provide a proper radar approach service into Launceston is because we can't change to the system used in leading aviation countries where the tower controllers just concentrate on the tower airspace where the risk is highest.

No doubt in the 1950s or whenever Launy tower went in the tower controllers had huge airspace to 30 miles or so.

So we must never change that. Leave the 1950s procedures set in concrete for ever even if it means keeping procedural control with its clear lower level of safety.

What a complete waste of $6 m of our industries money for the multilateration system. Yes. I have heard the AsA lie - that it was never intended to operate in terminal airspace.

As regards NAS, and in respect of Launy, Alice, Darwin, and other places, you attempted to fix a 'problem' where one did not exist, at no saving. Alice was a classic example of controllers doing their job in non-radar Class C. Would you like to quote an incident where those controllers were hampered in doing their job because it was Class C, where E would have been a 'safety improvement and a cost saving?' Just one! Just one, Dick?

And, oh, the 'Radar Direction' letter to the idiot minister. Wasn't that a beauty in respect of manipulation. As your beloved Yanks say, 'Anderson couldn't find his ass with both hands' when it came to gullibility in matters aviation.

I was there when that letter was written and gagged at what I considered to be lying, and gave my opinion that it was total BS.

You see, Dick, there was a good case to say that, in this day and age, Class C should have radar. I'd have agreed with that argument.

Instead, the argument was twisted to say that you can't have Class C without radar - because the baseline is the States, where C has radar. Consequently, the argument was put to the idiot that you can't have C without radar. That was duplicitous in the extreme.

Missed this one and I was there Dick.

Nobody wanted Class D. It was stupidly introduced as a sop to try and shut you up. My recollection was that 'Give him something' was the Airservices' position. Influence!

We wouldn't have this argument about 'C over D' if it had all remained C, you weren't pandered do, and what worked was left alone.

All non radar towers in the USA and Canada are class D. Are you suggesting there is a safety problem with this when we have jets going into places like Ballina in class G? That would never be allowed in the USA.

I know. It's all ok because that's what we did when you were trained - it must be ok!

Do you warn your friends not to fly in North America? I bet not!

And hold on. Gatwick in the UK is class D. Bet you don't have a problem flying there!

Set in concrete. Never keep an open mind to copy the worlds best. Just never ever change.

The radar direction letter came because it's clearly not possible to operate C safely without primary and secondary radar.

How would the controller know where the VFR aircraft was located when above say 7500'?

You can't put a VFR aircraft on a procedural IFR route or position if the aircraft is not fitted with IFR aids.

I forgot. I know how you handle this non radar class C problem - "remain OCTA"

The delusion continues - the Launy incident was a bloody Airprox.And the Tobago pilot was a bloody idiot. You talk about dirt road services, well that event was about as appalling as it gets without there being a collision and was totally in accord with your beloved US procedures. Rather demonstrates how dirt track they are. The fact is it nearly killed a plane load of people.

Believe what you want Dick, but when you come out with pearlers like that you do yourself absolutely no favours.

Maybe you'd care to re-familiarise yourself with the actual report: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/24413/...305235_001.pdf

The Tobago pilot thought 2 degrees at 15 miles would be enough - the fact is he clearly had no understanding of nav tolerances and didn't consider what would happen if his estimate for the passing was out by even 30 seconds. You bang on about pilot arranged separation - well this wasn't even arranged. It was a guess from someone who clearly had not a clue - the lives of a plane load of paying passengers was put in the hands of the clueless.

So, you are implying that the en route controller is going take the word of a class d tower, whilst the aircraft are in the en route controllers airpaace, and then the class d controller is going to have two aircraft prang in his airspace?

Really?

Get off your high horse.

Despite what you imply, actual co-ordinated handovers occur between D and enroute which actually help the traffic, you know why, because they co ordinate! I don't expect them to be killing people by trying to control aircraft in other airspace, that really is just ******* stupid.

Please, stop the scare tactics.

Once upon a time, it wasn't allowed in Australia, we had a system where RPT jets could only operate in controlled airspace, and they even built towers at busy airports to cater for them.
But that got changed.

I'm not asking about a US style Unicom, I'm asking about the Aussie one.
How? Operators don't do Unicoms that supply info to our regs now. What makes you think they are lining up to provide one with more? As for CAGROs, how many are there in operation in AUS? One? Maybe the rest of the industry doesn't think we need them either.
If Ballina put one in because they have to be seen to be doing something due to the scaremongering to the media about "how dangerous it is to fly there" and the costs are put straight onto industry, the industry will know who to thank when they get the bill.

We don't have many CAGRO s because the cost is incredibly high. Last time I checked the Ayers Rock CAGRO was costing over $400k a year.

We don't have UNICOMs because they are next to useless as known traffic and weather can't be provided under the rules.

That's why Clive Wilson at Lord Howe no longer is listed in the ERS and no longer can provide a safe Unicom service at zero cost.

Re the Launceston incident. Note how no recommendation is made to reverse the NAS airspace .

What is left out is the Tobago pilots continuing statements that he had the Virgin aircraft in sight at all relevant times and he believed there was never ever any chance of a mid air.

In the USA and Canada there is no transponder requirement in E above D so no incident would have been reported because the Virgin pilots did not sight the VFR aircraft at any time.

The Tobago pilot stated that the aircraft were at least a mile apart when they went through the same level and he was using alerted see and avoid to maintain separation.

That's actually how the system works all around the world. In fact ICAO class E and G has no radio requirement at all for VFR aircraft so un alerted see and avoid is the way it works in ICAO compliant countries

In Australia as well as having very low traffic densities we add mandatory radio and mandatory mode C transponders to make the class E " belts and braces" yet the concrete minded ones still say Class E can't work safely.

I think you may mean 'sight'? :confused:

You are correct. Thanks!

Car Ramrod. I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you ever spoken to an American or Canadian class D Controllor and asked how the system works there?

I remember once how I got the Juneau Tower head to come on this site and explain how D worked in the USA. Within hours there were posts claiming he could not possibly be an ATC because of his comments.

I am sure it must be in the archives!

He also believed that the 737 was turning, when it demonstrably wasn't, and that a 2 degree radial difference at 15 miles would afford adequate separation. I can't say that really fills me with confidence.

If I've got this right, Dick, then a situation that resulted in a TCAS RA and a miss distance within 200'/1 nm is not even an incident - merely a good system working the way it was meant to. Yet the possibility of holding at Anna Bay is an intolerable risk that will inevitably kill young families. God help us.

I can’t help myself but post again a couple of posts from 2004.

The first one from Voices of Reason headed “Class E Airspace is Safe” and the second one from “The Leyland Brothers”.

I’m told the Voices of Reason was a previous head of air traffic control at CAA but I have never been able to get this confirmed. I think both posts have some really good common sense information.

Voices of Reason 21st Apr 2004 16:19
________________________________________
Class E Airspace Is Safe

Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.

the leyland brothers 21st Apr 2004 17:02
________________________________________
Same in continental Europe - plenty of class E and it seems to work just fine.

You dont see European pilots or controllers bitching and whinging like teenage girls.

Whats wrong with Australian pilots and controllers? Are they somehow not as good as pilots and controllers elsewhere?

I'd consider an RA with a miss distance of less than 200'/1nm a bit of a hint that something might be unsafe, but you're right, there's probably something wrong with me.

So why don't you comment about all our airline aircraft flying around in uncontrolled G terminal airspace like Ballina where there is no transponder requirement so TCAS won't work at all?

And there isn't even a Unicom to confirm the " calling in the blind" announcements are actually working!

I know of course- that's how we have done it since the 1950s and our minds are set in concrete so we must never re allocate airspace categories based on risk. Always keep the status quo.

Really Dick, OAM and solo helicopter pilot, thats what your argument comes down to?

A sexist comment and schoolboy taunts!

I can see now why your reforms didn't get through when you were Chair of CAA.

So because he couldn't provide traffic and weather advice (the latter of which he can still provide [limited by the MOS to: "General aerodrome weather reports provided by a Unicom operator are to be limited to simple, factual statements about the weather"] which seems to be basically all the US system provides) he stopped supplying any service at all?? Wow, all that other handy stuff a Unicom is meant to provide must be important then.
My mind boggles that you actually believe that there are hundreds of FBO receptionists, baggage handlers and refuellers around the country all poised with their thumb over the press to talk, just itching to jump in and help sort out that mess in the circuit, but gagged because they can't pass traffic?

Actually, as you well know, up to around 20 years ago all airline (and other IFR) aircraft were provided with a minimum of either a dedicated separation service, or a directed traffic service about all other known aircraft (with unknown VFR traffic being covered by looking out the window just like now - yep, alerted and unalerted see and avoid) in any airspace they flew in.
But then things got improved.:confused:

Lookleft. That was clearly a post from someone calling themselves the Leyland Brothers.

It was not my post or view at all.

Traffic. Yes that full position/AFIS system cost at least $70 m a year.

That means about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out since I abolished the system.

I wanted to move to the proven low cost North American system where third party confirmation was provided by a low cost Unicom operator- a person already at the airport.

And where we have at least one airport where the free service can be provided- Lord Howe - it is prevented by CASA.

I bet lots of airports would have the service if it was non prescriptive like the USA.

Alas, that $1.4 billion was not reallocated so as to achieve benefits for aviation. It was instead p*ssed up against the wall by successive profligate governments. Yeah!

Ironically, Dick, your abolition of the system paid for the Seasprite debacle. Kaman Corporation is eternally grateful to you and the other suckers in the Australian aviation industry for the $1.4 billion. :ok:

The Seasprite project was much better use of the $1.4 billion 'saved' from the aviation industry, I'm sure you would agree. :E

From the story in the The Australian June 13 2015, it seems his details were removed from the ERS at the request of the Airport Operator. Nothing to do with CASA or AirServices. Aerodrome information in the ERS is provided by the aerodrome operator, so they decide what goes in there.

How is it 'clearly not possible'? No facts, just opinion.

That said, and as I stated before, if the argument had been put that we should, as a modern aviation country, have radar in Class C these days, then you'd have had got no argument out of me. Instead, we got a 'too clever by half' letter to a gormless minister with the clear intent (IMHO) of deliberately deceiving him.

Simple, Dick. When I worked in the trade, and the memory is getting a little fuzzy, VFR were required to lodge a FPL - except, I think, NOSAR for flights less than 50nm.

On the FPL, there were the tick/flick boxes that allowed the VFR pilot to indicate what aids he/she was qualified to use. In my time, the great majority were qualified to use the three basics - ADF, VOR and DME. In short, they were qualified to give you a legitimate instrument-position report. If they ticked the box on a particular aid, they were telling you that they were qualified to use it and that the info could legitimately be used for separation.

For those that did not have any quals, the VFR routes in to and out of places like Darwin and Alice provided guaranteed visual fixes in respect of separation.

Then came the 'Flight Note.' What an innovation that was, whereby the controller didn't have a clue as to what the capabilities of the PIC were in order to expedite traffic flow. That was a breathtakingly stupid move in respect of 'system efficiency!'

See above as regards the great majority being so fitted and qualified!

Yeah, us 'ground-based radio operators' just get great delight in screwing VFR around.

You have to give Dick some credit. He is no longer comparing the Australian system to the 1930s. He is now referring to the 1950s.

And he's no longer saying that the changes "he" made resulted in savings "to the industry". I think it's finally dawned on him that the cessation of funding of aviation infrastructure as a common good did not, in fact, result in the industry saving a cent.

LB and Fujji,

I saw, directly, the amount of money that was wasted on 'ideology.' The dollars were massive for no gain. Other than fracturing the industry.

All because a certain individual had enough 'political pull' (IMHO) to push a flawed agenda. No system safety case, no cost/benefit - not even a very basic risk analysis. There was an 'implementation safety case,' but it was tosh from my perspective. Merely designed to ram through an agenda based on nothing more than opinion and ignoring the proposed system flaws. The 'inconvenient truths' were ignored because they were inconvenient to the argument.

The worst few years I ever spent in any job.

Rediculous statements re the money saved not assisting the aviation industry but somehow being used to fund the Super Seasprite disaster.

Bringing the staff from 7000 to 4000 clearly saved the aviation industry a fortune. Most of these people were paid by the aviation industry and that's where the saving went.

AsA has never been funded by the taxpayer- always by the industry.

Howabout. What money was wasted on the ideology of removing mandatory full position reporting for VFR? It saved a fortune. What money was wasted by giving operational control to the industry? What money was wasted on the ideology by closing down Mt Isa tower and the RFFS at all the secondary airports?

All a huge saving to our industry that would have been in a a far worse situation now if the changes and savings were not made!

And how come you are all gutless and anonymous. If you really believed in what you were saying at least one of you would post under your own name . There is nothing in the prune rules which prevent posts under a real name!

How do you figure that, Dick? How did the aviation industry pay for it?

It all used to be paid for out of appropriations from consolidated revenue, for the common good. Governments used to think that aviation infrastructure and encouraging aviation were good ideas in a country that wanted to be at the cutting edge of technology and innovation. Pilots used to get AIP for free, because governments decided that spending taxpayer's money to provide AIP for free to the user was a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole.

It's just like public education. Governments have decided that a public education system is a good idea and beneficial to society as a whole, so governments appropriate money out of consolidated revenue to run a public education system. I don't mind that, even though I don't use the public education system (or the public hospital system, or Medicare or the PBS or some highway that was constructed at taxpayer's expense).

Now airports in Australia are just monopolies for rich mates to suck wealth out of a hapless public. The aviation industry in Australia is being regulated to death by the aviation 'safety' industry that feeds off the mystique of aviation.

"User pays" is just code for: You're politically weak, so just suck it up.

Not blaming you for those outcomes, Dick. But, crikey, the outcome could have been a lot different if the focus of your energies had been informed by even a superficial knowledge of how governments and politics work, beyond the 101 concept that politicians don't like the prospect of losing their cushy jobs.

But you are correct about RPT operations in G. It is surreally stupid (and so Australian) that RPT operations can occur in G (or is it F?...) without a 'safety' eyebrow being raised, but if one aircraft gets close to another in some other class of airspace in which that proximity is a 'no no', it's conniption time, even though it's OK for those aircraft to be that close in G (or is that F?).

And for the last time, can you get some young relative to show you how to turn the spellchecker on?

Even young Sunfish has had to self separate from Rex at YBHI. it makes me feel really grown up.

However on another occasion,, with rain showers and not great weather, I was glad that no one was arriving because I had my hands full.

Dixk is right. Not good weather, a gung ho RPT aircraft expecting a competent GA pilot who is found wanting and……..

Dick calls G "dirt track". But how is E without surveillance any less dirt track? As the AIRPROX near Launy demonstrated it is no different. A clueless VFR can still kill you in exactly the same manner - there is no difference Yet he was happy to replace C where the IFR and VFR would have been separated with dirt track E.

First off, Dick, you are not wrong about everything.

As you rightly point out The Isa was a waste. A hangover from the days when Viscounts and DC-4s plied the BNE/DAR route and didn't have the range.

I also had no problems with the withdrawal of RFFS from the secondaries. If one ran the numbers on a cost/benefit basis, the outlay was not justifiable.

'Operational control' was a crock IMHO. Getting hassled by some fool in 'Operations,' trying to dictate to me, and who couldn't hold down a real job at the coalface, was a waste of my time when sh*ts were trumps. So a tick on that one as well.

As for mandatory reporting, I'll agree to disagree. My previous missive in respect of flight planning and being able to discern who was capable of giving position reports for the purposes of expedition, separation, and facilitating VFR to the maximum extent, sums up my position.

On balance, however, you made some pretty reasonable decisions in respect of the issues that you've raised. There was undoubted waste in the system.

But, but, you just can't seem to help yourself when it comes to language and the selective use of facts:

That is a 100% correct statement, but lends the impression (doesn't it?) that AsA, as a 'GBE,' has always run the system; when, in fact, 'user pays' is a relatively contemporary development in respect of our ATM system. And who thought that one up??? Thinking, thinking, thinking....

As LB rightly points out. And thank you LB; couldn't have put it better myself:

For the 'common good' in respect of where my taxes went, and I never had a problem with that as regards the funding of vital infrastructure and services. And then we got 'user pays,' and we are here where we are, where we are.

BTW, and neatly avoided: my original referred to what I regarded as the scandalous waste of taxpayer dollars (mine) on that recurring hobbyhorse - 11/11, Airspace 2000, Son of Airspace 2000, the G Airspace Trial and, woo-woo, NAS.

I saw it all, Dick. It was public money (probably in the millions) p155ed down the drain for no gain. Why? Because all of those failed initiatives were, IMHO, based on nothing more than opinion and 'I want.' No rigorous analyses in respect of cost/benefit nor risk - just opinion and 'I want.' Such an approach cuts no ice with me.

Balloon,

Stay away from comments about government funding.
When the 'Finance and Deregulation' department HAD deregulation which was before Abbott moved 'Dereg' to Prime Minister and Cabinet, there were:
the FMA ACT (which covered the department and the eighteen other departments in the Federal Government),
the CAC ACT (which covered CASA and other statutory agencies), and
GBEs (which covered AsA and others).

FIN wanted to move everything (more or less) to the GBE governance model which meant, along with other things, that some entities would e.g. require a Board and some would not.

That plan stalled with the Abbott move but the consolidation of the FMA and the CAC ACTs has gone ahead.

'Appropriations' which come out of the BUDGET fund the old CAC ACT and FMA ACT people but appropriations do not fund GBEs.

'Consolidated revenue' is what is left unspent at the end of the financial year and has absolutely nothing to do with 'appropriations'.

In fact, under the old (seeing as you are talking about 'remember when...') CAC ACT entities like CASA did not have to return the excess at all but in a somewhat ironical situation, they could not spend it either!! It basically had to sit in the bank.

If anyone other than a GBE wants to spend money, then they have to put together what is called a New Policy Proposal (NPP) and it is up to the relevant minister to decide if he or she will go into bat with the Finance Minister and ask for the cash.
For CASA or someone who has a surplus in the bank, the Board has to agree to return the money or not. The government cannot just 'take it'.

If CASA wanted to use the surplus in the bank for something, then before they can do THAT, they have to convince the Finance Minister to allow them to 'register a loss'; something that the LIBS were adamant under Abbott no CAC agency could do.

Might have changed now as it is Thursday, March 24th after all.

Government funding after WWII was mostly given to the Royal Aero Clubs (they were specifically mentioned) to promote aviation just as some RAAF pilots found themselves seconded to QANTAS before the war had ended (the legendary Captain Hughie Hemsworth, a fantastic pilot and one of the funniest people I have ever met was just such an example).

Back then, everyone knew the war would end soon and aviation had demonstrated it was going to be the future of transport.

Same reason the ICAO predates the UN (the Chicago Convention was signed in 1944) and why ICAO has a different structure to other UN agencies, 'specialist' or otherwise.

Funding to grow the GA world stopped long, long, long ago.

Ah the joys of undergraduate research. You'll probably scrape a Credit for that essay, AR.

You forgot to mention 'the vibe, Mabo and the Constitution. On the subject of the Constitution, I note section 81, which says:And no: I don't need a lecture about whether statutory bodies corporate are part of the executive for the purposes of section 81.

You'll get to constitutional law later in you studies.

Hang in there. Only a few years to go! :ok:

What's seems to have been forgotten is the fact that before the " user pays" was introduced by the Hawke government after the Henry Bosch recommendations there were very steep
" air nav" charges for all aircraft.

If I remember correctly my twin Comanche cost about $3 k a year and 182 about $1500.

Fly one of these aircraft today and if you don't keep it at expensive airports the AsA and CASA charges are far less.

Can anyone remember these charges? Anyone have a list of what they were?

Balloon,
You are no business man are you?

"Revenue" = what comes IN.

"Appropriation" = what goes OUT.

You have to have the 'going out' before you can get any of the 'coming in'.

In any event, CASA is not funded from 'consolidated revenue'.

I guess you have been a raving success with some other formula?