Lost - 2000+ airfields
 

Apologies if this has been posted before but has everyone read H29/17 AERONAUTICAL DATA ORIGINATOR RESPONSIBILITIES?

Airservices has lost the details of who is responsible for some 2000+ airfields currently listed in the ESRA and WAC. If the people reasonable for these airfields don't come forward Air Services will remove these details from the AIP.

You will be surprised at what airfields are on the cull list.

Has something gone wrong here? Are airfield operators boycotting Airservices?

https://aopa.com.au/wp-content/uploa...10/a17-h29.pdf

It's quite extraordinary. There are half a dozen airports in there including a large one licensed all managed by the aviation manager of a government department. That's his title. Not too hard to find.

What is of greater concern is the background to this. Have a read of the form that you as farmer Joe, or publican Joe has to sign to be responsible by law for the veracity of all obstacles, notams etc. if I had a strip that I used and was happy for others to use, no way would sign that form unless I was a paid airfield manager.

So the airfields get deleted from th databases and situational awareness decreases when these no longer pop up on your track on your moving map....

Anything for which Airservices cannot charge a fee is being bureaucratised out of Airservices’ in tray. All of those pesky ALAs and NOTAMs about nobodies daring to fly little aircraft to far away places don’t make money for Airservices. The solution? Make it frustratingly time-consuming and difficult to deal with Airservices on these matters. Most give up. Job done so far as Airservices’ ‘brains trust’ is concerned.

Gosh, I don't know if they tried very hard, there's a few Hospitals on there and some in the Territory and such are well known. Surely contacting a Hospital or some of the Charter Companies in the areas concerned or looking up Regos that travel to them to ascertain who uses them wouldn't be terribly difficult?

Places like Apollo Bay, why not try Apollo Bay Aviation? Flinders Naval Depot..hmm, wonder who they could contact about that one?!

This is an absolute disgrace, who did they try and contact about these?!?!

There is nobody to “contact them”. That person has been sacked from Airservices. The ‘brains trust’ now has to go through a process to show that it’s everyone else’s problem.

There are a number of these airfields that are privately owned, and which are currently listed as PPR.

In speaking with some of those airfield owners, they don’t want their details listed anywhere because they have had an increase in pilots landing without permission, because the pilot has always wanted to go there, but either doesn’t want to pay landing fees or can’t be arsed going through the rigmarole of ringing up or submitting the paperwork to get permission.

In one case that I know of, old mate pilot turned up to a privately owned airstrip without permission, rolled out his swag under the wing, then tried to help himself to avgas and oil from the scenic flight operator. Did I mention this was a Station that offered accommodation (from tent sites through to four star) for travellers, and that the airstrip was leased to a licensed air charter operator who had the avgas for their company’s use? Some clown coming through on the wrong frequency, flying backwards against circuit direction, and then trying to “borrow” avgas didn’t impress them much - all could have been solved with a quick phone Call to get permission, check the frequency and circuit direction.

Or the hero who turns up and lands, without permission, and admits he thought he was at an airstrip 20nm away. Both airstrips required permission to land, the one he was aiming for never gives out permission to land but he didn’t have permission from either. And admitted it was because he couldn’t be bothered. Bragged about how he was a check & training captain for (insert international airline here).

None of which is Airservices’ problem...

Then they should get their details removed from ERSA and AOPA Directory if that's the problem, but that's a totally seperate problem from what we're talking about here.

Beggars belief.

Folks,
This would be funny if it wasn't so bleeding serious.

In the AIC it uses the words (AICH29/17, para. 2.2) "Airservices has now exhausted all reasonable avenues of enquiry in relation to the identification of the remaining ADOs".

2000+, 80 pages of them !!!

One is Flinders Naval Depot (aka HMAS Cerberus). I wonder did they think of giving the Navy a call? In terms of warm bodies, that is probably the biggest RAN base in Australia.

Far more importantly, the Emergency Services Helipads from a majority of NSW hospitals are on the list, the idea that they will all be expunged from ERSA, GNSS/FMCS, AvMap/OzRunways databases and paper maps, and eventually WACs etc. is just too ridiculous for words.

The other one that really gets me is the airfields with a full listing in ERSA, I wonder did it ever occur to anybody in Airservices to ring the contact number in their own publication. They couldn't find anybody to officially tell them (the duty of an ADO) where the Jindalee (JORN) aerial site strips are?? DST is in Canberra!!

All this is "so Australian bureaucracy", a mindlessly literal and narrow interpretation of a regulation, all in the name of "safety compliance", without regard to the real safety ramifications of the data no longer being available in a publicly available format from an approved source.

One of the missing is Royal Adelaide Hospital, given all the publicity it has had recently, shouldn't have been hard to find, my local hospital, the SAN is missing, most of the hospitals in Perth are missing.

This is the cancellation of many GPS approaches on steroids.

In my opinion, it would be quite reasonable to describe Airservices behavior in this matter as scandalous, given its obvious risk ( safety) ramifications, particularly EMS.

Tootle pip!!

Surely we could get some Journos in on this and a bit of publicity? This seems pretty clear cut that someone hasn't done much work at all and is going to cause endless troubles.

"Apologies Rescue 500, we no longer have that hospital in our Database, could you please take a few of your precious minutes and ours and tell us the Lat and Long for the 10th time this week? Cheers!"

I did hear a rumour that the information has been sent to the last known operator / contact for the airfield, and they have chosen not to return it. For a variety of reasons.

Outnabout,
Interesting so called rumour, what could possibly be the reasons?

The navy deciding to keep HMAS Cerberus top secret?

Take the dozens of hospitals for example, could this be a collective decision by state health services to boycott helicopters EMS to reduce A&E waiting times??

Balgo Hill, perhaps to make it harder to fly in illicit grog?

Lizard Island, a plot to save the Barrier Reef from tourists?

A bunch of council owned airfields in NSW a cunning plot by property developers to hide them from aviation??

Or, just perhaps, Airservices not taking responsibility for publishing aeronautical data that they are obliged to publish under national legislation and international treaty, by claiming that establishing an "ADO" for every spot is the responsibility of somebody else -- hiding behind a suitably self-serving and Airservices budget friendly interpretation of a CASR Part 175 regulated requirement.

Tootle pip!!

If all these ALA's are removed from the data base would this in any way affect your insurance cover should one have say a prop strike on landing or hit a roo etc. Would the insurance company treat your landing as an irresponsible landing in a paddock somewhere (even if the strip was well maintained)because it was no longer an authorised landing area?

Interesting that the circular states: And yet Broken Hill is listed as one of the problem facilities. That the RFDS with a large base of operations there cannot provide details of the operator of the BHI aerodrome (or the operator refuses to provide details to AirServices) is interesting.

Makes me think in many cases operators are not responding to requests rather than not being able to be identified. Which is still very concerning.

Given that the original data made it to and remained in the AIP since Noah played fullback on the Ark, something has changed. Either Airservices has changed the way it does things or all of the operators of the aerodromes in question have changed the way they do things. Which do you reckon is more likely?

I’m guessing that what has really happened is that no one wants to expose themselves to all of the strict liability offences in Part 175. Have a look at Division 175.D.1, in particular, to see bureacracy and criminalisation gone mad.

Golly., there are a lot of 'medical/hospital' entries in that AIH !

It seems to me that quite a few of those entries are actually VFR waypoints that (for reasons unclear) still have a 'Y' ICAO prefix,
eg. "Majura Training Area', 'Stag Tanker Mooring Platform', 'Walcott Inlet', 'Roper River Aqua Farm', 'Blenco Falls', 'Beaver Reef', 'North Solitary Island', ...

Folks,
For those of you who haven't, please have a look at what is actually included, it is NOT anything to do with conditions on the ground, liability for prop strikes, or anything else your fertile imagination can dream up, it is a list of geographical positions. And it is NOT just a few private ALAs.

These "official" positions are vital in compiling databases, whether for GPS/GNSS systems, FMCS systems, EFBs (Garmin/AvMap/OzRunways/Jeppesen) or, eventually, paper maps. Publishers are only permitted to publish data from "approved" sources, in Australia Airservices is the only source of such data.

In my opinion, Airservices has an obligation to obtain the information, including providing resources to obtain the information in an accurate and verifiable form, as many of the places listed will not have access to adequately reliable up to date data, nor the specialist expertise to obtain same.

Just imagine a letter turning up to:

The Approved Aeronautical Data Originator,
Upper Kikatinalong Shire Council,
PO Box 1,
GAFFA.

It would probably go straight into File 13 as junk mail

Tootle pip!!

PS: Two on the Victorian list are Tyabb, and Lilydale, not your average idea of an ALA

I've just emailed the missus who is reasonably senior in NSWHealth to at least get their ones sorted out. Fcuk knows what ASA is playing at with some of those entries though, Westmead & Royal North Shore hospitals?? Sydney Children Hospital?

Hey, if Warnervale is delisted as an airport, does that mean the council will stop charging excessive landing fees as it isn't at an airport anymore?!?

Leadsled,

Your comments on here only indicate that you don't know what you are talking about and don't understand the reg you are reading.

Responsibility to publish does not mean responsibility for accuracy or data custodianship...

You amongst others have been calling for privatisation of AsA on here for a while. Now you have the beginnings of it, and start crying about obligation. What a joke

It’s worse than that, LS. The letter probably says something like this:

Aeronautical Data Originator,
Upper Kikatinalong Shire Council,
PO Box 1,
GAFFA.

Airservices would like to continue to publish information about your aerodrome/HLS/ALA. Before you provide the information, and before Airservices publishes the information, please note the following:

You must appoint a single senior manager within your organisation as the AIP responsible person for your organisation. If you do not, you commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

If the person you appoint does not have knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person, you commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

Equivalent requirements and offences apply to your NOTAM authorised person, if you have one.

You must provide Airservices with the name of the AIP responsible person (and your NOTAM authorised person, if you have one) and notify Airservices of any changes. If you do not do so, you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

You commit a criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units if you do not notify Airservices of the need to change aeronautical information, as soon as practicable after you become aware of the need.

The data or information you provide must be in accordance with specifications Airservices gives you, or you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

You must review, at least annually, the data and aeronautical information published in the AIP for which you are responsible, keep a record of that review and provide a copy of the review to CASA on request. If you do not do so, you commit a strict liability criminal offence carrying a penalty of 50 penalty units.

Yours in aviation safety and love and kisses

Airservices Australia

alphacentauri,
You must have me confused with somebody else, I have not recently or any other time, been calling for the privatization of Airservices.
Contestability for RFSS and small airport towers ( as per the contract towers Airservices operated in US) but not wholesale privatisation. Rejigging to something like the Canadian model would do very well - that is not privatisation.
As for chains of responsibility and legal liability, as seen by the courts, I understand that all too well.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Lead Balloon,
Too close to the truth for comfort.

This is the driving regulation.

And yes, LB, spot on. 50 penalty unit fine for each airfield's contact (The Aeronautical Data Originator) for a whole raft of things.

Folks,
Lead Balloon knows whereof he speaks ---- this would scare off most people.
Who from the local council or hospital or wherever would want to put their hand up for an ADO "job".
Australia's oh! so friendly and easy to use aviation regulation.
There has to be a better way.
For those of you who don't know, or have forgotten, 50 penalty point is near as makes no difference AUD $9000.
Tootle pip!!

Division 175.D.1—Aeronautical data originators—general
175.445 Aeronautical data originators—AIP responsible person and NOTAM authorised persons
AIP responsible persons
(1) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator provides aeronautical data or aeronautical information to an AIS provider; and
(b) the originator has not appointed a single senior manager within the originator’s organisation as the AIP responsible person for the originator.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An AIP responsible person is responsible for the provision of aeronautical data or aeronautical information, other than in NOTAMS, from the originator to an AIS provider.
(3) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator appoints a person as the AIP responsible person for the originator; and
(b) the person does not have the knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
NOTAM authorised persons
(4) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator asks an AIS provider to issue, review or cancel a NOTAM; and
(b) the originator has not appointed a person in the originator’s organisation as a NOTAM authorised person for the originator.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(5) A NOTAM authorised person is responsible for requesting the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS for the originator.
(6) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator appoints a person as a NOTAM authorised person for the originator; and
(b) the person does not have the knowledge and competence to request the issue, review and cancellation of NOTAMS. Authorised Version F2017C00742 registered 15/09/2017
Aeronautical information management Part 175
Aeronautical information management—aeronautical data originators Subpart 175.D
Aeronautical data originators—general Division 175.D.1
Regulation 175.450
Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 317
Compilation No. 77 Compilation date: 12/9/17 Registered: 15/9/17
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
175.450 Aeronautical data originators—telling AIS provider of AIP responsible person and NOTAM authorised persons
(1) An aeronautical data originator commits an offence if:
(a) the originator provides aeronautical data or aeronautical information to an AIS provider; and
(b) the originator has not told the AIS provider, in writing, of the following:
(i) the name of the AIP responsible person for the originator;
(ii) the names of the NOTAM authorised persons (if any) for the originator;
(iii) any changes (if any) to the persons who occupy the positions mentioned in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) since any previous provision of aeronautical data or aeronautical information to the AIS provider.
Penalty: 50 penalty units.
(2) An offence against this regulation is an offence of strict liability.
175.455 Aeronautical data originators—requirement to provide updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information published other than in NOTAMS
(1) This regulation applies if an aeronautical data originator becomes aware of a change that is needed to aeronautical data or aeronautical information:
(a) for which the originator is responsible; and
(b) that has been published by an AIS provider:
(i) in the Integrated Aeronautical Information Package (other than in NOTAMS); or
(ii) on an aeronautical chart.
Note: The aeronautical data or aeronautical information for which the aeronautical data originator is responsible must be specified in a data product specification: see paragraph 175.160(4)(a).
(2) The originator commits an offence if the originator does not, as soon as practicable after becoming aware of the need for the change, provide the AIS provider with the following:
(a) updated aeronautical data or aeronautical information;
(b) the date the updated data or information becomes effective.
Penalty: 50 penalty units. Authorised Version F2017C00742 registered 15/09/2017
Part 175 Aeronautical information management
Subpart 175.D Aeronautical information management—aeronautical data originators
Division 175.D.1 Aeronautical data originators—general

Whats wrong with making a aerodrome licence certificate holder responsible for the provision and accuracy of the information pertaining to their aerodrome?
There are aerodromes who up until recently had threshold coordinates that were wrong by hundreds of meters with no response from the aerodrome for years.
If aerodrome licence certificate holders are not taking their responsibilities seriously then why should AsA? All this reg does is pressure aerodrome operators to take it seriously. And if they dont then damn straight they should be removed from the book as well as the approaches.
Its not Airservices responsibility to do it for them.
Yes the restructure forced the hand but the publication if CASR175 means it was coming eventually. I didn't hear anyone screaming when the NPRM was issued.

Be interesting to see reactions from RFDS and other providers of emergency response if half the regional aerodromes are wiped from databases.

Most of the GA stops across the southern continent are in the list as are large numbers from WA and NT. Most of the remote Aboriginal communities are listed and I guess the forms might be a tad hard to follow if English is your fourth or fifth language?

I can see one hell of a negligence suit down the way.

Kaz

Like motherhood and apple pie, complete and accurate aeronautical information is an objective good.

But whoever it was who decided that a substantial number of accidents and incidents have been caused by incomplete or inaccurate information published in relation to the thousands of aerodromes/HLSs/ALAs on the list has no grasp on reality. That disconnection from reality is confirmed by the fact that whoever it was also decided that the way to deal with the risk of incomplete or inaccurate information is to get people to nominate the ‘criminals’ responsible in advance.

What a surprise that the outcome is instead crickets chirping and unintended consequences including a reduction in safety.

alphacentauri, I'm pretty sure if there is an Approach then the information should be very accurate, I HIGHLY doubt the Aerodrome has moved much from year to year and doubt the information used for the approach is provided by an ADO and if it doesn't have an approach it shouldn't be an issue either then.

AlphaC,
Now who doesn't know/understand what they are talking about --- most of the places on the list are not certified (or even registered) airfields --- CASA regulatory requirements (CASR Part 139, complexity and cost) have meant that many local councils ( and others) have dropped out of that system, unless they have RPT of the size where they have to maintain same.

As has been made clear, a substantial proportion are EMS hospital helipads.

There has to be, there must be, a better (and affordable) way.

Tootle pip!!

Ixixly, you'd be mistaken

Leadsled,
Let's just say that if I sat down with you over a beer I'm sure we'd both end up in fierce agreeance. I think your frustrations at Airservices are misguided. They have no obligations and are doing what they are allowed to do under the regs. It's the reg and CASA mindset that has to change first.

Do I like Airservices attitude toward the whole thing? No. Do I agree with reg as written? Not entirely. But there are still major airports that don't/can't/won't hand over important infrastructure information which can and does compromise safety. Should they be penalised for it? Not initially, but how long do you let it remain an issue and how else do you get them to hand it over? Some aerodrome operators in ERSA/DAP don't even know they have responsibility for an aerodrome.

Why I stated that I didn't think you knew what you were talking about was because if you understood the reg framework you wouldn't have come out all guns blazing at AsA. Part 175 requires them to do what they are doing.
Alpha

Alphacenaturi, care to explain further as to how I'm mistaken? I'm genuinely curious.

I was under the impression that an Instrument Approach design requires the area to be well surveyed for it and that any drift in the coordinates would be extremely minimal from year to year which is why they don't need a new survey conducted? And if the coordinates are off for a VFR flight by a couple of hundred metres then what's the major issue there?

Can anyone tell me if Part 175 is something new as well? Or has someone spied their eye over it and decided that even though nothing has changed and they could continue status quo that doing so would leave them open in legal sense and required this fairly drastic move?

I also think alpha that most us aren't necessarily against them trying to get the data current and checked, most of us are aghast at how so many that shouldn't be an issue suddenly are, I don't see how removing so many Hospitals Landing Sites for instance is of any use to anyone?

all this **** comes about because CASA is not required to have regard for the good of the industry.

Part 175 has been around for a while. Most have been ignoring it for the obvious reasons, and now bad things are going to happen as a consequence of it. If I were a betting person, I reckon the usual bandaid will be rolled out: exemptions.

I wonder whether the people who came up with the masterpiece considered that maybe the person who has the knowledge and competence to carry out the responsibilities of an AIP responsible person for e.g. YBHI is not and never will be a “senior manager” within the Broken Hill Council, and therefore it’s impossible to comply?

Or whether they considered the possibility that when all information about and chart markings of places like YBHI disappear completely from the AIP, people will still operate in and out of those places, simply using whatever old and ‘bootleg’ information they can get a hold of. What a terrific outcome for safety.

If I were to dedicate time to responding to and explaining the disconnection from reality, the overkill, the unintended consequences and the impenetrable complexity of proposed civil aviation regulations, I would do nothing else until I went mad. Alas, I have a day job and would prefer to stay sane.

I have put all of the coordinates into google maps so that people can see which points are in their local area, from the names it is hard to work out sometimes.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer...90&usp=sharing

A lot of them are Helicopter sites and a few are seaplane sites but there are also some site that I would have thought there was enough activity to warrant remaining listed eg Broken Hiil and "The Oaks"

Consider when I'm around there I hear "The Oaks" at least twice a day, I concur no_one, there's a lot of places up in the NT that are frequented as well in Arnhem land.

Lead Balloon, sanity is overrated, let's face it, if we were all truly sane we probably wouldn't have gotten into Aviation, let alone stuck around! :D

Touché, Ix.

There's also a few listed serviced by RPT flights, with IAP's designed and published by Airservices. Can only hope the AIP is trying to sling some responsibility back to CASA after a industry backlash.

Ixixly,
Understood, aeronautical data in Oz suffers from inaccuracies over time mainly due to the different datums they have been surveyed in.
Eg. Many airfields were originally surveyed in AGD66 and the conversion to WGS84 is epoch based. Some agd66 positions have been published as wg84 and can be up 200m in error. We are still recieving data from Perth in Perth Coastal Datum and Adelaide in SA local.
175 has been created to try to solve some of these problems, but there is a long way to go.
Eg try telling the aboriginal elder at Kalkgurung that his data is incorrect.....they just dont understand