At tower in C, or a tower in D?

Why not put in something like a FAA class D contract tower similar to the towers Airservices operated in the USA.

Up to half the cost and the ATCs could start their own businesses.

Locally owned and locally employed. Great for the bush!

I think you’ll find that some would object to D. Too much lattitude for LCDs.

By the way. How can Ballina require an incredibly expensive RFFS which is primarily used after an accident and not require a tower first to help prevent the accident in the first place?

The safety criteria is clearly reversed- just like C over D so I suppose they are consistent!

For once I agree with you Dick. :ok:

By having the RFFS there we can use Ballina as an EDTO alternate reducing our carbon emissions and thereby saving the planet. You should be thanking them.

Folks,
Simple, really, just testament to the power and influence of the relevant union, two of whose members, on the CASA payroll, put the "criteria" together to become a regulation.

How do I know, because I sat in the back row of a conference in Canberra, where it all happened, and "CASA" would brook no "external interference", no risk assessment, much less benefit cost analysis, not even from a rather senior officer of then DOTARS sitting beside me.

We both well knew what the outcome would be, the Ballina nonsense (but not the only one) is there for all to see.

Huge expense to the travelling public and the aviation sector, with negligible to nil safety benefit.

Remember, there has NEVER EVER been an accident on an Australian airport where the presence of on-airport RFFS has made any difference the outcome of the accident, as far as passengers and crew are/were concerned. The "safety" is an illusion.

In classical economic terms, RFSS is economic waste.

That is why we got rid of it years ago, all except for airports where it had to be provided by international treaty obligations. And, before some of you jump all over me, no country is required by treaty to provide RFFS unless it is an international airport.

Tootle pip!!

The airport is employing ATCs on the ground but they are not allowed to issue instructions to aircraft due to ridiculous out of date regulations.

CASA did a safety report a number of years ago stating the E should be dropped to a lower level to improve airline safety. Nothing has happened.

Ballina is the most likely place in Australia for another fatal airline accident. No wonder they put in the $12m fire station! Try and reduce deaths after two aircraft collide on the runway due to ATC not being allowed to do what they are trained to do.

And Shane Carmondy has refused a request by previous Minister Chester for me to give CASA a presentation which would cover this important issue. Minds set in concrete.

Chairman Jeff Boyd no longer answers emails on important safety issues.

And now the important CASA act change is delayed or may not go ahead at all. Disaster

Goodness, Dick..

For some insight into the trigger criteria used to establish the RFFS at Ballina, and the history of the criteria, see the discussion paper here https://infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/arffs/index.aspx. Aviation Rescue and Fire Fighting Services (ARFFS) Regulatory Policy Review

For the new criteria, see the report at the bottom of the page.

The latest airspace review for Ballina (2017) is here https://www.casa.gov.au/files/ballin...lysisreportpdf

Never let the facts get in the way of a good rant!

Actually they aren't ATCs.

Once may have been, but no longer hold licences, medicals or ratings, and are being paid nowhere near ATC salaries.

Didn’t CASA require the class E to be lowered ? What happened to that ?

Surely the ex atcs could give better than a Unicom service. Why not let them run a Camden like VFR system?

I bet they would do for the same pay- make them feel that they are doing something worthwhile.

Better than jamming up a frequency with information that has already been provided!

Once again, a little research provides the facts. Supposition and innuendo merely confuse people. See:https://www.casa.gov.au/files/supple...wayjuly2015pdf

and: https://www.casa.gov.au/files/ballin...lysisreportpdf

CASA has never required Class E at Ballina

VAG277,
Who was it said:"History is written by the victors".

In this case the relevant union, in creating a few more jobs in a rather pleasant seaside resort town, with nil contribution to safety outcomes.
All at huge expense to those paying for this economic waste, the statistics are unassailable.

That is the "true facts", as I have stated, the CASA record omits the most important information, a positive benefit/cost cost justification for RFFS, because there isn't one.

The outcome at RFFS at Ballina is EXACTLY as predicted at the meeting, to which I referred.

Some of the handstands CASA (and its predecessors) have done, over the years, to avoid genuine risk delineation, let alone competent benefit/cost assessment, have been quite spectacular in their audacity.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Folks, have a look at the RFFS "policy paper" outcomes, it really does fit Lead Balloons "self licking ice cream".

And once paid for you can reduce again by $4.50, right?
Just enough for maintenance, not new taxiways every year.

ARFFS is paid for basically by a levy on RPT passenger tickets. The aviation sector therefore gets it for free. A Tower on the other hand.....

I have the obvious answer. Fund the tower in the cargo cult RFFS way!

They do - it's called a CA/GRS.

Vastly different from just a UNICOM.

Buckshot1777,
Another example of a make work by regulation stitch-up, to create jobs for former (mostly) Flight Service people.

The "limitations" as to who could be the Australian unique CAGRO was buried away in about page 398 of a 450 page NPRM. Apart from those responsible, I think about two of us in industry discovered the stitch-up, by then it was way too late.

And, as per SOP, absolutely no risk analysis or benefit/cost justification.

Again, always a one-way ratchet of Australian unique increased costs and restrictions.

Tootle pip!!

As the CA/GRO requirements state you must have held a FS or ATC license within the last 10 years, that pretty much counted most ex FS out, as there haven't been any for longer than that.