|
We have moved this topic from Ballina to Remote Towers, so to revert to the subject of the post...............
Ballina is, like Wellcamp near Toowoomba, in a particularly difficult position from an air traffic control point of view. It sits astride a well-worn aviation corridor sandwiched between Class C controlled airspace to the north, Class E above, and ADF R Area to the south. It also has retained an NDB which is used for IFR training and many VFR aircraft use the airspace to remain OCTA. It also has other airports using the CTAF plus private ALAs in proximity to them all.These combine to create a multi-use piece of airspace of far greater complexity than say Broome or Karratha. This is then exacerbated by scheduled passenger traffic, the protection of which is the primary role of CASA and Airservices. Both have decided that the pilots of the public transport aircraft do not need any air traffic service (other than Airservices IFR traffic information in Class G airspace), deeming the risk to the passengers of the public transport aircraft to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), as required by the safety management systems they should be utilising. There are a number of risk mitigators at CASA and Airservices disposal yet they choose to pick a non-ICAO compliant radio service which CASR regulations (CASR 172) states explicitly is NOT an air traffic service. What else could they do? 1. Install surveillance, specifically SSR - this will detect all of the transponder/ADS-B equipped aircraft; 2. Control the IFR entry and departure tracks utilising either Class E or C airspace - either would do if there was surveillance; 3. Control Ballina aerodrome traffic with Class D airspace - this would capture everybody with a radio; 4. A combination of Class E and Class D - this would be the lowest risk option. A cost/benefit analysis is then normally applied I am not going to attempt that here, I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive? |
Perhaps the solution is for VFR aircraft to get from Sydney to Brisbane via a VFR corridor via Alice Springs? |
We have moved this topic from Ballina to Remote Towers, so to revert to the subject of the post............... Ballina is, like Wellcamp near Toowoomba, in a particularly difficult position from an air traffic control point of view. It sits astride a well-worn aviation corridor sandwiched between Class C controlled airspace to the north, Class E above, and ADF R Area to the south. It also has retained an NDB which is used for IFR training and many VFR aircraft use the airspace to remain OCTA. It also has other airports using the CTAF plus private ALAs in proximity to them all.These combine to create a multi-use piece of airspace of far greater complexity than say Broome or Karratha. This is then exacerbated by scheduled passenger traffic, the protection of which is the primary role of CASA and Airservices. Both have decided that the pilots of the public transport aircraft do not need any air traffic service (other than Airservices IFR traffic information in Class G airspace), deeming the risk to the passengers of the public transport aircraft to be as low as reasonably practicable (ALARP), as required by the safety management systems they should be utilising. There are a number of risk mitigators at CASA and Airservices disposal yet they choose to pick a non-ICAO compliant radio service which CASR regulations (CASR 172) states explicitly is NOT an air traffic service. What else could they do? 1. Install surveillance, specifically SSR - this will detect all of the transponder/ADS-B equipped aircraft; 2. Control the IFR entry and departure tracks utilising either Class E or C airspace - either would do if there was surveillance; 3. Control Ballina aerodrome traffic with Class D airspace - this would capture everybody with a radio; 4. A combination of Class E and Class D - this would be the lowest risk option. A cost/benefit analysis is then normally applied I am not going to attempt that here, I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive? |
I will only ask how much is an A320 or B737 worth, how much is an individual life worth, is a Ballina-based secondary radar too expensive, is a single-person ATC Tower too expensive? CASA, Airservices, ATSB and governments won’t call it for what it is, but that doesn’t change what it is: affordable safety. (There is a twist to the concept in Australia, though: The concept of “affordable” is affected by politics.) Airlines and their pilots make the decision, all day every day, that the risks of flying in and out of places like Ballina (and Mildura and Wagga and..) are “worth” taking. Nobody is making them take those risks. |
Sorry, Lead, but affordable safety is only another term for a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you need to quote a ridiculous example to see what that means. For instance, close Ballina aerodrome, make everyone fly to the Gold Coast, then the problem goes away. Clearly that is silly because we can make Ballina much safer without closing it down - oh and incidentally not forcing holidaymakers to drive for an hour on the Pacific Highway - arguably a less safe practise than flying!
The issue here is that Airservices has a master plan, and it does not include any new non-ADSB surveillance or manned control towers. They are really not interested in providing services at places like Albury or Ballina because they do not make any money! Any service they do end up providing in such places is simply a spin-off from their main game which is making money for the Federal Government out of aviation or something the Department forces them to provide because otherwise it may embarrass the Minister and affect his/her chances of re-election (see current activity around Hobart for proof). Why else would the law forbid private enterprise from providing such services? As for CASA - just a rubber stamp working for the same department as Airservices; CASA's main game is administering AOCs. Other countries with free-enterprise economies allow private sector air traffic services (ATS) where the private sector is best placed to provide such services. Why, for instance, is Sydney Airport not allowed to own the ILS although they own the runway lights? Why are they not allowed to build their own air traffic facilities and then tender the services out to specialist companies or even employ ATS staff them selves. Heathrow Airport does! Funnily enough the Certified Air/Ground Services at Ballina and Ayers Rock are the closest we get to free-enterprise in our system - pity the company that provides the service is not allowed to operate control towers or even an Aerodrome Flight Information Service! |
Sorry, Lead, but affordable safety is only another term for a cost/benefit analysis. Sometimes you need to quote a ridiculous example to see what that means. For instance, close Ballina aerodrome, make everyone fly to the Gold Coast, then the problem goes away. Clearly that is silly because we can make Ballina much safer without closing it down - oh and incidentally not forcing holidaymakers to drive for an hour on the Pacific Highway - arguably a less safe practise than flying! Absent those numbers, the assessment is meaningless. |
Lead, your last questions expose the myth that is Australia airspace policy.
The last published assessment of Ballina airspace by the Office of Airspace Regulation, is 2015. In it they said that the airspace (Class G) was fit for purpose but recommended a CA/GRS (Class G with a directed non-ATS traffic service!). Now, according to AIP Supp H140/19 that arrangement is no longer fit for purpose because four VFR pilots failed to make the transmissions required under CAR 166C. So CASA introduces a Broadcast Area (Still Class G with a directed non-ATS traffic service) which is not an airspace change, it is a radio procedure change that eliminates non-radio equipped aircraft. The AIP SUPP however only requires that pilots (not aircraft they are machines) make a radio call when departing, entering or transiting the broadcast area. This is essentially identical to CAR166C minus the "if the pilot has a radio" part. As I have written previously CASA has run out of mitigaters to reduce the risk at Ballina - the probabilities of a mid-air are addressed in the AIP SUPP by stating that the number of movements are unchanged at 13,000 but the number of air transport movements has decreased by 12.7% so the risk has in terms of likelihood has actually reduced! Now I am not arguing that nothing needs to be done, there is clearly a problem, I am only arguing that CASA does not seem to have the balls to tell Airservices to install some surveillance or impose positive air traffic control over the airspace in order to safeguard the fare-paying passengers. I would only add that if these separation issues are coming from the airlines flying into Ballina, as I suspect they are, they should think very hard about whether they need to risk their reputations by using this particular airport. |
The AIP SUPP however only requires that pilots (not aircraft they are machines) make a radio call when departing, entering or transiting the broadcast area. This is essentially identical to CAR166C minus the "if the pilot has a radio" part. CAR 166C does not mandate the radio calls that are now mandated by the new instrument. 124.2 is going to get very ‘chatty’. You’ll be able to hear the increased safety (except from those suffering finger trouble...) |
What Ballina needs much more than an ATC tower is a parallel taxiway. It’s a very inefficient airport while jets have to roll through to the turning node at the end and back-track after landing RWY06, or backtrack from the apron to depart RWY24.
|
250below10 - You are correct however a parallel taxiway is probably more expensive than a small (privately run) Class D control tower. Proof of this can be seen at airports such as Cairns, Gold and Sunny Coasts, Hobart, and so on, all of which have large (Government monopoly) Towers, but either limited or no parallel taxiways. In these cases the Tower is in fact a mitigator for the lack of a parallel taxyway as anyone who has operated through Cairns should be able to work out. The parallel taxiway only provides a mitigator against runway occupancy issues; this is only one factor in the complexity problem. A single person Class D Tower controller can mitigate against many other issues in on the ground, and in the air, as well as contributing to the smooth running of the airport. This, in my view a reason why the ATCs should be working for the airport, not the Government. There is, by the way, no reason why a privately run Tower should not operate as part of the overall ATC system and be able to provide clearnces, SSR codes, etc. The fact that this does not occur at Ballina and Ayres Rock is an artificial constraint imposed by the Federal Government (Airservices and CASA) in order to be able to claim that a CA/GRS is not an ATS.
Should anyone claim that a privately operated ATC service is not possible or unsafe, I would only ask them to consider whether privately operated airlines are safe, and why do the British CAA and US FAA allow them? Is it too expensive? The costs would be mainly ATC salaries, but the CA/GRS guys at Ballina are all retired ATCs, if that is affordable than so would be a Tower |
Cairns has a parallel taxiway for 2/3rds of the runway! Ballina has none. Straight off the apron onto the runway.
|
I propose a new model, revolutionary and puts the onus on the user. Yes, user pays. In the end the user ends up paying about 8 times but hey, it fools the public into thinking that those rich pilots can afford to pay, so they should.
Construct a parallel taxiway, a bloody beauty, fully lit, not just painted centrelines but that stuff that is raised and melted into the surface. And...............TOLL IT. Force anybody that uses it to pay, I dunno, $12.41 per pop, yearly CPI increases. E-tag on the dash, if you don't pay your bill, massive Police fine. Get the Police to do your dirty work on a private taxiway, shouldn't be a problem for VicPol especially, they love that ****. Airport owner can just gift the property for the taxiway to the operator and mumble something like 'It costs us more to maintain than to operate it ourselves.' When reminded that they don't own it, the tax/rate payer does, mumble something like 'There's significant economic benefit in operating a public/private partnership and will cost us all less in the long run.' Leave the old half-arsed taxiway in place, you know, you should have a choice on whether you use the tollway or not. But make sure it takes twice as long to get where you're going, put some traffic lights on it, make sure there's a few potholes. Nothing like a propstrike and associated bulk strip to make you realise you should stop your meaningless protest and just use the tolled taxiway. Job done. I just made 4.3 million dollars in consulting fees. |
Originally Posted by ramble on
(Post 10626627)
On average, 15 commercial movements a day, 1500 passengers a day, and in total over half a million people moved in the area over the last year and still no tower.......even to cover the commercial traffic. Fascinating. |
I propose a new model, revolutionary and puts the onus on the user. Yes, user pays. In the end the user ends up paying about 8 times but hey, it fools the public into thinking that those rich pilots can afford to pay, so they should. Construct a parallel taxiway, a bloody beauty, fully lit, not just painted centrelines but that stuff that is raised and melted into the surface. And...............TOLL IT. Force anybody that uses it to pay, I dunno, $12.41 per pop, yearly CPI increases. E-tag on the dash, if you don't pay your bill, massive Police fine. Get the Police to do your dirty work on a private taxiway, shouldn't be a problem for VicPol especially, they love that ****. Airport owner can just gift the property for the taxiway to the operator and mumble something like 'It costs us more to maintain than to operate it ourselves.' When reminded that they don't own it, the tax/rate payer does, mumble something like 'There's significant economic benefit in operating a public/private partnership and will cost us all less in the long run.' Leave the old half-arsed taxiway in place, you know, you should have a choice on whether you use the tollway or not. But make sure it takes twice as long to get where you're going, put some traffic lights on it, make sure there's a few potholes. Nothing like a propstrike and associated bulk strip to make you realise you should stop your meaningless protest and just use the tolled taxiway. Job done. I just made 4.3 million dollars in consulting fees. Right down to the consultancy fee bit!:mad: |
HO HO HO....
I actually started this thread becuz Oi Thort it might have bin 'important'......Well... to 'some' anyway.....'Specially those who operate into / out of Ballina NSW......in 'Fast Movers'.... (Relatively Speakin'...) The effective 'WEF' date is almost 19 years to THE DAY that RHS actually got me 'redundo'd' outta there...(FS) ...FIS that is. (Flight Service) & (Flight Information Service) provided by Air Traffic Services (Flight Service Officers) who USED to give FIS to ALL radio equipped aircraft - operating OCTA (In WA anyway....the rest of OZ had long gone...) (That's Outside Controlled Airspace) to the 'uninitiated' - And - a "Special' service to those operating into / out of or in 'near proximity' to those AD's designated 'AFIZ'. (Look it up if ya don't know wot they were....) So, 'ere we are....still fighting over getting a 'suitable service' into / out of regional airports - like Ballina etc - with jet RPT traffic amongst 'lighties' ...... And, STILL NO SOLUTION!!!! MERRY Christmas YOU Lot....and a VERY HAPPY 2021.....COVID notwithstanding.............. HO...HO...HO.... and.....Tks Again Dick, for the Big 'R'........... I'm still enjoyin' it!! CHEEERRRSSS,,,, |
Ahhh, the Holy Grail...
the big “R”! |
(Flight Service) & (Flight Information Service) provided by Air Traffic Services (Flight Service Officers) who USED to give FIS to ALL radio equipped aircraft - operating OCTA (In WA anyway....the rest of OZ had long gone...) (That's Outside Controlled Airspace) to the 'uninitiated' - And - a "Special' service to those operating into / out of or in 'near proximity' to those AD's designated 'AFIZ'. When lodging a Full Reporting Flight Plan was expected, even if flying a private flight under the VFR rules, and NoSar-no details was considered very poor airmanship!:= Putting in an IFR plan was so flamin' easy an' all!:ooh: Just fill out the same form and circle I which was just to the left of the V. . Still have a couple of pads of Flight Plan forms. One, has 'Stolen from Ceduna FSU' written on it!:} G'day Griffo. |
Thanx Pinky,
I believe that a certain ex fso ex said Ceduna might still be lookin' for ya.....sumphin' about stolen Gummint property...... Cheerrsss.... |
Should anyone claim that a privately operated ATC service is not possible or unsafe,......... and why do the British CAA and US FAA allow them? |
Thanks TIEW - I understand the complexities, particularly in the US. However even there the Class D "VFR Tower" model allows for a simple operating environment, with minimal electronic assistance; the expensive equipment and the big pay cheques are kept in the Centres who separate the IFR aircraft.
The much-loved FS system, of which you were part, was overtaken by technology (see Pinky's comments). Apart from the elements that Pinky loved, the FS system still exists but is now utilising display screens with transponder/ADS-B information available, and the operators are also qualified ATCs who can in the same shift operate a control sector. A huge number of your colleagues made the transition and many still hold senior positions in the ATC Towers and Centres. My view, often expressed on PPrune is that traffic information is the most basic of air traffic services. It may have served us well last century but the volumes and types of aircraft in the system are now larger and more complex. There is still a place for traffic information but Australia needs a graduated response as traffic levels increase so that something can be put in place before Class C airspace and an Airservices tower are needed! Regretably CASA and Airservices have painted themselves into a corner by opposing, for 30 years, everything that Dick wanted to introduce. Mangalore should change all that but I have no faith that the ATSB will say the things they ought to say - they are after all part of the same "deep state" apparatus that runs Australian aviation |
the FS system still exists and the operators are also qualified ATCs who can in the same shift operate a control sector. Mangalore should change all |
|
Lemme see now....IF we 'increase the size' from 10 to 15nm, then that will just 'that' much more time to 'see and avoid'.......
i.e. 5nm @ 120kt = 150 seconds extra. There! That's Dun ! Now....where's me coffee..?? Cheeerrrsss..... |
The situation at Ballina is bordering on criminal negligence. I Was hopeful now that Qf main line are flying there, perhaps someone in CASA/ ASA might see fit to change something. But yeah ... Thank God for those extra 5 nm. I feel safer already.
|
Griffo, I was always uncomfortable with 10nm for CTAFs. Too close/late for "popups". 15nm is better. I don't understand the 30nm from Gold Coast bit; if you're not in CTA, why not keep the 15nm? Is Joe Bloggs expected to have the CG VOR on his GPS/2nd NAV? Confusing. If you're in CTA who cares where the BA is? ATC will "clear you to leave, call the CAGRO at 15nm", wouldn't they?
Put in a tower. |
There are times when I wonder if the old AFIZ and MBZ were better than that which has replaced them.:hmm:
Your comments, GRIFFO? |
Aye Aye Cap'n.
Tower is the 'ultimate' solution....aka BME.... Class 'D'?. However, Mr Pinky has a point. The CAGRO ( Ex 'Elderly FSO / ATC') a la old 'AFIZ', is cheaper, and it worked OK for a loong time with those 'pesky' FK-28 thingies. Call at 30nm inbound, or transiting..... About 7 mins from the '30nm call' to the CIRA (FK-28's) - having rec'd 'A' or whatever, (which 'we' didnt have in 'those' days), and be given ONLY 'conflicting / pertinent traffic', means that, with ATIS, the talking is kept to the minimum. Barons etc - about 10mins, and '210's about 12 mins. This worked OK, even with sometimes 'multiple' FK-28 ops all converging at the same time...... T'was a 'thing' to behold....as to who streaked across the front windows first............. However, it ain't gunna happen. Tower is 'BEST'; you can wish for....so ya got an extra 5nm.....BIG DEAL!!! |
Tower is the 'ultimate' solution....aka BME.... Class 'D'?. BME has E over D. The LCDs/indulgees flying in E across the top of BME are merely “encouraged” to contact the tower. It’s a recipe for disaster! |
Aye 'Leadie', Oi rekkon he'll have a BIG ONE of 'those' when he sees the 1,500AGL 'E' (a la East Coast, announced today...) extended to 'Where he operates'......
It seems that the prediction of TCAS being the final / dependable traffic info (FIS) by default is 'a 'cummin TROO...... Cheeerrrsss.... |
Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs
(Post 10971727)
Brilliant! |
Pure genius.
|
yeah mate quick n simple........
|
Originally Posted by cLeArIcE
(Post 10971743)
The situation at Ballina is bordering on criminal negligence. I Was hopeful now that Qf main line are flying there, perhaps someone in CASA/ ASA might see fit to change something. But yeah ... Thank God for those extra 5 nm. I feel safer already.
|
yeah if its too dangerous for you to fly in there then simply don't fly there ! |
My gut feeling is that it wont be long before CASA OAR put the acid on ASA to provided a TWR there.... busier than Coffs or Broome??
|
My gut feeling is that it wont be long before CASA OAR put the acid on ASA to provided a TWR there. |
I didn't say there would be a TWR there, just that the OAR would put some pressure on ASA to provide something better. My guess is that as well as the OAR it will be political pressure for a class D zone. (remote maybe?) Time will tell.
|
The lhread on the lowering of Class E to1500 agl in the J-Curve mentions that BNA & MNG are proposed to be SAFIS (Class G).
|
I doubt that will happen without significant changes. Towers cost $$ and you can be sure that ASA don't want to spend any. What is the safest outcome for BNA.
As for MNG, an old style MBZ would be worth a try. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 17:15. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.