In the '80s there was a government policy that there should be a tower at every aerodrome with jet RPT services. Those services spread faster than the Tower program! The tower at Gove was built but never manned. Dick Smith took control of the CAA and started the cost benefit analysis of towers resulting in the closure of many including Mt Isa, Wagga, Karratha, Port Hedland (until the Shire offered to pay to keep it open), closure of briefing offices, closure of Flight Service etc. This eventually resulted in development of a structured approach to airspace collision risk analysis, involving ALL sectors of industry. An evolved version of that process is now used by the Office of Airspace Regulation, within CASA but with its own establishing legislation and Ministerial direction.

Yup

And we have been living with the consequences ever since.

Airspace doesn’t force pilots into unsafe situations. Pilots force pilots into unsafe situations. As you pointed out earlier, pilots need to accept responsibility for the safe conduct of flight. If there is one thing from this entire discussion I have found truly disturbing it would be that many people don’t understand the levels of service provided by class of airspace. And if pilots aren’t willing to learn how to use the national airspace system it doesn’t matter what changes we make, they will be ineffective.

And that in a nutshell is it , OCTA Aus.
The operation was a success but the patient died.
The bureaucratic organisation was a triumph but the outcome was a disaster.
Could only come from a Public Servant.

Was there going to be a tower at Mangalore?

Is it possible that the frequency was otherwise occupied and there wasn't any opportunity (time) for the pilots to communicate with one another?

There actually once was :)

Just before my time though - 60's - early 70's I think.

Reintroduction of one since has never arisen.

Maybe once, perhaps. The structure that is currently there has line of sight issues with the Runway Thresholds which would prevent it from being used where it currently stands.
CASA provides the guidance as to when a Tower should be established, unfortunately MNG would be well below it.
Of note, it is not Airservices, but CASA (previously OAR) that provides direction about airspace classifications etc, in conjunction with your local RAPAC. If you want to influence change, that's who you should be talking to.

Still OAR that operates within CASA

Yet the OAR used to be within Airservices.

Although it may be ostensibly amusing or educational for the bureaucrats in CASA and Airservices to point at each other while the ping pong match of responsibilities leaves the industry in a state of confusion in this case, that approach is unlikely to contribute positively to air safety.

LB
OAR. has been in CASA for 13 years and ICAO airspace classifications for more than 20 years. The only excuse for confusion is failure to pay attention!j

Spoken like a true bureaucrat, Vag!

Those who haven’t failed to “pay attention” for the last couple of decades or so know why the airspace regulation hot potato/ticking parcel/stinking turd is in the lap of CASA.

Not a bureaucrat, just stating facts.

Quote:

---

PM me your email address, the reason being I have absolutely no trust in your good self with your postings thus far.

---

PM your email address, reason being, you want the info. Secondly, your comments are snide and hypocritical. You want it both ways, jumping on the 'be civil' bandwagon but posting your special brand of tripe. And your postings so far? Well done.

Quote:

---

We have a saying about that down here in Aus. It’s something to do with pots calling kettles a certain colour.

---

uhmmm, what? Your response doesn't make any sense. But then again, none of the others have so why stop.

Quote:

---

Or does Hoosten and squawk think pilots aren't able to do this?

---

Using that logic, de-classify all airspace and let all the Virgins, QF's, other domestics and Internationals sort themselves out right?

Appropriate airspace for the density of traffic.

Quote:

---

Ah yes the good old they only have a PPL, they must be incompetent.

---

Riiiight, that's what was implied there?

Quote:

---

I remind you that 200 hours is enough to be in the right hand seat of an RPT jet, so that pilot is not inexperienced.

---

All, you have been reminded that a 200 hour pilot has been let loose in an RPT jet. But what he/she didn't remind you off, is that the right seater is part of a crew, not flying that aircraft by themselves. Also, to say that the 200 hour pilot 'is not inexperienced' is just plain incorrect and frankly, quite stupid.

Quote:

---

Also the main solution everyone on here seems to want to propose is class E down to 1200ft. Which is not going to protect you from that VFR pilot. In fact to an extent it may make it harder. The solution for this would be a tower. In most occasions that would be overkill.

---

It's clear you have a very limited understanding of how Class E works. What's most disappointing is your closed mindset and your 'who's going to pay for it' dogma.

Coming from another country with similar airspace usage vs coverage issues (Canada, for those wondering), it's been absolutely shocking to find out how silly the airspace is here.

It has been equally silly to see that there isn't such a thing as Mandatory Frequency airports, as there are in Canada

As an aside, NavCanada - Canadian equivalent of AirServices - puts those in at airports that are a) busy enough for a plain uncontrolled airport to be unsafe, but b) not busy enough for a tower. Staffed by an FIS (either on-site or remote), you have to have made contact prior to zone entry (typically 5 minutes prior), and have to declare intentions. The argument in Canada is often on whether that thresholds are set too high, but at least you have a minimum level of service.

Oh, and for the busier ones, they are typically inside class E airspace (but don't have to be).

Something like it seems like it would be a good in-between solution for busier airports that don't meet the bar for a tower, while also mandating some infrastructure is available for FIS/ATC to be able to at least get ADSB data down to ground level... And, from having spoken to a number of people here, seems like that was a thing here for a while, but then it wasn't?

I think the ultimate problem in Australia is that if you treat pilots like criminal children they will act that way [.

It has been a while since you last posted, I think people thought you got the point and disappeared. It had almost turned into a civilised discussion.

While I can’t fully decode what was meant here because it’s not quite written in English, the general idea is they are calling you a hypocrite. Probably something to do with the fact that you were calling someone out for telling you how good they are literally one post after you told everyone how good you were.