It's in the lap of CASA because they are the regulator - Office of Airspace REGULATION.
Airservices is a Service Provider; they should never have had the function in the first place.

We did have 'Mandatory Broadcast Zones' for a while until that was changed.

Was there a requirement for staffing of the zone (the ones I talk about are considered "Control Zones" for the purpose of the DAH), or was it the case that you had to have a radio?

If there wasn't staffing (ATC or FIS), it really isn't too different from the CTAFs of today, except with a big wooden sign of "No NORDO allowed" out front.

Which I guess would explain why everyone hated it... No real benefit, and extra expense of a radio, all to then have to do everything yourself anyways

Isn’t the ultimate problem that the government instrumentalities won’t take responsibility for anything? Even the promulgation of rules regarding separation.

All I’m hearing is “it’s not AtC’s fault it’s not CASAS fault”! This sounds like a rehearsal for when a B737 collides with a C172.

The regulators are paralysed because they fear liability. Their directions are therefore not aimed at preventing you and me from colliding; they are directed at ensuring they can’t be blamed.

Dang. It's a public holiday tomorrow. Kindergarten won't be open until Tuesday. :{

Which rules would you like promulgated regarding separation?

Quote:

---

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.

---

I get that comprehension is a problem for you, go back to those group of posts, read them in order. The hypocrisy runs in the other direction.

I was called out for saying I knew what I was talking about. Seems to be a bit of a problem in Australia. Saying in public that you might know a bit.

I then found it amusing, that after being chastised for you know, saying that I might know what I'm talking about, that the next batch of posts contained a statement that this poster, might know what he/she was talking about.

Considering the Canadian solution - get permission to enter the zone five minutes out, why couldnt we at least produce an upgraded, minimally intelligent AWIS - like box that can broadcast information on who is inbound, in circuit or outbound when polled by a transmission? Solar power, batteries, a software defined radio dongle and a raspberry Pi computer should be able to do it.

For real smarts, an ADSB data derived voice message.

That could give you just about the Canadian thing unattended.

As a software developer on the side (while looking for work - still available for hire, employers!) I think it would be difficult to get that part to work consistently. Just think, voice recognition systems are just now getting decent enough to figure out what you're saying... Now throw in low power transmissions, heterodyne, and people whose English isn't perfect, and, realistically, you now have a similar problem when things do go wrong.

Arguably, worse, since now you have an extra computer voice talking whenever a new plane pipes up, with potentially wrong data.

I still think that the key part would be to add a VHF transmitter/receiver and a ADSB receiver that's linked to the AirServices systems. Should cost significantly less than a tower, while increasing the visibility of existing movements. That would also provide data, so at least decisions could be made on that basis, instead of estimates.

The full Canadian system would be nice, but, having seen how the Australian system works, I'm not sure it would get done anytime soon due to the minimum FIS staffing requirement. (Fun fact: where I was flying, there was up to 5 airports "controlled" by 1 FIS at quieter times. When it got busier, it was as few as 1 per airport)

Yet Airservices did have the function. For a long time.

I know it might disturb some to learn this: Sometimes these regulatory arrangements are driven by bureaucratic politics rather than principle.

As to the Canadian arrangements, Australia has had AFIZs (and I think still has one in honour of Cap’n Bloggs at Port Hedland). Let’s bring ‘em back! Presumably the OAR (CASA) can make that happen and, unless an ANSP (like Airservices) is willing to staff the AFIS, the AFIZ would be unusable or G. What could possibly go wrong?

Less than 24 hours to go, Leddie.

It may come as a surprise to you, Cap’n, but just because it’s a public holiday where you are does not mean it’s a public holiday everywhere. I’m at my primary school desk practising my times tables (and lobbying for a reinstatement of AFIZs).

I mean, considering the current system is clearly not working (from my lurking the forums, it seems like it's a recurring topic), doesn't seem like it would be any worse trying it the Canadian way, eh?

As well as bringing back AFIZs we could get all airline aircraft to be fitted with those reliable radial piston engines.

Almost everything has been tried a few times. Except....

Class E to 1,200’.

There’s a reason for airspace designation having originally been done in Airservices and why moving it to CASA was not and is not a panacea.

Let’s take the option of reinstating the AFIZ system. CASA could do that with a stroke of a pen. Same with making various chunks of airspace around aerodromes E or D. But....

CASA’s stroke of a pen cannot create and fund the resources to deliver the required AFIS. Service provision - the ‘S’ in ‘AFIS’ - is up to an ANSP. Ditto ATC in E or D.

Accordingly, unless an ANSP is willing and able to and does provide the services necessary for the chunk of airspace designated by the regulator, the designation is practically meaningless. Either the designated airspace cannot be used because the required service is not provided, or the airspace reverts to good ‘ol G (or, more accurately, what Australia calls G).

So you can see the ostensibly compelling argument: Let Airservices designate airspace because, as a matter practicality, Airservices gets to decide whether or not the airspace gets ‘serviced’.

The purists - as you can see in this thread - say the regulator should designate airspace based upon objective risk and international standards. Quite so. Who’d argue with that? However, it follows either that: (1) the kind of risks to which passengers are exposed on RPT flights in and out of places like Mildura don’t justify anything other than Australian G, or (2) the regulator is too timid, for political reasons, to ‘upgrade’ the surrounding airspace.

Arguably, having the middle ground of the AFIZ would allow AirServices to increase or re-allocate services more sensibly.

I'm not saying that AirServices will choose to do so, having seen the kind of bureaucratic wrangling that it takes to get anything done. But starting by putting a VHF/ADSB at the busier aerodromes (and redesignating airspace as E down to the ground in CZ when operational) at least gets the ball rolling in the right direction. What happens after is a matter of community engagement (badgering for a tower may not go anywhere; badgering for an AFIZ as a middle ground might) and ASA resourcing it appropriately.

I'm not saying it's not a pipe dream, based on what I've seen so far of the two agencies, but it's at least somewhat more achievable than some folks' demands of "towers, everywhere!"


If we're bringing back things, can we get the open cockpits mandated by regulation? The sound of the air rushing past (and the smell of exhaust) need to be a mandatory part of flying again!

Care to post a copy of your submission re airspace arrangements n Australia, Leaddie?

Care to post a link to the inquiry into airspace arrangements to which I can make or could have made a submission, Cap’n?

Oh well, another Prune thread dies at the hands of Lead Balloon. Well done.

It is surprising how powerful you consider me to be. Thanks for the respect.

About time someone killed it. We should be thanking him

You could start with the Pilbara; CASA are consulting now on preferred airspace classification.

Pictures of the aviators killed in this incident are starting to hit the various forms of media. There's a gofundme to get Ido's body home, no doubt to get the Asian students body home as well.

Those of you talking about cost, I've no doubt you won't contribute, after all, nobody wants to pay, who's gunna pay?

Take a good look at the photo's of these people, have a think about their families, their partners and children.

What's that about cost again?

All for the cost of E to 1200, the cost of an airspace promulgation, some maps, in line with an update, and maybe an extra ATC or two? Sorry guys, Jason gave a bunch of ATC's redundancy in the midst of a staffing crisis.

World's Second Best ATC: Disclaimer, this statement does not attach any discredit to any serving current or former line controlling ATC. It is a remark placed squarely at the feet of your sub standard management.

Quote:

---

Dang. It's a public holiday tomorrow. Kindergarten won't be open until Tuesday.

---

Tough times for parents or carers when these services are closed for a 3 day weekend.

What arrangements did your carers make for you? Get much play dough time in?

Hoosten, That is disgusting.

Yet another thoughful and constructive post from the ace of the base.

Ido’s fundraiser has now completed. Many thanks to those that have contributed.

Quote:

---

Hoosten, That is disgusting.

---

What is disgusting? A response to your disgusting post? I'm assuming your post is disgusting as my reply is a direct response to yours?

If you're talking about the post above, I can only suggest that you're hyper-sensitive? A snowflake? Or you're creating garbage outrage to my emotive post?

Grow up.

OCTA Aus , I’m sure you’d like this thread closed.
But you never really addressed the issue did you ?
Are non-controlled CTAFs safe or fail dangerous ?
What is your confidence that the probability of a major disaster involving an RPT jet are remote ?

Crap, I am way out on my thought process. Why didn't the outbound stay on the ground till inbound was visual or reported passing the aid? Sorry OCTA, there is absolutely zip any service would make a difference here. Waiting a couple of minutes on the ground would nave made all the difference. I am totally wrong on this argument.

Operations in a CTAF/Class G
 

These comments do not relate to the accident in question as we are not aware of what exactly the lead up to the event was and considering there were two experienced pilots involved it is hard to understand what may have occurred, and there is no doubt the possibility of many contributing factors.

As an experienced RPT/GA operator in both Class G and CTAFs and the former MBZs, I make some comment on something that has not been specifically discussed here to date. And that is the training of pilots in operating in that category of airspace within Oz. For a start, the last time I looked, the operation in a CTAF was NOT covered in any of the associated exams for any class of licence. If this is still the case, such teachings are therefore the responsibility of the flying school or operator, be it the individual instructor of someone under the guidance of the CFI/Chief Pilot.
What this results in in my opinion is that the training in this area is not subject to any across the industry standardisation and the results show. For example, one operator may do it one way and another do some things differently eg: first call, listening watch prior to first call, use of two comms, separation assurance with known traffic etc etc. Some even believe that if you talk a lot it solves the problem, but that just jams the airwaves with stuff we should already know. As for what some flying schools teach that is yet another story. My experience with some CFI conferences hosted by CASA is that there is many different ideas on how one should participate in uncontrolled airspace and it seems that CASA believe the existing non standardisation is ok. I have put forward a number of times that these teachings should be subject to standardisation and subject to questions in related exam papers. One of the problems is that the folk in CASA responsible for this, don't seem to realise it is a problem and have varied views themselves! Even within this thread we see a variety of views/opinions on how it should be done. Why is it so?

Well , there you have it.

There is absolutely no standardisation in any of the flight training that’s done in Australia, let alone training related to operating at non controlled aerodromes.

Even know the Part 61 MOS can be seen from the moon according to some of my ex colleagues in CASA Standards down in Canberra, a lot of the required learning outcomes in the MOS are so broad to the extent that it allows for a lot of potential misinterpretation with regards to exactly what the required standards must be to issue a licence or rating to a pilot under training.

A little of the topic however it’s relevant to the last couple of posts.

There is a bit more to getting E down to 1200ft, mostly in the training for both the controllers and the flight crews, however I would concede that it is probably achievable and I suspect achievable with the current staff. While I think I understand the concept of what your proposing, I don't have the details However I guarantee people will have to be dragged kicking and screaming for it to occur. My question would be what metric is used to decide which aerodromes get E down to 1200ft? Is it any aerodrome that has an instrument approach? Or any aerodrome with more than a certain number of movements? Keep in mind that movements may not be the best indicator of business because a lot of our IFR training aerodromes the aircraft doesn't physically land on the aerodrome.

For an editorial on your comment, no operational ATC staff were able to get a redundancy in that last round, it was all back room staff. The biggest issue as far as staffing goes comes from the lead in time to train an ATC up to operational level, and at the moment I don't believe we are able to hire anyone from overseas to help.

Before I answer I just want to check I fully understand what you are proposing. Are you suggesting we totally eliminate uncontrolled aerodromes? And replace them with what? I fully agree CTAF procedures have their limitations, but they are going to continue to exist. The resources to make every aerodrome with more than one aircraft in the air a controlled aerodrome would be enormous.

My confidence that a disaster with an RPT jet being remote is not as good as I wish it was. Statistically Australia has had a pretty lucky run but at some point the numbers are going to catch us. Do I think the cause is going to be an RPT jet hitting a light aircraft at an uncontrolled aerodrome? No, I think the airlines are more than capable of finding some other way of doing it with all their cost cutting.

THAT is the issue. Airy Fairy USA CTAF "dimensions" that are too close in, requiring the use of two radios simultaneously. Triadic, IMO that was/is always a very unwise idea and doesn't happen in my cockpit. We had it right before.

”a pretty lucky run ”

Is that it ? A defence of the system ?

Good grief.

And no , its not the airlines fault. The operator I work for spends simulator time mitigating the risk.

Good grief.

George, you're pretty vocal on this, particularly as someone who actually (if I read this thread right) operated in a High Cap cockpit in this environment.

What is your solution?

Capt, with all due respect I suggest that by not using 2 comms in a controlled manner you may be putting yourself at risk by not hearing traffic on the frequency that you are not listening to. I have had occasions where another IFR has taxied and called centre, but the CTAF call (if made) was not heard. I have also had occasions where centre have called me with traffic when inside the CTAF. (our company procedure was not to call "changing to CTAF" - that way centre would know we were still on the Class G freq.) The key is to have it briefed well within the crew and to follow standard company procedures. What I suggested in the previous post was that not many operators have procedures and standards for operating in class G/CTAF's and it is certainly not covered in a standard manner within flying schools. If you think you are ok with one com then fine, but is that the same across all the ops in your company or just you? I used to fly SP IFR and even in that environment two com's in a CTAF was SOP in my company. cheers