August 12 this year? I wouldn’t be betting the farm on it.

AGREED !

There are still a lot of boxes to be ticked and I don't believe CASA/OAR have yet sharpened their ticking pencil. The CASA proposal to have Lismore/Casino CTAFs on a different frequency still has to be agreed upon, one way or the other.

Traffic,
We all know that "see and avoid" is the only form of separation that is needed in class G!
Once upon a time there was a thing called "airmanship" where a pilot was capable of aviating, navigating and communicating simultaneously.
This appears to have been overtaken by "screen time" in the new fangled semi autonomous glass screen aeroplanes.
RG

I attended the Airservices briefing on "SFIS" on Tues the 15th, it is good to see them taking back airspace management from CASA. (I think they are as frustrated CASA OAR as the rest of us)

The impression I formed was that CASA had abrogated airspace responsibility for anything other than the top-down airspace reviews described in the Airspace legislation. Even then, as per Avalon, the OAR bosses want Airservices to come up with suggestions for change which OAR can then rubber-stamp. Funnily enough, that is probably better than the alternative which is CASA dreaming up more nonsense like CA/GRS!

I offered my qualified support at the briefing for a service that will be clearly superior to CA/GRS although hamstrung by some peculiar protocols. I won't go into details here but this service needs to become a real ATS that replaces the so-called "area" frequency where, as well as traffic information, clearances, SSR codes, etc. can be obtained. I believe that common sense will eventually prevail as pilots and controllers get used to the new service. There is also a need to standardise these Class G services. The procedures at Port Hedland AFIS, Ayers Rock CA/GRS, and these new services need to be the same. If Ayers Rock Radio, a CA/GRS, cannot be standardised then it needs to be replaced with a genuine "information" service linked to the ATS, which it currently is not.

This raises the most obvious anomoly voiced at the briefing, which was the statement from Airservices that CASA had forbidden them to use the ICAO recognised term Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS). The service will be on the allocated CTAF and use the aerodrome identifier as a callsign, followed by "Information". So what is it other than a remotely provided AFIS? This apparently is the reason for the invention of Surveillance FIS, a term not recognised by ICAO and probably requiring yet another "difference" to be filed. This is apparently another intervention by CASA who simply do not have the expertise to involve themselves in such decisions. (This is not intended to be a comment on individual members of OAR who are hard-working individuals with many and diverse skills). It is CASA management and processes that produce such weird interpretations.

Probably because to comply with the ICAO definition of an AFIS, more local information is required to be available to ATC and provided to aircraft than Airservices is currently able to provide, other than Port Hedland.

ICAO: Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS)

Before Airservices shut down the Flight Service centres I believe that FS did provide remote AFIS/AFIZ services from those centres for some locations (Mildura and Broken Hill come to mind) and the relevant consoles were equipped with readouts of the local met data i.e. QNH, wind speed & direction, temperature etc. and a preferred runway would be nominated.

Heaven forbid that Australia add another difference to the hundreds already notified: https://www.airservicesaustralia.com..._standards.asp

According to the latest info, ASA will have a VHF repeater at BNA (already installed) operated from a consol in BNE and that operator will provide a service similar to the old AFIZ that is mentioned in the post by Geoff above. In addition the operator will have surveillance capability (Radar/SSR/ADSB) within the limits of the coverage there.. It will in fact be a sub-FIA based on the proposed area in the draft AIP SUP. The controller will have co-ord ability with other sectors etc. The CA/GRS will go. Cross reference to the CASA proposal on changing the frequency of Lismore/Casino CTAFs is in conflict with the ASA proposal. I guess CASA will review after their consultation closes on 11 July.
I think CASA have a problem with AFIS as it is a "service" and does not refer to an "area". What is proposed is a service provided within a defined area which may or may not have an ICAO definition(??). A class D zone would do the job, but nobody wants to pay for it.

As I said, I suspect the CASA problem is that an AFIS requires the ATS operator to have displayed real-time local met info and the ability to provide this and other local operational info per the ICAO requirement I provided the link to.

I'm not aware of the YPPD facilities, but I assume they have this info etc. displayed and therefore they can advise aircraft of same and if so, it is an AFIS that is compliant with ICAO.

If the ATC sector that will cover the BNA Broadcast Area doesn't have this met info displayed and the ability to provide it and the other operational information, then my interpretation is that an AFIS would not be compliant.

FWIW from the CASA VFRG:

An ICAO AFIS sounds like exactly the service that should be provided.

They do have met info and an ATIS which is kept up to date. All the operators there also are approved met observers. It's set up to run the same Karratha class D just without the control aspect.

There is no information available to pilots about aerodromes that cannot be made available to ATC sectors.

In terms of the AWIS, I believe that 99% of AWIS in Australia send real-time data to their associated met offices so that Area forecasts, TAFs, and METARS can be generated. This would indicate that there is a digital stream of information that Airservices could tap into and display to the "SFIS' control positions. Airservices did this for their experimental Class E approach services at Rockhampton and Mackay.

Hence the only reasons why the AWIS for MNG and BNA is not being provided to ATC is either cost or dogma. The so-called preferred runway nomination could just follow the wind direction and speed, it is after all, just preferred. The real missing link is that no runway "oversight" can be provided, something that the CA/GRS does do. And are not the final approaches, runway surface, and departure tracks the most critical areas of conflict?

We can argue definitions all we like. What it boils down to is whether this service will make the MNG and BNA airspace safer places for jet transport operations. In my opinion no - if CASA "approves" or rubber-stamps this change they will not have mitigated a single risk that exists and the travelling public will be none the wiser. Come on Australia - it does not take a lot of effort or money to become a first-world aviation nation!

Agreed. If there's a will, there's a way. Sydney TCU has AWIS data for Sydney Airport (in addition to the Tower of course). It's just data, AWIS could be sent, Nav Aid monitoring available, use the weather watch cameras.

Interesting that traffic information, arguably what this is all about, is relegated to "any other information..." ie not specifically mentioned as something important enough to rate its own dot point.

It seems that Airservices want to provide a "service" that is more than the ICAO AFIS. To date indications are that "surveillance" is the prime difference from the ICAO AFIS and that as indicated above by TIEW that means traffic info at the very least. I have seen no specific mention regarding the other dot points It is clear that this proposal relates or will relate to a specific area or block of airspace that may not be presently defined by ICAO. It is clear that some of the ICAO definitions and standards need to be revisited. However it is said that the average time to get a change thru ICAO is seven years, so don't hold your breath.
Whatever that turns out to be it is likely that if CASA approves it, a difference with the ICAO standards will be required.

From the same (1988) ICAO circular:

Quote:

---

7 Accommodation and equipment

---

Only a couple of the old FSU's even complied with that!
One of the old DCA managers had a policy of building new units so they did NOT have a view of the aerodrome. But regardless, the old AFIZ did work- no CTAFs then so all on the same freq. Maybe the return of the AFIZ?

Just found this,

https://www.avsef.gov.au/national-pr...dcast-zone-mbz

Can anyone make a submission to AVSEF?

If yes, I'd like to propose that if MBZs are to be reinstated, they be called CTAF(R)s instead.

Yes, Lead, anyone can make a submission on the web site <https://www.avsef.gov.au/>. Select your topic, click on make a submission and it will give you a contact email for the proposer. You can also do the same thing to Airservices on <engage.airservicesaustralia.com/>

My opinion - MBZs/CTAF(Rs) etc are just an excuse for a third world air traffic service (ATS). At what traffic level does pilot separation by radio become impossible and unsafe? I think we found that out at Mangalore, and nearly at Ballina.

Does the nation want a first world ATS? UK and USA have, even though the models are different. Aeroplanes are going too fast and randomly in relation to each other, voice calls and maps on knees or Ipads, are inadequate, particulalrly when in-cockpit training is also being conducted.
We know surveillance works, it has been in use for years. It does not matter whether it is passed by ATC like the UK Low Airspace Radar Service, or direct like the US Traffic Information Service - A or B, they both use ground based surveillance. If we are going for pilot separation than Australia simply needs more surveillance coverage of traffic areas that are becoming increasingly busy.

Another option, if surveillance is too expensive for a poor country like Australia, is for more Control Towers looking after the 5-10 NM around relatively busy aerodromes. Particulalrly where there is flying training and English language skills are still developing. The Federal Government can make a simple change to CASR Part 172 to make these possible, and in my opinion they might even be more cost effective than increased traffic surveillance. My logic behind that is that they should be owned by, and the ATCs work for, the aerodrome operator. ATC eyes on the runway and the circuit area, with oversight of the approach and departure tracks in conjunction with Airservices, is arguably the simplest way to ensure aerodrome safety. In the US these are colloquially called VFR Towers with Class D airspace, and in the UK simply an Air Traffic Zone (ATZ), quite small like our Metro Ds, or if military a MATZ and bigger because of aircraft size and speed. The UK recognises that an ATZ/MATZ is "controlled" even though there is no ICAO airspace allocation other than G. Pilots still have to follow instructions on the runways and in the circuit area.

Bring back Flight Service I say!
It used to work well.
Mind you that was before the advent of glass cockpits and limited aviation English!
RG

Past history re the trial introduction of UNICOMs indicated that AD OPRs here didn't want to pay for them - which might explain why we have so few - and I don't know if the CA/GRS we have were voluntarily put in by the AD OPRs, or as a result of directives from CASA.

Roger - Flight Service did not disappear, the responsibility was passed to ATC. This streamlined air traffic services (ATS) and meant that surveillance could be used to monitor traffic OCTA or what became Class G airspace. Most of the FSOs became ATCs. What did disappear was full reporting for VFR flights.

Captain - UNICOMs in Australia were crippled by CASA and Airservices trying to operate them as a Government "service", instead of the US practice where they are operated by airport employees, or businesses. The trials were universally panned by everyone involved so CASA just dropped the idea. They should remain something that is useful, but not ever considered to be part of the ATS. There are now only two CA/GRS, Ayers Rock, and Ballina. Ayers Rock has been there so long it's a mystery (to me anyway) why it was ever started; Ballina was a recommendation by CASA OAR until they found that their recommendations were just being filed because they can only authorise airspace! Ballina to their credit adopted it anyway. I understand that in both cases the airline operators agreed to cover the cost. As I understand it, Airservices does not charge operators at Port Hedland for the AFIS, the cost is absorbed. They have also stated that they would not charge directly for the SFIS at Ballina or Mangalore.

Geoff, you can clear up your "mystery" by reading this. Clues within.

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/153446/...token=t5FQS21C

AFIZs did. The bandaid replacement isn't a patch on what was provided beforehand.

Yet CASA ordered ASA to put in an AFIS at YPPD, YBRM and YPKA and then a tower at YBRM and YPKA (as well as the CAGRO at YAYE).

You may think RPT jets should be getting critical met info from untrained, enthusiastic-amateur baggage chuckers, but a lot of us don't.

CASA "ordered" ASA to do something? Any clue or links as to the terms of that / those order/s and the power/s exercised?

These days CASA seems to be labouring under the misconception - or perhaps it is not a misconception - that CASA can't do anything about airspace or ATS arrangements unless ASA has made a recommendation to CASA to do it.

So who at MNG is going to pay for a tower? They don't own the navaids, so can't charge for the overhead training, and there wouldn't be enough landings to cover the infrastructure costs. if you make it too expensive and restrictive, they'll just go somewhere else.
How many aircraft were on frequency at MNG? There's no mention of frequency congestion. Both pilots got traffic on each other. They didn't talk to each other. So the answer to what traffic level is dangerous - Two.

Capt - I am not sure how my comment about UNICOMs became an opinion about the passing of critical met information. Under the old CAR120 (I'm not sure it still exists) a pilot could only accept such information from someone certified by the BoM and issued with an approval by CASA. Theoretically, a UNICOM operator could obtain such approval, however, how would the pilot know they had one?

TIEW
1 - CASA and Airservices legislation requires them to treat safety as the first priority - who is going to pay supposedly is a lower priority. Not sure who owns the navaids at MNG but I do know that Ballina airport owns the NDB at BNA! If I was them I would only switch it on when someone booked it for training.
2 - I did not mention frequency congestion, you have answered my question!

It's still there in the 1988 regulations:But note: The 1988 regulations are being rewritten, so the above will be gone and replaced by around the year 2000.

AIP GEN 3.5 para 4.4.2 says: "For the purpose of aircraft weather reporting and observing visibility for takeoff and landing at an aerodrome, the pilot in command shall be deemed an approved observer for that flight." Given the use of the very impressive words "shall" and "deemed", that seems to be an approval under CAR 120 for PICs in the limited purposes stated.

Dunno if UNICOMS get an approval.

I never look at those aerodrome webcams to see what the weather and WDI are doing. My understanding is that they shall have been deemed not to be approved. Hopefully they will be, by around the year 2000.

Lead (is it Led or Leed?),
I used to issue CAR120 approvals for CASA although dozens of others also could, and the approval is specific to a person, not a job. They needed only to produce the BoM documentation proving they had "attended" the course, see <MA.9a Qualifications & Competencies, Aerodrome Weather Observers, Version 3.0>. I reiterate though, the CAR puts the onus, and the strict liability, on the pilot to "must not use", so how does the pilot know?. Regulations should target the person giving the weather advice.

A pilot is deemed to be able to make his/her own observations without "attending" the BoM course, however, note that only applies to their own flight. A PIC may not provide weather information to another PIC unless they have a CAR120 approval. Get your head around the logic in that one!

As for looking at things that are providing weather information. I, on behalf of CASA, agreed with the BoM that the person telling a pilot what an approved machine (such as an AWIS) was reading, did not constitute a weather observation. Weather instruments such as an AWIS are certified under 1(a) of CAR120 by the BoM. Therefore anyone is allowed to tell a pilot what, for instance, the QNH readout is displaying without having a qualification. I do not know the status of the weather cams but I think they are owned by Airservices, so you might be correct. Once again the same problem, how does a pilot know that something is "approved"?

Ballina SUP now published - going live next month.

https://www.airservicesaustralia.com...up/s21-h80.pdf

Back to the 1950s

I have a simple question.

Why hasn’t the FAA introduced SFIS,s ?

With ten times the traffic and similar radar coverage to our J curve there must be a reason why we have to be so much more complicated.

And the airlines will still be flying around in cloud attempting to do there own separation with low time IFR pilots with no separation standard.

Yes. I was involved in the removal of the AFIZ,s. That’s because under AMATS we were going to copy the best airspace system in the world. The US NAS.

Now we are inventing another unique system with airline passengers the guinea pigs.

ATC provided AFIS. Imagine the cost savings! Is BNA SFIS by a dedicated resource, or is some poor bloody ATC got this on his plate as well? Is it workload permitting?

It is a dedicated positon in the Bris AACC. No other frequencies.

I note that AsA wants VFR pilots to submit flight plans for operations in the area.

The more I look at it the more it looks like a giant backward step.

By getting VFR back in the system there will be pressure for charges to be introduced.

I think they will have to get used to "pop-ups".

As a controller having a plan in the system makes it easier for us to provide the service you're wanting as it's somewhat cumbersome to create one. How is filing a flight plan before you depart any different to effectively filing one by radio? Either way you're still entered into the system.

And here we go again, again, again, and ...

La P.

A pilot decides to fly VFR coastal at varying altitudes between 500’ and 5000’ depending on Wx and scenery from Maitland to Bundaberg.

What flight details should be filed ? Are you suggesting a full position plan?

No, just for the portions where a service is expected. It's having a plan, any plan, in the system that makes it easier. Yes it's easier if it more or less follows the route you're taking and the actual departure time is within a couple of hours of your ETD but it's having an existing plan that speeds things up for us.

Plan DCT at a VFR level, it's just a plan, by being "in the system", with about 6 keyboard clicks the ATC at the console will access to your details vs probably 20-30 keyboard clicks.
It's about a more user friendly system, easier for the ATC which in turn makes it easier for the pilot = best service.

Devils advocate....

Its Class G.....I don't want/expect a service. You don't need a 'plan in the system' to give me directed traffic.