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.