BNA/MNG SFIS info
 

https://engage.airservicesaustralia....mation-service

https://www.australianflying.com.au/...nder-the-radar

Also this is nearby too,

https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...a-tyagarah-gc/

https://www.avsef.gov.au/sites/defau...ining_area.pdf

So what point are you making? I could give references to thousands of uninteresting and irrelevant articles but I don't want to bore the s**t out of everyone.

Hi Seabreeze - I think 10JQKA is trying to draw our attention to the second part of Airservices answer to the MNG mid-air.

We have already seen the crazily complicated Class E with varying base levels proposal, this time we are going to replace the Class G mandatory traffic service for IFR, which ICAO calls Class F, with another Class F service, an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) again without the required airspace classification F. (See Port Hedland AFIS classified as Class G airspace by CASA)

AS well as MNG they also intend to take over the BNA CA/GRS from the non-Airservices provider and replace it with an inferior remote service without additional surveillance being installed. The ATCs on twice the salary of the current CA/GROs employed by BNA airport will have no added ability to provide an AFIS because they do not have the ability to detect low-level non-ADSB traffic. I wonder how much they will charge for this service compared to the CA/GRS, the cost of which is borne by the airlines using BNA? The same as they charge for the AFIS at Port Hedland I assume.

Although it sounds as though the Minister's employees are "doing something" they will just make the airspace more complicated without actually achieving a reduction in risk. We all need to read this stuff and demand better

What else would you expect?

You could hope for better, but expecting better would make you more of an optimist than Pollyanna.

They are "doing something" and that's all that matters.

And at least the CA/GROs can see the BNA movement area and immediate area, a.k.a. the AFIS guys at Hedland.

I'm assuming that the mid air was the January one. So prior to the midair, one breakdown of sep in the past 10 years? Sounds very knee-jerky to me.

Is there even such a thing as a "Breakdown of Separation" OCTA?

YMNG lies astride the main North / South route to the Melbourne basin via the Kilmore Gap (KMG) which is some 26 nm (say 15 min) South. High ground and Puckapunyal restricted area channel VFR aircraft along this route unless there is severe CAVOK.

Is Airservices ready to "process" this traffic?

TIEW - No because there is no standard to "breakdown". This one only became famous because Jetstar wants a Tower at Ballina.

The British, who provide many radar services in Class G, call them an AIRPROX. They also have an AIRPROX committee that analyses the "breakdowns"/"close encounters" and recommends changes. Their advice could be a change to the service including introducing a controlled service.

Have a look at their very well-thought-out services on their web page. Basic, Traffic, De-confliction and it will change depending on the aircraft position. For instance, if you penetrate a Class D zone from Class G, the approach controller will automatically inform you that you are now subject to a radar control service. When you leave you will be transferred back to the Class G service and you get to nominate what you want. Very sophisticated stuff

dysslexicgod - No Airservices is not ready to process the traffic, but that is the beauty of a flight information service.

All care, but no responsibility!

The SFIS (or whatever you want to call it) will not surface until it is shown to work and ASA have also laid on the table what the real alternatives (at least 2 maybe 3?) might be (to date there is nothing). And it will still have to get thru the OAR. It is obvious that this is a knee-jerk to the accident at MNG and the incident at BNA neither of which I doubt would have saved by this proposal. ASA are showing that they have lost a lot of experience of late which is sad! There is also a responsibility with CASA and pilot education and training which is not what it should be (or used to be).

triadic, this could be good to bring up at the webex meetings ?

10JQKA - I attended the Class E Webex meeting and the Airservices' participants were only the project staff. The "change" managers, I know their names, were very likely listening in, as was the manager of OAR, but they chose to say nothing even though the whole concept was challenged.
You will find the project people have no power to do anything other than tell you what Airservices is going to do, listen to your replies, and then wait for the managers to tell them what to do. They will not be in a position to discuss alternatives, real or otherwise, and OAR will simply wait until Airservices tells the Minister and the new DAS what they want. The rubber stamp will then be exercised, yet again.

Today I made the following short submission to Airservices about the proposed AFIS at Ballina

I was the CASA ATM Inspector that oversaw the introduction of the CA/GRS at Ballina and I have audited the CA/GRS at Ayers Rock twice and the AFIS at Port Hedland once, on behalf of CASA. I came to the conclusion that the operations at Ayers Rock and Port Hedland were fit for purpose and that the AFIS model was superior to the CA/GRS. I advised CASA management of my conclusions but also that I did not believe that the CA/GRS being introduced at Ballina would be successful. (There is not enough space here to list the reasons) I recommended to CASA OAR management and the ATM management that Ballina required a control tower with Class D airspace. An AFIS, provided by surveillance-equipped ATCs, will not be able to lower risk levels below those achieved by the current CA/GRS. When I last inspected this was staffed by personnel who have ATC licenses, albeit without current medicals, ratings, or endorsements. The surveillance in the Ballina area, unless it has been improved, does not detect non-ADSB equipped aircraft at lower levels and there will be no greater incentive for VFR pilots to lift their radio procedure activities than those that currently exist. In short, the airspace does not need another voice on the CTAF adding to the confusion. This is the major reported problem with the CA/GRS and an AFIS under Australian Class G procedures would have to operate the same way. The airspace has reached the point when ATC needs to be introduced to sequence aircraft around the Air Traffic Zone (ATZ) and manage runway operations. It need not be expensive if created within an overlying Class E airspace structure.

This thread needs to come to the top again. The planned introduction of the SFIS is further delayed.

cogwheel,

News of a delay. Unbelievable!

Do tell………

I have seen no news of a delay and the Airservices website still contains the following statement (my underlining):
"Airservices is proposing to first introduce the enhanced traffic service at Ballina and Mangalore on 17 June 2021"

I am not sure who writes this stuff for Airservices, but I have to assume it is authorised by the Executive General Manager Air Traffic Services (circa $500,000/per year) and the Chief Executive Officer (circa $800,000/per year). So let us consider the steps involved in no particular order:

• Airservices completes consultation and presents an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) to CASA OAR
• CASA OAR studies ACP conducts consultation and presents a recommendation to CASA management
• CASA management approves change and Airservices commences documentation amendments (when is the next RAPAC date, or shall we just issue an enormous NOTAM?)
  • (During this time Airservices having assumed approval have been busy sectorising the airspace, developing procedures, and training the controllers)
• Landrum & Brown need to wind up the Ballina CA/GRS contract (Part 139) with Ballina Airport, Airservices needs to present a charging regime (Part 172) for pilots using the new services
  • Alternatively, both services could operate side by side!
• Airservices then present a safety case to CASA (Concept, Design, Implementation? Oh what the heck, CASA don't know the difference, just send them something really heavy)
• CASA ATM inspectors then need to audit the AFIS operations at Ballina and Mangalore, before operating certificates are signed and presented to Airservices

Clearly, I am missing something! How could the two most highly paid federal ATM bureaucrats have thought that these processes could be done, dusted, and in place by 17th June 2021? (I have even given them a free pass on their internal planning and training requirements)
Does anybody know the answer?

Geoff, "cogwheel" was talking about this in a related thread- "Jetstar & BNA again" in the "Australia,NZ and Pacific" forum.

There is no ACP, there is no change to the service provided - it's class G FIS on the CTAF. The request is to create a mandatory broadcast area by CASA instrument. No new operating certificates required.

Thanks ATC news - nice spin.

Q. If there is no change to the service being provided by Airservices at Ballina - then why is Airservices consulting with industry about this lack of any change?

• Perhaps you are referring to the CA/GRS currently operating at Ballina, if so that is under CASR Part 139, which is not what Airservices is proposing, so there is a change.....
• Or are you referring to the mandatory IFR traffic information service provided in Class G airspace, but I understood VFR traffic would also be subject to the service, so there is a change.....

This service is also advertised as being airport-specific, which in Ballina's case would exclude Lismore and Evan's Head. So it is not simply Class G FIS on the CTAF, this is an Aerodrome Flight Information Service (AFIS) similar to Port Hedland, for which Airservices has approval on your Provider Certificate. (Note the underlined words below)
2.4.1 Content of an ATS Approved Provider Certificate
An ATS Approved Provider Certificate is to include the following details:
 The identity of the approved provider (name and address, and if a corporation, its ACN and registered office)
 A list of those ATS services approved under the certificate, together with details of their location, and aerodrome and airspace, as applicable
 The date of approval of the Certificate
 Conditions on the Certificate; including the condition that CASA has the right to undertake a safety audit of the provider’s operation at any time

Sorry, but if this is the agreement that Airservices has with CASA, then once again, Australian regulations are being ignored.

Perhaps atcnews is referring to MNG.

There is already a BA in place at BNA.

Ballina REPCON
 

AR2020-00010, 24 January 2020, Airspace at and around Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome
Reported concern regarding inadequate and ineffective air traffic service at and around Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome

Reporter's concern
The reporter raised a safety concern regarding an airspace safety risk at and around Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome, due to the volume of traffic and frequency congestion. The reporter advises that the mix of traffic at Ballina is complex, including a high number of general aviation aircraft, microlight aircraft, helicopter operations and Regular Public Transport (RPT) jets, as well as an increase in training aircraft in recent years.

A Certified Air Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS) was introduced at Ballina in 2016 following a supplementary airspace review in 2015; however, the reporter states that the CA/GRS has not decreased the airspace risk level nor has it alleviated the CTAF congestion. The reporter states that the CA/GRS at times increase the frequency congestion.

The reporter states that communication related incidents and separation issues are becoming more frequent and is concerned a mid-air collision is imminent, with the risk of high capacity aircraft being involved, not unforeseeable, unless an enhanced air traffic service is implemented.

Operator's response (Operator 1)
The aerodrome manager agreed that there is a mix of traffic at Ballina, including general aviation aircraft, microlight aircraft, helicopter operations and RPT jets, as well as an increase during recent years in training aircraft, both rotary and fixed wing. Ballina has a new fixed wing training provider that commenced operation in the past two years and the availability of NDB/RNAV approaches attracts training aircraft, including RPT and military, in addition to private and commercial operators. These combine to make Ballina airspace and communication frequencies very congested.

The manager believes the CA/GRS has improved the airspace risk level and that the number of incidents, in the form of separation issues is low. Frequency congestion does, however, continue to be an issue at busy periods with the CA/GRS / CTAF covering five airspace regions - where the majority of traffic in these areas is private VFR. . Complaints have been registered with airport operations that the CA/GRS contributes to frequency congestion and this has been brought to the attention of the CA/GRS operator (CA/GRO) in question.

The Ballina CTAF area does experience a number of (VFR) aircraft that fail to report their position, including when required to, within the new Broadcast Area.

We have not observed a marked increase in communication and separation issues, however, we acknowledge the requirement for RPT/IFR aircraft to maintain visual contact with traffic, significantly increases the flight-deck workload on approach into Ballina. Certainly an enhanced air traffic service would minimise the risk of an incident - especially with the airport's plans for carrier and destination expansion.

Operator's response (Operator 2)
Airservices’ response:
The OAR stated Frequency issues occur between aircraft at Lismore and Ballina. Airservices

Australia are investigating options to address the issue. This refers to an action item from the

Ballina Industry Meeting on 28 August 2019. The action was for Airservices to investigate the feasibility of a VHF retransmitter between Lismore and Ballina.

We have completed a review and found no implementation of a VHF repeater service in the aviation context within Australia. For this to be achieved a first-of-type system would need to be designed and risk assessed. As the identified communication issues surrounding Ballina involve frequencies on which we do not provide a service, the aerodromes could investigate the suitability of a single-frequency repeater independently of Airservices Australia.

In Aeronautical Information Package (AIP) Supplement H140/19 Effective 5 December 2019, OAR state that the CTAF at Ballina, Lismore, Casino and Evans Head will remain unchanged. OAR have not approached Airservices to request a different frequency to be allocated.

Regulator's response (Regulator 1)
The Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) regularly monitors the incidents and traffic levels at Ballina.

• In the 12 month period (1 December 2018 – 30 November 2019) there was one (1) communication related incident and two (2) other airspace related incidents in the vicinity of the aerodrome.
• The number of incidents have decreased from the five incidents which occurred during the previous 12 month period.
• In two of the three recent incidents (1 December 2018 – 30 November 2019), the CA/GRS provided a service to enhance situational awareness of the inbound RPT aircraft.

At a recent Aviation Safety Seminar held at Ballina, local stakeholders were asked about the service provided by the CA/GRS. All agreed that the service is a benefit and it is working well.

Frequency issues occur between aircraft at Lismore and Ballina. Airservices Australia are investigating options to address the issue.

ATSB comment

ATSB sought clarification from the regulator following the Airservices response, the regulator’s comments below:

The OAR has not approached Airservices for a discrete frequency for Ballina as a different frequency will not solve the underlying issues. The instrument approaches for Ballina and Lismore overlap and having both aerodromes on the same frequency enhances situational awareness. It is not appropriate for aircraft to operate in close proximity to each other and be on different radio frequencies.

The main issue at Ballina relates to radio communication – aircraft not broadcasting on the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF), over-transmissions, poor radio calls and congestion caused by aircraft at Lismore.

In December 2019, the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) declared a broadcast area within 10 nautical miles of Ballina aerodrome to reduce the risk related to pilot communication in the area.

The OAR monitors the traffic and incidents at Ballina aerodrome on a monthly basis. A significant change in traffic volume, mix, incidents or stakeholder feedback may trigger an airspace review by the OAR.

ATSB comment:
The ATSB has received significant feedback from several GA operators regarding airspace concerns at and around Ballina.

While the ATSB occurrence database supports the regulator’s statement that one of the underlying issues at Ballina is aircraft not broadcasting on the CTAF, the ATSB notes that communication (air-ground-air) issues are not a mandatory reportable matter under the Transport Safety Investigation Act, 2003 for non-air transport aircraft. As such, flight crews who encounter communication issues do not necessarily report them to the ATSB.

Feedback from multiple operators that regularly operate on the CTAF suggest that aircraft not broadcasting on the CTAF is usually due to the inability to make a transmission due to frequency congestion, often due to the CA/GRS.

Multiple operators have also indicated to the ATSB that while communication issues due to over use of the radio is prevalent, there is no mechanism to provide this feedback. The operators state that the Aviation Safety Seminars are not appropriate forums, due to them being facilitated by the aerodrome operator, who hold their leases; the presence of the CA/GRO’s; and no formal recording of specific concerns being raised.

Due to the volume of feedback the ATSB has received on this specific issue, the ATSB has asked CASA to consider establishing a mechanism for GA operators to provide CASA their generic concerns and/or details regarding specific incidents.

As at time of publishing, Airservices is planning on introducing enhanced traffic services, in Class G airspace, through the provision of the Surveillance Flight Information Service (SFIS) at selected regional non-towered aerodromes across Australia, including Ballina/Byron Gateway aerodrome.

You are right that there is a change to the procedures and to who receives a service, but there is no change to the service provided - it's still FIS.

If you look at the Part 172 Provider Certificate you will see that no changes are needed to run a FIS for Mangalore from ML ATSC. For example you will not find Adelaide Approach listed, they come under "Melbourne ATSC". It's just a list of the physical locations the service is provided from.

According to the Senates Estimates transcript (Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport Legislation Committee Estimates) - Tuesday, 25 May 2021, in December last year, Ballina was Australia's busiest airport. Hard to believe really given that Moorabbin recorded 21,378 movements.

The other "gem" from this committee was "a number of incidents have occurred (at Ballina), particularly over the last six months, where there have been close calls between Jetstar aircraft and hang gliders and things like that." Interestingly there is no corresponding "spike" of reported occurrences at Ballina, and what exactly are "things like that".

I am of the belief that ASA are under some pressure to come up with "something" that will, in their view reduce any risks of a collision. (and of course satisfy whoever is appling the pressure for change from above) However whatever they come up with has to be approved by CASA OAR so there is a need for everyone to work together in a transparent manner with industry and wide consultation thru AvSEF (formally RAPAC). This is going to take some time as any "change" in the airspace design or procedures at specific locations (unless a class D tower) will need to be the subject of a very widespread education program. This is not going to happen overnight. ASA obviously don't have the answers or perhaps the expertise/corporate histroy to think more broadly on how it might works best without a tower.

Maybe it is time to consider a change to the regs that would permit a tower to be provided by an organisation other than ASA? That might also be more cost effective?

Maybe they got the year wrong?

You might be right, perhaps it is time to consider this. It was an idea that was floated about 15 years ago (contestability) and AA at the time bundled all the Towers into the same Business Group, run on a shoe string, nil investment in the future, nil investment in preventative maintenance. Many a tower is still suffering from the neglect.
Deloittes
It could be that rather than being cost effective it might be a better, more customer focused service, or led to divergent and non-standard practices across the country.

Nope, 17/6/21 is a Thursday which is the normal day for the introduction of or the updating of aeronautical databases.

missy, yes know that practice, however what I was eluding to is that it is now not very likely to occur this year, given all the boxes that need to be ticked.......

atcnews seems to me to be suggesting that no further boxes need to be ticked, because Airservices is already allowed to provide a FIS for Mangalore from ML ATSC. Not sure how that can also be so for the “change to the procedures and to who receives” the FIS.

Perhaps atcnews can expand/clarify?

Well seeing as the SFIS has been ‘shelved’ for now at BNA the latest option allegedly being explored (as I heard and understood it) is a ‘remote tower’ either being done by controllers from the Gold Coast tower or from the Airservices national operations cell.

This remote tower will have associated class C and E above, similar to YCFS. Watch this space I guess

See this link for further info: https://consultation.casa.gov.au/sta...eq-congestion/

https://engage.airservicesaustralia....mation-service

Draft AIP-SUP now on above link.

What exactly does this mean? Is anyone able to qualify what the residual risk that is being mitigated?

Have heard that for BNA at least, delayed till mid August AIRAC date at this stage.

Much to be done by Airservices before then.

A FIS in a FIA. What are the chances this gets expanded as a real good idea.

Back in the days of Flight Service we had an AFIZ and they worked well as there was only one frequency (no CTAF). The biggest problem now would be controllers providing a service and not trying to control.

BUT, back in the day, when an aerodrome with an AFIZ got too busy, they put a TWR in ie Albury, Broome etc. That's off the table now, and they don't really have a viable alternative.

Then safety isn't the prime objective.

Separated by time in their flight schedules!! International best practice!!
No allowance for diversions, air returns, additional non-scheduled traffic such as air ambulance.

But they are outside controlled airspace. What are the standards which the "separation issue" has breached?

https://engage.airservicesaustralia....mation-service

Updated info on portal, August 12 is now target date, they are running webex online consultation forums every week until then.