Controlled Airspace

[Patrick Normoyle]

There are plenty of experienced people who would be able to run such a service (think of the VFR, or flight Schools who could collect some fees)... the most important part of this is... for a very mild cost... it would add to safety as it stands not take anything away.

I have been in ATC for 8 years now and a pilot CPL / RAA for 26 years, i have seen pilots in B737's get their left and right mixed up ? I'm not saying any of us are perfect, but if we spent more time teaching and developing great airmanship, enhancing communication and situational awearness with all pilots ( especially young / learning pilots ) we would go a long way to reducing the risk. The airfield i am at has high drag slow speed aircraft like my Fisher Mk1 and Jab 230's all the way up too PC12 and BE20 plus choppers and all sorts, it is a great place to see how it works, and sometimes looks ugly, but to have an untrained person providing traffic / information may leed to greater problems.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Dick Smith, where does one start, i love his passion, the guy has heart, but he has a little of all of us in him, we want it all but we don't want the cost to be passed onto us. Prossie is a great example, unfortunatly a slowly deminishing airport, the local council has managed miracles to keep the facility open this long, maybe i can answer this with a catch cry, have you ever heard of "AFFORDABLE SAFETY ", that is basically what we are all on about here, from my suggestion of "if it flies, it has to have a radio" ( i have some great mates who fly hang gliders (mad the lot of them ) and most will have a hand held of some kind, to Mazda's idea of the airport operator / refueller etc. Someone has to pay ? In my previous life, i managed an airport in Western Australia, Newman, attached to an Iron Ore mine, BAE146, B717, F50, B1900, BE20, C404, C414, BE58 and smaller operated there ( Oh and me in my Fisher Mk1 ). We were a CTAF, with and AFRU that worked most of the time except when the field got hit by lightening or flooded or the Genny didn't start when the power went out....... I was also the airport refueller, the tractor puller the trailer with hose gascollator and pump equipment on it, no radio installed and nore could there be, you can't use it while your refuelling anyway and no phone either, so i couldn't have helped any traffic while i was doing that. I also had a multitude of safety officer tasks to do and if i wasn't in the safety vehicle, then no radio either, it is a difficult dilema that must be addressed both globally over all aerodromes and individually on an airfield by airfield basis.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

As far as Prossie being dangerous, i understand that Qantas mainline wont fly there as it is too "risky", but they will let Jetstar go in their sted ? "affordable safety" ? ? ?

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

There are plenty of experienced people who would be able to run such a service (think of the VFR, or flight Schools who could collect some fees)... the most important part of this is... for a very mild cost... it would add to safety as it stands not take anything away.

I am not a legal whiz at all, but i am sure there would be some legal recourse on the "person paid a small amout" to provide a service should their actions or inactions lead to an accident or incident. ATC's get scrutinised continously and every mistake is recorded and assessed thoroughly ( as you would expect and hope )even down to spelling errors ( when spelling a tracking position eg. DOTUP ), i know a collegue who got stood down for getting that wrong, a bit harsh you say but our mistakes have the potential to be catastrophic, would you accept a minimal pay for such responsibility ?

 

I am a big fan of airfields laying out neighbour friendly flight patterns and local proceedures in ERSA, some ALA's even go to CASA for help in promulgating flight paths in and out of their area to minimise the risk, this led to the VFR routes we see around the country, RAPIC (Regional Airspace Users Advisory Committee) and other such groups really work hard to lay down safe ways to use conjested airspace without having to make in prohibitive ( making it CTA ).

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Yep, i fully understand and appreciate the values of a good unicom. But i think theres one dude who should be controlling air traffic, and thats an air traffic controller, this thread after all, was started by someone requesting info on the status of the RAA CTA endo.Im all for an information service provided by someone on the ground, but I think if pilots start relying on or expecting accurate cct numbers/positions and inbound aircraft etc, we would, in the long run, suffer for it.

So true, unfortunately, the rules we MUST use can be extreamly restrictive, 3nm by radar is the best it gets until we can use visual sep, then we can put them close and safe, we don't need this at our ALA's. Good use of radio's and vigilence looking out the window ( if you have them ) is the key.

 

I hope the CTA endo. gets through, i have Ultralights fly through regularly in Adelaide, i had a great little Searay just the other day ( i was dirty with envy, a beaut day and i was working ), but this fella was VH registered, so the rules are all different, the aircraft is basically the same as a RAA registered one. Again, it will come down to wether or not we can get you through, what you want to do etc. Just because you can dosent mean there is space for you to do it. It is pretty hard to justify circuits in a Drifter at Adelaide while a B747 is waiting at the holding point. But it would be fun !

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Yeah, thanks for reminding me, they were not the most co-operative council, i could have worked harder if i had tried, but a much better option was found and it turned out to be just magic, at the back of the Capricorn Roadhouse, two strips were put in and we built a couple of hangers and all was good, no council red tape and also no rent or charges.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Its in the RAAus ops manual coz some people jumped the gun and had their hopes up. And yeh there is a problem, its completely unnecessary for RAAus.Maybe someone should strap a camera to a drifter and fly it into somewhere like Brisbane... Thatd be educational and provide enough reasoning against a CTA endorsement for RAAus. As Ive said before, Designated G VFR lanes like Victor 1 are the answer (of course people can decide to go and get a PPL too).

Pick me, i'll go, i'll do it. just make sure every aircraft over 7000kg is on the ground, i don't want to see my insides turned to outsides. I don't think this is where the CTA endo. is going to go, maybe class D tower airspace and some enroute airspace for terrain or water crossing reasons.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

The ones with TCAS I suppose

The guys and gals will, they don't have a Radar as such, but the get a display of radar data to assist in position fixing aircraft for visual identification. An incredible tool, if ever you get a chance, ask the tower folk for a visit and see what they see.

 

 

[Mazda]

Good grief there is a lot of misunderstanding in here.

 

Firstly, UNICOMs are used extensively all over the world with safety. They are NOT air traffic controllers, they don't have to be. If you want air traffic controllers at every airport, for a start we can't afford it, secondly unless you are talking about IFR to IFR, you won't necessarily be separated anyway, thirdly RA-Aus won't be able to fly anywhere, and fourthly where on earth do we find all the controllers? There's a shortage already! And can we afford to train so many new ones and pay to relocate them to all those locations? Yes, we pay for that, ultimately, through cost recovery. Ardmore in NZ has what is basically a UNICOM at the equivalent of Bankstown. No controllers, they can't afford it. It is staffed by the university there. In the USA usually the baggage people or firies run the UNICOM, it isn't rocket science. I can think of one quite recent incident where a UNICOM operator in Australia gave advice which certainly prevented a conflict, I'm sure there are more.

 

Once again, they are not providing ATC and they don't have to. They don't provide separation, they don't harp on about traffic once communication is established in the circuit. I keep thinking we must be stupid here in Australia because the UNICOM operators in the USA don't seem to have or cause any problems, they must be a super-intelligent race over there to be able to say "wind from the south, airline aircraft on straight in approach for runway 09," or for the pilots to elect to use that information.

 

I am at a loss as to why you are all so against it! What is the disadvantage? There isn't one! So the UNICOM operator has to go to the bathroom, into town, refuel an aeroplane etc. Then it is a normal CTAF - but when the UNICOM operator is on frequency, you have the exta safety benefit, so why say oh, we can't have that because sometimes the operator isn't available! As long as they are there for RPT they can protect the pax.

 

Mandating radio without a third party is worthless. Mandate 10 radios, 20 radios, 50 radios per aircraft, it makes no difference. Unless there is someone at the other end to verify that the radio is on frequency, working, volume up, it is not a fail safe system. Radios fail and people make mistakes all the time.

 

Not all airline aircraft have TCAS. To ask recreational pilots to pay for transponders when the airlines don't all need TCAS seems silly. I wish I could afford a transponder too, but therein lies the problem!

 

Patrick aren't you leaving something out about TSAD? It is not a separation tool is it? It is exactly what it says, a situational awareness tool. Poor man's radar indeed.

 

Have you ever noticed that traffic increases or decreases, depending on lots of issues (like a mining boom for example) and the traffic mix can change, maybe an airline starts or ends a service to a location. That is why there is a tower establishment and disestablishment criteria, and that is what happened at Proserpine. When it was shut down, it no longer met the criteria. What wasn't expected was that the tower was removed. I think the idea was the tower was to be reactivated when required. Now it is harder to re-establish of course, because the infrastructure has gone. All towers are supposed to be reviewed to find out if they are still needed or if new ones are needed.

 

People go on about affordable safety without understanding the concept. It is not saying we should reduce safety because of high costs, it is saying we only have so much money. That means society, or even you personally, only have a certain amount of money to spend. How is that money best spend to provide the highest level of safety? That is what it is about. What is the most likely risk? Is money best spent on flight data recorders and cockpit voice recorders so the ATSB can prove that the aircraft had a controlled flight into terrain, or is it safer and cheaper for the pilot do do instrument training so it doesn't happen in the first place? Should we mandate radios and transponders for all aircraft when there is no third party confirmation, controllers do not necessarily use radar, and not all aircraft have TCAS? Or do we establish UNICOM operators to be the eyes on the ground and warn pilots of hazards?

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

I have to say that the Coffs CTA is more than justified, maybe with a little more limited hours. The types of traffic we have are?- RPT: about 8 movements a day QantasLink and 4 Virgin

- Training: 2 RAA aircraft as well as about 6 warriors around on most days

 

- Probably about 15 privately owned aircraft, a proportion of which could be out on any given day, one warrior runs scenics occasionally

 

- Helicopter ops on most good weather days

 

- Air Ambulance comes in at least every 2 days, sometimes more and usually takes right of way, they often will land with a 10kt tailwind for time purposes which disrupts the pattern a bit

 

- Privately owned single engines and twins coming in to refuel (Such as the shiny looking new Cirrus I saw on Friday)

 

- And on rare occasion a C-17 or C-130 will come and do a touch and go or practice some short field landings and takeoffs, on super rare occasion a fighter jet will come and do a touch and go or a low pass

 

It would be pretty intimidating if Coffs was only a CTAF at all hours!

I believe this was considered as a cost saving measure some years ago ( that affordable safety thing again ), unfortunately of the 29 civil ATC towers, not all turn a profit, some run at a significant loss.

 

The likes of Coffs, Sunshine, Mackay, Hamilton Island, Albury, Tamworth, Broome, Karatha, Parafield, Moorrabin, Jandakot, Archerfield, Launceston and Hobart could all handle RAA type aircraft amongst their usual mix of aircraft when the traffic pattern suits, but the true reality is a user pays system would not see much if anything gleened from RAA aircraft operations and the increase in workload and possible staff requirements may be overall prohibitive, they may just try to over price the airways charges to keep us out.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Blackrod, you say transponders should be required in Class D, can you tell me in which countries this is a requirement? Maybe somewhere busy like the USA? No, sorry, transponders are note required in D in the USA, what is the point when it is non radar airpace? They don't require transponders in E either, and their mid air collision stats are better than ours.Be careful what you wish for. Transponders are expensive, and what will happen if we all need to upgrade to mode S?

So true, Mazda, and not all transponders will be ok, alot of old transponders will need to be replaced to meet the TCAS functionality. But if the government was going to subsidise the cost, i'll have one for my Fisher MK1 thanks, i don't care how silly its sounds or looks.

 

 

[Mazda]

Patrick, when we go to target resolution it will allow more options. One day.

 

 

[Mazda]

Yes, the Government was going to subsidise the cost of transponders, but that was before the SSRs were refurbished. They missed the ADS-B deadline and had to refurbish the SSRs, and the whole plan was abandoned. We've had a change of Government since then, who knows what will happen. I think a Labor Government will have a hard time explaining to its voters that taxpayers need to pay for transponders so we can fly our toys, let alone how they will explain it to the Greens!

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Mazda, that is correct with the exception of Essendon Tower who have a TSAT ( it has the required redundancy etc etc required to be used as a radar ), the Regional towers use their display only as a situational awearness enhancement tool, i think your idea for the multicom / unicom has a great deal of merrit, but only time and political pressure from users and governing bodies ( RAA, SAAA etc ) will make a change happen.

 

From the work i was involved with prior to opening Avalon some years back, there is a defined threshold based on passanger numbers for the establishment of ARFF, but not for ATC ? If there is one, CASA holds it dear to their hearts. In the current political climate, a government would be very reluctant to remove a tower from service until all the safety cases in the world have been hashed out and there is no liability on the GVMT if something goes wrong after the tower is shut down.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

I'm just glad they got the ADS B idea out of their heads, there was a great deal of histeria associated with the implementation of that little gem, i would have to take out my rear seat to carry all the hardware i would need.

 

Imagine how rediculous a tiger moth would look like with 2 VHF radios, transponder and ADS B installed.

 

We have a lot to learn from our fellow aviators, their triumfs and failures. Lets hope wiser decisions with less knee jerks are made in the furure.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Now that would be funny, i can see it now, another Kevin Rudd type exit i would thing ?

 

 

[Gibbo]

They don't provide separation Motz, and for your information depending on the type of flight and airspace, controllers don't necessarily provide separation either.A UNICOM operator responding to a radio call confirms the radio is working and on frequency. A UNICOM operator can say "There's a Cessna in the circuit which doesn't appear to be on frequency, it's base for 06", or "there's a glider to the south" or "there are showers to the east" or "The RPT just landed used runway 06 but the wind is favouring 24", "An aircraft just took off through the fog towards the north" (it happens) etc. You then know your radio is working and you gain a picture of what is going on. All of that, for free. As pilot in command, you can take the information or leave ).

Broome is a perfect example that works really well. When first contacted at 30 nm, they will provide all current aircraft and also provide some local knowledge for the 'suggested' approach for the unfamilar. The last time I was there I notified him that the GPS had failed so I was working my navs the old fashioned way by hand. All approaching aircraft were notifed that my position may be out by a mile or two on my approach as 'my pencil was getting a workout on the map'. Very informal but extermely helpful.

 

The Unicom also 'suggested' the aircraft movements around the airport such as mid airstrip takeoffs for light aircraft (using the nearest taxiway to the GA parking ;) ) so the RPT's can backtrack the 300m to the threshold. Time is money for everyone.

 

 

[Mazda]

Broome is a bit different, that's a CAGRO, the big brother to the UNICOM.

 

 

[Gibbo]

I noticed that the tower at Broome is getting upgraded..

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

.Imagine how rediculous a tiger moth would look like with 2 VHF radios, transponder and ADS B installed.

 

.

i reckon they would look right at home in the little Scout, the huge battery to run the show would cause a few second glances tho.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Broome is a bit different, that's a CAGRO, the big brother to the UNICOM.

Broome has actually been a Class D control tower / CTZ now for about 8 months, CASA directed ASA to install ATC in that location due to the rapid increase of traffic there due to the mining boom.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

I noticed that the tower at Broome is getting upgraded..

Sure is, as is Karratha, CASA directed ASA to install ATC there as of Nov 2010, it is expected to get much busier over the next few years.

 

 

[Patrick Normoyle]

Broome is a perfect example that works really well. When first contacted at 30 nm, they will provide all current aircraft and also provide some local knowledge for the 'suggested' approach for the unfamilar. The last time I was there I notified him that the GPS had failed so I was working my navs the old fashioned way by hand. All approaching aircraft were notifed that my position may be out by a mile or two on my approach as 'my pencil was getting a workout on the map'. Very informal but extermely helpful.The Unicom also 'suggested' the aircraft movements around the airport such as mid airstrip takeoffs for light aircraft (using the nearest taxiway to the GA parking ;) ) so the RPT's can backtrack the 300m to the threshold. Time is money for everyone.

Broome will be vastly different now, full ATC class D style, should help out some and keep it safe for all.

 

 

[Mazda]

Yes, I realise Broome is D but the comment was about a UNICOM service, hence it would have been during the time of the CAGRO!

 

Broome was well overdue for a tower, the previous Broome report was a bit of a farce!

 

 

[king_daniels]

Ok I’ll bight

 

On page 19 of our magazine, Zane Tully quotes, Paragraph 2, example 1 –

 

"If the pilot in command of a recreational aircraft is both a current RA-Aus Pilot Certificate holder and a PPL (or higher) licence holder"

 

Or higher licence holder

 

Could a RA-Aus Pilot certificate holder already of a higher licence than a minimum PPL licence holder? For example RA-Aus endorsements and further training within the RA-Aus, like - A junior instructor, a senior instructor, a chief flying instructor. In my opinion it could be argued that the examples above would be recognised as a higher licence holder with their experience (thousands of hours in training and flying) and qualification than a minimum hour PPL.

 

Recognition of prior learning (RPL) was introduced into Australia as part of the

 

National Qualifications Framework (NQF). A major tenet and driver of RPL relates to social justice and its promise to act as a mechanism for social inclusion.

 

RPL was seen as a means to offer those groups who traditionally did not participate in post compulsory education and training an opportunity to have their work and life experiences recognised.

 

It is unfortunate that even though there are laws to protect people with prior knowledge, there are still many shallow minded training institutions that will not recognise and/or acknowledge RPL. The answer to controlled airspace is not whether you hold a PPL or not, but rather, it could be argued, that with the experience you have as a RA-Aus pilot with endorsements (further study) and hours you have flown meets or surpasses the requirement of minimum standards of a PPL.

 

Regards

 

Daniel