"Pilots Back Reforms for Airspace" affect on RA Aus

[DonRamsay]

But it's not what they signed up for . . .

Give the one or two that will do the job a new contract and proper compensation. It is not the men refusing to do the work, it is their el supremo not wanting to risk it.

 

. . . they are employed to do the job of Fire and Rescue, not take on the responsibility for providing traffic and weather information to pilots.

If they can learn fire and rescue, they can, if they want to and are allowed to, learn about traffic guidance and weather info. We are not looking for meteorologists and air traffic controllers. And we are talking very part time.

 

It's like asking the Postman to collect the recycling bins just because he is driving down the same street. Two very different jobs with extremely different responsibilities.

That sounds like industrial demarcation that I thought died out after killing off the NSW State Dockyard where a welder had to find a carpenter (shipwright) to move a piece of scrap timber that was in his way. True story.

 

Really, it just a matter of being happy to have a go at a different skill, being allowed by the hierarchy to do it and by working through the training. I would imagine it would take a lot less training that it takes to become proficient at Fire & Rescue.

 

If Flight Information Service is required then it should be done by those trained to do so.

Couldn't agree more - so let them do the training while they are waiting for something to happen.

 

But then the person who has been so vocal in the papers on getting Unicom is the same guy who pulled the plug on FIS.

No knowledge of any of that. And in any case, must be water under the bridge and not something to be used to prevent a good development happening.

 

 

[Aldo]

And really what is the difference between 8500 and 5000 (3500) as most of the traffic around an airport is 1000 AGL so they will still have to talk to us and apply the see and avoid requirements as I see it this gives them less time to assess the situation in the vicinity of the airport, I've spoken to guys (IFR RPT) saying I will remain south of the highway (and only one heading that direction) and they don't know what you are talking about, time they got their heads out of their backsides and had a look out the window (not all like this though and I have had some really good experiences with the RPT IFR guys).

 

But as I've said before what Dick wants Dick gets because he complains incessantly until he gets what he wants to the detriment of everyone else.

 

This will be a reduction in accessibility to airports for lots of people or mean flying over more tiger country to stay under the class E airspace in some circumstances.

 

Aldo

 

 

[DonRamsay]

Like it or not but transponders and ADS-B are the way of the future. Not being able to fly above 5,000 ft is not a restriction I am happy with so I have a transponder. Being "seen" by the RPT blokes is a very good thing in my book.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I don't blame Angus for not wanting to take on the legal responsibility, it's all about risk assessment and they (assume he had advise from both ARFF and ATS) decided that taking guys off the active roster to learn how to do "part time Unicom" will cause them to loose the ability to keep up to speed with the skills required for their main function.

 

If Dick or Ballina want a Unicom, why don't they employ and pay someone to do the job rather then demanding that someone else who has no knowledge of aircraft traffic or weather do it.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

But it's not what they signed up for, they are employed to do the job of Fire and Rescue, not take on the responsibility for providing traffic and weather information to pilots. It's like asking the Postman to collect the recycling bins just because he is driving down the same street. Two very different jobs with extremely different responsibilities.If Flight Information Service is required then it should be done by those trained to do so. But then the person who has been so vocal in the papers on getting Unicom is the same guy who pulled the plug on FIS.

There was a guy who retired from the fire section at a capitol city airport a couple of years ago after 40 years there. Never ever went to a fire. Seems like they have a bit of time to learn another skill. They have to have radio skill anyway and if they are listening to the Unicom frequency they may get advance warning of any emergency.

 

 

[Aldo]

Like it or not but transponders and ADS-B

Don

 

Not all the guys flying IFR have TCAS and therefore can't see you and once below 5000 radar can't see you either (in this instance) ADS-B will only be available in capital city airports for a long time yet so that won't help either.

 

Running into a Navajo/Cessna 310 without TCAS will have the same result for both of you.

 

Aldo

 

 

[rhysmcc]

There was a guy who retired from the fire section at a capitol city airport a couple of years ago after 40 years there. Never ever went to a fire. Seems like they have a bit of time to learn another skill. They have to have radio skill anyway and if they are listening to the Unicom frequency they may get advance warning of any emergency.

I have a mate who is a Qld State fire fighter, he says they average about one house fire a year, maybe we could get them fixing pot holes during the down time?

 

Ask him how often he had to do fire drills, simulated aircraft crashes, responding to on airport fire alarms, provide first aid response and various other training activities that are conducted on a daily bases.

 

DonNot all the guys flying IFR have TCAS and therefore can't see you and once below 5000 radar can't see you either (in this instance) ADS-B will only be available in capital city airports for a long time yet so that won't help either.

 

Running into a Navajo/Cessna 310 without TCAS will have the same result for both of you.

 

Aldo

ADS-B isn't used at the capital city airports either (other then on the aerodrome ground surveillance systems). It's an En-Route surveillance system used in areas where radar coverage doesn't exist. There is a map somewhere on ASA website that shows the coverage at various levels.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I have a mate who is a Qld State fire fighter, he says they average about one house fire a year, maybe we could get them fixing pot holes during the down time?

The suggestion is for them to carry and listen to a radio. Take a trip to the states sometime and see how a Unicom operates there. It's not hard.

 

 

[coljones]

There was a guy who retired from the fire section at a capitol city airport a couple of years ago after 40 years there. Never ever went to a fire. Seems like they have a bit of time to learn another skill. They have to have radio skill anyway and if they are listening to the Unicom frequency they may get advance warning of any emergency.

Yes but - if the sh((t hits the fan do you want a trained fireman or a part time radio operator? Do you want a trained plumber to fix your gas or do you want a spotty yoof from Maccas to do the job. Just assigning a person to load up on their job is not the solution + there needs to be a clearly articulated task evaluation. In the case of the NSW Docks, there were a lot of shinyar))ses sitting around sipping tea screwing over all the blue collars - sometimes the only way to get attention is to work to rules and demark jobs. NSW Docks came a gutser beacuse the shiny arses and politicians could not plan, bid or exercise a project if their lives depended on it and their Industrial Relations was pure Attilla the Hun. Unlike private enterprise there was no ever suffering shareholder to do the lifting in the case of NSW Docks.

There are few heroes in private enterprise either - remember 2007-08

 

But we digress!!

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Following on from what has been posted re Unicom the debate.

 

I remember that about four or five years ago flying into Broome, Unicom was pretty congested. The operator only gave the positions, times and directions the incoming aircraft were inbound from.

 

That left it up to the pilot to slot into the circuit.

 

A different scenarario was at our local airstrip where I (pilot) on the ground broadcast to the incoming aircraft that the active run was X wind so and so etc.

 

I had some concern that I was maybe breaking some rules.

 

I contacted RAAus with my concern. The reply was all ok. I didn't have to have a Unicom licence.

 

So, if an aircraft in the circuit or on the ground, or using a base radio to advise other aircraft the conditions,

 

What's the problem?

 

Happens all the time!

 

Or am I missing something?

 

Phil

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes but - if the sh((t hits the fan do you want a trained fireman or a part time radio operator? Do you want a trained plumber to fix your gas or do you want a spotty yoof from Maccas to do the job. Just assigning a person to load up on their job is not the solution + there needs to be a clearly articulated task evaluation. In the case of the NSW Docks, there were a lot of shinyar))ses sitting around sipping tea screwing over all the blue collars - sometimes the only way to get attention is to work to rules and demark jobs. NSW Docks came a gutser beacuse the shiny arses and politicians could not plan, bid or exercise a project if their lives depended on it and their Industrial Relations was pure Attilla the Hun. Unlike private enterprise there was no ever suffering shareholder to do the lifting in the case of NSW Docks.There are few heroes in private enterprise either - remember 2007-08

 

But we digress!!

So the case against is that if a few fire man are trained to let a pilot know what the ground weather conditions are or advise if they are aware of any other traffic, then we will not have trained fireman available to fight a fire and they will also have to fill in pot holes? Really? Goodnight.

 

 

[spacesailor]

Have I missed something? Don.

 

"The service made more than 6700 responses nationally last year, with 28 lives saved", the fieries spokesman said.

 

Did the other 6,672 casualties Die.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Have I missed something? Don."The service made more than 6700 responses nationally last year, with 28 lives saved", the fieries spokesman said.

Did the other 6,672 casualties Die.

 

spacesailor

Not all responses would result in casualties. ie unsafe gear induction, ARFF attend but aircraft lands safely with no gear failure. The 28 lives saved my guess would refer to first aid responses rather then fire an rescue of a crashed aircraft. Either way they do a great job. I'm sure Unicom trained operators will also do great, why not train the aerodrome reporting officer to do the job? Or fuel operator or baggage handler? How much are pilots prepared to pay for this service as it won't be free regardless on who does it.

 

 

[DonRamsay]

We are talking about very low volume but important RPT traffic. just a few flights per day. If it warranted a full scale professional ATC then ASA would need to provide the service. This is a light grey matter not black or white.

 

The continuous listening brief and momentary actions is unlikely, in any way to compromise fire and rescue readiness and in any degree will be a plus for RPT, GA and RA safety.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

So are you suggesting they just do it during RPT movements? RPT already get advice of any reported aircraft from Centre? Maybe te answer is to get more aircraft reporting their intentions (flight plan/radio/transponder) but then this means we are taking on the responsibility for safety rather then passin it off to someone else.

 

This is also the time when they are at their most "readiness" to respond to Fire and Rescue tasks. I trust their opinion if they say it would be less safe for them to do so and take away from the current duties

 

 

[facthunter]

Many operators have /had a company frequency, and I'm sure all sorts of information could be exchanged there. Certainly weather would have been . I've performed ADVISORY radio work on a hand held, as I'm sure many others have. at events. You don't give clearances as such as you have no authority. Nev

 

 

[nomadpete]

We have all come to expect firies to provide first aid, and to rescue stranded cats in their spare time, but nobody makes a big fuss about the possibility that if there is a fire they will have to prioritise their activities.

 

Of course they have to fit training in around the genuine emergencies. The same would apply to any radio assistance (non mission critical - just assistance) which they may be occasionally providing. As previously mentioned, the radio does provide the emergency personnel a better 'situational awareness' of their environment and would surely help them better respond when an emergency arose?

 

 

[rhysmcc]

Many operators have /had a company frequency, and I'm sure all sorts of information could be exchanged there. Certainly weather would have been . I've performed ADVISORY radio work on a hand held, as I'm sure many others have. at events. You don't give clearances as such as you have no authority. Nev

Yet will still be sued should 2 aircraft prang. Hope you had the correct permissions to be operating on an aviation frequency in other then flight conditions.

 

An Aerodrome Flight Information Service is provided in Port Hedland and CA/GRO at Ayres Rock, has anyone any experience with dealing with either? If traffic levels warrant then this would make more sense then having random people making radio calls.

 

 

[kaz3g]

When I flew into Connelans last year I received advisories about the RPT joining the circuit about the same time as me.

 

This is a CA/GRS providing traffic information primarily for the benefit of the heavy metal drivers who quite reasonably are allergic to nearly invisible littlies travelling at a quarter their speed downwind.

 

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/download/caaps/airways/airway_3.pdf

 

Headland had nothing at all when I was there last...but it was nearly 40 years ago.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

But it's not what they signed up for, they are employed to do the job of Fire and Rescue, not take on the responsibility for providing traffic and weather information to pilots. It's like asking the Postman to collect the recycling bins just because he is driving down the same street. Two very different jobs with extremely different responsibilities....FIS.

It makes sense for a postie to collect bins- if he's passing by. Small communities have always done this sort of thing and governments should look for these efficiencies.

 

If we employed specialists for everything...we'd be worse off than Greece.

 

 

[Geoff13]

I am not sure how many wheelie bins the local postie could fit on his Honda C90.

 

 

[rhysmcc]

I am not sure how many wheelie bins the local postie could fit on his Honda C90.

Maybe we could get the postie to do the mail runs in Rubbish Trucks, ofcourse they would get trained in how to operate and drive the machines, we don't have the staff to cover his time away from work so suspend all mail delievery for December so the training can take place.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

I am not sure how many wheelie bins the local postie could fit on his Honda C90.

Valid Point Geoff. Perhaps this is not the best example. In times past people multi-tasked; if someone with sufficient skill is in the vicinity, why not give them the chance to widen their horizons?

Economic necessity will be the driver; have a look at how many government departments, private corporations and statutory bodies your local Post Office now represents.

 

 

[shags_j]

Just exactly why is change necessary... Because Dick piped up about it? If Dick asked for it then it's because he is being restricted for some reason...

 

This whole argument is predicated on the supposition that;

 

1. "the US system is safer" - The article has no reference for this statement

 

2. The US system, if safer, would be relevant to our airspace

 

3. The US system offers greater information to pilots than what ATC currently supplies

 

Reducing E down to 5,000 in my humble opinion doesn't really do anything. We have to separate the IFR for longer in and out of aerodromes, all VFR in radar coverage would have a transponder. Not really sure of any quantifiable benefit here. What lowering the level of E does do is restrict some of the clearances we can give as ATC. There are LSALT issues at 5,000 in that area.

 

So what started all of this in the first place? Was there an incident? Was there a complaint by RPT?

 

 

[ian00798]

I believe this whole argument from Dick was triggered as the result of a busy day at Ballina when there were several IFR arrivals into a circuit with a lot of VFR traffic as well. It wasn't really an incident.

 

The U.S. system just had an F16 collide with a VFR aircraft in a similar setup to what Dick wants done at Ballina, so the safety argument doesn't hold up for this proposal. Perhaps a class D tower similar to Camden during busy periods may work, but I don't think the prevailing traffic volume would justify it. I am struggling to understand the insistence on introducing more class E airspace, as far as VFR vs IFR goes, class G and Class E are the same thing. Dicks whole argument seems very inconsistent, and seems more based on causing fear in the general public who don't understand the intricacies of the national airspace system.