New Ballina Control Zone

[Garfly]

This looks like it will put a big dampener on recreational flying in the area.

I wonder what the local aviation mob is thinking about this.

And I wonder how RAAus is going with those negotiations regarding controlled airspace entry.  

 

 

 

 

Ballina airspace design - introduction of controlled airspace - Civil Aviation Safety Authority - Citizen Space

CONSULTATION.CASA.GOV.AU

---

Find and participate in consultations run by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority

 

 

 

[facthunter]

It's been needed for ages.  Nev

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

It's been needed for ages.  Nev

 

Yes, something has been needed for ages and working out just what was the job of CASA's Ballina Airspace Review which published its findings in late 2022.

 

It was back in Nov 2020 that a Jabiru and an Airbus A320 managed to miss each other by a mere 600'.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2022/ballina-airspace

 

That incident would have set the cat among the pigeons on the vexed issue of Jet airliners mixing it up with GA/Sports types in Class G. Anyway, it sparked the establishment of the Ballina SFIS (Surveillance Flight Information Service) a kind of poor man's control zone - as an interim measure, at least.

 

But then, in Sep. 2021, and on SFIS's watch, a C208 took-off headlong into the path of a landing Boeing 737.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-items/2023/ballina-separation-incident-highlights-importance-pilots-communicating-directly-other-aircraft-ctaf-where-sfis-place

 

So, in Nov. 23 CASA announced its plan for a proper control zone at Ballina:

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/about-us/news-media-releases-and-speeches/improvements-ballina-airspace-come-effect-2025

 

 

So, as it stands, I'm wondering what the general aviation community around this region is thinking about the proposal, now that its details are out.  What I find a bit encouraging is that the language of the Airspace Review seems to envisage some kind of regulatory accommodation with non-IFR craft; that they should not be excluded as a matter of course; that they should, by some means, be authorised to operate within it. 

 

That's why I'm interested in just what is passing between RAAus and CASA/AA on this issue right now.  Can we expect some movement on the 'access to controlled airspace' issue, maybe before this new zone becomes a reality?  Also it bears, I think, on how CASA judges its ADSB-in/out for the masses program has fared so far and what other plans it has up its sleeve in that regard.  Including, I'd imagine thoughts about mandating ADSB-IN cockpit displays in all IFR aircraft.

 

Anyway, below is the relevant part of the Review, as re-published by ATSB. 

I emphasise (in red) the bits I think are of special interest to us.

 

 

Regulatory oversight

The Airspace Act 2007 assigned the administration and regulation of Australian administered airspace to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). As part of this function, CASA was required to undertake regular reviews of airspace to determine if existing classifications were appropriate, air navigation services and facilities were suitable, there was safe, efficient, and equitable use of airspace, and identify any associated risk factors.

On 15 December 2022, CASA publicly released a final Ballina airspace review. The review identified 3 areas of concern:

• Frequency congestion
• Heightened risk of separation incidents
• Situational awareness

As a result, the review made 9 recommendations (Table 1).

Table 1: Ballina airspace review recommendations

No.	Recommendation
1	CASA should prepare a Request For Change (RFC) to separate the Lismore and Casino Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) from the Ballina CTAF by 16 June 2022.
2	Evans Head Airport should be allocated the common CTAF (126.7 MHz) by 16 June 2022.
3	CASA should direct AA to install an Automatic Dependent Surveillance - Broadcast (ADS-B) ground station in the vicinity of Ballina to improve surveillance as soon as practicable but no later than April 2023. The ground station should, as far as is practical, provide ADS-B surveillance capability to the runway surface.
4	CASA should explore a suitable regulatory framework that can safely authorise sport and recreational aircraft and pilot certificate holders to operate in the controlled airspace associated with Ballina where pilot certificate holders meet CASA specified competency standards and the aircraft are appropriately equipped.
5	CASA’s Stakeholder Engagement Division (SED) should conduct additional safety promotion programs in relation to Ballina operations as soon as practicable. The programs should include, but are not limited to the following key elements: a. reinforce the mandatory radio calls required when operating within the Ballina MBA in the interim, pending the establishment of controlled airspace, and b. later, provide guidance as to how a Sport Aviation Body might develop a suitable scheme and make application to CASA for approval, under the regulatory framework identified in recommendation 4.
6	Uncertified aerodromes and flight training areas around Ballina should be promulgated in aeronautical publications to increase pilot situational awareness.
7	As an interim action pending the completion of Recommendation 8, CASA should make a determination to establish a control area around Ballina Byron Gateway Airport with a base which is as low as possible, and direct AA to provide services within the control area. The services should be provided during all periods of scheduled Air Transport Operations and include an Approach Control Service to aircraft operating under the Instrument Flight Rules (IFR), separation between IFR aircraft, VFR traffic information to all aircraft, and sequencing of all aircraft to and from the runway. CASA and AA should jointly explore opportunities to detect non-cooperative aircraft or vehicles in the immediate vicinity of the runway. The services should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 30 November 2023.
8	CASA should make a determination that Ballina Byron Gateway Airport will become a controlled aerodrome with an associated control zone and control area, and direct Airservices Australia (AA) to provide an Aerodrome Control Service1 to the aerodrome. That service should be established as soon as practicable but no later than 13 June 2024.
9	CASA should prepare and finalise an Airspace Change Proposal (ACP) for a control zone and control area steps in preparation for the implementation of Recommendations 7 and 8.

Source: Airspace Review of Ballina – 2022 with minor amendments by the ATSB

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 11 by Garfly

[Blueadventures]

Thanks for the info Gary.  I reckon it will be a highly desirable ATC tower to work from and area to live in.

[Area-51]

The local aviation mob sat down with both CASA OAR and Air Services last week to discuss the development in more detail over several face to face meetings with individual airfield groups/clubs of the area. Hopefully information gathered from these these discussions assist in a greater enhancement of "Equity" for all users; Commercial to Recreational.

 

As it stands the current air space design for Ballina is fairly mature; and yes, for all the reasons documented, much needed and overdue. ATC will be managed remotely, probably from Brisbane.
 

The most recent proposal update released by CASA last week provides IFR APPROACH/STAR/SID data, Evans Head Active and Non Active; which gives the proposed air space foot print logic. And any way you look at it Commercial Op's will always take priority over GA and Recreational. 

 

A coastal VFR transit was discussed. This is still being worked out and will likely be a unique solution for GA and Recreational. Again it is being worked out; how RaAus will actually affect transit through Delta is not yet known.

 

For Lismore flight schools its a great bonus due to proximity to Controlled Airspace training.

 

For Murwillumbah and Ballina; waiting to hear their thoughts.

 

For the Tyagarah CTAF area the main issues of concern are the lowering of the CLL6500 over land to CLL4500. There is a genuine safety concern mutually shared by both flying clubs at Tyagarah on several levels for VFR aircraft operating OCTA.
 

First concern is loosing 2000' G airspace and having the same amount of traffic compressed into a thinner layer; more opportunity for mid air collision or loss of separation, and busting through the step with a higher probability of incursions occurring.

 

Secondly terrain to the west of Tyagarah over Mt Jerusalem is 2800'. A CLL4500' leaves inadequate clearance or height to affect an emergency landing reaching a suitable field in an engine failure situation.  Heading in any direction the flight will end with the aircraft landing in the trees. Not a good day.

 

Thirdly the area of concern is a training area used by Tyagarah, Goldcoast, Murwillumbah, Archerfield. CLL4500 means flights are at 4000' max. Not enough height for a novice solo student to hopefully recover successfully from an unintentional spin. Not a good day. (please do not use this point to railroad the post into yet another endless discussion about do's and don't's about spins).

 

The decision to affect a CLL4500 over Tyagarah is an arbitrary one. It is driven by the precept for a "standardisation of airspace between Goldcoast and Ballina". The is no ATPL or Commercial operational driver other than ATC being provided a single flat space to manage. As mentioned to CASA and Air Services during the face to face, the CLL4500 is not required and should therefore remain at its current CLL6500 for previously mentioned reasons of safety; they were previously unaware of the level of training that actually occurs within the Tyagarah CTAF area.

 

In very simple and short terms a 2000' step reduction in the area of concern increases the chances of a fatality occurring for VFR flights OCTA.

 

Nothing further to add.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 11 by Area-51

[Garfly]

That's exactly the info I was looking for A-51, thanks a lot for that.  Sounds like a very productive conversation is already underway.

 

I reckon whatever gets worked out for VFR coastal transit it will be applied to the very similar Coffs Harbour Class D situation - and maybe others.

 

In any case, there seemed to me to be hints in the Airspace Review language regarding changes to the RAAus into controlled airspace arrangements.

[kgwilson]

Coastal transit won't require much time in CTR with the North/South boundaries clipped. I suspect like it is at Coffs just call and request transit & usually it will be approved with or without Xponder or ADSB. 500 feet over the beach is fairly normal at Coffs. I'm not sure how this will work if there are no eyes in Ballina other than Brisbane knowing where everything else is when deciding on transit approval. A victor lane would be a better idea.

[BurnieM]

Sounds like this will be similar to Western Sydney 'D+' requiring ADS-B out and Skyechos not being suitable standard.

Also maybe requiring some sort of VFR flight plan.

 

Does make you wonder what is causing the delay with RAAus CTA endorsements ?

This could get quite heated if they do not appear soon.

 

Edited August 11 by BurnieM

[kgwilson]

I don't know why SE2 is unacceptable given that they can see you at about 20NM. The argument is that the SE2 cannot be interrogated which may be correct but it is transmitting your rego, altitude and position so as it is with a transponder your direction and ground speed is also calculated.

 

I have checked this with ATC at Coffs Harbour. With a transponder broadcasting at squawk 1200 you have to contact ATC by radio to establish your rego & then squawk the provided code, press Ident & then key that into the system so it follows you. With the SE2 that is already there.

[BurnieM]

Just repeating the feedback from our Casa rep 2 weeks ago.

Nothing is set in stone yet but it seems like the decision has already been made.