07-11-2015, 08:30 AM
(07-10-2015, 10:03 PM)Gobbledock Wrote: It would be, and is, a normal logical choice to place Hoody in the A/g CEO role when Frau Staib is on annual leave or participating in an 'International high level engagement' (rort) somewhere overseas. To not put him in that role would raise eyebrows as he is second in command. Now that still doesnt mean that they aren't lining him up for the sacrificial altar, it could just be that de'Staib'ilizer and Anus Houston are playing a very succinct game. Remember, those two nimrods Herr Skull and Farq'u'hard'son did the same thing to the chiselled Hoodster back at Fort Fumble - they treated him like royalty while behind the scenes setting him up as the Pelair fall-guy.
Anyway, as most would be aware, there are some serious factions fighting it out at the higher echelons of ASA. Some of the newish blood and some of the old Russelite crew are playing their own State of Origin match internally, and so far it has been brutal. Who wins the series is anyone's guess as it won't be decided for some time yet.
This ASA game has a long way to play yet...ding ding goes the bell.
Good points you make Gobbles but judging by the aviation exposé in the Oz today I would say matters are rapidly escalating - funny the Don leaves the building one day and the next--- : CASA meets the Press #71
...& then
Quote:Reform crucial for safety at small airports
- by: Jeff Griffith
- From: The Australian
- July 11, 2015 12:00AM
US air traffic control expert Jeff Griffith visits the tower at Sydney’s second airport, Bankstown. Picture: Renee Nowytarger Source: News Corp Australia
The Ballina Byron Gateway Airport. Source: Supplied
It has been nearly two decades since Australia first tried to introduce the safest air traffic control system in the world, that of the US, and while success was not achieved there are signs it now may happen. An inspection of the nation’s airspace this week has shown, in particular, the need for change in how air traffic through the increasingly used smaller airports is managed for safety.
The International Civil Aviation Organisation develops standards and recommends practices that are followed by countries to ensure the safe, efficient and environmentally responsible operation of each country’s sovereign airspace, commonly referred to as their national airspace system.
To keep up with ever-changing demands on the NAS because of new types of aircraft, increases in operations, implementation of new security procedures and other such matters, constant changes are required to the NAS.
In some cases, sweeping changes prove necessary across the entire NAS in the shape of airspace reform.
I was first involved in Australia’s airspace reform efforts to improve safety in 1996 when I came to Australia at the invitation of the federal government to conduct an assessment of Australia’s NAS. I was asked to provide information on the US air traffic control system that would be helpful to Australia in making airspace changes along the lines of those in the US.
At the time, I was employed by the US Federal Aviation Administration. I found there was a high interest in the way the US conducted operations in the different classes of airspace since the FAA had implemented significant changes in 1993.
The US has the busiest and safest NAS in the world, transporting more than 800 million airline passengers a year and providing hundreds of thousands of air traffic control operations a day that include commercial, general aviation and military aircraft. Achieving this high level of safety evolved through the years as a result of lessons learned, unfortunately, from accidents and from dealing with year-on-year growth in air traffic control operations.
I returned to Australia in 2003. By that time I had retired from the FAA after a 32-year career where I held positions as an air traffic controller in Atlanta, chief controller at Chicago’s O’Hare airport and finally deputy director of air traffic at FAA headquarters in Washington, DC.
I was asked by the Australian government’s NAS implementation group to assist in carrying out its responsibilities for continued reform of the NAS.
The NAS IG consisted of a very bright group of Australian air traffic controllers and pilots, true professionals in their own right, who were completely focused on the task of NAS reform and nothing else. They were highly skilled experts with many years’ experience in their field.
Specifically, my job was to provide input into the development of each NAS characteristic, or element of change, to ensure technical accuracy. The objective was for the Australian NAS to put in place procedures and operating practices used in the US that have proved to be safe for many years. This has not happened, but I strongly support this objective even today.
The two basic types of airspace that cover seven ICAO airspace classifications are controlled and uncontrolled airspace. Essentially, controllers provide separation between aircraft in controlled airspace, and pilots provide their own separation from each other in uncontrolled airspace.
Except around busy airports in Australia where commercial aircraft usually fly, airspace below 8500 feet is uncontrolled. One of the new Australian NAS characteristics we developed in the early 2000s was a decision to lower controlled airspace below 8500ft at smaller airports with no control tower, such as Ballina in northern NSW, which until recent years has had small levels of air traffic.
This is important because controlled airspace would now provide for separation assurance by air traffic controllers between aircraft flying on an instrument flight rules clearance closer to the airport, rather than pilots having to call “in the blind” in the form of what some call a 1930s system, with pilots talking to each other over the radio, trying to work out each other’s position and how to avoid colliding into each other.
In recent weeks I was surprised to learn the decision to lower controlled airspace over the smaller airports below 8500ft had been reversed after about eight months. Apparently there was an incident where two aircraft came too close to each other while under air traffic control in the lowered airspace.
In contrast to the Australian system, the US provides IFR separation assurance down to 700ft above the ground where the pilot can complete an instrument approach to the runway. If, for some reason, the pilot has to execute a missed approach, they are still provided separation assurance.
Essentially, while all commercial aircraft in the US — and Canada as well — are directed by air traffic controllers almost right to the ground, in Australia it’s piecemeal depending where you are.
Although it is true the US has wider radar coverage than Australia, big parts of the US don’t have such coverage and the American system still operates through what’s known as procedural separation, where pilots report their positions to air traffic controllers, who can keep aircraft separated by allowing a safe margin of time and space between them.
From 1996 to the present, each time I have been in Australia I have had the privilege of meeting and working with a very professional group of pilots, air traffic controllers, air traffic facility managers, flight school owners, airport managers, government officials, union officials, trade organisation representatives and others who have freely shared their professional insights on the Australian NAS operations and ways of making improvements.
I have visited air traffic control facilities, flight training centres and hangars to exchange viewpoints, and flown as an observer in the cockpit on flights to many airports throughout Australia. During the course of five visits to Australia, we landed at and departed from Bankstown airport in Sydney as well as Dubbo, Ballina, Broken Hill, Port Macquarie and Bathurst in NSW, Devonport and Hobart in Tasmania, Uluru or Ayers Rock in the Northern Territory, and Broome, Carnarvon and Jandakot in Western Australia. We experienced flying in controlled and uncontrolled airspace in the Australian NAS, which provided insights into the daily NAS operation from a pilot’s and air traffic controller’s point of view.
To understand the difference between how the US system works compared with the one in Australia, I offer two examples of flights I took in 2003.
On an IFR flight from Broome to Jandakot in controlled airspace, another aircraft in our vicinity was a Dash-8 twin-engine turboprop. Our flight was levelled at 27,000ft by air traffic control for procedural separation. The Dash-8 was flying at 28,000ft in the opposite direction. We observed the Dash-8 at 11 o’clock and it passed off to our left. This is the same way IFR traffic is controlled in the US.
But on another IFR flight from Jandakot to Kalgoorlie, the control centre provided traffic information on a Merlin twin-engine turboprop in uncontrolled airspace. We were descending into Kalgoorlie and provided self-separation by talking to the pilot of the Merlin on the air traffic control frequency.
The practice of self-separation while flying in and out of clouds, exchanging distance measuring equipment readings and altitude reports with the other pilot, was discomforting. I have never experienced this in the US. In the US NAS, this would have been Class E controlled airspace and an air traffic controller would have provided positive separation.
The US method of air traffic control provides for the appropriate separation to be planned well ahead of time and results in less workload for the controller and more efficient operations for the pilot. This separation provides a higher level of safety and will be an important factor for Australia as more and more aircraft continue to fly in the Australian NAS.
The practice of pilots communicating with each other on the air traffic control frequency is not permitted in the US NAS. Air traffic controllers maintain control of the frequencies in providing positive separation at all times.
My Australian NAS experience is not cursory but quite involved and has allowed me to gain firsthand knowledge of the NAS and experience operations in real time. These flights were conducted in Jet Ranger and Sikorsky helicopters, small general-aviation twin-engine aircraft and general-aviation jets such as the Cessna Citation.
The number of aircraft using the smaller airports in Australia is increasing. This includes a mix of large airliners, commuter airliners, business jets, small general aviation aircraft, flight trainers and sport aviation.
The number of commercial passengers is also increasing.
If the NAS were to bring down the altitude of controlled airspace, safety could be measurably improved for aircraft flying in clouds.
There are several solutions to enhance safety that could be considered for smaller airports, such as building control towers, installing radar and adding air traffic control staff. Any solution must be studied for cost benefit and to see whether there is a safety-related reason to take action.
Some countries have explored lower-cost solutions to address the need to provide a higher level of air traffic service. One of these is the latest technology now in use in Sweden, where cameras and sensors collect live-time information at Ornskoldsvik airport’s remote tower, which is relayed to air traffic controllers in Sundsvall.
In the US, one of the most successful safety improvements is the Unicom radio operator at small airports. This is a no-cost system using someone who is at the airport. It could be airport operations personnel, the flying school, a fixed base operator or the firefighting service. This option is not at present viable in Australia because regulations prevent such an operator from providing important traffic and weather information. If Australia moved to the US system, safety could substantially be improved at no measurable cost.
As Australian NAS reform moves ahead, there are two very important areas to consider: communications, and training and education. Reform is a good story that touches virtually all Australia NAS users and will benefit them.
Constant interaction with the user community through a well-executed communications strategy will go a long way in getting everyone on board and providing a way for instant feedback.
Training and education materials can be distributed to pilots in the timeframe that would facilitate learning and result in safe implementation. A robust website with the capability to deliver and receive large amounts of NAS reform materials, e-learning and feedback from airspace users would be invaluable.
Australia has been very proactive in modernising its air traffic control system, building new centres at Brisbane and Melbourne and moving to satellite-based technology. Australia was the first NAS in the world to successfully implement a high-altitude automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast service, resulting in enhanced safety and more efficient operating costs for airlines and business jets. ADS-B requires aircraft owners to purchase equipment and have it installed in their aircraft within the next two years so controllers can see the aircraft on their screens.
It reportedly costs $16,500 to install ADS-B in smaller light aircraft, while one jet charter operator paid $125,000.
For small flight school operators with eight to 10 aircraft in their fleet, or charter operators with four or five jets to upgrade, this is a substantial cost.
It has been suggested that the compliance date be extended to 2020, in line with the US implementation date, allowing global market demand to drive down the cost per unit. I believe this is a sensible proposal that would not compromise safety.
The average worldwide growth in passenger traffic is 4 per cent a year. There are going to be more aircraft operating in the Australian NAS for years to come and the mixture of aircraft will also become more complex.
Making changes to the Australian NAS is not easy. As anywhere else, there is resistance to change and there are differences of opinion on how to implement change. There are commercial airlines, commercial and general aviation pilots, air traffic controllers, unions, government air navigation service provider Airservices Australia, government safety regulator the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and other NAS users such as flight schools, charter businesses and so on, all of which have different interests and face different challenges.
Finding a way for all of these groups to work collaboratively and reach a consensus on a way forward to address these different interests and challenges requires strong leadership.
This week I met the new order of leadership responsible for the NAS at Airservices and CASA, and they are in lockstep: they believe aviation safety comes first and are focused on improving it.
Under this leadership, NAS reform will be achieved.
Jeff Griffith is executive vice-president of the Washington Consulting Group, which provides air traffic control services in the US and internationally. The Weekend Australian commissioned Griffith to tour Australian airspace this week and report his findings.
& finally..
Quote: Top US controller Jeff Griffith aghast at our airports
- by: EAN HIGGINS
- From: The Australian
- July 11, 2015 12:00AM
Reporter
Sydney
As a young air-traffic controller, Jeff Griffith learned to work fast.
The year was 1969 and he was in the US Air Force operating a mobile radar unit at a major combat airbase at Phu Cat, at the height of the Vietnam War, often under mortar and rocket fire.
“When the airplanes were coming in over there, they didn’t stop. They were usually low on fuel, or had battle damage,” Mr Griffith said.
He went on to a top career with the US’s Federal Aviation Administration, including serving as chief controller at what was then the world’s busiest airport, Chicago’s O’Hare, and later deputy director of air traffic control.
Since leaving the FAA in 2002, Mr Griffith has been executive vice-president of the Washington Consulting Group, which provides air traffic control services in the US and internationally. In 1996, and again in 2003 and 2004, the federal government brought him to Australia to advise on how to introduce the American air traffic control system, in which commercial aircraft are always directed by air traffic controllers.
It never happened — to this day Australia has a hotchpotch system where some airports are designated to be under controlled airspace, and others are not.
This week The Weekend Australian brought Mr Griffith back to Australia and commissioned him to re-examine what had happened to airspace management after a gap of 11 years.
He flew in the cockpit of a Beechcraft Duchess light twin-engine aircraft flown by Sydney flying instructor Aminta Hennessy and in a Cessna Citation corporate jet flown by air charter operator Brad Edwards from Armidale, in northeast NSW.
As the aircraft flew around controlled airspace above 8500 feet and uncontrolled airspace below it at regional airports, Mr Griffith talked with the pilots and listened to their radio discussions with air traffic controllers and other pilots.
He is amazed that at an airport such as Ballina, in northern NSW, which has 435,000 passengers a year with big commercial airline traffic along with considerable general aviation, pilots on their landing approach must still talk to each other to work out where each one is and how to avoid crashing into each other.
In the US, they would be kept well separated by air traffic controllers almost right to the runway. “At these smaller airports with this uncontrolled airspace airplanes are flying in the clouds with no separation being provided by air traffic controllers, and that’s according to regulation,” Mr Griffith said. “That works with two airplanes, but when there are three or four or five, it gets complicated.
“At those kinds of airports in the US, we have controlled airspace down to 700 feet above the ground and we provide separation to aircraft all the way through their approach and landing.”
Another thing that astounds Mr Griffith is that, unlike the US, where airport ground staff including firefighters, aircraft mechanics, flying school instructors, and check-in staff use the Unicom radio service to advise pilots of local air traffic and weather, regulations here prohibit all but serving and former air traffic controllers from providing such information....
Batter...up??
MTF..P2