[Peetwo]

Rice bowl protection and abrogation of responsibility, writ large.

Remember that part in estimates where there was lots of wriggling and squirming about who owned the unit, who owned the wires, who owned the weather data, who was responsible; hilarious.  Everyone was in Montreal or at the pub.

Here you go "K" for the record...

The Ferryman went onto say:

I’d place advance notice of actual conditions at a field on top of my list; QNH, cloud, wind and temperature/dewpoint; how many times have you called a CTAF and asked a local aircraft for the information? Makes life so much easier, but why is it that we have multiple redundancy and strict rules for airport lighting, navigation aid power,etc. dual everything just about on the flight deck – so that when an essential ‘item’ fails, the back up kicks in and we remain ‘safe’.  So why has a backup AWIS rule not been issued and why has the ATSB not taken direct action to ensure that whoever is responsible for making sure the vital terminal conditions are always available 24/7, irrespective, at every airport, not just NOTAMed as not being available. I reckon the Mildura crews would have said thank you for the advance ‘warning’; or a ‘chat’ with the friendly local fuel agent even.

Sounds fairly reasonable and in the US - at least - the 'regulated' UNICOM system is a relatively cheap 'safety risk' mitigation alternative for popular OCTA GA aerodromes/airports.

Poster mjbow2 - from off the UP - took Capn Bloggs to task.. ..while at the same time properly explaining the advantages of the US UNICOM system:

Quote: "..do you really think you'd have one of your "existing" staff at the airport with enough spare time to monitor and provide the weather, let alone a traffic service?.."


Absolute crap Bloggs. Every RPT airport you fly to Bloggs, you radio your company personnel on the ground with an ETA and they tell you what bay to park on.

Your company personnel are already monitoring a radio and are already at the airport 'floating around' as you say, ready to talk to you on the radio, but suddenly if they were allowed to provide you with an airport advisory at the same time it becomes too onerous on them?

If your company reps were able to monitor the CTAF frequency and provide a Unicom service to those aircraft that request an advisory (Hint... thats you Bloggs in your 717) then safety is enhanced. So simple.

Quote: "..let alone a traffic service? .."

Contrary to what you think the service is supposed to do, it does not provide Air Traffic Control functions AT ALL. Do you understand this?

You try and tear down this simple well proven affordable measure with the most specious arguments that only goes to prove that your ignorance of how its done elsewhere and a pathological resistance makes you look foolish.

Whatever you think you know about how a Unicom service should work is just plain wrong. Its sad to think that younger pilots may give credence to your remarks merely because you fly a jet.

The FAA also doesn't agree with your assessment that Unicom services are "not going to wash". You might wish to familiarise yourself with Ops Spec C064 and C080 (a) 2. These require On Demand passenger, All Cargo and scheduled airline operations to be able to acquire "traffic advisories and the status of airport services and facilities" at uncontrolled airfields.

The Unicom is required by the regulations in the United States to enhance safety at uncontrolled airports.

Yes the person providing information might be the check in staff, it might be the fueler at the FBO or the mechanic at the local maintenance workshop but the total cost is the price of the radio itself. A very cheap safety measure.

No one is providing a directed traffic service or even a traffic information service. If the person talking on the radio on the ground is asked for an 'airport advisory' it is as simple as this;

Wind
Temperature
Visibility
Cloud ceiling
light aircraft heard in the vacinity/ Helicopter transiting area/
maintenance vehicle operating on taxiway
etc.

The Unicom operator does not need to know where other traffic is in the area. In fact as radio is not mandated for aircraft at uncontrolled airports in the US, its possible that the Unicom operator does not know where aircraft might be positioned. NO PROBLEM, the operator just alerts arriving and departing aircraft of other aircraft in the vicinity IF they know they are about. Otherwise the operator simply says 'no known' traffic or omits any reference to traffic in their advisory.

Simple, easy safety related information given via a Unicom service mandated by the regulations. Not an ATC function. Is this easy for you to understand Bloggs? We too should have this virtually free service right here in Oz.

That last part in bold.. "Not an ATC function"..is perhaps where CASA went wrong when UNICOM was first mooted as part of a PIR recommendation of NAS2c (see here)...

CASA should encourage the provision of UNICOM services, with

approval to issue traffic advisories, be further encouraged and a

competency based standard for UNICOM operators and CA/GRS

be developed.

Basically they over-complicated things and put the UNICOM concept in the hands of ASA, who - in partnership with CASA - were always going to make it overly regulated (& therefore cost prohibitive) because they were shit scared of liability...

But back to the overly prolonged ATSB Mildura fog incident investigation, the following was extracted from the bureau's 2013-14 Annual report (released October 2014):

Other aviation investigations that raised significant issues about safety


Other aviation investigations conducted during the financial year that the Chief Commissioner considers raise significant issues about safety include a weather-related operational event and the in-flight break-up of a PZL Mielec M18A Dromader agricultural aircraft during firebombing. These investigations are discussed in the following sections.

Weather-related operational event involving B737s, registered VH-YIR and VH-VYK, at Mildura Airport, Victoria on 18 June 2013

On the morning of 18 June 2013, a Boeing 737 aircraft, registered VH-YIR and operated by Virgin Australia, was conducting a scheduled passenger service from Brisbane, Queensland to Adelaide, South Australia. On board were six crew members and 85 passengers.

On the same morning, another B737 aircraft, registered VH-VYK and operated by Qantas Airways, was conducting a scheduled passenger service from Sydney, New South Wales, to Adelaide, South Australia. On board were six crew and 146 passengers.

Due to poor weather in Adelaide, both aircraft were forced to divert to an alternate airport (Mildura, Victoria). This airport was also affected by unforecast poor weather (fog) at the time of their arrival. Both aircraft landed safely, but not without difficulty for their crews.

The ATSB commenced an investigation to examine:

• the provision of information to flight crews from air traffic services (ATS)
  
• ATS policies and procedures affecting the flights
  
• provision by the operators of information to the respective flight crews
  
• the basis for the sequencing of the aircraft landings at Mildura
  
• Bureau of Meteorology meteorological services and products as they applied to these flights
  
• the accuracy of aviation meteorological products in Australia.
  
  

As part of this investigation, the ATSB convened a safety forum on 31 March 2014 involving a number of industry participants. The forum identified several issues, most of which are pertinent to this occurrence, and more widely across the aviation industry.
These included:

• differing levels of expectation in relation to the provision of amended meteorological products
  
• inconsistencies in standard aviation reference documentation in relation to the use of meteorological products
  
• differing levels of understanding and awareness of the availability of meteorological products, including limitations relating to automated weather broadcast systems
  
• the effect of international obligations and restrictions on the provision to flight crews of updated weather information
  
• limitations associated with the staged introduction of new technologies
  
• the need for a coordinated education program to update and deconstruct many long held beliefs and misconceptions within the aviation industry.
  
  

The investigation is continuing, with the majority of the initial evidence collection complete. In addition to its analysis of this initial evidence, the ATSB continues to work with sections of the aviation industry to enhance its understanding of the issues that were identified at the safety forum, and to identify any safety issues.

In addition, as a result of this and other occurrences involving observed but not forecast
weather, the ATSB has commenced supporting research investigation AR-2013-200
Reliability of aviation weather forecasts. This research investigation will analyse Bureau
of Meteorology data across Australian airports, with a focus on those supporting scheduled passenger service operations, and is subject to the availability of long-term data holdings of aviation forecasts and observations.

The research investigation is also continuing, and will:

• examine the accuracy of aviation meteorological products in Australia
  
• examine the procedures used to provide information to flight crews from air traffic services, and management of changes to those procedures
  
• examine the provision by the operators of information to the respective flight crews
  
• examine the relevant recorded data
  
• review the distribution, dissemination and sharing of operational information to the aviation industry as stipulated by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, and enacted by Airservices Australia and the Bureau of Meteorology.
  

  
So from Dolan's point of view the Mildura incident raises 'significant issues' but not 'significant safety issues' worthy of publishing - or promulgating as an SR - to the greater industry at large...UFB  

MTF...P2  

Ps For Dick's benefit the 2008 UNICOM exemption - CASA EX40/08 - signed by Bruce Byron, in Sched 1 included Hervey Bay:
   

Schedule 1 - Aerodromes

             Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Olympic Dam, Port Macquarie, Wagga Wagga.

  
Update: From the Weekend Oz - [b]Pilots forced to weather cloudy service  [/b]