[Peetwo]

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

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..

 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

[Gobbledock]

Excellent post P2, great article 'that man Ean' and good 'real time' observations by Consultant Jeff - boys please enjoy these 3 bags of chocolate frogs.

Now I have no doubt that Anus Houston will hide even deeper in his crevice as we all know his modus operandi of running and hiding, and I am sure Frau Staib quite simply doesn't understand what any of this means (probably because there is no bonus attached), but again it is highlighted that the upper echelons responsible, or dare I say accountable for the air safety of human beings in Australia, are well and truly asleep at the yoke.

But don't worry Miniscule, you just concentrate on cotton plant awards and Mary Poppins stage shows while Australia's skies are lit up in flames, as#hole.


"Untenable skies for all"

[Jacki Binkley]

[quote='Gobbledock' pid='1341' dateline='1436572947')

Now I have no doubt that Anus Houston will hide even deeper in his crevice as we all know his modus operandi of running and hiding, and I am sure Frau Staib quite simply doesn't understand what any of this means (probably because there is no bonus attached), but again it is highlighted that the upper echelons responsible, or dare I say accountable for the air safety of human beings in Australia, are well and truly asleep at)))

Hehe Anus Houston, was that a typo or a swipo lol......whichever, good one!!! Made my day

Anyhow the way I see it is the Aussie bunch would rather waste money on a bogus SIO search (even when they know the plane isn't there) and cut education amd other budgets in the country. Real sad situation either way. The families still get no justice amd no closure. It's time for real imvestigators to take over this Mickey mouse operation!!!!!

[P7_TOM]

Gaelic Meaning:
The name Angus is a Gaelic baby name. In Gaelic the meaning of the name Angus is: Superior strength.

Greek Meaning:
The name Angus is a Greek baby name. In Greek the meaning of the name Angus is: Unique choice.

Irish Meaning:
The name Angus is an Irish baby name. In Irish the meaning of the name Angus is: From the Gaelic Aonghus,meaning one choice, or one vigor. No longer in common use in Ireland.One vigor.

Scottish Meaning:
The name Angus is a Scottish baby name. In Scottish the meaning of the name Angus is: Unnaturally strong; singular; only choice. Scots Celtic god Angus Og helped his people with his wisdom and intelligence. The Aberdeen Angus is a Scottish breed of black cattle.

Shakespearean Meaning:
The name Angus is a Shakespearean baby name. In Shakespearean the meaning of the name Angus is: The Tragedy of Macbeth' A nobleman of Scotland.

SoulUrge Number: 4
People with this name have a deep inner desire for order and physical creativity, and want to be involved in conventional, safe activities.

Expression Number: 8
People with this name are competent, practical, and often obtain great power and wealth. They tend to be successful in business and commercial affairs, and are able to achieve great material dreams. Because they often focus so strongly on business and achievement, they may neglect their private lives and relationships.

GD Meaning:
 Exactly what the typo means Anus with a g i.e. Anugs, which is ancient Mesopotamian for where the sun don't shine.  Yuk yuk Yak.....

[Peetwo]

Popcorn is ordered; battlelines are drawn - Let the games  bloodbath begin??

But first on Anus with a "G", gotta agree with Jacki made my day (or two)---  

Jacki - "..Hehe Anus Houston, was that a typo or a swipo lol......whichever, good one!!! Made my day.."

Hmm...knowing Gobbles as I do, my money is on swipo...
Ahh but now back to the Apple Isle and - to quote P9 - it looks like Boyd & the Board are about to get their very first real test...

Courtesy of the Sundy Taswegian:

CASA dismisses Dick Smith’s radar concerns  

• by: MATT SMITH
  
• From: Mercury
  
• July 12, 2015 12:00AM
  

Dick Smith has labelled the $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a significant public safety risk. Picture: JONATHAN NG Source: News Corp Australia
  
AUSTRALIA’S airport safety watchdog has played down hopes that Tasmania’s major airports may get a more sophisticated radar system to monitor flights.  

Entrepreneur and pilot Dick Smith, who last week labelled Tasmania’s $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a significant public safety risk, yesterday seized on comments made by incoming Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Jeff Boyd.

Mr Boyd told the Weekend Australian newspaper that the authority would be adopting a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with a safer flying environment the first priority.

The report suggested this change would result in a move to install new safety measures and greater control of air space at regional airports nationally.

Mr Smith said Mr Boyd’s comments had vindicated concerns he had raised in the Mercury last week.
[img=0x0]http://tcog.news.com.au/track/component/article/news/tasmania/casa-dismisses-dick-smiths-radar-concerns/story-fnj4f7k1-1227438394808?t_product=Mercury&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/relatedstories/templates/index[/img]
“It is a complete acknowledge that there is a problem here,” he said.

“In Tasmania, there is a huge cover-up going on. Every other capital city has radar surveillance to ground level and most capital cities don’t have big mountains around them.”

Denison independent MHR Andrew Wilkie said greater control of air space should be great news for Tasmania.

“Recent criticism by former CASA chairman Dick Smith of inadequate airspace control in Tasmania in particular has clearly had great merit,” Mr Wilkie said yesterday.

“Poor radar coverage and pilots left to maintain aircraft separation by radio contact alone below 7000 feet is an accident waiting to happen. That this applies to airliners in Tasmania, as well as light aircraft, is an appalling situation in this day and age.”

MORE: SMITH RAISES CONCERNS OVER RADAR SYSTEMS AT HOBART AND LAUNCESTON AIRPORTS

However, a CASA spokesman yesterday repeated previous statements that the Hobart and Launceston airports were safe and there were no plans to upgrade the airport systems.

“CASA takes the same approach to Tasmanian airspace as it does to the rest of Australia,” the spokesman said.

“Tasmanian airspace is safe and the procedures used to manage Tasmanian air traffic are safe.

“CASA will continue to monitor and review Tasmanian airspace to ensure the right level of air traffic surveillance and procedures are in place to deliver safe skies for everyone who flies.

“Any changes to Tasmanian airspace will be made after public consultation with airspace users such as pilots, air operators and other interested organisations and people.”
matthew.smith@news.com.au

Hmm...it will be interesting to see what one of Tassie's favourite pollies Mr Wilkie has to say about Pinocchio's - presumably acting on behalf of Skates - rebuke of not only Dick Smith but also Boyd & the Board:

..Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approache­s in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.

Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground...

...Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as cate­g­ory E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said...

 
Could be very interesting---    

MTF?- You better believe it..P2

[Sandy Reith]

Popcorn is ordered; battlelines are drawn - Let the games  bloodbath begin??

But first on Anus with a "G", gotta agree with Jacki made my day (or two)---  

Jacki - "..Hehe Anus Houston, was that a typo or a swipo lol......whichever, good one!!! Made my day.."

Hmm...knowing Gobbles as I do, my money is on swipo...
Ahh but now back to the Apple Isle and - to quote P9 - it looks like Boyd & the Board are about to get their very first real test...

Courtesy of the Sundy Taswegian:

CASA dismisses Dick Smith’s radar concerns  

• by: MATT SMITH
  
• From: Mercury
  
• July 12, 2015 12:00AM
  

Dick Smith has labelled the $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a significant public safety risk. Picture: JONATHAN NG Source: News Corp Australia
  
AUSTRALIA’S airport safety watchdog has played down hopes that Tasmania’s major airports may get a more sophisticated radar system to monitor flights.  

Entrepreneur and pilot Dick Smith, who last week labelled Tasmania’s $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a significant public safety risk, yesterday seized on comments made by incoming Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Jeff Boyd.

Mr Boyd told the Weekend Australian newspaper that the authority would be adopting a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with a safer flying environment the first priority.

The report suggested this change would result in a move to install new safety measures and greater control of air space at regional airports nationally.

Mr Smith said Mr Boyd’s comments had vindicated concerns he had raised in the Mercury last week.
[img=0x0]http://tcog.news.com.au/track/component/article/news/tasmania/casa-dismisses-dick-smiths-radar-concerns/story-fnj4f7k1-1227438394808?t_product=Mercury&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/relatedstories/templates/index[/img]
“It is a complete acknowledge that there is a problem here,” he said.

“In Tasmania, there is a huge cover-up going on. Every other capital city has radar surveillance to ground level and most capital cities don’t have big mountains around them.”

Denison independent MHR Andrew Wilkie said greater control of air space should be great news for Tasmania.

“Recent criticism by former CASA chairman Dick Smith of inadequate airspace control in Tasmania in particular has clearly had great merit,” Mr Wilkie said yesterday.

“Poor radar coverage and pilots left to maintain aircraft separation by radio contact alone below 7000 feet is an accident waiting to happen. That this applies to airliners in Tasmania, as well as light aircraft, is an appalling situation in this day and age.”

MORE: SMITH RAISES CONCERNS OVER RADAR SYSTEMS AT HOBART AND LAUNCESTON AIRPORTS

However, a CASA spokesman yesterday repeated previous statements that the Hobart and Launceston airports were safe and there were no plans to upgrade the airport systems.

“CASA takes the same approach to Tasmanian airspace as it does to the rest of Australia,” the spokesman said.

“Tasmanian airspace is safe and the procedures used to manage Tasmanian air traffic are safe.

“CASA will continue to monitor and review Tasmanian airspace to ensure the right level of air traffic surveillance and procedures are in place to deliver safe skies for everyone who flies.

“Any changes to Tasmanian airspace will be made after public consultation with airspace users such as pilots, air operators and other interested organisations and people.”
matthew.smith@news.com.au

Hmm...it will be interesting to see what one of Tassie's favourite pollies Mr Wilkie has to say about Pinocchio's - presumably acting on behalf of Skates - rebuke of not only Dick Smith but also Boyd & the Board:

..Another near collision some years ago above Launceston led to the installation of a new type of aircraft surveillance system, but air traffic controllers still do not direct surveillance controlled approache­s in Tasmania, relying instead on a procedural method which is less efficient and which aviation experts say is less safe.

Australia, unlike the US and Canada, does not have an across-the-board system in which airliners and other commercial aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers almost to the ground...

...Mr Boyd said he would encourage a lowering of the floor of controlled airspace, known as cate­g­ory E, at airports on a case-by-case basis. “Let’s see where we can do E where we have reliable air traffic control surveillance,” he said...

 
Could be very interesting---    

MTF?- You better believe it..P2

[quote pid='1353' dateline='1436659689']
Way to go, MPs, Dick, media = action. Now why not instructors free to instruct as USA, no unnecessary, super expensive and massive time wasting Air Operators Certificate paperwar requirements? Flying training is the bedrock of Australian aviation. Couple this much needed reform with the brand new relaxed medical requirements just enacted by the US Congress and hey presto GA can fly, jobs, aviation business and enough Aussie pilots so 457 pilot work visas will not be necessary. Growing the job sufficiently will mean more GA friendly voices and voters. Maybe Ean could look at the AOC system. I could give him my own example, the money and time wasting stupidity of my attempt to transfer my AOC to a couple that operated my flying school. He was CFI, they used their own aircraft, same airport, same students, same training area. Would CASA just allow a transfer? Oh no, they were made to go through all the hoops, the whole nine yards. Thousands of dollars and months of total rubbish. Bureaucratic make work and fee gouging for not one iota of benefit.

[/quote]
[quote pid='1353' dateline='1436659689']
No fiddling at the edges will satisfy. Reform now, training and medicals as two reforms easy to apply now, are demanded. It must be clear, we won't wait. 
[/quote]

[P7_TOM]

P2 – “Could be very interesting.”

Agreed, it could get bloody interesting; think on:-

The CASA board Chair in the MSM (i) admits there are problems which need to be addressed; (ii) that ‘airspace reform’ is long overdue and is going to happen, wherever possible.  All first class reasonable stuff and welcome to industry ears; we understand the problems, the pitfalls and the process of change; we have waited patiently for a while now and provided the changes are seen to be occurring, everyone’s happy to wait a while longer.

BUT.

The words of Pinocchio indicate that CASA intend to challenge the Chair and Board.  The words written this weekend are from a ‘CASA spokesman’.  We can therefore draw inference that the words are those of Director Skidmore.   This places Board and the DAS in direct conflict, within a 24 hour period.

The Board statement implies that Skidmore is on side, wants and supports change. Which leaves the whole thing in a strange position.  Peter Gibson (spokesman) has either gone rogue and is misrepresenting the DAS; or the DAS has elected through  Gibson to challenge the Board. Someone has got this all arse about.

A clear cut, joint statement would be good, lest we all start thinking there’s a war impending. Passing strange if the Board fired Skidmore for publicly contradicting them.

[Gobbledock]

Sandy Dee said;

"The Board statement implies that Skidmore is on side, wants and supports change. Which leaves the whole thing in a strange position.  Peter  Gibson (spokesman) has either gone rogue and is misrepresenting the DAS; or the DAS has elected through P Boyd to challenge the Board. Someone has got this all arse about".

The DAS is a complete fool if he is letting  (Gollum) take on the Board. Gollum is part of the old crew, part of the problem. He is a survivor and is another example of how a 'used car salesman' with no real aviation background can suck ones way through the system with slick word, slippery manoeuvres and an agile tongue!

At the end of the day the Board will always overrule the DAS and his minions, but that doesn't mean that blood won't be spilled along the way. Maybe Skid-Mark is smarter than we think and he has thrown Gollum a poison chalice which will ultimately lead to Gollums downfall? Either way it looks like the 4th of July fireworks are soon to commence!

P_666 aka DOC

[Peetwo]

Boyd v Angus (day 3 of the campaign) - The tail wagging the dog.

What a difference 48 hrs makes after the Weekend Oz exposé, where the alliance was drawn up against aviation safety bureaucratic embuggerance, & was made public - i.e. the battlelines were drawn...

Today from that man again, plus some worthy comments/observations...

Pilots back reforms for air space overhaul  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 13, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney





The new chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, Jeff Boyd. Picture: Ray Strange Source: News Corp Australia


The union representing pilots has thrown its weight behind an audacious move to transform management of the nation’s skies by adopting the safer US model ­extending air traffic control over more airspace, particularly in ­regional areas.  

The move also has the clear support of Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who as minister ­responsible for aviation will soon release a new airspace policy statement calling on aviation authorities to “adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia’s ­aviation environment”.

But other aspects of the new ­direction unveiled last week by the new chairman of the Civil Avia­tion Safety Authority, Jeff Boyd, have run into immediate resistance. The government organisation which controls the ­nation’s air traffic, Airservices Australia, has reiterated its refusal to have the fire crews it employs at region­al airports man radios to provide ­pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and air traffic inform­ation, defying moves by CASA to clear a regulatory path for them to do so.

The insistence of Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston that his organisation’s fire and rescue officers will not provide the Unicom radio advice service, as their US firefighter counterparts do at many regional airports, could result in higher air ticket prices.

Regional airports such as ­Ballina on the NSW north coast which want to introduce a radio service will be forced, in the absenc­e of Airservices firefighters doing so, to hire retired air traffic controllers to perform the role, charging airlines the additional costs, which they will in turn pass on to passengers.

Sir Angus’s position pits him against Mr Boyd, who said he would sponsor a board directive aimed at freeing up the range of ­information that ground staff — ­including, potentially, fire fighters ­— can provide to pilots.

Airservices and the air traffic controllers union, Civil Air, are united on the firefighters issue, with the union insisting on no changes to the current regulations, which prohibit any person who has not held a controller’s licence in the past 10 years from providing air traffic and weather information.

As revealed by The Weekend Australian, CASA will progressively review airspace around the country with a view to extending control where radar or other surveilla­nce technologies permit.

Unlike the airspace system in the US and Canada, where commercial aircraft throughout the two countries are always directed by air traffic controllers ­almost to the runway, whether or not there is radar coverage, Australia has a patchwork system­.

Apart from the larger cities, controlled airspace generally only comes down to 8500 feet.
At this point controllers no longer direct aircraft and pilots are ­required to talk to each other over the radio to establish each other’s position and work out manoeuvres to avoid colliding with each other.

CASA is expected to first ­expand controlled airspace around Ballina, with a recom­mendation likely soon to lower the level above which controllers still direct traffic from 8500 feet to 5000 feet.

The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said pilots heartily endorsed the move.

“We absolutely support that. It gives greater protection to air traffic,” Mr Booth said.
He also praised a report by US air traffic control expert Jeff ­Griffith, who was commissioned by The Australian last week to ­review Australian airspace, 11 years after the federal government brought him here to help introduce a US-style national airspace system.

“This has not happened, but I strongly support this objective even today,” Mr Griffith wrote in his report.

Civil Air president Daryl Hickey said he was unable to comment because the union had not seen the specifics of the proposed airspace changes.

The manager of Ballina Byron Gateway Airport, Neil Weatherson, has said he would prefer the 17 firefighters based at the airport in a new $13.5 million station with its own viewing tower, to provide the radio service, since they were there anyway and well placed to do so.

But he said last week that because Airservices leadership showed no sign of budging, he would instead hire retired air traffic controllers to provide the local weather and traffic advice to ­pilots.

This will require employing three or four new staff, at a cost Mr Weatherson said he would pass on to airlines as airport charge­s, to in turn be passed on to passengers.

An Airservices spokesman ­reiterated the view expressed by Sir Angus that its firefighters’ prime duty was to be always ready to deal quickly with emergencies.

“Our services include rapid ­response to any incident, anywhere on an airport, in less than three minutes,” Airservices said, adding that this included dealing with any medical incident.

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

Aviator and businessman Dick Smith, who has lobbied for firefighters to provide the radio service, described Airservices’ position as “outrageous’’.

“They have a monopoly on providing the fire service, so the airport can’t hire its own fire fighters and direct what duties they will perform, but Airservices won’t provide the radio service,’’ Mr Smith said.

 

Hastings Bob

2 hours ago

It looks like Civil Air, the union, wants more members and Angus Houston wants peace in his workplace. Does all this sound familiar. Hint, TURC.



Ted
1 hour ago

Looks again like the union tail is wagging the government employer dog.
The changes as proposed are sensible and have worked very well in the states for decades, but Civil Air and ASA keep up with the mantra of " worlds best practice", and keep pushing whats best for them and not the pilots or the flying public.

Always had a lot of regard for Sir Angas, but this anti progress attitude doesn't sit well.
Come on ASA , let common sense prevail. 

CJ

31 minutes ago

Once again obstructionist UNIONS!!!

So I wonder when Pinocchio, on (or not.. ) behalf of Skidmore, will either confirm or deny that the CASA Executive management team is currently operating in defiance of a CASA Board Directive... 

 "...But other aspects of the new ­direction unveiled last week by the new chairman of the Civil Avia­tion Safety Authority, Jeff Boyd, have run into immediate resistance..."

...with the goodwill & backing of the minister...

..The move also has the clear support of Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who as minister ­responsible for aviation will soon release a new airspace policy statement calling on aviation authorities to “adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia’s ­aviation environment”...

Fascinating----

No doubt MTF..P2

[Gobbledock]

Did you read the below, Sir Anus?

..The move also has the clear support of Deputy Prime Minister Warren Truss, who as minister ­responsible for aviation will soon release a new airspace policy statement calling on aviation authorities to “adopt proven international best practice airspace systems adapted to benefit Australia’s ­aviation environment”...

Now unfortunately Farmboy in true political fashion won't state publicly his intentions or what he is supportive of, but he did want Herr Skull gone, and that came to fruition, so perhaps there is some measure of truth in the rumour that he is supportive of changes? It would make sense considering Mr Boyds comments. Now we need Manning and Co to step up to the plate and reclaim the ATsB. If Skid-Mark starts to tow the IOS line that will be a bonus, perhaps Staib and Houston can be punted giving Hoody more latitude (if he doesn't head back to Fort Fumble), and then if Pumpkin Head pulls his giant head in and goes back to guarding the Miniscules ass and kissing babies we may have a shot at actual reform.

Sir Anus's obstinance;

"Airservices Australia, has reiterated its refusal to have the fire crews it employs at region­al airports man radios to provide ­pilots with potentially lifesaving local weather and air traffic inform­ation, defying moves by CASA to clear a regulatory path for them to do so".

Time for you to 'man up' Anus, even if it means coming out of hiding and rattling the cage a little, facing off with the unions or implementing safe changes. Take off the skirt and get your hands dirty mate. Remember, it's about what is safest, not what is least confrontational to you. And here I was thinking that a knighthood (Sir) is issued based on courage, principles, and services rendered? They should take yours back, Anus. Tick tock.

P_666

[crankybastards]

Local government was eager to take up the cash during the "local airport ownership scheme" and one wonders, if perhaps it is incumbent upon them to provide a UNICOM service as part of that ownership. I can see the fire fighters in a Union dispute over nominating their involvement as it is outside their sphere of expertise. A lot of angst could be avoided if the airport owner simply supplied that service. In the US many FBO's service this need but they are a rare breed these days.

EDIT to ask after radio spruiker said Houston was not a pilot so didn't know what he was talking about. Is he a bona fide wing wearer or a "penguin"?

[Peetwo]

CASA dismisses Dick Smith’s radar concerns  
by: MATT SMITH
From: Mercury
July 12, 2015 12:00AM




Dick Smith has labelled the $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a significant public safety risk. Picture: JONATHAN NG Source: News Corp Australia
  
AUSTRALIA’S airport safety watchdog has played down hopes that Tasmania’s major airports may get a more sophisticated radar system to monitor flights.  

Entrepreneur and pilot Dick Smith, who last week labelled Tasmania’s $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a significant public safety risk, yesterday seized on comments made by incoming Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Jeff Boyd.

Mr Boyd told the Weekend Australian newspaper that the authority would be adopting a fundamental change in philosophy and strategy, with a safer flying environment the first priority.

The report suggested this change would result in a move to install new safety measures and greater control of air space at regional airports nationally.

Mr Smith said Mr Boyd’s comments had vindicated concerns he had raised in the Mercury last week.
[img=0x0]http://tcog.news.com.au/track/component/article/news/tasmania/casa-dismisses-dick-smiths-radar-concerns/story-fnj4f7k1-1227438394808?t_product=Mercury&t_template=s3/chronicle-component/relatedstories/templates/index[/img]
“It is a complete acknowledge that there is a problem here,” he said.

“In Tasmania, there is a huge cover-up going on. Every other capital city has radar surveillance to ground level and most capital cities don’t have big mountains around them.”

Denison independent MHR Andrew Wilkie said greater control of air space should be great news for Tasmania.

“Recent criticism by former CASA chairman Dick Smith of inadequate airspace control in Tasmania in particular has clearly had great merit,” Mr Wilkie said yesterday.

“Poor radar coverage and pilots left to maintain aircraft separation by radio contact alone below 7000 feet is an accident waiting to happen. That this applies to airliners in Tasmania, as well as light aircraft, is an appalling situation in this day and age.”

However, a CASA spokesman yesterday repeated previous statements that the Hobart and Launceston airports were safe and there were no plans to upgrade the airport systems.

“CASA takes the same approach to Tasmanian airspace as it does to the rest of Australia,” the spokesman said.

“Tasmanian airspace is safe and the procedures used to manage Tasmanian air traffic are safe.

“CASA will continue to monitor and review Tasmanian airspace to ensure the right level of air traffic surveillance and procedures are in place to deliver safe skies for everyone who flies.

“Any changes to Tasmanian airspace will be made after public consultation with airspace users such as pilots, air operators and other interested organisations and people.”
matthew.smith@news.com.au

More on this from the Oz today, this time from the Tassie correspondent Matthew Denholm:

Airservices Australia fails to follow own safety plan  

• by: MATTHEW DENHOLM
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 14, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart




A Jetstar plane takes off from Hobart airport. Source: News Corp Australia
 
Airservices Australia’s failure to provide reliable radar coverage to runway level at Hobart airport is an apparent breach of its own target. The airspace safety body has repeatedly dismissed concerns about the lack of reliable radar below 7000 feet at the Hobart and Launceston airports as unjustified.  

This is despite warnings from experts that a tragedy is inevitable unless the situation is rectified — and the revelation that Airservices itself intended to provide radar coverage to ground-level at Hobart airport in a 2010 project developed in ­response to a wave of earlier safety concerns.

Outlining the goals of a $6 million TASWAM (Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration) radar system in its 2009-10 annual report, Airservices said the project intended to provide radar surveillance “down to the surface at Hobart”.

But the system it actually ­delivered cannot be relied upon below 7000 feet — despite the presence in Hobart of mountains and hills — because its coverage at lower levels is deemed inadequate by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

CASA yesterday confirmed that it had refused to approve the system’s use below 7000 feet because the “surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements”.

Asked if this was due to Airservices’ failure to provide a sufficient number of ground stations to support full coverage, CASA communications manager Peter Gibson declined to comment and said: “This is a question for Airservices.”

Airservices did not directly answer the question when contacted by The Australian but ­insisted the system did work to ground level, despite not being accepted by CASA as sufficiently reliable in Hobart.

According to one air-traffic insider, who posted on the industry chat site pprune.org, Air­services reneged on its promise of reliable radar “down to the surface” to cut costs on the project. “(They) decided to try and save some money on the installation by using fewer ground stations than recommended by the suppliers,” he posted. “You get what you pay for.”

Airservices denied it had failed to deliver its own plans. “Below 7000 feet, aircraft are separated using ‘procedural’ standards (pilots reporting their location), however (they) remain displayed (on the radar system) and can be seen by air traffic controllers in Hobart, Launceston and our Melbourne air traffic control centre,” an Airservices spokesman said.

“The TASWAM was a successful project that delivered on its key objectives in a cost efficient and timely manner.”

But businessman and pilot Dick Smith, a former CASA chairman, told The Australian he believed Airservices had bungled the project by failing to install sufficient ground stations.

It was now trying to “cover-up” its failure, instead of installing more ground stations to satisfy CASA and deliver the long-promised radar coverage to the runway level. “It’s outrageous that $6m would be spent and Tasmanians are still getting a 1930s system — and it’s not safe,” Mr Smith said. “If they’ve got 90 per cent towards putting in a radar system, why not do the other 10 per cent? No one can say that having mountains and bad weather and not using radar is safe. It’s not safe. Luckily, we’ve got away without an accident. It (collision with hills and mountains) is the most common form of serious accident, and the cause of our last serious accident (in 2005) at Lockhart River (Queensland) that killed 15 people.”

Instead of radar to the runway, pilots inform air traffic control of their location below 7000 feet.

Mr Smith said he believed the system would inevitably lead to a disaster in Hobart similar to Lockhart River.

Airservices insists air traffic operations in Tasmania are “safe”. It says the system of pilots reporting their location to air-traffic control below 7000 feet is used at large regional airports, including Broome, Rockhampton, Alice Springs, Karratha, Coffs Harbour and Tamworth.

Mr Smith said few if any of these locations had the combination of mountainous topography and weather conditions of Tasmania. “They put this WAM radar system (in Tasmania) because we had some scares — two near-misses where planes were flying around in cloud — that were quite serious near-accidents,” he said.

  
Typical non-committal comment from Pinocchio, probably still getting over the Weekend Oz extravaganza...

Comment :

Peter
2 hours ago

I have flown into Tamworth several times this year IFR and was surprised initially to be asked my radial and distance when I was in the middle of an GNSS RNAV Approach......surely the ground based Aids (VOR) must be phased out and PBN (Satellites) based distance and radial be used ASAP......I agree with Dick Smith and Jeff Boyd.....Sir Angus Houston needs a shake up along with his sub-organisation !!

 
Comments from the ASA spin-doctor:

“Below 7000 feet, aircraft are separated using ‘procedural’ standards (pilots reporting their location), however (they) remain displayed (on the radar system) and can be seen by air traffic controllers in Hobart, Launceston and our Melbourne air traffic control centre”

 So just because they can see you on their screens it's all good..FFS where do they get these people..

“The TASWAM was a successful project that delivered on its key objectives in a cost efficient and timely manner.”

ASA Executive No1. key objective: Topping up the trough...

More comments from yesterday's Oz article...

James
1 day ago

The best way to keep a fire fighter's head in the game is to activly have them involved in the game.  That will not happen if they are sitting down stairs reading a magazine or playing cards.
  
Scrap Air Services.  Let private industry produce and sell the maps and charts and the BOM already produces and develops all the weather info.   Airports can run them selves.   Get rid of the middle man.  Less bureaucracy, less unions.

I flew professionally for 15 years in the US and have run my own flight school in NSW for the last 7 years.  As of September, I am shutting that down and getting out of it entirely.   To much BS in Aust.



Graeme
1 day ago

It takes a long time to properly train an air traffic controller.. They do a lot more than provide weather and local traffic services. Remember in the old days there used to be Flight Service Operators who would do this kind of thing at smaller airports. They would provide radio services, weather reports, provide notification data and accept flight plans etc. A lot of that is now done automatically by computers. The thing a computer can't do (well not yet) is look out the window and give you a rundown on the local weather and a friendly call telling you who else is flying locally. It would only take a few days to adequately train fire services personnel  to do this kind of thing.

I'm not sure why the union is so against this as there is no way a fully trained air traffic controller is going to have their job taken by a change such as this. I know a few ATCs and it is sometimes hard to get enough staff to properly man the towers we have without staff having to do extra shifts.

Bruce

23 hours ago

I would suggest airport operators ask local pilots, when not flying, to provide Pireps over the CTAF frequencies. Not much Houston and his union can do about that. And I would encourage CASA to go ahead and amend their regulations that currently prohibit anyone from providing what could be life saving information, so when Houston gets the flick hopefully his successor will have more balls and allow the firefighters to be proactive in their life saving role.

Don't forget Benalla     -A reality check comment from arlys in response to Saturday's Weekend Oz article - Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies

arlys

3 days ago

There were three very experienced pilots on board that aircraft at Benalla. Had Air Services not been taken away, they would still be with us today. Many pilots are still bitter about that. Including me. Kerry Endicott was an excellent pilot, who never took chances, a Qantas pilot with him, as well as a Helicopter pilot. All they needed was some advice, which was not given. Aviation will never forgive that.

MTF...P2  

[Gobbledock]

"Airservices did not directly answer the question when contacted by The Australian but ­insisted the system did work to ground level, despite not being accepted by CASA as sufficiently reliable in Hobart"

Of course they didn't. They would have had to scurry away and formulate some bullshit response. And of course don't forget that Anus 'turtle' Houston would have pulled his head in and hidden like he always does when the hard questions are asked.

The bearded Pinocchio said;

"Asked if this was due to Airservices’ failure to provide a sufficient number of ground stations to support full coverage, CASA communications manager Peter Gibson declined to comment and said: “This is a question for Airservices.”

There you go boys, Pinocchio throws AsA under the bus! But hang on, isn't AsA accountable to CAsA's oversight on various matters? Tsk tsk

An AsA 'Snowden' said;

"According to one air-traffic insider, who posted on the industry chat site pprune.org, Air­services reneged on its promise of reliable radar “down to the surface” to cut costs on the project. “(They) decided to try and save some money on the installation by using fewer ground stations than recommended by the suppliers,” he posted. “You get what you pay for.”

Now assuming this is an insider speaking (and not that serial masturbator and all round Troll and corporate footstool Lookleft), we see the real truth seeping out. Budgets before safety!!!

"Less safe skies for all"

[Peetwo]

Day 5 of the campaign - Angus calls in absent??

This was the ASA response to the Weekend Oz frontal assault:

Response to The Australian

13 Jul 2015
[/url] [url=http:://auntypru.com/forum/javascript:window.print()]
Dear Mr Mathieson,

Two recent articles in The Australian, ‘Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies’ (11 July 2015) and ‘Pilots back reforms for air space overhaul’ (13 July 2015) continue to make false and misleading claims about air traffic services in Australia and about Airservices Australia.

It is disingenuous to assert that Airservices is ‘defying moves by CASA’ in relation to the provision of air traffic information services at Ballina Airport and misrepresents the information that we have provided to your journalist.

Neither the airport operator, nor the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), are seeking to introduce a Unicom radio service at Ballina.

As we advised The Australian, Airservices is working with the operator of Ballina Airport to develop the most appropriate and cost effective options for providing radio information services.

Ballina Airport has approached Airservices to discuss access to our Fire Control Centre at the airport for the airport to provide a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS) which would provide a better level of information services than a Unicom. This type of arrangement between the aerodrome operator and Airservices is not new and is already being successfully used at Ayers Rock where a CA/GRS is currently in place.

Ballina is one of the very few locations in Australia where, in line with CASA regulations and recommendations, a new rescue and fire fighting service has been introduced and there is currently no air traffic control service. CASA is currently reviewing the airspace classification at Ballina to determine whether an air traffic service is required and Airservices will support the outcome of that review when it is finalised.

Your article ‘Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies’ (11 July 2015) makes assertions about the level of air traffic services provided in Australia that are irresponsible and incorrect. Contrary to your reporting, all passenger flights in Australia are supported by continuous air traffic services throughout their entire flight, in all types of airspace and at all locations.

In addition, a comprehensive suite of weather information services is available to all pilots both before and during any flight in Australia through services provided by the Bureau of Meteorology in conjunction with Airservices. This includes automated weather services available during flight as well as services provided by air traffic controllers over the radio.

I note that this is the fifth time that Airservices has had to write to The Australian in four weeks about eight inaccurate and misleading articles that The Australian has acknowledged form part of a “sustained campaign.” We again ask you to refrain from making these inaccurate and misleading claims, and publish corrections at the earliest opportunity.

This selective reporting also fails to provide balance and objectivity, which appears to contravene News Limited’s own Code of Conduct and the Journalists Code of Ethics. A fair and reasonable reader who considers the questions from your journalist and the answers we provided (see the weekend’s answers attached), coupled with the stories published, is likely to be disappointed as this is not what people would expect of The Australian.

Safety is, and will always be, Airservices number one priority. Australia’s aviation safety record is among the best in the world and we welcome a debate about the future of airspace management in Australia that is responsible, based on facts and that makes a positive contribution to the ongoing improvement of aviation safety and efficiency.
Yours sincerely
 
Mairi Barton
Executive General Manager
Corporate and Industry Affairs
13 July 2015

Hmm...more of a siege mentality than a counterattack..
Ok so what is the Oz take on that? From that man again...

Air controllers, fire crews: Angus Houston gave wrong impression  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 15, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney




Angus Houston: ‘Our firefighters are not trained in that way’. Source: News Corp Australia
 
Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston gave the ­impression fire crews employed by his body at regional airports would not be lawfully ­allowed to provide potentially life-saving weather and air traffic ­information to ­pilots, when an ­avenue is available for them to do so.  

In another discrepancy, Airservices’ media unit said management at Ballina airport in northern NSW had not discussed with ­Airservices whether the fire and rescue crew stationed there could perform the radio advice function, when airport manager Neil Weatherson did canvass such an option.

Airservices has also claimed it and the Bureau of Meteorology provide a “comprehensive” weather service to pilots because airports without air traffic controllers have automated weather stations, a statement aviation experts ­describe as ludicrous.

Airservices is also under pressure over a $6 million air navigation system it deployed in Tasmania, which press releases at the time said would provide radar-style surveillance aircraft separation almost down to the ground, when in practice it does not.

There are three airports which do not have control towers manned by air traffic controllers, but where Airservices has a fire and rescue base: Ballina, Newman in Western Australia, and Gladstone in Queensland.

Airservices, the government-owned agency which runs the ­nation’s air traffic control system, has been in lockstep with the air traffic controllers union in opposing proposals for its fire and rescue staff to man the Unicom radio to provide air traffic and weather information to pilots, as their counterparts do at many regional US airports.

In an interview with The Australian last month, Sir Angus said: “The regulator (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) has decided that, if anybody is to provide air traffic information to pilots in a ­regional context, they must be suitably qualified people. Our firefighters are not trained in that way.”

While CASA regulations only allow individuals who have held an air traffic controllers’ licence within the past 10 years to provide weather and air traffic information over the radio to pilots, CASA can, on application, provide exemptions to allow others to do so.

Asked specifically if Airservices could apply for its firefighters at Ballina to give out air traffic and weather information, CASA spokesman Peter Gibson said it could.

“In the case of a Unicom this regulatory support would include an appropriate legal instrument needed to enable basic information on air traffic to be provided by the Unicom operator to pilots,” he said.

An Airservices spokeswoman said “the airport operator (is not) seeking to introduce a Unicom radio service at Ballina”.

Ballina Byron Gateway Airport manager Neil Weatherson, at a meeting last month which included fire station manager Wayne Morrison, told The Australian he was exploring with Airservices whether fire crew could man the Unicom. Only when it became clear Airservices was not going to budge did he surrender on that front and move to hire retired air traffic controllers for the purpose.

Airservices said “a comprehensive suite of weather information services is available to all pilots … this includes automated weather services” which convert weather readings to voice for pilots.

But a US expert in air traffic control who has spent time in ­Australia, Jeff Griffith, said the ­automated service could only relay information from the precise point the device was located, not talk about weather dangers visible many kilometres away.

In 2005, 15 people died when an aircraft crashed into a mountain while approaching a small airport at Lockhart River in Cape York. Aviation experts say the tragedy might have been prevented if ground staff had been in contact with the pilot as would have ­occurred in the US.

Running score so far: Higgo - 6   Mary (with two eyes) - 0

That's the trouble with spin & bulldust, like that from ASA, if it can't be backed by facts then you are on a hiding to nothing---

MTF...P2

Ps Perhaps it would be worthwhile if team Boyd & the Board had a look at this from the UK  CAA - CAP1032: Aerodrome Flight Information Service Officer Licensing (TKS Paul.. )

[thorn bird]

 Ballina Airport has approached Airservices to discuss access to our Fire Control Centre at the airport for the airport to provide a Certified Air/Ground Radio Service (CA/GRS) which would provide a better level of information services than a Unicom. This type of arrangement between the aerodrome operator and Airservices is not new and is already being successfully used at Ayers Rock where a CA/GRS is currently in place.

Err, did I read somewhere the Ayers Rock "Certified" unicom costs around $250 grand a year? Anyone wonder why the rock is almost a ghost town these days? priced themselves out of the market.

Oh well another 20 or 30 bucks on the ticket price to pay for it should deter these pesky passengers from booking seats to Ballina.

“In the case of a Unicom this regulatory support would include an appropriate legal instrument needed to enable basic information on air traffic to be provided by the Unicom operator to pilots,” he said.

Could this be the reason why CAsA is now becoming an impediment to safety?
So bound up with legal liability and using it as an excuse to shirk their responsibilities. to not only strangle the industry but strangle safety as well.

[Gobbledock]

Mairi Antoinette said;

This selective reporting also fails to provide balance and objectivity, which appears to contravene News Limited’s own Code of Conduct and the Journalists Code of Ethics.

Here we go, that old chestnut! Out comes the 'integrity reminders' from an organisation that has tried to hide fraud and misconduct, bullying, incompetence and spin. How hypocritical, AsA as a Government department is well and truly used to only telling parts of the story. How dare they start throwing mud at The Australian. I guess truth hurts in reality.

Now if Gobbles was chief of The Australian I would be telling the AsA spin doctor to get f.....d, but hey Gobbles isn't the most diplomatic person at times. Oh well, I've gotta run, much to do, might even go play a round of "Where's Anus"!! Must be hiding.

[Peetwo]

Day 6 - VIPA enters the fray.

Gobbledock - Mairi Antoinette said;


This selective reporting also fails to provide balance and objectivity, which appears to contravene News Limited’s own Code of Conduct and the Journalists Code of Ethics.

Here we go, that old chestnut! Out comes the 'integrity reminders' from an organisation that has tried to hide fraud and misconduct, bullying, incompetence and spin. How hypocritical, AsA as a Government department is well and truly used to only telling parts of the story. How dare they start throwing mud at The Australian. I guess truth hurts in reality.

Now if Gobbles was chief of The Australian I would be telling the AsA spin doctor to get f.....d, but hey Gobbles isn't the most diplomatic person at times. Oh well, I've gotta run, much to do, might even go play a round of "Where's Anus"!! Must be hiding.

Fair crack Gobbles the 2eyed Mary is only doing as directed by Frau Staib; who in turn is directed by Angus & the Board; who in turn are only protecting the steady supply of funds skimmed from the airlines profits to top up the trough; the airlines in turn increase the average price in fares to the gullible jet-setting self loading freight - so what's your problem??

Anyway here is the latest from MA (c/o ASA trough feeders), which IMO is kind of getting a bit repetitive:

Letter To The Editor

Response to The Australian
14 Jul 2015
[/url] [url=http:://auntypru.com/forum/javascript:window.print()]
Dear Mr Mathieson,

Your article today, ‘Air safety body fails to follow own plan’ (14 July 2015) has several inaccuracies and continues to make misleading claims about Airservices and aviation safety in Tasmania.

The article and headline assert that the Tasmanian Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) ‘radar’ system did not meet its intended objectives. As we have previously advised The Australian, this is not the case. The implementation of WAM in Tasmania does what it was intended to do by providing better air traffic surveillance across the state and ensuring that passenger flights to Hobart and Launceston are displayed to air traffic controllers throughout their entire flight.

Your assertion that the system ‘cannot be relied upon below 7000 feet’ is incorrect and misleading. The system works accurately and gives air traffic controllers visibility of aircraft down to the ground at Hobart and Launceston.

It is also incorrect and misleading to claim that CASA ‘refused to approve the system’s use below 7000 feet’. We never sought CASA approval for WAM to be used for separation below 7000 feet because the traffic levels are low (about 70 flights per day at Hobart and 60 at Launceston) and there is not the same need for close aircraft spacing that there is in busy locations (such as Melbourne with more than 600 flights per day or Sydney with more than 900 flights per day).

We again ask that you refrain from making these inaccurate and misleading claims and publish corrections at the earliest opportunity.

This is the second time we have had to write to The Australian to seek corrections in relation to articles on TASWAM. It is now the sixth time we’ve written to you since 15 June 2015 in relation to 10 articles that are inaccurate, misleading and biased against Airservices.

The WAM system in Tasmania not only supports air traffic controllers in providing services that keep flights safely separated from other traffic but also enables controllers to assist pilots with navigation, weather or terrain avoidance which is contrary to the claims made in your article.

All passenger aircraft flying into Hobart and Launceston are under air traffic control 24 hours a day, seven days a week, with services meeting all the strict safety requirements of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

Airservices is committed to delivering safe and efficient air traffic services that meet government policy objectives, regulatory requirements and the needs of our customers.
Yours sincerely
 
Mairi Barton
Executive General Manager
Corporate and Industry Affairs
14 July 2015

  
Comment: Suggestion to the 2eyed Mary, although the Sky & cirrus pic is definitely better than the comic, perhaps the following pic is currently more appropriate...

Caption could be.. "Aviation Safety - Don't ask us we've got NFI!"

Anyway moving on and it would appear the Oz baton has been passed back to that happy little chappy from Tassie... :

Sky’s the limit but safety stops at 10,000ft  

• by: Matthew Denholm
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 16, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart




‘Wherever there is radar surveillance, we should provide a radar service to low level’: Virgin Independent Pilots Association spokesman Matthew Bowden. Picture: Cameron Laird Source: News Corp Australia
 

Air travel to and from some region­al airports is “nowhere near” as safe as it should be because­ available radar systems are not being fully used at lower altitudes, Virgin Australia pilots have warned.  

Entering a growing debate over air safety, the Virgin Independ­ent Pilots Association called yesterday for greater use of radar and radar-like surveillance systems to guide planes at region­al airports.

VIPA spokesman Matthew Bowden, an experienced pilot, told The Australian yesterday that planes arriving at regional airports were typically switched off from radar surveillance and control at 10,000-12,000 feet.

He said this occurred even at airports that had radar or radar-like coverage well below these altit­udes, including Hobart and Launceston, Ballina in NSW, and Proserpine and Mackay in Queensland.

“There is low-level radar surveil­lance in place but we are not using it,” Mr Bowden said. He described this as mystifying, given the superior safety of radar contro­l.

Instead, at those airports that have air traffic control towers, controllers work to avoid collis­ions by “procedural separation”, based on pilots radioing in their positions and on visual observ­ations.

“There are multiple regional airports that have low-level radar coverage and we would advocate that, wherever there is radar surveillance, we should provide a radar service to low level — just like we do in Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane (airports),” Mr Bowden said.

“Commonsense should prevail. If you can have the accuracy (of radar) available at Sydney and Brisbane then surely you can find a way of having the accuracy available at these regional airports.”

VIPA’s position adds to a string of concerns about regional air safety management in Australia, amid frustration that regulators are failing to maximise the use of radar and ground staff observations to assist pilots.

Newly appointed Civil Avia­tion Safety Authority chairman Jeff Boyd has foreshadowed a shift towards a safer US-style model, with improved control of regional airspace.

In response to VIPA’s latest concerns, an Airservices Australia spokesman said radar was used by air traffic controllers “in all types of airspace where coverage is available”.

Mr Bowden said some airports, such as Ballina and Proserpine, did not have air traffic control towers, but did have low-altitude radar that was not used.

He said that where it was available it should be used to extend the service provided by radar controllers, centralised in Melbourne and Brisbane, rather than merely as an add-on tool for local tower controllers.

In particular, full support by radar to low altitude was far safer in bad weather, when visibility was poor.

“In bad weather, a radar controller is watching us (on radar screen) all the way until we are established on approach (to the runway),” Mr Bowden said.

VIPA was “perplexed” as to why Airservices spent $6 million installing a radar-like system in Tasmania, capable of providing coverage to ground level, but still relied on the less safe procedural separation below 12,500ft.

“Why would you bother spending $6m, or any amount of money, on a radar surveillance system, if you are not going to let the radar controller use it?” Mr Bowden said.

Aviation sources said the Civil Aviation Safety Authority often did not approve the use of radar as the primary means of separating aircraft above regional airports because of patchy coverage. For example, coverage of the Tasmanian radar-like system is deemed by CASA to be insufficient below 7000ft. Instead, it is used only as an additional tool to assist tower controllers.

Pilots argue that any inadequacies should be addressed to bring existing radar up to scratch for use at lower altitudes.

Multiple industry sources say Airservices failed to install a sufficient number of ground signal units to support the use of the Tasmanian system to control aircraft below 7000ft.
Airservices argues this was not necessary because air traffic volumes in Hobart and Launceston are far below those of Sydney and Melbourne.

Mr Bowden said there may be a case for extending radar to other regional airports where it could be supported by cost-­benefit analysis. At the very least, where radar already existed, it should be used to maximise safety above region­al airports.

“It is nowhere near as safe as it could be if we used the (radar) surveillance in the way it is supposed to be used — by a radar controller,” he said.

Airservices and CASA insist all airspace is managed safely and in accordance with the level of air traffic experienced.

CASA said questions relating to radar use at low altitudes over regional airports were of an “opera­tional” nature and most appropriately directed to Airservices. By late yesterday, Airservices had declined to make someone available for interview. However, a spokesman — as well as saying air traffic controllers did make use of radar where available — defended Airserv­ices’ handling of the Tasmanian radar project.

“In Tasmania, the Wide Area Multi-lateration (WAM) ‘radar’ system … gives visibility of all aircraft down to the ground in Hobart and Launceston,” he said.

“The WAM system not only supports air traffic controllers in providing services that keep flights safely separated from other traffic, but also enables controllers to assist pilots with navigation, weather or terrain avoidance.”

 
Hmm...the alliance is growing, tick, tock Wazza..
MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

"A TASWAM a day keeps the bonus in play"...... 

Nice to see Mairi Antoinette is collating data against The Australian. Pity AsA wasn't just as diligent providing the Senators such robust data when it came to salaries, bonuses and credit card rorts!! It would seem that the AsA Xmas card send out list is getting shorter!!! The list of cancelled recipients is growing;
- Dick Smith
- The Australian
- IOS
- 'Than man' Higgins
- VIPA
- Sandilands
- Matthew Denholm
- Neil Weatherson
- Jeff Griffith etc etc etc

Oh well, you know things are getting serious if Hoody cancels the Toga party invitations!

TICK TOCK WARREN EROL TRUSS, TICK TOCK

[Peetwo]

Day 7 - The alliance is growing.

Broken record...from that man again...

Let fireys help our pilots: airport boss Phillip Cash  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 17, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney





‘We need to be able to upskill people’: Phillip Cash, chief executive of Gladstone Airport. Picture: Lyndon Mechielsen Source: News Corp Australia

A key aviation figure has called on Airservices Australia to drop its opposition to having its firefighters provide pilots with potentially life-saving air traffic and weather information, as their US counterparts do at regional airports.  


Phillip Cash, the chief executive of Gladstone Airport, 550km north of Brisbane, has said the proposal was an “excellent opportunity” to increase the safety of air travel in a cost-effective fashion.

Mr Cash, who has worked as an airport manager in several locations in Australia, as well as in India and Mauritius, also described as bizarre the piecemeal air traffic control system, in which Rockhampton Airport — not far away and with similar passenger numbers — has fully controlled airspace directed by air traffic controllers from a tower, but his airport has none of those benefits.

“Here we are, 115km away, and you would think Rockhampton air traffic control would be able to manage traffic here,” he said.

Whereas aircraft flying into Rockhampton are guided all the way to the runway by controllers who maintain separation, at Gladstone, pilots flying in cloud have to talk to each other over the radio, exchanging their own estimates of their positions and negotiating with one another over who will take what manoeuvres to avoid colliding.

Mr Cash cited as an example of the variety of contradictions a recent incident at his airport, now under investigation, in which a ground staff officer had been forced to make an unauthorised radio call to a pilot to prevent a potent­ial collision between one aircraft and another, which was apparently not making the required­ radio calls.

Gladstone is one of the airports, as is Ballina in northern NSW, with no tower with air traffic controllers, but it has a fire and rescue station staffed by officers employed by Airservices, the government-owned body which runs the country’s airspace system.

Under current regulations, only individuals who have held air traffic controller licences in the past 10 years are allowed to communicate over the radio to provide pilots with local air traffic and weather information.

Mr Cash pointed to the absurdity of this system, under which the Gladstone Airport employee who used the radio to warn off a possible collision, and the pilot, if he or she acted on the inform­ation, could be prosecuted. “You are not going to sit there and watch something happen,” he said.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has a program to grant exemptions so that other airport ground staff including firefighters could receive training and be lawfully permitted to perform such a radio information service.

“The fact that they are there, they are in place for the whole oper­ational day, and they work for the same organisation which provides air traffic services, makes it sensible,” Mr Cash said. “Clearly there is a cost, and that would have to be reviewed, along with a cost- benefit analysis and obviously a risk analysis.”

The chairman of Airservices Australia, Angus Houston, has joined forces with the air traffic controllers union in opposing such a move, saying the first duty of the fire and rescue crews is emergency response.

Ballina Byron Gateway Airport manager Neil Weatherson, after an initial but quickly abortive flirtation with seeing whether the firefighters might do it, has decided­ to hire a team of retired air traffic controllers to provide weather and traffic information.

Mr Cash said each airport faced different circumstances, but for his operation he regarded hiring a separate crew as an unnecessary expense when the Airservices firefighters could be trained to do it. “We need to be able to upskill people­ to be multi-skilled, and be upgrading our services,” he said.

The Airservices media unit refuse­d to provide any inform­ation or comment yesterday.

Could someone bring back sanity please?

In case you missed it here is what the traditionally conservative Poms have in place - CAP1032: Aerodrome Flight Information Service Officer Licensing

Flight information service officers or FISO, provide a flight information service (FIS) to any air traffic that requests it, or requires it.[1] A FISO is a licensed operator, who most usually works at an aerodrome, although there are some FISOs working in area control centers.[2] FISOs must been validated for each aerodrome, or other air traffic control unit they work for. Air traffic controllers are also permitted to provide flight information services to pilots.

MTF...P2

[Gobbledock]

Dear Mr Cash,

Welcome aboard the S.S IOS, and please accept Managements warmest of welcomes. Please enjoy your stay and don't worry about no longer being a recipient of AsA's 2015 Xmas card list as we will be sending you a bag of Tim Tam's.

Regards
P_666