[Peetwo]

Tasmanian pilots told to switch off $6m radar system  

• by: EAN HIGGINS
  
• From: The Australian
  
• July 06, 2015 12:00AM
  

Reporter
Sydney


A multi-million-dollar, state-of-the-art navigation system installed by Airservices Australia in Tasmania still leaves pilots at the mercy of pre-radar, 1950s-era, air traffic control procedures which are considered inefficient and not as safe.  

Aviation industry figures say the failure to use the system for radar-style surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart makes it a waste of money and makes those airports virtually unique among big Australian cities.

Some sources said Airservices had intended to use the system for surveillance approaches but was knocked back by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority because it was not reliable enough, while others said Airservices did not want to take on the air-traffic controllers union, which would resist such a move. Airservices has denied both these suggestions.

The Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration system, or TASWAM, was introduced after a near midair collision at Launceston between a Virgin Blue airliner and a light aircraft years ago.
After the near miss, CASA insisted on the installation of transportable radar at Launceston, while Airservices worked towards a long-term solution.

In 2006, Airservices announced TASWAM, which uses triangulation from radio transmitter ground stations to pinpoint aircraft through their transponders, and the system was made operational five years ago.

But rather than guide aircraft all the way to the runway, pilots are told as they descend through 7000 feet that they are no longer covered by radar-standard surveillance. Instead, they are required to switch to the local towers in Launceston and Hobart for procedural approaches.

Whereas under “radar certif­ied surveillance approaches” aircraft are directed by air traffic controllers using precise positioning on radar screens, procedural approaches require the controllers to rely on the pilots informing them of their positions.

Procedural separation is far less efficient because controllers have to allow much greater distance between aircraft, often about 20 nautical miles, rather than five miles under radar surveillance separation.

The president of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain David Booth, said procedural separation meant it was more likely aircraft would exper­ience air-traffic delays in Tasmania.

While he insisted the procedural standard was entirely safe and equipment on modern airliners provided excellent and reliab­le situational awareness, he said “a radar environment would probably give you a higher level of safety”.

Captain Booth, who has been flying to Tasmania for more than a decade, said he understood TASWAM had been commissioned to introduce radar-­style air-traffic control in Tasmania, but “it never worked well enough for CASA to sign it off”.

A CASA spokesman said the authority had approved Air­services to use TASWAM above 7000 feet, but “the surveillance coverage below this altitude does not meet the coverage requirements to allow air-traffic control to apply surveillance procedures”.

When TASWAM was announced, media releases from Airservices and the manufacturers of the system, Sensis Corporation — which is now part of the Swedish Saab group — gave a clear impression that surveillance approaches were the objective, talking about “accurate coverage of 150m or better from the ground level”.

“Sensis WAM’s precise surveillance of aircraft enables air traffic controllers to implement five nautical miles of aircraft separation for safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation standards,” a Sensis press release said.

Asked the separation standard in Tasmania below 7000 feet, an Airservices spokesman said “in most cases, 20 nautical miles”.

However, Airservices said it had never intended to use TASWAM, which cost $6 million, for surveillance approaches, saying it had achieved the goal of “improved situational awareness for controllers”.

Saab spokesman Sebastian Carlsson declined to comment.

Further to this from the Hobart Mercury today (Ps With a quote from CASA spin-meister  Pinocchio ):

Dick Smith says radar systems at Hobart and Launceston airports a safety risk  

• by: NICK CLARK
  
• From: Mercury
  
• July 09, 2015 12:00AM
  

Dick Smith Source: News Corp Australia
 
ENTREPRENEUR Dick Smith has labelled the $6 million radar system at Hobart and Launceston airports a “lemon” that poses a significant public safety risk.  

Mr Smith, former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman, said the radar system, known as Tasmania Wide Area Multilateration [TASWAM], was unacceptable for a capital city, particularly one surrounded by mountains.

He said the system, introduced by Airservices Australia in 2010, did not operate below 7000 feet, after which pilots were forced to switch to local towers for procedural approaches — a method he described as a “1930s pre-radar procedural control system”.

“Under this system a pilot has to tell controllers where they are and if the pilot makes an error everyone could die,’’ he said. “Tasmania is one of the rare locations in Australia where there are high mountains on the approach to airports.”

Mr Smith called on the group’s chairman, Sir Angus Houston, to “go to Tasmania and explain to people that the radar doesn’t work as was claimed”.

But an Airservices Australia spokeswoman said TASWAM had been successful and provided surveillance better than that previously provided by radar over Tasmania.

“It also provides additional coverage at lower levels at Hobart than previously possible with a Launceston-based radar,” she said. “It is false and irresponsible to assert that air traffic control services which do not use radar are considered inefficient and not safe.”

Satellite-based technology would be fitted to most aircraft from 2016 that would ensure pilots would be able to safely and efficiently navigate the skies, she said.

Airservices Australia said Broome, Rockhampton, Alice Springs, Karratha, Coffs Harbour, Tamworth and Mackay had similar service levels.

CASA manager of corporate communications Peter Gibson said there were “no safety issues as procedural air traffic measures are commonly used”. But Mr Smith said: “Every other capital city in Australia has radar right to the runway — why not Hobart?”

Tasmania has had a number of close calls. In 2003 a Boeing 737 came within 60m of a five-seater Tobago. Five years later an Airbus A320 and a Boeing 737 came within 5km of each other in fog.

Hobart and Launceston have about 45,000 aircraft movements each year.

Plus in today's the Oz from that man again - Upgrades hit razor-thin margins

And to balance the ledger just a little-- --here was ASA's response to recent attacks from the Oz:

Letter To The Editor

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

This week two articles in The Australian, ‘Pilots told to switch off $6m radar system’ (Monday 6 July 2015) and ‘Rural flyers in revolt over bid to scrap beacon’ (Tuesday 7 July 2015) continue to make inaccurate and misleading claims about Airservices and aviation safety in Australia.

These articles imply that decisions by Airservices have reduced safety for the flying public, which is incorrect and damaging to the reputation of Airservices.

It is incorrect and misleading to suggest that the Tasmanian Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) system reduces air safety in Tasmania. This successful project provides surveillance better than that previously provided by radar over Tasmania. It also provides additional coverage at lower levels at Hobart than previously possible with a Launceston-based radar. It is false and irresponsible to assert that air traffic control services which do not use radar are considered inefficient and not safe.

It is also misleading to imply that Airservices made a cost-based decision on which navigation aids to maintain as part of the back-up navigation network. This network of ground-based navigation aids was selected by industry working groups in 2004 and formed part of consultations undertaken by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Airservices has subsequently been working to implement these industry-supported decisions and continues to consult closely with stakeholders.

Satellite-based technology that is available today, and will be required to be fitted to most passenger aircraft from 2016, ensures that pilots are better able to navigate Australia’s skies, providing safety and efficiency benefits.

We have responded to numerous questions from your journalist on both of these issues over several days. Despite extensive information being provided by Airservices, these articles do not give a fair and balanced perspective, which is contrary to News Limited’s own Code of Conduct.

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

Safety remains Airservices number one priority. Airservices is among the best in the world for our safety performance and we continue to work with industry to deliver safety enhancements.
Yours sincerely
 
Mairi Barton
Executive General Manager
Corporate and Industry Affairs
8 July 2015

MTF..P2