[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