[Peetwo]

Day 22 - Boyd & the Board not pulling punches--

Gobbles - "..Me thinks it is time to chill the beers and make some popcorn! .."

Yes indeed Gobbles it could be a fascinating session or two, but alas I fear that much of the real action is happening now behind closed doors and by the 18th it could all be over...

Anyway onto D22 of the Dick & NewsCorp campaign, this time from that 'happy little chappy' from Tassie again... :

Air safety review for Tasmania  

• by: MATTHEW DENHOLM
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 01, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart




Airservices chief air traffic controller Paddy Goodall, left, and Hobart tower manager John Glass at Hobart airport. Picture: Peter Mathew Source: News Corp Australia

Airspace safety in Tasmania will be reviewed, despite Airservices Australia conceding it had failed to implement a previous safety recommendation for radar-controlle­d landings at Hobart and Launceston airports.  

Airservices Australia revealed yesterday that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had suggested it review operations at both airports to ensure they were adequate to cope with a rapid increase in air traffic. As well, it had been told CASA’s Office of Airspace Regul­ation would undertake its own indepen­dent review of airspace operations at Hobart and Launceston. Sources said this would be a “full airspace review”.

The reviews follow a CASA audit last month of Airservices’ operations, which CASA said yesterday was confidential and would not be publicly released.

Pilots have expressed frustra­tion that there is still no radar or other surveillance-based method of controlling planes on approach to the two airports, despite the widely held belief that this would be delivered by a $6 million TASWAM radar-like system introduced in 2010. Instead, below 8500 feet, aircraft are kept apart by “procedural separation”, whereby tower controllers use radio contact with pilots, visual observations and other aids.

Airservices says this is safe and appropriate for the level of traffic, but the Virgin Independent Pilots Association has described it as “nowhere near” as safe as surveillance control and has questioned why TASWAM is not being used to separate planes below 8500ft.

Aviator and former CASA chairman Dick Smith has attacke­d procedural separation as “a 1930s system” no longer approp­riate for busy city airports, particular in Hobart, a capital city experiencing a tourist boom.

Airservices said the new reviews were evidence that both CASA, which sets safety stand­ards, and itself as the service provider were “on top of the situation”.

“Airservices will review the services we provide and CASA will review the actual airspace classification,” said Hobart air traffic control tower manager John Glass. “It shows that both the regulator and the provider are on top of the situation and are out there looking at our operation all the time to ensure safety is of paramount importance.”

Airservices chief air traffic controller Paddy Goodall said Airservices would ensure that airspace procedures kept pace with the increased traffic, in Hobart in particular.

“(CASA has said) that we should keep an eye on the increase­d activity to make sure that we are prepared to respond in adequate time,” Mr Goodall said.

“The (Hobart) airport has plans between 2015 and 2035 to double the amount of passengers that come through here.

“When they see that, it raises the same red flags with them as it does with us: (it says) ‘Hey, we need to be ahead of the game here’.”

Mr Goodall confirmed that Airservices had failed to imple­ment a June 2010 Office of Airspace Regulation recommend­a­tion that it introduce surveillance control of aircraft to the ground level at Hobart and Launceston.

This report, obtained by The Weekend Australian, noted that TASWAM was being used as a tool to assist local tower controllers with “better situational awareness” but not to separate aircraft below 8500 feet.

“An approach (surveillance) control service should be introduced to manage the airspace below 8500ft,” the 2010 report concluded, formally recommending this approach to be adopted in both Hobart and Launceston.

The report said a yearly 8 per cent increase in Hobart passenger numbers, with 1.8 million passengers already passing through the terminal, was a consideration.

As well, it said the cost of providing a surveillance control service to ground level at Hobart and Launceston would be less, “due to the availability of (TAS)WAM”.

However, the recommenda­tion was never implemented by Airservices, which said yesterday it instead addressed the report’s concerns by improving the use of TASWAM by radar controllers in Melbourne, providing an after-hours service for Hobart and Launceston.

Mr Goodall said the cost of extra staff and training, as well as more grounds stations to improve TASWAM coverage to the point where it could provide surveillance control, was judged by Airservices to be unjustified.

“It’s all achievable and not insur­mountable but in terms of cost benefit it (justification) is just not there at the moment,” he said.

Airservices communications manager Rob Walker said the increased traffic meant “the service will have to change” in Tasmania.

However, the cost of expanding TASWAM to provide surveillance control was estimated by engineers to be at least $10m.

While Airservices insisted TASWAM was never intended to provide a surveillance control service, Airlines of Tasmania manag­ing director Shannon Wells said the industry had been led to believe it would.

Mr Wells said a review appeare­d justified and if it backed surveillance to the ground, this should be introduced regardless of cost. “If the demand and need is there to make it radar, it doesn’t really matter what it costs — we’ve got to look at doing it,” Mr Wells said.

A pilot training school at Hobart had doubled training movements in the past 18 months and, combined with a tourism boom, plans for an extended runway and increased use of Hobart as a gateway for Antarctic flights, it was time to reconsider surveillance control.

“It needs to be looked at,” Mr Wells said.

Hmm...definitely some B&B (Boyd & Board) influence with that one... The Fort Fumble OAR of old would have simply slapped the ASA with a wet lettuce, while taking backhanders & telling the IOS - "..nothing to see here, move along.."

MTF...P2