AOPA’s Airspace Backflip

The AAIA, which represents the entire spectrum of the aviation community in Australia including the regional airlines, Australian Air Transport Association, business aviation, general aviation, the freighters, the agricultural operators, helicopter operators, the aero clubs and the various sporting organisations through the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, has essentially, apart from some relatively minor points, agreed to the latest proposals. The previous AOPA committee had endorsed the new system prior to the change of committee.

Some of Dick Smith’s objections were spelt out in an article in the May edition of the AOPA magazine entitled “Make Jobs Airspace” where he railed against the size of the existing control zones and the amount of controlled airspace, all essentially he maintains, to “rake jobs” for the controllers. Its the unions again!

Following the telephone conversation with Dick Smith, I requested a further, one-to-one briefing from Kim Jones, the CAA Project Manager Australian Airspace System, to try to get a grip on why we have had this ongoing and very public disagreement between one small segment of the aviation community and the CAA.

Firstly, there is no “pure” ICAO system. Each country is free to use the various classes of airspace as it sees fit to meet its own needs vis-a-vis its topography, overall weather factors, traffic density, and perhaps most important of all, the capability of its control hardware and software. One of the most important elements is of course radar coverage.

Kim Jones assured me that there is a vast difference between ourselves and the oft quoted US where there is primary radar coverage all over the country down to 1000ft, and secondary coverage over approximately two thirds of the USA. Such is not the case in Australia where radar only exists on the eastern seaboard from Brisbane round to Adelaide with a small pocket around Perth. Recent studies in the US indicated that the collision risk would increase significantly should radar not be available for any reason.

On the question of airspace, as Kim Jones pointed out, the volume of airspace has nothing to do with its classification which is what the current airspace proposals are about. Control zone size is under examination and already as a result of studies, the zones at Darwin, Cairns, Coolangatta, and Brisbane have had their boundaries reduced. Interestingly (or perhaps amusingly), when the zone at Darwin was reduced, it resulted in significant protests from industry (mostly GA), because of operational difficulties with aircraft dropping in and out of controlled areas.

In examining control zone size, the CAA objective is to move as close to the international standards as is safe and practical. However, as we have already seen in Sydney, moving flightpaths can have a very significant effect on the environment. Any reduction in control zone size around a major airport would result in different flightpaths, with for instance, light aircraft now free to track over a different suburb; one can imagine the protests! It is a subject fraught with difficulties and requires careful and detailed studies with full and comprehensive tools to ensure that it is got right the first time. Despite all this, it must be borne in mind that the whole purpose of control zones is to protect the travelling public, and for that matter, those on the ground beneath them. The effect on the tourism industry should a light aircraft wander into the Sydney control zone and meet up with a fully laden 747 over one of the northern suburbs doesn’t bear thinking about.

The allegations about “make jobs airspace” do not stand up to scrutiny. When the first proposals were being mooted to reorganise our airspace there were 650 Flight Service Officers; in 1993 following the change to VFR operations requirements this number had reduced to 340. The numbers are currently 240 and will reduce to 140 with the introduction of TAAATS. At the same time the number of Air Traffic Controllers has remained essentially static even though they have taken on some of the workload shed by the FSOs. The President of Civil Air, the ATC officers union, has publicly refuted the Dick Smith allegation.

The final point discussed with Dick Smith was the question of the proposed introduction of Mandatory Broadcast Zones at uncontrolled airports. He maintained that they are unsafe because it is possible for an aircraft to be on the wrong frequency and not to be aware of other traffic. Of course such a situation can be overcome by having a third party in the system to which all aircraft must check in, ie; an upper air controller or a manned tower, but this would entail significant costs which would flow on to the regional operators.

The CAA states that the preliminary risk analysis carried out on MBZs as currently proposed (and in fact they have been functioning as MTAFS for the last two and a half years) indicates that they are some ten times safer than an uncontrolled aerodrome with just a traffic advisory service to IFR aircraft and no mandatory VFR radio requirements. This is taking into account the likelihood of radio failure, incorrect frequency selection or incorrect position reporting.

The CAA has not been known for being one of the most avant garde organisations, in fact conservatism would be its watch word. If there was doubt as to the MBZ proposal being safe, we would be seeing manned towers at such places as Derby and Yulara. It is understood that the regional operators are comfortable with the MBZ proposal, I think we would have heard from them and their crews if such was not the case.

Comment

Without doubt, the international aviation community must see Australia as a bit of a joke as we struggle to bring our airspace into the twentieth century and in line with the ICAO classification system. Five long years its been in the melting pot!

Blessed with one of the best weather factors in the world and relatively flat terrain, one would have thought that it would have been easy to introduce a system that essentially meets the requirements of all the various users. Now, with the latest airspace proposal, it looks as if though we are finally to achieve just that.

Of course it is a compromise, no mortal could develop a system that completely satisfies all the wishes of everybody, from 747 operators to hang gliders, and everything in between! Development of our airspace system is an ongoing evolutionary process with nothing set in concrete and all of it subject to examination in terms of safety and cost. The last thing we need is a drastic revolution in our skies.

As outlined in last month’s Australian Aviation, after the fiasco of the 11/11 non event, the CAA set about ensuring that all users had an opportunity to input to the process of finally settling the issue. Despite some minor points, the AAIA which represents all airspace users, has essentially endorsed the latest proposal.

Up until the June AOPA editorial, we were given to understand that the new guard at AOPA repudiated the previous agreement and intended to mount a bigger and better financed campaign than the last one to ensure that the latest proposals are scrapped. What has brought about the change of heart is not known, perhaps it was the knowledge that they were the only ones out of step, however it is welcomed whatever the reason.

Let us now hope that that is the end of the issue and that in the national interest AOPA will now get in line with the rest of the Australian aviation community.