Dick Smith’s Airspace Review

In a memo to AirServices staff, Mr Pollard stressed that Dick Smith had been invited to bring forward a proposal for a number of reasons: “These include Mr Smith’s passionate views of future airspace management in the Commonwealth of Australia, his excellent industry contacts, his close relationships with all parts of the aviation industry and his ability to dedicate himself full time to the issue of airspace at no charge to AirServices.”

The memo went on to state: “This in no way diminishes the activities, planning or implementation of AirServices’ own work in the area of airspace and nor does it interfere with any aspect of AirServices’ operations. AirServices’ timetable for the commissioning of TAAATS and associated airspace issues will not be compromised with this activity. The Board of Management welcomes Mr Smith’s acceptance of my invitation. AirServices, like Mr Smith, is resolved to the provision of the world’s best airspace management systems and look forward to a cooperative approach with Mr Smith to fully realise this objective.”

The question was then posed to the CEO as to whether there are deficiencies in the airspace system presently being implemented and if so, why couldn’t AirServices fix them; if not, why was Dick Smith being given his day. Mr Pollard in his reply said that with any new system there are always enhancements that can be made; however, in the long term there were probably not a lot of differences between his vision and Dick Smith’s. The essential disagreement is how soon changes should be made. “It’s easy to say that changes should be made quickly when you don’t have any accountability. I am accountable to the people who use the system and also the Minister and Government and have to make sure that it is a safe implementation.”

My final question, and perhaps the one that all will be asking was, “is this a genuine, all previous bets off, open offer to Mr Smith to come up with a better airspace proposal and will it be considered with a completely open mind?” Bill Pollard said that the answer was an unequivocal “yes”, adding that the Board was supportive and that AirServices management, having dedicated resources, personnel and time to assist Dick Smith, wanted a positive outcome.

Subsequent to the interview, the Community and Public Sector Union (CPSU) expressed its concern over the latest development, charging AirServices with conceding its responsibilities for airspace design to Dick Smith, maintaining that it set a dangerous precedent for public sector organisations with statutory responsibilities.

Having followed the airspace saga throughout its long-running history, and recognising that this was probably the final act, I asked Dick Smith if he would explain in detail what he was proposing to put before the Airspace Working Group.

His first comment was that it was not his airspace system, but essentially what the Australian Aviation Industry Association (AAIA) had proposed a year ago, with some minor amendments. He stressed that he feels strongly, that in the national interest, we should endeavour to produce the most cost-effective system, and the best way to achieve this is to listen to everyone and then to distil their ideas into a sound proposal. This he believes he has done.

The crux of his counter arguments to what is presently being implemented is that it will prove to be too expensive and that his proposed system could achieve savings of between $25m and $45m, with no reduction in safety. He proposes to achieve this by removing duplications and doing away with what he sees as the belts and braces approach to airspace management.

The savings made could then be allocated to much better purpose, such as a radar for Tasmania, subsidies for the introduction of TCAS for RPT, and the fitting of transponders in GA aircraft. This is in line with his often expressed philosophy of spending the safety dollar where it will achieve maximum benefit.

Proposed Immediate Introduction of Class E Airspace

The AAIA plan had Class E airspace between 10,000 ft and Flight Level (FL) 200. The AirServices system now being introduced has Class C (with Class E possibly being introduced at a later date).

The essential difference is that in Class E, VFR aircraft are transparent to the system, whereas in Class C, they are totally in the system. In both Class C and E, IFR traffic is separated from all other traffic. Dick Smith maintains that by having Class C in low density airspace, the safety dollar is being wasted. In the proposed Class E airspace, VFR aircraft will still follow recommended radio procedures to provide a radio alerted see and avoid facility, and all aircraft would require transponders.

With this proposal, sectors would be manned for peak IFR traffic and not VFR. However, the latter could still get a service such as radar advisories, workload permitting. A telling point perhaps, is that jet and turboprop RPT aircraft are already cruising in Class B airspace (FL200 above 20,000 ft) which has full separation for all flights, IFR and VFR. Dick Smith maintains that traffic in the present low sectors is light, mainly charter.

The latest amendment to the proposed AAIA plan now has Class E down to 8,500 ft to enable non-pressurised aircraft to fly IFR at 9,000 ft or 10,000 ft. There would be no Class E in the Great Australian Remote Area (GARA) which would be classified as Class G. The only service to be provided in Class G is a position service; traffic information would not be provided.

Proposed Reduction in Sector Numbers

The next major point in Dick Smith’s proposal is to reduce the present 94 sectors, which include 25 low level sectors, to a total of 50 sectors. The low level sectors would be removed with the high level sectors servicing the previous low level sectors. A sector costs about $1m a year to maintain, which in simple mathematics would produce a saving of $44m annually.

To prove his thesis, he proposes to conduct a survey of traffic density and has produced a sheet for ATC officers to log traffic on a given day at say 8am and midday. Details required would include the number of aircraft they are talking to, their height and whether they are RPT, charter etc. In this way it could be determined whether a sector is operating 20 aircraft or three. He estimates that it will prove that there are less than 100 IFR aircraft in the system at any time. He maintains that such a survey has never been carried out and is vital for the allocation of sectors for TAAATS to be determined.

He quotes the Charleville area as a classic example of overservicing. There is very little IFR traffic in the area but a full service is provided. This is an example, he maintains, of why the low level sectors should be removed from the system. However, a full position service (not traffic) will be provided by the high level controller down to the lower levels.

In the AOPA model produced for the AAIA meeting it was proposed that Class B airspace be introduced for flights above FL200; the AAIA members proposed that this should be Class C. Dick Smith now accepts that the AAIA proposal is correct as it will provide for a seamless airspace system from the terminal areas through to cruising altitude, all being Class C. This is in line with the NZ model.

Introduction of an Equitable Charging System

Dick Smith hopes to persuade the users of the airspace system that what he is proposing will be of considerable benefit to them in financial terms.

He has been tasked with determining an equitable charging system and the preamble to his proposed airspace system will make it clear that if you receive a service you will pay for it; if you don’t receive a service there will be no fee.

At the present time 80% of Avgas aircraft pay exactly the same whether they receive a service or not. The first part of his recommendation will be that the Avgas component of the enroute charge, which is about 16 cents, be removed. In his concept, if you go in the system you will pay an enroute charge. If you go outside the system, i.e. self announce, either IFR or VFR, there will be no charge. He proposes that should his system be accepted, operators would be advised that from a certain date, if a full service is required it will have to be paid for.

He believes that once this is understood, 90% of aircraft will drop out of the system voluntarily, not wishing to pay $3.10 per 100 nm (185 km) per tonne of aircraft for a service they don’t need. They will follow the lead of Avtur aircraft which presently go VFR outside the system. This will facilitate the reduction in sectors and hence the cost saving.

He believes that pricing is very much a part of any airspace system and that the one big mistake he made as Chairman of the CAA was that instead of initiating the review of resources, he should have made the charging system equitable and then stood back and let industry, through the marketplace, determine that it did not want to pay so much per kilometre when operating VFR. Under his proposals, instead of paying 16 cents a litre for using the system, there will be a payment for lodging a flight plan, landing at an airport, and a charge if the flight is made IFR.

He expects opposition from the Royal Federation of Aero Clubs of Australia (RFACA) to his proposal to do away with the present Avgas levy, because he maintains that their clubs which operate at secondary airports are being subsidised by pilots who fly elsewhere. This is in line with AOPA policy which has been strongly campaigning for the alternative of Location Specific Charging. The recently re-elected President of the RFACA, Shirley Adkins, when invited to comment, expressed concern at what she believes is a simplistic approach to a complex question which requires detailed examination as a separate matter. The RFACA has invited other interested aviation bodies to join it in calling for a full investigation of alternative funding avenues.

MBZs and G Airspace

Dick Smith has been very vocal over his objection to MBZs (Mandatory Broadcast Zones) in G airspace which he maintains amounts to an accident waiting to happen through lack of awareness of other IFR aircraft which might be making an instrument approach.

He maintains that the misdialed frequency syndrome is real, and well documented by BASI. His solution is to require all aircraft making an instrument approach at an uncontrolled aerodrome to call the high level controller for traffic information. This is the often quoted “third party” safety requirement. As previously mentioned there would be no enroute information in Class G airspace.

If it was decided that there was a need for traffic information due to traffic density through a particular section of G airspace, then a Class E airway would be introduced, to be operated by the high level controller. He believes however, that traffic density away from the “J” curve of the eastern seaboard is so low that self announce will prove to be quite adequate. He is also a very strong advocate of Unicoms at non-tower airports and would prefer to have MBZs called CTAF/Unicom, because for all general traffic it remains “see and avoid”.

A suggestion is that airlines servicing a non-tower airport in G airspace could very well provide a Unicom service on the MBZ frequency, broadcasting the arrival and departure of their aircraft.

Staffing

Finally, as a part of the proposed plan, Flight Service would become Flight Watch with three or four desks covering the whole of Australia and the operators monitoring up to 15 frequencies. They would open and close flight plans, give weather and pass on clearance requests etc., and hopefully, be given the authority to give advice, as in the USA, whether a route is recommended VFR or not. He is adamant that no one will be made redundant, maintaining that AirServices is having difficulty even now in meeting its staffing requirements.

Comment

There is no doubt that Dick Smith is passionate about correcting what he sees as deficiencies in the airspace system now being introduced. He himself admits that it has been an incredible interest to him over the last five years. He believes very strongly that the way to ensure growth in the aviation industry is to reduce the costs to all operators, from RPT down to sport aviation. The most significant area in which to achieve cost reductions is in aviation regularity charges, particularly those associated with the airspace system. He believes that his airspace proposal can achieve this without compromising aviation safety.

Unfortunately he has had great difficulty in the past in getting his point across due to the tabloid media always focusing on his “Adventurer” image with its connotations of “amateur”. Many fail to give him his due, that he is one of the most experienced private pilots in Australia, with perhaps the most practical knowledge of international airspace systems.

In addition, many of those in the bureaucracy still carry the scars from the infamous “Review of Resources” carried out while he was Chairman of the CAA. His reputation, rightly or wrongly, as a ruthless trampler on union rights remains; and it is hard to see how he will get his ideas viewed with an open mind by that section of the aviation industry. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped that in the national interest, the past can be put aside and what he is now proposing given a fair hearing.

Dick Smith has at last been given an opportunity to prove his thesis that it is indeed possible to develop an airspace system, with significantly reduced costs, without a reduction in safety. Let’s hope for the sake of our international reputation that this proves to be the end of the matter, one way or the other.