Proposal to reduce provincial air traffic control

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Proposal to reduce provincial air traffic control

1 | 2

bcorgan

8 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#2484497 15-May-2020 15:33

tripper1000:

The vast majority of pilots learn to fly out of uncontrolled airfields with no tower etc, so they're generally not overly fussed about it. It isn't unlike an uncontrolled intersection for cars vs traffic lights. Everyone has experience with them, there are rules you follow and everyone is happy.

True in a simple sense. Until you get to the realities of flying real (commercial) aircraft.

They are flying in all weather conditions (IFR - little to no visibility for the most part), and are not going to start doing overhead rejoins in an airbus anytime soon.

bcorgan

8 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#2484498 15-May-2020 15:35

Oblivian:

It's not a new thing. But they are bringing the program forward/giving it a push

https://www.airways.co.nz/media-centre/media-statements/airways-unveils-future-digital-air-traffic-control-tower/

https://www.airways.co.nz/media-centre/media-statements/invercargill-gets-nzs-first-digital-air-traffic-control-tower/

Been in works since '17 and Invercargil was earmarked for the first.

It's only really coming to light because of the current situation and fastrack of likely job losses

Ironically, Airways have now scrapped this project. The only completed part of a digital tower at Invercargill Airport is the foundation for the camera mast. This could still be an option in the future, but plenty of trials to be completed first. Hard to complete those trials though when they have canned the project.

Handle9

11927 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9683

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2484505 15-May-2020 15:45

OldGeek:
Rikkitic:

I see on RNZ that Airways New Zealand wants to remove air traffic control from a number of provincial airports. I don't know enough about this to have an informed opinion, but it does make me a little nervous. What do the pilots here think? Could an idiot in a private aircraft bring down a commercial flight or taxi across the wrong runway? Is this a significant added risk?

While we are still under COVID19 restrictions with reduced aircraft movements, this would be OK if the affected Airlines agree with the decision (as appears to be the case with AirNZ). However this will result in reduced costs for the affected Airports and this is likely to mean reduced landing charges to Airlines so the safety angle needs to be considered. While the Airline Pilots Association should also have input, they are not involved in either cost or passenger pricing.

If the proposal is a temporary cost-saving measure then there should be a definition of this such that if flight activity returns to pre-COVID19 levels ATC services are required to resume.

As others have said this has been coming for some time. Staffing some of these provincial towers is problematic. Napier is the one that seems to be frequently in the media.

bcorgan

8 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#2484510 15-May-2020 15:51

I've probably come off as a bit of a dick with all of these replies, but I couldn't let them lie sorry. Air traffic control is a very misunderstood art by a lot of the public. Many people still believe there are only radar controllers (that sit in a tower) or use ping pong bats like marshallers.

There is a concerted media campaign from Airways and David Morgan from Air New Zealand on this. Which is interesting because the Air NZ pilots I am talking to are not happy about this.

Can safety be maintained at airports without air traffic control? Absolutely! However, there would be large changes required. Efficiency would go out that window for starters. Commercial aircraft that are normally sequenced as far as a hundred miles away from the airfield would potentially have to adjust their flight during the last few minutes of their flight. And also as someone else mentioned, private pilots would have to give a wide berth to these aircraft too.

Also, Air NZ are not the only customers at these airports. There are hospital flights, police rescue and oil rig helicopters, private jets, charter flights. Don't forget Origin, Chatham Airlines and Sounds Air. All the local schools (who operate Monday to Friday as well as the weekend unlike someone's comment prior).

Airways have been trying this on for a number of years now to improve their profitability. But perhaps safety should be priority number 1 for a change.

During level 4 lockdown, we didn't turn off all the traffic lights at the intersections because there weren't many cars. Also to turn the traffic lights back on (i.e. start up tower operations from scratch at an airport) would take the best part of two years.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2484527 15-May-2020 16:25

bcorgan:
tripper1000:

The vast majority of pilots learn to fly out of uncontrolled airfields with no tower etc, so they're generally not overly fussed about it. It isn't unlike an uncontrolled intersection for cars vs traffic lights. Everyone has experience with them, there are rules you follow and everyone is happy.

True in a simple sense. Until you get to the realities of flying real (commercial) aircraft.

They are flying in all weather conditions (IFR - little to no visibility for the most part), and are not going to start doing overhead rejoins in an airbus anytime soon.

IFR is only in controlled airspace. You aren't landing at an uncontrolled airfield if you're IFR.

Even the Beech 1900s don't do (usually) overhead rejoins.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 10018

#2484548 15-May-2020 16:40

bcorgan:

Many people still believe there are only radar controllers (that sit in a tower) or use ping pong bats like marshallers.

I know an ATC who transferred to a small regional airport (because - lifestyle reasons I think). Probably last time I spoke to him he was telling me how cool it was to sit in a tower at a small airport and actually be able to see the planes out the window. But I thought that Airways had already cut back staffing - last I heard that his job had been "disestablished" at least a year ago - and AFAIK he's back working in the centre he shifted from.

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

firefuze

510 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 85

#2484638 15-May-2020 19:46

frankv:
IFR is only in controlled airspace. You aren't landing at an uncontrolled airfield if you're IFR.

Even the Beech 1900s don't do (usually) overhead rejoins.

Not necessarily, IFR operations can be conducted in un-controlled airspace. Many un-controlled aerodromes have IFR approaches, departures etc. Results in an increased pilot workload and means pilots must provide their own separation from each other.

There is certainly a solid case to keep ATC services. Providing an increased level of safety through passing of essential information to pilots and applying traffic separation.

Tracer

343 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 151

#2484641 15-May-2020 19:51

bcorgan:

Airways have been trying this on for a number of years now to improve their profitability.

Why are they even for-profit? Doesn't seem like that would provide the right incentives (as we see here).

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2484674 15-May-2020 21:13

Tracer:
bcorgan:

Airways have been trying this on for a number of years now to improve their profitability.

Why are they even for-profit? Doesn't seem like that would provide the right incentives (as we see here).

In a word, Rogernomics. In the 80s, lots of government functions were transformed into Crown Owned Enterprises, on the assumption that making them work for profit would increase efficiency. It probably did, in some cases (Post Office split up in NZPost, Telecom, PostBank).

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#2484676 15-May-2020 21:28

firefuze:
frankv:
IFR is only in controlled airspace. You aren't landing at an uncontrolled airfield if you're IFR.

Even the Beech 1900s don't do (usually) overhead rejoins.

Not necessarily, IFR operations can be conducted in un-controlled airspace. Many un-controlled aerodromes have IFR approaches, departures etc.

Beg your pardon, you're quite right. It's been too long since I did Av Law. And IFR hasn't been something I've needed to be concerned about.

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2484677 15-May-2020 21:29

Of the approximately 30 airports in New Zealand which have scheduled flights from various airlines about 50% of them have any form of ATC service. I was told some years go of those 15 only three or four of them are profitable/pay their way from an ATC perspective. It's no wonder Airways would like to make some cuts. Being an SOE they have to stand on their own two feet. I guess the Covid 19 crisis is too good to waste.

Tower controllers are not radar controllers, they are two vastly different jobs.

The towers controllers as their name suggests work in the local contol tower controlling the air traffic within about a 5 nautical mile radius and generally below an altiude (depending on the location) 1500 feet or perhaps 2500 feet.

The radar controllers provide control for the en-route and initial approach phases of flight.

This proposal only proposes to remove the tower controllers. It will not impact the en-route portion of the flight.

In reality for most controlled airfields the provision of a control tower is an overkill for the amount of traffic at that airfeild. The conrollers are generally only there because of an international standard which requires ATC to be in attendance when either an aircraft with more than a certain number of seats lands at that airport or there are X movements of smaller passenger aircraft which are above a seating threshold.

To give a crazy example, when Freedom Air were still operating they would be arriving into Hamilton late at night/early morning, they were the only aircraft in the Hamilton area, the radar controller would been talking to them all the way till they were about 10 miles out, then the aircraft would call the tower controller who would probably give a wind update and say cleared to land. The controller would come in specially for that one flight and was probably in their car on their way home before the aircraft had shutdown.

Remote towers such as the Invercargil project are a good way to provide an ATC service using a suite of strategically placed cameras which beam their signal to a remote location where a "tower controller" can provide an ATC service as and when required. When they're not dealing with Invercargil they may be dealing Gisborne or Napier etc etc. However I've been told the technology is very expensive and right now there is very little cost savings.

Yes, the cockpit workload can be increased for an IFR crew arriving at an unattended airfield. However, with experience in the unattended environment, the use of Mandatory Broadcast Zones (where every aircraft has to have and use a radio to report their position altitude and intentions), standardisd/agreed local procedures, and the use of TCAS etc the risks are very little different to having an ATC service at that airfield, especially when the relatively low level of traffic at most airfields is considered.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Lenovo

Shop now for Lenovo laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

bcorgan

8 posts

Wannabe Geek
+1 received by user: 10

#2484816 16-May-2020 12:28

Technofreak:

Of the approximately 30 airports in New Zealand which have scheduled flights from various airlines about 50% of them have any form of ATC service. I was told some years go of those 15 only three or four of them are profitable/pay their way from an ATC perspective. It's no wonder Airways would like to make some cuts. Being an SOE they have to stand on their own two feet. I guess the Covid 19 crisis is too good to waste.

Tower controllers are not radar controllers, they are two vastly different jobs.

The towers controllers as their name suggests work in the local contol tower controlling the air traffic within about a 5 nautical mile radius and generally below an altiude (depending on the location) 1500 feet or perhaps 2500 feet.

The radar controllers provide control for the en-route and initial approach phases of flight.

This proposal only proposes to remove the tower controllers. It will not impact the en-route portion of the flight.

In reality for most controlled airfields the provision of a control tower is an overkill for the amount of traffic at that airfeild. The conrollers are generally only there because of an international standard which requires ATC to be in attendance when either an aircraft with more than a certain number of seats lands at that airport or there are X movements of smaller passenger aircraft which are above a seating threshold.

To give a crazy example, when Freedom Air were still operating they would be arriving into Hamilton late at night/early morning, they were the only aircraft in the Hamilton area, the radar controller would been talking to them all the way till they were about 10 miles out, then the aircraft would call the tower controller who would probably give a wind update and say cleared to land. The controller would come in specially for that one flight and was probably in their car on their way home before the aircraft had shutdown.

Remote towers such as the Invercargil project are a good way to provide an ATC service using a suite of strategically placed cameras which beam their signal to a remote location where a "tower controller" can provide an ATC service as and when required. When they're not dealing with Invercargil they may be dealing Gisborne or Napier etc etc. However I've been told the technology is very expensive and right now there is very little cost savings.

Yes, the cockpit workload can be increased for an IFR crew arriving at an unattended airfield. However, with experience in the unattended environment, the use of Mandatory Broadcast Zones (where every aircraft has to have and use a radio to report their position altitude and intentions), standardisd/agreed local procedures, and the use of TCAS etc the risks are very little different to having an ATC service at that airfield, especially when the relatively low level of traffic at most airfields is considered.

Where to begin?

That stat is incorrect. Otherwise Airways would get rid of all the towers except your 3 or 4.

The reality is they don't make enough money for Airways (then the government). And with COVID they are now losing money. Like you say, why not use this crisis to force the management's agenda.

4 of these 5 control towers also provide approach services, not ‘just’ tower. For example Invercargill tower look after airspace 50nm to the north, joining with Queenstown and Dunedin’s airspace. Towers are also backup in case the Radar centre has to evacuate. Like during the Christchurch earthquakes.

The landing and take off phase is one of the most critical phases. It is where all aircraft are converging! Good to know that keeping aircraft from crashing into each other is an overkill.

Regarding your Hamilton example, you are correct. That is a crazy example.

Airways have cancelled the digital tower project so for now that is a moot point.

And the risks are very little different? Said by a person who has never done a risk assessment on airspace ever. I am afraid I could not disagree more. There are so many parts to a safe aviation system, but the two biggest by far are the pilots and the controllers. We are removing one of the biggest contributors!

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2485006 16-May-2020 17:45

bcorgan:

Where to begin?

That stat is incorrect. Otherwise Airways would get rid of all the towers except your 3 or 4.

The reality is they don't make enough money for Airways (then the government). And with COVID they are now losing money. Like you say, why not use this crisis to force the management's agenda.

4 of these 5 control towers also provide approach services, not ‘just’ tower. For example Invercargill tower look after airspace 50nm to the north, joining with Queenstown and Dunedin’s airspace. Towers are also backup in case the Radar centre has to evacuate. Like during the Christchurch earthquakes.

The landing and take off phase is one of the most critical phases. It is where all aircraft are converging! Good to know that keeping aircraft from crashing into each other is an overkill.

Regarding your Hamilton example, you are correct. That is a crazy example.

Airways have cancelled the digital tower project so for now that is a moot point.

And the risks are very little different? Said by a person who has never done a risk assessment on airspace ever. I am afraid I could not disagree more. There are so many parts to a safe aviation system, but the two biggest by far are the pilots and the controllers. We are removing one of the biggest contributors!

You may have better information than I have, I'd be interested to know how you are so sure the statistic that so few towers pay their way isn't correct.

I'll admit it was probably over 20 years ago that information was volunteered by an Airways staff member whom I trust to know what he was talking about. Perhaps things are different now but I doubt the ratio is very much different. No doubt some are borderline and some are basket cases from a financial point of view. It's because of the financial viability that the remote tower concept was being proposed. Invercargill was just the start. Next in line were places like Gisborne. This was going on well before Covid 19. It needs to be borne in mind that most towers only exist because of the requirements I mentioned in my first post.

Yes, some towers provide "approach" services under procedural control, it's not under radar control. Places like New Plymouth, Gisborne, Napier. Tower controllers are not rated to provide a radar control service.

When the radar centre was evacuated during the earthquakes en-route aircraft reverted to a process called TIBA where these aircraft basically arrange their own separation. The tower controllers weren't involved in the control of the en-route aircraft. Since the earthquakes Airways have been looking at reopening a radar centre in Auckland to give them redundancy.

You seem very sure I have no idea about the risks involved. I may not have ever done a "formal" risk assessment but I have flown IFR into pretty well every uncontrolled airport and do a risk assessment each time I fly in to those places. I have a modicum of an idea about the risks involved.

The risks can be managed very well at many airports (not all) without the services of a control tower. Sure some pilots are uncomfortable at uncontrolled airports other pilots are very used to managing the risks and happily operate at uncontrolled airports. It's a bit like swimming between the flags at a beach. For those swimmers who know what thery're doing swimming outside the flags can be just as safe.

Finally the only close calls I've had have been in the immediate area of a controlled airport.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2485049 16-May-2020 20:44

I forgot to cover this point in my earlier post

bcorgan:

The landing and take off phase is one of the most critical phases. It is where all aircraft are converging! Good to know that keeping aircraft from crashing into each other is an overkill.

You might be surprised to know that with the exception of a handful of controlled airports there is rarely conflicting traffic that is in danger of crashing into another aircraft. That is what I was referring to about overkill.

Sure at these airports the tower controllers provide other very useful functions but these functions are more in the nice to have category rather than safety enhancement.

Some uncontrolled airports are busier than some controlled airports.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Technofreak

6657 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3477

Trusted

#2486733 19-May-2020 23:06

Looks like the decision has been made. It will be interesting to see how it all pans out after everyone has their say. I'd sat it spells the end of jet services to Invercargill at this point.

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/416948/live-covid-19-updates-from-new-zealand-and-around-the-world-on-19-may

While it's a COVID headline I suspect this was on the cards anyway, COVID just hastened it and/or made the situation an easier proposition to sell.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

1 | 2