group aviation reportmichellekshiels.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/0/8/... · coverage with two...

GRIFFITH UNIVERSITY

GRIFFITH AVIATION

COURSE CODE 1508BPS

COURSE TITLE AIRWAYS OPERATION AND DESIGN

ASSESSMENT ITEM NUMBER ASSIGNMENT 1

ASSESSMENT TITLE GROUP ASSIGNMENT – REPORT

DUE DATE 15 OCTOBER 2014

STUDENT NAME & STUDENT ID MICHELLE SHIELS - 2942509

REBECCA SPENCER - 2942503

CLAIRE GIPPS - 2944381

LOK HIN LI - 2942252

MICHAEL BRADSHAW - 2651146

MITCHELL TYNAN - 2941977

COURSE CONVENOR A.PROF PATRICK MURRAY

WORD COUNT

Griff ith University - 1504BPS | Assignment 1:Report | Shiels, M. Spencer, R. Gipps, C. Li, L. Bradshaw, M. Tynan, M. | of 27

NEW PITTSWORTH AERODROME - ATM REPORT

Michelle Shiels, Rebecca Spencer, Claire Gipps,

Lok Hin Li, Michael Bradshaw, Mitchell Tynan

Griffith University Aviation


0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This report examines the feasibility of developing an aerodrome in the area

immediately south of Pittsworth. The location is shown in Appendix D and E, which

displays the region on VTC chart and Google Maps. The development of this aerodrome

has been proposed by a businessman who holds interests in the local area, under the

intention of transporting staff and equipment to respective resource sites. The

examinations of this report have been conducted by a safety regulator, senior airline

manager and the president of the local flying club. These three stakeholders provide

recommendations to the airspace model for the aerodrome, collectively concluding that

Class D is most suited for the intermixing operations, with the adoption of Class G

airspace out of tower hours. Suggestions for CNS systems to apply are also made by

the safety regulator and airline manager, having a high concern for safety and

insurance. The safety manager has made recommendations to offer instrument flight

procedures (IFPs) at both runway ends based off area navigation via the Global

Navigation Satellite System. The airline manager has recommended adopting CPDLC

communications, navigations under VOR and SSR surveillance. The report concludes

with potential problems that the flying club members expect to encounter, resulting in the

probable relocation of the club. Should the aerodrome be developed in the proposed

Pittsworth location, operations will see to an intermix of commercial and General

Aviation flights, which can be done successfully by implementing the airspace model

and suggested CNS systems for all operators.


0.1 TABLE OF CONTENTS

0. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................... 3

0.1 Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................... 4

0.2 List of Figures ............................................................................................................................ 5

0.3 Definitions/Acronyms ................................................................................................................ 5

1. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................................... 6

2. SAFETY REGULATORS....................................................................................................................... 7

2.1 Recommendations..................................................................................................................... 7

2.2 Remote Virtual Tower ................................................................................................................ 7

2.3 CNS Systems.............................................................................................................................. 8

2.4 Airspace .................................................................................................................................... 9

2.5 Runway ................................................................................................................................... 11

2.6 Air Routes ............................................................................................................................... 11

3. AIRLINE MANAGERS ...................................................................................................................... 13

3.1 Airspace Model ....................................................................................................................... 13

3.2 CNS Systems............................................................................................................................ 13

3.3 Cost & Insurance Concerns....................................................................................................... 14

3.4 Airspace Model Selection ......................................................................................................... 15

4. FLYING CLUB PRESIDENT................................................................................................................ 16

4.1 Recommendations to the airspace of the proposed aerodrome ................................................. 16

4.2 Current airspace ...................................................................................................................... 16

4.3 Proposal of adopting class D and G airspace .............................................................................. 16

4.4 Potential issues with simultaneous recreational and commercial operations............................... 17

4.5 Reasons our club members may relocate .................................................................................. 18

3. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................ 19

4. REFERENCE LIST ............................................................................................................................ 20

5. APPENDICES.................................................................................................................................. 22

Appendix A: Assumptions .............................................................................................................. 22

Appendix B: Local wind velocity recordings from as early as 1957 .................................................... 24

Appendix C: Income Statement for the Flying Club .......................................................................... 25

Appendix D: VTC showing Pittsworth in red ........................................................................................ 26

Appendix E: Maps showing new Runway Location........................................................................... 27


0.2 List of Figures

Figure 1: Local airspace surrounding New Pittsworth Aerodrome

Figure 2: Toowoomba wind velocity recordings at 9am

Figure 3: Circuit direction and proposed approach/departure routes.

Figure 4: Conditions for VMC Flights in Class G Airspace (Brandon, 2014)

Figure 5: Airspace under Different CTAF Conditions (Brandon, 2014)

0.3 Definitions/Acronyms

ATC: Air Traffic Control/Controller

ATIS: Automatic Terminal Information Service

ATM: Air Traffic Management

AWIS: Automatic Weather Information Service

B717: Boeing Aircraft

CNS: Communications, Navigation and Surveillance

CPDLC: Controller Pilot Data Link Communications

CTAF: Common Traffic Advisory Frequency

CTR: Control Tower

Dash-8: Bombardier Aircraft

FIS: Flight Information Service

FL180: Flight level 180: 18,000ft

GA: General Aviation

GNSS: Global Navigation Satellite Systems

IFR: Instrument Flight Rules

NDB: Non-Directional Beacon

PSR: Primary Surveillance Radar

RA: Recreational Aviation

SFC: Surface

SSR: Secondary Surveillance Radar

VHF: Very High Frequency (radio)

VFR: Visual Flight Rules

VMC: Visual Meteorological Conditions

VOR: VHF Omni Range

VTC: Visual Terminal Chart


1. INTRODUCTION

The construction of the proposed aerodrome in Pittsworth has been designed

with intention of increasing the transportation of resources to their respective sites,

including staff, parts and equipment. This report summarises the recommendations of

airspace changes for the aerodrome, from the perspectives of a safety regulator, senior

manager of Awesome Airlines and the president of the local flying club. The report

opens with the thoughts of the safety regulator, who recommends changes to airspace

and CNS systems. This is followed with the potential for tourism development, as the

senior airline manager also suggests which CNS systems should be adopted,

concerning safety, budget and insurance. Lastly, an airspace model is advised by the

local flying club president, who also highlights potential issues in adapting to intermixing

operations in regards to regulations and costs, suggesting the club members will

relocate.


2. SAFETY REGULATORS

2.1 Recommendations

Airspace over Pittsworth should remain Class G.

The installation of a Remote Tower at Pittsworth with On Demand ATC services

from a Remote Tower Centre in Brisbane.

Failing this, radio communication should be maintained between aircraft at

Pittsworth, Toowoomba, Oakley, Amberley and Brisbane Air Traffic Control

Centre.

Transition to controlled airspace is likely to occur in the near future as a result of

further safety reviews.

2.2 Remote Virtual Tower

A recent innovation to the aviation industry, Remote Towers utilise High Definition

and Pan-Tilt-Zoom cameras, microphones, meteorological and surveillance sensors and

signal light guns to monitor an airport in real time from a Remote Tower Centre (RTC).

The world’s first Remote Tower, approved by the Swedish Transport Agency, opened at

Örnsköldsvik Airport earlier this year (Saab Group, 2014). Alice Springs airport is

currently being operated remotely from an RTC in Adelaide and more regional

Australian airports are expected to follow (Global Trade Media, 2013).

The advantages of using a Remote Tower for CNS at Pittsworth include:

It addresses the hazard concerns of traffic mix and proximity to other

aerodromes, and is clear evidence that we are discharging our legal duty of care

to provide a safe airspace as per 12.1.1.5 of the CASA Manual of Standards,

2012, Part 139.

Tower construction at the airport is not necessary, making the system

comparatively inexpensive to introduce.

Costs will be mitigated further by the reduction of insurance premiums associated

with the provision of Air Traffic Control services at the airport.

It would be possible for dozens of regional airports to be controlled from just one

or two RTCs, in much the same way that Australia’s en route system is managed.

Figure 01:


Sharing an RTC with other airports would allow for shared expenses, keeping the

cost of maintaining the system low.

ATC services would be available on demand, any time of the day or night. The

services (and their associated costs) would grow in line with market growth and

the increase of traffic volume at the airport, without the need to add more

equipment.

The system is easily adapted to cater for changing needs. This is important, as

CASA has indicated that airspace over Pittsworth will need to change to

controlled airspace in the near future (CASA, 2014, p.10). Avoiding the

installation of equipment that gives access to ATC services is only avoiding the

inevitable.

The 360° cameras can be relocated if necessary, lending additional flexibility to

the system (Saab AB, 2011). Infrared technology is implemented so that the

airport can operate safely at night and in low visibility conditions.

A combination of video and radar technologies, the system includes automatic

anomaly detection and real time object tracking. Controllers are able to zoom in

on any part of their 360° view and instantly see the flight details of any flight they

are tracking.

2.3 CNS Systems

2.3.1 Communications

New Pittsworth Aerodrome is already located within range of Brisbane Centre

coverage with two frequencies available for access to the flight information service (FIS):

135.6 for operations in class E airspace and 121.2 for class G (VTC, 2014).

2.3.2 Navigation

New Pittsworth Aerodrome will offer instrument flight procedures (IFPs) at both

runway ends based off area navigation (RNAV) Global Navigation Satellite System

(GNSS).

2.3.3 Surveillance


New Pittsworth Aerodrome lies within surveillance coverage of the following

radars: Oakey, Brisbane, Mt Hardgrave, Mt Somerville, Gold Coast and Amberly. Whilst

the radar sites located near the Coastline provide surveillance for only above 9,000ft the

nearby Oakey radar can offer surveillance as low as below 500ft. As the Oakey radar

provides Airservices Australia with surveillance data, New Pittsworth Aerodrome is

already within a suitable surveillance network, provided aircraft are adequately equipped

(CASA, 2014).

2.3.4 Hazards

Located at 27.7°S, 151.6°E, Pittsworth is currently within in G airspace, however

a number of hazards exist within the area that must be addressed.

Proximity to Toowoomba Aerodrome may cause conflicts with circuit traffic.

Proximity to Oakley and Amberley Military bases means that airspace around

Pittsworth is fringed by Restricted and Danger Zones.

Instrument Flight Procedures (IFPs) could potentially conflict with those used at

Toowoomba, Oakley and Amberley.

Traffic mix. The airspace around Pittsworth is already congested, as it is

currently utilised by training aircraft (both military and civil), recreational aircraft

(including gliding, hang gliding and ballooning), military activity (including

parachuting and helicopter operations), passenger and freight flights. Pilot

training, experience, aircraft performance and equipment vary greatly, and the

addition of Pittsworth will increase turboprop, charters and passenger jet activity

in the area.

The Brisbane/Perth IFR route crosses Pittsworth airspace, and so east/west

departures may conflict.

2.4 Airspace

2.4.1 Restricted Areas

The location for New Pittsworth Aerodrome lies within danger area D621A which

occupies airspace from surface (SFC) to 10,000ft. Above this is restricted area R639A,

occupying space from 10,000ft to a ceiling specified via NOTAM. Furthermore,

surrounding the aerodrome in all directions are other restricted and danger areas utilised


irregularly via NOTAM including: R655AB, R643ABC, R639BC, R620DE as shown in

figure 1 below. These multiple nearby military designated airspaces pose an issue for

New Pittsworth Aerodrome, as permission to utilise the military airspace during active

NOTAM exercises will likely be denied, leaving all traffic inbound and outbound to transit

the zone below 10,000ft. However, CASA is currently reviewing airspace surrounding

Oakey and may impose changes with considerations of the new aerodrome in the area.

2.4.2 Neighbouring Airspace

The location for New Pittsworth Aerodrome lies within class G airspace from

surface (SFC) to 8,500ft and below class E and A which occupy 8,500ft – Flight level

180 (FL180) and above FL180 respectively. Neighbouring class C airspace includes:

Oakey, Amberly and Brisbane as shown below in figure 1.

Figure 1: Local airspace surrounding New Pittsworth Aerodrome.


Figure 2: Toow oomba w ind velocity recordings at 9am

(National Climate Centre of the Bureau of Meteorology)

2.5 Runway

2.5.1 Length

The runway must service aircraft up to 747 freighters in size. The commonly used

Boeing 747-400 Freighter model was considered which can require a take-off roll of

anywhere between 1.8 km to 5 km depending heavily on several variables including

weight, wind and pressure altitude. However, required landing roll is significantly less

and even fully loaded, a 747-400 Freighter can land safely within 3.5 km of runway in

wet conditions (Boeing, 2002). Considering these aircraft will generally depart without

cargo the suggested runway length of 3.8 km can accommodate for this without much

disruption to the unlikely location specified.

2.5.2 Direction

Local wind conditions at both nearby weather stations: Oakey and Toowoomba

were consulted when considering runway design. Figure 2 shows easterlies as the most

frequent and strongest winds. The statistics also show the next three most common

wind directions are west, south-west, and

north-east, see appendix B for further

details. With this information and

considering the land available it is apparent

that the ideal runway direction is east-north-

east or N 80° E. This will be runway 08 by

name and it will allow aircraft to take off

with headwind during the common easterly

wind conditions and its reciprocal runway is

at 260° and will be known as runway 26.

This direction on the same flight strip will be

used instead during westerly component

winds. Furthermore, this angle of runway

suits the local environment with limited

space and a requirement for Boeing 747

freighters to access the aerodrome.

2.6 Air Routes


It will be recommended that New Pittsworth Aerodrome adopt a non-standard

right circuit for operations on runway 08 and standard left circuits for 26 to reduce traffic

overhead Pittsworth Township. Arrivals to and departures from the circuit pattern will

take place on to the west of New Pittsworth Aerodrome preferably on crosswind or base

legs of the circuit. This is in order to avoid climbs and descents above Cambooya and

Toowoomba while flights depart from or join existing air routes. However, routes for

eastbound arrivals and departures such as to/from Brisbane will depend entirely on

military clearance. Recommended circuit directions are shown in yellow and

approaches/departures are shown in red below in figure 3.

Figure 3: Circuit direction (not to scale) and proposed approach/departure routes.


3. AIRLINE MANAGERS

3.1 Airspace Model

The airspace model constructed for safety around New Pittsworth Aerodrome is

shown in fig. 1. Each step is in increments of approximately 5nm from the aerodrome;

until 8500ft whereby the increments increase to 10nm, up until the boundaries of the

Eastern 43nm Amberley ARP. Outside of tower hours, class D airspace will be

categorised as class G airspace. Though, during tower hours there is a clear path

through controlled airspaces from class A (above FL180), down to class D airspace.

This controlled airspace is the safest possible area for decent, because separation and

information is provided to IFR and VFR pilots. This is safer than the previous

configuration of class E airspace, as no unknown VFR pilots are permitted to fly in the

area. Thus, aerodrome operations are not complicated by the need for pilots to

communicate instructions to aircraft not in contact with ATC.

3.2 CNS Systems

3.2.1 Communications

The use of a CPDLC system would be a beneficial tool to any aerodrome,

contributing to higher safety standards. Our recommendation is that this system be

implemented at New Pittsworth aerodrome. A CPDLC system exchanges text-based

communications from controller to pilot, thusly not allowing for interpretation problems,

which often occur with verbal communications (Roberts, 2012). Messages sent via

CPDLC are sent directly to the aircraft concerned, limiting the chatter on radio, and

leaving no room for misinterpretation by other pilots (Sita Aero, 2011). This system also

has the capability of uploading certain messages directly to the flight management

system. Direct upload reduces the risk of input errors by the crew, therefore increasing

the safety of the flight. Of course, not all aircraft are equipped with a CPDLC system. For

that reason, regular operations will be overseen with the use of VHF radio.

3.2.2 Navigation

Having a VOR the VHF station and the PSR near the power lines near Broxburn

would allow pilots to find the aerodrome with ease, and also provide further utility for

aircraft in distress. This position is ideal for the VOR, VHF and PSR as all require height

to function at full capacity (Civil Aviation Safety Authority, 2008). Additionally, the use of


ATIS and AWIS services would further the safety standards of the aerodrome outside of

tower hours, with information regarding terminal and weather status. There are two

NDB’s in the area currently located at Oakey and Toowoomba. These are sufficient to

locate the aerodrome, however another NDB could be useful because NDB requires

direct line of sight, and there are mountains between Pittsworth and the current NDB’s

(Civil Aviation Safety Authority, 2005). The addition of a closer NDB should be

considered with expansion of the aerodrome in the future.

3.2.3 Surveillance

PSR would be useful at Pittsworth due to the surrounding uncontrolled class G

airspace, and the potential for aircraft without transponders to go undetected. The

requirement of line of sight would make mountainous terrain a slight concern due to

aircraft potentially flying at extremely low levels, including, but not limited to military

aircraft conducting high speed, low level flying. In this case, SSR would be highly useful,

not only for the detection of low flying aircraft but also to provide separation services

from aircraft descending from class A, through C, to class D.

3.3 Cost & Insurance Concerns

As Senior Manager of Awesome Airlines, the costs associated with the

implementation of a CNS system at New Pittsworth aerodrome is of substantial

importance. At this time, it is believed that a traditional ATC tower should be installed

with respect to the predicted low costs of staffing whilst meeting the requirements of

projected charter and tourist demands.

Our modelling predicts that there is a tourist potential of 800 people per week,

travelling mainly on Friday to Monday. With an installation of an ATC tower at New

Pittsworth aerodrome, Awesome Airlines can benefit from having a mixture of both full-

time and part-time air traffic controllers. The annual salary of an air traffic controller

starts at $93,773 (Airservices Australia, 2014), having less staff working from Tuesday

to Thursday during non-congested periods can help reduce staffing costs of up 42%

annually.

However, with the installation of a new tower, the FAA are looking into

discontinuing control tower services in the near future which can possibly phase out

traditional towers to remote towers (FAA, 2005). The FAA also states that there are


significant cost savings associated with the use of newer remote towers, a typical

staffed-tower has an average operating cost of $450,000 per year as compared to

$250,000 for a remote tower (FAA, 2005). Despite the plans to scrap traditional towers,

remote towers are still under testing (CASA, 2010) and there a great amount of

uncertainty with regards to the reliability of remote towers and the time-frame of which

traditional towers will begin to be replaced.

As there will be staff in a traditional ATC tower, staff are normally insured for

incidents such as a loss of license. Starting from March 27, 1979, an allowance to

compensate for loss of license insurance premiums are to be paid to Air Traffic

Controllers (Civil Air Australia, 2011). However, with the current ability to reduce staffing,

this allows Awesome Airlines to save on insurance for air traffic controllers.

Overall, with an installation of a traditional ATC tower, Pittsworth aerodrome will

benefit from both reliability of well-trained air traffic controllers as-well as opportunities to

reduce staffing and insurance costs of up to 42% annually whilst meeting requirements

and demands from tourist and charter services for at-least 5 years.

3.4 Airspace Model Selection

New Pittsworth aerodrome currently occupies Class G airspace. Class G airspace

refers to uncontrolled airspace and does not support SVFR nor provide separation and

ATC clearance (Airservices Australia, 2011). Given that tourist and charter services are

projected to double within 5 years, adopting the Class D airspace will become more

suitable for future demands. Class D airspace is controlled airspace for which IFR,

SVFR and VFR is supported and ATC clearance is required. IFR/SVFR to other

IFR/SVFR separation is provided and traffic information is given for all IFR and VFR

(Airservices Australia, 2011). New Pittsworth aerodrome also lies on the Brisbane/Perth

flight path for IFR. It would be a hazard to not change to Class D airspace with respect

to the new operations starting at New Pittsworth Aerodrome as-well as not effectively

making use of an ATC tower if one is installed. It is conclusive that New Pittsworth

Aerodrome should adopt the Class D airspace for safety reasons in conjunction to the

future operations it’s potential growth at the aerodrome.


4. FLYING CLUB PRESIDENT

4.1 Recommendations to the airspace of the proposed aerodrome

The surrounding area of the proposed aerodrome in Pittsworth has limited scope

for growth. With greater turboprop and freight aircraft operations, potential for future

expansion to accommodate for the likely increase in tourists is strained already, in terms

of airspace. There are many risks associated with a greater demand on the available

airspace. With several activities occurring concurrently, the flying club see more

potential over airspace conflict than benefits (Chong, 2014), should we choose to

continue flying here. As a means of attempting to overcome this, it is recommended that

the aerodrome remain with surrounding Class G airspace (Chong, 2014), particularly for

general and recreational aviation flights.

4.2 Current airspace

Our pilots have previously

been operating at a non-controlled

landing area, using VHF monitoring

to assign landing priorities in a self-

administered style (Brandon, 2014).

As you are proposing to develop a

controlled aerodrome under ATC

service, it is presumed that turboprop

aircraft will hold priority over our own

general aviation aircraft.

4.3 Proposal of adopting class D and G airspace

In ideal weather conditions with exceptional visibility, it is suggested that the

airspace remain as Class G for our aircraft. As seen above in Figure 4 above, GA

aircraft operating below 3000 ft AMSL (or 1000 ft AGL, if higher) may continue low-level

operations "clear of cloud" (Brandon, 2014) while maintaining visual reference with the

ground. This would be suitable as all our aircraft have VHF radio and the pilots hold

current radio endorsements, fully competent with transmissions in this airspace

(Brandon, 2014).

Figure 4: Conditions for VMC Flights in Class G Airspace (Brandon, 2014)


Our pilots with RA registered aircraft could continue operations in Class G

airspace also, for Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC) flights only (Brandon, 2014).

Five of our RA aircraft do not have transponders installed, hence their current licences

limit their operations to Class G areas only (CASA, 2014). If your proposed airspace

does not allow for a broad Class G area, the RA aircraft may also operate VMC flights in

Classes C or D, provided they are granted special permission to do so by the aerodrome

(Brandon, 2014). However, this would mean our RA pilots must install transponders in

their aircraft, at their own expense.

As the nearby Australian Army base at Oakey is controlled under Class C

airspace, it would be best to opt for the implementation of Class D, so all aircraft know to

avoid the Class C area and to avoid confusion. Class D is most suitable as this will be a

small, regional airport. When the CTR

is unmanned, CTAFs can simply

revert to Class G control (Brandon,

2014), as is displayed to the right in

Figure 5. Considering the overall

budget and current aerodrome

demand, it is assumed the tower will

not be manned at all times. This has

further been taken into account as

Class D does not require ATC

clearance before the airspace is

entered.

4.4 Potential issues with simultaneous recreational and commercial operations

There are many potential issues which would see our small flying club struggle

with the addition of the new aerodrome. As we are currently operating on minimal costs,

the GA parking ramp, hangar and club rooms will see our club paying additional

amounts for parking fees, rent and maintenance, greatly extending our budget. These

additional costs will not allow us to sustainably maintain the club, as all pilots operate

privately and are self-funded, the main reason we have been based at the Pittsworth

grass landing area these last few years.

Figure 5: Airspace Under Different CTAF Conditions (Brandon, 2014)


In reference Appendix X, the club treasurer projects an increase in annual

expenses, should we remain at this aerodrome. As seen in this income statement, our

main expenses at current are fuel and aircraft maintenance. Further operating costs to

continue our club flights at Pittsworth will see to a forecasted 164.6% increase in total

expenses.

As stated previously, our aircraft are equipped with VHF radios, which we use to

set priorities to a standard. The introduction of commercial aircraft will not only see their

flights prioritised over our GA aircraft, but will also cause congestion in the new

aerodrome, further increasing our operating costs.

4.5 Reasons our club members may relocate

Based on the potential issues briefly outlined above, it can be seen that members

of our club are looking into relocating. The safety risks involved with simultaneous

operations of intermixing traffic of GA and commercial flights. There is also a greater

demand on a limited airspace with the surrounding base at Oakey and greater frequency

of operations. In addition, congestion on the ground will further increase due to

passenger terminals and additional hangars.

Many of our pilots will not be able to afford the projected costs, previously

mentioned by our treasurer. This is due to rising fuel prices over the next year along with

the rent and maintenance costs of the club rooms and hangar. Furthermore, the

installations of transponders, if Class G airspace is no longer adopted, will see our

recreational pilots funding additional costs, along with parking fees at the aerodrome.

For these reasons, it will be best for our club members to relocate to an

alternative GA landing area, in order to maintain sustainability.


3. CONCLUSION

This report has outlined the various perspectives of the stakeholders involved

with the construction of the new aerodrome in Pittsworth. Combining their

recommendations for airspace, it is seen that Class G is most suited for this aerodrome.

Additionally, Class D should be adopted outside of tower hours, as suggested by the

airline manager. These two classes would both be suitable for the general aviation

operations, should they continue at Pittsworth. It is evident that most of the club

members will change aerodromes, due to changes in operating costs, traffic and

associated regulations. Implementation of new regulations will be due to the remote

tower system, which also has on demand ATC services, and then the use of CPDLC

communications, as recommended by the safety regulator and airline manager

respectively. Incorporating the various recommendations of the safety regulator, airline

manager and flying club president will contribute to a safe and sufficient aerodrome, with

intermixing operations.


4. REFERENCE LIST

Airservices Australia. (2014). Air Traffic Control in Training Program. Retrieved from /www.airservicesaustralia.com/careers/air-traffic-controller/air-traffic-control-in-

training-program/

Brandon, J. (2014). Australian Airspace Regulations. Recreational Flying: Flight

planning and navigation. Retrieved from

http://www.recreationalflying.com/tutorials/navigation/airspace.html#octa

Civil Air Australia. (2011). History. Retrieved from http://www.civilair.asn.au/about-us/history

Civil Aviation Safety Authority. (2005). Operational Notes on Non-Directional Beacons (NDB) and Associated Automatic Direction Finding. Retrieved from

www.casa.gov.au/pilots/download/ndb.pdf

Civil Aviation Safety Authority. (2008). Operational Notes on VHF Omni Range

(VOR). Retrieved from http://www.casa.gov.au/pilots/download/VOR.pdf

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). (2010). Aeronautical studies of Alice Springs. Retreived from http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100008/alice_springs_study.pdf

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). (2012, February 4). Australian

Government Commonwealth Law. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes Version 1.8: http://www.comlaw.gov.au/Details/F2012C00095

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). (2014, June .). Preliminary Airspace

Assessment of Brisbane West Wellcamp. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from Civil Aviation Safety Authority: http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100198/bris-west-wellcamp-june2014v1.pdf

Chong, J. (2014, May 27). CASA Finds Airspace Issues for Wellcamp Airport.

Australian Aviation Retrieved from australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/casa-finds-airspace-issues-for-wellcamp-airport/

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). (2005). Retrieved from

http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=6560

Global Trade Media. (2013, December 13). Remote Control: The Remote Tower

Concept. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from Future Airport: http://www.futureairport.com/features/featureremote-control-the-remote-tower-concept-

4157951/

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100198/bris-west-wellcamp-june2014v1.pdf

http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/lib100198/bris-west-wellcamp-june2014v1.pdf

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/casa-finds-airspace-issues-for-wellcamp-airport/

http://australianaviation.com.au/2014/05/casa-finds-airspace-issues-for-wellcamp-airport/

http://www.futureairport.com/features/featureremote-control-the-remote-tower-concept-4157951/

http://www.futureairport.com/features/featureremote-control-the-remote-tower-concept-4157951/


Roberts, C. (2012, March 6). CPDLC Overview [video file]. Retrieved from

http://prezi.com/7erqio0gm3x7/cpdlc-overview/?auth_key=1870e4f4a458fca2c71b97729a7aee28254bf9dc

Saab AB. (2011, March 4). Saab Remote Tower. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gqv8EECMXJM

Saab AB. (2014, June 19). Groundbreaking News for Saab Remote Tower in

Sweden. Retrieved October 2, 2014, from Saab Group:

http://www.saabgroup.com/en/About-Saab/Newsroom/Press-releases--News/2014---6/Groundbreaking-news-for-Saab-Remote-Tower-in-Sweden/

Sita Aero. (2011). Controller Pilot Data Link Communications Implementation.

Retrieved from http://www.sita.aero/file/2092/controller-pilot-data-link-communications-

implementation-position-paper-pdf?sector-id=200

Wellcamp Airport. (2014, . .). Wellcamp Airport FAQ. Retrieved October 3, 2014, from

Brisbane West Wellcamp Airport: http://www.wellcamp.com.au/airport/faq

http://www.wellcamp.com.au/airport/faq


5. APPENDICES

Appendix A: Assumptions

i) Assumption 1:

The wealthy business man funding New Pittsworth Aerodrome wants to keep

costs to a minimum, as such he wants to avoid constructing an air traffic control (ATC)

tower that may need expensive modifications or even relocation in the future.

Justification: Initially, the aerodrome will be handling such a low a volume of flights as

to not require ATC. It is expected in the first few years of operation the aerodrome will

be utilised mainly by fly in fly out mine workers in both Dash-8 and B717 aircraft. These

aircraft hold, respectively, 75 and 125 passengers or an average of 100 passengers.

Initial reports suggest 2000 workers will be moved per week. Once local work forces are

established on rosters there will be closer to 1000 passengers arriving and another 1000

passengers departing each week. Airlines will work with local businesses to implement

appropriate schedules and flights will generally be near capacity both arriving and

departing. Initially there will be an influx of air traffic as new workers flock in from all

over Australia as worksites and businesses open but once settled down using above

approximations, initial traffic will consist of approximately 10-15 flights per week

(allowing for occasional freight-only flights) initially and steadily climbing to over 20

flights per week with the growing local workforce and tourism over the next four years.

ii) Assumption 2:

In order to further reduce costs, after initial opening week interest, the aerodrome

will operate on limited hours such as only on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays.

Justification: Once initial interest has died down and regular services have commenced

the aerodrome will only receive 10-15 flights per week and therefore it is appropriate for

the aerodrome to operate only every second weekday. This will allow a more regular

schedule for maintenance, cleaning etc. with 3-5 arrivals and departures per day. And of

course primarily: reduce costs significantly.


iii) Assumption 3:

The aerodrome will service only flights originating from Australia.

Justification: Initially it is unlikely there will be any demand for international flights to

arrive at New Pittsworth Aerodrome and thusly to further keep costs down, international

flights will not be catered for and customs/border security services will not be available.

It is possible this will be reviewed and changed in the future and so the terminal building

will be designed and built with the possibility to add these in the future.

iv) Assumption 4:

The wealthy business man owns all the surrounding land and has influence over

local road structure and design.

Justification: The runway is required to cater for aircraft ranging in size up to 747

freighters and thusly needs to extend beyond the space available. Golf Course Rd

running south out of Pittsworth will need to be closed and either rerouted or rebuilt as a

tunnel beneath the airstrip. Runway length and direction is further discussed below.


Appendix B: Local wind velocity recordings from as early as 1957


Appendix C: Income Statement for the Flying Club


Appendix D: VTC showing Pittsworth in red


Appendix E: Maps showing new Runway Location

group aviation reportmichellekshiels.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/0/8/... · coverage with two...

Documents