Avalon Airport
Dick Smith's letter to Peter Cromarty 30 November 2007
By Dick Smith
Apr 28, 2008, 12:43

30 November 2007

Mr Peter Cromarty

General Manager

Office of Airspace Regulation

Civil Aviation Safety Authority

GPO Box 2005

CANBERRA  ACT  2601

Dear Peter

The meeting on Monday 26 November 2007 was a disaster. 

You had stated to me in your letter of 19 October 2007 that we would be discussing the issues outlined in my letter to you dated 25 September 2007.  Despite this, your people were completely unprepared.  I did have a glance at a sheet which seemed to have one general item on it.

During the meeting you mentioned to that you had placed on your website a safety study that had been completed by the Office of Airspace Regulation for Avalon Tower.  I have looked at that study – in my view it is a sham.

From your wide experience around the world, you would know that no other country has 1 million passenger movements at an airport without local air traffic control.  Why then are you risking the lives of Australian passengers this way?

I have explained to you numerous times that Airservices Australia had written reports which did not properly look at the cost and benefit of manning the tower at Avalon.  There were high hopes that by moving the responsibility for airspace regulation to CASA, the financial incentive that was affecting Airservices decision making would not continue.

It appears that there has been no change.  For example, your study does not even mention the cost of manning the tower at Avalon – which I understand to be about $350 per hour.  Instead of mentioning that there are over 1 million passenger movements per year, your study looks at the number of aircraft movements.  This is deceptive.

Your report is subjective.  For example, it claims that a radar service is provided at Avalon.  By law, an aircraft flying at Avalon must be on the CTAF frequency.  This means that pilots cannot receive a radar service – especially if the pilot is transmitting to another aircraft in the CTAF at the time.

Your report makes claims about the low level of radar coverage at Avalon Airport.  It is well known that there is no transponder requirement at Avalon Airport, and, to the best of my knowledge, the primary radar coverage has never been accurately measured.  Some people claim that it will work at 500 feet, however from my experience, at certain times non-transponder equipped aircraft at 1,000 feet are not visible on the Melbourne radar.

You would know from your wide experience that no country in the world has ever attempted to run an airport with large passenger jets but without air traffic control, and instead relying on a primary radar based service over 45 km away.

Have you looked into your personal liability in relation to this?  I would have thought that you would be held responsible.  Have you discussed with the insurance provider for CASA the fact that you are allowing this operation to go ahead without the relevant cost and benefit study?

I know you are going to look at something next year.  That is what is always stated by people who delay any change.  Next year becomes the year after, and then the year after that, whilst the lives of Australian passengers are unnecessarily being risked.

On 25 September 2007 I sent you the attached email sending details on the FAA Establishment and Discontinuance Criteria (which had been used for over a decade in Australia) and said:

“I look forward to your urgent advice as to whether you are actually doing this study.”

I even offered to cover the cost of performing this study if you had a budgeting problem.

You wrote back to me on 26 September with an email covering a lot of bureaucratic gobbledygook stating that you:

“… should be able to complete an expeditious assessment of Avalon operations by the end of this month.”

Peter, please look at these emails carefully and consider why you have never come up with a proper explanation on why the establishment and disestablishment formula has not been used.  This is a serious issue.

I explained to you that I will travel to Hawaii next week (at my own expense) to assist the Avalon Airport owners to consider the Government's present policy for Class D towers at airports similar to Avalon.  You came out with the most extraordinary statement, with words to the effect that “it is up to the operators of Avalon Airport to propose to CASA what they should do in relation to manning the tower.” 

It is my understanding that CASA is responsible for air safety for the Australian public.  How would it be in the interest of a commercial business to propose to you that they should spend more money in complying with extra safety requirements when the regulator does not require the improvement? 

It looks to me as if you will continue the system where no decisions are ever made for which anyone can be held accountable – i.e. always get someone else to make decisions.  This only works until people die.  Unfortunately I'm sure this will happen shortly because of the absolute negligence of both Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority in relation to Avalon Airport.

I put you on notice.  You will be held responsible for the inevitable accident that will happen at Avalon because the necessary safety decisions are not made. 

Regards

Dick Smith