Post by flyjoe180 on Feb 22, 2008 12:09:31 GMT 12
A collision between a helicopter and light plane above the uncontrolled Paraparaumu airport on Sunday has provided more weight to the debate on whether Gisborne Airport needs air traffic controllers.
"Being a pilot myself, I think I can say the accident would have been much more unlikely to happen at a controlled airport," said Eastland Group CEO Matt Todd.
Gisborne Airport has in the vicinity of 25,000 movements a year. A movement is a take-off or landing of an aircraft.
"Air New Zealand has continued to ask for Eastland Group's support to get the air traffic control service at Gisborne Airport removed."
Air New Zealand argues that the cost of keeping the control tower operational contributes to the high price of air fares when flying to and from Gisborne.
Mr Todd said the Eastland Group's position was that, while recognising that the airways service costs money, the removal of air traffic control at Gisborne would not materially reduce ticket prices that people pay to travel in and out of Gisborne.
"Yet it would increase the probability of a midair event such as the tragedy over Paraparaumu."
"There is traffic avoidance technology that can be fitted to aircraft, but this technology is neither 100 percent reliable, nor are aircraft required to have such equipment fitted. When aircraft of different sizes and speeds are converging on or diverging from an airport, our view is that a manned control tower is the best and safest way of providing separation between aircraft," he said.
Air Gisborne pilot John Reid would prefer to see air traffic control remain at Gisborne Airport.
"As long as you realise that you have to pay for it. Air traffic controllers don't guarantee there won't be a collision."
If the airport did lose its air traffic controllers it would mean greater delays on a lot of flights, he said.
"It would be a degraded service. There would be no centralised overall monitoring of aircraft around the airport. Overseas there are far busier airports than Gisborne that don't have air traffic control."Having air traffic controllers did increase the safety factor but at a low-density airport like Gisborne it was probably only slightly increased, Mr Reid said.
Mr Todd said, if asked the question, he believed the travelling public would be happy to continue paying for the air traffic control service.
"We remain open-minded about this and accept that technology may ultimately provide a solution -- but we are not there yet and safety must be the priority," he said.
"We have not been approached officially by anyone and nothing would happen in a hurry," said Civil Aviation Authority communications manager Bill Sommer.
The Civil Aviation Authority would need to undertake an aeronautical survey looking at the types of movements, including the mix between instrument flight and visual flight, he said.
In Gisborne's case the mix of airport operations includes helicopter flights, top dressing flights, regular transport flights and training flights.
www.gisborneherald.co.nz/Default.aspx?s=3&s1=2&id=7ab74238b0ef40ebaa178bd084fcb152
"Being a pilot myself, I think I can say the accident would have been much more unlikely to happen at a controlled airport," said Eastland Group CEO Matt Todd.
Gisborne Airport has in the vicinity of 25,000 movements a year. A movement is a take-off or landing of an aircraft.
"Air New Zealand has continued to ask for Eastland Group's support to get the air traffic control service at Gisborne Airport removed."
Air New Zealand argues that the cost of keeping the control tower operational contributes to the high price of air fares when flying to and from Gisborne.
Mr Todd said the Eastland Group's position was that, while recognising that the airways service costs money, the removal of air traffic control at Gisborne would not materially reduce ticket prices that people pay to travel in and out of Gisborne.
"Yet it would increase the probability of a midair event such as the tragedy over Paraparaumu."
"There is traffic avoidance technology that can be fitted to aircraft, but this technology is neither 100 percent reliable, nor are aircraft required to have such equipment fitted. When aircraft of different sizes and speeds are converging on or diverging from an airport, our view is that a manned control tower is the best and safest way of providing separation between aircraft," he said.
Air Gisborne pilot John Reid would prefer to see air traffic control remain at Gisborne Airport.
"As long as you realise that you have to pay for it. Air traffic controllers don't guarantee there won't be a collision."
If the airport did lose its air traffic controllers it would mean greater delays on a lot of flights, he said.
"It would be a degraded service. There would be no centralised overall monitoring of aircraft around the airport. Overseas there are far busier airports than Gisborne that don't have air traffic control."Having air traffic controllers did increase the safety factor but at a low-density airport like Gisborne it was probably only slightly increased, Mr Reid said.
Mr Todd said, if asked the question, he believed the travelling public would be happy to continue paying for the air traffic control service.
"We remain open-minded about this and accept that technology may ultimately provide a solution -- but we are not there yet and safety must be the priority," he said.
"We have not been approached officially by anyone and nothing would happen in a hurry," said Civil Aviation Authority communications manager Bill Sommer.
The Civil Aviation Authority would need to undertake an aeronautical survey looking at the types of movements, including the mix between instrument flight and visual flight, he said.
In Gisborne's case the mix of airport operations includes helicopter flights, top dressing flights, regular transport flights and training flights.
www.gisborneherald.co.nz/Default.aspx?s=3&s1=2&id=7ab74238b0ef40ebaa178bd084fcb152
