Voices of Reason to return?

[Dick Smith]

Well, this is a rumour network. The rumour is – and I understand it has come from good sources – that one of the Voices of Reason has returned to Australia and is about to be involved in airspace reform.

I reckon this is fantastic. As we know, just about all of my critics on this site loved Voices of Reason. I too support Voices of Reason, especially this post in relation to Class E airspace.

Class E Airspace and United States Practice

We have watched with incredulity at the dangerously naive statements being made on threads in the Australian PPRuNe sites, concerning the operation of Class E airspace. Class E airspace is NOT an unsafe categorization of airspace, and is in fact used safely and effectively in substantial portions of the globe.

EACH AND EVERY transport and passenger carrying aircraft operating in the United States is required to operate for some portion of their flight in designated Class E airspace – effectively between 18,000 feet and the upper limit of Class B, C or D airspace – or the surface for non controlled aerodromes. This equates to over 10,000 passenger-carrying flights per day, every day of the year. The Class E airspace within which they operate is in the so-called most dangerous phase of flight – climb or descent. Your national carrier is no exception.

There are in excess of 150,000 general aviation aircraft operating in the United States, to either the visual or instrument flight rules – many many thousands per day.

There are CONSTANT interactions between IFR passenger carrying aircraft and VFR aircraft on a daily basis – with no hint that this practice is unsafe.

There are countless examples where aircraft provided with routine terminal area instructions whilst still in Class E airspace are routinely provided sequencing descending turn instructions by controllers in one breath, and VFR traffic information in the other.

We agree that Class E airspace is mostly within radar cover in the United States – probably the greater part of 95%. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and where they can, provide traffic information on VFR flights.

Radar coverage is NOT a prerequisite for Class E airspace, and in fact in several cases the Class E airspace linking certain aerodromes to upper airspace is not covered by radar. In that airspace, air traffic controllers positively separate IFR flights from other IFR flights – and as they cannot observe VFR, do not pass traffic unless they know by some other means. That positive IFR-to-IFR separation may, in many cases, be applied on a “one in at a time” basis. The airlines accept that mode of operation.

NOT ONE SINGLE AIRLINE in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

Our observation in relation to the Australian experience has been one of giving proper effect not just to training and education, but also to the cultural change requirements. Pilots need to understand that operating in Class E airspace IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT to the service that they have received in the past – but need to accept that this is a normal way of doing business.

Australian controllers need to STOP being negative, embrace the concept of Class E airspace and to be blunt, get on with it. Controllers in the United States provide services in Class E, without questioning its “safety”, day in and day out, and have done so [either as Class E, or its predecessor], for over 50 years.

NOT ONE SINGLE CONTROLLER in the United States is lobbying for a higher level of service in current Class E areas.

We are concerned that this constant questioning and second-guessing by your pilot and controller fraternity will in fact generate a safety deficiency larger that the problem you are trying to solve. By our estimation, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for the large amount of Class C airspace presently designated in Australia, and subject to the appropriate change management processes we have previously described, you should introduce Class E airspace wherever possible.

Won’t it be fantastic? We will be able to have airline aircraft flying in places like Proserpine getting a full radar air traffic control service – not calling in the blind and hoping they are not running into a mountain which doesn’t have a radio and can’t answer!

[Dick Smith]

Come on-someone must know something.

Or could it be that everyone understands the advantage of upgrading G to E at RPT jet airports that have good radar coverage!

[Dog One]

"We will be able to have airline aircraft flying in places like Proserpine getting a full radar air traffic control service – not calling in the blind and hoping they are not running into a mountain which doesn’t have a radio and can’t answer!"

Why would a modern jet airliner with EGPWS, TCAS, Radar, approach plates, charts depicting the LSA and MORA flying in accordance with their company SOP's be calling in the blind and hoping their safe!

Why is Prosperine unsafe, compared to Broome, Kununnarra, Gove, Argyle, Geraldton, Kalgoorlie and a host of other ports that are serviced by jets without ATC or radar coverage, and vastly more GA VFR traffic.

Are you saying that these jet operations and operators are unsafe??

Do they not utilise CFIT training, CRM training and simulator training to maintain their crews proficiency in such operations?

[Dick Smith]

Dog, Proserpine has good radar coverage and big mountains close to the airport- the other locations you mentioned don't.

CFIT is still the most common way professional pilots kill themselves and their passengers. Thats why class E can help at such locations.

Why not use all safety mitigators that are available?

[The Chaser]

Why would an ATC clearance [even procedural with a whatsit TSAT is it?] not do the job?

When and Why and under who’s watch was YBPN Tower removed?

Remorse, isn’t it an awful word!

[Marvin Martian]

I know who it is. It's John Farnham (You're the Voice and Age of Reason combined)
Sorry....
MM

[le Pingouin]

Sorry Dick, are you asking ATC to provide an approach service? Doesn't fit the SDE model I'm afraid.

You seem to be under the illusion that ATC can concentrate their attention on a single flight & monitor it on approach while paying attention to a screen 500NM in diameter.

[slice]

No reply to Chaser's rhetorical question I see! I guess people here are just tired of so called 'airspace reform' as all it has delivered in the past is a clusterf@@k circus involving the 'enthusiastic amateur'!

[Capn Bloggs]

Won’t it be fantastic?
...when I and my 115 SLFs right behind me smack into a gen-Y non-conformist swanning around in non-radar/ADSB E not talking to anyone (because he doesn't have to) who's forgotten to turn his transponder on.

...when the A380 that has to take evasive action because some VFR clown decides that he wants to track direct to Terry Hills and to @#$% with all the other airspace users.

Stop living in the past, Dick.

:yuk:

[Capn Bloggs]

Won’t it be fantastic?
...when I and my 115 SLFs right behind me smack into a gen-Y non-conformist swanning around in non-radar/ADSB E not talking to anyone (because he doesn't have to) who's forgotten to turn his transponder on.

...when the A380 that has to take evasive action because some VFR clown decides that he wants to track direct to Terry Hills and to @#$% with all the other airspace users.

Stop living in the past, Dick.

CFIT is still the most common way professional pilots kill themselves and their passengers.

No it's not. LOC now is.

:yuk:

[Dick Smith]

Bloggs' sounds to me as if you are one of the people who VOR is refering to who make "dangeriously naieve statements" about class E.

Do you really want to keep flying in "dirt road" class G or would you prefer the airspace be upgraded to "transponder mandatory" (introduced by yours truely) class E ?

[GaryGnu]

Dick,

Go your hardest. Class E down to near ground level around aerodromes where it is currently Class G would be great. However, don't ever expect anyone to listen to your bleatings about unecessary costs killing jobs anymore.

Just leave the Class C CTA steps on top of D and C CTRs untouched. You know too well that it costs the same to provide the ATS required of Class C in those steps as it does E. That combined with the fact it does not cost your VFR constituency to transit Class C en-route should be enough for you and your new found economic rationalism to leave it all well enough alone.

I note that you keep recycling the single post from VOR that favoured your arguments. If I recall correctly it was totally out of character with every other post that identity ever made.

If one of the people that composed that identity feel stongly enough to come and contribute to the administration of Australian airspace I for one will wlecome him/her. I would strongly encourage him/her to use the expertise they have to resist the counter productive inputs you have on Australian airpsace.

Whenever I see your posts I constantly recall the vow of a DOTARS (as it was then) official who vowed that never again would decisions about the classification of Australian Airspace be left to people from outside the various aviation agencies of Australia. I strongly encourage VOR, whoever he/she maybe to uphold that vow.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Do you really want to keep flying in "dirt road" class G or would you prefer the airspace be upgraded to "transponder mandatory" (introduced by yours truely) class E ?
I really do not know why I bother ("there is no point arguing with @#$%^&*%", Bloggs!") but:

Dirt Rd G? Rubbish, and you know it. Long before ICAO/The Septics came up with alphabet airspace, we had an appropriate service standard OCTA that has been upgraded as time has gone on (apart from your trashing of FS).

Mandatory transponders in E? You only agreed because industry flatly refused to have anything to do with your/yanks non-sensical concept of high-performance jet crews looking out the friggin' window for the GA VFR jockies who think they own the airspace, off freq and off radar. That concept may have been OK 40 years ago but not now. The FIRST time a jet gets a real scare in your Class E airspace, or worse, there is a midair, it will be shut down on the spot. As for claiming Class E will save aeroplanes from running into hills, pull the other one. A pretty lame diversion from the real reason for your continued push for E: so you can fly straight through the steps around Sydney going to your patch showing "the bird" to all and sundry who may dare get in your way ("I hate it when it does that").

:*

[ZappBrannigan]

Forgive me, I can't throw any meaningful opinion into the discussion on the pros and cons of Class E airspace as I haven't been flying in it long enough, but I do have a reasonable amount of IFR experience, and I'd like to know - how in any way will airspace being Class E/G/whatever make any difference to the risk of CFIT? I'm referring to the following, and subsequent posts:

not calling in the blind and hoping they are not running into a mountain which doesn’t have a radio and can’t answer!I have never, and would like to say never will, be flying in a situation where my terrain avoidance is based on "calling in the blind and hoping I don't fly into a mountain". Traffic avoidance/separation may be one issue, but how is the chance of flying into a mountain (i.e. non-adherence to IFR and instrument approach procedures) applicable to any argument? Sorry if I'm missing something.

[peuce]

Zapp,

Dick is referring to Controllers being able to monitor your terrain clearance ... if the airspace is designated Class E ... and there is radar coverage, of course ( as is the case at Proserpine supposedly).

As most people seem to agree ... that is a great idea, but who will pay for the extra ATC training, facilities and staffing ... and what about the additional transponder requirements for VFR ... and what about being vectored by ATC ... into a radar-invisible, non power equipped lightie?


All valid questions that should be answered ... first.

[Freewheel]

Dick,

Like Zapp, I have very limited exposure to class E, so perhaps you can share a little background;

You've previously mentioned the costs of services threatening jobs. I presume that operating class E will cost more money than class G?

I'm well aware of the "false economy" principle, but I'm having trouble picturing how implementing class E, on balance, is a justifiable expense bringing a substantive improvement in safety that, for example, ADS-B or it's descendants would be?

[b_sta]

Well, we all know that ASA is just overflowing with ATC ready and willing for a class E conversion, so where's the feasibility for all this in the first place?

[QSK?]

Dick:

So what is this statement:...not calling in the blind and hoping they are not running into a mountain which doesn’t have a radio and can’t answer!

if its not a "....dangeriously naieve statements...etc"

Mind the spellin'!

[Lookleft]

Dick-No aircraft fitted with EGPWS has been involved in a CFIT. As far as I am aware CASA still hasn't mandated that all tubine powered aircraft capable of being fitted with 6 seats or more be fitted with EGPWS. This would bring it into line with the FAA and Europe.

[Jabawocky]

..........And make the fitting of Mode C Transponders MANDATORY for anyone flying with in the typical approach cone of RPT jet/Turbo props.....define that as necessary,........maybe 15nm or whatever deemed appropriate.

[ZappBrannigan]

Dick is referring to Controllers being able to monitor your terrain clearance ... if the airspace is designated Class E ... and there is radar coverage, of course ( as is the case at Proserpine supposedly).Thanks...

It may increase safety, but I still think it's a huge jump to go from "marginal increase in terrain awareness and avoidance" to "flying blind into mountains". Isn't this why we have very strict published IAPs? And all larger aircraft have GPWS, accurate RNAV systems etc. - I'm not saying a level of radar control will not increase safety at these aerodromes, but I do take exception to some assumption that because a controller is not pushing me around the scope that I'm constantly rolling the dice with death and potentially "flying blind" into mountains. If I fly into a mountain OCTA, it's because I didn't fly the procedure accurately, not because somebody didn't tell me when to turn.

[GaryGnu]

Zap (Great name BTW),

Spot on. If you follow Dicks musings on airspace issues you will see that he has multiple agendas running and inevitably gets two or three mixed up at once. Confusing himself and others.

I am waiting for him to revive the old TCAS instead of ADS-B in Class E topic.:\

[Dog One]

One wonders why he has a paranoid interest in the airspace at Proserpine?

[ferris]

Because it fits his argument. Too bad about all the other aerodromes that don't (the ones that don't have radar coverage).

[Dick Smith]

The Chaser, regarding the Proserpine Tower, yes the airspace was changed from controlled to uncontrolled and the tower de-manned when I was Chairman. This was because it did not meet the FAA establishment and disestablishment formula. At the same time the Mt Isa tower was closed because it did not meet the same formula.

At a later date, after I had finished my term, the Wagga tower was closed because it did not meet the establishment and disestablishment formula.

However what you are missing out is that when the Proserpine Tower went, it was to be replaced with Class E airspace. Have a look at the AMATS document which was approved when I was Chairman. This would mean that from that period until today, a full control service would be given from the Centre for all aircraft which were in IMC. It is all very logical.

That hasn’t happened.

I also point out that even when the tower was manned, because it had such colossal airspace – I think to 12,500 feet – and no radar rated controllers, it was completely useless in helping to prevent a controlled flight into terrain.

For those who say they are so professional and so capable that they would never make a mistake and have a controlled flight into terrain, I point out that the Flight Safety Foundation’s first two mitigators for controlled flight into terrain are firstly radar, and secondly air traffic control. These people have done the research.

Anyone who doesn’t want the extra back up of radar when in IMC in a mountainous area is crazy in my view.

[Dick Smith]

Freewheel, there are some locations where changing the airspace from Class G to Class E will have no measurable increase in staffing levels. In fact, when you have only one or two IFR aircraft per day to a particular location, operating Class E can require fewer staff than Class G. This is because Class G must give a traffic information service at all times, in all frequency loadings, whereas in Class E, the ATC can ask a pilot to remain on the ground.

Before everyone starts crying about the enormous cost of this, there is no measurable cost. If it is Class G airspace and you have someone shooting the approach in your direction, and you are going to depart in the same direction, what do you do? You remain on the ground until they are visual.

ZappBrannigan, in relation to a controlled flight into terrain, you say:

Isn't this why we have very strict published IAPs?

Zapp, I think you will find that all the most recent controlled flight into terrain accidents by professional pilots around the world – even including Lockhart River – occurred because the pilot did not comply with the “very strict published IAPs.”

What I am saying is that if we have spent $350 million on radar, and if it has a LSA/MSA altitude warning system built in, why not use it? The only real change in training – say, at a place like Benalla where 6 people were killed – is to get the pilot to call when visual, and have the air traffic controller turn off the alarm at that time.

Then again, a professional pilot killing himself and 5 others isn’t that much, is it? Let’s wait until we kill 120 people and then make the obvious changes.

Ferris, I agree with you. Seeing some airports don’t have radar coverage to low levels, we should not use the advantages of radar at the ones that do – very logical.

[ZappBrannigan]

Zapp, I think you will find that all the most recent controlled flight into terrain accidents by professional pilots around the world – even including Lockhart River – occurred because the pilot did not comply with the “very strict published IAPs.”

What I am saying is that if we have spent $350 million on radar, and if it has a LSA/MSA altitude warning system built in, why not use it? The only real change in training – say, at a place like Benalla where 6 people were killed – is to get the pilot to call when visual, and have the air traffic controller turn off the alarm at that time.

Then again, a professional pilot killing himself and 5 others isn’t that much, is it? Let’s wait until we kill 120 people and then make the obvious changes.Dick, your points are reasonable, and as I said before, I am not claiming there will not be an increase in safety. I even admit that I don't know enough about the radar services we're talking about here to know what will be improved and what won't - I've had very little exposure to Class E as an IFR pilot, and you may be very correct with regard to increases in terrain awareness that may save one aircraft a year. And we agree with each other, CFIT occurs when pilots do not follow the published procedures accurately, or at all (in the case of the Chieftain near Mt Hotham a few years back).

I still claim a world of difference, though, between this and the assumption that IFR pilots are "flying blind" without a control service. From your original post, "calling in the blind and hoping they are not running into a mountain which doesn’t have a radio and can’t answer!" implies that it's down to little more than luck every time an IFR aircraft lands at a Class G aerodrome with significant terrain and IMC down to minima. Crashing into mountains on approach is a failure to fly the IAP correctly, and pilots not complying with IAPs is not an airspace problem, it's a pilot problem (and ultimately a passenger problem too). In short, this seems like a very tabloid comment. If it has been worded differently, I probably wouldn't have noticed it.

I have never "hoped" I wasn't flying into a mountain - I've always been damn sure I wasn't. I've never flown to Proserpine, but I assure you even if I was flying an IFR C172 into there in the soup, it wouldn't be down to hope then either.

[peuce]

Zapp, well said :D

However, I would imagine Dick would say that having the airspace controlled would provide a backup .. if, for whatever reason, a pilot didn't follow the IAPs, and got himself close to some granite.

Then the question is... is it worth the extra costs ( and there are extra costs, no matter how much Dick says there are not) to have that backup?

Thinking outside the square a bit now ... is terrain monitoring part of the "Flight Following" service? If so, could not a pilot ask for that when approaching Proserpine? That would provide the terrain clearance ... without "inconveniencing" other airspace users by establishing CTA.

Everyone's happy ... and no extra costs or requirements.

[Dick Smith]

Don't tell anyone but one of the Voices of Reason was seen at yesterdays ASTRA meeting!

[le Pingouin]

Peuce, that level of terrain monitoring is definitely not part of flight following - you forget you likely aren't the only aircraft in a fairly large chuck of sky.

Sectors are configured to provide a certain type of service & you can't suddenly introduce an approach service into a sector that's not designed for it. Approach controllers work on small range screens for a reason.

A controller can't just zoom in & monitor your particular aircraft for the duration of your approach while ignoring the rest of his sector for more than a few seconds at a time in an ad hoc manner.

[peuce]

Okay ... understood.

So what about if it was Class E airspace at Proserpine ... how would the Class E Controller (presumably working a geographically large Sector) monitor instrument approaches ? Seems to me he would have the same problem as you explained above. Seems the only way would be to put in an (additional)Approach service.

Have I got that correct?

[Dick Smith]

Of course, a class E approach service from an en-route controller could not possible work.

Pilots in the US who perform an approach from an en-route controller are imagining it.

The US must secretly have thousands of TRACONS that they don't tell anyone about.

Keep your minds closed until another accident like Benalla happens but next time with a far greater loss of life.

Then we will actually check the facts.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, give me the appropriate training, equipment & sector & I'll provide an approach service anywhere you want. But until that is all in place it ain't gonna work. That's nothing about closed minds & all about practicalities.

Maybe you can enlighten me as to the dimensions of a typical US sector that is providing an approach service in E.

[Dick Smith]

Owen Stanley, that is the same old furphy:

The radar coverage required for Dicks airspace DOES NOT EXIST

I will say it again. We don’t have radar coverage over the Simpson Desert because there are no mountains for planes to fly into.

Let’s look at the airspace between Sydney and Melbourne. We are told it is one of the busiest air routes in the world. Therefore there must be the economies of scale, just as in the USA, to provide an approach service.

Radar coverage in this small area is as good as anything in the USA.

Whilst Owen Stanley is saying it is all impossible, le Pingouin is correctly saying that with the appropriate training, equipment and sectors, enroute controllers can do an approach service – no doubt as in the USA.

It just so happens that we have had two controlled flight into terrain crashes by professional pilots in the Sydney to Melbourne airspace. That is, at Benalla and at Mt Hotham. In both cases, the ATSB showed that the radar trace went virtually down to when the aircraft hit the mountain. In both cases, the aircraft were well away from the instrument approach point, and were over 1,000 feet below the LSA/MSA.

What you are telling me is that even in the busiest airspace in Australia, with undoubtedly the best radar coverage (i.e. airspace which is comparable in traffic density to the USA, and comparable with radar coverage in the USA) we cannot provide the service that is provided to every single instrument approach in the USA? That is, a Class E control service to within 700 feet of the ground.

Owen Stanley, there is simply no way ADS-B can help. If we keep uncontrolled airspace below 8,500 feet, a controller won’t be able to give any control. As explained at Benalla and Mount Hotham, we had good radar coverage (it would be no better if we fitted everything with ADS-B) but no service was provided by ATC to help prevent these horrific accidents with loss of life.

Remember, Class E airspace when IMC exists is equivalent to Class A. ADS-B will be a total waste of money unless we upgrade the airspace so a control service can be given. Surely this is obvious.

[compressor stall]

Dick,

I am not sure how the use of the Mt Hotham accident helps your cause. IIRC the pilot was scud running and would most likely have already called visual, thus in your own words "the air traffic controller [would have already] turn[ed] off the alarm".

[Zoomy]

Compressor stall, you beat me to it.

Dick, whilst not disagreeing with your enthusiasm with regard to safety. I do believe you are confusing the issue.

In a lot of cases, pilots become complacent with the technology involved. This has resulted in some tragic losses (CFIT). Before we start looking at airspace and telling people they are "safe as houses the controller will look after you," we need to instill a more solid traditional grounding in monitoring the flight path of the aircraft. After all this is the Pilots ultimate responsibility, not that of a controller.

Making change for the sake of change, and in particular recent changes and the way they have been implemented have been more hazardous than you would believe.

We will in this country get to where you see we should be now. But the the changes you seek whilst increasing safety only slightly will be offset by the increase in costs to the average pilot who will then try and cut costs. And please don't tell me there will be no increase in costs, because we both know how Govts work.

[le Pingouin]

Whilst Owen Stanley is saying it is all impossible, le Pingouin is correctly saying that with the appropriate training, equipment and sectors, enroute controllers can do an approach service – no doubt as in the USA.


No, OS & I are in agreeance. As we don't have appropriate training, equipment or sectors it is currently not possible.

[Dick Smith]

Compressor stall, good on you. Think of any reason that results in us never moving forward. You claim that the pilot would have been dishonest and would most likely have called visual, even when he was in cloud. This could be the case but most pilots are honest and would not do this. Shouldn’t they get the protection of Class E?

It looks to me as if those who resist change, and have their minds set in concrete, will come up with every individual reason so we can’t even try one airport (let’s say Proserpine) with Class E to see if it actually could work.

I have a feeling eventually when we do this, we will find that air traffic controllers and pilots will claim that it actually works a lot better than they ever thought it would. Such is resistance to change.

[ZappBrannigan]

Compressor stall, good on you. Think of any reason that results in us never moving forward. You claim that the pilot would have been dishonest and would most likely have called visual, even when he was in cloud.Dick, assuming we're all talking about the same Mt Hotham incident, involving the Chieftain - from memory, he basically set the GPS up to fly 5nm left of track, where he knew he'd be overhead a particular road, then would slowly let down in IMC until he became visual, picked up the road, which he'd then follow visually at a suicidally low height into the aerodrome. On the fateful day, apparently there was next to no gap between the cloud base and the trees. In short, this incident really isn't an argument for anything except cowboys shouldn't be issued with CPLs, it was so far removed from any safe, legal or legitimate IFR practice.

Someone correct me if I'm remembering this one wrong.

[Dog One]

ZappBrannigan - you are 100% correct in your summary.

[compressor stall]

Dick,

You have misunderstood the motivation for my post. I did not, "Claim that the pilot would have been dishonest and would most likely have called visual, even when he was in cloud."

I said that he was most likely scudrunning. This is not being dishonest. It is a procedure that - as I am sure you are well aware - is used to get below the cloud base early and remain visual below the cloud and MSA/MDA.

My point remains that no matter what alphabet airspace he was in, radar or no radar he still would have hit the trees. Controllers do not monitor terrain clearance for IFR "visual" aircraft....

I am not arguing against your proposal Dick. I am just pointing out to you that if you build your case on flawed logic and irrelevant examples your whole mission and case, is undermined.

Regards

CS

[ferris]

Anyone else getting sick of repeating over and again, that "this can be done, but it will cost money"? Increasing the ATC workload assigned to IFR flights- that currently receive a traffic service- to a more labour-intensive surveillance activity costs money, whether Dick conveniently ignores this or not. Even if the TAAATS automatics are employed, it still requires many more controllers. On some threads Dick argues that even the tiniest increase in cost- even for something like ADS-B fitment (which will actually have benefits for those that fit it) will cost pilot jobs and drive some operators to the wall. Yet on threads like this he just ignores any increase in costs, for what can only be described as nebulous benefit, without any care or hindrance.
I agree that an increased surveillance remit may have prevented something like the Mt. Hotham accident. A pilot being watched is less likely to go 'cowboy'. That's just human nature. However, radar is not going to be the tool that enables that level of surveillance. ADS-B may.

Fundamentally, Dick still doesn't understand that controllers need to be controlling the activity. Monitoring is a different task.

[multime]

This isn,t about (The Voice)
Just another Dick rant.
With a large slice of negativaty,destroying GA.
Again
M

[max1]

Dick,

We did this to death on another thread, and you finally conceded that it would take more controllers and upgraded infrastructure to achieve.

It is about infrastructure and controller numbers.
You talk about controllers 'monitoring' approaches in IMC. At what point does the controller 'insert themselves' into the cockpit.
By their very nature these approaches increase a pilots workload exponentionally. They would be done in marginal weather. The mantra is 1.Aviate, 2.Navigate, 3.Communicate.
I would put it to you that a busy pilot/s would be more interested in the Aviate Navigate during an IMC approach than Communicate , and rightly so.

Does the controller leap in the moment an alarm goes off and possibly distract the pilot in a critical phase of flight. In the current sector configuration, a controller may have numerous airports under their jurisdiction for which IMC approaches are published. It stands to reason that if the weather is bad, it is usually not confined to just that one small area.

Which alarm, of the many we have to monitor, has precedence. If the pilot considers themselves to busy with 1 and 2, 3 may be neglected. Controllers will get alarm fatigue quite quickly. We have numerous alarms going off all day. We currently have the Short Term Conflict Alarm (STCA) spuriously going off many times a day.

How many controllers does the mainland USA have for roughly the same geographic region as Australia? How many does Australia have? Answer is less than a 1/10th of the USA.

You can't just reconfigure airspace and manpower on a daily basis to fit in with weather patterns. You also can't positively control and/or monitor the areas of airspace you would like to see brought in, with the numbers of controllers we have in Australia.

As has been said here again and again and again, what you want is achievable if you are happy with the cost to increase the numbers of controllers and the means of surveillance. We are talking big and recurring bikkies here and someone will have to pay for it.