Aussie Andy: Remarkably identical posts to others that have been asked and answered in the various incarnations of this thread. Trying again;
yes there is surveillance radar coverage for the IFR traffic in this high density area of southern England, as there is around Sydney - yet we get the alarmist cr&p above (back a couple of pages) such as talk of the dangers of "exposing a B747 on descent into Sydney"...
Where exactly in England does International traffic descend in class E? Heathrow? Manchester? Where are the ILS paths in class E with no radar coverage, used by jet traffic? Where are the holding stacks in class E? Lambeth? Are aircraft actively discouraged from using the radio there?
GB has LARS, RIS, RAS etc all over the show (along with a large number of other differences to ICAO). Is this 'world's best practice'? If yes, why doesn't the U.S. do it? If not, why does a mighty nation like Britain accept less than 'world's best practice'? Has GA in Britain vanished?
"Australian aviation faces difficult times. The once thriving market for private flying is in decline, with flying schools closing as fewer people take up aviation as a recreational activity."
Is the decline due to the airspace design, as inferred here? Or is GA in Aus in decline because of the
CHARGING REGIME (where aviation is treated as another tax revenue source- profit from ATC, sell off public airports then charge for their use etc. etc. Not to mention the demographic change. The city drift is powerful!)
And of course here in the UK / Europe - as elsewhere - there is not radar coverage everywhere! It depends on the level of traffic!
The comparison is invalid (and a reason why NAS is flawed). The US doesn't have places served by the huge variety of aircraft to such low density areas that oz does. We don't have the population to support the infrastructure, and have developed our own system over time that strikes a balance between safety and cost. DTI, talking on the radio etc are cheap safety enhancements.
.
And eventually such technology will enable pilots in areas of relatively low traffic density self-separate - which would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Eventually, ADS-B will be a perfect enhancement for aus. One day. That day is not Nov 27 2003. The new system is being introduced from the standpoint of a private, amateur pilot with enough clout to change part of the nation's infrastructure, just so that he doesn't have to play. And it's being done HIS WAY.
This seems to be having the apparently calculated effect of needlessly alarming the Singaporean public from spending their money in Australia:
Why is this "needlessly alarming"? If the Sinaporeans are fully informed about what's going on, then choose not to come, is that Ted Lang's fault, or Dick Smith's? Get angry with the right person. Or are you from the "what they don't know won't hurt them school", treating the 'great unwashed' with the disdain they deserve? Did Ted say anything untrue?
How will this outcome benefit Australian Air Traffic Control Association's constituents?
It won't. That is not the aim of the statement. How will standing idly by and watching this disgrace happen, benfit the constituents? The reasonable method has been tried, and been pushed aside by the NAS juggernaut. I don't blame them for taking the gloves off. Not long to go! What would a midair between a Singapore 747 and a lightie do for the tourist industry? All the 'doomsayers' could sit back and say "I told you so". That would be so much better, wouldn't it? Wouldn't it?
Perhaps for balance he should also suggest that Miss Lim also avoids flying to places such as the US where she will suffer similar "dangers"!?
Perhaps you'd care to point out where that might be? Once again, aus IS NOT GETTING THE US SYSTEM. The US dont operate their system the way it's written in the books (because the controllers do extra things that are not required, but they consider essential- ask them). Oz and the US are chalk and cheese. There is very little that is similar actually, in terms of airspace usage. I won't bore you with a lot of technical stuff, but in oz there are fewer controllers per movement. Those controllers look at much bigger pieces of sky because of lighter traffic density. An ATC talking to those jets on descent into a capital airport might typically have his screen set at a 425NM range. A US ATC doing the same sort of job might have his screen set to 45NM. Can you appreciate the difference in spotting conflicts with unidentified, not talking VFRs based on the screen size alone? (That, of course, relies on them squawking correctly, due to the lack of primary radar in aus).
At the end of the day, this is about money. And that has very little to do with the airspace design. Fix the
charging system . If we got the US charging system, then the 'reformers' might have some credibility.