Old 13th Mar 2020, 02:52
  #462 (permalink)  
Sunfish
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,318
I don’t know what the issue was but I’m not making it up. They asked for a range and bearing from the ARP. The excuse was as I stated. This was some years ago.

Sorry for the gratuitous insult, but VFR pilots get that regularly from the likes of Bloggs.

The argument seems to go around in circles.

1. Class E doesn’t provide enough separation between VFR aircraft and IFR and VFR jets.

2. Then change ATC arrangements to make class E work.

3. But that would cost money.

4. Make the airspace class C.

5. But that would cost money.

return to step 1.

In addition, GA has been forced to spend money on ADS-B, and VFR and RAA encouraged to do likewise. Yet it appears to offer zero safety benefit. I’m beginning to think that the whole ADSB mess was an exercise in Airservices saving money, not as advertised, to increase safety at all.

Both aircraft involved should have had working ADSB OUT. We were told this was to improve safety. Fitment was mandatory at great expense to owners. Yet Airservices says they don’t use ADSB and wouldn’t have had a clue that this accident was about to happen because they didn’t have ADSB reception at ground level at Mangalore. Yet a bunch of amateurs with $150 units covered Mangalore and you could see the crash developing on flightradar24.

If amateurs could see it, why couldn’t Airservices? Why did Airservices mandate ADSB if it produces no safety benefit at aerodromes where the majority of collisions occur?

Heres a suggestion. Let’s outsource ATC to Flightradar24 and do away with expensive Airservices and their useless technology.
Sunfish is offline