Extract from ATSB Report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=507
With regard to the use of direct tracking, the Airservices investigation noted that the route structure was designed to segregate traffic where conflicts may occur and that to some extent direct tracking could reduce the separation assurance provided by the route structure. Had the two aircraft operated on their respective planned routes it was estimated that they would have crossed about 50 NM south of Townsville and that their descent profiles would have resulted in a vertical distance of 16,000 ft between them. The investigation also estimated that the difference in track length between the planned and actual routes was 1 NM. Thus, the efficiencies achieved by the provision of direct tracking were minimal compared with the increased risk to aircraft associated with the reduction in separation assurance.
AsA love to spout this occurrence as proving that direct tracking causes incidents. It probably also stops a lot more, but where's the proof? Without proof, there will be no change.
Night Watch, direct tracking
is available but due to the management directive it squarely lies on the controller who gives it away if anything goes wrong ... and they will make examples of people to prove a point. And yet some still give it away.
The most frustrating thing at our end apart from having our hands tied is when an aircraft asks for direct tracking, you (rightfully) deny it, and then as soon as he calls the next sector he gets given the world. Then the pilot thinks we're just trying to screw him over.
You will find that the majority of controllers want to provide a better service, but don't want to risk their career for it (can you blame them?) ... and not just with direct tracking
It doesn't help either when the Wx diversions hit big time and everyone is pointing at each other anyway. What to the bean counters have to say about that?