Workload; Separation vs Traffic Information
ATC providing separation vs giving traffic information.
Once upon a long time ago, Airservices had a project named AMATS - Automation and Modernisation of Air Traffic Services.
It involved providing some automation of the flight data processing systems to take over from punched paper tape driven teletype machines, automated information for radar displays, new displays and etc etc.
But to do this kind of stuff it is necessary to analyse what is done and what is to be done and by whom - machine or human.
In those days we had a service called Flight Service and one called Air Traffic Control.
Consider the task of either one of these folk - seriously, follow this line of thought like a flowchart........
Each person has to consider every aircraft in his sector (block) of airspace and decide if their known position and their known trajectory will bring them into conflict.
No? Good, start again.
Yes? In the case of ATC make a decision on the standard form of separation to be provided (vertical, lateral, longitudinal etc) and issue instructions to achieve that - get readbacks.
In the case of FS, tell each pilot the nature of the traffic that concerns her. Each pilot independently decides what to do about it.... nothing, change level, divert, anything at all - and maybe they tell the FSO.
Now the problem starts: For each reply the FSO gets, he now has to consider every aircraft in his sector and again decide if the new level or trajectory proposed will resolve or will cause another conflict
And then advise the aircraft concerned . repeat!
In the vicinity of a busy aerodrome this process can be extensive and rather uncertain because nobody really has a good understanding of what each other is doing. The FSO had the harder and more complex job back then. You hear me Ex-FSO Griffo??
The conclusion is clear; the ATC issuing a positive instruction (or two) can ensure standard separation is achieved and the situation is resolved more rapidly and more accurately than it is by the FSO.
This analysis was NOT undertaken with the view of getting rid of the Flight Service discipline; it was undertaken to determine how to provide each ATC/FSO with the information they needed to do their job in the most efficient and accurate manner.
(New radar displays, consoles with some automation etc)
BUT the result was indeed the abolition of FS in its previous form. Management saw cost savings!
The decision was taken that in fact the ATC had the exact same traffic "picture" as the FSO and could resolve problems in either manner.
It is a great pity that Class E airspace and the full US system was not instituted at that time.
There was some discussion earlier in this forum about the statement that ATC could provide separation at least as effectively and at no greater cost than providing traffic.
The rationale above is a thumbnail description of why that statement is true. It is the rationale Dick Smith referred to and those who did the work had a great deal of ATC experience at all levels including approach and tower.
And the busier and more complex the airspace, the more true it becomes because ATC achieve separation and carry on whereas traffic info can result in a continuing changing and uncertain situation.
I support the introduction of separation for aircraft who can not separate themselves.
That means all aircraft in IMC.
That means aircraft on an instrument approach in IMC who, regardless of traffic information passed once they have commenced the approach MUST follow the lateral approach (but may climb out.)
That means aircraft on IMC departure who have to adhere to terrain clearance dictated tracks until reaching LSALT.
And for those that have not tried it, flying an aircraft in IMC especially in a terminal area does not leave you time or the ability to get out a map and figure where a VFR aircraft might be based on visual points when you are using VOR/ILS/GPS etc
Traffic information is NOT separation - it is an attempt to deflect legal responsibility when the inevitable happens.............. like Mangalore.
I support the introduction of the full USA system of airspace classification and operational procedures without any attempt to reinvent the wheel with nonsense Australianisation of the wheel.
Instrument Rated Commercial Pilot, Aircraft Owner, Air Traffic Controller.