Rather than just quote letters with plus / minus that remind me of my academic exam scores 40 years ago...and then attach a country like US / CANADA / UK as if to give more credence......
Why don’t you describe what you want as a service below A100 outside C....
It is obvious we have a variety of issues but given the disingenuous Airservice Plan B “Confidence Trick” would have done nothing to prevent:
- Mangalore accident, or
- Ballina A320 / Jabiriu incident.
The change to E at Mangalore / Ballina only extend down to 6500 AMSL, well above the altitude of both accident / incident.
VH-TNP still haunts Airservices for the wrong reasons....
Mention RAM and MSAW and it elicits interesting reactions who were in the know at the time.
it would appear the Minister has been badly misled.
But then in the Canberra bubble everything is about spin and not what is safe in the cockpits or ATC consoles.
Are all the posters here fully aware of the constraints that the low level airspace controllers opoerate to at the moment?
Are all the posters that seem to have the answer with a defined simplistic name really so confident their solution would actually work?
It is incredibly arrogant of Aiservices that seems to presume an outcome from the MNG coroner’s inquiry.
‘Be curious rather than judgemental...”
Why has AsA had the capability of 3 Supplementary Air Situation Displays per console (additional to the “Main and Second Windows ASDs” ) that were specifically designed to allow a controller to have a display zoomed right in on a conflict, whilst still maintaining the Main Window covering all the airspace they are responsible for plus some (due to so called automated coordination) but never allowed the controllers to use them???
The Mangalore accident and issues surrounding it seemed perfect for the utilisation of the SUP ASD capability???
When has any G airspace controller ever received “compromised separation training” where the scenario consisted of two TAAATS Eurocat coupled tracks were in G Airspace??? ie as was the situation at MNG...?? Could the answer be never??
When did any G airspace controller get comprehensive training in the utilisation of the STCA list Window in the management of STCA alerts, where 99,9 % of the alerts are operationally false???
Lots of interesting questions to be answered....someday or maybe never like some around VH-TNP...
Could any controller list any TAAATS Eurocat enhancement specifically commissioned for low level sectors in the last 20 year after the initial G airspace commissioning?
How many AsA ADSB receivers have been commissioned to specifically cover low level sectors?
We are all being told how good ADSB is but its really a waste of time if its not used (yep a remarkable statement in itself ) but what do you expect when CASA seems to think ATC is done with situational awareness.... sorry but its done with conflict detection (stupid) and on rare occasions saved by the ground based safety net called STCA and finally another airborne based safety net called TCAS.
How good your conflict detection is dictates your target level of safety...no utilisation of safety nets allowed....
How good your total resultant level of safety in an ATM system is includes conflict detection plus the two safety nets as per above...
Does anyone in AsA, CASA or ATSB understand that??????
That is the concept in A and C airspace...
For MNG the first two concepts failed and the third wasn’t probably on either aircraft....
Ballina the first two failed and the third ie RA failed also...
Does anyone who proposes a solution for low level D, E and G airspace want to disregard the concepts that safety nets are supposed to offer?
As always I am happy to be curious AND educated on any errors on my part...
Let’s keep out of the Canberra bull*&@# and start in the cockpit and console.
And don’t assume everyone here understands everything!
it’s obvious I certainly don’t ....
Last edited by Gentle_flyer; 18th Mar 2021 at 19:57.