Originally Posted by
Wizofoz
Almost like we replaced a system (CTA v OCTA) that suited the Australian environment with a system developed to fit a differenet set of circumstances.
WHY would US ATCs provide IFR to IFR seperation in G when it is not a requirement? Because there's not much of it, and they have the resouces to do so- so Alphabet works in the US because ATC go above and beyind its' scope.
The idea that a system was introduced that only works when key players do other than what the system is actually designed to do would seem to be a flaw.
Now, on who's watch was it instigated?
Wizofoz,
You mistake the requirements placed on ATC. In the ICAO documents the aim of ATC is to "prevent collisions between aircraft".
A nation's airspace is (should be) then designed, according to local conditions, to enable controllers to fulfill that requirement. The aim of the ICAO airspace designations was to standardise on all of the different ways member nations were fulfilling their ICAO obligations. Note: The airspace divisions came first, ICAO only standardised the naming convention.
Believe it or not, even Australian controllers will try to maintain safe separation between aircraft, regardless of the airspace classification! They are, however, hobbled in this country, by lack of surveillance and an ANSP that has to make a profit for the owner, the Federal Government. This results in an over -emphasis on the money making aspects of ATC. Where the big jets fly, oceanic, high level cruise and busy terminals areas. The rest is left to "see-and-be seen", with the help of a regulator and an investigator, that all answer to the same department and minister.
They all, it seems, are pinning their hopes on ADS-B becoming so widespread that surveillance becomes cheap. The question therefore is whether their (our) luck will hold out.
Le Penguin,(Apologies in advance but someone has to say this)
To refer to Dick Smith as an enthusiastic amateur, is not only contemptible, it begs a question, in my mind, about who you think you are. A sarcastic "professional" it would seem!
If you had, given as much to Australian aviation as Dick, been so active in air safety, and held positions such as CEO of the Civil Aviation Authority, while not taking any salary, then I might listen to you.
But no, you post anonymously on a pilots' forum while bagging those who try to make a difference.
Have long look in the bathroom mirror and make a decision about who you are, before critisising those who do try to make meaningful contributions.