Originally Posted by
DROPS
I believe something similar is happening at YBCG, but there is a Class C Approach service down to the ground but no TWR service. Which would be messy with runway nomination in variable winds I imagine. Also airways route clearances would be issued by (?) the person working approach?
It's very, very clunky. Is it better to have Information Z and known procedures at higher traffic levels, or a hybrid model, SMC only? If an ATIS with runway direction, and weather information is broadcast then it would be fair to assume (big call), that the person is also COORD endorsed, that is, can update an ATIS.
But AsA have TMAATS Contingency Plans with options for:
a/. TCU Not available, TWR available;
b/. TCU available, TWR not available;
c/. TCU and TWR not available;
d/. TCU and TWR not available, non-continuous airspace.
Definitely seems to fit b/. or does it, because the SMC (& COORD) was available. These Contingency Plans are based on
Evacuations (if a tower must be evacuated) or
Immediate contingency (if a tower is unable to provide an ATS
without notice), but are being routinely for staff availability, often known hours or days in advance.
Are they fit for purpose? Are they able to be tailored to the scenario? Are they routinely reviewed? Are they included in scenario based training for the Tower ATCs, for the Shift Supervisors? IDK.
CASA, ATSB?