The Sorry Aviation Administration Unchanging Disaster
Geoff Fairless: I understand your views about control towers, but they exist because of the ICAO separation requirements that we are bound to through the Chicago Convention.
Pilots at a non-controlled aerodrome separate themselves visually
Like you Geoff, I spent many years with an ADC / STC rating so I do understand what towers do and why as well as having lots of years flying.
In most advanced countries, pilots of aircraft in instrument conditions (who by definition can not see to separate themselves) are provided with an Air Traffic Control separation service at all times but are expected to provide their own visual separation in some circumstances where they are able so to do. This is not the case in Australia.
Leaving aside major hub, hight traffic airports but now to your comment about pilots at non controlled airports separating themselves visually. .............
This is fine in VMC but in IMC it is simjply dangerous.
In the USA the ATC system, with or without radar, provides separation to ALL IFR aircraft from takeoff to landing when the pilot is unable to use visual separation. We do not, but we could do.so.
Consider the Mangalore fatal accident.
Had ATC told the departing aircraft to hold on the ground or to maintain VMC until the arriving aircraft reported able to proceed visually four good pilots would be alive today.
ATC was not allowed by the employer to do this safe thing.
The arriving aircraft is required by law to follow the published insrument approach precisely - no matter what traffic information is or is not provided the aircraft has to keep moving along the prescribed path (or give up and fly away but still following the prescribed path!!!)
At the time there was no tower active at Mangalore.
Thus ATC positive separation could by provided by tower controllers exercising the traditiona approach function, or by remote approach control (CS, CB etc) or by the US area control system.
The latter is by far the cheapest yet achieves a safe outcome up to the level of traffic density when a tower really does become necessary.
I've flown in both systems and I know which is safer.
It is not the Tower that is required by ICAO - it is the separation of aircraft who can not separate themselves. The tower is merely one possible solution.
So I repeat, the present "system" is virtually unchanged in four decades, it is nowhere near best practice and it is broken - even before considering the gross lack of professional controllers.
And despite the many years you and I spent in Air Traffic Control I suggest Airservices / ATC are NOT the right people to decide WHAT services are to be provided. They should indeed be involved in decisions about HOW services are provided.
WHAT level of service to be provided is more the province and RESPONSIBILITY of the Minister and what we used to call the Director of Civil Aviation - (both CASA and AA).
Professional pilots and aircraft operators advised by what the insurance industry calls actuarial advice - risk analysis and management need to determine what is or is not publicly acceptable and not hive off responsibility to nominally independent QUANGOS.
So now tell me the name of the individual in AA, CASA or the Department who is willing to go to the Minister and say, "Boss this is broken and it is dangerous................."