BP,
You have opened your mouth and removed all doubt that....you don't know what you're talking about.
In the incident near SMOKA, the velocities of the aircraft involved give less than 40 seconds for the pilots of either aircraft to visually acquire each other, determine the other aircrafts velocity, decide on a course of action to avoid collision and then implement that course of action.
In this case traffic was passed three times in an attempt by the controller to adequately update the Virgin's crew picture of the conflicting traffic. This is also in an attempt to provide the Virgin crew with some idea of the intentions of an aircraft that is not communicating with ATC and whose intentions are unkown.
Separation assurance is not available because the intentions of the VFR aircraft are not known.
Remember the basic premise of NAS is that it:
- is a safer system
- is a cheaper system
- is a more VFR friendly system
It has been proven not to be a safer system since Nov. 27 2003.
There is no cost benefit because it does not save any money. This has been verified by the CEO of AsA Bernie Smith.
VFR friendly....well it is til one of these red 737s hits a VFR.
Also, it would do well to remember that prior to 27 Nov. 2003, with C class airspace at SMOKA, it cost the same to separate IFR from VFR, it was safer, and there would have been little restriction for either aircraft. How has NAS benefited aviation?
DICK,
in answer to your claim that there has been an industrial campaign by Oz ATC to stop any airspace reform or development I'd like to list just some of the innovations Oz ATC has been directly involved in, in regard to Air Traffic Management in the past 13 years.
OZ ATC has been directly involved in these airspace, air traffic procedure reforms;
- Mach number technique. Testing and development of this procedure done on Australian Oceanic sectors in late eighties and early nineties by OZ ATCs which proved the concept for ICAO. Halved the 20 minute longitudinal route separation standard to 10 minutes.
- CPDLC and ADS. First used extensively in Australia before anywhere else in the world. Allowed reliable comms between ATC and pilots when outside VHF coverage. ADS enabled reduced separation standards as well.
- RVSM. Implemented by AsA controllers working groups progressively throughout the South East Asia region in conjunction with PNG, NZ, Fiji, Indonesia, Malayasia, Indian and Phillipine ATC.
- UPR User preferred routes. In conjunction with international carriers, AsA ATC implemented UPRs throughout the Pacific and Indian oceans.
- TAAATS. The state of the art ATC system first introduced in the 90s was developed in conjunction with ATCs from OZ. It provides significant advantages over the old strip system, and significantly enalbed reduced costs to avaition. It also reduced ATC numbers in OZ. Thank God, we didn't have enough at the time any way.
- ADS-B. this is an AsA driven project. There is a large ATC involvement in the use of the system to develop and implement a system to help reduce the reliance on radar within Australia.
- NAS. Hate to say this, but there is a huge OZ ATC involvement in the development and implenetation of NAS. Sure as a group we don't like it. But we still have to work with it.
Dick stick to the facts, not supposition and half truths. Your beliefs are not evidence, and the fact that you sprout publicly your lies belittles yourself and Australians in general.