This is the procedure used throughout the world in Class E airspace. It is almost identical to the “safety alert” listed in the pilot/controller glossary of the FAA approved Airman’s Information Manual (AIM).
Does anyone know why it was not used here?
Because, the United States FAA is a
professional organisation, which would never let an amateur with vested interests destroy its safety record..
By allowing 'crash or crash' through amateurs to run the system here, this government has allowed the dangerous situations exposed in the now numerous Class E incidents to occur.
Yes, some of the procedures here are
almost identical to those in the US. But, by failing to adopt sound professional safety analysis and
deliberately stacking the ARG with amateurs for what Dick Smith has concede were industrial and political reasons, the 'almost' becomes the fatal (possibly literally) flaw in our system.
For what it's worth (knowing that Dick Smith could not give a toss about safety):
ATC has no responsibility to initiate avoiding action with unknown aircraft OCTA; UNLESS considered a hazard to the aircraft under control.
From MATS:
5.2.1.1 In providing radar services within controlled airspace, including Class E airspace, or designated restricted airspace, ATC has no responsibility to initiate avoiding action in respect of unknown aircraft which can reasonably be assumed to be outside controlled airspace.
5.2.1.2 Nevertheless, if in the judgement of the radar controller, the action of an observed radar return or information received from other sources gives good reason to believe that the observed radar return of an unknown aircraft is likely to be a hazard to an aircraft under control, the controller has complete discretion to take such action as considered necessary to maintain the safety of the aircraft under radar control. This may comprise the provision of:
a. traffic information; or
b. controller initiated traffic avoidance advice; or
c. a safety alert.
In
none of the near-disasters which have occurred so far, was
either of the aircraft 'OCTA' or 'outside controlled airspace. Both aircraft in each circumstance were
inside Class E controlled airspace. For the instigator of NAS now to clutch at straws and try to twist this paragraph to
CTA operations is ample demonstration of the amateurish, sloppy and downright dangerous state of aviation safety in Australia.
If it had been the intention that the above provisions were to be applied between two aircraft
inside Class E airspace, then any
professional and safe airspace reform program would have got it right, in terms of procedures, documentation, training, safety analysis and impelementation.
Simply, the FAA, being
professionals would have got it right. You, being a dangerous, selfish amateur, with no respect or regard for the safety or economic well-being of your fellow Australians, got it
wrong.
You will stand forever indicted as the man who, for vain and selfish reasons imposed a half-baked, error-riddled and dangerous system upon this country. It could have been done safely. It could have been done correctly. But, because you refuse to even consider safety, above your personal ideological crusade, people may die. More and more aviation businesses will fold.
That will forever be your legacy.
Your attempts to misrepresent documentation and to feign interest in finding the truth
after you make defamatory, incorrect and dangerous statements in the media exposes you for the dangerous amateur that you are.
Dick Smith: Can't read, won't listen.