.. my personal thoughts … and nothing else!!
.
If the Primary in Sydney ‘craps out’, the techs should be on that site in LT pronto to commence dismantling for transport to SY!. …. Why? Because apparently there is not another TAR spare in the country ….the risk (in anyone’s language) is far greater at a location like SY …not to mention the fact that procedural controllers in LT do not come to a grinding halt if the big green eye falls over or is liberated by truck!!! ……so in the absence of ‘any other’ option … what would you do??
.
… I am not aware of when the first of the new ‘heads’ will be delivered or if it will be the
new transportable .. or if it would be available soon enough to be deployed immediately in SY … I am sure the seniors with all the info are on the case!
.
.. the argument over whether Primary is required or desired in a regional D zone (pick any one you like) … is for a collective expert process to determine!
.
…. In practical application, having that Primary coverage is ‘valuable’ to the D tower/approach controllers monitoring for rogue returns (on a workload permitting basis) in the lower levels of the terminal area where the risk (even whilst reasonably remote IMHO) of an un-notified, non-transponder equipped VCA aircraft is obviously most likely to occur!
.
… I guess like all airspace ‘proposed’ changes it should be tested by wide peer review and against the ALARP principles.
.
Hypothetically, the risk may be quantified as ‘acceptable’ (at certain traffic levels) to not warrant Primary … not sure what that threshold is or should be?! … and I am not sure how you obtain
real VCA data when Prim has not been a feature at regional centres! ….. tis interesting to see how many general broadcasts result in CTR/A close proximity “Prim” targets magically turning away or calling up for a clearance .. thank goodness for VHF radio .. cheap and effective!
.
… all that said, if you assumed for argument that secondary (dependant) surveillance is the minimum required standard in a given zone, there is another option that would mitigate (to some extent) against inadvertent primary only VCA’s … that is to subsidise the fitment of Mode C transponders in all aircraft capable of powering them and mandate it in ‘CTA/R’ classes (i.e MSSR and MLAT airspaces)! …… seems to me that you can power a mode C in anything (Gliders and the Sporties) that is likely to wander into a zone and big enough to create a threat … they are cheap enough nowadays to make subsidy money against safety benefit … money well spent!
.
… the other side of that subsidy support is acceptance of mandating ‘auto on’ powered by air switch or squat switches to avoid inadvertent ‘off’
.
… do these measures sufficiently mitigate against ‘Primary’ targeting ability?? No…. but they go bloody close .. balanced against cost benefit … it might fly in regional areas!! ….and save a heap!
.
Re: remote services
.
.. there is not doubt that some types of services can be provided remotely where surveillance exists! .. what services they are and how you make them work effectively??? … that’s the multi-million dollar question!!
.
.. Christ .. where do ya start?? …. Lets do D Tower V’s C Centre to surface (it makes me giggle)
.
… to do a remote service you might look at the following:-
.
… A surface picture ….. you need to install a PSMR as the RPT’s disappear on the squat switches and the others are conditioned to turning them off manually automatically vacating the runway … yet providing PSMR to a regional tower is …apparently ….. pie in the sky?? .. hmmm ….
.
… Oh … I know ….. Let’s pipe lots of camera’s back to lots of screens around an approach controller in the Centre …. That will be as effective …..they are really going to have good visual depth perception and the full picture of any manner of things going on around the airport …much much better and more reliable that eyes in the tower ……Aww sure ….. runway incursions is apparently not the only thing worth ‘filming’ though!.
.
… then the pearler … no more ATS ‘tower provided visual separation’ … and … oh dear … Centre only have the anemometer and (maybe) surface display (hope that don’t fail cause you cannot just glance out the glass at a wind sock or taxiing aircraft) .. what cant they see that a tower controller can??
.
…. Not to worry, Centre would have the auto METAR (… wish I had a dollar for every time that very clever device accurately described the weather immediately above the ground station yet the majority of the circling area was base 2,500ft AGL) and perhaps AWIS … beauty that’s heaps better and less prone to serious error than eyes in the tower … eww .. that will make approach selection fun .. imagine some of the ATIS’s
.
… hands up how many RPT pilots would opt for the ILS if there was any doubt about cloud base???? …. Crikey, that’s a lot of liquid gold (fuel) burnt unnecessarily …. .
.
… then the poor sods waiting to ‘go’ will just love the IMC runway roulette .. trying to decide if there is enough room to line up and go in front of one on approach in cloud?? …what would the Centre approach controller use to assess departure and arrival separation in IMC and VMC??? ….. could make for an interesting and very exciting formation takeoff/missed approachs into cloud … yih ha … thank goodness for TCAS … oops … not everyone has that?!
.
… then the grand daddy of them all …..
If tower controllers are not permitted to provide a radar service … how is it OK for a radar approach controller in the Centre permitted to look at all of the aerodrome data/equipment that might detract from looking at the radar and PSMR??? 
.
Besides, even if the cost of tower building were
really factored into the equation with delay cost …. the cost benefit maths is difficult for this ol’ melon to comprehend!
.
What are the comparative staffing requirements??
.
.. If radar approach was deemed necessary at location X …. would Centre provided TMA be better than having the radar approach position in the tower?? Imagine what a ‘Screeny’ could do looking at the screen with the addition of windows as well ….. and lo and behold sitting right next to the ADC …… how much coordination (not just point to point) goes on between tower and remote TCU’s ……. Which is more streamlined?? …. and efficient??
.
Infrastructure costs??
.
I’m not even going there for fear of not being able to hold civilised keyboard decorum
.
… there are other issues too lengthy to mention here ….. you’d all glaze over (more than you already are by now) and smash your melons into the keyboard!!
.
… righto …so, rather than me waffle on as usual … how bout ya’ll think of:-
.
- The sorts of things that can be piped via SAT/NET to the Centres?
- What are the contingencies if some or all of that information gets trashed??
- What will be the risks and delays of not having onsite eyes and equipment??
- What will be the comparative traffic movement capabilities??
- Is the usual and expected traffic quantity and type compatible with the class of airspace and service??
- How does IFER and AEP management compare?
.
What is more likely in the end??
- Enroute controllers being trained and rated to do a function that is already being done by the tower???
- Tower/approach controllers rated to use radar to augment what they already do bloody efficiently?
.
… I’m sure it will take years to decide!
.
.
I have not heard that the towers will be denied access to MLAT data. I have in fact heard the opposite!
…. Besides, what sorta goose would be daft enough to remove an existing tool from tower/approach controllers?? .. now
that would be an HazID process I would love to watch!!
…. Even the CEO said it would assist controllers with greater coverage!! .. I am sure he would not fib about that!!
.
.. TSAD is a first step, it certainly ain’t the last!
.
Re: the data latency issue ….. well if we cannot provide redundant paths to tower’s yet we can to enroute (who at the moment are not doing the approach terminal area stuff where it is as important if not more) …. Well I'll leave others to justify that decision!!!
.
…. That’s some of the CTR/A stuff … the OCTA/CTAF stuff is the interesting bit IMHO!
.
I mentioned once before in this place some of the airspace utilisation possibilities … not gunna’ bore you again with that (here is the link for those interested)
.
Airspace Architecture and associated - an alternative view
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=229828
.
… now **** off and let me watch the second half of the footy!
…. oohroo!