whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east.
Dick, sorry I didn't realise from what you wrote above that the aircraft was 20NM south, that's why I wrote "assuming" in my second line. I would not move an aircraft 20 NM south of AY to overhead in this example, so please don't say I "solve the problem by moving the VFR aircraft so it tracked lots of extra distance via overhead Albury". If you can move the goal posts so can I. If the aircraft was 20 NM south, the SF34 would be kept above initially and one of the plethora of procedural standards (I now have radar to help, so I can't remember them all) would be used to get the SF34 below. In VMC one of the best is sighting. Also, 20NM south of AY at A075 radar can be useful. AY tower now has TSAD as well, this enables excellent traffic to be passed
Prominent topographical features are on maps, I would expect a VFR pilot to be complying with regs and have appropriate maps for the flight. Down in that area there are a number of large towns, the ML freeway etc. I don't have an AY VTC with me, and 5 years is a long time to remember the names of everything.
Being a CS TWR controller it would be inappropriate of me to comment on your "safety problem" caused by "your reasonable test", although I'm sure that the ATC's there would process all traffic expeditiously and safely.
I will stick to commenting what I know, and that is that procedural traffic can be safely and expeditously processed by a number of methods, not all of which require 10 minutes or massive diversions by aircraft.
Dick, I answered your question as to how an ATC would handle your scenario, based on an assumption, I have answered again when you have elaborated (changed?) where the VFR was. Failing an exact scenario with tracking, estimates, position reports etc we could go round all day as to how and why.
I don't intend to do that.
Last edited by Albizia; 7th Nov 2006 at 07:32.
Reason: make easier to read