Folks,
I hate to disagree, but you've missed the point in sending tower controllers to/from Hawaii.
.. the point is nailing the differences in airspace rules application and regulation (their's ain't ICAO E or D or C), and putting this to bed once and for all!
The procedures in use are already very similar to what's used in the towers on the Queensland coast (up to A045 in Queensland and up to A025 in Hawaii). The real difference is the Hawaii radar HUB that provides the approach service.
.... errm not really, their D towers are practically speaking VFR only! ... the other issue is their separate pseudo class D ish E approach, and how that compares to our ICAO C approach services!
Could the Airservices enroute guys provide an approach service to the same degree as the yanks???
.... of course!, however ..... how many extra controllers, how much cross training, for what cost , safety and efficiency benefit?
If SDE is implemented first they would be able to directly compare the costs of providing the service now with what is intended if further NAS stuff is implemented. Veeeerrrrryyyy interesting
…. Indeedie!
.
.. it will be very interesting to see how the costs of various machinations of Regional Approach services costs are compared and quantified….
.
… aside from issues of additional workload (coord etc) and combined services compatibilities (Enroute + App V’s Tower + Approach) .. which variation is going to have the responsible controllers less likely to be looking at something 200nm miles away .... which is a practical and logical combination of duties (enroute + app) or (tower + approach)?
… it would be short sighted to take a function off towers they already do efficiently, only to have additional costs incurred and lose traffic management efficiencies! …
.
..the lower the split the more interaction required between TWR and App/Enroute!
.
.. the A045 split works … one should ask, how does it ‘work’ when comparing to an A085 or higher split?!
.
… at A045, how often is TWR separating arr/arr/dep traffic in Enroute airspace (with the additional necessary coord etc) V’s the A085 split TWR’s … with or without radar/TSAD?
.
…. We know how many operational staff positions the service currently requires … lets see how many after this next odyssey?!
.
.. that should have them out of the trenches
.
… and one for you all to ponder as yee sleep tonight … ask yourself why there would be a push to further load enroute with regional approach??
.
.. then ask yourself if you would prefer combined D Tower/App to the surface (including aerodrome services) as it currently is, OR Remote approach to say 2500’ AGL then a CTAF UNICOM or CA/GRO or perhaps a US
VFR only ‘claytons’ D TWR?
.
.. and if you think option number last sounds OK …. Think about a cloud-base around 1500’ to 3000’ AGL …… really think about the practical traffic management implications of that!!
.
… enroute guys and girls and yee IFR pilots … have a good think about the implications i.e. breaking visual to the VFR circus below … DME Arrival O/S with an IFR in the early departure phase etc ….. different frequencies … different/less services … bugga all if any cost savings! …. Tis not rocket science!
.
… quality, safety and efficiency costs …… is there any
real cost savings? ..and is that worth the negatives?
.
.. try having an accident and see how much ‘cheap and nasty’ costs!
.
.. night all!