Howabout, I too liked the Flight Service system and I have stated this many times. The problem is that it wasn’t the Commonwealth paying for it, it was our industry. This was a decision made by the Labor Government before my involvement.
It was also obvious that the airline industry was going to force those who benefited from Flight Service to pay for it. It seemed sensible to train the FSOs as ATCs – for the ones who wanted this additional training – and then change the system so it is basically operated by ATCs.
It did mean quite a number of people losing their jobs. I was aware of that and did not like it in any way – but surely this was better than destroying a whole industry where three or four times as many people could lose their jobs. I know a number of FSOs who trained to be ATCs and worked through to retirement earning additional money along the way.
Direct.no.speed, you do not seem to understand what I am trying to explain and why in other countries Class D airspace is small. It is small in dimensions so the controller can concentrate on the traffic that is most likely to collide – i.e. on the runway and close to the airport. If you then give that same controller airspace responsibilities that are 20, 30, or 40 miles away, and capture lots more traffic, the result is obvious – less concentration on the traffic that is close.
Show me an airport in the world that is similar to Albury – where one controller in the tower controls Class C airspace to 8,500 feet that is 90 miles across. You will find there is no such place in the world – other than Australia – because it results in a lowering of safety.
It is beyond me why controllers in Aussie Class D towers would want this extra responsibility when Government policy says they do not need to have it, and there is no additional income for Airservices – and therefore for the controllers.