Ozbusdriver, about 25 years ago I used to orbit for up to 10 minutes at Hornsby, just outside the Sydney control zone, so I could be separated from the Channel 10 helicopter which was departing the zone from Ryde.
After a lot of work, I and others managed to change that “regulation”, which required ATC to separate VFR from VFR (as if they were IFR) to modern procedures of simply giving traffic information. That has saved the industry a small fortune since then. It has relieved the unnecessary workload on controllers and undoubtedly improved safety.
Let’s now move forward to our 3 nautical mile and 1,000 foot “standard” that the controllers are using at Williamtown. As I have pointed out endlessly, the “standard” in other leading countries such as the USA is 500 feet and target resolution. This simply means that the controller can allow the aircraft to get closer together so they can sight each other and keep apart – all very sensible, and it results in no holding under similar circumstances.
One day we will change to these modern rules, but I’m amazed at how difficult it is to make these moves. Who could possibly be against them? Certainly not the air traffic controllers, who are being forced to hold aircraft needlessly over the ocean, and know that their bosses will all run for cover and blame them when people die. It certainly can’t be the pilots of VFR aircraft who don’t want to waste the time holding. They are quite often using aviation so they can get to a place promptly.
Why don’t you say for an instant that we (whether it be CASA, Airservices or the Defence department) should look in Australia to moving to these modern separation standards? Just as we could change the rule that required VFR to be separated from VFR in primary control zones, surely we can change the rule in Class C to reflect what is used all around the world.
All the other points you bring up are points I’m interested in. I have an ongoing campaign to remove very unnecessary cost. In the last few days I wrote to Grant Mazowita, Manager Regulatory Development Management Branch at CASA, in relation to having our command instrument rating follow the US system – which does not require a 12 monthly renewal.
Ozbiggles, yes, I was involved in the removal of rescue and fire fighting at secondary airports. It is totally consistent with my campaign at Williamtown. It is about harmonisation with proven safe practices. GA airports of a similar size in all other modern aviation countries (other than the UK) did not have the cost of an airport fire fighting service as it was a misallocation of resources. It didn’t spend the safety dollar effectively – just as holding an aircraft 9 miles away does not.
Why won’t any of you, even for a second, consider that we should look at moving to modern separation procedures which undoubtedly will reduce waste and risk?
Gundog01, I see your point, but why would military controllers want to use procedures that were designed in the 1950s – or perhaps the 1930s? Also, I’m sure they understand that if one of these aircraft that is being held to their archaic procedures comes down in the water and everyone drowns, all the bosses will run for cover and the controller will undoubtedly be held responsible, and be told that there was some other procedure that he or she should have used. Wait for it to happen and see if I’m right. I bet I am.