Scurvy, from what I can understand you don’t actually know how the system in the USA (and other leading aviation countries) works when it comes to optimising the use of ATC and radar. Have you ever actually sat in a tower in the USA?
I stated:
the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage
You then immediately said:
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace
No
Scurvy, that is not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to all radar covered airspace – including airspace similar to what you have at Launceston, and airspace for any instrument approach anywhere in the USA.
Mostly it is the enroute controllers doing the approach work at these airports. Where there is a Class D tower, the tower controllers are not normally rated to do procedural IFR separation. In effect, the IFR “control” comes from the Centre or the TRACON, and the tower controller in Class D is responsible for runway separation and other duties.
It is a fantastic, superb and safe system. It means that in the USA (and most other aviation countries), an IFR aircraft in IMC remains with the radar controller. They don’t have the crazy Australian system where at a place like Albury at 9,500 feet when overflying – until I was able to bring in some changes – an enroute pilot was forced to change to the Albury tower and lose the advantage of radar control.
I will try to explain to the thousands of pilots who read this how a professional system should work.
In Australia we appear to have inherited a system where various groups “control” and “own” their airspace. For example, if you put a block of airspace around Alice Springs to 12,500 feet, it “belongs” to the tower – not to the Centre, and never the twain shall meet.
In other countries, Class D airspace is small – that is, normally 4.3 miles radius and up to 2,500 feet AGL. That is basically the distance that a controller can see – even if using binoculars.
The advantages of the Centre or the TRACON controlling the airspace when IMC exists are great. For example, when the local tower controller is off duty, the airspace reverts to Class E, and the advantages of an IFR separation service remain.
The difficulty I have found in Australia is that the controllers in our non-radar Class D towers (which mostly operate like Class C) maintain that they should keep their “block” of airspace – once to 12,500 feet, now in some places to 8,500 or 4,500 feet – whether or not there is radar coverage. This appears to me to be based mainly on resistance to change.
Scurvy, I’m happy to arrange with Jetstar for you to fly to Hawaii and have a look at the Lihue Tower which Airservices operates there. There are a number of similar attributes to Launceston. The big difference is that instead of the tower “owning” airspace to 8,500 feet, the controllers are basically responsible for runway separation and for traffic information and sequencing in the circuit area. When pilots are in IMC at the airport, they are generally on the radar frequency – it is all very logical.
It is a different system to the one that has operated here for the last 50 years – since before radar. However to me it seems to be far safer and more “professional.”
Scurvy, I’m happy to cover the cost of you going to the tower, to see what they do for a couple of hours, and then for you to advise whether you think it has any advantages over what we do here in Australia.
I found at Lihue that the pilots love it – including the airline pilots – and the controllers love it. It is a totally different system to the one you use at Launceston, so it would be at least interesting to find out why you believe the differences are so great.