Dick, often I read things in your post which clearly show your lack of understanding of the ATC task. Often I dont bother (as generally others have a go at trying to give you the expert advice you so often claim to listen to anyway
), however...
You appear to believe that in en- route airspace the controllers responsibility should be limited to aircraft to aircraft collision avoidance and not be involved in CFIT avoidance
That is
exactly the case. En route control and terminal control are two different disciplines. That is not to say that a controller is precluded from doing both- it just isnt the case in oz, and would require massive change on a fundamental level- I'll let you research why etc. rather than bore the audience with long explanations.
You also appear to deftly avoid aspects of the US system in your "just simply turn the alarms on and ask the pilot to report visual" scenario (beyond the already mentioned radar coverage, sector sizes etc etc).
THE US HAS FLIGHT SERVICE. SOMEONE (whose name suddenly escapes me?????) thought it would be a good idea to get rid of flight service in oz, as we didnt need the overservicing. OVERSERVICING!!
THE US SYSTEM HAS FLIGHT FOLLOWING. THE US SYSTEM has many things that oz could provide, but that would not be affordable. AFFORDABLE. Yet when you say the changes to MSA alerting would cost almost nothing because the computer does the monitoring and just provides alerts- WHO ACTS ON THE ALERTS? I wonder- did Dick Smith Electronics stores sack all the cleaners, then after a few years decide that the stores did need cleaning, but the shop assistants could just do the cleaning in between other tasks and therefore cleaning costs almost nothing? And with only half the compliment of staff....I wonder.....those lazy shop assistants...they could have an electronic device that detects when the dirt gets to a certain depth to alert the shop assistants to the imminent need for cleaning.....
Now, it seems that a poster here (whose name escapes me), is advocating that the ATC (note air traffic CONTROL) service provider, which due to fundamentally flawed philosphical collisions between safety and profit, is unable to provide even uninterrupted ATC, should now do flight service- and not just 1940's style flight service, but should be doing super-enhanced flight service. This same poster, who dismantled FS, now wants more of it. No FS in the NAS end state, yet MORE FS-type tasks. FS=advice. ATC= CONTROL. Yet here we are, having advocation of ATC doing advisory tasks. Cant wait til the US goes to their proposed in-or-out airpsace, then we can go full circle and have that advocated here. Surely you agree, Dick?
For those (LHR et al) who are swayed by the opinions of someone who is not an air traffic controller/FSO on these matters really need to get some clear thinking skills. Have a discussion with an ATC to get the other side of the story. (Are they change-resistant, or change fatigued? AsA is drowning with idiotic change).
ps. Dick, I would REALLY appreciate it if you could give me a blow-by-blow hypothetical description of how Benalla would've played out differently with your MSA alert scenario in place. You keep quoting it, so just tell us what you think would've happened- if your proposal to "use the radar properly" had been in place. This might change many people's minds- surely you agree?
Please, Left Handed Rock thrower, Dick, Dick's disciples- anyone...a blow-by-blow account of what would've happened at Benalla under the "report visual" proposal.