LHR, you need to calm down and read my posts, not create straw-man arguments in very Dick-like fashion.
you state it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT, in this case refering to Benalla, YOU ARE WRONG, I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA.
I
DID NOT SAY "it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT. I said
Every aircraft in IMC will desend below the sector lowest safe
That is THE ATC SECTOR ALTITUDE. Do you know why? Because the sectors in Australia are so big that they will inevitably cover some high terrain, that may or may not be anywhere near the aerodrome that the pilot is descending into. Do I need to type slower so that you can follow? We are talking about taking operational aspects of flying and changing them into the ATC point of view. The only way Dick's "idea" will work is from the ATC point of view. The ATC cannot, and will never have, the pilots point of view (even though some ATCs have pilots licenses {as do I}). LHR, you need to rethink your position on this. I dont care if you cant understand my posts, and are so blinded by Dick that you have a closed mind. The ATCs keep repeating over and over that we CAN do this, but YOU dont realise what you are asking us to do, or the resources it will suck up. Why dont YOU get your ass into a centre, and give yourself some balance?
Ferris explain to me how on at 1042 ( Here ), the pilot was below all relevant LSALT, i.e 7100 and outside the 25nm MSA, but thats OK ?.
Whether it's ok or not is irrelevent. How is the ATC going to know that it is not ok- that is the question. It's fine to just say "do this, do that" as Dick tends to do, but then someone has to come along and DO IT. Often, those people, the ones who will have to DO IT can see the ramifications and that it isn't going to be that easy, but there is just no way of getting that message thru to Dick (or his disciples)- he just dismisses it as "change resistance".
Dick- where do I start?
It is obvious that your mind is totally closed or it is set in concrete.
I dont believe it is. I have worked in 3 different countries as an ATC. 3 different "systems", 3 different rule sets, in some extremely busy airspace. I just happen to have a different opinion to you, and based upon the damage I have seen you do, and the way you do it, I dont just nod whenever you open your mouth. I am trying to convince some of my North American colleagues to join me in a phone conference with you. I will advise.
Any school child can click onto Google and read the altitude mapping taken by the space shuttle of the whole world. You can buy a complete TAWS database from Garmin for $500, giving the terrain contours for the world.
I thought YOU, Dick, would have a better understanding of proprietry software? Thats all fine and dandy, but ATC doesnt use Garmin gear. AsA use TAAATs, and any changes to it COST A MOTZA. I am informed by a friend in that field that, in his opinion, the initial changes would cost in the order of $15 million. He stressed that it may be more. Please, continue to talk about all the advanced gear that you like, garmin, TAWS etc- but remember somebody, his name escapes me, chose and ordered and paid for TAAATs. So unless you want to scrap TAAATs, please talk about all these changes IN TERMS OF TAAATs, and how TAAATs will perform the task you seek.
Your statement here
No other country in the world has trained Flight Service operators to use radar. They use trained air traffic controllers because controllers can actually control aircraft – i.e. turn left, turn right, climb or descend
is telling, and is, perhaps, a clue to where you are going with this. You suggest elsewhere a return of flight service officers, with radar. Imagine if they had been there all along? How many lives would've been saved? Always amusing to watch your twists and turns, Dick.