Despite my better judgement, and under some pressure from others, I revisit this so called ‘place’
to ‘accurately clarify’ the realities of regional D TMA Op’s
… I offer the following for the readers who otherwise might be inclined to take on board the Smif spin as being some sort of warped reality!
Reader/s need to know that Smif has had this accurate/factual technical detail explained to him here and face to face (by me and others) time and time again. It relates to the real and practical differences in system safe guards in play between OCTA G, Enroute E, and Regional D!
Sh1ting me (and many others) orf to the max is that under the guise of the sceptic’s banner, he chooses to ignore reality in favour of emotive, inaccurate and frankly mischievous two second headlines like “they all die”!
Lets look at the garbage!
In fact, going to a regional tower doesn’t help, as our regional towers do not have radar rated controllers. Once the aircraft is in the tower airspace, by law the pilot must be on the tower frequency – so if he or she makes an error, they all die.
bulldust!!
In fact!!!! Regional Approach/Tower controllers provide CTA/R
clearances in accordance with Route LSALT, 25 and 10nm MSA’s, IAF assignments for IAP's, all of which are monitored in line with those clearances!
His attempt to compare Regional D TMA with en-route G (OCTA) services is scurrilous!!!!
The ‘reality’ here is that Regional APP/TWR have the ability/and specific knowledge to ensure that IFR are descending to
ASSIGNED LSALT/Minimum’s, with (where provided) or without the addition of surveillance to monitor. This is in reality at least 2 additional layers of safeguard beyond OCTA G i.e no specific descent altitude clearances! .. how is that even remotely comparable? ... it is not!!
… Pilot determined
OCTA IFR minimum safe descent altitudes V's ATC confirmed minimums in CTA TMA's are like chalk and cheese!
Perhaps the doomsayer Smif can cite OZ Regional APP/TWR CFIT accident data!? … NOT!
.. and so on we go:-
Look at the system used in most other countries. An aircraft remains on the Centre frequency (with the radar controller) whilst in radar coverage, and this gives the desired protection.
… hmmm are you understanding the differences yet?
The other advantage is that when the tower controllers go home, the Class D reverts to Class E airspace, and is still controlled for IFR flights from the Centre, and a radar service is given to help prevent CFIT accidents.
… OK, we all get the concept that Smif wants a system that provides for when there is no tower, or it ‘goes home’!
.. so, flying in the face of the available IFR onboard EGPWS, TAWS, etc he would rather you all pay for remote ATC TMA’s to provide terrain alert areas i.e. ATC manned CTA services over BLA, LHR, YSDU, YSWG, UOLD, YBRM, YPKA, and any other AD with like type op’s! ….. as well as the likes of, YBTL, YBRK, YBHM, YBAF, YBAS, YBMK, YBMC, YSTW, YSCH, YSBK, YSCB, YMAY, YMMB, YMES, YMLT, YMHB, YMPF, YPJT …. and at any other location he wants ATC protection (including the de-established tower at Proserpine under his watch)!! etc outside tower hours!
Oh my, all those CTA/R’s including all that CTA TMA service outside tower hours!!! ... how much cost to you, the paying industry compared with onboard funded systems that can provide TAWS etc??
But then again, the hypocricy in all this spinned garbage is this, do specific locations not count if no accident has occurred?
OR, does
HE not want to operate IFR at
ANY OCTA locations .. full stop?
... and no rubbish about nasty mountains as terrain clearance buffers are the same no matter the elevation
As you know, we have the ridiculous system where once the tower controllers go home, the whole airspace becomes uncontrolled and no service is provided. That is what nearly killed 87 people in Canberra. (See here).
Ah … the old “try to scare the sh1t out of the punters line”!
… why misrepresent the real danger when clearly most high and medium capacity RPT aircraft have E/GPWS??? .. which is designed specifically to protect against mis-programing of holding patterns etc, not to mention MSA/LSALT etc in the FMS?
Answer! …. No real headline in this except for a media tart looking for a tag!! …particularly when (in this case) it is/was made perfectly clear that the aircraft could not have hit terrain given the onboard protection systems!!!
… he (Smif) also fails to mention that the particular TMA closure in question was a rare occasion indeed?
The reasons for attempting the misrepresentative spin are clear, he knows it, and so do we!!!!
RHS ... I wish I could be polite to you as C-Change quite rightly suggests! .... but I'm afraid I'm beyond that with you and your self-serving agenda's over many years
.. so I guess this means ... Piss orf tool!!!
… in the nicest possible way!
P.S. TW, ... as above to you too