A quick re-read through and we might appreciate why there is a level of angst in this thread.
I have tried to keep the posts in time order.
The tread started out with Dick giving his quick and easy take on how to use the radar, its inherent alarms and the available controllers to implement this at no cost. LHRT after ringing Dick comes back on as a convert, and quoting Dick as an Authority (read your posts LHRT).
People who actually work with TAAATS and in the centres say it could be done , would add to safety, but would cost alot and require alot more bodies to do effectively due to unique Australian sector sizes. Dick continues that it wouldn't take anymore people or cost anything.
Dick then decides okay hire more controllers. People continue to say it would give a greater level of safety but also point out what that cost would be. Dick then decides that we have admitted that it is not impossible, (I couldn't find a post of someone saying it was impossible, but lots of posts from people saying it was possible just not as easily and cheaply as Dick envisages)
Dick then gives all who don't agree completely with him a spray about their closed minds and resistance to change. Dick quotes ' But they do it O/S' even though it has already been posted that we have large geographic sectors compared to the rest of the World.
Here are some selective quotes:
Well apparently the software for this function already exists but is not turned on / installed
Nett cost would be pretty much zero, it certainly can not hurt.
LHRT ater talking to Dick.
I am quite happy to do this if directed, just show me how it can be done with the staff we already have on the areas of airspace we cover.MAX1
Honestly, why would you require more controllers ?.LHRT
All the equipment is in place, it is completely automatic, it would cost nothing. ( no more controllers, it might slow down your game of solitare as the computer would have another tiny little program running ).
Am I seeing someone resisting change for the sake of resisting change ?
LHRT
To have this system at Proserpine would require no more staff. Dick
What logical reasons could you or Max honestly muster up to justify this to not be benficial to safety ?, LHRT
Answer is, if you want this to be done 100% of the time make sure the controllers is not overwhelmed doing this to the detriment of their other separation responsibilities. i.e look at the traffic densities, peaks and troughs and make sure you have the staff to cover these. Max1
As I said happy to do it if mandated but give us the resources i.e People and computing power, to do it. Affordable Safety. I agree this would be beneficial to safety, but it will cost. Max1
To provide a proper minimum safe altitude alerting service at Benalla would cost nothing. No more air traffic controllers, no extra radar and in the case of the Benalla accident, six people would no doubt be alive today if the changes had been introduced. Dick
If it requires the employment of some extra ATC's so be it- Dick
Mate, I'm sure the procedure you're suggesting would work great and people would get used to it quickly but they DO NOT have enough staff to run the current airspace or even the major airports. C-Change to Dick
C Change, So it is a staffing problem- not as others claim "impossible" to do. Dick.
Dick,
What you say re surveillance of Approaches is doable. Most problems in the world are doable if you throw the resources, committment and money at them. Max1
Max1, it is a futile waste of time answering your posts. Your mind is obviously closed. Dick
What happens is the same old posters come on with their fixed views saying there is no way we can actually improve the service we give here. Dick
Dick, I do not have a closed mind, I have in fact said it could be done. I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out. Max1
This is the crux of the matter for ATC, continually chasing false alarms to the detriment of all the other things we do. Lots more staff required. Max1
1) Many on here are very closed minded and appear to have a very much "deer in the headlights" hatred towards anything Mr Smith posts, LHRT
I think I have stated repeatedly that what you want can be done. But it will cost. Ferris
Dick,
You were told that TAAATS supported MSAW with a manual? insert of LSALT. You were told, or assumed, incorrectly.
Ferris is correct. The TAAATS MSAW is a crude blunt instrument. It cannot use proprietary terrain databases, it must have one constructed within its own software parameters. This has entailed thousands of hours of work by the DATA section in years past. The maintenance of the data equally requires hours of input (don't forget we are talking about obstacles as well as terrain, and obstacles change). 40 years
Dick,
You are reading these posts as though people are against you. Controllers believe your idea has merit and would improve safety. We are attempting to give you advice as to why it is not the simple matter of a cheap and quick software update, a few procedure changes, and away we go. Max1
That normally means it won’t happen, or it won’t be successful, but we will still be able to say that we have open minds and we are always trying something new.
Dick (in regard to MLS but about Australian Aviation in general.There is truth in this.)
Yes it may cost a few extra dollars - but why is that your concern? Dick
If there is radar and ATC available, why not use it. Dick
"This is despite the fact that Flight Safety International states that the most important safety mitigators to prevent CFIT accidents are ATC and radar."
Dick
In your latest post, you used these words
"Just that Flight Safety International say that they are two of the most important safety mitigators."
My bolding and italics Dog One
That they are the "most important" or "two of the most important" hardly makes a difference in the eyes of those with open minds who do not want to be involved in a CFIT accident. Dick
Gundog, why is it economically feasible for ATC to provide such a service in radar covered airspace in Europe, Canada and the US but not here? Dick
CB is an easy solution but not easily solved.More staff allows for 24/7 ops with App and TWR providing a TMA service. No need for the en-route guys to do APP on ridiculous scales. C-Change
Over the last 10 pages , Dick has come out with an idea and viewpoint that others have seen merit but also problems with. By page 10 we have learnt, and Dick has hopefully come to realise that his idea has merit , but will require signicant upgrade to TAAATS functionality and an increase in controllers or warm bodies to man the radars to achieve his desired outcome.
I have been told I am closed minded, resistant to change, have fixed views, am a 'dinosaur' and the new breed will fix everything and embrace Dick, and it is futile to answer my posts.
Lucky , most of us have thick-skins. I have been disappointed that some have 'gone the man' and not the ball, on both sides of the fence. But understand the frustrations.
Dick, you do have some good (and bad) ideas but this isn't a p!ssing competition. This is actually a good but very expensive idea.
You talk about surrounding yourself with good people and listening to them. You might not realise it, but you have been surrounded by some good people here.