Peuce, you state
Is there a problem to start with? Do the pilots and operators who fly into Launy have a problem with the procedures?
You don’t seem to understand resistance to change. For example, look at the Benalla accident. When details were posted on how the radar was not used to advise the pilot that he was at least 1,000 feet below the legal lowest safe altitude, posters came on this site basically blaming the pilot.
That is, if pilots operated perfectly and did not make errors, there would be no need for the radar service to be improved at places like Benalla, Launceston and Proserpine. The problem is that pilots are human, and devices such as the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System can be unreliable.
The only reason the USA and other leading aviation countries have airlines flying in controlled airspace when under radar coverage is because past accidents have shown that this is a way of improving safety.
You only have to look at the Flight Safety International paper on CFIT accidents to see that radar and air traffic control are given the greatest number of points as safety mitigators.
Are we to wait for a controlled flight into terrain accident similar to the one that nearly happened at Canberra (see
here) before we actually use the radar that we have already paid for?
I agree that using the radar for traffic advice has some advantages over not using it at all, however why not use it as it is designed? That is, with proper radar rated controllers that can not only provide a traffic separation service, but in some cases prevent a CFIT. You only have to look at what has happened in Cairns – where CFIT accidents have been prevented by air traffic control a number of times.