Peuce asks the question
As Scurvy said .... Is there a problem to start with? Do the pilots and operators who fly into Launy have a problem with the procedures?
I categorically do have a problem with it. I cannot think of one 'kero burning' pilot that I have flown with who prefers procedural separation. Especially if there is radar coverage available in the airspace.
As NFR said ... If there is a problem, lets have a Cost Benefit Analysis of the possible solutions ... including assessment of procedures, equipment, staffing, training, pilot education, costs etc
We don't need yet another bureaucratic report to tell us that procedural separation is far inferior in terms of safety and efficiency compared to radar separation.
Imagine if everyone actually believed it was safer and more efficient. Can you imagine Sydney or Chicago reverting to procedural separation?
Scurvy
In fact in our case, with the ability to streamline traffic management with 'surveillance assist' (rather than being hamstrung by it), the feedback is the exact opposite!!
Here is some feedback for you. Thank goodness Launy is not a busy airport for all our sakes. The situation at Launy is far from ideal and I would welcome a decent radar service provided by Melbourne Centre to the FAF or till I call visual. Imagine if procedural separation was provided below 8500ft in Melbourne or Sydney, it is simply a less efficient system.
Most importantly, why does our system reduce services rather than increase them the closer we get to the 'high risk' areas? This simply does not make sense.
No Further Requirements you say
It's just the person in the tower doesn't have a radar rating. Outside tower hours the sector controller can still see them descend in Class G and uses it just fine to provide a traffic service.
Let me make it clear that I would
never support giving a Sydney tower controller responsibility for providing enroute or approach radar services, just as I would not support giving a class D tower controller the same responsibility.
Why on earth can't we have what we (the industry and airspace users) are paying for. There is a perfectly good radar on the ground at Launy, soon to be supplemented by a Multilateration system that is not going to be used when it is needed most. That is, late at night when the kero burner pilots (or any other pilot) are tired, its dark and we are descending into mountainous terrain.
Let me highlight the stupidity of the situation. A couple of months ago I flew the jet into Launy right after the tower closed. Departing was a Convair freighter and one other (I believe an ambulance flight). All three planes were airborne and to my utter frustration all three aircraft ended up talking on Centre frequency to stay separated. What a cumbersome mess! Needless to say, Melbourne Centre could not provide anyone else with radar services during this time with the frequency congestion.
The solution is simple. Give the separation task to the person who has the best equipment to provide it, Melbourne Centre.
would't it be good to have the time and resources to do CTA to the deck 24/7 in various places around Oz. Clearly we don't.
I see that you really do think its a good idea for Mel Centre to provide services down to the ground. Would you then support making MLT class E below 8500ft after the tower closes if you were given the 'resources'?