mj
Stepped straight into it
You say
….. no one is suggesting that MLT needs to have Terminal Approach Radar installed. Traffic levels do not justify this, thank you for pointing this out.
in fact your mate
The Oreo is
Dick Smith 17th July 2008 10:41
Ozbusdriver, I’m only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace.
That is because there is no way an air traffic controller knows where a VFR aircraft is in the Class C unless the air traffic controller has both primary and secondary radar. You don’t seem to understand this.
Prim + SSR = TAR … but I am glad you two disagree on something! .. I was starting to think you two were procreating
.
So, if you are agreeing with me re: no TAR and RADAR TMA in regionals, then lets move onto discuss Enroute Surveillance services over Regional D and D/C TWR/APP services.
You said
Once again I will draw your attention to the fact that the US provide the enroute radar service to low levels without TAR into low volume class D towered airports and class E non towered airports where it is available.
… Once again, I ask you the comparative size of the overlying sector airspaces i.e Range scale!?
… do you know?, do you care?, are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz … and the practical effect this has on the ability to provide an ‘Arrivals’ service (as distinct from an approach service), down to the FAF as you suggest??
.
If you are not, then you (and the Oreo) might consider this little revelation
Dick Smith 17th November 2008 13:19
If the radar service is to ground level at Launceston, why isn’t the Launceston airspace only to 4,500 feet, and the Centre “controls” the airspace above – as per the situation at Coffs Harbour?
Now focus hard you two! ... stop the recording of your own voices running in the background, and FOCUS!
1. It is the case that at the very tower you uphold as an example, inbound IFR and Departing IFR & VFR are separated by the TWR/APP unit
2. The overlying sector will in coordination with the sequence arbiter (the TWR), sequence the arrivals.
3. The arriving traffic
will call the tower at around 25nm, generally assigned A060, and the TWR/APP, then provides the approach service including in IMC.
4. Should holding be required above A040, the TWR will organise an airspace release from the overlying sector.
5. During extensive holding (conditions below the minimums), the overlying sector will establish aircraft in a vertical stack O/H often around A080 and above, and then when descent is available in the hold, will be transferred to the TWR/APP for descent in the hold and approach management!
This arrangement will not change unless and until separate, stand alone Surveillance Approach services are deemed necessary, which I reiterate, you agree with entirely i.e.
….. no one is suggesting that MLT needs to have Terminal Approach Radar installed. Traffic levels do not justify this, thank you for pointing this out.
, presumably you hold the same view on all Regional TWR/APP D/C services, given little ol' YMLT was the 10th highest revenue earning airport in the land, last finacial year!!!
Basically what I am saying is that at other Class D towers, we maximise the use of radar when it is available. Why don’t we do this at Launy?
Like I said …. We do!!!! Those are the facts boys!!!
Walrus 7
To reasonable PPRuNer’s like you and
bushy (and a host of others), I do sincerely apologise. I am so far past being able to regurgitate the same facts, links and real life realities to disingenuous tools like the above, particularly when those efforts are deliberately ignored in favour of rehashing the same unsubstanciated garbage time and time again.
They know who I am (as I am sure most PPRuNe’rs do by now), and they know I know what I am talking about!! Yet the same petty, puerile, ignorant ranting’s continue to be trotted out with the sole intent to paint an unreality that suits their flawed ideologies, which mischievous or not, most often bare no resemblance to reality.
I don’t tell
Oreo how he should fly his CJ, nor do I tell
mj his headset is on backwards. Their ranting in here about ATC and airspace, and more particularly Launy in this case, is nothing more than a focus on maligning a location and service based largely on the fact that one of its operators has the gall to stand up and put a view contrary to theirs. I could not care less, but I do care when paper tigers masquerading as all knowledgeable, who in reality are only bent on revenge, decide to meddle in services that could have a dramatic effect on that service efficiency, safety and cost to other users!!!
If they were fair dinkum, the tone and temperature would be substantially different.