Owen Stanly suggests
there are some on PPRuNe who obviously will not read Scurv's posts.
I have no doubt this is true given the seemingly deliberate misinformation in his posts.
Scurvy D Dog, you claim that Dick Smith is
only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace.
You know perfectly well that the NAS model does not include class C airspace above class D such as at MLT and many other regional class D airports.
Your attempt to suggest Dick Smith is advocating a TAR at MLT and other regional airports is at best a malicious misrepresentation of the truth to which your motivation for suggesting this deserves to be questioned. More on this later.
You further give a running account of how you go about procedural separation. Thank you for the recap as I am sure there are newly minted Instrument Rated pilots who will read this and appreciate your experienced insight.
You ask
are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz
Yes I am. And here is your solution Scurvy D Dog
No Further Requirements says
...give us the same ratio of controllers to airspace they have in the US - surely it's the best system and we should copy it verbatim?
My bolding
Scurvy D Dog, the burning question I now have is why you deliberately make these misleading statements to support your case? On the one hand your objection seems to be that we don't have enough controllers or that it would cost too much money to provide radar services to low level from Melbourne Centre.
On the other hand you seem convinced that the current airspace design at MLT is set in stone and that it
is pretty close to ideal!
despite the obvious suggestion by
No further Requirements that we look elsewhere to see how it is done and copy that.
So which one is it? Are you genuinely concerned about the cost to industry incurred in transferring A045 to A085 to Mel Centre or are you raising any possible objection just so you can keep the current status quo?
Lets take a closer look at the situation as it stands. At present you and your colleagues would have to be trained to give IFR and VFR procedural separation services in class D, IFR and VFR services in Class C and get recurrent checks each year. Sounds expensive!
On the other hand, unlike the deliberately misleading suggestion that Dick Smith wants a TAR service in MLT, the NAS model would have the centre controller providing a seamless enroute and approach service to the low volume of traffic over places like Launy. This to me appears a lot less expensive in terms of initial and recurrent training than the duplicated system you would like to maintain.
Seeing as I don't actually know what the cost difference is between these two models, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I wont even ask you to provide the cost comparison between the two models that would support your case, as I know you don't have that information either given that I have asked you for it in the past.
Assuming that your objections on cost are not based on fact that leads me to think that you may personally have an interest in keeping the status quo.
Could it be that if you loose the approach rating to Melbourne Centre you will actually take a pay cut? Could it be that if you aren't required to give any IFR separation services at all you would take a pay cut?
I know if I was threatened to be sent to a smaller jet my pay packet would be in jeopardy and I would fight the change too. Is this the case for you Scurvy D Dog? Do you stand to loose financially should the NAS model as proposed get adopted?
Do tell Scurvy D Dog, what is your interest in this matter?