mj
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.
.. point out
ANY information that I have posted that is in any way misinformation! .. and do so with facts not just your misguided missives!! ... I have extended that courtesy to you (which you clearly hate), how about the same courtesy!
Scurvy D Dog, you claim that Dick Smith is
:only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace.
That’s what he said!!! ... can't you read? or are you bathing in denial??
Moreover, he supports the RADAR C directive put in place by that dunce Anderson on the eve of the Fed Gov’t going into caretaker mode election before last!!
As readers would remember, that was around the time that the return to C over D decision was taken. Many saw straight through it as a cynical attempt to load a cost benefit analysis to rule out C (with TAR) over D on CBA grounds, which under the now defunct AusNAS would see a default E!
.. as was proven at the time C does not require RADAR (ICAO), yet it can be well argued that given VFR are transparent in E, that E demonstrably does require surveillance more that C ever would …. And so history is written thus
… the industry is not that stupid!
… as you say
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.
… I rest my case!!!
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
… Mate, go back and read what
HE said! I have done the decent thing and provided said quote!
to which your motivation for suggesting this deserves to be questioned.
.. question away
mj! .... at the same time I am sure many would be questioning others motives eh
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.
… thankyou!
You ask
:
are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz
Yes I am.
Goodoh
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?
OK …. So
- How many additional sectors do ya reckon?
- How many additional TMA’s?
- How many additional Towers?
- How many additional RADAR’s?
- How many additional ATC’s?
..... how many Aerodromes in Oz would qualify for ATC/S if we had the US system and reg's? ... hmmm
So
mj as a self appointed spokesperson for industry on ATS matters, how much extra do you think it might cost you
and everyone else? … and what safety and or efficiency gains will it deliver, and , more importantly, what safety and efficiency drivers sit behind that massive additional industry cost??
Scurvy D Dog, the burning question I now have is why you deliberately make these misleading statements to support your case?
saying misleading is easy, how about
proving where I have mislead! .. not so easy eh when I have not!!!
… I have provided the burden of proof in my responses as a coutesy to you two!! .. are you up to doing the same?
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.
correct .. in concert with a safety and or efficiency basis that supports change .. where is it??? … I have asked you two this same question so many times, and you will not provide any factual basis driving your change proposal!!
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!
There is no 'on the other hand' mate!!!
The current airspace design is proven over many years, and improved with surveillance assist in recent years .. as I said, where is the driving data that suggests change is required or desired … apart from ideological religious ‘beliefs’????
despite the obvious suggestion by No further Requirements that we look elsewhere to see how it is done and copy that.
NO, don’t misquote
N.F.R that is not what they said
MJ: Give us the terminals, maps, admin support and, most importantly, people and I would be happy to do whatever we can to provide more services. I would love to have a 80NM x 80NM sector in SE Australia instead of the 400NM one I used to work on. Show me the money! 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?
And radar versus procedural, sometime procedural is better than radar, especially in low to medium density environments.
Minimum radar standard: 3NM
Minimum procedural standard: 1NM
what part of that 100% accurate summation (including sarcastic smilie) do you not grasp!!!
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?
.. I would have thought anyone with even the slightest comprehension ability will know, and it is far more reaching that the simplistic view you put!
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!
… NO, training is specific, no different really in time length and cost when comparing A/D specific nuances! .. recurrent operational checks are 6 monthly, written rating papers 12monthly, currency is (in basic terms) max 21 days away before familiarisation requirements kick in (same all disciplines) … what’s your point?
On the other hand, unlike the deliberately misleading suggestion that Dick Smith wants a TAR service in MLT
.. again, that’s what he said!!
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.
Nup, misleading and wrong,you cannot combine wide area enroute high with approach services!!!
This to me appears a lot less expensive in terms of initial and recurrent training than the duplicated system you would like to maintain.
… you goose, what you are proposing does exactly that, duplicates what is currently a combined service!!
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.
…. A lie, I have provided it in the past, many times, and here in this thread. There is no cost difference between Tower provided D/C or D/E, and there is a huge difference between Tower D and increased cost associated with separate Radar APP C .. what part of that can you not comprehend? … most other seem able to!!
Assuming that your objections on cost are not based on fact
WRONG!!
that leads me to think that you may personally have an interest in keeping the status quo.
WRONG!!!
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?
… bwahhahaha .. if anyone was in any doubt about how desperate and clean out of viable facts or answers you goons are ... resorting to a slur like that!
How about this you insulting ground sheet, most regional TWR/APP D and D/C controllers are paid LESS than GAAP … which is what you are basically proposing a regional D tower should be!!
Doh .. I hear you say …. shot yourself in the bickie man again!
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.
.. a timely insight into the sort of person you are eh!!
Is this the case for you Scurvy D Dog?
.. no, and the imputation disgusts me!!
Do you stand to loose financially should the NAS model as proposed gets adopted?
.. desperate accusations from a dunce! Again (insert description of choice), I do not!!!
Do tell Scurvy D Dog, what is your interest in this matter?
.. ensuring the long suffering industry is aware of pitfalls being set up by … self absorbed nobodies attached to a rich mouth piece!!!