I see in the
RAAFASA’s post the key to one of the problems. Let’s quote:
We wanted to create a local rule whereby we could just pass traffic (on the grounds that before the IFR acft hits the chopper - he would have already hit the treetops/ pwr lines!) This was rejected by a pilot (most agreed, but there was one dissenting squadron).
I have spoken to many military air traffic controllers about the enlightened procedures which take place in the UK, Canada and the USA, most would like to bring those procedures in, however they tell me that the total resistance to change and concrete mindedness of those in authority stop this from happening.
Here is a classic example, it looks as if the experienced and professional air traffic controllers wanted to bring in a local procedure that would facilitate movement of traffic and make it more similar to what happens overseas and “a pilot" was able to stop this from happening. It reminds me of the situation with the victor lane over a decade ago, where one pilot managed to stop its introduction for nearly two years.
It is so sad that the military don’t send a small team of controllers and pilots overseas to look at how similar air space is controlled. Imagine a review which looked at how these enlightened procedures work overseas and looked at the safety implications and whether we could import some of the ideas to Australia. Generally speaking when I have been held it is obvious that it is because of some archaic procedure designed in the 1950’s and not for any real safety reasons. This has been confirmed by professional air traffic controllers when I have discussed it with them.