Thank you Dick for replying to my question.
It’s all about improving safety. If we had C over D and there was adequate staffing and tools (ie. surveillance radar), it would of course be safer.
So the issue then is lack of staffing and tools?
Surely you would agree that
procedural C, which works fine is safer than non radar E?
We give large amounts of Class C airspace - often without radar – to the low level Class D Controller.
Well that is one way. C does not have to be operated by the tower, centre can and does do it.
You say controll
er, singular, if that is the issue then put another controller in the cab. This goes back to my first point which is YOUR point, the right STAFFING & TOOLS.
This means that the Controller’s attention is taken away from the D airspace close to the circuit area because the Controller also has to separate two aircraft twenty miles away in the C airspace. Surely it’s obvious to you?
Okay I see that. So if their attention should not be diverted away from the risky circuit airspace to control C how can they control the E, with IFR traffic you have created the same problem. Except now the responsible VFR aircraft in the area will be piping up on frequency adding to the workload.
We have had examples above of the R/T traffic and many controllers here, perhaps even dozens
, have said that it is easier and more efficient for all to issue sep instructions to the VFR. It takes less R/T time than a VFR announcing and then the two and fro of negotiating some sep. Or are you suggesting that the VFR stay silent? So they become radio invisible and the RPT jet pilot does not know that they are there. The controller does not know they are there. Unfortunately the laws of physics mean that regardless of the airspace letter they can still hit each other.
The only reason the FAA says they have E over D is so the resources (ie. Controller expertise) can be concentrated where the risk is greatest.
Okay. Do they have much E airspace without radar coverage? I believe the answer is no. So the VFR traffic is then visible to the system and can be managed.
Of course, I know the standard answer … our Controllers say that they can do both jobs – ie. the D airspace below and huge amounts of C above - without any problems at all.
This is absolute rubbish – just why they would make such a claim is quite extraordinary. I think I know the reason and it will come to the fore one day.
Dick I have a great deal of respect for what you have achieved in your business life. I do not understand why you have so little respect for the views of professional ATCOs. Yes there are ratbag ATCOs just like there are ratbag pilots and entrepeneurs but to dismiss their views shows that you are doing the opposite of what you always say you do, that is, listen to the experts and pinch the best ideas.
If the controller can do E over D from the tower, surely they can do C over D. I am sure you must agree.
Again to make a statement like "this is absolute rubbish" does little to help your case. Where is the DATA that you are basing this on?
No government agency makes a decision of this importance without modelling the costs (roof insulation aside) so the DATA must exist to back you up.
Rather than going around in circles comparing this bit of US procedure to that bit of Aus procedure we (the industry not pprune) need to see the business case for it. AsA as you well know has the capability to model this in off line sims, the OAR should be presented and presenting this data so we can see how the decision is made. Open and accountable. You know, the stuff people went to war for.
Cheers.