G'day Dick, back again,
Thanks for providing some more info on "target resolution". I now know what you're on about. Hey, I'm all for it if industry is. As I said earlier, I'm just an employee and a line controller at that, and whilst I've been asked to provide my opinion over the years, that doesn't mean it will become a rule. Same goes for any suggestions made by the former UK, Candian controllers I've worked with. That happens in any industry, management don't always listen to the workers and don't always implement their staff's ideas. Thats life.
If you want these changes to happen, you know that you have to convince the airlines, ADF, AsA, CASA and a whole heap of organistaions that your planned change is safe and more efficient. No point banging on about RAAF leadership as it must be agreed to by many parties. What would be worse is if we ended up with a different Class C procedure in Military Rest. airpsace and another set of procedures for Civil Class C.
Now going back to your situation on the Willy VFR route. What your asking for is a completed change to the service provided in Class C depending upon the weather. Sure you can do it, but is that what you really want, so you can avoid the odd delay? I'll try to expalin below and this isn't intended to antagonise you.
The Air Ambulance always operate IFR and would have been conducting an ILS. That is why you were held. You were held to protect the missed approach path of that aircraft, otherwise you would have been allowed to transit along the coast. Once an aircraft is cleared for the ILS (or any instrument approach), that aircraft is also cleared to conduct the full MAP. The App controller has no choice but to protect the MAP. Its referred to as "Separation Assurance". It was brought in to stop controllers from winging it and plucking standards or separating based on aircraft performance. If the Air Ambulance was conducting a visual approach, different story. The TWR can then restrict them to remain in the circuit area (lots of options) and keep them away from yourself and maintain separation.
What your suggesting, is that you shouldn't have been held on the coast because the Air Ambulance intended to land on RWY12 and was never going to conflict with yourself. This is true, so long as they land successfully.
If they did conduct the MAP and you were allowed North bound, I reckon the two returns would have merged and the ATC would have had to prove vertical separation on the run, and thats not good. I'm assuming you still want IFR separated from VFR in class C? If you don't want IFR separated from VFR, then that is Class D. Thats why I thought you wanted TWR to have the control zone for in my earleir post. You can make control zones Class D and do exactly as you suggest with Radar Traffic advice but at this point in time, industry does not want it. As I said you have to convince more than just RAAF. You also suggested earlier that
In the Williamtown situation I referred to at the start of this thread, the extra workload on the controller by holding two aircraft can lead to reducing safety for the airline aircraft that he or she should be concentrating on. Anyway, this is what I am told by international air traffic control specialists.
In fact the opposite can happen. By letting aircraft run down to the absolute minimum, the controller becomes fixated on that particluar confliction and they forgot to scan the rest of the screen.
The 3NM standard. Some boffin once upon a time decided that the basic lateral separation was 1Nm between the possible positions of two aircraft. Tolerances are than added to come up with the appropriate separation standard. In the case of radar, an additional 1nm tolerance is added to each aircraft (allows for equipmemt errors) and thats how we got 3Nm radar within TMA/TCU's. 3Nm sounds big but if you stuff up and get below 3Nm, it doesn't leave you with a lot of room to fix it. Running IFR and VFR with just space between the returns, even in VMC, leaves no room for error, especially if they are moving at 5-7 Nm per minute. You run out of room pretty quickly .
Back to the Canberra TWR solution. Someone else pointed out why that worked in CB and not Willy. Thats why I asked if you requested direct to the field at anytime. If you did, TWR and APP can then do a quick bit of internal coordination as to the tracking of both aircraft and arrange who is separating you both. TWR can then apply visual separation and all are happy. I haven't worked Willy TWR for 12 years but I remember how difficult it is to see aircraft in the coastal route. It doesn't matter how much airspace the TWR has, or airspace class, the controller has to see both aircraft to apply visual separation and it is much easier if they are both tracking towards you, as opposed to underneath the IAP.
I've gone on enough for now, so I'll leave it at that. Hope it has helped out.