YPJT - I’m actually not complaining about being held – that doesn’t worry me too much. It’s the fact that I like to be proud of Australia – it’s my country and the country I love. To know that other democracies use more modern procedures that save waste is what gets me.
It’s also the lies I have been told. This has been going on for over twenty-five years and I have been told numerous times by senior people in the military that the changes would be made and we would harmonise with the procedures as used in other leading aviation countries. This has not happened.
Most of you do not seem to understand that if the US procedures are allowed in Australia, a controller can still keep the three mile separation and still hold aircraft. It just allows the controller to make professional decisions.
If, in a country of over 300 million people with over 400,000 pilots and more than that many aircraft, the system can work with very high levels of safety, why can’t it be even considered here?
I will say again – the target resolution procedures are used between IFR and VFR aircraft in Class C airspace by the TRACON controllers. They have said to me that the system would grind to a halt if they could not use these procedures, and they found it hard to accept that Australia insisted on a three mile separation standard between IFR and VFR when VMC conditions existed.
max1 – thanks for agreeing with me, i.e. in things that are government-related that knock out any initiative. This does not have to be necessary. I know of leaders in government departments who have encouraged initiative and it’s worked well. That’s what I am pushing for in the military.
Peuce – your post makes out as if target resolution procedures are “short cuts”. They are not. They are a properly regulated procedure that has been used in the United States for over fifty years with high levels of safety.
You may as well say that ATC in Sydney no longer separating VFR from VFR is “taking a short cut”. It’s not. It’s just being professional.
Chaser – yes, I would love to have publicly funded airports and air traffic services as they do in the United States. The reason I don’t spend a lot of time on this is I believe people would say that a person like myself can well afford to pay the costs and that it would be a futile move anyway.
Scran – yes, I do “get it”. You are giving me an example of how a Williamtown Controller can use some initiative to solve an issue when there are some very tight restrictions on separation standards. Why are you against giving the controller the proven US system? Why wouldn’t you even consider it? Or why wouldn’t it even be tested in a simulator?
C-Change – you have distorted the meaning of target resolution procedures to pilots and that is why they have laughed. Did you explain that this procedure allows a controller to get aircraft closer than three miles in VMC so they can sight each other?
As you know, even at Sydney Airport and in most other airspaces, sight and follow instructions are often given. If it’s often given in Australia now, why can’t we use it to bring the separation standard down to a distance where you can actually sight the other aircraft? Now that would be logical.
I point out again – it’s up to the controller to decide whether to use this procedure.
By the way, I’m not against everything the ADF does. I am a great admirer of the active members of the ADF and I have even spent my time going on a tour to the Middle East to tell them this. However, I believe those at the coalface have been completely let down by those who move up into leadership positions.
Chronic Snoozer – No, the discussion hasn’t become hysterical. It is a fact of life that the military do have problems in attracting air traffic control recruits. That has been stated in different threads here. I understand the same situation exists at Airservices. What is the problem with stating facts?
Only one poster on this thread, max1, has explained what the problem is. Everyone else seems to defend the status quo. Why don’t you actually support us looking at giving military air traffic controllers extra responsibility as they have in the United States? Or are you suggesting that US controllers, both FAA employed and military, are more competent than ours? I don’t agree with this. As I have said consistently, our controllers are as good as any in the world. It’s just that the regulations and procedures they operate under are about fifty years out of date.
One day someone will actually go the USA and look at this procedure and realise that it will save unnecessary holding and reduce unnecessary costs.
It just makes me squirm as an Australian to see what the Williamtown controllers are forced to do knowing that it’s so unnecessary and is so demeaning for them as they are being treated like kindergarten children who cannot make professional judgements.