However, I understand the Williamtown approach does not use mosaic or multi-radar tracking for aircraft that are flying close to the airfield.
Of course they do - the RADAR cannot see above itself, so it uses best data available (from three other sites when I was there last), quite often to get rid of the "cone of silence". I do agree the low level coverage from the other feeds is poor (best I ever saw was down to 2000 feet during RADAR maintenance). There are conditions when the controller will intervene, but in most cases, the system decides which data is best given the conditions on the day.
Who cares _ it's got nothing to do with the issue.
le Pingouin is absolutely correct. It is how the data is displayed that is important; i.e. whether you're using a synthetic (computer interpreted and processed - digital) display or raw (pure RADAR return data - analogue) display of the RADAR signal. Guess which one (yes one) military ATC currently uses.
We will give our controllers procedures and responsibilities that will allow them to use their professionalism and experience to the greatest extent.
This statement actually saddens me.
It is clear that your knowledge of ATC is lacking and predominantly based on what you hear from the cabin of your aircraft. That is akin to me judging your ability to fly an aircraft based solely on the time that you have been transiting the airspace that I control. Am I right to assume that you are condoning this practice of 'limited understanding' along with your 'name calling', circular arguments and lack of evidence as perfectly valid reasons for arguing?
The only reason posters don’t put their names to their posts on such basic issues as airspace procedures is they don’t really believe in what they are saying and they don’t want to have a system where something could be attributed to them
You do know this is an
anonymous forum right? It says so at the bottom of the page.