Dick Re #18
TASWAM was not intended to provide terminal surveillance at HB and LT.
It's main purpose was provide an en route and arrivals function, feeding to the procedural Class D towers. Generally, a reasonable plan. As I remember it, ASA decided to try and save some money on the installation by using fewer ground stations than recommended by the suppliers. You get what you pay for. Despite a common view, procedural approach at Class D towers works pretty well, especially as the controllers can monitor the display, for monitoring and adjusting sequences. Procedural control, Class D can often be more efficient and flexible than radar separation.
However, I agree that surveillance is overdue at places like these. ASA pays the government a handsome "dividend" every year. That dividend should be going to fund relevant infrastructure(such as surveillance), not general revenue.
The danger is that, ASA being a (ATC) Centre centric organisation, will be pushing for approach controllers based in Melbourne doing multiple approach functions, down to about 1500 ft, and handing over to tower for basically an aerodrome/circuit function. A better solution would be to train and rate the tower guys/gals on radar, and still retain enough vertical airspace (around 6000 ft) to be able to manage and integrate traffic. This is particularly important when you have a wide range of performance mix, from ultralights, to slow lighties, turboprops, jets, military, etc. HB also has CBG, how would the sep be done on radar with that? Very clumsily. Sadly, very few if any senior management have any experience in stuff like this.
You can guess what we'll get in a few years, bet it won't be HB/LT (i.e. tower) based.
Last edited by growahead; 10th Jul 2015 at 03:48.