Dick: #22/#28
I'll start with the basics. I agree it's past time surveillance was introduced to Tasmania. You want the US system, there are other options, such as tower based approach. You really should spend some time watching a sector when there is moderate to busy traffic. Oz sector controllers have huge airspace, are are already working to or beyond maximum at times. If the sector controllers get the approach function, I can bet it will be limited to clearing the approach and handing off to the tower, probably with directed traffic info gained from the radar. HB and LT can get sequences of around 6 or more jets (it's not uncommon, couple or few arrivals from Vic, another from FLI, and one or two to depart in the meantime), which need separation, sequencing, holding, before being sorted out with the local traffic. There is no way an en route controller could possibly have the time to do this with the current staffing and organisation. Then, we have the same sector guy/gal running two real sequences, one into HB, another into LT, forget somewhere else that could be happening like DPO or even Victoria.
Let me remember the history a little. Until a grand new plan about 20 years ago, aircraft in CTA were separated. Then "someone" had the great idea that light aircraft operation VFR could transit over head airports with jet operations, and all they had to do was listen out, maybe announce their presence, and maybe deviate a little if the pilot thought it was necessary. Class E over D. Works great in US, why not here, with no, niente, nulle nixt surveillance. Despite serious concern from pilots and controllers, the idea was introduced. So now the safety of hundreds depended on a VFR pilot with possible less than 100 hours, determining the threat, then the reaction. That lasted about 3 weeks, if I recall, until the already mentioned Virgin encounter near LT. Now, tell me again, that I or my ideas are ridiculous. Really, you should have quietly pulled your head in over that one, and thanked someone that it wasn't a noisy aluminium shower.
I also recall "someone" again, in an airspace review/restructure arguing for more space for lighties, which would be so incredible that flying training would flourish, creating jobs and wealth for everyone. One result of that gave us CTA steps AO85 at 30 miles. What's wrong with that? Nothing really, just that many times every day of the year, RPT jets have to apply power, waste fuel, and often cause the approach to be above profile, because they are held to AO90 until 30 miles. Why, well, because of all that VFR traffic beneath them. How many VFR, less than a handful a year; how many jet approaches stuffed around, conservatively 1000 a year, just for a place like HB. Any jet drivers here want to dispute that, arriving from Clark with a good tailwind, but landing on 12 because of the every present sea breeze.
Just a couple of examples of a little knowledge, from a well meaning, high profile amateur.
Now, tell me again that I'm being ridiculous.
Back to the story. After the LT E airspace event, a portable radar was installed in LT. This was at the time when aircraft numbers were taking off, pun intended. Accordingly, TASWAM was introduced, which gave en route pretty well a picture of en route airspace; aircraft were, from memory, separated by "radar" (not really radar) from above about AO60, lower in some areas.
Lets look at a couple more of your statements. You suggested that ASA are running airspace management with the priority of giving a few mates in HB a job. Are you serious?? ASA would sack every controller if they could manage, the controllers are pushed pretty hard in the new world. I know, I'm just being ridiculous.
You admitted in one of your posts, that you didn't even know the radar separation standard, but you are ready to reorganise Oz airspace.
You also said CFIT was the major threat. It was, but until recently, at least, the major threat has been related to runway occupancy. Now, at Hobart, still no taxiways to the thresholds, so backtracks, prolonged time on the active are normal every day. Using logic and statistics, the greater threat to safety at HB is the taxiway/runway situation. You would be better pushing for taxiways than radar.
Back to sector controllers providing approach function. In US, I'll bet the sector/approach controller will be providing directed traffic, based on paints he/she observes on the screen. The same information could be gained by the pilots from their own TCAS display, if acft in the area had transponders. I'll get flamed for this, but mandatory transponders would save a lot of time, talk, etc. ASA would save a pile, get the same result, if they paid or heavily subsidised the fitting of transponders. If ASA were to run with the sectors providing the approach function, there will be quite a few extra controllers needed, believe me.
I'll repeat, I agree that surveillance in TAS is an idea long overdue, it's a matter of consultation and consideration, and there are other pressing issues.