Malroy - Thanks for your post (#28).
The facts are quite simple.
I’m looking at a little yellow booklet at the moment which is headed
Airways Transition Project -AMATS -The Dates
and it’s has the date
By 12 December 1991
On Stage 4 for June 1993 it says
• IFR/IFR Separation provided in low level airspace.
Now this date seems to be 22 years ago. I was involved in the AMATS changes and the plan was to test some low level Class E controlled airspace at an airport like Ballina. The reason we were going to do this is we found that every airport in the United States which has IFR traffic is a minimum of Class E controlled airspace.
As you know in Australia all non-towered airports with instrument approaches are in G uncontrolled airspace. Now when you see such a staggering difference it’s normal to say “
why should we be so different? Is it worth us testing what they do in other leading aviation countries to see if it has any benefits?”
As you know, due to resistance of change we haven’t even tested one airport with Class E like they have at every IFR non-tower airport in the USA. Yes, I am arguing that we should test the proven US system at Ballina. Yes, it will give a higher level of service but I don’t necessarily believe it will be at a higher cost.
To use the existing enroute controller (as they do in the USA) to provide a separation service rather than a traffic service at Ballina may be revenue-neutral, i.e. other than the small cost of training the controller.
In relation to Hobart and Canberra, the situation is quite different to what you explain. That is, we have spent $6 million of air passengers’ money in putting in the very latest multilateration radar service in Tasmania. The supplier of the equipment has unequivocally stated that the system was designed to provide a surveillance service across Tasmania and to the ground at both Hobart and Launceston airports. They maintain that the system does provide this service and they have never received any communication from Airservices Australia to say that it does not.
Now if you’ve paid the $6 million for the service, why would you use it? – i.e. radar instead of 1930’s radio operated procedural.
So, Malroy, don’t be confused - it’s all incredibly simple. There is a cover up going on here and no doubt it will be exposed. Maybe next week in the Senate.