OZBUSDRIVER - There has never been a time when I have said that “non-radar E was perfectly safe.” What I have always said is that non-radar E with Australia’s mandatory transponder requirement is clearly safer than non-radar G without a transponder requirement.
I have also said that C above D is ok as long as it is adequately staffed so the air traffic controller responsible for the circuit traffic is not having his or her attention taken away by low risk traffic flying over the top at higher levels. That is, if safety shows that Class C link airspace is required a proper terminal radar service must be provided with both primary and secondary radar. Otherwise there is absolutely no way of knowing if a VFR non-transponder equipped aircraft flew across the airspace.
TOPDROP - I’m really shaking in my boots to be criticised by some unknown, dead loss, non-achiever from the ATSB. In fact, I took the statement as a compliment.
To the air traffic controllers on this thread who are all trying to keep the status quo - never fear! I’m in the process of selling my IFR aircraft – I’ll be donating the money to good causes and I won’t be flying IFR at all in Australia. But it’s strange. If I was an air traffic controller I would be proud to give an actual control service, not charge a pilot for service from, say, Bankstown to Ballina but where the service was really required in the terminal area on approach to Ballina then not give a control service at all but give a 1930’s traffic service. If I was an Aussie air traffic controller I would want to be trained to the skills of controllers in North America where this terminal air space is under control using a trained enroute controller who is no doubt multi-skilled compared to Australia. Especially after the terrible Benalla accident where five were killed, I would want to be trained to give an actual control service so I can help prevent avoidable accidents like that.
Also, as a controller when I’ve heard of an incident where two professional pilots were in cloud at Bundaberg trying to shoot the same approach at the same time, I would say “Hey, I’m an air traffic controller. Why can’t I provide an actual control service at Bundaberg like they do (as I’m told) in all other modern aviation countries?”
Now this criticism is not against the small number of controllers who have contacted me to say that I am 100% correct and we should provide a proper Class E upgraded control service at these busy, non-tower airports.
Yes, I realise Civil Air has actively worked against this. But talk about an unprofessional organisation! It should be running amateurs, not professionals, because it doesn’t support its members – who are actually called air traffic “controllers” - to actually control aircraft, rather than use a 1930’s flight service traffic information service. Every time I flew into Ballina in my CJ3 in cloud I cringed when on descent, where I really wanted a proper control service to be delivered by a professional controller who I was actually paying to actually give me a control service. However, I had to become the air traffic controller and separate myself from other planes in cloud – it’s quite pathetic.
But don’t worry, I have given up on this. I realise there will have to be more fatalities before the majority of you dumbos realise that control means just that, control, and that’s the way of saving lives.
For those who think terminal radar is just for efficiency purposes, please think again. Terminal radar, if properly equipped with an alarm system, can help prevent a controlled flight in terrain. It’s done so all around the world.
Yes, resist change and wait until a major accident occurs. I certainly hope it’s not your loved ones who are involved.