Safety benefits of surveillance in airspace
Jabba,
Re your post #28. Been busy here in Singapore earning $$$ to service the Port Melbourne mortgage and missed your posts until this afternoon.
Great intell mate! Buy her a beer. The RFQ number might be incorrect so make it a lite beer or softie.
There certainly was a report commissioned by CASA to look into this. It was in mid 2010 but for some reason the report was not published.
The report was researched and drafted by an experienced international team of airspace managers, pilots, regulators and - shock, horror - ex FIS from Australia, UK, US and NZ. Critical sections and the full report were peer reviewed by an independent team from the UK, Australia and FAA. It runs to 102 pages with a comprehensive bibliography. It even includes that coverage chart of US airspace showing the redundant surveillance below 1000ft that one prominent aviation luminary calls a furphy.
Despite some of the team being - again, shock, horror - ex military senior officers, the recommendations were anything but, "no change". In fact one of the recommendations was "fundamental change".
The team devised a three dimensional risk model and applied it to the various surveillance technologies in all classes of airspace to come up with a relative numerical grading of the safety benefits of surveillance.
I led the team but the IP rests with CASA and the decision on publishing is theirs and theirs alone. After seeing some of the posts here, today I reminded the research and drafting team and peer review team where that IP lies.
Biased personal opinion but I think many serious posters here would benefit from reading the report in its entirety.
Do not bother sending a PM. Despite my desire as a past airspace regulator and leader of the drafting team to have the report available for all and sundry - and some of you are very sundry - I respect the contract conditions on the IP rights of CASA.
MJG
(decrepit old military type with some airspace and regulatory experience in Australia and elsewhere)