Dick vs ADS-B vs AsA vs CASA vs Cambridge in Bad Wx

[Mr Approach]

Radar is not a term used these days, the term used is surveillance and ADS-B is surveillance. Airservices has deployed ADS-B to avoid the cost of installing radar for en-route control. This is where Airservices makes money for the Federal Government - En Route and Oceanic above FL 250. ADS-B is not is use in terminal areas (TMA) although Class D tower controllers can see the returns on a device called TSAD. This is a situaltional awareness tool hence the Airservices response to Dick's newspaper article. ADS-B is only available for the provision of 5 NM separation, it is not displayed in Class C TMA where 3NM or less is normal. Eventually it will be used in Class C TMA however all the radars have just been replaced so there is no rush. (Typical life of radar is 15 years)

ADS-B can be detected at levels below FL 290 where there is a ground station because it is a"line-of-sight" receiver. (Space Based ADS-B could be available everywhere) As above there is no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class C TMA, and there is also no incentive for the use of ADS-B in Class D TMA but for a different reason; that is cost. Airservices staffs Class D TMAs with controllers who are dual rated as Approach and Tower controllers. This means that they perform both functions from the Class D Towers, but have to be able to see outside; this is very cost effective. Under the Australian system to perform surveillance based Approach requires a dedicated controller staring at a surveillance display. Dick is correct when he says the FAA allows en-route controllers to perform this work for a Class D TMA from a Control Centre. They have the added advantage of surrounding Class E airspace so IFR aircraft are always in controlled airspace.

So to be different we have to emulate the Class E environment, have truckloads more surveillance and a complete mind-set change among aviators. (The last time this was tried back in the 90s it crashed and burned) We also would need an ATC provider that is either subject to competition (as in Europe) or is ordered by Government not to make a profit but to provide separation for all IFR aircraft (as in the US and Canada). While the government continues to want a return on the assets it "gave" to Airservices then Airservices needs to make money; it cannot do that providing separation and surveillance based approach control services in Hobart.

This problem cannot be placed at the feet of Airservices or CASA, they are both part of Executive Government and take their orders from the Government of the day.