Welcome back LB
You've had your fair share of rock throwing and sarcasm too but I like your interest in finding solutions and I think that's important.
I've re-read through this thread and realise you may know more than you're letting on.
What aircraft would have come closer to ZPJ than XGA?
Limitations of the current system:
- No requirement for mandatory calls
- It's a big sky out there but gets smaller at a circuit
- See and avoid for a jet/turbo is difficult in a circuit due to workload and positioning for landing, speed and window size.
- TCAS difficult to monitor and interpret in a circuit due to delays in updating in turns and other limitations (non transponder equipped GA aircraft and Txpdr not being turned on)
- 2, sometimes 3 aerodromes linked to same frequency (Wentworth and Mildura for example)
- Company procedures of having 2 frequencies being monitored at the same time.
- Wake turbulence issues for smaller aircraft
- Manoeuvrability of larger aircraft to avoid collision
- More chance of conflict with 'Cowboys' due to non controlled environment
Now try asking Mr and Mrs ticket holder if they'd find this acceptable?
Proposed solutions:
- Towered aerodrome (too costly)
- Class E to the ground
- AFIS
- Unicom
- Straight in approaches only for RPT (less workload, more time to observe traffic visually and using TCAS, no banking obscuring other unsighted traffic (no delay in TCAS updates), higher on horizon (easier to distinguish from ground or circuit, landing lights on being seen longer).
Why should less manoeuvrable (bigger) aircraft have to give way to other traffic while on a straight in approach? Powered aircraft give way to gliders due to their limitations. Larger aircraft have more limitations.
Now please discuss without sarcasm or rock throwing.........