Thank you Dick
Why do you think we don't use our en route controllers also to do class E approach work as per the USA and Canada?
Reason #1: The overwhelming majority of operational ATC have no idea that such things are possible, or even done overseas. This majority have started their training AFTER the NAS debacle. They are trained more or less EXACTLY the way I was, they are taught to do Flight Service in G airspace, then how to do Air Traffic Control in the other classes. To this majority this is how ATC is done in Australia, and most would have no idea anybody is interested in doing it any other way. There are not many of this generation of ATC on this forum, they spend more time on Facespace or Tinder...
Reason #2: Of the few that entertain other possibilities and have memories of the Class G Trial, LLAMP and NAS, (as in what was intended in the end state, rather than the partly implemented, partly rolled back thing we have now), including myself, the impression is that every extension downward of ATC service creates more complexity.
At the time of the NAS implementation I was working the sector that contains Mildura and Mount Gambier. When the changes took away the Melbourne-Mildura FL125 E corridor, and lowered the base of CTA to FL180 we were perplexed to discover that Mount Gambier arrivals and departures were more of a workload and complexity issue than Mildura, which was previously considered busier. When the rollback restored the FL125 corridor Mildura again became the workload focus.
In the previous LLAMP concept the proposed 8,500FT base in the same area spectacularly increased workload in the trials I was involved with, even with some visual separation concepts included, (but not to the extent of the NAS Flaky VFR Procedures).
Some ATC who understand the issues were agog for the NAS changes to happen, as they interpreted the concept as generating a spectacular expansion of ATC numbers and overtime to service the extra work! How to pay for such an expansion was an SEP.*
Reason #3: They don't know how to. There are a minuscule number of Enroute ATC who know how to do Approach Control. I personally have no idea what skills I would have to onboard to provide the service.
Reason #4: I understand, (from listening to you), that Septic ATC provide an ATC service to all IFR aircraft, regardless of airspace class, a response to the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision. I also understand this was not an initiative of line ATC, it came from the regulator, the FAA. Our regulator, CASA, has control over what class of airspace is where so could implement this tomorrow, but has done nothing since they gained that authority. I remember you crowing with triumph when such authority was transferred from AA to CASA. How did that work out for you?
Could it be that no one in management has the ability to introduce the training?
I am not privy to what management thinks about such things, but what stimulus do they have to implement such changes? Nobody is asking for it except yourself. They are equally unlikely to install bathtubs at each console, I would not be surprised if this was a more popular innovation.
Training all low-level controllers in such a service would require a commitment of greatly increased numbers to release people to provide and undergo the training, and for the extra ATC that WOULD, IMHO, be required to provide the service.
They have to meet budgets, fulfill their charter and justify expense. Hence the rollback. Hence no impetus for change. SEP.
Or is it that management believes the workers will demand more money to do this ?
See notes about complexity above. More Air Traffic Control Services will, IMHO, require more Air Traffic Controllers. Each of them could be directed to do such duties with no extra pay tomorrow. Same as those that were involved in the Class G trial got nothing extra in the pay packet for extra work, and those that got extra work in the NAS got nothing.
In fact the possibility is, that with a demonstrably less efficient service it would be difficult to angle for an efficiency bonus next EBA time, so individual ATC would be faced with the possibility of less pay than they would otherwise be entitled.
Looking forward to more debate, and something stupid posted from Bhingi...
*SEP - Somebody Else's Problem, (with a lingering concern for the concept of Affordable Safety).