I’ve been to the TCU’s several times and I have nothing but respect for how the controllers do their jobs. My comments relate to my impression that US controllers seem to have procedures and regulations in place that make their airspace management much more efficient and open to all, while maintaining a high level of safety. It seems to work.
There are several aspects to US control that I like, and they relate to deferring operational decisions back to the cockpit as much as possible. I can think of two at the moment. One is the ability of controllers to defer separation decisions to pilots under visual conditions within CTA. The second is the implementation of clearance limits, whereby the pilots are given the responsibility to arrive at certain points at certain times. Australian controllers seem to regard this as the quintessential aspect of their job, whereas the US controllers are quite willing to dump this workload back into the cockpits.
Australian procedures appear to favour controllers managing the aircraft – telling the pilots what to do and how to do it. These procedures work well but appear to have a limit in terms of traffic capacity.
US procedures appear to favour controllers managing the airspace – telling the pilots where they want them and when, what’s in the way and letting them manage the aircraft. The procedures appear designed to get work off the controllers' desks and seem to be more effective.
Again, just my impression, but the US system seems to better encourage both controller and pilot to work in unison towards a common goal and appears to be more effective and efficient.
Changes to procedures do not necessarily involve extra controllers and higher workload. Airservices may find that the US procedures actually reduce workload at the same time allowing the same number of controllers to handle more aircraft. I think it's worth consideration.
Last edited by Lodown; 22nd Aug 2003 at 01:47.