Launy Radar- WHY????

[alidad]

Many of you have speculated in other posts as to why Launceston and not Alice Springs has a portable radar.
This link may give a clue as to why this is so....It's called CHEAP politics.

http://www.abc.net.au/tasmania/news/200406/s1141606.htm





Regards

[karrank]

Erm, there have been much more blatant grabs. At the official opening one Tasmanian senator crowed about what he had "won" for his voters.

To inject some reality, the normal facilities people were asked to decide where to put the radar and their decision was implemented from a very high level indeed. It may have helped that the facs people had managed to pick exactly what the very high level indeed people wanted them to, but it was all justified and @ss-covered.

It wasn't done on a whiteboard.

[Uncommon Sense]

I fail to see what is 'cheap' about it.

To me it appears more like an inordinate waste of funds - important aviation resources and funding placed in the wrong location. What would RHS have to say about that?

Very little it would appear. The lure of Switzerland appears stonger than his self proclaimed passion to reform Airspace.

LT TWR can not even make good use of the facility.

Perhaps the ABC Tasmania and the local press should be asking some difficult questions of PM JWH when his media circus launches the big top in LT.

Don't expect any answers however.

The only problem with commonsense - it not that common

[ferris]

He is a master media-manipulater. Why would he want attention drawn to how much money is being wasted fixing HIS mess? Very good idea to be out of reach atm.

[MoFo]

I don't get this. You are procedurally separated by Launy Tower, you have to use procedural radio phraseology, but they have a radar.

Who the hell is watching it?????

[Hempy]

I don't get this. You are procedurally separated by Launy Tower, you have to use procedural radio phraseology, but they have a radar.

Actually, they don't have a radar, Melbourne Center gets the feed. An Air Situation Display (i.e radar screen) would have cost around $20,000, so Launy Tower didn't get one. Makes good headlines that there is a radar head there though, doesn't it. :yuk:

[Baldricks Mum]

Now wait a minute Hempy.

Do I hear you right that AsA did not put a radar screen at Launy at the cost of $20,000, yet from page 42 of the AsA Annual Report, the Profit from Commercial Activities is $80,861,000 ?

What the Hell? Now we hear that the Bean Counters from Airservices have rejected the RFDS plea to reduce the burden on their operation.

To the Airservices Australia Management : What the hell are you playing at?

Note: This is not an ATC bash. Just a query to the Bean counters at Airservices.

Baldricks cranky Mum

[Uncommon Sense]

http://www.accc.gov.au/content/item.phtml?itemId=500813&nodeId=file40889f5643c67&fn=Royal%20Flying%20Doctor%20Service%20-%20submission%20on%20Airservices%20Yulara%20ARFF%20price%20n otification.pdf

http://www.abc.net.au/northwest/news/200407/s1149969.htm

http://au.news.yahoo.com/040707/2/pswy.html

Is this a clawback of all the expended funds that JA with his NAS project forced upon AirServices? Wasn't GA supposed to prosper according to Wes Willoughby and RHS?

My understanding is that RPT <15,000 kg MTOW pay NO enroute Nav Charges (something to do with Regional Area susbsidy - JA's voter base for the cynics like me) - this is not funded - and the big winner is the QF subsidiaries. Yet the RFDS, a not for profit service that relies on donations to survive gets very little respite from the government? How upside down is the logic (common sense) there?

And I hear that AirServices are so short of Air Traffic Controllers in some areas the overtime costs are horrendous. This doesn't even consider the impost on skilled controller numbers or the impending retirement wave / experience bubble. What the hell is going on?

(Is it really true that the LT controller has no radar? How is traffic passed - via ML?!)

The only problem with commonsense - it not that common

[Hempy]

And I hear that AirServices are so short of Air Traffic Controllers in some areas the overtime costs are horrendous. This doesn't even consider the impost on skilled controller numbers of the impending retirement wave / experience bubble. What the hell is going on?

300 hours overtime a year is commonplace. I know of 1 guy last week who was called for an E/D while he was on sick leave :bored: :ugh: :yuk:

Is it really true that the LT controller has no radar? How is traffic passed - via ML?!)

yes and yes

[Hugh Jarse]

My understanding is that RPT <15,000 kg MTOW pay NO enroute Nav Charges (something to do with Regional Area susbsidy - JA's voter base for the cynics like me) - this is not funded - and the big winner is the QF subsidiaries.

If what you write regarding MTOW is correct Uncommon Sense, then the QF subsidiaries win nothing - zero. The smallest Dash 8 is 15.6 tonnes MTOW and the largest 19.5 tonnes MTOW.

[Uncommon Sense]

The Press Release dates way back to Dec 01:

http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/ja/releases/2001/december/a269_2001.htm

15t is the cutoff.

You are quite correct.

My mistake to interpret that QF as the winners. In fact anyone actually competing against Qantas with less than 15t would have been in front.

So was this aimed as a rescue to Flight West (EMB120 MTOW 11.5t), at the time?

[Churchall]

300 hours overtime a year is commonplace
What a bloody joke. The Australian center frequencies are excruciatingly silent, occasionally busied with some totally unimportant jibberish of a confused controller. By god, these characters are a red stain on the meaning of well-oiled efficiency. In fact, they are about as useful as your local council worker rorting the innocent taxpayers.
impost on skilled controller numbers or the impending retirement wave / experience bubble.
Not an issue. I could teach any 12th grader to a more competent standard within 2 weeks.

[Uncommon Sense]

Churchall,

You say you could teach 12th Graders in two weeks to be better controllers than the current crop?

Thats quite a claim! Perhaps you should indeed contact Airservices with a tender.

With that type of ability you would be handsomely rewarded.

You are obviously a highly experienced Air Traffic Controller across all of the procedural, radar and tower disciplines, and a miracle imparter of knowledge to boot!

How did you rise to be such a success?

What is your latest ATC experience?

We are all dying to know, because we know you wouldn't post here on the Professional Pilots forum without some facts to back you up.

Otherwise of course you would have zero credibility in your claims.

Isn't that right?

[dickluvva]

Dear Winstun (sorry) err - Mr. Churchall,

Teaching a 12th grader to be more competent than whom in 2 weeks? Presuming your crusade against any form of Air Traffic Control continues unabated, your target would appear to be myself and my peers.

For ages you've blathered on about the professionalism of pilots and it's well demonstrated the amount of training required to get to a senior commercial standard - why would you presume that it's OK to take a few kids off the street, stick them in front of a machine and say "Get to it"? Your own professional standards have not been impugned on this site; rather they've been considerably overstated on a regular basis, not in the least by yourself under your previous pseudonym.

Clearly your grasp of the obvious, whilst improving over your usually deplorable standard, still leaves much to be desired. Perhaps you'd care to call in at any of our fine ATC establishments around the country to be educated on aviation sir?

Love and Kisses,

Dickluvva

[yarrayarra]

Unfortunately- very unprofessional!!!!!!

Part of my role is to track ATC performance at the 3 major East Coast airports.

We have a set of arrival rates which have been internationally benchmarked and agreed with our customers and stakeholders, and we provide daily reports on our performance in the morning peak hours on our website. We have been doing this for the last two years, and you can get some idea of what we are reporting under the "Performance Report" icon on our home page. You can use this URL :
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mediainfo/perfrep/html.asp?/perfrep/default.asp

This focus on performance has allowed us to make improvements to about 12 of these rates in the past two years. They are under constant scrutiny .........., and further rate rises are pending, particularly with the 16 PRM operation at Sydney.

Every four months the Capacity and Service Improvement Forum (CASIF) of which Qantas is a member reviews ATC performance as part of its Terms of Reference, and makes recommendations about changes to rates.

We are also capable of doing one off reports on request to assess performance when apparently abnormal performance is suspected.

I have been asked by two of our ............ Managers who were passengers on your flight QF xxx (BNE - MEL) on xxxday evening xxxx July to do a report on the ATC arrival performance at Melbourne in light of some quite derogatory comments made over the aircraft PA by a member of the Tech Crew.

The comments were along the lines that Air Traffic Control were delaying Flt xxx for no apparent reason, that given all of the new equipment that ATC had their performance was poor, and that we were back to the bad old days of holding, "remember that?". The inference was that ATC were not doing their job.

I've extracted the relevant information from our TAAATS system and it shows the following.

RUNWAY IN USE

The runway in use was Runway 27, with a 15 - 30 knot swinging westerly wind. The cloud base was scattered at 3000', with some cloud at 2500', and visibility reduced in showers to 8 klms.

AGREED ARRIVAL RATE

Under these conditions, Visual Approaches were being conducted with an agreed arrival rate of 25/hr

TRAFFIC DEMAND

The peak evening hour for arrivals is 1730 - 1830 (local time) and on xxxday there were 24 aircraft with actual ETAs in this hour, the first ETA being 1741.

21 aircraft were actually landed in the 49 minutes of the hour after 1741. This is equal to a pro rata rate of 25.7/hr.

PEAK DEMAND IN THE HOUR

The peak demand in the hour was 14 ETAs in 20 minutes (being 1744 - 1804). QF xxx had ETA no 12 (1802:38) of the 14.

14 ETAs in 20 minutes requires an arrival rate of 42/hr. The rate available due to the strength of the wind was 25/hr.

The fourteen aircraft in this peak demand cluster were all landed in 31 minutes which gives a pro rata arrival rate of 27/hr, which is 2 above the agreed rate.

Unfortunately the position in the arrival cluster of QF xxx (12TH of 14) meant that this flight was one of 4 aircraft that due to arrival congestion had in excess of 10 minutes delay in this peak demand period.

QF xxx landed at 1813:45 for a delay of 11:12sec.

The average delay for the hour was 5.9 minutes, and the maximum delay to one aircraft was 19 minutes.

At around 1800 the wind eased to below 15kts, and as soon as was practicable, runway 34 was brought into operation for "land and hold short" operations to commence. The first landing on 34 was at 1816, and from there the actual arrival rate increased to 41 per hour until the subsequent arrival cluster had been cleared.

I would appreciate it if you could bring this email to the attention of relevant Fleet Manager, and ask that he discuss with the Tech Crew concerned with a view to having PAs remain as a statement of the facts, not a personal interpretation based on someone's judgement of what might be happening.

One of the reasons we have developed an open reporting system on performance is to ensure that there is a better understanding of scheduling demands, weather/runway usage, and their impacts on delay. It also allows a multi disciplined group to track those delay trends through CASIF and to make some universal judgements about how the whole industry can address the problem.

xxxx xxxxxxx can bring you up to speed with the work that is being done in a co-operative spirit.

Regards,
xxxx
:mad:

[Roger Standby]

Unfortunately another good discussion point has been sidetracked again by this idiot. Why do you people respond to his rot?

The "radar screen" or TSAD at Lt currently does not exist. A TSAD is an image of the radar picture displayed on a monitor which towers can use to get a picture or appreciation, but cannot use for separation.

With the commercial splitting of ATS awhile back, the towers were split off into a seperate business unit called Airport Services. They are responsible for for the implementation of the TSAD and after stuffing around with paper work and demands prior to the installation of the radar, have since dragged their feet getting the unit installed (even though our official documentation says that it does in fact exist and must be used!).

After a bit of jumping up and down in Melbourne, we have been reassured that the TSAD will be commissioned within the next few weeks (let's see!).

The tower cannot use the radar for separation, they are still procedural and although enroute can see the a/c to the ground, a procedural standard must be applied when handing off a/c from enroute to twr. Although pilots are told "Radar service terminated", you are still being watched and it is the radar controllers obligation to inform the tower if their appears to be a conflict with unknown VFR in E. Previous comms gave us a "cold line" which required us to call the tower and wait for them to pick up... now we have a "hot line" where the connection is instant... but we still have to wait for them to pick up!!! (Towers use ericaphons, not headsets).

As for why Lt? I think that any thinking person can pick that one. Even Hb doesn't get coverage below roughly A080 inbound, interestingly enough, most of Hb twrs E. The positioning of the radar at Lt aerodrome meant no huge environmental impact issues, and minimum greenie backlash. Sorry 'bout that Hobart.

As for overtime, excess it has been. E.D.'s regularly. My guess is staff are knackered and sickies are probably going thru the roof... vicious circle. Only recently has the staff shortages been recognised with the Canberra boffins over the past few years saying we are overstaffed and it's cheaper to pay O/T and E/D than employ and train new staff. Sounds crazy, but apparantly with training, payroll tax, super and all the addons it is!

Cheers,

R-S.:zzz:

BTW, this thread was started awhile ago here...
http://pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=134323

[Uncommon Sense]

Why doesnt Woomera just block his IP?

All he does is spoil any thread with childish gushings which nobody could really subscribe to, unless they were completely out of their tree, or were 8 yo..

Makes a lot of people not bother visiting PPrune.

[tobzalp]

http://www.pprune.org/forums/announcement.php?s=&forumid=90&announcementid=126

I would think that due to this abve thread Churchill would be suspended. Is this the case?

[Hempy]

Actually, I rather enjoy watching him make a fool of him?self. It's a pity we cat go to town on him because I was going to post...

Dear Churchall/Winstun etc etc,

you are a


[ ] Clueless Newbie
[ ] Lamer
[X] Flamer
[X] Pervert
[ ] Geek
[X] Spammer
[ ] Racist
[X] Jackass
[ ] Troller
[ ] Fundamentalist
[ ] Satanist
[X] "Expert"
[X] Wannabe
[X] Dumbass
[X] Waste of Skin/Gray matter/Blood
[ ] Other:

You Are Being Flamed Because:

[ ] You imported another debate into this post
[X] You obviously don't know anything about the topic at hand
[ ] You posted a 'Top 10' post.
[ ] You posted a 'Religion' post
[X] You started a stupid thread
[X] You continued spreading a long, stupid thread
[ ] Your post is absurdly off topic for where you posted it
[X] Your lack of understanding of the fundamentals is disgusting
[ ] You posted a 'Lord of the Rings' post
[X] You posted a "YOU ALL SUCK" message
[X] You posted low-IQ flame bait
[ ] You posted a blatantly obvious troll
[ ] You followed up to a blatantly obvious troll
[ ] You said "X rules, Y sucks" and gave no support for your lame statement
[X] You make no sense
[ ] You made a post yet failed to say anything
[ ] Your sig/alias/avatar is dreadful
[ ] Your post contained nothing but psycho-babble.
[X] You are claiming that you know more than Newton, Ohm, Pavlov, etc.
[ ] Your awful markup made the post unreadable
[X] You made a baseless assertion
[ ] You posted SCREAMING in RANDOM CAPS (OR IN ALL CAPS) for NO APPARENT REASON
[ ] YoU tYpEd SoMeThInG lAmE lIkE tHiS
[ ] You didn't do anything specific, but appear to be so generally worthless that you are being flamed anyway

To Repent, You Must:

[ ] Refrain from posting until you have a vague idea what you're doing
[X] Stop masturbating for a week
[ ] Read every group you posted to for a week
[X] Bust up your computer with a hammer and eat it
[X] Tell your Mummy to up your medication
[X] Jump into a bathtub while holding your monitor (monitor must be plugged in)
[ ] Actually post something relevant
[X] Read and memorize the FAQ
[ ] Print your home phone number in your ads
[ ] Be the guest of honor in alt.flame for a month

In Closing, I'd Like to Say:

[ ] Blow me
[ ] Get a clue
[ ] Get a life
[ ] Go away
[ ] Grow up
[ ] Never post again
[ ] I pity your dog
[ ] You need to seek psychiatric help
[ ] Morons like you give ammo to pro-censorship morons
[ ] Yer mumma's so fat/stupid/ugly that etc...
[ ] Take your gibberish somewhere else
[ ] Go back to school and actually learn to spell something
[ ] Learn how to post or get off the site
[X] All of the above

but it would seem I can't

[Woomera]

Closing this thread and lets try again shall we.

Churchall once more and you're outa here.