Benalla six dead and $5,000 VOR reward
Thread Starter
Chris, I’m amazed with your comment:
Not at any stage did I ask the controller to fly the aircraft. I simply believe that if we are going to spend over $300 million (some claim $600 million) on a radar system, we may as well use it as another safety net.
All pilots, including professional pilots, will make human errors. Of course, air traffic controllers will do so too. However, surely it is obvious that if we have procedures which allow “checking” to take place, accidents may be reduced.
There is no doubt in my mind that if better procedures existed or if Class E airspace had been introduced in the Benalla area, there would have been less of a chance of this terrible accident occurring. Surely you must agree with this.
Somewhere along the line we need to get back to better pilot training and cockpit disciplines before we start asking controllers to fly the aircraft for us.
All pilots, including professional pilots, will make human errors. Of course, air traffic controllers will do so too. However, surely it is obvious that if we have procedures which allow “checking” to take place, accidents may be reduced.
There is no doubt in my mind that if better procedures existed or if Class E airspace had been introduced in the Benalla area, there would have been less of a chance of this terrible accident occurring. Surely you must agree with this.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I have been watching this thread with interest...
OK, I will agree with your point better procedures (ie: Class E), may have averted this accident! Now, will you then agree, that in order to have this extra net of safety, we need the ASSOCIATED INFRASTRUCTURE!
Just listen to the controllers on this thread who work this sector everyday, they are saying the facilities do not exist, or are intermittent at best!
Since day one of the airspace debate, I have been saying that we can't adopt the system you propose without the necessary infrastructure! When ever I raise this point in threads, you never seem to repond, you are quite happy to deal with the peripheral issues, but not this major question.
So as I have not yet received a satisfactory response, I will ask again, "How can we institute a US style airspace system without the necessary infrastructure".
There is 96% radar coverage of the contiguous United States, now I know you keep bringing up small pockets of US airspace, but these are very isolated areas and not the 'satus quo' in the US!
We are talking about almost the reverse situation in our own country, the percentage without radar must be around 80% at least! Take Benalla for example less than 200 klms by road from Australias second largest city, yet it does not have suitable radar coverage, this is what we are dealing with!
If you want to propose changes, implement the infrastructure first, then implement the airspace changes, its a bit like trying to put the horse before the cart, just doesn't work!
How about we stop trying to apportion blame and get it right, by doing whatever it takes, including the infrastructure?
There is no doubt in my mind that if better procedures existed or if Class E airspace had been introduced in the Benalla area, there would have been less of a chance of this terrible accident occurring. Surely you must agree with this.
Just listen to the controllers on this thread who work this sector everyday, they are saying the facilities do not exist, or are intermittent at best!
Since day one of the airspace debate, I have been saying that we can't adopt the system you propose without the necessary infrastructure! When ever I raise this point in threads, you never seem to repond, you are quite happy to deal with the peripheral issues, but not this major question.
So as I have not yet received a satisfactory response, I will ask again, "How can we institute a US style airspace system without the necessary infrastructure".
There is 96% radar coverage of the contiguous United States, now I know you keep bringing up small pockets of US airspace, but these are very isolated areas and not the 'satus quo' in the US!
We are talking about almost the reverse situation in our own country, the percentage without radar must be around 80% at least! Take Benalla for example less than 200 klms by road from Australias second largest city, yet it does not have suitable radar coverage, this is what we are dealing with!
If you want to propose changes, implement the infrastructure first, then implement the airspace changes, its a bit like trying to put the horse before the cart, just doesn't work!
How about we stop trying to apportion blame and get it right, by doing whatever it takes, including the infrastructure?
This accident has nothing to do with airspace or airspace control. What must be accertained is why the PIC followed that particular flightpath. If ATC did give a warning, who is to say that the PIC would have checked his instruments to have them tell him that he was on course (for the wrong waypoint) and inform ATC of the same. The PIC asked for a clearance to ED and recieved it. I am curious if it is possible to mistake EG for ED when selecting the right approach. If EG was selected then it would explain why the aircraft was that far SE. IF EG was selected the autopilot would fly to the point where the turn would be commenced to turn NW to intercept the approach starting from EG. If the pilot was expecting the turn at EI he knew it would be safe to be about 2000ft because he probabley knew that the terrain was off to the south as he came in from the NE on the ED approach(the altitude for EI on the approach is3890ft with the LSA after that point down to 2200ft).
That day was as cruddy as they come for the NE of Vic. Solid O/C down to the deck. There would have been no visual cue that the PIC was in the wrong place until the aircraft turned and descended into Mt Bellvue. The accident site is 5.3nm SE of the BLAEG waypoint at an altitude of about 1900ft. The aircraft was heard overflying the Myrtleford area, a long way east of an expected track for ED but believeable for the GPS to stear for a turn to the NW to pick up EG.
Forgive me if I draw a long bow but Dick is drawing an even longer one by trying to blame ATC for this.
That day was as cruddy as they come for the NE of Vic. Solid O/C down to the deck. There would have been no visual cue that the PIC was in the wrong place until the aircraft turned and descended into Mt Bellvue. The accident site is 5.3nm SE of the BLAEG waypoint at an altitude of about 1900ft. The aircraft was heard overflying the Myrtleford area, a long way east of an expected track for ED but believeable for the GPS to stear for a turn to the NW to pick up EG.
Forgive me if I draw a long bow but Dick is drawing an even longer one by trying to blame ATC for this.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just to be clear
Australian airspace classification:
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) - commercial and selected general aviation aircraft
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) – general aviation aircraft
Class A: IFR flights only are permitted. All flights are provided with an air traffic control service and are positively separated from each other.
Class C: All aircraft must get an airways clearance and communicate with air traffic control. IFR aircraft are positively separated from both IFR and VFR aircraft. VFR aircraft are provided traffic information on other VFR aircraft.
Class D: All aircraft must get an airways clearance and communicate with air traffic control. IFR aircraft are positively separated from other IFR aircraft and are provided with traffic information on all VFR aircraft. VFR aircraft are provided traffic information on all other aircraft.
Class E: IFR aircraft require an airways clearance and must communicate with air traffic control. IFR aircraft are positively separated from other IFR aircraft and given traffic information on known VFR aircraft. VFR aircraft do not require an airways clearance and are not required to communicate with air traffic control.
Class G: IFR and VFR flights are permitted and do not require an airways clearance. IFR flights must communicate with air traffic control and receive traffic information on other IFR flights and a flight information service. VFR flights receive a flight information service if requested.
Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) - commercial and selected general aviation aircraft
Visual Flight Rules (VFR) – general aviation aircraft
Class A: IFR flights only are permitted. All flights are provided with an air traffic control service and are positively separated from each other.
Class C: All aircraft must get an airways clearance and communicate with air traffic control. IFR aircraft are positively separated from both IFR and VFR aircraft. VFR aircraft are provided traffic information on other VFR aircraft.
Class D: All aircraft must get an airways clearance and communicate with air traffic control. IFR aircraft are positively separated from other IFR aircraft and are provided with traffic information on all VFR aircraft. VFR aircraft are provided traffic information on all other aircraft.
Class E: IFR aircraft require an airways clearance and must communicate with air traffic control. IFR aircraft are positively separated from other IFR aircraft and given traffic information on known VFR aircraft. VFR aircraft do not require an airways clearance and are not required to communicate with air traffic control.
Class G: IFR and VFR flights are permitted and do not require an airways clearance. IFR flights must communicate with air traffic control and receive traffic information on other IFR flights and a flight information service. VFR flights receive a flight information service if requested.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Do you have a point Captain?
I think we are all aware of airspace classificaton!
I think we are all aware of airspace classificaton!
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost / Risk
It is interesting to read how personal some of the attacks get here. I suspect if you were having dinner with Mr Smith at Est restaurant you may tone it down a little.
Mr Dick Smith has contributed a vast wealth of knowledge/effort in the Australian avaition scene
.
I should think that a great deal more respect should be shown to a man of his level, even if you do not agree with his position .
Cost and avaition is a subject that has always been with us, and now with 'cheap airlines' Jetstar, Lionair etc this debate is sure to continue.
My two cents worth: Where the traveling public pay to fly the level of safety should be second to none - Class C/D minimum.
Control of airspace is central to any safe flight with aircraft carring 150+ pax, let alone 6 people. Pilot error is always there, but why not have airspace controllers there as a second set of eyes.
So what would be the cost to upgrade to class C or class D?
Mr Dick Smith has contributed a vast wealth of knowledge/effort in the Australian avaition scene
. I should think that a great deal more respect should be shown to a man of his level, even if you do not agree with his position
.Cost and avaition is a subject that has always been with us, and now with 'cheap airlines' Jetstar, Lionair etc this debate is sure to continue.
My two cents worth: Where the traveling public pay to fly the level of safety should be second to none - Class C/D minimum.
Control of airspace is central to any safe flight with aircraft carring 150+ pax, let alone 6 people. Pilot error is always there, but why not have airspace controllers there as a second set of eyes.
So what would be the cost to upgrade to class C or class D?
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Perth
Age: 55
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please forgive my stupidity here people, I have been watching this and the plethora of other threads like it for a while and I'm a touch confused.
From what I can gather Mr. Smith and others in GA would like to make some changes in airspace designation and the duties and role of ATC, this would bring it into line with the US, am I right so far? Would these changes require a large infrastructure expenditure to bring them on a comparable level to the US? If so is this part of federal aviation policy? How long would it take to complete the required infrastructure?
Are others arguing that there is a comparable, cheaper system in ADSB that is not yet in commercial production and a fair way away from general usage. If ADSB is implemented would Mr. Smiths changes still be valid and effective? Are they linked or is ADSB V Radar a seperate argument.
Sorry for the questions I just get a little lost in these threads because it does seem straightforward and I'm worried I may be missing something, or maybe I'm just dumb.
Thanks
From what I can gather Mr. Smith and others in GA would like to make some changes in airspace designation and the duties and role of ATC, this would bring it into line with the US, am I right so far? Would these changes require a large infrastructure expenditure to bring them on a comparable level to the US? If so is this part of federal aviation policy? How long would it take to complete the required infrastructure?
Are others arguing that there is a comparable, cheaper system in ADSB that is not yet in commercial production and a fair way away from general usage. If ADSB is implemented would Mr. Smiths changes still be valid and effective? Are they linked or is ADSB V Radar a seperate argument.
Sorry for the questions I just get a little lost in these threads because it does seem straightforward and I'm worried I may be missing something, or maybe I'm just dumb.
Thanks
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Mr Hughes, (I don't care what they said about your mental health, you're a very sensible man!)
For Mr Smith:
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
For Mr Smith:
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
The radar coverage at Benalla is not adequate for class e airspace.
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Are you accusing me of lying?
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Answer the questions that are asked of you.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick break to update the newcomers....
definately not a b737800capt06: Mr Smith's position is completely opposite to yours. Please join the legions trying to minimise the damage (even though you respect him so highly
).
WOG: You are correct. Mr Smith and others ARE trying to align airspace, ATC duties etc. to more closely align with the US. However, he is trying to do this whilst EXPRESSLY NOT changing any infrastructure to match. In fact, he is trying to stop us doing what we do that mitigates our lack of infrastructure, removing the "Australianess" of our system (DTI in G). This is what the industry is railing against (both the end product, and his methods of achieving it). He believes that if we all start talking and acting like the US, we magically don't need infrastructure like radar, flight service etc.
Many here are simply pointing out that advances in technology will give him what he wants soon enough, without the bull-in-a-china-shop approach. It begs the question; why? To an outsider, it would almost seem that Mr Smith's aims have nothing really to do with "safety" or "helping GA". I'm sure one could be forgiven for thinking he just has a pathelogical hatred of (in order) the ATSB, CASA, ATC, airline pilots, other government departments etc. etc. Don't you agree?
definately not a b737800capt06: Mr Smith's position is completely opposite to yours. Please join the legions trying to minimise the damage (even though you respect him so highly
).WOG: You are correct. Mr Smith and others ARE trying to align airspace, ATC duties etc. to more closely align with the US. However, he is trying to do this whilst EXPRESSLY NOT changing any infrastructure to match. In fact, he is trying to stop us doing what we do that mitigates our lack of infrastructure, removing the "Australianess" of our system (DTI in G). This is what the industry is railing against (both the end product, and his methods of achieving it). He believes that if we all start talking and acting like the US, we magically don't need infrastructure like radar, flight service etc.
Many here are simply pointing out that advances in technology will give him what he wants soon enough, without the bull-in-a-china-shop approach. It begs the question; why? To an outsider, it would almost seem that Mr Smith's aims have nothing really to do with "safety" or "helping GA". I'm sure one could be forgiven for thinking he just has a pathelogical hatred of (in order) the ATSB, CASA, ATC, airline pilots, other government departments etc. etc. Don't you agree?
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So about that $5,000 for the RFDS, pity, they could do with the money.
I am very privileged to know of a philanthropist whose serious mitigation of a venal, self serving and mischeivous albeit "legal" wrong will forever remain publicly unknown.
Perhaps the VOR are likewise motivated.
And yes I remain a great fan.
And yes the revelation of their identity would only serve one person to the detriment of the rest of us.
Perhaps Mr Smith will never learn that the anonymity of the poster is what confers the greatest strength to their argument. If it, the argument, cannot stand on its own, devoid of the perception of or invested with the position or personality of the proponent, then it is no argument at all.
For the folks who dont get it, just try the 'ol substitution test.
I am very privileged to know of a philanthropist whose serious mitigation of a venal, self serving and mischeivous albeit "legal" wrong will forever remain publicly unknown.
Perhaps the VOR are likewise motivated.
And yes I remain a great fan.
And yes the revelation of their identity would only serve one person to the detriment of the rest of us.
Perhaps Mr Smith will never learn that the anonymity of the poster is what confers the greatest strength to their argument. If it, the argument, cannot stand on its own, devoid of the perception of or invested with the position or personality of the proponent, then it is no argument at all.
For the folks who dont get it, just try the 'ol substitution test.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread seems to be going around in a continous loop. How ever, I would like to know why we really need to adopt the "American system of airspace design"? I have just finished reading an article entitled "Blinded by See and Avoid" (Business & Commercial Aviation Jan 2007)
Part of the article lists the number of mid air accidents which have occurred over the past few years, and even a small percentage of such accidents occurring in Australian airspace would create a very public out cry.
We are Australians, let us design our own airspace needs (which meets ICAO requirements) to suit Australian conditions. Design criteria would take into account that Australia has only 20% radar coverage and provide some protection to RPT aircraft operating into non controlled airports. The concept of E airspace out side of radar coverage is one of the most flawed concepts of the current airspace model, as it certainly doesn't work in the USA, where their is greater radar coverage, yet a large number of mid-air accidents.
Part of the article lists the number of mid air accidents which have occurred over the past few years, and even a small percentage of such accidents occurring in Australian airspace would create a very public out cry.
We are Australians, let us design our own airspace needs (which meets ICAO requirements) to suit Australian conditions. Design criteria would take into account that Australia has only 20% radar coverage and provide some protection to RPT aircraft operating into non controlled airports. The concept of E airspace out side of radar coverage is one of the most flawed concepts of the current airspace model, as it certainly doesn't work in the USA, where their is greater radar coverage, yet a large number of mid-air accidents.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog with a bone
You mean this article;
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...al#post3109934
there are two parts but required reading for anyone who anyone who thinks the big sky theory and see and avoid should be the primary basis of our airspace design.
No doubt I am showing my age, but it always surprises me when I find my Bonanza sharing the circuit with a B737 at an uncontrolled aerodrome like Mt Isa or Proserpine.
Would be interested to hear the 737 crew's perspective on this.
Dr
Would be interested to hear the 737 crew's perspective on this.
Dr
FTDK,
I don't fly 737s, preferring a much nicer ex-McD type, and can tell you that I don't have any problem at all sharing the airspace (SHARING being the operative word, Dick) provided I know there other aircrfat is there and we can organise a mutually beneficial outcome to save either of us having to swan around wasting fuel, time (WOFTAM) and decreasing flight safety. This concept to Dick and his mate the airline pilot from the USA Richard ? is of course totally unpalatable.
Over many many years, I have almost always had a pleasant and safe experience with G/A types in the circuit. Funnily enough (well not so funny really), the only dramas I have had have been since NAS 2b came out when Mike Smith, ably supported by his mate Dick Smith put in AIP:
[QUOTE]Direct Pilot to Pilot dialogue should be avoided where possible./QUOTE]
On two occasions we had to make reasonably positive unilateral flight path changes to avoid a collision and the third time a Cessna went straight across in front of us (we never saw him) as we took off. He made his inbound call on the CTAF but we didn't hear it because we had not yet taxied and he hadn't yet made his downwind call. None of these GAs attempted to say "hey, we're here, are we going to be a confliction?" or even acknowledge our calls.
I don't fly 737s, preferring a much nicer ex-McD type, and can tell you that I don't have any problem at all sharing the airspace (SHARING being the operative word, Dick) provided I know there other aircrfat is there and we can organise a mutually beneficial outcome to save either of us having to swan around wasting fuel, time (WOFTAM) and decreasing flight safety. This concept to Dick and his mate the airline pilot from the USA Richard ? is of course totally unpalatable.
Over many many years, I have almost always had a pleasant and safe experience with G/A types in the circuit. Funnily enough (well not so funny really), the only dramas I have had have been since NAS 2b came out when Mike Smith, ably supported by his mate Dick Smith put in AIP:
[QUOTE]Direct Pilot to Pilot dialogue should be avoided where possible./QUOTE]
On two occasions we had to make reasonably positive unilateral flight path changes to avoid a collision and the third time a Cessna went straight across in front of us (we never saw him) as we took off. He made his inbound call on the CTAF but we didn't hear it because we had not yet taxied and he hadn't yet made his downwind call. None of these GAs attempted to say "hey, we're here, are we going to be a confliction?" or even acknowledge our calls.
Capt B, I didn't mean to insult the McDD set (one of my favourite aeroplanes as a passenger), its just that my recent experience has found me sharing the circuit with the 737.
Cheers
Dr
Cheers
Dr
Bugsmasherdriverandjediknite
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Bai, mi go long hap na kisim sampla samting.
Posts: 2,849
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now if you were in your trusty 185 mustering machine, you could just firewall the bugger, out climb him and it wouldn't be an issue. 
of course, you would have to be in your typical half fueled mustering configuration though.
of course, you would have to be in your typical half fueled mustering configuration though.
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs
Slight thread drift here, but hey this is D&G.
I have found all the -8 and above guys very pleased to converse with us bugsmashers, especially when being proactive in making life easier for the bigger faster machines. Even recently while doing some scenic ops close to HBA I felt it polite and prudent to let a VB crew know our details etc as the TCAS would identify us close by and he may not have been on the CTAF when we broadcast prior to them starting up. Nice of them to thank us afterwards when departing the CTAF too. Its all about manners and common sense, not necessarily the AIP only.
Due to speed differences and the instance you describe, you almost need to be asking for any traffic in the CTAF to identify themselves, otherwise they assume you heard them 10 miles out......contrary to the AIP thing of course. Just a thought!
J
Slight thread drift here, but hey this is D&G.
I have found all the -8 and above guys very pleased to converse with us bugsmashers, especially when being proactive in making life easier for the bigger faster machines. Even recently while doing some scenic ops close to HBA I felt it polite and prudent to let a VB crew know our details etc as the TCAS would identify us close by and he may not have been on the CTAF when we broadcast prior to them starting up. Nice of them to thank us afterwards when departing the CTAF too. Its all about manners and common sense, not necessarily the AIP only.
Due to speed differences and the instance you describe, you almost need to be asking for any traffic in the CTAF to identify themselves, otherwise they assume you heard them 10 miles out......contrary to the AIP thing of course. Just a thought!
J
Thread Starter
Howard Hughes, Here is a much belated answer to your posting of 26 March 2007.
You stated on this thread:
Howard Hughes, I have answered this many, many times. Why don’t you give me a phone call and I will go through it again? I will try to cover it here again too.
We don’t have as much infrastructure and radar coverage as the USA as we have roughly one fifteenth of the amount of traffic in the same land area. However between Melbourne and Cairns, the area where we have our mountains and the greatest density of traffic, we have a radar system which is as good as anything the US has.
For example, at airports only 130 miles to the west of Washington DC, there is no radar coverage in the Class E airspace above Class D airports. The US has an extensive radar system, however there are mountain ranges and this gives the same line of sight problems that exist everywhere in the world.
My philosophy is simple. Why can’t we have the proven safe US procedures, which maximise the use of radar and controlled airspace, where we have the same radar coverage advantage?
The situation at Benalla would be very typical of airports in the Appalachian Mountains on the East Coast of the USA.
You state:
As explained, this is absolutely typical of similar airports in the USA. Their system maximises the use of radar and controlled airspace, so you know as a pilot that you will have air traffic control assistance until you leave radar coverage.
This is not the Australian, system as we do not even have a procedure where a pilot in uncontrolled airspace informs the controller that he or she is no longer in IMC.
By the way, I’m not apportioning blame to anyone – other than to those who have the power to make the necessary changes to maximise the use of radar, yet are not doing so. I have found that many controllers with whom I talk would like to see better procedures introduced – it just doesn’t happen.
You stated on this thread:
Since day one of the airspace debate, I have been saying that we can't adopt the system you propose without the necessary infrastructure! When ever I raise this point in threads, you never seem to respond, you are quite happy to deal with the peripheral issues, but not this major question.
So as I have not yet received a satisfactory response, I will ask again, "How can we institute a US style airspace system without the necessary infrastructure".
So as I have not yet received a satisfactory response, I will ask again, "How can we institute a US style airspace system without the necessary infrastructure".
We don’t have as much infrastructure and radar coverage as the USA as we have roughly one fifteenth of the amount of traffic in the same land area. However between Melbourne and Cairns, the area where we have our mountains and the greatest density of traffic, we have a radar system which is as good as anything the US has.
For example, at airports only 130 miles to the west of Washington DC, there is no radar coverage in the Class E airspace above Class D airports. The US has an extensive radar system, however there are mountain ranges and this gives the same line of sight problems that exist everywhere in the world.
My philosophy is simple. Why can’t we have the proven safe US procedures, which maximise the use of radar and controlled airspace, where we have the same radar coverage advantage?
The situation at Benalla would be very typical of airports in the Appalachian Mountains on the East Coast of the USA.
You state:
Take Benalla for example less than 200 klms by road from Australias second largest city, yet it does not have suitable radar coverage, this is what we are dealing with!
This is not the Australian, system as we do not even have a procedure where a pilot in uncontrolled airspace informs the controller that he or she is no longer in IMC.
By the way, I’m not apportioning blame to anyone – other than to those who have the power to make the necessary changes to maximise the use of radar, yet are not doing so. I have found that many controllers with whom I talk would like to see better procedures introduced – it just doesn’t happen.