Benalla six dead and $5,000 VOR reward
"
Thread Starter
Dog One, you state:
Could the reason be that it provides greater protection from aircraft actually colliding with each other in cloud? I suggest you look into the incident at Bundaberg on 16 May 1997 where an IFR airline aircraft and another aircraft flown by a commercial pilot were doing an instrument approach at the same time, and allegedly got so close to each other whilst doing the approach that the strobe lights of one aircraft affected the pilots of the other. That is a close call – caused by one of the professional pilots accidentally dialling up the wrong MBZ frequency.
Or what about the incident of 23 June 2006 at Orange, where professional pilots attempted to do instrument approaches in the opposite direction at the same time in IMC. I suggest you look here.
Isn’t it amazing that we have these fantastic separation standards for aircraft in controlled airspace, but when we have, let’s say, a Jetstar Airbus doing an instrument approach in uncontrolled airspace at the same time that a low time private pilot is doing an instrument approach, that there is absolutely no separation standard at all.
I believe that Class E airspace outside of radar coverage is a complete farce, as it provides no protection for IFR aircraft from VFR aircraft. So why have it?
Or what about the incident of 23 June 2006 at Orange, where professional pilots attempted to do instrument approaches in the opposite direction at the same time in IMC. I suggest you look here.
Isn’t it amazing that we have these fantastic separation standards for aircraft in controlled airspace, but when we have, let’s say, a Jetstar Airbus doing an instrument approach in uncontrolled airspace at the same time that a low time private pilot is doing an instrument approach, that there is absolutely no separation standard at all.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You know what Dick, I totally agree with you. I really do.
Do you have costings for the implementation of E airspace right down to control these approaches? It must be quite high I am sure you will agree. I am not saying not to do it based on cost, just want to know the cost.
Lets use an example of an IMC day along the coast between Sydney and Brisbane. As you often state, a D aerodrome controllers responsibility should be near to the airport where collision risk is greatest. I agree. Take Taree for example which has no radar coverage below A040 and porr to no VHF below A020, will there be additional facilities required?
With the disposition of aerodromes, how many controllers will be required to give full attention to each and every approach in the E (which is actually A in IMC remember?). No need to give me an exact number, just More, Less or Same with your reasons for that selection.
Do you have costings for the implementation of E airspace right down to control these approaches? It must be quite high I am sure you will agree. I am not saying not to do it based on cost, just want to know the cost.
Lets use an example of an IMC day along the coast between Sydney and Brisbane. As you often state, a D aerodrome controllers responsibility should be near to the airport where collision risk is greatest. I agree. Take Taree for example which has no radar coverage below A040 and porr to no VHF below A020, will there be additional facilities required?
With the disposition of aerodromes, how many controllers will be required to give full attention to each and every approach in the E (which is actually A in IMC remember?). No need to give me an exact number, just More, Less or Same with your reasons for that selection.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, what are your thoughts on the Medevac example I have provided? You know, the ONE IN CLASS E AIRSPACE.
You've had it pointed out to you before that your beloved controllers in North America treat Class E as a bastardised Class D (see link here), especially in the vicinity of Class D zones.......Hmmm.....
You've had it pointed out to you before that your beloved controllers in North America treat Class E as a bastardised Class D (see link here), especially in the vicinity of Class D zones.......Hmmm.....
Coral,
RE. utube, that looks (in practice) like the northern VFR lane v. the 16R ILS at YSSY to me.
So what's the problem, if you think 500' is OK, after all, it's "ICAO" and all that sort of stuff. If you want to see real "close up and personal" have a look at Orange County/John Wayne International simops (just one of many US examples - and believe it or not --- it's in the NAS 2B paperwork -- We statistically have more mid-airs than US) some time.
Tootle pip!!
RE. utube, that looks (in practice) like the northern VFR lane v. the 16R ILS at YSSY to me.
So what's the problem, if you think 500' is OK, after all, it's "ICAO" and all that sort of stuff. If you want to see real "close up and personal" have a look at Orange County/John Wayne International simops (just one of many US examples - and believe it or not --- it's in the NAS 2B paperwork -- We statistically have more mid-airs than US) some time.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only thing that's constant is change.
Funny how things change, and what was taboo becomes good. Airlines that could not possibly accept operation outside controlled airspace all of a sudden find they can operate into Ayers Rock. There's money to be made there.
See and avoid is no good, and proper separation procedures MUST be in place. But the military can operate at night with no radio transmissions and no external lighting. (When I saw that I was tempted to say that I would be too!)
Military aircraft could operate at low level in the same area where I was doing low level survey flying without any notification and no vhf radio transmissions.( I do not think they actually had VHF radios.)
At one time the lane of entry into Melbourne was a couple of miles wide, and 2000 ft high, with a restricted area 1700 ft high at one point, leaving a slot 300 ft high for two way traffic. No TCAS then. No controller. Only see and avoid. Funny, it seemed to work.
The US have parallel ILS's onto parallel runways, and about 100 times the ammount of traffic and they seem to manage.
Probably the scariest thing I saw was scenic flights at Ayers Rock.
One time, in a King Air I made all the right radio calls for departure out of Ayers Rock and on departure found that I was nose to nose with a Boeing. We self separated and when I got back to Alice we replayed the tape and found that the problem was too much yacking on the radio so the system was overloaded and transmissions were often clipped and confusing. Not long after that they took the flight service component out and that reduced the number of transmissions so the system worked much better with merely self separation.
If the airlines do not like class E, lets change it all back to class G.
An interesting thing to do with ADS-B. I took a taxi ride in Adelaide and found the taxis have a system that transmits their GPS position to a central controlling point. It's all automatic. They've had it for many years. But it's whizzbang high technology for us.??????
Quokka
I do not need to ask an RFDS pilot. I was one for about ten years.
Gaunty
Yes. God bless em, and all the others who operate into remote and mining airstrips in the outback, regardless of what type of aeroplane they operate. No need to discriminate.
See and avoid is no good, and proper separation procedures MUST be in place. But the military can operate at night with no radio transmissions and no external lighting. (When I saw that I was tempted to say that I would be too!)
Military aircraft could operate at low level in the same area where I was doing low level survey flying without any notification and no vhf radio transmissions.( I do not think they actually had VHF radios.)
At one time the lane of entry into Melbourne was a couple of miles wide, and 2000 ft high, with a restricted area 1700 ft high at one point, leaving a slot 300 ft high for two way traffic. No TCAS then. No controller. Only see and avoid. Funny, it seemed to work.
The US have parallel ILS's onto parallel runways, and about 100 times the ammount of traffic and they seem to manage.
Probably the scariest thing I saw was scenic flights at Ayers Rock.
One time, in a King Air I made all the right radio calls for departure out of Ayers Rock and on departure found that I was nose to nose with a Boeing. We self separated and when I got back to Alice we replayed the tape and found that the problem was too much yacking on the radio so the system was overloaded and transmissions were often clipped and confusing. Not long after that they took the flight service component out and that reduced the number of transmissions so the system worked much better with merely self separation.
If the airlines do not like class E, lets change it all back to class G.
An interesting thing to do with ADS-B. I took a taxi ride in Adelaide and found the taxis have a system that transmits their GPS position to a central controlling point. It's all automatic. They've had it for many years. But it's whizzbang high technology for us.??????
Quokka
I do not need to ask an RFDS pilot. I was one for about ten years.
Gaunty
Yes. God bless em, and all the others who operate into remote and mining airstrips in the outback, regardless of what type of aeroplane they operate. No need to discriminate.
Thread Starter
Tobzalp, any success I have ever had has come from asking advice and copying the success of others. I did not think we should change every Class G approach in Australia to Class E – as it is in the USA. Places which do not have mountains around, and may only have one IFR approach per day, obviously do not require Class E. However places like Port Macquarie, Taree and Proserpine I believe could benefit from Class E with no measurable increase in cost.
This is because IFR traffic information cannot be given on a workload permitting basis – it has to be given at any time – whereas Class E separation quite often can be delayed for a few minutes. For example, an IFR aircraft wishing to depart Taree can be held on the ground for 2 or 3 minutes whilst another aircraft is landing, or due to ATC workload.
I agree that there will be a cost to this, but that can be measured by actually placing some Class E at one of these airports and training the controllers and the pilots on how to operate the airspace correctly.
There has been previous criticism when I talked about doing a trial. It is as if Qantas would buy a 747 without taking it for trial flights first – a crazy idea.
It is all a matter of degree. Aviation safety is not absolute. We all know that a compromise often has to be made between cost and benefit.
The alternative of course is to leave Class G airspace at a place like Port Macquarie, but write procedures which give a better service to IFR aircraft when in cloud. This is what happens in the UK.
Class E airspace has a number of advantages over Class G. One is that it offers a “failsafe” normally redundant system for IFR aircraft in cloud, and also allows the radar to be used more effectively to reduce controlled flight into terrain accidents.
Taree aerodrome would be very typical of many aerodromes I have flown into in the United States, where radar coverage does not exist below 4,000 feet, and there is no VHF coverage in the circuit area. As the USA has no land based HF system, at these airports (believe it or not) a clearance is often picked up by talking to a UNICOM operator or by telephone before departure. It sounds as if there would be delays, but in practice there are not.
When I was the Chairman of the CAA, I arranged for controllers to visit the USA and sit by the air traffic controllers there. This should happen again – especially in relation to Class E. I’m sure we will find that there are some things that they do better, and there are some things that we do better. In many cases we could keep what we do better, take what they do better, and end up with a more effective and safer system.
This is because IFR traffic information cannot be given on a workload permitting basis – it has to be given at any time – whereas Class E separation quite often can be delayed for a few minutes. For example, an IFR aircraft wishing to depart Taree can be held on the ground for 2 or 3 minutes whilst another aircraft is landing, or due to ATC workload.
I agree that there will be a cost to this, but that can be measured by actually placing some Class E at one of these airports and training the controllers and the pilots on how to operate the airspace correctly.
There has been previous criticism when I talked about doing a trial. It is as if Qantas would buy a 747 without taking it for trial flights first – a crazy idea.
It is all a matter of degree. Aviation safety is not absolute. We all know that a compromise often has to be made between cost and benefit.
The alternative of course is to leave Class G airspace at a place like Port Macquarie, but write procedures which give a better service to IFR aircraft when in cloud. This is what happens in the UK.
Class E airspace has a number of advantages over Class G. One is that it offers a “failsafe” normally redundant system for IFR aircraft in cloud, and also allows the radar to be used more effectively to reduce controlled flight into terrain accidents.
Taree aerodrome would be very typical of many aerodromes I have flown into in the United States, where radar coverage does not exist below 4,000 feet, and there is no VHF coverage in the circuit area. As the USA has no land based HF system, at these airports (believe it or not) a clearance is often picked up by talking to a UNICOM operator or by telephone before departure. It sounds as if there would be delays, but in practice there are not.
When I was the Chairman of the CAA, I arranged for controllers to visit the USA and sit by the air traffic controllers there. This should happen again – especially in relation to Class E. I’m sure we will find that there are some things that they do better, and there are some things that we do better. In many cases we could keep what we do better, take what they do better, and end up with a more effective and safer system.
Mr Smith,
I also don't think QANTAS would take that 747 for a test flight until:
I also don't think QANTAS would take that 747 for a test flight until:
- They were comfortable with the proposed price
- They are convinced that it will safely get their test pilots off and back onto the ground
- They were convinced that it could be used in their configuration and under their conditions ... even though others might be using it under their specific conditions i.e that it was fit for purpose
Taree aerodrome would be very typical of many aerodromes I have flown into in the United States, where radar coverage does not exist below 4,000 feet, and there is no VHF coverage in the circuit area.
Taree in NSW has coverage on the ground on 120.55.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the seperation into New York, it looked about right at about 500' . If you look at the frame just as he shoots up at the airliner he does zoom it..at least slightly. We used to fly over the VFRs all of the time going into JFK and it didn't look any different to this one.
I know there is VHF on the ground at Taree and Port, but I think the bigger issue is having enough radar sites to assure seperation standards down to the latter stages of the approach. If Tobzalp says we only have radar down to around 4,000, that's not really seperating much.
I know there is VHF on the ground at Taree and Port, but I think the bigger issue is having enough radar sites to assure seperation standards down to the latter stages of the approach. If Tobzalp says we only have radar down to around 4,000, that's not really seperating much.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not all of the problems are on the East Coast...
Dick,
There is only one area of RADAR coverage in WA... Perth. That coverage is shielded by the Darling Range, meaning that all of the country airstrips East of the Darling Range are NOT in RADAR coverage, not to mention all of the mining airstrips in WA where high frequency charter flights are struggling to cope with the mining boom.
Most of the airspace that is in the best RADAR coverage is taken by the military during weekdays and into the evening, that is, during the times when we experience the biggest traffic flows into, and out of, the Perth/Pearce/Jandakot Terminal Area.
No amount of procedural changes and training has fixed the traffic saturation problem... too many aircraft, no surveillance and poor frequency coverage in the Goldfields, the Pilbara and the Wheat Belt.
Dick, please ask the industry in WA and fix the problem, it's gone on for too long and there have been too many close calls.
Don't forget the West Coast... everyone else has.
There is only one area of RADAR coverage in WA... Perth. That coverage is shielded by the Darling Range, meaning that all of the country airstrips East of the Darling Range are NOT in RADAR coverage, not to mention all of the mining airstrips in WA where high frequency charter flights are struggling to cope with the mining boom.
Most of the airspace that is in the best RADAR coverage is taken by the military during weekdays and into the evening, that is, during the times when we experience the biggest traffic flows into, and out of, the Perth/Pearce/Jandakot Terminal Area.
No amount of procedural changes and training has fixed the traffic saturation problem... too many aircraft, no surveillance and poor frequency coverage in the Goldfields, the Pilbara and the Wheat Belt.
Dick, please ask the industry in WA and fix the problem, it's gone on for too long and there have been too many close calls.
Don't forget the West Coast... everyone else has.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris- It has been explained to Dick many times that you cannot just make some rule changes and have the "US system" in oz. It is quite possible that controllers in the states can provide much greater surveillance- of the nature Dick describes. It is due not just to radar coverage (although that is a major factor). Another is the sheer size of their entire industry. This has been explained to Dick over and over, but is studiously ignored. A controller in the states is looking at a screen (on average) set to a much smaller scale, because they are controlling smaller chunks of airspace (due to traffic volume). A controller in oz can control the same number of aircraft at any one time, but has his screen set on a much larger scale in order to achieve any sort of efficiency. The oz controller, looking at a screen set to, say, 400nm, is just not able to monitor terrain on approaches etc. On that sort of scale, the aircraft 'paints' appear about 3nm wide (roughly). To carve the airspace up in oz so that the controller could provide such close monitoring, would require a whole lot more controllers (just like they have in the US).
Yet another example of why non-experts shouldn't meddle. Especially when they ignore what they are told.
Dick would get a lot more respect if he did things that would actually benefit the industry (see Quokka's post above). Dick; procedural control is great in low traffic areas. WA is no longer a sleepy hollow. Considering the amount of money that state is awash with, and the money generated 'out there', surely that's a fight you could win (getting some radar)? There's a safety- and cost- benefit way bigger than fiddling with E. And winnable. Surely you agree?
Yet another example of why non-experts shouldn't meddle. Especially when they ignore what they are told.
Dick would get a lot more respect if he did things that would actually benefit the industry (see Quokka's post above). Dick; procedural control is great in low traffic areas. WA is no longer a sleepy hollow. Considering the amount of money that state is awash with, and the money generated 'out there', surely that's a fight you could win (getting some radar)? There's a safety- and cost- benefit way bigger than fiddling with E. And winnable. Surely you agree?
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Taree in NSW has coverage on the ground on 120.55.
But there's no way you could rely on that sort of intermittent (at best) or nil (the usual) reception for any comms with centre - let alone IFR clearances into Class E.
Thread Starter
Ferris, one part of the United States which has similar traffic densities to Australia is Alaska. It does not generally stratify its airspace – i.e. have high and low level sectors – for exactly the reason you describe. If the sector is too big, the air traffic controller’s radar has to be set on too large a scale for the ATC to be able to monitor approaches correctly.
Can you answer this? Between Sydney and Melbourne, why do we have stratified airspace, with a high level sector and low level sectors? Surely we could use the same number of controllers by not stratifying the airspace. This would reduce the sector size and allow us to provide a proper safety service to a place like Benalla.
By the way, I have listened to all of the comments in relation to the US versus the Australian system. However, most of this is tied up with resistance to change. There are undoubtedly some places in Australia which are similar to some places in the USA where they use Class E airspace to low levels.
I believe that as I pay for a full enroute ATC service when flying IFR in my aircraft, I should get just that. This is not the present system. Currently when I get to the place I really need ATC (i.e. at lower levels in the terminal area – doing an instrument approach) I am handed off to a “do it yourself” system where I have to become my own air traffic controller.
As I have said before, I do not believe that we should, or could, put Class E airspace in at every instrument approach. However I know that we can put Class E in to low levels in some enroute approach airspace. Safety will be improved and there will be no measurable increase in cost.
However under the present circumstances where air traffic controllers and people at Airservices have closed their minds and say it will not work, we obviously will never move anywhere.
Can you answer this? Between Sydney and Melbourne, why do we have stratified airspace, with a high level sector and low level sectors? Surely we could use the same number of controllers by not stratifying the airspace. This would reduce the sector size and allow us to provide a proper safety service to a place like Benalla.
By the way, I have listened to all of the comments in relation to the US versus the Australian system. However, most of this is tied up with resistance to change. There are undoubtedly some places in Australia which are similar to some places in the USA where they use Class E airspace to low levels.
I believe that as I pay for a full enroute ATC service when flying IFR in my aircraft, I should get just that. This is not the present system. Currently when I get to the place I really need ATC (i.e. at lower levels in the terminal area – doing an instrument approach) I am handed off to a “do it yourself” system where I have to become my own air traffic controller.
As I have said before, I do not believe that we should, or could, put Class E airspace in at every instrument approach. However I know that we can put Class E in to low levels in some enroute approach airspace. Safety will be improved and there will be no measurable increase in cost.
However under the present circumstances where air traffic controllers and people at Airservices have closed their minds and say it will not work, we obviously will never move anywhere.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 17th Apr 2007 at 07:21.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Erm, where exactly in Alaska do they have traffic densities similar to between Sydney and Melbourne????? Stopped taking anything seriously after there.
Service Delivery Environment is keen to deliver even vaster G/E low level sectors. This will have the advantage of limiting the training burden of further NAS bastardry, as only a third of controllers will be affected instead of all of us. It will have another advantage of being able to directly measure the cost of any further NAS bastardry in the unlikely event any more is implemented, or even the more unlikely event that current service levels continue. Other than that, what is SDE for? Ummm, sorry I forgot.
Service Delivery Environment is keen to deliver even vaster G/E low level sectors. This will have the advantage of limiting the training burden of further NAS bastardry, as only a third of controllers will be affected instead of all of us. It will have another advantage of being able to directly measure the cost of any further NAS bastardry in the unlikely event any more is implemented, or even the more unlikely event that current service levels continue. Other than that, what is SDE for? Ummm, sorry I forgot.
Mr Smith, you said:
"I believe that as I pay for a full enroute ATC service when flying IFR in my aircraft, I should get just that. This is not the present system. Currently when I get to the place I really need ATC (i.e. at lower levels in the terminal area – doing an instrument approach) I am handed off to a “do it yourself” system where I have to become my own air traffic controller."
I think you are incorrect. You, in fact, pay sufficient to cover (in theory) the service that you currently receive. No more, no less.
You (and the flying community) can have any additional service you want ... as long as you are willing to pay an additional premium.
It has been stated over and over again, by those with accurate and current information, that what you are asking for... will cost extra in resources, training and salaries.
As much as you "believe" that it should not, or "believe" that it should be provided under the current cost regime, the facts, as provided by the majority of Professional Controllers and Administrators, do not support your beliefs.
However, if you wish to prove the majority wrong, you are welcome to provide an actual cost-benefit analysis that will support your argument.
Amatuerish statements such as "well, they do it in the United States" or "surely you agree" or "I believe it should be thus" ... just don't cut it any more in a modern business world, relying on minutely refined budgets, safety management systems and risk management models.
"I believe that as I pay for a full enroute ATC service when flying IFR in my aircraft, I should get just that. This is not the present system. Currently when I get to the place I really need ATC (i.e. at lower levels in the terminal area – doing an instrument approach) I am handed off to a “do it yourself” system where I have to become my own air traffic controller."
I think you are incorrect. You, in fact, pay sufficient to cover (in theory) the service that you currently receive. No more, no less.
You (and the flying community) can have any additional service you want ... as long as you are willing to pay an additional premium.
It has been stated over and over again, by those with accurate and current information, that what you are asking for... will cost extra in resources, training and salaries.
As much as you "believe" that it should not, or "believe" that it should be provided under the current cost regime, the facts, as provided by the majority of Professional Controllers and Administrators, do not support your beliefs.
However, if you wish to prove the majority wrong, you are welcome to provide an actual cost-benefit analysis that will support your argument.
Amatuerish statements such as "well, they do it in the United States" or "surely you agree" or "I believe it should be thus" ... just don't cut it any more in a modern business world, relying on minutely refined budgets, safety management systems and risk management models.
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
too many aircraft, no surveillance and poor frequency coverage in the Goldfields, the Pilbara
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
closed minds
".....people at Airservices have closed their minds and say it will not work, we obviously will never move anywhere."
I agree what have the people at Airservices EVER done for us! Well apart from flextracking, RNP approaches, multi lateration trials, ADSB implementation, tailored arrivals, SATNAV development rolling out NAS, rolling back NAS, reduced staff, reduced costs, re-orged to be even more responsive to their customers, .......
thosed closed minded luddites......
I agree what have the people at Airservices EVER done for us! Well apart from flextracking, RNP approaches, multi lateration trials, ADSB implementation, tailored arrivals, SATNAV development rolling out NAS, rolling back NAS, reduced staff, reduced costs, re-orged to be even more responsive to their customers, .......
thosed closed minded luddites......
Thread Starter
Peuce, what you are basically saying is that Airservices cannot become more efficient. In effect, that as a monopoly provider of services it has become as efficient as possible. This is unlikely.
Airservices operates control towers in the United States under a competitive environment, which gives about a 50% saving compared with the cost of the FAA running the control towers.
You would not accept any cost benefit study I did. That is why it would not be too difficult to provide some Class E airspace at a place like Port Macquarie or Proserpine, train the enroute controllers for the approach work and then check the additional cost.
If I were the CEO of Qantas at the time they were flying DC4s with 4 engines, and someone came along and said that twin engine DC9s would not only be more cost efficient, but safer, I would want to give it a go. If a large group of people were complaining that two engines would not be safe, I would at least want to follow what was happening overseas.
Our “do it yourself” system for IFR aircraft in the low levels is more akin to a 4 engine DC4 than a Boeing 777. The perception from uninformed people might be that the DC4 with 4 engines is safer than a twin engine aircraft, but we all know that this is not so. It is the same with airspace. The perception of extra costs and no need for the extra safety could be just that – a perception.
I know that many of the older pilots prefer to have a “do it yourself” radio-arranged separation environment when in cloud, rather than using air traffic control and radar. That is because these pilots believe that they will never make an error which results in a controlled flight into terrain – therefore they do not need the back up of radar and ATC.
Evidence in recent years has shown that professional pilots do make errors – just like everyone else – and if radar is available and used correctly there is a chance that it could reduce the likelihood of controlled flight into terrain accidents.
It is not much use having the radar (as we do in many of our mountainous areas) if we do not have a procedure that informs the air traffic controller whether the pilot is in cloud or visual.
Airservices operates control towers in the United States under a competitive environment, which gives about a 50% saving compared with the cost of the FAA running the control towers.
You would not accept any cost benefit study I did. That is why it would not be too difficult to provide some Class E airspace at a place like Port Macquarie or Proserpine, train the enroute controllers for the approach work and then check the additional cost.
If I were the CEO of Qantas at the time they were flying DC4s with 4 engines, and someone came along and said that twin engine DC9s would not only be more cost efficient, but safer, I would want to give it a go. If a large group of people were complaining that two engines would not be safe, I would at least want to follow what was happening overseas.
Our “do it yourself” system for IFR aircraft in the low levels is more akin to a 4 engine DC4 than a Boeing 777. The perception from uninformed people might be that the DC4 with 4 engines is safer than a twin engine aircraft, but we all know that this is not so. It is the same with airspace. The perception of extra costs and no need for the extra safety could be just that – a perception.
I know that many of the older pilots prefer to have a “do it yourself” radio-arranged separation environment when in cloud, rather than using air traffic control and radar. That is because these pilots believe that they will never make an error which results in a controlled flight into terrain – therefore they do not need the back up of radar and ATC.
Evidence in recent years has shown that professional pilots do make errors – just like everyone else – and if radar is available and used correctly there is a chance that it could reduce the likelihood of controlled flight into terrain accidents.
It is not much use having the radar (as we do in many of our mountainous areas) if we do not have a procedure that informs the air traffic controller whether the pilot is in cloud or visual.