Labor’s Class C radar policy
Thread Starter
Peuce, if you believed the Government may have got it wrong in bringing in alphabet airspace and in making a decision to bring in NAS, you would want to look at the objective facts.
One issue you could look at would be whether other modern aviation countries had brought in alphabet airspace. As all modern countries have, I would say that was pretty likely to be a good decision.
In relation to the policy on NAS, you would want to look at countries which are similar to Australia – a large continent with both radar and non-radar airspace. That is, similar to the USA and Canada.
You would want to then see if the aviation industry (both the airlines and general aviation) was doing well in those countries and what the resultant level of safety was. You would also then apply the commonsense test – i.e. is there the pressure and marketplace in those countries to evolve to an efficient and safe system?
One of the reasons I believe our procedures are so archaic is that we have so little traffic in so many places. We do have modern procedures at the GAAP airports. I recently found out that they shouldn’t be GAAP at all - they should be US Class D. In about 1987 a group of Aussie controllers went overseas to look at how they could better handle airports that had many hundreds of thousands of movements. They copied the US system at places like Van Nuys. Of course, no one was game to say that we were actually copying the US Class D system, so they called it “GAAP” and what happened is history.
One issue you could look at would be whether other modern aviation countries had brought in alphabet airspace. As all modern countries have, I would say that was pretty likely to be a good decision.
In relation to the policy on NAS, you would want to look at countries which are similar to Australia – a large continent with both radar and non-radar airspace. That is, similar to the USA and Canada.
You would want to then see if the aviation industry (both the airlines and general aviation) was doing well in those countries and what the resultant level of safety was. You would also then apply the commonsense test – i.e. is there the pressure and marketplace in those countries to evolve to an efficient and safe system?
One of the reasons I believe our procedures are so archaic is that we have so little traffic in so many places. We do have modern procedures at the GAAP airports. I recently found out that they shouldn’t be GAAP at all - they should be US Class D. In about 1987 a group of Aussie controllers went overseas to look at how they could better handle airports that had many hundreds of thousands of movements. They copied the US system at places like Van Nuys. Of course, no one was game to say that we were actually copying the US Class D system, so they called it “GAAP” and what happened is history.
Grandpa Aerotart
Dick I learned to fly at YSBK in the early 80s but was in PNG by 87. I only use GAAP airports these days infrequently and BK only maybe twice since 1987.
Beyond no longer needing taxi clearance at GAAPs what really changed from a 'nuts and bolts' perspective?
I am going to suggest not a whole lot...unlike NAS2b as an example of the other end of the spectrum of change management.
Perhaps this example of ATC professionals heading off to the US and bringing back some good, easily implemented, ideas is the preferred model...rather than the 'all encompassing/overarching' NAS2b approach?
Beyond no longer needing taxi clearance at GAAPs what really changed from a 'nuts and bolts' perspective?
I am going to suggest not a whole lot...unlike NAS2b as an example of the other end of the spectrum of change management.
Perhaps this example of ATC professionals heading off to the US and bringing back some good, easily implemented, ideas is the preferred model...rather than the 'all encompassing/overarching' NAS2b approach?
Dick,
I was being facetious ... the trouble with us individually looking at Government decisions objectively, is that we all have our own objectives
Chimbu,
Wise words ... selective implementation is the way to go ... that is, what is appropriate for our situation
I was being facetious ... the trouble with us individually looking at Government decisions objectively, is that we all have our own objectives
Chimbu,
Wise words ... selective implementation is the way to go ... that is, what is appropriate for our situation
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Personal opinion only, but I think that John Anderson was sold a pup with respect to his 'radar direction letter'. Mr Anderson seems to have swallowed the argument that:
* there's no C airspace in the US that doesn't have radar
* therefore, we can't have airspace classified as Class C without radar
* because, if we do, then it's unsafe
If someone can point me to a definitive source, as opposed to opinion, that states Class C without radar is a no-no, I'd appreciate it.
Call me a dumb-bum, but I still cannot understand a logic process that says Class C without radar, where all traffic is known, is unsafe, whereas Class E without radar, where all traffic is not known, is perfectly OK.
* there's no C airspace in the US that doesn't have radar
* therefore, we can't have airspace classified as Class C without radar
* because, if we do, then it's unsafe
If someone can point me to a definitive source, as opposed to opinion, that states Class C without radar is a no-no, I'd appreciate it.
Call me a dumb-bum, but I still cannot understand a logic process that says Class C without radar, where all traffic is known, is unsafe, whereas Class E without radar, where all traffic is not known, is perfectly OK.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E without RADAR where large & fast passenger-carrying jets transit...
You are correct.
Class C without RADAR is 100% safe as all traffic are known... therefore all traffic will receive either full separation, or detailed traffic. The only downside to Class C without RADAR is that the separation standards applied are Procedural not RADAR, meaning, more restrictions on IFR aircraft. This is the problem in WA outside of the coverage of the RADAR at Kalamunda.
Class E without RADAR is a large number of deaths waiting to happen... because no-one knows who's out there...
Class E without RADAR removes the ability of the controller to provide avoidance advice to IFR aircraft (especially fast, heavy jets carrying hundreds of passengers) when unidentified VFR aircraft are observed and a collision is possible.
Class E without RADAR and without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts from the unidentified aircraft removes the Call-&-Respond layer of safety... I can't see you, but I'm calling you and if you're out there, somewhere, please respond and we'll work something out.
Class E without RADAR, without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts, without mandatory carriage of Mode C transponders and even if they are carrying an operational transponder, choosing not to switch the thing on or failing to switch the thing on... is a call for carnage...
Class C without RADAR is 100% safe as all traffic are known... therefore all traffic will receive either full separation, or detailed traffic. The only downside to Class C without RADAR is that the separation standards applied are Procedural not RADAR, meaning, more restrictions on IFR aircraft. This is the problem in WA outside of the coverage of the RADAR at Kalamunda.
Class E without RADAR is a large number of deaths waiting to happen... because no-one knows who's out there...
Class E without RADAR removes the ability of the controller to provide avoidance advice to IFR aircraft (especially fast, heavy jets carrying hundreds of passengers) when unidentified VFR aircraft are observed and a collision is possible.
Class E without RADAR and without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts from the unidentified aircraft removes the Call-&-Respond layer of safety... I can't see you, but I'm calling you and if you're out there, somewhere, please respond and we'll work something out.
Class E without RADAR, without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts, without mandatory carriage of Mode C transponders and even if they are carrying an operational transponder, choosing not to switch the thing on or failing to switch the thing on... is a call for carnage...
Last edited by Quokka; 5th Feb 2008 at 07:44. Reason: Missed a bit.
If Governments in the past have put in a particular airspace system and procedures, then this must be correct and should not be doubted in any way.
In the old days, the department of civil aviation (full of bureaucrats/pilots/ATCers not interested in politics) put good, practical,safe procedures in place without the direct influence of "experts" such as yourself. What resulted was first-class aviation system that suited our unique conditions and situation. You hated Flight Service, you hated the interference, so you used your political clout to change it.
And don't come the "you want to go back to 1990 don't you?". I don't. But equally, I don't want your endgame either. I like flying: I don't want to die in a midair over Alice just because a weekend warrior doesn't like being involved in the system, or watch the news one night when it is announced that an A380 has just clobbered a lighty that was swanning around over Rotto in E airspace with his transponder accidentally turned off.
Thread Starter
Quokka, your post in relation to Class C may be correct if the Class C was adequately staffed by air traffic controllers and did not take away from services in other airspace. At the present time, our procedural Class C in places like Albury is controlled by the air traffic controller already responsible for the Class D in the busy approach and circuit area.
Using that Class D controller (quite often only one person) to also provide services for an enormous cubic volume of Class C airspace is obviously an accident waiting to happen. No, not in the Class C airspace (where the risk of collision is very small) but close to the circuit area because the controller is not concentrating on that traffic.
I’ve said this again and again, however you don’t seem to grasp my point.
Imagine if Airservices put Class B airspace at Avalon, and got the Tullamarine approach controllers to be responsible. It would be obvious that whilst the airspace at Avalon might be slightly safer, the airspace at Tullamarine would have a reduction in the level of safety because the controllers were not concentrating where the collision risk is highest.
Isn’t it interesting that you will not give recognition to this “diffusion of responsibility” problem. That is it the only reason that other countries don’t have their tower controllers also responsible for huge volumes of Class C approach airspace.
It is about putting the resources and the manpower where the risk is.
I believe controllers are being short changed by being given this extra responsibility (and liability) when there is no possible extra income. After all, it obviously increases risk.
Using that Class D controller (quite often only one person) to also provide services for an enormous cubic volume of Class C airspace is obviously an accident waiting to happen. No, not in the Class C airspace (where the risk of collision is very small) but close to the circuit area because the controller is not concentrating on that traffic.
I’ve said this again and again, however you don’t seem to grasp my point.
Imagine if Airservices put Class B airspace at Avalon, and got the Tullamarine approach controllers to be responsible. It would be obvious that whilst the airspace at Avalon might be slightly safer, the airspace at Tullamarine would have a reduction in the level of safety because the controllers were not concentrating where the collision risk is highest.
Isn’t it interesting that you will not give recognition to this “diffusion of responsibility” problem. That is it the only reason that other countries don’t have their tower controllers also responsible for huge volumes of Class C approach airspace.
It is about putting the resources and the manpower where the risk is.
I believe controllers are being short changed by being given this extra responsibility (and liability) when there is no possible extra income. After all, it obviously increases risk.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your argument is totally spurious, Dick. You are not an ATC, so how could you possibly know whether a D tower 'owning' class C airspace is dangerous/ unable to be done/ a misallocation of resources or whatever? Your argument that it is "common sense" is unfounded.
If that is the case, why are enroute ATCs providing DTI? Surely the same argument applies (that their attention is being drawn away from their primary separation responsibility). Or even take it further- in the US and (many other places ) a radar controller has a co-ordinator sitting next to them in order to effect co-ordination. How come in oz we can do ATC without several people on the one position? Surely, by your argument, this must be stopped immediately?
If that is the case, why are enroute ATCs providing DTI? Surely the same argument applies (that their attention is being drawn away from their primary separation responsibility). Or even take it further- in the US and (many other places ) a radar controller has a co-ordinator sitting next to them in order to effect co-ordination. How come in oz we can do ATC without several people on the one position? Surely, by your argument, this must be stopped immediately?
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs, this is so sad but I’ll have to say it again. That is, I did not “hate” Flight Service or the “interference” (whatever that means). The duplicated ATC/Flight Service system was very expensive and I believe if it had stayed in place, the extra hundreds of millions of dollars that the industry would have had to pay over the last 14 years would have done even more damage than has occurred so far.
I also believe that we should use radar where possible, and it seemed sensible to use licensed air traffic controllers to do this, rather than to train Flight Service officers to use radar.
The duplicated ATC/Flight Service system was good when 50% of the air traffic control costs were paid by the taxpayer. When the Labor Government in the 1980s decided after the Bosch report that the air traffic control system should not only be funded by the industry, but should also make a profit for Government, it was obvious that the fantastic Flight Service system, with its outstations as places like Longreach and Charleville, would be unaffordable.
It was a tough decision which I was responsible for at that time, however I did everything I could to make sure that the Flight Service officers who wanted to be trained as air traffic controllers could go through this training, and the ones who wanted a good redundancy package could have one.
I also believe that we should use radar where possible, and it seemed sensible to use licensed air traffic controllers to do this, rather than to train Flight Service officers to use radar.
The duplicated ATC/Flight Service system was good when 50% of the air traffic control costs were paid by the taxpayer. When the Labor Government in the 1980s decided after the Bosch report that the air traffic control system should not only be funded by the industry, but should also make a profit for Government, it was obvious that the fantastic Flight Service system, with its outstations as places like Longreach and Charleville, would be unaffordable.
It was a tough decision which I was responsible for at that time, however I did everything I could to make sure that the Flight Service officers who wanted to be trained as air traffic controllers could go through this training, and the ones who wanted a good redundancy package could have one.
Dick,
It wasn't duplicated. I didn't get DTI when in Controlled Airspace and I didn't get ATC Clearances when I was in uncontrolled airspace.
Maybe to you but not to me. FSOs were paid less. Why not give them radar to give traffic? Cheaper than ATCs doing it. Better use of financial resources I would have thought but hey, what do I know, all I do is fly aeroplanes...
Ferris hits another nail on the head...
The duplicated ATC/Flight Service system was very expensive
it seemed sensible to use licensed air traffic controllers to do this, rather than to train Flight Service officers to use radar.
Ferris hits another nail on the head...
Thread Starter
Ferris, I have consistently stated that I believe enroute ATCs that are responsible for separating traffic in controlled airspace should not have a DTI service on their frequency. This is because DTI requires pilots to talk aircraft to aircraft when in IMC, and this will block out the ATC when giving separation instructions. I have been consistent on this.
I do not understand why we are different to the USA (and other countries – such as South Africa) where there is a coordinator sitting beside the radar controller to affect coordination. A South African air traffic control manager visited Australia and said to me that the Australian system would be far more efficient if there were at least two people at each console – as you have mentioned.
I wouldn’t necessarily stop these things immediately, but I would certainly look at copying the best proven practices from other leading aviation countries and incorporating them with what we do best here.
I do not understand why we are different to the USA (and other countries – such as South Africa) where there is a coordinator sitting beside the radar controller to affect coordination. A South African air traffic control manager visited Australia and said to me that the Australian system would be far more efficient if there were at least two people at each console – as you have mentioned.
I wouldn’t necessarily stop these things immediately, but I would certainly look at copying the best proven practices from other leading aviation countries and incorporating them with what we do best here.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, I'm confused...
is preceded by
Which is it, Dick?
I'm glad to see that you think we should be doing things in the best way. I look forward to you pushing the oz methods in the US (they are looking at it changing, after all).
I have consistently stated that I believe enroute ATCs that are responsible for separating traffic in controlled airspace should not have a DTI service on their frequency
I also believe that we should use radar where possible, and it seemed sensible to use licensed air traffic controllers to do this, rather than to train Flight Service officers to use radar.
I'm glad to see that you think we should be doing things in the best way. I look forward to you pushing the oz methods in the US (they are looking at it changing, after all).
Thread Starter
Ferris, I think you can only be confused because you have never looked at other countries to see how they perform their air traffic control.
For example, in the USA or Canada, when operating IFR you are always talking to the controller who has the radar if you are within the coverage area. However, believe it or not, there is no directed traffic service and IFR and VFR aircraft are not making self-announcements on ATC frequencies.
In fact, there is no other aviation country I know of – and I’ve flown in a few – that has aircraft making self-announcements, whether IFR or VFR, on “control” frequencies.
“How does this work?” you may ask. Well, it is all about NAS. Give me a phone call on 02 9450 0600.
For example, in the USA or Canada, when operating IFR you are always talking to the controller who has the radar if you are within the coverage area. However, believe it or not, there is no directed traffic service and IFR and VFR aircraft are not making self-announcements on ATC frequencies.
In fact, there is no other aviation country I know of – and I’ve flown in a few – that has aircraft making self-announcements, whether IFR or VFR, on “control” frequencies.
“How does this work?” you may ask. Well, it is all about NAS. Give me a phone call on 02 9450 0600.
Dick,
So how am I supposed to manage a collision risk with a lighty that has just been given to me as traffic by the tower in REAL Class D?? It's not exactly self-announcing, just a bit worse: the two of us self-separating on the R/T. What a silly idea.
In fact, there is no other aviation country I know of – and I’ve flown in a few – that has aircraft making self-announcements, whether IFR or VFR, on “control” frequencies.
Thread Starter
Capn Bloggs, what you do is to look in the direction of the traffic that has been given, sight the traffic and avoid it. It is called “alerted see and avoid.” Try flying into Bankstown or Moorabbin and attempting to start a dialogue with the traffic you have been given by the tower – I think you’d be told very quickly how traffic information at a modern airport operates.
Ferris, my comments in relation to Class D towers and handing huge volumes of Class C airspace to the lone controller have come from asking questions. I’ve spoken to many controllers – both in Australia and overseas – about this particular issue.
Controlled airspace may have worked at these locations before 1991 because VFR aircraft had full flight plans in the system. In fact they operated at quadrantal levels identical to IFR, and when you were given traffic information you were not even told if the aircraft was IFR or VFR – it was irrelevant. This meant that if a VFR aircraft was overflying a non-radar tower, the ATC not only had the radio call for the clearance, but also a flight strip which confirmed the location, track etc of the VFR aircraft.
Nowadays it is completely different. Whereas IFR aircraft have a flight plan and the back up of a flight strip for safety, this does not normally happen with VFR. If a VFR aircraft calls for a clearance and says that he is 25 miles to the north east of Alice Springs, but actually is to the south east, there is no way of the controller knowing. This is why you need the back up of an approach radar if you are going to actually separate VFR aircraft from IFR without a flight plan in the system – otherwise it really is a sham.
Controllers in Class D towers have told me that there have been times since 1991 when they have been “separating” a VFR aircraft from an IFR aircraft in the C airspace above only to find that the VFR aircraft was in a completely different location to that stated.
I do not understand why Australian controllers would not want to follow world’s best practice. That is, if they are going to be given the responsibility of separating IFR and VFR in Class C, they need the correct tools to do this – i.e. an approach radar.
Ferris, my comments in relation to Class D towers and handing huge volumes of Class C airspace to the lone controller have come from asking questions. I’ve spoken to many controllers – both in Australia and overseas – about this particular issue.
Controlled airspace may have worked at these locations before 1991 because VFR aircraft had full flight plans in the system. In fact they operated at quadrantal levels identical to IFR, and when you were given traffic information you were not even told if the aircraft was IFR or VFR – it was irrelevant. This meant that if a VFR aircraft was overflying a non-radar tower, the ATC not only had the radio call for the clearance, but also a flight strip which confirmed the location, track etc of the VFR aircraft.
Nowadays it is completely different. Whereas IFR aircraft have a flight plan and the back up of a flight strip for safety, this does not normally happen with VFR. If a VFR aircraft calls for a clearance and says that he is 25 miles to the north east of Alice Springs, but actually is to the south east, there is no way of the controller knowing. This is why you need the back up of an approach radar if you are going to actually separate VFR aircraft from IFR without a flight plan in the system – otherwise it really is a sham.
Controllers in Class D towers have told me that there have been times since 1991 when they have been “separating” a VFR aircraft from an IFR aircraft in the C airspace above only to find that the VFR aircraft was in a completely different location to that stated.
I do not understand why Australian controllers would not want to follow world’s best practice. That is, if they are going to be given the responsibility of separating IFR and VFR in Class C, they need the correct tools to do this – i.e. an approach radar.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, I am confused because you make two posts in the very same thread, one claiming that it was your idea to have Flight Service done by ATC as they have the radars, and another that says you have always opposed ATC doing Flight Service.
No response from you regarding that.
Moreover, you claim I don't know much about what happens in other countries. As I am currently licensed in my third international position, I put it to you that it is in fact YOU who does not understand the ramifications of what you espouse, as you haven't held an ATC or airspace design qualification in ANY country- oz or otherwise.
By all means, please continue to tell people who actually do the job, with international experience (or without), how it should be done, because you have flown thru an airspace somewhere. Your opinions will be given suitable credence. I once read a National Geograhic mag in a Dick Smith shop. Have I got some ideas for you!!
Is that PLAIN ENOUGH for you (and the vans-type sycophants)?
No response from you regarding that.
Moreover, you claim I don't know much about what happens in other countries. As I am currently licensed in my third international position, I put it to you that it is in fact YOU who does not understand the ramifications of what you espouse, as you haven't held an ATC or airspace design qualification in ANY country- oz or otherwise.
By all means, please continue to tell people who actually do the job, with international experience (or without), how it should be done, because you have flown thru an airspace somewhere. Your opinions will be given suitable credence. I once read a National Geograhic mag in a Dick Smith shop. Have I got some ideas for you!!
Is that PLAIN ENOUGH for you (and the vans-type sycophants)?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class E without RADAR
Quokka,
Class C with or without radar is 100% (almost) safe. ADS-B should solve your problems in C in the not too distant future.
Class E without RADAR is a large number of deaths waiting to happen... because no-one knows who's out there... This is just emotive excreta tauri, with absolutely no imperical evidence to back it up!
Class E without RADAR removes the ability of the controller to provide avoidance advice to IFR aircraft (especially fast, heavy jets carrying hundreds of passengers) when unidentified VFR aircraft are observed and a collision is possible. Again you have not proved your case - the US has had what is now called class E airspace from 1200 AGL (and now a lot of 700 AGL) over most of the continental USA except for the mountinous spine running down the the country in the west, since 1945. Their first major national radar system was first fired up in the mid 60's, but low level radar coverage (below 10,000) only existed around the major airports. For the rest the enroute centre controllers provided a procedural arrivals and departure service through class E (Below 18,000) into and out of class D CTRs and to 1200 AGL to airports sitting under the class E. This situation continued into the 80's and still exists in many areas below 5000'. In 1975 for instance Los Angeles Centre was handling around 1.8 million IFR movements a year, many of thos movements GA IFR operating in class E below 10,000'.
Class E without RADAR and without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts from the unidentified aircraft removes the Call-&-Respond layer of safety... I can't see you, but I'm calling you and if you're out there, somewhere, please respond and we'll work something out.Once more an assumption not a fact. Except around their Class B terminal areas the FAA has not mandated transponders for VFR and certainly does nor require mandatory radio calls from VFR in class E.
Class E without RADAR, without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts, without mandatory carriage of Mode C transponders and even if they are carrying an operational transponder, choosing not to switch the thing on or failing to switch the thing on... is a call for carnage... Please identify all of the carnage that has occured in the US because of the class E airspace.
The Australian problem is our class C culture and both pilots and ATC's either can't or don't want to get their heads around a system that has been proven with far higher traffic levels than Australia will ever see, both with and without radar, and to the best of my knowledge neither the ATC's or the airline pilots are or ever have asked for a change.
NB
Class C with or without radar is 100% (almost) safe. ADS-B should solve your problems in C in the not too distant future.
Class E without RADAR is a large number of deaths waiting to happen... because no-one knows who's out there... This is just emotive excreta tauri, with absolutely no imperical evidence to back it up!
Class E without RADAR removes the ability of the controller to provide avoidance advice to IFR aircraft (especially fast, heavy jets carrying hundreds of passengers) when unidentified VFR aircraft are observed and a collision is possible. Again you have not proved your case - the US has had what is now called class E airspace from 1200 AGL (and now a lot of 700 AGL) over most of the continental USA except for the mountinous spine running down the the country in the west, since 1945. Their first major national radar system was first fired up in the mid 60's, but low level radar coverage (below 10,000) only existed around the major airports. For the rest the enroute centre controllers provided a procedural arrivals and departure service through class E (Below 18,000) into and out of class D CTRs and to 1200 AGL to airports sitting under the class E. This situation continued into the 80's and still exists in many areas below 5000'. In 1975 for instance Los Angeles Centre was handling around 1.8 million IFR movements a year, many of thos movements GA IFR operating in class E below 10,000'.
Class E without RADAR and without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts from the unidentified aircraft removes the Call-&-Respond layer of safety... I can't see you, but I'm calling you and if you're out there, somewhere, please respond and we'll work something out.Once more an assumption not a fact. Except around their Class B terminal areas the FAA has not mandated transponders for VFR and certainly does nor require mandatory radio calls from VFR in class E.
Class E without RADAR, without mandatory radio monitoring and broadcasts, without mandatory carriage of Mode C transponders and even if they are carrying an operational transponder, choosing not to switch the thing on or failing to switch the thing on... is a call for carnage... Please identify all of the carnage that has occured in the US because of the class E airspace.
The Australian problem is our class C culture and both pilots and ATC's either can't or don't want to get their heads around a system that has been proven with far higher traffic levels than Australia will ever see, both with and without radar, and to the best of my knowledge neither the ATC's or the airline pilots are or ever have asked for a change.
NB
that has aircraft making self-announcements, whether IFR or VFR, on “control” frequencies.
Dick, could you please indicate the requirment for self-announcement for VFR aircraft? I must have missed that one in AIP.
Thread Starter
Ferris, I don’t want Flight Service being done by ATC. I want ATC separating IFR aircraft in Class E, or giving traffic information in Class G when on radar as per ICAO. I don’t see why air traffic controllers should be giving some type of 1930s procedure that was brought in before air traffic control existed.