Labor’s Class C radar policy
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the Dog house
Posts: 162
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost effective for who? The service provider, the operator, or the fare paying passenger?
Could also be read as most profitable (again for who?) if share holders and management bonuses are involved.
What is the base of radar cover around some of the busier non tower aerodromes? If it is low enough to effectively abutt an MBZ airpsace below then I would support class C over an MBZ as a minimum. The problem with class E over an MBZ or CTAF for that matter is that you have no control over the VFR traffic during vital climb and descent profiles of IFR traffic. If all traffic was mandated to call the radar controller within E, or to minimise control and RT, how about implementing a mandatory carriage of a transponder, and allocating a conspicuity code for VFR as per the old 7000 SSR in UK, (non verified mode C), say within a specified distance of the aerodrome - 50nm out for example (just a pluck). Then perhaps effective traffic info could be passed (AKA UK RAS or RIS system ) prior to relase to the CTAF / MBZ, and all players could self separate and sequence for the runway acccording to rules of the air and general airmanship principles. No tower controller would then be required. That said this would depend on the controllers responsibilities airspace and overall workload. Not knowing what the Melb and Bris blokes actually do day to day I cant compare with other systems. No doubt a lot more controllers would be required and sectorisation would need to be apportioned according to availability and serviceability of radar consoles.
Just a thought or two
DogGone
Could also be read as most profitable (again for who?) if share holders and management bonuses are involved.
What is the base of radar cover around some of the busier non tower aerodromes? If it is low enough to effectively abutt an MBZ airpsace below then I would support class C over an MBZ as a minimum. The problem with class E over an MBZ or CTAF for that matter is that you have no control over the VFR traffic during vital climb and descent profiles of IFR traffic. If all traffic was mandated to call the radar controller within E, or to minimise control and RT, how about implementing a mandatory carriage of a transponder, and allocating a conspicuity code for VFR as per the old 7000 SSR in UK, (non verified mode C), say within a specified distance of the aerodrome - 50nm out for example (just a pluck). Then perhaps effective traffic info could be passed (AKA UK RAS or RIS system ) prior to relase to the CTAF / MBZ, and all players could self separate and sequence for the runway acccording to rules of the air and general airmanship principles. No tower controller would then be required. That said this would depend on the controllers responsibilities airspace and overall workload. Not knowing what the Melb and Bris blokes actually do day to day I cant compare with other systems. No doubt a lot more controllers would be required and sectorisation would need to be apportioned according to availability and serviceability of radar consoles.
Just a thought or two
DogGone
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
BD,
Carriage and use of a transponder in mandatory in class E airspace (except for aircraft without an engine driven electrical system).
VFR is REQUIRED to squawk 1200.
W
Carriage and use of a transponder in mandatory in class E airspace (except for aircraft without an engine driven electrical system).
VFR is REQUIRED to squawk 1200.
W
