Labor’s Class C radar policy
Thread Starter
Labor’s Class C radar policy
One of the points included in Labor’s aviation policy before the last election was that they would remove John Anderson’s directive which required an approach radar control service for all Class C airspace which had been reclassified from Class E over D. This was as per NAS.
Martin Ferguson, who at the time was the Shadow Minister responsible for the aviation policy, told me that this policy was introduced because a number of controllers in the Class D towers did not believe that radar was necessary. They claimed that they could do the Class C airspace above the Class D without radar and without any extra cost.
Of course, people like Scurvy.D.Dog and other Class D tower controllers have made the same claim on this site. That is, that they can provide Class C above Class D, with all the extra services required of that classification (compared to Class E), without any additional costs. The claim has always been, “If we can provide a higher service (i.e. Class C) at the same cost as Class E, it is better for us to provide it!”
Could this be one of the reasons that there is such a staffing problem in these Class D towers? Imagine if you were a manager at Airservices, and your controllers in the towers claimed that they could not only control the Class D airspace, but they were also happy to change the Class E airspace above to Class C and control that as well at no extra cost. Considering that the Class C above Launceston is larger than the controlled airspace at JFK in New York, it must be quite a task.
One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great. I wonder if this is one of the reasons that we have tower controllers in Australia with medical problems. Could it be that the strain and workload is too great – having this extra airspace responsibility when there is no radar provided and no extra staffing?
More importantly, once the bosses can see that there are workers who are anxious to take extra responsibility, provide additional service and accept additional liability without any potential for extra income, they can see that these workers can be exploited.
It is food for thought.
Martin Ferguson, who at the time was the Shadow Minister responsible for the aviation policy, told me that this policy was introduced because a number of controllers in the Class D towers did not believe that radar was necessary. They claimed that they could do the Class C airspace above the Class D without radar and without any extra cost.
Of course, people like Scurvy.D.Dog and other Class D tower controllers have made the same claim on this site. That is, that they can provide Class C above Class D, with all the extra services required of that classification (compared to Class E), without any additional costs. The claim has always been, “If we can provide a higher service (i.e. Class C) at the same cost as Class E, it is better for us to provide it!”
Could this be one of the reasons that there is such a staffing problem in these Class D towers? Imagine if you were a manager at Airservices, and your controllers in the towers claimed that they could not only control the Class D airspace, but they were also happy to change the Class E airspace above to Class C and control that as well at no extra cost. Considering that the Class C above Launceston is larger than the controlled airspace at JFK in New York, it must be quite a task.
One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great. I wonder if this is one of the reasons that we have tower controllers in Australia with medical problems. Could it be that the strain and workload is too great – having this extra airspace responsibility when there is no radar provided and no extra staffing?
More importantly, once the bosses can see that there are workers who are anxious to take extra responsibility, provide additional service and accept additional liability without any potential for extra income, they can see that these workers can be exploited.
It is food for thought.
Until your hair-brained NAS came along, there was ALWAYS "C" over a tower (in fact, life was much simpler then; "controlled" or "uncontrolled"). I suggest you go chasing those naughty dollar-driven, afffordable safety AsA managers you keep harping on about if there is a problem with controllers in the non-radar towers.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Depends on the day
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Considering that the Class C above Launceston is larger than the controlled airspace at JFK in New York, it must be quite a task.
From my point of view, it seems that you are hell bent on making the Australian system a copy of the American one. Obviously you think its a great system, it may well be. But just because it works so well over there, does it meet all our needs? Wouldn't it be better to think for ourselves and learn from other countries (not just the US), to develop a system that is better suited for us?
One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.. your bait stinks Dick 
.
I will say this though:-
.
1. Show me one, JUST one ICAO procedural approach & tower rated US ATC?
.
2. Show me how many controllers in the US (on average) would administer the same segments of flight into a like type regional airport in OZ i.e the Tower and Approach?
.
Get some new bait cobba
.
I will say this though:-
.
1. Show me one, JUST one ICAO procedural approach & tower rated US ATC?
.
2. Show me how many controllers in the US (on average) would administer the same segments of flight into a like type regional airport in OZ i.e the Tower and Approach?
.
Get some new bait cobba
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Not sure if you've overstepped the boundaries with your familiarity with SDD, but I find your comments offensive. How dare you assume to guess why a controller is off on sick leave.
I'm sure that every controller will vouch these days that the stress and pressure the job of separating aircraft is now far less than that of having to deal with the cr@p that comes down from above.
Not sure if you've overstepped the boundaries with your familiarity with SDD, but I find your comments offensive. How dare you assume to guess why a controller is off on sick leave.
I'm sure that every controller will vouch these days that the stress and pressure the job of separating aircraft is now far less than that of having to deal with the cr@p that comes down from above.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 1,569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh boy Dick yr stepping on some toes there cobba, how's the Yanky Ford going?...........back on the rd again are we?
Our ATC staff aren't there for the fun of it anymore, they might have been once but not these days.
CW
Our ATC staff aren't there for the fun of it anymore, they might have been once but not these days.
CW
Lets be fair, I reread Mr Dick's post and nowhere saw anything about sick leave and SDD. Pretty long bow gents. I believe Dick is saying that there is a staffing issue because they are trying to do more with less and if they dropped back to just the E service, they could cut roster hours and therefore free up staff. Unfortunately, getting less than 1 equals zero.
Thread Starter
Plazbot,you are correct. I was not referring to an individual controller.
Scurvy,A US ATC in the non radar twr is not approach rated because approach is provided from the Center or Tracon 24 hrs per day-not just during twr hrs.
Scurvy,A US ATC in the non radar twr is not approach rated because approach is provided from the Center or Tracon 24 hrs per day-not just during twr hrs.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 1st Feb 2008 at 09:19. Reason: spelling
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could this be one of the reasons that there is such a staffing problem in these Class D towers?
One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great. I wonder if this is one of the reasons that we have tower controllers in Australia with medical problems.
He knows EXACTLY what is at play, because I have told him TO HIS FACE .... moreover he knows it is not airspace operations related!!
.
Who is telling you to attempt this spin ball?? your mates on the board? .. senior management? WJH?
.
Never again Dick^&%d
Thread Starter
Scurvy I am not referring to you as you did not give me any details of your situation nor did I ask.
Why not discuss the valid point I have brought up-that is that our class D twrs have a huge amount of airspace and hardly any staff.
Why not discuss the valid point I have brought up-that is that our class D twrs have a huge amount of airspace and hardly any staff.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... proves my point, you know dam'd well what we discussed walking up the Brisbane street mall with your American friend ... 
.
... and separately you know dam'd well what the issue is with D staffing ..... AND it has NOTHING to do with C or E over D, nor does shifting APP to Centre change anything, you still need the same number of D controllers, and an additional number of APP controllers in the centre (or tracon), do you want to more than double the LSP's for the industry???
.
Drop it DICK!
.
... and separately you know dam'd well what the issue is with D staffing ..... AND it has NOTHING to do with C or E over D, nor does shifting APP to Centre change anything, you still need the same number of D controllers, and an additional number of APP controllers in the centre (or tracon), do you want to more than double the LSP's for the industry???
.
Drop it DICK!
Dick said:
That's drawing a long bow, isn't it Dick?
Therefore, are you saying that the CASA DAME's are not doing their job either?
Maybe workload is the only factor in this. Maybe the tower you quote is far too bust to even be a class d tower (think Cairns or even cooly before they went to C) and so have no spare capacity to handle more aircraft, but towers like LT and HB and AY do have that capacity....
Each place is different Dick.
The US is not the World leader in all situations..
I wonder if this is one of the reasons that we have tower controllers in Australia with medical problems.
Therefore, are you saying that the CASA DAME's are not doing their job either?
Maybe workload is the only factor in this. Maybe the tower you quote is far too bust to even be a class d tower (think Cairns or even cooly before they went to C) and so have no spare capacity to handle more aircraft, but towers like LT and HB and AY do have that capacity....
Each place is different Dick.
The US is not the World leader in all situations..
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the controllers in Lihue in the USA told me on my last visit that controllers would not be prepared to change the Class E above their tower to Class C, and also control it without radar and without additional staff, because the strain and workload would be too great.
Dave
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
Could this be one of the reasons that there is such a staffing problem in these Class D towers?
If only you would act to improve aviation for ALL, rather than 'muck raking' and pushing what seems like your own personal agenda, you really could make a difference and garner some support!
Thread Starter
Fixa24 I said "one of the reasons" I agree the primary reason appears to be a lack of staff. I also agree that the US is not the world leader in all things however there are often some things that are done better in other countries that can be copied to bring benefit to our country.
Howard Hughes,if you mean by my own "personal agenda" the allocating of airspace categories on an objective basis, based on traffic densities and risk.-well yes.
Why wouldn't everyone want that?,
Howard Hughes,if you mean by my own "personal agenda" the allocating of airspace categories on an objective basis, based on traffic densities and risk.-well yes.
Why wouldn't everyone want that?,
Slightly off topic, but here's an interesting read on the problems with terminal and above-terminal Class E Airspace in other parts of the world. Maybe we're 'ahead of our time' in solving the problem:
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=286773
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=286773