Airservices Australia ADS-B program - another Seasprite Fiasco?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB- the reason people are getting frustrated with your "dont' rely on GPS because it might get switched off" mantra is that it just isnt credible. Yes, it's possible, but as has been explained, a temporary outage of the GPS system is not such a big deal (asked and answered). As far as credible threats- if I was assessing threats, a truck laden with fertilizer-based explosive levelling the ACC, the airport or the jet fuel supply sytems would be a much bigger dilemma. Do we not use trucks, or fertilizer, or jet aircraft? You see, not moving to ADS-B because of the possibility of interruption due to the possibility of terrorist use of GPS is, well, a bit "tin-foil hat"? Are you able to have some perspective on the big picture?
Bob
It's disappointing that you dont/wont/cant see the benefit to either a lighty, or the airspace system of that AS departure being ADS-B equipped. Firstly, him being equipped would allow the use of smaller sep standards with other users eg that RFDS flight Med1 coming the other way, or the 737 descending inbound (or even another 172 coming the other way). There may also be direct benefit to that 172 eg. SAR/flight following as he heads out into the GAFA. Stuff that just cant happen unless there is a mega-expensive radar head turning, and he is included in the system. Not only that, I can foresee many developments down the road that just arent possible with the continuation with the 1970's technology espoused by some here (how about a panic button/mayday type feature? Who knows?).
Bob
yet persist in the safety benefit arguement that ADSB gives to a C172 flying VFR between Alice Springs and Boulia below A010?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
T28D
Can you indicate why
To qualify for ADS-B you must require fitment of transponder for phase 1. From what height in G are these croppies dumping their super? Or perhaps they are dropping UAV GPS guided "super" bombs from above 10,000' to qualify? 
For phase 2, currently deferred, you must qualify for radio fitment. How many croppies in G can demonstrate required radio fitment?
But, good point about the croppies overall - they believe firmly in GPS for precision accuracy - no? And most will probably find a way to qualify for ADS-B so they don't get hit by Bob Murphie at low level on his way to Boulia.
Can you indicate why
croppies in G are going to do with their beaut ADSB
For phase 2, currently deferred, you must qualify for radio fitment. How many croppies in G can demonstrate required radio fitment?
But, good point about the croppies overall - they believe firmly in GPS for precision accuracy - no? And most will probably find a way to qualify for ADS-B so they don't get hit by Bob Murphie at low level on his way to Boulia.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Stone the Crows all right........Some of you are being very self centred and narrow minded.
The Aggies dont need WAAS, sure...... but not everything that flies is an Aggie. Not every aircraft needs TCAS either.....but we have it. Not every a/c needs ILS....but we have it at several airports.
Look at the bigger picture folks!
J
PS You may not need WAAS in your AG machine, but when you fly it into Tamworth, with the free ADSB unithidden under your dash..... you will be in the system. I am not proposing all light a/c have the In function, but it could have help avoid a recent prang.
The Aggies dont need WAAS, sure...... but not everything that flies is an Aggie. Not every aircraft needs TCAS either.....but we have it. Not every a/c needs ILS....but we have it at several airports.
Look at the bigger picture folks!
J
PS You may not need WAAS in your AG machine, but when you fly it into Tamworth, with the free ADSB unithidden under your dash..... you will be in the system. I am not proposing all light a/c have the In function, but it could have help avoid a recent prang.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: They seek him here, they seek him there
Posts: 141
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JM and Bob,
Would you care to name any aviation union that is opposing the proposed subsidy?
There is simply no reason for them to do so.
Particularly if we now have another force - the unions - who are going to block it (how?).
There is simply no reason for them to do so.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FB ,
I trust I'm not being thin-skinned, maybe I am, however you asked for a reference. What are you implying from your post of July 8th.
"I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm..."
Apologies in advance if I have the wrong end of the stick.
I trust I'm not being thin-skinned, maybe I am, however you asked for a reference. What are you implying from your post of July 8th.
"I see you make mention that the system would revert to an inefficient, and non-dangerous state... a system, aparently, that has less ATC and nav-aids then we currently have... Hmmm..."
Apologies in advance if I have the wrong end of the stick.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reference the cropdusters, I muddied the waters when T28D asked what benefit ADS-B would be to them, I noted that in July 2008 Australian Aviation that 2 had left the aircraft register due mid-air.
With deference to the bereaved, I wondered if that ADS-B was in , that it may have had a degree of influence, however small, on stopping the holes in the cheese lining up.
With deference to the bereaved, I wondered if that ADS-B was in , that it may have had a degree of influence, however small, on stopping the holes in the cheese lining up.
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
Smith said
Nup not .. see Mr Michaels quote, and I dare say you would do well to contact anyone from the ABIT GIT groups .. you would avoid making embarrassing gaffs like that!
Cite a source .. forgive me for not believing your ‘assurance’ alone
Cuckoo!
… oh OK so now you accept ADS-B ‘IN’ is in play, but the issue is Aural alerts … are you saying that 'IN' without Aural alerts for GA is less safe that nothing??
A gimmick eh? Is that what you consider the TAS type systems (like Bing's) that feed traffic info into moving maps is a gimmick? ..or by the same token having basic Aural but no display such as FLARM (for gliders) are gimmicks??
… again so you now concede that there are certified ‘IN’ units, but your beef is no aural? … hmmm so lets have nothing instead .. is that your case?
Aircraft with TCAS, will by the time ADS-B is reaching a critical mass have ADS-B input in the same way A/C TXPDR acft are seen by TCAS.. Mores the point, how many GA aircraft will ever have TCAS??? … **** all, ... they could all have ADS-B ‘IN’ .. but NO you would prefer what we/they have now **** ALL!! ..... 
.. I am sorry I missed that earlier mention, could you provide a link to it!
You understand ...how? .. could you for once corroborate your musings?
And now to the inevitable thread drift that usually occurs before the inevitable chucking the dummy in the dirt hissy fit!
By the way Richard, you know that one of the reasons regional tower/app controllers do not hold radar ratings is because procedural app class D towers rarely have radar (or any other surveillance) coverage to use. The ones that do, utilise that surveillance in the most effective way possible. Can it used more effectively by towers, yes .... and that has been worked on for some time. I would suggest you ask the regulator why regional towers (with surveillance) are not able to use it for what it should be …. Mind you, what you think it should be and reality are two different things … but then you have had that explained to you multiple times also!
By the way Richard regional tower/proc app controllers use standards that RADAR approach controllers (and more particularly en-route controllers) are unable to use i.e. visual and procedural approach/departures! You know that because it has been explained to you numerous times over numerous years also. It is also a fact that procedural standards if used correctly, enable just as efficient traffic management in those regional environments! .. but then you know that as well, the data on efficiency of ATS here and abroad has been cited many many times .. but as usual you ignore it!
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace, it is completely justified such as SY, ML, BN, CS, CG, CB, AD, PH
…. Or are you advocating a separate RADAR/Surveillance Approach service for Launy and like type aerodromes? … you know, the US style which would mean a fully staffed tower (say 6-8 bums on seats), a fully staffed Approach cell in ML or BN running 24/7 (say 12-14 bums on seats) that’s 20+ v’s 6-7 (with no change to en-route numbers) and a multi-million dollar radar head at each location … is that what you are advocating???
Bollocks! .. it was not that long ago your oft quoted Alaskan tower was in just that situation … but wait .. what’s happened there …. ADS-B!! … oh my giddy aunt!!!!
… well now that depends on whether or not surveillance coverage (ADS-B) is in play, with good IFR TSO146 NAV gear (TAWS etc) being carried by said pilots …. Errrm who will be responsible for that type of accident if the opportunity being discussed in this proposal, and in this thread is scuttled?
Nope wrong again!
The technology (read functionality) is the trophy winning initiative …!! .. not the ADS-B system delivery frequency!
… but thanks for the fire side sermon there Sir Murray Rivers … better than a cup of Horlicks!
RE WAAS ... Got my vote Jaba!!!!
Scurvy, unfortunately you are wrong.
If you purchased the latest Airbus A380, you would find that whilst it transmits ADS-B, it actually shows aircraft on the screen using TCAS. At the present time it does not have any “mix” of the ADS-B signals on that display.
The reason for this – as pointed out previously on this site – is because the ADS-B position is very accurate, whereas the TCAS position can vary.
I have researched this thoroughly.
Microair do have experimental ADS-B ‘in’ units, however they do not have a TCAS-like voice read out for Traffic Advisories or Resolution Advisories.
I have flown aircraft with the FAA Capstone system and they have the same problem. It is more of a gimmick, because you look down on the display and see lots of aircraft appearing, however you cannot study the display all of the time, and once again there is no audio call out when traffic is close.
Whatever you want to make out, the facts are simple. That is, there is no certified (or non-certified) ADS-B ‘in’ unit available which gives an audio call out for nearby traffic.
Because a pilot cannot study the display all the time, it means the available systems are not as effective as TCAS.
As I have mentioned previously, this will change in the future.
I understand there are some patent problems in relation to audio call outs with ADS-B, and that is why the US Capstone does not feature such announcements.
...how? .. could you for once corroborate your musings?And now to the inevitable thread drift that usually occurs before the inevitable chucking the dummy in the dirt hissy fit!
By the way Scurvy, you know that one of the reasons that you cannot provide a radar service to the lowest level of radar coverage at Launceston is because the tower controllers are not radar rated.
By the way Richard regional tower/proc app controllers use standards that RADAR approach controllers (and more particularly en-route controllers) are unable to use i.e. visual and procedural approach/departures! You know that because it has been explained to you numerous times over numerous years also. It is also a fact that procedural standards if used correctly, enable just as efficient traffic management in those regional environments! .. but then you know that as well, the data on efficiency of ATS here and abroad has been cited many many times .. but as usual you ignore it!
In the USA and other leading aviation countries, the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage. Because the Centre controllers are radar rated, and because they are there 24 hours per day, it is quite a superb and safe service.
…. Or are you advocating a separate RADAR/Surveillance Approach service for Launy and like type aerodromes? … you know, the US style which would mean a fully staffed tower (say 6-8 bums on seats), a fully staffed Approach cell in ML or BN running 24/7 (say 12-14 bums on seats) that’s 20+ v’s 6-7 (with no change to en-route numbers) and a multi-million dollar radar head at each location … is that what you are advocating???
Australia is the only country I know of in the world where a pilot is forced to leave a radar frequency when in IMC to change to the tower and talk to controllers who are not radar rated.
One day I think we will try the system that is used in the rest of the world, and find that it adds to safety. Of course, that will probably be after someone makes a mistake at a place like Hamilton Island and flies into a mountain because the controllers in the tower had no idea that the error had been made.
who will be responsible for that type of accident if the opportunity being discussed in this proposal, and in this thread is scuttled?
And the FAA won the Collier Trophy for the Capstone system which is totally different to that planned here!
ADS-B was the vision of many prestigious aviation organizations and individuals who both recognized its potential to dramatically improve the current aviation system and who also worked tirelessly for its adoption as the first phase of building the Next-Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Among them are the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Air Line Pilots Association, the Cargo Airline Association, Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, the Federal Aviation Administration, ITT Corporation, Lockheed Martin Corporation, NASA, MITRE Corporation, UPS, ACSS and many others.
… but thanks for the fire side sermon there Sir Murray Rivers … better than a cup of Horlicks!
RE WAAS ... Got my vote Jaba!!!!
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GaryGnu;
Read my post again. I did not indicate the Unions would oppose anything, but I did say I was awaiting the "union hype" about my possibly accepting the benefits of the subsidy which I still can't warm to.
Call me an enigma if you want but don't rearrange my syntax. I can, and often do that without your help. Ask Creampuff.
I do reserve the right to change my mind however, and I now support the call for WAAS. This will surely put the final political and economic nail in the ADSB low level coffin.
OZBUSDRIVER;
Any croppie that operated from a CTAF (R), now has a radio. If you lot get your way he will have to have ADSB OUT in the future. City folk don't think much of farmers or the maintenance costs of transponder checks, so I would imagine they will get a burr under their saddle about this airline fare impost as well.
But who cares, as long as the private pilot who hires an aircraft and Airservices are happy, the aircraft owner will just cop it, won't he?
Anyway, lets all hear it for a public demand for WAAS.
ferris;
A King Air (RFDS) almost crashed into me one night, "and I was in a boat in the Gulf".
But you are right, I can't see your point, but accept your stance as I do others.
Read my post again. I did not indicate the Unions would oppose anything, but I did say I was awaiting the "union hype" about my possibly accepting the benefits of the subsidy which I still can't warm to.
Call me an enigma if you want but don't rearrange my syntax. I can, and often do that without your help. Ask Creampuff.
I do reserve the right to change my mind however, and I now support the call for WAAS. This will surely put the final political and economic nail in the ADSB low level coffin.
OZBUSDRIVER;
Any croppie that operated from a CTAF (R), now has a radio. If you lot get your way he will have to have ADSB OUT in the future. City folk don't think much of farmers or the maintenance costs of transponder checks, so I would imagine they will get a burr under their saddle about this airline fare impost as well.
But who cares, as long as the private pilot who hires an aircraft and Airservices are happy, the aircraft owner will just cop it, won't he?
Anyway, lets all hear it for a public demand for WAAS.
ferris;
A King Air (RFDS) almost crashed into me one night, "and I was in a boat in the Gulf".
But you are right, I can't see your point, but accept your stance as I do others.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Murphie
You miss the point of the coming CASA train - the light at the end of the tunnel is probably Transponder in CTAF R.
Therefore, your croppie who has become the focus of your current 'next diversion' is going to REQUIRE a transponder ANYWAY.
It does not matter whether it is a donkey mode C as now or a new mode S re maintenance does it? Except perhaps that the NEW mode S transponder is PAID FOR and likely more relieble with RS232 encoder instead of old donkey one.
ALL
I have to tell you it's freezing in the halls of power this morning. Overnight I realised just how crazy was this debate. If you were all to open your management texts, you could find a general guide to making decisions:
GET ALL THE FACTS
WEIGH AND DECIDE
FEEDBACK AND REVISE
IN THAT ORDER
So, over my morning latte I have found the following quotes:
Dick Smith 28 June
Dick Smith 3 July
Dick Smith 8 July
So in the past month, the management texts have been re-written.
Dick - acknowledging he does NOT have the facts - has criticised the ADS-B proponents, and determined to stop the program.
Would someone like to re-write the management texts
I think I personally am also owed an answer:
Dick Smith 5 july
Dick - three specific questions:
- What's the information - or was that just bait to have me ring on Sunday for a sermon?
- How are you going with ICAO Annex 6?
- Why are you opposing ADs-B that will probably better enable your desired NAS to occur earlier (or are you hoping for a contra deal with the union if you bang the ATC staffing shortage drum as at present?).
You miss the point of the coming CASA train - the light at the end of the tunnel is probably Transponder in CTAF R.
Therefore, your croppie who has become the focus of your current 'next diversion' is going to REQUIRE a transponder ANYWAY.
It does not matter whether it is a donkey mode C as now or a new mode S re maintenance does it? Except perhaps that the NEW mode S transponder is PAID FOR and likely more relieble with RS232 encoder instead of old donkey one.
ALL
I have to tell you it's freezing in the halls of power this morning. Overnight I realised just how crazy was this debate. If you were all to open your management texts, you could find a general guide to making decisions:
GET ALL THE FACTS
WEIGH AND DECIDE
FEEDBACK AND REVISE
IN THAT ORDER
So, over my morning latte I have found the following quotes:
Dick Smith 28 June
There is no way I and others will allow the removal of the en-route SSR network until the ADSB system is totally operational and proven.This will then throw the "subsidy" figures on the scrap heap!
They won't take any notice of us? Don't you believe it -watch the media.
They won't take any notice of us? Don't you believe it -watch the media.
There is simply no reason that we should lead the world – especially when we do not have competent people here doing the “leading.”
With the limited amount of information I have (because I’m kept out of the loop in every way possible – as is everyone who doesn’t blindly support the JCP),
Dick - acknowledging he does NOT have the facts - has criticised the ADS-B proponents, and determined to stop the program.
Would someone like to re-write the management texts
I think I personally am also owed an answer:
Dick Smith 5 july
James, I will answer all of your questions on Monday, in the meantime I dare you to phone me this weekend for even more important information.
- What's the information - or was that just bait to have me ring on Sunday for a sermon?
- How are you going with ICAO Annex 6?
- Why are you opposing ADs-B that will probably better enable your desired NAS to occur earlier (or are you hoping for a contra deal with the union if you bang the ATC staffing shortage drum as at present?).
Thread Starter
Binghi, I reckon you are on to it! Why else would someone with so much knowledge of this complex field need to keep their name secret if it wasn't to hide something!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
You are very casual with people's reputations; yet very militaristic about your own. And again you go for conspiracy theory about my anon appearance - go read the Pprune rules and preamble.
Binghi
So much for sensible debate. Early on you brag of leading me on, then you call me a fool, now you sail close with the current 'assumption'.
Both of you
I stand to make not a cent out of ADS-B either directly or indirectly. I consider your comments absolutely disgraceful and a clear indication of why this debate has dissolved into tripe.
Kindly withdraw the allegation. Dick, your's sails almost close enough for a bouquet of tulips consequence
Further, Dick, you have slagged many good people working on the ADS-B project - IN THE ADMISSION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FULL FACTS.
Go to the media as you suggested but don't cry when they get copies of this last few thread items.
BUT, DICK SMITH, INSTEAD OF PLAYING THE MAN - NOW ANSWER MY THREE QUESTIONS - FORGET THE DIVERSION SO KINDLY OFFERED BY YOUR RUNNER BONGO.
You are very casual with people's reputations; yet very militaristic about your own. And again you go for conspiracy theory about my anon appearance - go read the Pprune rules and preamble.
Binghi
So much for sensible debate. Early on you brag of leading me on, then you call me a fool, now you sail close with the current 'assumption'.
Both of you
I stand to make not a cent out of ADS-B either directly or indirectly. I consider your comments absolutely disgraceful and a clear indication of why this debate has dissolved into tripe.
Kindly withdraw the allegation. Dick, your's sails almost close enough for a bouquet of tulips consequence
Further, Dick, you have slagged many good people working on the ADS-B project - IN THE ADMISSION THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE THE FULL FACTS.
Go to the media as you suggested but don't cry when they get copies of this last few thread items.
BUT, DICK SMITH, INSTEAD OF PLAYING THE MAN - NOW ANSWER MY THREE QUESTIONS - FORGET THE DIVERSION SO KINDLY OFFERED BY YOUR RUNNER BONGO.
Thread Starter
Scurvy, from what I can understand you don’t actually know how the system in the USA (and other leading aviation countries) works when it comes to optimising the use of ATC and radar. Have you ever actually sat in a tower in the USA?
I stated:
You then immediately said:
No Scurvy, that is not what I’m referring to. I’m referring to all radar covered airspace – including airspace similar to what you have at Launceston, and airspace for any instrument approach anywhere in the USA.
Mostly it is the enroute controllers doing the approach work at these airports. Where there is a Class D tower, the tower controllers are not normally rated to do procedural IFR separation. In effect, the IFR “control” comes from the Centre or the TRACON, and the tower controller in Class D is responsible for runway separation and other duties.
It is a fantastic, superb and safe system. It means that in the USA (and most other aviation countries), an IFR aircraft in IMC remains with the radar controller. They don’t have the crazy Australian system where at a place like Albury at 9,500 feet when overflying – until I was able to bring in some changes – an enroute pilot was forced to change to the Albury tower and lose the advantage of radar control.
I will try to explain to the thousands of pilots who read this how a professional system should work.
In Australia we appear to have inherited a system where various groups “control” and “own” their airspace. For example, if you put a block of airspace around Alice Springs to 12,500 feet, it “belongs” to the tower – not to the Centre, and never the twain shall meet.
In other countries, Class D airspace is small – that is, normally 4.3 miles radius and up to 2,500 feet AGL. That is basically the distance that a controller can see – even if using binoculars.
The advantages of the Centre or the TRACON controlling the airspace when IMC exists are great. For example, when the local tower controller is off duty, the airspace reverts to Class E, and the advantages of an IFR separation service remain.
The difficulty I have found in Australia is that the controllers in our non-radar Class D towers (which mostly operate like Class C) maintain that they should keep their “block” of airspace – once to 12,500 feet, now in some places to 8,500 or 4,500 feet – whether or not there is radar coverage. This appears to me to be based mainly on resistance to change.
Scurvy, I’m happy to arrange with Jetstar for you to fly to Hawaii and have a look at the Lihue Tower which Airservices operates there. There are a number of similar attributes to Launceston. The big difference is that instead of the tower “owning” airspace to 8,500 feet, the controllers are basically responsible for runway separation and for traffic information and sequencing in the circuit area. When pilots are in IMC at the airport, they are generally on the radar frequency – it is all very logical.
It is a different system to the one that has operated here for the last 50 years – since before radar. However to me it seems to be far safer and more “professional.”
Scurvy, I’m happy to cover the cost of you going to the tower, to see what they do for a couple of hours, and then for you to advise whether you think it has any advantages over what we do here in Australia.
I found at Lihue that the pilots love it – including the airline pilots – and the controllers love it. It is a totally different system to the one you use at Launceston, so it would be at least interesting to find out why you believe the differences are so great.
I stated:
the radar covered airspace remains with the Centre until the lower level of radar coverage
.. yes quite superb, for high volume surveillance TMA airspace
Mostly it is the enroute controllers doing the approach work at these airports. Where there is a Class D tower, the tower controllers are not normally rated to do procedural IFR separation. In effect, the IFR “control” comes from the Centre or the TRACON, and the tower controller in Class D is responsible for runway separation and other duties.
It is a fantastic, superb and safe system. It means that in the USA (and most other aviation countries), an IFR aircraft in IMC remains with the radar controller. They don’t have the crazy Australian system where at a place like Albury at 9,500 feet when overflying – until I was able to bring in some changes – an enroute pilot was forced to change to the Albury tower and lose the advantage of radar control.
I will try to explain to the thousands of pilots who read this how a professional system should work.
In Australia we appear to have inherited a system where various groups “control” and “own” their airspace. For example, if you put a block of airspace around Alice Springs to 12,500 feet, it “belongs” to the tower – not to the Centre, and never the twain shall meet.
In other countries, Class D airspace is small – that is, normally 4.3 miles radius and up to 2,500 feet AGL. That is basically the distance that a controller can see – even if using binoculars.
The advantages of the Centre or the TRACON controlling the airspace when IMC exists are great. For example, when the local tower controller is off duty, the airspace reverts to Class E, and the advantages of an IFR separation service remain.
The difficulty I have found in Australia is that the controllers in our non-radar Class D towers (which mostly operate like Class C) maintain that they should keep their “block” of airspace – once to 12,500 feet, now in some places to 8,500 or 4,500 feet – whether or not there is radar coverage. This appears to me to be based mainly on resistance to change.
Scurvy, I’m happy to arrange with Jetstar for you to fly to Hawaii and have a look at the Lihue Tower which Airservices operates there. There are a number of similar attributes to Launceston. The big difference is that instead of the tower “owning” airspace to 8,500 feet, the controllers are basically responsible for runway separation and for traffic information and sequencing in the circuit area. When pilots are in IMC at the airport, they are generally on the radar frequency – it is all very logical.
It is a different system to the one that has operated here for the last 50 years – since before radar. However to me it seems to be far safer and more “professional.”
Scurvy, I’m happy to cover the cost of you going to the tower, to see what they do for a couple of hours, and then for you to advise whether you think it has any advantages over what we do here in Australia.
I found at Lihue that the pilots love it – including the airline pilots – and the controllers love it. It is a totally different system to the one you use at Launceston, so it would be at least interesting to find out why you believe the differences are so great.