:D
.
There you go ... YOUR PLAN .... OK then :E
.
.... so you want to exploit ATC further by having them provide E at places like Benalla ..... hmmm ..... and yet your reason for closing the tower at Proserpine (and the like) was?????
.
You and your side kick refuse to take into account that the US are not running E, it is in reality hybrid D where surveillance exists .... FACT!
.
Go and ask the ATC's in the US how they actually operate their airspace (real life traffic services) and apply that to the nearest ICAO classification :ooh: .... and that will include the VHF and TXPDR requirements within distances of location X,Y or z as per the AIM and related! ;)
.
Unless and until you do that ..... :=

Moderator,

Can you please remove all posts that have nothing to do with ;

Quote:

---

Why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by ASA

---

Thanks

... including the thread originators post that introduced airspace classifications and services :hmm:
.
… in fact .... seeing as the thread starter raised em .. perhaps a separate thread on exploitation of ATC (in an industrial sense) is required rather than removing the validity of this thread!!! ;)

I think this is the thread created to cover issues that didn't have anything to do with GRAS.

...and Dick is correct. I am not a spokesman for ASA, but while the industry were a bit aghast at the crappy pup they had been sold with NAS 2b, the decision to reverse was for exactly the reason Dick stated. The slant he gives it is entirely imaginary though. ASA was REQUIRED by its legislation to reverse the experiment, because they had not implemented the airspace and procedures in accordance with it's legislative requirements. When it did apply the required process to the pre-NAS 2b environment ASA discovered there were some items they could not legally implement - so some heads roll and some airspace rolls back.

It seems to me the horse's arse of a minister we had at the time was ordering the organisation to do things it had no legal means of doing. Almost like some other minister in some other government ordering the police to avoid particular knocking shops or illegal casinos. Can't happen.But it is a valid method of assessing the safety of a change to compare with another model. I have never heard Dick claim the US is best practice, just that it would be more efficient and provide better access, particularly to VFR. He does claim an increase in safety also. I don't believe that, but a US-style airspace arrangement WOULD be safe,



...safe enough anyway.

Shame there was nothing to compare the baby-step in between bits of the plan that we are mostly stuck with now.

:ooh:
.
... and the complimentary (US) ATC regs to avoid a Benalla like linching? :hmm:

Mr Smith, I have told you on several occasions, the Class E associated with any "Terminal Service", especially above a Class D zone, is treated as a bastardised version of Class D.

I refer you to this previous thread, and also this thread.

Signed,

A Canadian Air Traffic Controller.

Now, FFS, if you're going to start a topic:

:ok::ok::ok:

Not sticking to the subject makes Baby Jesus cry!

... Jerricho :D
.
Ta :ok:

'Owen'....

Big deep breaths, BEX, cup of Tea, Good Lie Down......

AAH! That's better....:D:D



THAT Diagram AG'IN.........:yuk::yuk::yuk::=:=:=

Dick, with the NUMBER of Qualified Staff ASA have left.....

CTA / OCTA might very well be 'THE' next option.....:sad::sad::sad:

Owen ... relax mate :) .. he is not worth the stress ;)
.
A good strong (insert beverage of choice) will do the trick :ok:

Dick (and MJBOW), I work with a gent fresh from the centre that is responsible for the airspace you mention (Williamsport). He states several things:
1. There are 60 sectors around that airspace. Did you take that in? 60 (six zero) sectors. They have the movements to justify this level of service provision.
2. They call it "E" airspace, but as mentioned by previous posters and in previous threads, in no way does it operate as "E" as understood in Australia, or ICAO. It is a uniquely US variation (as stated), and is actually very restrictive to IFR aircraft that operate into Williamsport. It is definately less restrictive to VFR. I get either blank looks or howls of laughter when I describe ausNAS (ICAO E without radar).
3. Given the difference in the level of resources available in the US and oz (affordable safety), why would you try and implement widespread adoption of alphabet airspace? (his words).
4. The surveillance capability in that area is nowhere near as lacking as in oz (for eg. Benalla)- he gave me a hand sketched diagram of PRIMARY radar heads/coverage in the area.
5. He detailed many differences in resourcing, procedures etc. that show the actual magnitude of the changes required to "transplant" the US system into oz- changes beyond just reclassifying airspace; even down to cultural changes in the way ATC is done and the service delivered. All of it spoke volumes on how little the ausNAS change attempted was understood by it's proponents (both within and outside of ATC).

It all seems so simple to a private pilot, looking in. Surely you agree?

.. from the horses mouth! :ok: .. so to speak! :E

As the "airspace at a glance" chart has made a resurgence, I'll bring up another......


Dick, you got it wrong.

Yes this got my ulcers boiling again...why:

First in answer to Dicks previous comments: it was the sixties but it was also through to the late eighties until 20 years in the Aviation Hall of Chaos began. Just becasuse it was a good system then does not automatically mean it is suddenly a bad system just because you say so. Many many say otherwise and the many will still be here pitching this line whilst you continue to spin. I have been involved in change management all my life but nothing like I've seen in the past 20 years.

If I had been involved with this I'd emigrate before it caught up with me.

Young pilots and controllers are easy prey because they have no memory or knowledge of the simpilicity, effectiveness (service) and efficiency of that system. I groan when I hear that some are actually believing your spin.

The relationship between Airservices and ATC is bad; and not isolated.
This is fundamentally the result of changes that happened in the early nineties (and I am certainly not against change however not stupid change). That period of change was borne from ill considered opinion, tragic and manipulative implementation processes, greed and cowardice. Only a few were part of the design, only a few benefited and many were cowardly in permitting the decimation of the aviation system.

The aviation system was cohesive and integrated. It included Pilots, ATC, FS, OPS, Regulation, Airspace, Procedures, Airports and facilites. The far reaching and decimating effect of 20 Years in the Aviation Hall of Chaos has caused the separation and dysfunction of almost all of these areas. Look at GA (what GA and why?). Look at GAAP, major airports, ATS service, regulation. All greed managed with profit and bonuses for the few, no integration, dysfunctional managment and service. Find me a pilot or ATC that knows what is going on at their airport or others. Find me a manager in ATS or CASA that knows what is going on in the other organisations. Find me a pilot or controller that has intimate knowledge and competence in all types of airspace with all procedures.

They used to.

Now look at relationships between management and staff in the disparate areas of what was the aviation system and ask about cause:
20 Years in the Aviation Hall of Chaos.

once again, Moderators, can we please remove all references to alphabet airspace to another thread, because most of it has nothing to do with "Why Air Traffic Controllers are exploited by AsA"

Undervalued, that's where I believe you are wrong- it is exactly what I am talking about.

When you have a small group of vocal ATC's who resist change which is based on science the management will exploit.

The E Airspace the ARG want here is the same as the E Airspace as used in the US and Canada. ICAO has nothing to do with it.

Between Melbourne and Cairns our radar coverage is as good as any similar traffic density radar covered Airspace in the US.

If the radar coverage went to ground level at Benalla the result would have been the same as we are still using old Flight Service procedures in Radar covered Class G Airspace.

I fear we will have to have an Airline CFIT at a place like Proserpine or Hamilton Island killing 100 plus people before we use NAS procedures in Radar covered airspace in Australia.

Such is the resistance to change!

Selective reading again eh Mr Smith :ugh:

You want to tell me again who I'm laughing at?

Dick, as I said previously, there is a huge amount of change happening in our airspace - just because it is not the change you want does not mean change is not happening.
Not even mentioning the innumerable software tweaks that happen every month, since NAS we have embarked (rightly or wrongly) down the SDE model of airspace management, introduced ALOFT, FLEX tracks (a psuedo UPR but only at night for international flights), started utilising CPDLC, ADS-C, RVSM, seen reductions of procedural standards in Oceanic airspace, and last november we halved the procedural tolerances for NAV/GPSRNAV equipped aircraft. ADS-B separation standards are in the pipeline, work is continuing on the FPCF tool which has the potential to really change the way we look after airspace, - the change is CONSTANT. We ATC are not resistant to it. It offends me that you keep asserting such in spite of all evidence to the contrary.

Undervalued, the change you list appears to be directed at lowering costs and improving profits for AsA and the Airlines.

What about some change that removes "roadblocks" (to quote Bindook) for GA.

Ferris , The class E airspace above the Williamsport class D operates exactly as per ICAO and exactly as it was planned to operate in Australia. It is not a form of Class D.

Make up anything you like to stop change- fortunately there a lots of new ATC's and Pilots reading this site and I am sure it's why so many of you get angry when I post the US Aispace diagram.

It's so obvious that the US Airspace is scientifically allocated due to actual risk- not allocated from emotive perception and resistance to change!

And please tell us what is different about the E above Williamsport- both the non radar E and the radar covered E?

Or have I called your bluff?

make that 2 votes for:
Dick, as we keep trying to tell you, AsA places a high priority on improving profit - how do any of the changes you want actually do that for AsA?