Dick,

I know that your heart's in the right place, but the accusation that people are using outmoded , or inefficient, practices doesn't ring quite true. On the one hand you accuse the military of dated procedures, but on the other (and I suspect you know this) the procedures and standards are identical to those that Airsercvices use and CASA approves.

Unless my mate was lying to me, he pointed me in the direction of the Manual of Air Traffic Services, which both organisations use. In short, the stuff that's in there is, apparently, applied equally by both organisations.

So, how can you accuse the military guys of using inefficient procedures, and their superiors of being incompetent, when they are complying with CASA mandated standards?

Howabout you put two guys in an F1 car on a race circuit. Will they both be able to achieve the same lap times? That will depend upon their respective experience, intuition, training, skill and dedication.

The Manual is the vehicle. Performance is still dependant on the driver, and the driver's support team.

I assume you're putting them on two totally different race circuits with different airspace, SI's, facilities, systems, support, shifts, and then comparing them.

Great analogy... not.

Pera,

Different "SI's, facilities, systems, support, shifts" would surely produce different results at identical airfields with identical airspace, would it not?

I'm sure the result would be a lot closer than your first analogy.

The point that Howabout was making is that all ATC agencies in Australia use the same (completely up to date) rules.

http://Probably the same type of Can...he seasprites!

Probably also the same type of people that wasted millions of dollars of taxpayer's money on useless airspace "reform".

JABAWOCKY

FIFY

Thanks Pera, that was precisely my point. However, as the old adage says, 'never let the facts get in the way of a good story.'

As for the Seasprites, QSK?, I don't see the connection. The connotation is one which says every single person in the military who has a position of authority is incompetent. Do you really believe that?

And to be fair, I don't think it was the military who:

I think you might want to look in another direction on that one.

QSK The AMATS Airspace reforms were not useless and no money was wasted.

The savings have been over 1 billion dollars and now in all radar covered airspace you now can actually talk to a person who has a radar screen.

The NAS reforms have never been completed- due to ignorance and the fear of actually asking advice and copying something that may be better.

The money has been wasted by the dopes who reversed the changes before they were complete. Karma will get them.

But when a heavy hits a mountain in the Proserpine approach because no radar service was being offered we will move foward again.

Just like BK- resist all change until we kill a few people!

Howabout, I understand the answer is simple. Airservices claim they cannot offer “green in between” or “target resolution” because all of their radars use multi radar tracking.

That's why they have no procedures for this.

In the case of Williamtown,I am told that the terminal radar used for aircraft in close does not use multi radar tracking. Therefore, if the powers that be decided to follow the proven US civilian and military procedures of “green in between” and “target resolution” they would be able to operate aircraft more efficiently without needless holding.

Those are the facts!

There are no "heavys" going into Proserpine.

Dick,

Your comment, Airservices claim they cannot use "green between".

I am no longer in Australia, but used to work on the sectors surrounding WLM, and the RAAF use the same separation standards as ASA. The "green between" is used by both, BUT only when the aircraft are opposite direction and have physically passed opposite each other, ie one above the other, this correlates to the procedural "mutually sighted visual pass of traffic". If the aircraft don't do this, then either 3 or 5 nm is required.
The 3 vs 5 miles is the enroute vs approach radar sep standard.

WMF

Why, the green in between I am talking about is totally different. I suggest you talk to a US Controller.

Funny how the Willy decision came close on the heels of reports that the RAAF were being pressured to combine their ATC with the civilians. Watch how the plan fades away once they have won that battle! Generals are politicians too.

Howard Hughes is of course right on the money. There is no reason why Richmond needs to be a RAAF base, there is plenty of room at Amberley and that would save Defence truckloads of money in running and admin costs. Richmond has always been the best choice and sooner or later it will happen. By that I mean KSA will be closed and Richmond will become Sydney International. There is nothing wrong with Sydney KSA except noise sharing, an 80 movements an hour cap and the curfew. Parallels or triples at Richmond will fix Sydney for the next 50 years and a maglev train will have you downtown faster than it can be presently done in a taxi.

As for the other story;
1) Combine the two national ANSPs (Military and Civil)
2) RAAF bases to be staffed by civil ATCs who become reservists for their posting period (needs a no industrial action clause while in uniform);
3) Maintain a cadre of civil ATCs who are trained in battlespace techniques and who can put on the uniform and agree to serve where they are sent (fabulous career opportunity for mobile individuals);
4) Replace all airspace outside Class ABC with E, reserve D for airports with sufficient circuit movements to need a tower (BK, JK, and MB. PF/AF Maybe)
5) E airspace to include airport approaches (NDB/DME, VOR/DME, GBAS/ILS/MLS) controlled from ATC Centre (Airports such as Avalon, Albury, Hamilton island, etc do not need a Runway/Taxiway/Circuit area service (Tower) they need an approach service. Caveat there on military airports, they probably need local ATC, a combined TWR/Radar APP);
6) G airspace from ground level to 2000 feet AGL.

Sorry guys the heretics are still out here, I'd better stop I can feel the incoming!

Wash your mouth out! It sounds a little to close to NAS

As reported in the original post is WLM still to be controlled by the RAAF in the Christmas break and weekend, or is it going to be the TRA procedures used last break?

Anyone heard of a report from consultants on the WLM airspace being kept secret by CASA? If it exists I'll bet the questions it raises go much further than WLM. When you think of it, without a RAAF presence WLM is just another airport under controlled airspace. An airspace structure recommended there should be introduced at all similar airports.We have to stop defying common sense sooner or alter.