Australian Airspace Discussion
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point being that the a/c at 6100' at 30NM BLA inbound from AY, would be within MODE C tolerance of a valid LSALT (WGT 25NM MSA) and thus TAAATS would have no cause to go DING.
Thread Starter
The aircraft in the Benalla accident was actually coming from Ulladulla, and clearly the lowest safe altitude for that route was over 7,000 feet.
James Michael, I loved reading the transcript of the 4 Corners show. It is interesting how little changes. The Class G trial was to use radar for the first time between Marulan and Ballina. The radar was actually used to get information on the so-called “near miss”, and the BASI recommendation in effect turned off the radar access and gave the airspace back to Flight Service Officers without radar. Very quietly (almost secretly) a few years later, they gave the airspace back to the radar controllers. I had won!
It is quite clear if you read the transcript that Trevor Jensen from Ansett had threatened Mick Toller. In those days Ansett could do no wrong, and they were protected by the Minister and the Government at the time.
It is still the same with Qantas. Of course, a major accident will change all that. The quote “Crash through or crash” came from a Labor Minister. It has certainly never been my view. My ideology has always been to copy proven safe systems and learn from the accidents that have already happened around the world.
It is interesting that not long after this episode, Rob Lee was removed from his position at BASI, and Mick Toller was not re-instated as CEO of CASA. Under Mick Toller, something like $100 million was spent on the regulatory reform process, with absolutely no results at all. I’m glad I didn’t stay around to be responsible for that huge money wastage with no action.
James Michael, I loved reading the transcript of the 4 Corners show. It is interesting how little changes. The Class G trial was to use radar for the first time between Marulan and Ballina. The radar was actually used to get information on the so-called “near miss”, and the BASI recommendation in effect turned off the radar access and gave the airspace back to Flight Service Officers without radar. Very quietly (almost secretly) a few years later, they gave the airspace back to the radar controllers. I had won!
It is quite clear if you read the transcript that Trevor Jensen from Ansett had threatened Mick Toller. In those days Ansett could do no wrong, and they were protected by the Minister and the Government at the time.
It is still the same with Qantas. Of course, a major accident will change all that. The quote “Crash through or crash” came from a Labor Minister. It has certainly never been my view. My ideology has always been to copy proven safe systems and learn from the accidents that have already happened around the world.
It is interesting that not long after this episode, Rob Lee was removed from his position at BASI, and Mick Toller was not re-instated as CEO of CASA. Under Mick Toller, something like $100 million was spent on the regulatory reform process, with absolutely no results at all. I’m glad I didn’t stay around to be responsible for that huge money wastage with no action.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 30th Sep 2008 at 05:37.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Thats interesting Dick, re-the ratio of IFR to controllers. I would be interested in seeing the figures. Also I will attempt to track down the figures for aircraft movements against controller numbers.
Dick, I do not have a closed mind, I have in fact said it could be done. I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out. I have asked you your exposure to the operation of our TAAATS system, its alarms, and the geographical area sectors cover. Still waiting for your answer.
If this trial is found to show that the alarms go off a great part of the time with many false alarms, then what? I am happy to trial this, I have said so previously, just give us the resources to do it. Have you actually read any of my posts with an open mind?
LHRT and Dick, you are assuming that every aircraft reports visual on time,that they all advise ATC when OCTA that they are amending their tracking to position for approach, that they all maintain a listening watch on ATC when calling on the CTAF frequency, and that they will not ignore ATC whilst doing something far more important (Aviating and Navigating).
Dick, you may be the perfect pilot, who never misses a call, who can simultaneously monitor the CTAF and the control frequency, never forgets a SARTIME,whose first thought after becoming visual, after flying an instrument approach in a nasty IMC environment would be to advise ATC, who has never deviated off your planned route when OCTA ( do you understand RAM)without advising ATC. If so, we should clone you.
Most ATC appreciate that pilots are human (No, not all before anyone starts.)and hopefully vice versa.
LHRT you state
"I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA."
This is our point, the pilot probably hasn't does this, he/she just hasn't reported that they are visual. This will trigger our alarms leading us to go through the process of chasing this up as a matter of first priority with the pilot. Are they still on our frequency, are they ignoring us because of more pressing matters that require their attention. So in these instances, which I have already said occur many times on a daily basis, all the other things we are doing like vectoring, holding,co-ordination,other radio calls, etc, get placed behind chasing up these pilots.
Think of one or two of these going on simultaneously. When the weather is bad, its usually over a large area.
Surely if this is mandated it will become our number one priority to confirm that the pilot is visual, as you would agree it is time critical.
This is the crux of the matter for ATC, continually chasing false alarms to the detriment of all the other things we do. Lots more staff required.
Dick, you think I am over playing the false alarms. You won't believe it until you sit in on a sector, and see it for yourself.
I hope you do it soon.
Thats interesting Dick, re-the ratio of IFR to controllers. I would be interested in seeing the figures. Also I will attempt to track down the figures for aircraft movements against controller numbers.
Dick, I do not have a closed mind, I have in fact said it could be done. I just don't believe it is as simple as you make out. I have asked you your exposure to the operation of our TAAATS system, its alarms, and the geographical area sectors cover. Still waiting for your answer.
If this trial is found to show that the alarms go off a great part of the time with many false alarms, then what? I am happy to trial this, I have said so previously, just give us the resources to do it. Have you actually read any of my posts with an open mind?
LHRT and Dick, you are assuming that every aircraft reports visual on time,that they all advise ATC when OCTA that they are amending their tracking to position for approach, that they all maintain a listening watch on ATC when calling on the CTAF frequency, and that they will not ignore ATC whilst doing something far more important (Aviating and Navigating).
Dick, you may be the perfect pilot, who never misses a call, who can simultaneously monitor the CTAF and the control frequency, never forgets a SARTIME,whose first thought after becoming visual, after flying an instrument approach in a nasty IMC environment would be to advise ATC, who has never deviated off your planned route when OCTA ( do you understand RAM)without advising ATC. If so, we should clone you.
Most ATC appreciate that pilots are human (No, not all before anyone starts.)and hopefully vice versa.
LHRT you state
"I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA."
This is our point, the pilot probably hasn't does this, he/she just hasn't reported that they are visual. This will trigger our alarms leading us to go through the process of chasing this up as a matter of first priority with the pilot. Are they still on our frequency, are they ignoring us because of more pressing matters that require their attention. So in these instances, which I have already said occur many times on a daily basis, all the other things we are doing like vectoring, holding,co-ordination,other radio calls, etc, get placed behind chasing up these pilots.
Think of one or two of these going on simultaneously. When the weather is bad, its usually over a large area.
Surely if this is mandated it will become our number one priority to confirm that the pilot is visual, as you would agree it is time critical.
This is the crux of the matter for ATC, continually chasing false alarms to the detriment of all the other things we do. Lots more staff required.
Dick, you think I am over playing the false alarms. You won't believe it until you sit in on a sector, and see it for yourself.
I hope you do it soon.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tren,
All very valid points, even with what you are saying, at sometime shortly after 1042 TAAATS would have gone "DING", the aircraft definately breached the GPWS profiles, definately at some point prior to the sudden stop, maybe, just maybe the ATCO could save the day with MSAW.
Someone earlier stated that Pilots are not allowed to make mistakes, that makes me a very very poor Pilot.
I challenge you to find me one that doesn't make mistakes.
All very valid points, even with what you are saying, at sometime shortly after 1042 TAAATS would have gone "DING", the aircraft definately breached the GPWS profiles, definately at some point prior to the sudden stop, maybe, just maybe the ATCO could save the day with MSAW.
Someone earlier stated that Pilots are not allowed to make mistakes, that makes me a very very poor Pilot.
I challenge you to find me one that doesn't make mistakes.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHRT,
"Someone earlier stated that Pilots are not allowed to make mistakes, that makes me a very very poor Pilot.
I challenge you to find me one that doesn't make mistakes. "
Ditto controllers, hooray we're finally getting somewhere.
"Someone earlier stated that Pilots are not allowed to make mistakes, that makes me a very very poor Pilot.
I challenge you to find me one that doesn't make mistakes. "
Ditto controllers, hooray we're finally getting somewhere.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Class G trial was to use radar for the first time between Marulan and Ballina.
arrangements for your Class G trialwas it mutlicom
or something equally useless i.e. NOT on the ATC sector (RADAR) frequency for aircraft climbing away from and descending into MBZ's and CTAF's 
I seem to remember a C130 and a Kingair coming within a tally-ho paper (ish') of swapping paint whilst the radar sector controller was going white and giddy watching the two converging with no 'reliable' ability to contact
I am sure it will still be in the ATSB/BASI database
Thread Starter
Max, it works everywhere else in the world without lots of alarms because they have updated there procedures to reflect where the real risk is.
We have never had a requirement to report when visual in uncontrolled airspace so no one could possible know if there would be too many alarms or not.
Re the Class G trial, I wanted AsA to provide a radar traffic information service to IFR aircraft in the Class G but AsA refused.
We have never had a requirement to report when visual in uncontrolled airspace so no one could possible know if there would be too many alarms or not.
Re the Class G trial, I wanted AsA to provide a radar traffic information service to IFR aircraft in the Class G but AsA refused.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
they did NOT refuse 
.. the dam'd controllers could not talk to the traffic they NEEDED to because YOU had OCTA traffic juggling the stupid multicom and other freq's that most often meant IFR were NOT able to listen to ATC DTI! Facts mate stick to facts
Last edited by K-941; 30th Sep 2008 at 06:36. Reason: sentence structure
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHR, you need to calm down and read my posts, not create straw-man arguments in very Dick-like fashion.
I DID NOT SAY "it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT. I said
That is THE ATC SECTOR ALTITUDE. Do you know why? Because the sectors in Australia are so big that they will inevitably cover some high terrain, that may or may not be anywhere near the aerodrome that the pilot is descending into. Do I need to type slower so that you can follow? We are talking about taking operational aspects of flying and changing them into the ATC point of view. The only way Dick's "idea" will work is from the ATC point of view. The ATC cannot, and will never have, the pilots point of view (even though some ATCs have pilots licenses {as do I}). LHR, you need to rethink your position on this. I dont care if you cant understand my posts, and are so blinded by Dick that you have a closed mind. The ATCs keep repeating over and over that we CAN do this, but YOU dont realise what you are asking us to do, or the resources it will suck up. Why dont YOU get your ass into a centre, and give yourself some balance?
Whether it's ok or not is irrelevent. How is the ATC going to know that it is not ok- that is the question. It's fine to just say "do this, do that" as Dick tends to do, but then someone has to come along and DO IT. Often, those people, the ones who will have to DO IT can see the ramifications and that it isn't going to be that easy, but there is just no way of getting that message thru to Dick (or his disciples)- he just dismisses it as "change resistance".
Dick- where do I start?
I dont believe it is. I have worked in 3 different countries as an ATC. 3 different "systems", 3 different rule sets, in some extremely busy airspace. I just happen to have a different opinion to you, and based upon the damage I have seen you do, and the way you do it, I dont just nod whenever you open your mouth. I am trying to convince some of my North American colleagues to join me in a phone conference with you. I will advise.
I thought YOU, Dick, would have a better understanding of proprietry software? Thats all fine and dandy, but ATC doesnt use Garmin gear. AsA use TAAATs, and any changes to it COST A MOTZA. I am informed by a friend in that field that, in his opinion, the initial changes would cost in the order of $15 million. He stressed that it may be more. Please, continue to talk about all the advanced gear that you like, garmin, TAWS etc- but remember somebody, his name escapes me, chose and ordered and paid for TAAATs. So unless you want to scrap TAAATs, please talk about all these changes IN TERMS OF TAAATs, and how TAAATs will perform the task you seek.
Your statement here
is telling, and is, perhaps, a clue to where you are going with this. You suggest elsewhere a return of flight service officers, with radar. Imagine if they had been there all along? How many lives would've been saved? Always amusing to watch your twists and turns, Dick.
you state it is normal for aircraft to descend below LSALT, in this case refering to Benalla, YOU ARE WRONG, I believe your attitude is quite negligent, if pilots descend below LSALT altitudes in IMC outside of MSA's and published approaches you have a duty of care to the pax of the aircraft to report them to CASA.
Every aircraft in IMC will desend below the sector lowest safe
Ferris explain to me how on at 1042 ( Here ), the pilot was below all relevant LSALT, i.e 7100 and outside the 25nm MSA, but thats OK ?.
Dick- where do I start?
It is obvious that your mind is totally closed or it is set in concrete.
Any school child can click onto Google and read the altitude mapping taken by the space shuttle of the whole world. You can buy a complete TAWS database from Garmin for $500, giving the terrain contours for the world.
Your statement here
No other country in the world has trained Flight Service operators to use radar. They use trained air traffic controllers because controllers can actually control aircraft – i.e. turn left, turn right, climb or descend
Thread Starter
K-941 The reason the National Advisory Frequency existed was because AsA refused to provide a traffic information service using ATC's in that airspace.
The UK has lots of G airspace and it works well using the existing radar controllers.
Ferris TAAATS was puchased including a MSAW system for all radar covered airspace using (Iwas told) manually inserted altitudes on a grid basis.
It is obvious that you support the present system no matter what anyone else says.
RE FS using radar- do you really think I was serious?
The UK has lots of G airspace and it works well using the existing radar controllers.
Ferris TAAATS was puchased including a MSAW system for all radar covered airspace using (Iwas told) manually inserted altitudes on a grid basis.
It is obvious that you support the present system no matter what anyone else says.
RE FS using radar- do you really think I was serious?
Last edited by Dick Smith; 30th Sep 2008 at 08:55.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris,
FYI, not a Dick Smith disciple as you put it, but at this point in time I agree with Dick on two very fundamental issues:
1) Many on here are very closed minded and appear to have a very much "deer in the headlights" hatred towards anything Mr Smith posts, is it Tall Poppy Syndrome or is it hatred bourne from the NAS "event" of not long ago.
NAS is dead in the water, build a bridge, you won.
2) That a MSAW system would considerably reduce the chances of CFIT OCTA with RADAR/ADS coverage ( FYI, Pg 25, also FYI ).
Unfortunately not all IFR aircraft has E/GPWS.
FYI, not a Dick Smith disciple as you put it, but at this point in time I agree with Dick on two very fundamental issues:
1) Many on here are very closed minded and appear to have a very much "deer in the headlights" hatred towards anything Mr Smith posts, is it Tall Poppy Syndrome or is it hatred bourne from the NAS "event" of not long ago.
NAS is dead in the water, build a bridge, you won.
2) That a MSAW system would considerably reduce the chances of CFIT OCTA with RADAR/ADS coverage ( FYI, Pg 25, also FYI ).
Unfortunately not all IFR aircraft has E/GPWS.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
I think I have stated repeatedly that what you want can be done. But it will cost. You, who claim repeatedly to want to put resources to risk, seem to not want to know how much resourcing this will require and how much mitigation you will get. A curious position. As usual. And what's wrong with flight service using radar? Thats effectively what happens now with ATC trying to do FS on top of (or under) ATC. FS with radar would've been awesome. I have seen ATCs using radar to do FS save lives on 2 occasions, but thats a whole other thread. If someone decided to actually put the money that aviation generates back into it, we could have (should have?) the old-style FS, enhanced with radar. All it will take is a realisation that FS is necessary, and ATC is too overloaded to do it anymore. Thats the sort of change, Dick, that if you drove it would be embraced whole-heartedly by industry. Stuff that would REALLY help GA (and the industry as a whole).
LHRT, if you wonder why everything Dick says isn't embraced with gusto, re-read the above paragraph. A perfect example of why Dick should be assigned his due position when he opens his mouth, and why a very sceptical eye cast over whatever he says. It quite possibly is a reversal of a previously strongly held position of his, or actually pushing a totally different agenda.
Perhaps, if you looked at how much giving this role to ATC will cost, you might find you could install E/GPWS (or a suitable alternative) in every relevent aircraft. God forbid any rational dissention stand in Dick's way, though. Who looks like they have a closed mind now?
It is obvious that you support the present system no matter what anyone else says.
RE FS using radar- do you really think I was serious?
RE FS using radar- do you really think I was serious?
LHRT, if you wonder why everything Dick says isn't embraced with gusto, re-read the above paragraph. A perfect example of why Dick should be assigned his due position when he opens his mouth, and why a very sceptical eye cast over whatever he says. It quite possibly is a reversal of a previously strongly held position of his, or actually pushing a totally different agenda.
Unfortunately not all IFR aircraft has E/GPWS.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If its an agenda, how will Dick personally benefit from it ?, what drives him to see this occur ?.
The "Top Job" perhaps, lets be completely honest, any man that hugs a tree on national TV is quite certain he has very little interest in a high profile Government job.
The "Top Job" perhaps, lets be completely honest, any man that hugs a tree on national TV is quite certain he has very little interest in a high profile Government job.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This was a good thread a while back but then it became another Bash Dick Smith/Benalla/Swinging dick club. He said this, you said that, bla bla bla.
What happened to common sense and manners.
We are supposed to be professional people in a high tech industry. People trust us with their lives.
Any wonder nothing changes or improves.
How about we all get off our personnal soap boxes/vendettas etc and get back to discussing how things could be improved, ie the safety of those who fly, GA, RPT, MIL, whoever.
People died at Benalla and unfortunately people will die in the future but the focus should always on preventing as many as possible. We all do this every time we plug in or start up. Whether you agree with Dick Smith or not, he is raising a safety issue that he feels very passionate about. Nothing wrong with that (and no I'm not his love child).
In todays busy world it is all too easy to say NO and then justify the answer. Maybe if we started saying, Can this be done? Is it worthwhile? will things improve? and of course how much?
Where things are going wrong is when Pilots and ATC's rip into each other and the US and THEM club forms and nothing changes.
Dick, you need to spend some time in one of the centres. I think you would be surprised at how well you would actually be received and welcomed.
For other ATC's and Pilots, go and visit each others work places or get together and have a beer at the local flying club. You will be surprised what you can learn from one another.
On a more positive not, here is a link for all you aviators.
Airday Spectacular
What happened to common sense and manners.
We are supposed to be professional people in a high tech industry. People trust us with their lives.
Any wonder nothing changes or improves.
How about we all get off our personnal soap boxes/vendettas etc and get back to discussing how things could be improved, ie the safety of those who fly, GA, RPT, MIL, whoever.
People died at Benalla and unfortunately people will die in the future but the focus should always on preventing as many as possible. We all do this every time we plug in or start up. Whether you agree with Dick Smith or not, he is raising a safety issue that he feels very passionate about. Nothing wrong with that (and no I'm not his love child).
In todays busy world it is all too easy to say NO and then justify the answer. Maybe if we started saying, Can this be done? Is it worthwhile? will things improve? and of course how much?
Where things are going wrong is when Pilots and ATC's rip into each other and the US and THEM club forms and nothing changes.
Dick, you need to spend some time in one of the centres. I think you would be surprised at how well you would actually be received and welcomed.
For other ATC's and Pilots, go and visit each others work places or get together and have a beer at the local flying club. You will be surprised what you can learn from one another.
On a more positive not, here is a link for all you aviators.
Airday Spectacular
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: хлябь
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LHRT
attempting to place perceptions after the fact that are opposite to past endevours lest he be tarred
soiled me thermals reading the last sentence
attempting to place perceptions after the fact that are opposite to past endevours lest he be tarred
soiled me thermals reading the last sentence
Last edited by K-941; 30th Sep 2008 at 11:26. Reason: spellin
Dick,
You were told that TAAATS supported MSAW with a manual? insert of LSALT. You were told, or asumed, incorrectly.
Ferris is correct. The TAAATS MSAW is a crude blunt instrument. It cannot use proprietary terrain databases, it must have one constructed within its own software parameters. This has entailed thousands of hours of work by the DATA section in years past. The maintenance of the data equally requires hours of input (don't forget we are talking about obstacles as well as terrain, and obstacles change). Toalter this would require serious changes to the software, and probably involve changes to the way the software works for some of the other alerts. Someone mentioned 15 million dollars, and that would be well in the ball park. However, the greater obstacle would be getting the manufacturer to actually get a viable revised tool on line. Look at the posts elsewhere which make reference to Version 12 and 13, etc. It's a joke.
Secondly, you say that all that is required is a simple procedure.
Let's follow that through ON THE TAAATS EQUIPMENT.
A pilot is on descent and the MSAW erupts. The aural alarm sounds and keeps on sounding. The label flashes and gets a bright highlighted border.
The controller responds, challenges the aircraft, who says'i'm visual' or 'my God, you're right!'. The situation is resolved, the controller acknowledges the alert, the nagging sound stops, the label stops flashing but retains its bright border until the track disappears. System works.
Now in the next case, the aircraft is on descent, above the LSALT, and reports 'Visual' (your simple procedure). The controller acknowledges the pilot, reaches for his trusty mouse, and, in Dickworld, clicks on the track and cancels the looming MSAW alert. Lovely!
However, in the TAAATS world, the controller can click all he likes, he can't cancel the alert that he knows is coming, nor can he reliably and quickly notate a 'Visual' on the track. He then has to attend to a number of other calls elsewhere, and suddenly the MSAW activates on the aircraft that is visual. Short-term memory problem. Did he report visual, or was that the other bloke at Taree? He calls the aircraft - no response, gone to CTAF. He now has an alert he can't resolve, or if he can, still has the highlighted track.
Multiply this a few times and you will see that alert desenitivation will be a real possibility. A few years ago, there were some serious incidents where this reduced affect of alerts was a major factor.
This is the situation with TAAATS as it is, and as its likely to remain for the foreseeable future, EVEN IF THE BIG BUCKS WERE ALLOCATED.
This is not resistance to change, it is REALITY.
You were told that TAAATS supported MSAW with a manual? insert of LSALT. You were told, or asumed, incorrectly.
Ferris is correct. The TAAATS MSAW is a crude blunt instrument. It cannot use proprietary terrain databases, it must have one constructed within its own software parameters. This has entailed thousands of hours of work by the DATA section in years past. The maintenance of the data equally requires hours of input (don't forget we are talking about obstacles as well as terrain, and obstacles change). Toalter this would require serious changes to the software, and probably involve changes to the way the software works for some of the other alerts. Someone mentioned 15 million dollars, and that would be well in the ball park. However, the greater obstacle would be getting the manufacturer to actually get a viable revised tool on line. Look at the posts elsewhere which make reference to Version 12 and 13, etc. It's a joke.
Secondly, you say that all that is required is a simple procedure.
Let's follow that through ON THE TAAATS EQUIPMENT.
A pilot is on descent and the MSAW erupts. The aural alarm sounds and keeps on sounding. The label flashes and gets a bright highlighted border.
The controller responds, challenges the aircraft, who says'i'm visual' or 'my God, you're right!'. The situation is resolved, the controller acknowledges the alert, the nagging sound stops, the label stops flashing but retains its bright border until the track disappears. System works.
Now in the next case, the aircraft is on descent, above the LSALT, and reports 'Visual' (your simple procedure). The controller acknowledges the pilot, reaches for his trusty mouse, and, in Dickworld, clicks on the track and cancels the looming MSAW alert. Lovely!
However, in the TAAATS world, the controller can click all he likes, he can't cancel the alert that he knows is coming, nor can he reliably and quickly notate a 'Visual' on the track. He then has to attend to a number of other calls elsewhere, and suddenly the MSAW activates on the aircraft that is visual. Short-term memory problem. Did he report visual, or was that the other bloke at Taree? He calls the aircraft - no response, gone to CTAF. He now has an alert he can't resolve, or if he can, still has the highlighted track.
Multiply this a few times and you will see that alert desenitivation will be a real possibility. A few years ago, there were some serious incidents where this reduced affect of alerts was a major factor.
This is the situation with TAAATS as it is, and as its likely to remain for the foreseeable future, EVEN IF THE BIG BUCKS WERE ALLOCATED.
This is not resistance to change, it is REALITY.
Thread Starter
I founded the Australian Sceptics and am a total realist. Believe it or not, even if you have money you have to accept reality!
I understand we have the MSAW enabled in the Cairns airspace - is this true or don't we use MSAW even in terminal airspace with big mountains around?
I understand we have the MSAW enabled in the Cairns airspace - is this true or don't we use MSAW even in terminal airspace with big mountains around?