Radar rated controllers in Tasmania?
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
You don’t seem to understand
For example, look at the Benalla accident.
When details were posted on how the radar was not used to advise the pilot that he was at least 1,000 feet below the legal lowest safe altitude, posters came on this site basically blaming the pilot.
That is, if pilots operated perfectly and did not make errors, there would be no need for the radar service to be improved at places like Benalla, Launceston and Proserpine.
Launy = CTA (ATC service including level assignments that include terrain protection)
Proserpine = OCTA
See the difference dunce!!!
The problem is that pilots are human, and devices such as the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System can be unreliable.
The only reason the USA and other leading aviation countries have airlines flying in controlled airspace when under radar coverage is because past accidents have shown that this is a way of improving safety.
You only have to look at the Flight Safety International paper on CFIT accidents to see that radar and air traffic control are given the greatest number of points as safety mitigators.
Are we to wait for a controlled flight into terrain accident similar to the one that nearly happened at Canberra (see here) before we actually use the radar that we have already paid for?
I agree that using the radar for traffic advice has some advantages over not using it at all,
however why not use it as it is designed? That is, with proper radar rated controllers that can not only provide a traffic separation service, but in some cases prevent a CFIT. You only have to look at what has happened in Cairns – where CFIT accidents have been prevented by air traffic control a number of times.
.
Now read the above over and over until you get the concept that Launy (CTA/R) is not comparable to Benalla or Proserpine which are OCTA (irrespective of Surveillance availability or not)!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peuce asks the question
I categorically do have a problem with it. I cannot think of one 'kero burning' pilot that I have flown with who prefers procedural separation. Especially if there is radar coverage available in the airspace.
We don't need yet another bureaucratic report to tell us that procedural separation is far inferior in terms of safety and efficiency compared to radar separation.
Imagine if everyone actually believed it was safer and more efficient. Can you imagine Sydney or Chicago reverting to procedural separation?
Scurvy
Here is some feedback for you. Thank goodness Launy is not a busy airport for all our sakes. The situation at Launy is far from ideal and I would welcome a decent radar service provided by Melbourne Centre to the FAF or till I call visual. Imagine if procedural separation was provided below 8500ft in Melbourne or Sydney, it is simply a less efficient system.
Most importantly, why does our system reduce services rather than increase them the closer we get to the 'high risk' areas? This simply does not make sense.
No Further Requirements you say
Let me make it clear that I would never support giving a Sydney tower controller responsibility for providing enroute or approach radar services, just as I would not support giving a class D tower controller the same responsibility.
Why on earth can't we have what we (the industry and airspace users) are paying for. There is a perfectly good radar on the ground at Launy, soon to be supplemented by a Multilateration system that is not going to be used when it is needed most. That is, late at night when the kero burner pilots (or any other pilot) are tired, its dark and we are descending into mountainous terrain.
Let me highlight the stupidity of the situation. A couple of months ago I flew the jet into Launy right after the tower closed. Departing was a Convair freighter and one other (I believe an ambulance flight). All three planes were airborne and to my utter frustration all three aircraft ended up talking on Centre frequency to stay separated. What a cumbersome mess! Needless to say, Melbourne Centre could not provide anyone else with radar services during this time with the frequency congestion.
The solution is simple. Give the separation task to the person who has the best equipment to provide it, Melbourne Centre.
I see that you really do think its a good idea for Mel Centre to provide services down to the ground. Would you then support making MLT class E below 8500ft after the tower closes if you were given the 'resources'?
As Scurvy said .... Is there a problem to start with? Do the pilots and operators who fly into Launy have a problem with the procedures?
As NFR said ... If there is a problem, lets have a Cost Benefit Analysis of the possible solutions ... including assessment of procedures, equipment, staffing, training, pilot education, costs etc
Imagine if everyone actually believed it was safer and more efficient. Can you imagine Sydney or Chicago reverting to procedural separation?
Scurvy
In fact in our case, with the ability to streamline traffic management with 'surveillance assist' (rather than being hamstrung by it), the feedback is the exact opposite!!
Most importantly, why does our system reduce services rather than increase them the closer we get to the 'high risk' areas? This simply does not make sense.
No Further Requirements you say
It's just the person in the tower doesn't have a radar rating. Outside tower hours the sector controller can still see them descend in Class G and uses it just fine to provide a traffic service.
Why on earth can't we have what we (the industry and airspace users) are paying for. There is a perfectly good radar on the ground at Launy, soon to be supplemented by a Multilateration system that is not going to be used when it is needed most. That is, late at night when the kero burner pilots (or any other pilot) are tired, its dark and we are descending into mountainous terrain.
Let me highlight the stupidity of the situation. A couple of months ago I flew the jet into Launy right after the tower closed. Departing was a Convair freighter and one other (I believe an ambulance flight). All three planes were airborne and to my utter frustration all three aircraft ended up talking on Centre frequency to stay separated. What a cumbersome mess! Needless to say, Melbourne Centre could not provide anyone else with radar services during this time with the frequency congestion.
The solution is simple. Give the separation task to the person who has the best equipment to provide it, Melbourne Centre.
would't it be good to have the time and resources to do CTA to the deck 24/7 in various places around Oz. Clearly we don't.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scurvy D Dog
You deliberately attempt to baffle readers with bull dust.
It is clear you don't want to support changes not matter what.
The whole point being made here is the same for CTA and OCTA airspace. We must upgrade OCTA to CTA where there is radar and change the CTA radar covered airspace from procedural separation to the far superior radar
services. Surely you can see that.
NO, YOU tried unsuccessfully to blame ATC and surveillance!
An absolute furphy Scurvy D Dog. Dick Smith was blaming the failure to upgrade the airspace to controlled airspace where there is an obvious safety benefit. Having radar covered airspace over an airport is wasted if the airspace is classified class G.
I have had EGPWS go off at FL390. This counts as evidence Scurvy of system failure. Don't kid yourself Scurvy D Dog there are plenty of software failures both in the terrain database and glitches that can and do effect the logic in these things. I have seen them on many occasions. In fact the manufacturer even has an MEL for the EGPWS as they too acknowledge it can fail Perhaps you can acknowledge it too?
You go on and on Scurvy D Dog about CTA and OCTA deliberately ignoring the real issue. That is upgrading procedural CTA where radar is available and upgrading OCTA to CTA where radar is also available. Your resistance to common sense is making you look foolish Scurvy D Dog
You deliberately attempt to baffle readers with bull dust.
Benalla = OCTA
Launy = CTA (ATC service including level assignments that include terrain protection)
Proserpine = OCTA
Launy = CTA (ATC service including level assignments that include terrain protection)
Proserpine = OCTA
The whole point being made here is the same for CTA and OCTA airspace. We must upgrade OCTA to CTA where there is radar and change the CTA radar covered airspace from procedural separation to the far superior radar
services. Surely you can see that.
When details were posted on how the radar was not used to advise the pilot that he was at least 1,000 feet below the legal lowest safe altitude, posters came on this site basically blaming the pilot.
cite credible proof of this assertion regarding EGPWS!!
You go on and on Scurvy D Dog about CTA and OCTA deliberately ignoring the real issue. That is upgrading procedural CTA where radar is available and upgrading OCTA to CTA where radar is also available. Your resistance to common sense is making you look foolish Scurvy D Dog
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
We don't need yet another bureaucratic report to tell us that procedural separation is far inferior in terms of safety and efficiency compared to radar separation.
... how about you produce just one (already produced) that supports your assertion!! 
Imagine if everyone actually believed it was safer and more efficient. Can you imagine Sydney or Chicago reverting to procedural separation?
I said
If ATS experts (in the literal sense) can prove that it can be done safer, cheaper, and most relevantly, more expeditiously (because that costs the Kero-burners big time), with all the appraopriate factors taken into account such as traffic levels … then go your hardest!
support giving a Sydney tower controller responsibility for providing enroute or approach radar services
Why on earth can't we have what we (the industry and airspace users) are paying for.
There is a perfectly good radar on the ground at Launy, soon to be supplemented by a Multilateration system that is not going to be used when it is needed most.
That is, late at night when the kero burner pilots (or any other pilot) are tired, its dark and we are descending into mountainous terrain.
If CTAF (with AWIS on the VOR) between 10pm local and 6am local is an issue (which it is not), we just need doggos and another bod or two .... that verses a whole Approach cell of bod's 24/7 .. which will do what better than the present arrangement
.
.. que the dim lights, wind whilstling, and long transfixed faces by the erry fireside
.... late at night when the kero burner pilots (or any other pilot) are tired, its dark and we are descending into mountainous terrain.
.
Or are you suggesting different (like type) locations should operate differently?
.
So mj and Oreo .. how many additional TAR's should govmint be purchasing, and at what additional cost (to industry)???
MJ,
One should not confuse insistence on a Change Management Process with "resistence to change".
All the posting I have seen above, including mine, are suggesting that, if you believe there is a problem:
Charging off to designate all radar covered airspace as Controlled might raise the hackles on a few organisations within the Industry. Just think of the Transponder requirements for a start.
As an aside, I think if you read through some of the ADS-B threads on here, you'll find that most of us have been very positively pushing for change.... but in a methodical manner.
One should not confuse insistence on a Change Management Process with "resistence to change".
All the posting I have seen above, including mine, are suggesting that, if you believe there is a problem:
- Provide your concerns and evidence to CASA, or whoever designates airspace these days
- Participate in a Cost/Benefit/Safety analysis of the available options to right the percieved wrong
Charging off to designate all radar covered airspace as Controlled might raise the hackles on a few organisations within the Industry. Just think of the Transponder requirements for a start.
As an aside, I think if you read through some of the ADS-B threads on here, you'll find that most of us have been very positively pushing for change.... but in a methodical manner.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Scurvy D Dog
Instead of highlighting it, I will just reference your entire post being loaded with furphies and Red Herrings.
Again you are trying your very best to distract readers, with a baffling amount of garbage from seeing the common sense approach to using radar.
You say
...with all the appraopriate factors taken into account such as traffic levels
You have been told many times before that no one is suggesting that MLT needs to have Terminal Approach Radar installed. Traffic levels do not justify this, thank you for pointing this out.
Once again I will draw your attention to the fact that the US provide the enroute radar service to low levels without TAR into low volume class D towered airports and class E non towered airports where it is available.
We can too!
Instead of highlighting it, I will just reference your entire post being loaded with furphies and Red Herrings.
Again you are trying your very best to distract readers, with a baffling amount of garbage from seeing the common sense approach to using radar.
You say
...with all the appraopriate factors taken into account such as traffic levels
You have been told many times before that no one is suggesting that MLT needs to have Terminal Approach Radar installed. Traffic levels do not justify this, thank you for pointing this out.
Once again I will draw your attention to the fact that the US provide the enroute radar service to low levels without TAR into low volume class D towered airports and class E non towered airports where it is available.
We can too!
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Cockatoo Australia
Posts: 234
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are some very good, convincing and well-structured arguments in here. Now if we could only filter out the emotion so the reason could stand on it's own, we'd all be better off.
Who am I trying to kid?
Walrus 7
Who am I trying to kid?
Walrus 7
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
mj
Stepped straight into it
You say
in fact your mate The Oreo is
Prim + SSR = TAR … but I am glad you two disagree on something! .. I was starting to think you two were procreating 
.
So, if you are agreeing with me re: no TAR and RADAR TMA in regionals, then lets move onto discuss Enroute Surveillance services over Regional D and D/C TWR/APP services.
You said
… Once again, I ask you the comparative size of the overlying sector airspaces i.e Range scale!?
… do you know?, do you care?, are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz … and the practical effect this has on the ability to provide an ‘Arrivals’ service (as distinct from an approach service), down to the FAF as you suggest??
.
If you are not, then you (and the Oreo) might consider this little revelation
Now focus hard you two! ... stop the recording of your own voices running in the background, and FOCUS!
1. It is the case that at the very tower you uphold as an example, inbound IFR and Departing IFR & VFR are separated by the TWR/APP unit
2. The overlying sector will in coordination with the sequence arbiter (the TWR), sequence the arrivals.
3. The arriving traffic will call the tower at around 25nm, generally assigned A060, and the TWR/APP, then provides the approach service including in IMC.
4. Should holding be required above A040, the TWR will organise an airspace release from the overlying sector.
5. During extensive holding (conditions below the minimums), the overlying sector will establish aircraft in a vertical stack O/H often around A080 and above, and then when descent is available in the hold, will be transferred to the TWR/APP for descent in the hold and approach management!
This arrangement will not change unless and until separate, stand alone Surveillance Approach services are deemed necessary, which I reiterate, you agree with entirely i.e.
, presumably you hold the same view on all Regional TWR/APP D/C services, given little ol' YMLT was the 10th highest revenue earning airport in the land, last finacial year!!!
Like I said …. We do!!!! Those are the facts boys!!!
Walrus 7
To reasonable PPRuNer’s like you and bushy (and a host of others), I do sincerely apologise. I am so far past being able to regurgitate the same facts, links and real life realities to disingenuous tools like the above, particularly when those efforts are deliberately ignored in favour of rehashing the same unsubstanciated garbage time and time again.
They know who I am (as I am sure most PPRuNe’rs do by now), and they know I know what I am talking about!! Yet the same petty, puerile, ignorant ranting’s continue to be trotted out with the sole intent to paint an unreality that suits their flawed ideologies, which mischievous or not, most often bare no resemblance to reality.
I don’t tell Oreo how he should fly his CJ, nor do I tell mj his headset is on backwards. Their ranting in here about ATC and airspace, and more particularly Launy in this case, is nothing more than a focus on maligning a location and service based largely on the fact that one of its operators has the gall to stand up and put a view contrary to theirs. I could not care less, but I do care when paper tigers masquerading as all knowledgeable, who in reality are only bent on revenge, decide to meddle in services that could have a dramatic effect on that service efficiency, safety and cost to other users!!!
If they were fair dinkum, the tone and temperature would be substantially different.
Stepped straight into it
You say
….. no one is suggesting that MLT needs to have Terminal Approach Radar installed. Traffic levels do not justify this, thank you for pointing this out.
Dick Smith 17th July 2008 10:41
Ozbusdriver, I’m only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace.
That is because there is no way an air traffic controller knows where a VFR aircraft is in the Class C unless the air traffic controller has both primary and secondary radar. You don’t seem to understand this.
Ozbusdriver, I’m only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace.
That is because there is no way an air traffic controller knows where a VFR aircraft is in the Class C unless the air traffic controller has both primary and secondary radar. You don’t seem to understand this.
.
So, if you are agreeing with me re: no TAR and RADAR TMA in regionals, then lets move onto discuss Enroute Surveillance services over Regional D and D/C TWR/APP services.
You said
Once again I will draw your attention to the fact that the US provide the enroute radar service to low levels without TAR into low volume class D towered airports and class E non towered airports where it is available.
… do you know?, do you care?, are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz … and the practical effect this has on the ability to provide an ‘Arrivals’ service (as distinct from an approach service), down to the FAF as you suggest??
.
If you are not, then you (and the Oreo) might consider this little revelation
Dick Smith 17th November 2008 13:19
If the radar service is to ground level at Launceston, why isn’t the Launceston airspace only to 4,500 feet, and the Centre “controls” the airspace above – as per the situation at Coffs Harbour?
If the radar service is to ground level at Launceston, why isn’t the Launceston airspace only to 4,500 feet, and the Centre “controls” the airspace above – as per the situation at Coffs Harbour?
1. It is the case that at the very tower you uphold as an example, inbound IFR and Departing IFR & VFR are separated by the TWR/APP unit
2. The overlying sector will in coordination with the sequence arbiter (the TWR), sequence the arrivals.
3. The arriving traffic will call the tower at around 25nm, generally assigned A060, and the TWR/APP, then provides the approach service including in IMC.
4. Should holding be required above A040, the TWR will organise an airspace release from the overlying sector.
5. During extensive holding (conditions below the minimums), the overlying sector will establish aircraft in a vertical stack O/H often around A080 and above, and then when descent is available in the hold, will be transferred to the TWR/APP for descent in the hold and approach management!
This arrangement will not change unless and until separate, stand alone Surveillance Approach services are deemed necessary, which I reiterate, you agree with entirely i.e.
….. no one is suggesting that MLT needs to have Terminal Approach Radar installed. Traffic levels do not justify this, thank you for pointing this out.
Basically what I am saying is that at other Class D towers, we maximise the use of radar when it is available. Why don’t we do this at Launy?
Walrus 7
To reasonable PPRuNer’s like you and bushy (and a host of others), I do sincerely apologise. I am so far past being able to regurgitate the same facts, links and real life realities to disingenuous tools like the above, particularly when those efforts are deliberately ignored in favour of rehashing the same unsubstanciated garbage time and time again.
They know who I am (as I am sure most PPRuNe’rs do by now), and they know I know what I am talking about!! Yet the same petty, puerile, ignorant ranting’s continue to be trotted out with the sole intent to paint an unreality that suits their flawed ideologies, which mischievous or not, most often bare no resemblance to reality.
I don’t tell Oreo how he should fly his CJ, nor do I tell mj his headset is on backwards. Their ranting in here about ATC and airspace, and more particularly Launy in this case, is nothing more than a focus on maligning a location and service based largely on the fact that one of its operators has the gall to stand up and put a view contrary to theirs. I could not care less, but I do care when paper tigers masquerading as all knowledgeable, who in reality are only bent on revenge, decide to meddle in services that could have a dramatic effect on that service efficiency, safety and cost to other users!!!
If they were fair dinkum, the tone and temperature would be substantially different.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ: Give us the terminals, maps, admin support and, most importantly, people and I would be happy to do whatever we can to provide more services. I would love to have a 80NM x 80NM sector in SE Australia instead of the 400NM one I used to work on. Show me the money! Give us the same ratio of controllers to airspace they have in the US - surely it's the best system and we should copy it verbatim? 
And radar versus procedural, sometime procedural is better than radar, especially in low to medium density environments.
Minimum radar standard: 3NM
Minimum procedural standard: 1NM
Cheers,
NFR.
And radar versus procedural, sometime procedural is better than radar, especially in low to medium density environments.
Minimum radar standard: 3NM
Minimum procedural standard: 1NM
Cheers,
NFR.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Owen Stanly suggests
I have no doubt this is true given the seemingly deliberate misinformation in his posts.
Scurvy D Dog, you claim that Dick Smith is
You know perfectly well that the NAS model does not include class C airspace above class D such as at MLT and many other regional class D airports.
Your attempt to suggest Dick Smith is advocating a TAR at MLT and other regional airports is at best a malicious misrepresentation of the truth to which your motivation for suggesting this deserves to be questioned. More on this later.
You further give a running account of how you go about procedural separation. Thank you for the recap as I am sure there are newly minted Instrument Rated pilots who will read this and appreciate your experienced insight.
You ask
Yes I am. And here is your solution Scurvy D Dog
No Further Requirements says
My bolding
Scurvy D Dog, the burning question I now have is why you deliberately make these misleading statements to support your case? On the one hand your objection seems to be that we don't have enough controllers or that it would cost too much money to provide radar services to low level from Melbourne Centre.
On the other hand you seem convinced that the current airspace design at MLT is set in stone and that it
despite the obvious suggestion by No further Requirements that we look elsewhere to see how it is done and copy that.
So which one is it? Are you genuinely concerned about the cost to industry incurred in transferring A045 to A085 to Mel Centre or are you raising any possible objection just so you can keep the current status quo?
Lets take a closer look at the situation as it stands. At present you and your colleagues would have to be trained to give IFR and VFR procedural separation services in class D, IFR and VFR services in Class C and get recurrent checks each year. Sounds expensive!
On the other hand, unlike the deliberately misleading suggestion that Dick Smith wants a TAR service in MLT, the NAS model would have the centre controller providing a seamless enroute and approach service to the low volume of traffic over places like Launy. This to me appears a lot less expensive in terms of initial and recurrent training than the duplicated system you would like to maintain.
Seeing as I don't actually know what the cost difference is between these two models, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I wont even ask you to provide the cost comparison between the two models that would support your case, as I know you don't have that information either given that I have asked you for it in the past.
Assuming that your objections on cost are not based on fact that leads me to think that you may personally have an interest in keeping the status quo.
Could it be that if you loose the approach rating to Melbourne Centre you will actually take a pay cut? Could it be that if you aren't required to give any IFR separation services at all you would take a pay cut?
I know if I was threatened to be sent to a smaller jet my pay packet would be in jeopardy and I would fight the change too. Is this the case for you Scurvy D Dog? Do you stand to loose financially should the NAS model as proposed get adopted?
Do tell Scurvy D Dog, what is your interest in this matter?
there are some on PPRuNe who obviously will not read Scurv's posts.
Scurvy D Dog, you claim that Dick Smith is
only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace.
Your attempt to suggest Dick Smith is advocating a TAR at MLT and other regional airports is at best a malicious misrepresentation of the truth to which your motivation for suggesting this deserves to be questioned. More on this later.
You further give a running account of how you go about procedural separation. Thank you for the recap as I am sure there are newly minted Instrument Rated pilots who will read this and appreciate your experienced insight.
You ask
are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz
No Further Requirements says
...give us the same ratio of controllers to airspace they have in the US - surely it's the best system and we should copy it verbatim?
Scurvy D Dog, the burning question I now have is why you deliberately make these misleading statements to support your case? On the one hand your objection seems to be that we don't have enough controllers or that it would cost too much money to provide radar services to low level from Melbourne Centre.
On the other hand you seem convinced that the current airspace design at MLT is set in stone and that it
is pretty close to ideal!
So which one is it? Are you genuinely concerned about the cost to industry incurred in transferring A045 to A085 to Mel Centre or are you raising any possible objection just so you can keep the current status quo?
Lets take a closer look at the situation as it stands. At present you and your colleagues would have to be trained to give IFR and VFR procedural separation services in class D, IFR and VFR services in Class C and get recurrent checks each year. Sounds expensive!
On the other hand, unlike the deliberately misleading suggestion that Dick Smith wants a TAR service in MLT, the NAS model would have the centre controller providing a seamless enroute and approach service to the low volume of traffic over places like Launy. This to me appears a lot less expensive in terms of initial and recurrent training than the duplicated system you would like to maintain.
Seeing as I don't actually know what the cost difference is between these two models, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I wont even ask you to provide the cost comparison between the two models that would support your case, as I know you don't have that information either given that I have asked you for it in the past.
Assuming that your objections on cost are not based on fact that leads me to think that you may personally have an interest in keeping the status quo.
Could it be that if you loose the approach rating to Melbourne Centre you will actually take a pay cut? Could it be that if you aren't required to give any IFR separation services at all you would take a pay cut?
I know if I was threatened to be sent to a smaller jet my pay packet would be in jeopardy and I would fight the change too. Is this the case for you Scurvy D Dog? Do you stand to loose financially should the NAS model as proposed get adopted?
Do tell Scurvy D Dog, what is your interest in this matter?
Last edited by mjbow2; 18th Nov 2008 at 09:19.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Take a pay cut? You are seriously barking up the wrong tree. At this point in time, Regional Twer controllers are paid less than enroute centre controllers. This whole arguement is moot. WE HAVE NO STAFF.
The group above Launy and HB towers is bleeding, (much like every other group). We have controllers doing endless amounts of overtime and still have trouble filling the required shifts. We are regularly running short staffed (although not always short enough to warrant a NOTAM) and to provide break relief, the sectors are often combined in during lower workloads (and sometimes not so light). Not only do we have endorsements on the TAS sector, the other sector we are rated on is the area between Melbourne and Adelaide, SFC -F245. There are times where these two sectors are combined, with a screen range of 700NM.
Do you really want us to be providing a radar approach service at Launy while passing traffic to aircraft at Mildura and looking out to Broken Hill while we take coordination on aircraft inbound to Adleaide?
WE DO NOT HAVE THE STAFF.
The system between enroute and both HB and LT towers works at the moment and works well and is STANDARD between both towers. Multilateration is going to improve things in a lot of ways, but will have a few negatives versus radar. Multilat is coming and the radar will go, have no doubts.
Please take these NAS, full radar coverage pipe dreams, shelve them in the "impossible to acheive right now" file and focus on the real issues.
BTW, NFR1013, you need to brush up on your sarcasm to text conversion
Everyone, VOTE 1, Scurvy D.Dog, El Presidente of the Independant Republic of Launceston. If you really think Scurvy has any interest other than the safety of the travelling public, then more fool you.
The group above Launy and HB towers is bleeding, (much like every other group). We have controllers doing endless amounts of overtime and still have trouble filling the required shifts. We are regularly running short staffed (although not always short enough to warrant a NOTAM) and to provide break relief, the sectors are often combined in during lower workloads (and sometimes not so light). Not only do we have endorsements on the TAS sector, the other sector we are rated on is the area between Melbourne and Adelaide, SFC -F245. There are times where these two sectors are combined, with a screen range of 700NM.
Do you really want us to be providing a radar approach service at Launy while passing traffic to aircraft at Mildura and looking out to Broken Hill while we take coordination on aircraft inbound to Adleaide?
WE DO NOT HAVE THE STAFF.
The system between enroute and both HB and LT towers works at the moment and works well and is STANDARD between both towers. Multilateration is going to improve things in a lot of ways, but will have a few negatives versus radar. Multilat is coming and the radar will go, have no doubts.
Please take these NAS, full radar coverage pipe dreams, shelve them in the "impossible to acheive right now" file and focus on the real issues.
BTW, NFR1013, you need to brush up on your sarcasm to text conversion
Everyone, VOTE 1, Scurvy D.Dog, El Presidente of the Independant Republic of Launceston. If you really think Scurvy has any interest other than the safety of the travelling public, then more fool you.
Last edited by Roger Standby; 18th Nov 2008 at 10:29.
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
mj
.. point out ANY information that I have posted that is in any way misinformation! .. and do so with facts not just your misguided missives!! ... I have extended that courtesy to you (which you clearly hate), how about the same courtesy!
That’s what he said!!! ... can't you read? or are you bathing in denial?? 
Moreover, he supports the RADAR C directive put in place by that dunce Anderson on the eve of the Fed Gov’t going into caretaker mode election before last!!
As readers would remember, that was around the time that the return to C over D decision was taken. Many saw straight through it as a cynical attempt to load a cost benefit analysis to rule out C (with TAR) over D on CBA grounds, which under the now defunct AusNAS would see a default E!
.. as was proven at the time C does not require RADAR (ICAO), yet it can be well argued that given VFR are transparent in E, that E demonstrably does require surveillance more that C ever would …. And so history is written thus
… the industry is not that stupid!
… as you say
… I rest my case!!!
… Mate, go back and read what HE said! I have done the decent thing and provided said quote!
.. question away mj! .... at the same time I am sure many would be questioning others motives eh
… thankyou!
Goodoh
OK …. So
- How many additional sectors do ya reckon?
- How many additional TMA’s?
- How many additional Towers?
- How many additional RADAR’s?
- How many additional ATC’s?
..... how many Aerodromes in Oz would qualify for ATC/S if we had the US system and reg's? ... hmmm
So mj as a self appointed spokesperson for industry on ATS matters, how much extra do you think it might cost you and everyone else? … and what safety and or efficiency gains will it deliver, and , more importantly, what safety and efficiency drivers sit behind that massive additional industry cost??
saying misleading is easy, how about proving where I have mislead! .. not so easy eh when I have not!!!
… I have provided the burden of proof in my responses as a coutesy to you two!! .. are you up to doing the same?
correct .. in concert with a safety and or efficiency basis that supports change .. where is it??? … I have asked you two this same question so many times, and you will not provide any factual basis driving your change proposal!!
There is no 'on the other hand' mate!!!
The current airspace design is proven over many years, and improved with surveillance assist in recent years .. as I said, where is the driving data that suggests change is required or desired … apart from ideological religious ‘beliefs’????
NO, don’t misquote N.F.R that is not what they said
what part of that 100% accurate summation (including sarcastic smilie) do you not grasp!!!
.. I would have thought anyone with even the slightest comprehension ability will know, and it is far more reaching that the simplistic view you put!
… NO, training is specific, no different really in time length and cost when comparing A/D specific nuances! .. recurrent operational checks are 6 monthly, written rating papers 12monthly, currency is (in basic terms) max 21 days away before familiarisation requirements kick in (same all disciplines) … what’s your point? 
.. again, that’s what he said!!
Nup, misleading and wrong,you cannot combine wide area enroute high with approach services!!!
… you goose, what you are proposing does exactly that, duplicates what is currently a combined service!!
…. A lie, I have provided it in the past, many times, and here in this thread. There is no cost difference between Tower provided D/C or D/E, and there is a huge difference between Tower D and increased cost associated with separate Radar APP C .. what part of that can you not comprehend? … most other seem able to!!
WRONG!!
WRONG!!!
… bwahhahaha .. if anyone was in any doubt about how desperate and clean out of viable facts or answers you goons are ... resorting to a slur like that!
How about this you insulting ground sheet, most regional TWR/APP D and D/C controllers are paid LESS than GAAP … which is what you are basically proposing a regional D tower should be!!
Doh .. I hear you say …. shot yourself in the bickie man again!
.. a timely insight into the sort of person you are eh!!
.. no, and the imputation disgusts me!!
.. desperate accusations from a dunce! Again (insert description of choice), I do not!!!
.. ensuring the long suffering industry is aware of pitfalls being set up by … self absorbed nobodies attached to a rich mouth piece!!!
Owen Stanly suggests
I have no doubt this is true given the seemingly deliberate misinformation in his posts.
there are some on PPRuNe who obviously will not read Scurv's posts.
Scurvy D Dog, you claim that Dick Smith is
:only pushing for approach radar if we have Class C airspace.
Moreover, he supports the RADAR C directive put in place by that dunce Anderson on the eve of the Fed Gov’t going into caretaker mode election before last!!
As readers would remember, that was around the time that the return to C over D decision was taken. Many saw straight through it as a cynical attempt to load a cost benefit analysis to rule out C (with TAR) over D on CBA grounds, which under the now defunct AusNAS would see a default E!
.. as was proven at the time C does not require RADAR (ICAO), yet it can be well argued that given VFR are transparent in E, that E demonstrably does require surveillance more that C ever would …. And so history is written thus
… the industry is not that stupid!
… as you say
You know perfectly well that the NAS model does not include class C airspace above class D such as at MLT and many other regional class D airports.
Your attempt to suggest Dick Smith is advocating a TAR at MLT and other regional airports is at best a malicious misrepresentation of the truth
to which your motivation for suggesting this deserves to be questioned.
You further give a running account of how you go about procedural separation. Thank you for the recap as I am sure there are newly minted Instrument Rated pilots who will read this and appreciate your experienced insight.
You ask
Yes I am.
:
are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz
are you prepared to accept the huge difference in sector scale between the US and Oz
And here is your solution Scurvy D Dog
No Further Requirements says
No Further Requirements says
:
...give us the same ratio of controllers to airspace they have in the US - surely it's the best system and we should copy it verbatim?
...give us the same ratio of controllers to airspace they have in the US - surely it's the best system and we should copy it verbatim?
- How many additional sectors do ya reckon?
- How many additional TMA’s?
- How many additional Towers?
- How many additional RADAR’s?
- How many additional ATC’s?
..... how many Aerodromes in Oz would qualify for ATC/S if we had the US system and reg's? ... hmmm
So mj as a self appointed spokesperson for industry on ATS matters, how much extra do you think it might cost you and everyone else? … and what safety and or efficiency gains will it deliver, and , more importantly, what safety and efficiency drivers sit behind that massive additional industry cost??
Scurvy D Dog, the burning question I now have is why you deliberately make these misleading statements to support your case?
… I have provided the burden of proof in my responses as a coutesy to you two!! .. are you up to doing the same?
On the one hand your objection seems to be that we don't have enough controllers or that it would cost too much money to provide radar services to low level from Melbourne Centre.
On the other hand you seem convinced that the current airspace design at MLT is set in stone and that it
:
is pretty close to ideal!
is pretty close to ideal!
The current airspace design is proven over many years, and improved with surveillance assist in recent years .. as I said, where is the driving data that suggests change is required or desired … apart from ideological religious ‘beliefs’????
despite the obvious suggestion by No further Requirements that we look elsewhere to see how it is done and copy that.
MJ: Give us the terminals, maps, admin support and, most importantly, people and I would be happy to do whatever we can to provide more services. I would love to have a 80NM x 80NM sector in SE Australia instead of the 400NM one I used to work on. Show me the money! Give us the same ratio of controllers to airspace they have in the US - surely it's the best system and we should copy it verbatim?
And radar versus procedural, sometime procedural is better than radar, especially in low to medium density environments.
Minimum radar standard: 3NM
Minimum procedural standard: 1NM
And radar versus procedural, sometime procedural is better than radar, especially in low to medium density environments.
Minimum radar standard: 3NM
Minimum procedural standard: 1NM
So which one is it? Are you genuinely concerned about the cost to industry incurred in transferring A045 to A085 to Mel Centre or are you raising any possible objection just so you can keep the current status quo?
Lets take a closer look at the situation as it stands. At present you and your colleagues would have to be trained to give IFR and VFR procedural separation services in class D, IFR and VFR services in Class C and get recurrent checks each year. Sounds expensive!
On the other hand, unlike the deliberately misleading suggestion that Dick Smith wants a TAR service in MLT
the NAS model would have the centre controller providing a seamless enroute and approach service to the low volume of traffic over places like Launy.
This to me appears a lot less expensive in terms of initial and recurrent training than the duplicated system you would like to maintain.
Seeing as I don't actually know what the cost difference is between these two models, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and I wont even ask you to provide the cost comparison between the two models that would support your case, as I know you don't have that information either given that I have asked you for it in the past.
Assuming that your objections on cost are not based on fact
that leads me to think that you may personally have an interest in keeping the status quo.
Could it be that if you loose the approach rating to Melbourne Centre you will actually take a pay cut? Could it be that if you aren't required to give any IFR separation services at all you would take a pay cut?
How about this you insulting ground sheet, most regional TWR/APP D and D/C controllers are paid LESS than GAAP … which is what you are basically proposing a regional D tower should be!!
Doh .. I hear you say …. shot yourself in the bickie man again!
I know if I was threatened to be sent to a smaller jet my pay packet would be in jeopardy and I would fight the change too.
Is this the case for you Scurvy D Dog?
Do you stand to loose financially should the NAS model as proposed gets adopted?
Do tell Scurvy D Dog, what is your interest in this matter?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: melbourne
Posts: 90
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can the portable radar be made portable again and sent to CG please?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Operated into YMLT for over 30 years, back when the aids were a VAR, ILS, NDB and DME. Aircraft equipment was very different to the current generation of aircraft in terms of automation. We spoke to LT Control south of 40 south, and LT or HB towers. We were controlled right to the ground. Cews had good SA and the chances of a CFIT were very slim.
Then came NAS and E airspace outside of radar coverage. Immediately we have a very close near miss betwen a 737 and a VFR lightie. Shortly there after, a radar head appears in LT and we have the present situation. Airlines wont pay to have the tower extend beyond their normal coverage, so when we are late, we have no coverage by the tower and we are left to sort out seperation with 727 freighters, Convairs, Metro's and the Aero medical flights whilst trying to conduct approaches in IMC. Our passengers have less protection than they had 15 years ago. Ths is what you would call real progress (Like using DC3's again on mainline routes). The millions of dollars wasted trying to emulate parts of the US system would have been better spent updating the Australian system.
In relation to Flight Safety recommendations, a well trained pilot equates to higher points than ATC/Radar. When all else fails, the pilot is the final link between safe flight and CFIT. If Pruners are going to quote such facts and figures, they should ensure that the all the facts are given rather than select points only to strenghten arguements. The value of your arguement is lost when people research and find that only selective points have been used.
We too, would love radar at Kununurra and Broome, as well as many other destinations. But, who would man it?
Then came NAS and E airspace outside of radar coverage. Immediately we have a very close near miss betwen a 737 and a VFR lightie. Shortly there after, a radar head appears in LT and we have the present situation. Airlines wont pay to have the tower extend beyond their normal coverage, so when we are late, we have no coverage by the tower and we are left to sort out seperation with 727 freighters, Convairs, Metro's and the Aero medical flights whilst trying to conduct approaches in IMC. Our passengers have less protection than they had 15 years ago. Ths is what you would call real progress (Like using DC3's again on mainline routes). The millions of dollars wasted trying to emulate parts of the US system would have been better spent updating the Australian system.
In relation to Flight Safety recommendations, a well trained pilot equates to higher points than ATC/Radar. When all else fails, the pilot is the final link between safe flight and CFIT. If Pruners are going to quote such facts and figures, they should ensure that the all the facts are given rather than select points only to strenghten arguements. The value of your arguement is lost when people research and find that only selective points have been used.
We too, would love radar at Kununurra and Broome, as well as many other destinations. But, who would man it?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: UAE
Age: 48
Posts: 447
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJ: As everyone else has picked up on except you, I was being sarcastic about copying the US of A. Each FIR is unique and has its differences. Australia is no different.
As my old mate Roger said, WE DO NOT HAVE THE STAFF.
Give us the resources and I'm sure we'd gladly do it. But just by changing the airspace classification to upgrade the services does not mean it will be safer all of a sudden. Where will all the people come from?
Tell me what is safer - an experienced procedural tower crew providing descent and clearances in accordance with the DME and terrain steps or an enroute controller trying to monitor terrain in a 5NMx5NM space on a 700NM screen while providing these enhanced services to most of western Victoria and all of Tassie?
In my old sectors (most of eastern Vic and Southern NSW), before we gained the areas between Sydney and Canberra too, I counted over 70 unique instrument approachs that could be made into airfields that had some form of radar coverage. That's an awful lot to know and control.
You don't load a trailer full of bricks and hitch up the Moke, expecting that the pulling power will magically appear. You aquire a bigger car (resource) or split the load. Either way, you'll need more resources first. And just by scribbling out the towing capacity in the Moke's manual to match the weight you have doesn't change a thing. Something will give.
Cheers all. Carry on!
NFR.
As my old mate Roger said, WE DO NOT HAVE THE STAFF.
Give us the resources and I'm sure we'd gladly do it. But just by changing the airspace classification to upgrade the services does not mean it will be safer all of a sudden. Where will all the people come from?
Tell me what is safer - an experienced procedural tower crew providing descent and clearances in accordance with the DME and terrain steps or an enroute controller trying to monitor terrain in a 5NMx5NM space on a 700NM screen while providing these enhanced services to most of western Victoria and all of Tassie?
In my old sectors (most of eastern Vic and Southern NSW), before we gained the areas between Sydney and Canberra too, I counted over 70 unique instrument approachs that could be made into airfields that had some form of radar coverage. That's an awful lot to know and control.
You don't load a trailer full of bricks and hitch up the Moke, expecting that the pulling power will magically appear. You aquire a bigger car (resource) or split the load. Either way, you'll need more resources first. And just by scribbling out the towing capacity in the Moke's manual to match the weight you have doesn't change a thing. Something will give.
Cheers all. Carry on!
NFR.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Oz
Age: 77
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gentlefolks
A simple solution. Resubmit this argument to the year 2020 when the USA has ADS-B and the situation changes from the current Oz naysay context to the best thing since sliced bread - and Dick and that wiley MJBow - will be telling all we should have ADS-B to solve all these problems - coz it's then part of the almighty USA NAS.
ADS-B IN would likely have solved the heavy and the lighty proximity at LT, and many of the other location issues noted here. The WA trial will probably prove the value of ADS-B OUT for 'roll out' surveillance and a/c to a/c alerts - too late.
A simple solution. Resubmit this argument to the year 2020 when the USA has ADS-B and the situation changes from the current Oz naysay context to the best thing since sliced bread - and Dick and that wiley MJBow - will be telling all we should have ADS-B to solve all these problems - coz it's then part of the almighty USA NAS.
ADS-B IN would likely have solved the heavy and the lighty proximity at LT, and many of the other location issues noted here. The WA trial will probably prove the value of ADS-B OUT for 'roll out' surveillance and a/c to a/c alerts - too late.
Thread Starter
No Further Requirements, you state:
Can you explain this a bit further? I’m sure there are some limitations, however I would like to know if this is helpful in relation to Launceston – i.e. not using radar rated controllers there.
Splinter11, once again you are bringing up the old furphy. When I ask if our existing radar can be used in a more effective way, someone jumps in and starts talking about how we don’t have as much radar as the USA has – i.e. over the Simpson Desert and the Kimberley.
This is completely irrelevant. Australia’s radar coverage is as good as the USA between Launceston and Cairns. Why can’t we at least use our existing radar effectively to assist in preventing CFIT accidents?
By bringing up this furphy all the time, it just delays any rational decision making.
Dog One, I love your statement:
Even if you believe that, why not also use air traffic control and radar when it is available?
People often ask me why so many of the older pilots are against maximising the use of radar in Australia to help prevent CFIT accidents. My answer is always simple. “Many pilots believe they won’t make an error, so they don’t need the added assistance of air traffic control and radar.”
In fact, in relation to the Benalla crash, it is amazing the number of professional pilots who have told me that the error was totally that of the pilot, and that there is no need to use the radar more effectively in the Benalla area.
I do know many professional pilots who say to themselves (as I do) when any accident occurs, “When will I do that?” That seems pretty sensible to me.
By the way, I have always said that we should have adequate staff. When I was instrumental in removing flight service officers from the responsibility of low level airspace and giving it to air traffic controllers, the plan was to adequately staff the airspace so a control service could be given where it was a cost effective way of improving safety.
sometime procedural is better than radar, especially in low to medium density environments.
Minimum radar standard: 3NM
Minimum procedural standard: 1NM
Minimum radar standard: 3NM
Minimum procedural standard: 1NM
Splinter11, once again you are bringing up the old furphy. When I ask if our existing radar can be used in a more effective way, someone jumps in and starts talking about how we don’t have as much radar as the USA has – i.e. over the Simpson Desert and the Kimberley.
This is completely irrelevant. Australia’s radar coverage is as good as the USA between Launceston and Cairns. Why can’t we at least use our existing radar effectively to assist in preventing CFIT accidents?
By bringing up this furphy all the time, it just delays any rational decision making.
Dog One, I love your statement:
In relation to Flight Safety recommendations, a well trained pilot equates to higher points than ATC/Radar.
People often ask me why so many of the older pilots are against maximising the use of radar in Australia to help prevent CFIT accidents. My answer is always simple. “Many pilots believe they won’t make an error, so they don’t need the added assistance of air traffic control and radar.”
In fact, in relation to the Benalla crash, it is amazing the number of professional pilots who have told me that the error was totally that of the pilot, and that there is no need to use the radar more effectively in the Benalla area.
I do know many professional pilots who say to themselves (as I do) when any accident occurs, “When will I do that?” That seems pretty sensible to me.
By the way, I have always said that we should have adequate staff. When I was instrumental in removing flight service officers from the responsibility of low level airspace and giving it to air traffic controllers, the plan was to adequately staff the airspace so a control service could be given where it was a cost effective way of improving safety.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What the??
Been watching this from the sidelines, and where have all the most highly informed posters contributions vannished to????
And Dick, what has benalla got to do with Class D CTA services. Chalk and Cheese Buddy!
SQ
Been watching this from the sidelines, and where have all the most highly informed posters contributions vannished to????
And Dick, what has benalla got to do with Class D CTA services. Chalk and Cheese Buddy!
SQ