Williamtown Procedures

[Jabawocky]

It is interesting that from what i hear (never been there me-self) that a big problem in Alaska is the way much VFR air traffic gets funneled and concentrated through valleys - the sorta thing we don't have as much of here in Oz.

What?....like into Bankstown, or the VFR lanes around Willytown?

Nope never happens here

[Dick Smith]

Here’s the exact information

First, from the FAA Pilot Controller Glossary:

TARGET RESOLUTION- A process to ensure that correlated radar targets do not touch. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
 a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
 b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
 c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
Note 1: MANDATORY TRAFFIC ADVISORIES AND SAFETY ALERTS SHALL BE ISSUED WHEN THIS PROCEDURE IS USED.
Note 2: This procedure shall not be provided utilizing mosaic radar systems.

and second, from FAA Order JO 7110.65T

From FAA Order JO 7110.65T
Section 8. Class C Service- Terminal
7-8-1. APPLICATION
Apply Class C service procedures within the designated Class C airspace and the associated outer area. Class C services are designed to keep ATC informed of all aircraft within Class C airspace, not to exclude operations. Two-way radio communications and operational transponder are normally required for operations within Class C airspace, but operations without radio communications or transponder can be conducted by LOA, facility directive, or special arrangement with Class C airspace controlling facility.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-2-1, Visual Separation.
14 CFR Section 91.215, ATC Transponder and Altitude Reporting Equipment and Use.
7-8-2. CLASS C SERVICES
a. Class C services include the following:
1. Sequencing of all aircraft to the primary airport.
2. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
3. Separation, traffic advisories, and safety alerts between IFR and VFR aircraft.
4. Mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts between VFR aircraft.
b. Provide Class C services to all aircraft operating within Class C airspace.
c. Provide Class C services to all participating aircraft in the outer area.
d. Aircraft should not normally be held. However, if holding is necessary, inform the pilot of the expected length of delay.
e. When a radar outage occurs, advise aircraft that Class C services are not available and, if appropriate, when to contact the tower.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-2-1, Visual Separation.
7-8-3. SEPARATION
Separate VFR aircraft from IFR aircraft by any one of the following:
a. Visual separation as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.
NOTE-
Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.
b. 500 feet vertical separation;
c. Target resolution when using broadband radar systems. The application of target resolution at locations not using broadband radar will be individually approved by the Director of Terminal Safety and Operations Support.
NOTE-
Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 7-2-1, Visual Separation.

I don’t think anything could be much clearer than this, but no-one actually gives a good reason why we don’t at least consider this here.

Yes, it’s up to one of the senior guys in the military to make a decision, but if some of the air traffic controllers were interested they could at least put the suggestion forward to the hierarchy. You never know what might then happen.

And one thing which is most important is that this needless holding puts pilots off flying via the coastal lane. I know pilots who intentionally go via the inland lane with all of its complexities so they are not going to be held over the ocean. This means safety is reduced.

[Dick Smith]

And wait for it…

Target Resolution is actually approved in Class B – yes, the airspace that Qantas flies in every day at places like Los Angeles and New York!

Yes, I know – target resolution is for aircraft weighing 19,000 pounds or less, but notice the
1 1/2 miles radar separation standard as well!!!

Section 9. Class B Service Area- Terminal
7-9-1. APPLICATION

Apply Class B services and procedures within the designated Class B airspace.

a. No person may operate an aircraft within Class B airspace unless:

1. The aircraft has an operable two-way radio capable of communications with ATC on appropriate frequencies for that Class B airspace.

2. The aircraft is equipped with the applicable operating transponder and automatic altitude reporting equipment specified in para (a) of 14 CFR Section 91.215, except as provided in para (d) of that section.

7-9-2. VFR AIRCRAFT IN CLASS B AIRSPACE

a. VFR aircraft must obtain an ATC clearance to operate in Class B airspace.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-18, Operational Requests.
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-4-22, Airspace Classes.

PHRASEOLOGY-
CLEARED THROUGH/TO ENTER/OUT OF BRAVO AIRSPACE,

and as appropriate,

VIA (route). MAINTAIN (altitude) WHILE IN BRAVO AIRSPACE.

or

CLEARED AS REQUESTED.

(Additional instructions, as necessary.)

REMAIN OUTSIDE BRAVO AIRSPACE. (When necessary, reason and/or additional instructions.)

NOTE-
1. Assignment of radar headings, routes, or altitudes is based on the provision that a pilot operating in accordance with VFR is expected to advise ATC if compliance will cause violation of any part of the CFR.

2. Separation and sequencing for VFR aircraft is dependent upon radar. Efforts should be made to segregate VFR traffic from IFR traffic flows when a radar outage occurs.

b. Approve/deny requests from VFR aircraft to operate in Class B airspace based on workload, operational limitations and traffic conditions.

c. Inform the pilot when to expect further clearance when VFR aircraft are held either inside or outside Class B airspace.

d. Inform VFR aircraft when leaving Class B airspace.

PHRASEOLOGY-
LEAVING (name) BRAVO AIRSPACE,

and as appropriate,

RESUME OWN NAVIGATION, REMAIN THIS FREQUENCY FOR TRAFFIC ADVISORIES, RADAR SERVICE TERMINATED, SQUAWK ONE TWO ZERO ZERO.

7-9-3. METHODS

a. To the extent practical, clear large turbine engine-powered airplanes to/from the primary airport using altitudes and routes that avoid VFR corridors and airspace below the Class B airspace floor where VFR aircraft are operating.

NOTE-
Pilots operating in accordance with VFR are expected to advise ATC if compliance with assigned altitudes, headings, or routes will cause violation of any part of the CFR.

b. Vector aircraft to remain in Class B airspace after entry. Inform the aircraft when leaving and reentering Class B airspace if it becomes necessary to extend the flight path outside Class B airspace for spacing.

NOTE-
14 CFR Section 91.131 states that “Unless otherwise authorized by ATC, each person operating a large turbine engine-powered airplane to or from a primary airport for which a Class B airspace area is designated must operate at or above the designated floors of the Class B airspace area while within the lateral limits of that area.” Such authorization should be the exception rather than the rule.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 5-1-10, Deviation Advisories.

c. Aircraft departing controlled airports within Class B airspace will be provided the same services as those aircraft departing the primary airport.

REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-18, Operational Requests.

7-9-4. SEPARATION

a. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.

b. VFR aircraft must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:

1. 1 1/2 miles separation, or

2. 500 feet vertical separation, or

NOTE-
Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.

3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.

NOTE-
Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.

c. For the application of Class Bravo airspace separation requirements, the V-22 Osprey must be treated as a fixed-wing aircraft. It is an SRS Category II aircraft but weighs more than 19,000 pounds. The V-22 Osprey must be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft by minimum identified in subparagraph b above.

d. VFR aircraft must be separated from all VFR/IFR aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less by a minimum of:

1. Target resolution, or

2. 500 feet vertical separation, or

NOTE-
1. Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.

2. Aircraft weighing 19,000 pounds or less include all aircraft in SRS Categories I and II plus G73, STAR, S601, BE30, SW3, B190 and C212.

3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.

NOTE-
Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.

REFERENCE-
P/CG Term- Lateral Separation.
P/CG Term- Radar Separation.
P/CG Term- Target Resolution.
P/CG Term- Visual Separation.

[le Pingouin]

TARGET RESOLUTION- A process to ensure that correlated radar targets do not touch. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
 a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
 b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
 c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
Note 1: MANDATORY TRAFFIC ADVISORIES AND SAFETY ALERTS SHALL BE ISSUED WHEN THIS PROCEDURE IS USED.
Note 2: This procedure shall not be provided utilizing mosaic radar systems.

Guess what Dick? None of that is relevant to Australia. They're for analogue radar systems where the return is a smeared out blob. We use digital systems so get a synthetic target. Not to mention that we use a mosaic radar system.

[Jack Ranga]

Bugger.........

[C-change]

Nice work Dick,
Thanks for providing the info, now we know what you actually want. You want us to provide a Class D separation service in control zones and/or a reduction in the 3Nm separation standard to 1.5nm. Thats fine. Here are some questions for you;

What have you done to convince industry (Not just Williamtown) that your proposal is safe and efficient, besides using pprune ?

How do you intend to solve the problem of everyone using mosiac radar displays in OZ ?

How do you intend to implement your proposed changes ? ie Nation wide or just Military Control Zones ?

[peuce]

Dick,

Thank's for providing the information. That's a great first step. At least we know what is proposed.

However, as others have stated, there are some hardware issues to solve first.

Also, I would suggest that it's more appropriate that you, or other supporting Industry Representatives put the proposal to CASA ... as you are the ones who are the proponent of the change.

I don't think it's appropriate that you say to X that you reckon B is a great idea ... now I want you, X, to go and sell B to C.

[The Chaser]

... Fair Dinkum ..... WRONG

Nice try though Disk Smith,

Before we do this. For all reading who are interested, drop down to the start of the next post, click on the link. Have a read ….. a close read.

Righto,

First, Target Resolution is as I quoted earlier (and as you have requoted). It is as the rule suggests to ensure different symbol types on mostly older radar systems do not overlap becuase they then blurr, and no distance can be gleaned between two aircraft. Aircraft (as they look on these older systems) will be a minimum 3NM apart, sometime even greater distances apart (dependant on target distance from the radar head, and screen scale) when:-

a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.

In other words, the centre (aircraft position) of the Blob’s/symbols might be 6NM apart, but the controller cannot let the edges of the Blob’s/symbols touch. Target Resolution It does not to enable less than 3NM separation[/B]!!!

Let’s put the rest of your quotes from the Visual Chapter into plain English shall we:-

7-8-2. CLASS C SERVICES
a. Class C services include the following:
1. Sequencing of all aircraft to the primary airport.
2. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
3. Separation

= Between IFR and IFR and VFR

, traffic advisories and safety alerts [U]between IFR and VFR aircraft.

As per Note 1 below:-

TARGET RESOLUTION – A process to ensure that correlated radar targets do not touch. Target resolution shall be applied as follows:
 a.Between the edges of two primary targets or the edges of the ASR-9 primary target symbol.
 b.Between the end of the beacon control slash and the edge of a primary target.
 c.Between the ends of two beacon control slashes.
Note 1: MANDATORY TRAFFIC ADVISORIES AND SAFETY ALERTS SHALL BE ISSUED WHEN THIS PROCEDURE IS USED.

Now lets look at the definitions and use of Traffic Advisory and Safety Alert
Traffic Advisories

2-1-21. TRAFFIC ADVISORIES
Unless an aircraft is operating within Class A airspace or omission is requested by the pilot, issue traffic advisories to all aircraft (IFR or VFR) on your frequency when, in your judgment, [/B]their proximity may diminish to less than the applicable separation minima[/B]. Where no separation minima applies, such as for VFR aircraft [U]outside of Class B/Class C airspace, or a TRSA, issue traffic advisories[/B] to those aircraft on your frequency when in your judgment their proximity warrants it.

Safety Alerts

2-1-6. SAFETY ALERT
Issue a safety alert to an aircraft if you are aware the aircraft is in a position/altitude which, in your judgment, places it in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstructions, or other aircraft. Once the pilot informs you action is being taken to resolve the situation, you may discontinue the issuance of further alerts. Do not assume that because someone else has responsibility
for the aircraft that the unsafe situation has been observed and the safety alert issued; inform the appropriate controller.

NOTE-
1. The issuance of a safety alert is a first priority (see para_2-1-2, Duty Priority) once the controller observes and recognizes a situation of unsafe aircraft proximity to terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. Conditions, such as workload, traffic volume, the quality/limitations of the radar system, and the available lead time to react are factors in determining whether it is reasonable for the controller to observe and recognize such situations. While a controller cannot see immediately the development of
every situation where a safety alert must be issued, the controller must remain vigilant for such situations and issue a safety alert when the situation is recognized.
2. Recognition of situations of unsafe proximity may result from MSAW/E-MSAW/LAAS, automatic altitude readouts, Conflict/Mode C Intruder Alert, observations on a PAR scope, or pilot reports.
3. Once the alert is issued, it is solely the pilot's prerogative to determine what course of action, if any, will be taken.

In other words, a safety alert is a non-normal last line alert to pilots in an unsafe situation. It is NOT a normal procedure!
Back to the rest of 7.8.2

4. Mandatory traffic advisories and safety alerts between VFR aircraft.

Because VFR and VFR need NOT be separated in class C so the same traffic advisories and safety alerts apply when there is NOT 3NM separation

b. Provide Class C services to all aircraft operating within Class C airspace.

c. Provide Class C services to all participating aircraft in the outer area.

d. Aircraft should not normally be held. However, if holding is necessary, inform the pilot of the expected length of delay. and, if appropriate, when to contact the tower.

Lets quote the whole Visual Section of Class B shall we

7-9-4. SEPARATION
a. Standard IFR services to IFR aircraft.
b. VFR aircraft shall be separated from VFR/IFR aircraft that weigh more than 19,000 pounds and turbojets by no less than:
1. 1 1/2 miles separation, or
2. 500 feet vertical separation, or
[B]NOTE[B]Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.
3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing. NOTE Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.
c. VFR aircraft shall be separated from all VFR/IFR aircraft which weigh 19,000 pounds or less by a minimum of:
1. Target resolution, or
2. 500 feet vertical separation, or
NOTE-
1. Apply the provisions of para 5-5-4, Minima, when wake turbulence separation is required.
2. Aircraft weighing 19,000 pounds or less include all aircraft in SRS Categories I and II plus G73, STAR, S601, BE30, SW3, B190 and C212.
3. Visual separation, as specified in para 7-2-1, Visual Separation, para 7-4-2, Vectors for Visual Approach, and para 7-6-7, Sequencing.
NOTE Issue wake turbulence cautionary advisories in accordance with para 2-1-20, Wake Turbulence Cautionary Advisories.

Do you know where 1 ½ miles is used???

[The Chaser]

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publi...c/atc0505.html

5-5-10. ADJACENT AIRSPACE
a. If coordination between the controllers concerned has not been effected, separate radar-controlled aircraft from the boundary of adjacent airspace in which radar separation is also being used by the following minima:
REFERENCE-
FAAO JO 7110.65, Para 2-1-14, Coordinate Use of Airspace.
1. When less than 40 miles from the antenna- 1 1/2 miles.

The totality of the US regulations for Class C services, although written differently in different manuals, amounts to exactly the same Class C radar services we have here in Australia, no more, no less.

Australian equivalent

Target Resolution in our books is written thus:-

- No overlap Do not allow the edges of the position indications to touch or overlap, under any circumstances, unless vertical separation is applied between aircraft, irrespective of the type of position indication displayed and the separation minimum applied.

This is the Terminal Area Radar Minima (almost exactly the same as the US)

- 3 NM radar separation You may reduce the horizontal radar separation minimum to 3 NM, provided that the aircraft are in communication with and under the control of either a TCU or the associated Control Tower providing Class C services, and are:
a. within 100 NM of an MSSR sensor; or
b. within 30 NM of a radar sensor using:
1. military high definition (scan rate of 12 RPM or greater)
Terminal Approach Radar (TAR); or
2. primary data from a civil high definition TAR (scan rate of 16.4 RPM).

And your 1 1/2 mile standard here in Australia

- Standard - half applicable minimum
Use the standard of half the applicable ATS surveillance system horizontal separation minimum under the following conditions:
a. that the adjacent sector, in controlled airspace, has the same ATS surveillance system processing and display system; or
b. that the restricted area flying activity is subject to the ADF:
1. applying half the applicable ATS surveillance system
horizontal separation minimum between aircraft in the restricted area and the restricted area boundary; or
2. ensuring that an appropriate navigation tolerance is applied to aircraft contained within the restricted area; or
c. that the restricted area non-flying activity is subject to the appropriate tolerances being applied by the restricted area user to ensure containment of the activity within the restricted area.

Sorry to burst the enthusiasm bubble and all that!

Provide one, just one 'verified' example of Class C services in the USA where within that airspace, IFR and VFR traffic are NOT separated by at least the Minima in 5-5-4.

[Blockla]

In other words, the centre (aircraft position) of the Blob’s/symbols might be 6NM apart, but the controller cannot let the edges of the Blob’s/symbols touch. Target Resolution It does not to enable less than 3NM separation!!!

Going back near 20 years, when I first got a rating, the Sydney Southern Mosaic radar used to cause us significant over separation issues, particularly close to Parks. The aircraft could come down from BN towards Melbourne 20+ miles apart and we 'could lose' radar separation as the paints could grow so much on the edge of radar coverage; we had to apply separation between the SSR symbols using the ILDS (the first labels applied to the bright displays), but the primary paints were still not allowed to touch (target resolution). Sometimes we would run a DME standard as that was more efficient... We also had issues with crossing traffic near Parks where we needed the best part of twenty miles between aircraft to ensure no radar returns touching...

Target resolution is currently used in 'definite passing' by radar in Oz... I can't imagine a situation where controllers let aircraft nearly hit before intervening because all they have to do is not let the blips touch... I too would like a US controller on here stating how they apply 'target resolution' rather than an extrapolation on how it works (ie for crossing traffic, opposite direction, same direction, lateral, longitudinal etc...) Remember "Merging Target Procedure" how exactly is that one used here or in the US? Give traffic when you have a minimum standard... hmmm why have a minimum standard?

Digital/synthetic radar mosaics MTR systems are used by all modern ATC technology, I'm not sure you'll ever get 'green/grey between' as a standard for the purposes of separation; lets not mention the concept of 'separation assurance'...

[cbradio]

Those pesky technicalities ....

[scran]

Well done Lads - correct use of factual information...




unlike others who start threads like this...........

[Jack Ranga]

Dick, selective use of information, quoting information you don't understand, not understanding or explaining the true intent of procedures.

I believe all of the people above are or have been ATC's, they understand the equipment and limitations as such before using it.

You should use your obvious power for good.

[Capn Bloggs]

Jack, I'll go one step further:

Dick,you should hang your head in shame. With your alleged standing in the community, you of all people should get your facts straight first before getting on here, ranting and raving about how it's done "over there" and accusing us of being "pathetic" because we don't do it that way.

Chaser and the ATCers, thanks for your counter arguments. You have exposed the Free in GE rabble for what it really is: "I want to fly where I like, when I like, with no regard or concern for others".

[OZBUSDRIVER]

not forgetting the most important issue....

DON'T EXPECT ME TO PAY FOR ANYTHING!

Good posts from ATC guys...reality does bite you, Mr Smith.

Now if he wants to think laterally and apply ADS-B accuracy to this issue....5nm separation (or even 3nm!) regardless of position in relation to a radar head would be a cake walk.....but he doesn't want that for the plebs. Besides, how big is that "target" at 400nm resoltion in en-route airspace?

Back to the issue of WLM...one wonders how many times Mr Smith has been through without an issue...but you can't make an issue about that, could you?

[Jabawocky]

..........GSM

[Dick Smith]

Never have I seen such a lot of foolish and closed minds as shown in the posts above.

First of all, we don’t use mosaic radar. We use multi-radar tracking.

However, I understand the Williamtown approach does not use mosaic or multi-radar tracking for aircraft that are flying close to the airfield. That’s why the thread is about Williamtown.

Over the years I have spoken to controllers who have said that if they did have the US procedures at a place like Williamtown, that it would facilitate traffic movement and remove the need for holding single engine aircraft over water when VMC exists.

I find it fascinating how all of you anonymous cowards leap in to justify what you have been doing since you were trained. It’s almost as if your air traffic control is some type of religious faith that comes from a “bible” which shall never be doubted or queried.

In fact, air traffic control procedures and separation standards have evolved over nearly one hundred years of science. If you want to have a system of procedures and separation standards based on faith, go ahead and do that. I happen to have a lateral mind and would like to copy the best from anywhere, especially if its safety is proven.

I will say once again – it was the type of people who are posting above who stopped us moving from a system in primary control zones where VFR was separated from VFR as if they were IFR. Imagine that! Yes, and it was held on to for many years but was eventually changed and what they did in the United States was copied. Since then I have never heard of one person claiming we should go back to our old, archaic system.

What I have said is absolutely 100% correct, that is why I put my name to my posts. The only reason posters don’t put their names to their posts on such basic issues as airspace procedures is they don’t really believe in what they are saying and they don’t want to have a system where something could be attributed to them and then it is found that it is a classic resistance to change and concrete mindedness.

For all those who are reading these posts who don’t have a closed mind, I can assure you that one day we will follow modern international procedures. We will give our controllers procedures and responsibilities that will allow them to use their professionalism and experience to the greatest extent.

After all, if it can happen in competitor countries like the United States and Canada, it can sure happen here.

I will say once again, if we use the Class C American and Canadian procedures at Williamtown with the existing radar, if we allocate the tower airspace as they do in the United States and Canada and use their procedures, we will facilitate traffic and monetary waste will be reduced and safety will be improved.

Keep your minds closed as long as you want to – it doesn’t affect me. But it’s probably your children and grandchildren who won’t be getting jobs in our industry in the future because of your foolishness.

[scran]

no comment..................................




No, changed my mind (perhasp it isn't that closed........)




Your offer of sending a Military Controller (which you have used before from memory) is utter nonsence, and as you were the Chairman of CASA - you know that to be true!!!!!!!!!



I wasn't in the Tower at Williamtown that fateful day - so I don't know the actual weather, or traffic situation. HOWEVER, I suspect that I, as one of those old and bold ATC guys from the late 70's to the early 90's (my active controlling days) I can think of how I might have allowed even you to transit in the rough situation you outlined.

I'm not against change (hell - I moved out of active ATC to several staff positions, and since then have left the military and now work in a field that has NOTHING to do with aviation - and therefore have opened my mind....)...............


What I am against is you having a hissy fit because you got held and trying to change the system by shaming the controller concerned (thats basically what your thread does), then sprouting that tripe about Senior Defence personnel, trotting out the Sea Sprite issue (again!) when you SHOULD know that the rules and procedures that are employed by ATC (both civil and military) are set in co-ordination and agreement with the regulator - that being CASA (that fine organisation that you once headed).


I loved my time as an ATC, and whenever possible provided what the pilot wanted. Hell, I even probably broke the rules a few times!!!!




Did you ever hear about the fly-in to Willy in late '86 to welcome the Hornet into Australian service? Did you ever hear how that there was so much light aircraft traffic trying to get into Willy that the tower controller on the day didn't use callsigns, providing landing clearances to aircraft based on their type and colour, used non-standard runway separation standards and non approved patter/RT Phraseology, all in an attempt to "get the job done"? Did you Dick? Ask around about it.

The Senior ATC Officer at Williamtown was in the tower that morning, and instead of relieving the controller of his ratings, allowed the situation to happen, as it was the only way the amount of traffic around was going to be processed. In fact, he nominated that controller for a commendation from the very military leadership who should have been aghast!!!





It still hangs on my wall in my study.........................

[C-change]

I was wondering how long it would take for the "closed minds" response.

[le Pingouin]

Dick, you post the requirements for using target resolution & I tell you the technical reasons why it can't be used. Maybe you don't but we have to play by rules.

So, is ADATS analogue or digital Dick?

And MTR is a mosaic radar system.

You're the one with faith Dick. You won't let facts disturb your belief system.