Williamtown Procedures
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Dick (and others),
In Dick's defence I think that you are all missing the point.
To me it is pretty clear - Dick wants (in this case and many others) Australians to look outside our country and use what we find there that is smart.
Dick is a motivated individual and wants the very best for his country - and I think that he has demonstrated this over many years of effort. I can see no reason why a review of the way the US handles things (better no doubt) would not be a good idea.
Don't forget that Dick has actually flown around the world (numerous times) and has ACTUALLY dealt with ATC in these countries...I think he is qualified to comment, unlike some of the other opinions offered.
As a heli pilot flying around Sydney, thanks for 405 and the Victor lane Dick ! As you have said prior, copied from the US.
As for Willy, I have never had a problem transitting through via the coast, and the controllers have been nothing but helpful, and I don't read anywhere in Dick's posts that he is unhappy with them either - despite the insinuation he is bashing the military workers !
On your eyes everyone, there is a bloody good reason Dick is so successful, he has an open mind.
In Dick's defence I think that you are all missing the point.
To me it is pretty clear - Dick wants (in this case and many others) Australians to look outside our country and use what we find there that is smart.
Dick is a motivated individual and wants the very best for his country - and I think that he has demonstrated this over many years of effort. I can see no reason why a review of the way the US handles things (better no doubt) would not be a good idea.
Don't forget that Dick has actually flown around the world (numerous times) and has ACTUALLY dealt with ATC in these countries...I think he is qualified to comment, unlike some of the other opinions offered.
As a heli pilot flying around Sydney, thanks for 405 and the Victor lane Dick ! As you have said prior, copied from the US.
As for Willy, I have never had a problem transitting through via the coast, and the controllers have been nothing but helpful, and I don't read anywhere in Dick's posts that he is unhappy with them either - despite the insinuation he is bashing the military workers !
On your eyes everyone, there is a bloody good reason Dick is so successful, he has an open mind.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh - and Dick,
you need to have a word with this "Submarine" friend of yours.
I'm sure, in the current climate, the UK would happily "unload" an excess Nuke or two to us for a bargain price.
Now - ask your Submariner "mate" about the Fundermental Inputs to Capability (FIC) costs of owning/operating those Nukes would be compared to the cost of new diesel electrics.
Oh - and while you are at it - ask him about Diesel electric "indiscretion" rates and how many times he has been delected on Radar.
A P3 NAV with me on Staff College was heard to say when standing along a Collins Class tied up alongside "this is about the only time I've ever seen a diesel sub" - properly operated they are bl**dy hard to detect, and given our extensive experience with them (apart, apparently from your mate) are a cost effective deterent.........
(Phew - got through the whole post without once being tempted to consider how stupid this new bent on the argument is)
Oh - and Arrrj -
(want a pissing contest? Tell me your qualifications to discuss ATC procedures. I had 16 years actual experience "on the mike". And READ my comments, for example - I clearly stated I'm not dead against Dick wanting to improve things - I actually think there is scope - it's the way he goes about it that is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and while the procedures might be slightly different - the Lane you used at Williamtown was in existance LONG before the Victor lane in Sydney)
you need to have a word with this "Submarine" friend of yours.
I'm sure, in the current climate, the UK would happily "unload" an excess Nuke or two to us for a bargain price.
Now - ask your Submariner "mate" about the Fundermental Inputs to Capability (FIC) costs of owning/operating those Nukes would be compared to the cost of new diesel electrics.
Oh - and while you are at it - ask him about Diesel electric "indiscretion" rates and how many times he has been delected on Radar.
A P3 NAV with me on Staff College was heard to say when standing along a Collins Class tied up alongside "this is about the only time I've ever seen a diesel sub" - properly operated they are bl**dy hard to detect, and given our extensive experience with them (apart, apparently from your mate) are a cost effective deterent.........
(Phew - got through the whole post without once being tempted to consider how stupid this new bent on the argument is)
Oh - and Arrrj -
(want a pissing contest? Tell me your qualifications to discuss ATC procedures. I had 16 years actual experience "on the mike". And READ my comments, for example - I clearly stated I'm not dead against Dick wanting to improve things - I actually think there is scope - it's the way he goes about it that is WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Oh, and while the procedures might be slightly different - the Lane you used at Williamtown was in existance LONG before the Victor lane in Sydney)
Arrj,
I understand how you eggbeater types have to stick up for one another ... as no one else understands how you lot can move your hands, feet, head and tongue all at once ... in six different directions.
And, I know that Dick thinks he is right ... just like everyone else on here does. However, we can't all be right. The only available option is to go with what the majority think is right ... even if they are wrong.
And don't be under the misconception that Dick is the only one here, or in the Industry, who has tasted overseas practice. Many have.
We have looked at what's on offer around the joint, digested it, compared the offering to our environment and we have formed opinions. However, even our majority opinions get overridden by CASA ... as their right is better than our right ... or even Dick's right.
In the end, Dick's louder voice does not make his right any more righter than ours. He has to learn to live with that.
I understand how you eggbeater types have to stick up for one another ... as no one else understands how you lot can move your hands, feet, head and tongue all at once ... in six different directions.
And, I know that Dick thinks he is right ... just like everyone else on here does. However, we can't all be right. The only available option is to go with what the majority think is right ... even if they are wrong.
And don't be under the misconception that Dick is the only one here, or in the Industry, who has tasted overseas practice. Many have.
We have looked at what's on offer around the joint, digested it, compared the offering to our environment and we have formed opinions. However, even our majority opinions get overridden by CASA ... as their right is better than our right ... or even Dick's right.
In the end, Dick's louder voice does not make his right any more righter than ours. He has to learn to live with that.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrrj Shirley,you can't be serious:-
.... errrm no, 'the point' has been well discussed 
Wasn't it SY App who did the procedure design for Victor1??
I think that you are all missing the point
Wasn't it SY App who did the procedure design for Victor1??
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Dick,
Found some info for you. You said;
The ADATS Radar at all ADF bases is supplied by Raytheon. It is a multi tracking radar that displays the data on the screen using a mosaic picture of heaps of 4x4 Nm squares. Each tile recieves a No 1 radar feed and a secondary feed and can be a comination of MSSR, PSR or both. The computer decides which is the best data, does its techo thing and controller sees a nice return on screen.
This is from the Ratheon site.
purchased some form of the Cossor SSR and/or MSSR:
Found some info for you. You said;
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.
This is from the Ratheon site.
Raytheon
Systems Ltd (RSL) - Electronics Systems, developed its
monopulse system in order to attack three problems that
were encountered with standard SSR. These shortcomings
became increasingly evident as air traffic
became denser and a heavier reliance was placed on
processed secondary radar data for air traffic control
(ATC) because it was able to provide positive height
and identity data.
The identified problems associated with the display
screen were 1) track wander, caused by signal interference,
2) garbling of close flying aircraft, making it
difficult to make separate identifications, and 3) false
targets caused by nearby objects reflecting the radar
signals. As a result of these problems, ATC operations
had to provide large aircraft flight path separations
which, in turn, meant longer times spent in loiter prior to
landing and higher fuel consumption.
The track wander problem was overcome by the SSR
monopulse system implementation concept. Instead of
ascertaining bearing by relying on the average of a
number of replies, the monopulse concept typically
needs only one pulse of a single transponder reply,
largely eliminating the risk of distortion from an
interruption of the reply pattern.
Systems Ltd (RSL) - Electronics Systems, developed its
monopulse system in order to attack three problems that
were encountered with standard SSR. These shortcomings
became increasingly evident as air traffic
became denser and a heavier reliance was placed on
processed secondary radar data for air traffic control
(ATC) because it was able to provide positive height
and identity data.
The identified problems associated with the display
screen were 1) track wander, caused by signal interference,
2) garbling of close flying aircraft, making it
difficult to make separate identifications, and 3) false
targets caused by nearby objects reflecting the radar
signals. As a result of these problems, ATC operations
had to provide large aircraft flight path separations
which, in turn, meant longer times spent in loiter prior to
landing and higher fuel consumption.
The track wander problem was overcome by the SSR
monopulse system implementation concept. Instead of
ascertaining bearing by relying on the average of a
number of replies, the monopulse concept typically
needs only one pulse of a single transponder reply,
largely eliminating the risk of distortion from an
interruption of the reply pattern.
Worldwide Distribution
Raytheon claims that at least 30 countries utilize the SSR/MSSR systems. The following countries reportedly have
purchased some form of the Cossor SSR and/or MSSR:
Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, Cyprus, Denmark,
Greece
, Hong Kong, India, Jamaica, Norway, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Sweden, Switzerland, Trinidad/Tobago, United Kingdom, and the United States.Guess what system the US are using for their upgrade !
The Standard Terminal Automation Replacement System (STARS) is a system jointly procured by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Department of Defense (DoD) to replace capacity-constrained, older technology systems at FAA and DoD terminal radar approach control facilities and associated towers. Raytheon Company is the prime contractor.
Perhaps they will use the same standards as we do and many others around the world.
Thread Starter
Scran
You appear to make out that because I have been held a couple of times that that is the reason I want to follow modern international procedures.
In fact, what I am concerned about is that in twenty-five years the military hasn’t been able to make any changes to their procedures.
As I pointed out, it was in 1983 when flying around the world in my helicopter that I was first held at Williamtown – I think it was for about ten minutes orbiting at Nobby’s.
In my whole world flight of some 350 hours, the only other time I was held was by the military going into Darwin. It was obvious that the procedures the controllers were forced to use were archaic.
What surprises me is that twenty-five years later nothing has changed.
What I am told, of course, is that when they have lots of traffic – say, in 1986 when the Hornet arrived – that the military controllers can bend the rules, break the regulations, and handle a lot of traffic safely.
However, what I have wanted is the rules to allow controllers to make professional judgements – as they do all around the world in other countries – and do this without breaking any rules that could hold them personally liable and most likely result in them losing their licence and jeopardising their career.
I would have thought controllers would be supporting me on this, not abusing me.
What I am told is that the old analogue radar would allow target resolution (if we actually had the procedures promulgated), but the new digital radar isn’t as accurate so it won’t allow this.
Now that’s exactly what I am saying about the military. Whereas the rest of the world has moved from clappy old black-and-white television to colour television and now high definition with far greater accuracy and resolution, from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards.
Imagine if we do have a war and they can’t even tell the separation difference between aircraft – whether they are three miles or one mile. Of course I wouldn’t be surprised if the radar they have installed is absolute crap. They never ask advice. You only have to look at the Super Seasprite fiasco to know that there is a culture in the military to never ask advice, never copy the success of others, and resist change in every way they can.
Of course, the Williamtown “lane” cannot be compared with the Victor one route. In fact, the Williamtown “lane” isn’t a “lane” at all, as it’s in controlled airspace under total control. It’s more of a mandatory route that puts single engine aircraft at low level over the ocean when, in most cases, there is no need for this.
Of course, it was probably designed in about 1932 and no-one has been game to change it ever since.
Why would someone design a system that requires single engine aircraft – quite often with pilots with young families on board, to hold over a densely populated beach at Nobby’s and then orbit out over the ocean where a ditching would most likely result in everyone being drowned.
I can assure you that such incredibly irresponsible and dangerous actions are not seen anywhere else in the world.
Yes, I agree that it doesn’t happen all the time. But it happens enough to add to risk to an extent that is totally unnecessary.
Scran, I do understand that modern radar systems use multi-radar tracking to cover blind spots, but I am not referring to aircraft in a blindspot overhead the Willi field. I am talking about an aircraft which is flying along the beach in very good and accurate radar coverage from the head at Williamtown.
Scran, you say that you are not actually against “Dick wanting to improve things” but then you go on to say “I actually think there is scope”, but then you criticise me by saying “it’s the way he goes about it that is wrong”.
Scran, I have been on this point for twenty-five years. For about the first fifteen years I worked quietly behind the scenes. People in the military hierarchy said that they agreed that we should follow modern procedures and that’s what we would be doing. But in fact it didn’t happen. These people were simply not game to make a decision because – presumably – they did not want to be held accountable. Why would they fib to me in this way? Why wouldn’t they simply state, “Dick, we have no interest in what happens overseas. We have done it this way for over fifty years and we are never going to change - get lost!”.
I will say it again here – anyone who works for the military must have very low morale because the leadership is incredibly deficient.
The fact that no-one in the military makes a public statement or even a statement on this site explaining the reason(s) why the modern procedures that are used in other leading aviation countries cannot even be considered here shows how deficient they are.
Never fear. One day if one of these small planes drops into the ocean killing everyone on board, including young children, there will be a major public outcry, huge royal commission costing anything from $50 to $100 million, and then the changes will be made.
I am suggesting we do this before this unnecessary and avoidable accident occurs.
Peuce
no, your majority opinions don’t get overridden by CASA – they get overridden by an individual in CASA who is probably ex-military and who probably never in their life made a decision that he or she could be held accountable for.
Those of you who work for the military know you are being let down and I realise you can’t say anything about it. Let’s hope some changes can be made – hopefully because of some of the pressure I try and apply before lives are needlessly lost.
You appear to make out that because I have been held a couple of times that that is the reason I want to follow modern international procedures.
In fact, what I am concerned about is that in twenty-five years the military hasn’t been able to make any changes to their procedures.
As I pointed out, it was in 1983 when flying around the world in my helicopter that I was first held at Williamtown – I think it was for about ten minutes orbiting at Nobby’s.
In my whole world flight of some 350 hours, the only other time I was held was by the military going into Darwin. It was obvious that the procedures the controllers were forced to use were archaic.
What surprises me is that twenty-five years later nothing has changed.
What I am told, of course, is that when they have lots of traffic – say, in 1986 when the Hornet arrived – that the military controllers can bend the rules, break the regulations, and handle a lot of traffic safely.
However, what I have wanted is the rules to allow controllers to make professional judgements – as they do all around the world in other countries – and do this without breaking any rules that could hold them personally liable and most likely result in them losing their licence and jeopardising their career.
I would have thought controllers would be supporting me on this, not abusing me.
What I am told is that the old analogue radar would allow target resolution (if we actually had the procedures promulgated), but the new digital radar isn’t as accurate so it won’t allow this.
Now that’s exactly what I am saying about the military. Whereas the rest of the world has moved from clappy old black-and-white television to colour television and now high definition with far greater accuracy and resolution, from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards.
Imagine if we do have a war and they can’t even tell the separation difference between aircraft – whether they are three miles or one mile. Of course I wouldn’t be surprised if the radar they have installed is absolute crap. They never ask advice. You only have to look at the Super Seasprite fiasco to know that there is a culture in the military to never ask advice, never copy the success of others, and resist change in every way they can.
Of course, the Williamtown “lane” cannot be compared with the Victor one route. In fact, the Williamtown “lane” isn’t a “lane” at all, as it’s in controlled airspace under total control. It’s more of a mandatory route that puts single engine aircraft at low level over the ocean when, in most cases, there is no need for this.
Of course, it was probably designed in about 1932 and no-one has been game to change it ever since.
Why would someone design a system that requires single engine aircraft – quite often with pilots with young families on board, to hold over a densely populated beach at Nobby’s and then orbit out over the ocean where a ditching would most likely result in everyone being drowned.
I can assure you that such incredibly irresponsible and dangerous actions are not seen anywhere else in the world.
Yes, I agree that it doesn’t happen all the time. But it happens enough to add to risk to an extent that is totally unnecessary.
Scran, I do understand that modern radar systems use multi-radar tracking to cover blind spots, but I am not referring to aircraft in a blindspot overhead the Willi field. I am talking about an aircraft which is flying along the beach in very good and accurate radar coverage from the head at Williamtown.
Scran, you say that you are not actually against “Dick wanting to improve things” but then you go on to say “I actually think there is scope”, but then you criticise me by saying “it’s the way he goes about it that is wrong”.
Scran, I have been on this point for twenty-five years. For about the first fifteen years I worked quietly behind the scenes. People in the military hierarchy said that they agreed that we should follow modern procedures and that’s what we would be doing. But in fact it didn’t happen. These people were simply not game to make a decision because – presumably – they did not want to be held accountable. Why would they fib to me in this way? Why wouldn’t they simply state, “Dick, we have no interest in what happens overseas. We have done it this way for over fifty years and we are never going to change - get lost!”.
I will say it again here – anyone who works for the military must have very low morale because the leadership is incredibly deficient.
The fact that no-one in the military makes a public statement or even a statement on this site explaining the reason(s) why the modern procedures that are used in other leading aviation countries cannot even be considered here shows how deficient they are.
Never fear. One day if one of these small planes drops into the ocean killing everyone on board, including young children, there will be a major public outcry, huge royal commission costing anything from $50 to $100 million, and then the changes will be made.
I am suggesting we do this before this unnecessary and avoidable accident occurs.
Peuce
no, your majority opinions don’t get overridden by CASA – they get overridden by an individual in CASA who is probably ex-military and who probably never in their life made a decision that he or she could be held accountable for.
Those of you who work for the military know you are being let down and I realise you can’t say anything about it. Let’s hope some changes can be made – hopefully because of some of the pressure I try and apply before lives are needlessly lost.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, Dick, Dick...............................
This is getting tiresome - don't you ever get sick of being like this?
Your lack of understanding about several issues in your post continues to prove that you use half-arsed information, or selective information, based on third hand advice from people who are not that smart. Your discussion about target resolution etc is so stupid it's almost funny!!!!!
Oh - you got a Sea Sprite reference in - well done!
Your comments about black and white TV and current displays etc is laughable. The previous SURAD analog radar defence used was a 23cm radar - on a C130 sized aircraft at 40 miles it was not uncommen to have a radar return almost 4 miles wide in some instances!! The new radars at 10CM or so (can't rememebr - my closed mind is failing me) remove a lot of that problem - but in nearly ALL modern ATC systems the display is effectively synthetic - you are not looking at a "raw" cathode ray tube.......
I'm surprised you talk about morale - you don't appear to understand anything about it...........
You SHOULD know from your time as CASA Chairman the REAL situation about changes to ATC/Airspace rules etc - yet you bang on about 1983 around the world flights.........
Yup, I'm sure you understand how you get OUTSTANDING coverage of aircraft at low level from land based radars.
I know you have been on about it for 25 years. You had a chance to change things when you were CASA Chairman - your Airspace changes in late 90's went terribly well didn't it?
I'm pleased to see you make a comment about how crap Raytheon Radars are - why don't you write to them and repeat your comments - I'm sure they will value your contribution.
Oh, and as to never asking advice - the team of controllers and engineers did a 5 week tour that included visiting radar sites or manufacturers in several USA locations, several UK locations, Italy, Spain, Finland, Sweden and Norway during the tender evaluation process..........
Yes - I said it before and I'll say it again - coming on here bleating about procedures etc and displaying your poor understanding of issues is NO WAY to achieve the changes you want - and you wonder why your are ignored or marginalised................
Please - do us all a favour
Give it a rest!
Goodbye
This is getting tiresome - don't you ever get sick of being like this?
Your lack of understanding about several issues in your post continues to prove that you use half-arsed information, or selective information, based on third hand advice from people who are not that smart. Your discussion about target resolution etc is so stupid it's almost funny!!!!!
Oh - you got a Sea Sprite reference in - well done!
Your comments about black and white TV and current displays etc is laughable. The previous SURAD analog radar defence used was a 23cm radar - on a C130 sized aircraft at 40 miles it was not uncommen to have a radar return almost 4 miles wide in some instances!! The new radars at 10CM or so (can't rememebr - my closed mind is failing me) remove a lot of that problem - but in nearly ALL modern ATC systems the display is effectively synthetic - you are not looking at a "raw" cathode ray tube.......
I'm surprised you talk about morale - you don't appear to understand anything about it...........
You SHOULD know from your time as CASA Chairman the REAL situation about changes to ATC/Airspace rules etc - yet you bang on about 1983 around the world flights.........
Yup, I'm sure you understand how you get OUTSTANDING coverage of aircraft at low level from land based radars.
I know you have been on about it for 25 years. You had a chance to change things when you were CASA Chairman - your Airspace changes in late 90's went terribly well didn't it?
I'm pleased to see you make a comment about how crap Raytheon Radars are - why don't you write to them and repeat your comments - I'm sure they will value your contribution.
Oh, and as to never asking advice - the team of controllers and engineers did a 5 week tour that included visiting radar sites or manufacturers in several USA locations, several UK locations, Italy, Spain, Finland, Sweden and Norway during the tender evaluation process..........
Yes - I said it before and I'll say it again - coming on here bleating about procedures etc and displaying your poor understanding of issues is NO WAY to achieve the changes you want - and you wonder why your are ignored or marginalised................
Please - do us all a favour
Give it a rest!
Goodbye
Last edited by scran; 28th Jan 2011 at 02:04.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Sydney
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
peuce - thanks for the measured and humerous response.
scran - that's a lot of vitriol, I am not sure what I did to deserve that ? I certainly did not put myself forward as an expert on ATC matters (I'm just a pilot), but I did support Dick's view of the world ! (OK, that was enough ?).
Dick - don't give in...25 years of effort should not be wasted !
The Chaser - the "point" is that Dick won't give in, and nor should he.
scran - that's a lot of vitriol, I am not sure what I did to deserve that ? I certainly did not put myself forward as an expert on ATC matters (I'm just a pilot), but I did support Dick's view of the world ! (OK, that was enough ?).
Dick - don't give in...25 years of effort should not be wasted !
The Chaser - the "point" is that Dick won't give in, and nor should he.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Arrrj:
I reckon the following line is why I reacted so:
"In Dick's defence I think that you are all missing the point."
To use your analogy: I've driven in several overseas countries - does that make me well qualified to talk about road rules?
Now, go back and read the whole thread...............................
I reckon the following line is why I reacted so:
"In Dick's defence I think that you are all missing the point."
To use your analogy: I've driven in several overseas countries - does that make me well qualified to talk about road rules?
Now, go back and read the whole thread...............................
Dick
For all your intelligence and experience, you appear to have become an unusually slow learner.
To get what you want, you only need 3 people on your side, but none of the three reads pprune.
Their surnames are Windsor, Katter and Oakeshott. Get them onside, and Julia will give you anything you want. Once she's seen the 'strength' of your argument, Julia will move Willytown, if that tickles your fancy.
There's no point arguing with the monkeys, Dick (especially when the monkeys can shoot your arguments down so easily). (Speaking of bad arguments, if orbitting in a single engine aircraft off Nobbys is so dangerous, V1 must be closed, now. And how many people died at Lockhart River, and what changed as a consequence?)
You need to convince the organ grinders, Dick. And the organ grinders are interested in only one thing: getting and staying in power. The merits of your arguments are relevant only to the extent that they impact on the organ grinders' interests. Bad news for you: Without Windsor, Katter and Oakeshot up your sleeve, your arguments about Willytown have zero impact on the organ grinders' interests.
For all your intelligence and experience, you appear to have become an unusually slow learner.
To get what you want, you only need 3 people on your side, but none of the three reads pprune.
Their surnames are Windsor, Katter and Oakeshott. Get them onside, and Julia will give you anything you want. Once she's seen the 'strength' of your argument, Julia will move Willytown, if that tickles your fancy.
There's no point arguing with the monkeys, Dick (especially when the monkeys can shoot your arguments down so easily). (Speaking of bad arguments, if orbitting in a single engine aircraft off Nobbys is so dangerous, V1 must be closed, now. And how many people died at Lockhart River, and what changed as a consequence?)
You need to convince the organ grinders, Dick. And the organ grinders are interested in only one thing: getting and staying in power. The merits of your arguments are relevant only to the extent that they impact on the organ grinders' interests. Bad news for you: Without Windsor, Katter and Oakeshot up your sleeve, your arguments about Willytown have zero impact on the organ grinders' interests.
I would have thought controllers would be supporting me on this, not abusing me.
What I am told is that the old analogue radar would allow target resolution (if we actually had the procedures promulgated), but the new digital radar isn’t as accurate so it won’t allow this.
Analogue returns are smeared out blobs so the inaccuracy of the return is inherently displayed by the physical size of the return on the screen.
With a digital return I can zoom my display in & out as I like & the radar symbol remains exactly the same number of pixels. I could zoom right in to a screen that's about 12 miles across. The radar symbol remains the same number of pixels. At that range you can see the returns do a drunkards walk a few tenths of a miles left & right of the nominal track. The radar symbol is giving no indication of the accuracy.
Pixels do not equal the same miles at arbitrary distances from radar heads & screen zooming.
Are you telling me you'd be happy for me to "target resolve" you (i.e. symbols not touching) with returns that are less than a tenth of a mile apart when they could be wandering by two or three tenths? What a shame the returns both jigged the wrong way & hadn't actually passed. "Sorry Mrs. Smith, targets were resolved".
Because that is what you're supporting.
Now that’s exactly what I am saying about the military. Whereas the rest of the world has moved from clappy old black-and-white television to colour television and now high definition with far greater accuracy and resolution, from what you are telling me the military has gone backwards.
Dick, airspace has exactly what to do with radar target resolution & your seeming inability to accept it can't be used on any digital radar system, military or otherwise?
The concrete has set alright....
Are you going to drop target resolution now?
The concrete has set alright....
Are you going to drop target resolution now?
Join Date: May 2009
Location: hot on the heels of worthy targets
Posts: 184
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A crude symbol depiction (without history trails) for illustration. Two fictitious aircraft.
1. HEL – VH-COK
2. BE20 – VH-AMB
Let's say for arguments sake, the screen range in each case below is 40nm (about right for most Approach functions)
Below, Raw radar (blobs), beacon control slash's (************) not touching = Target Res’
............. COK ............ ......AMB
....... ......./............... ........./
. ****[####]**** ****[####]****
. .... .......[.. . --- 3nm ---.. . ]
Below, same 'actual' distance apart, Synthetic Radar (modern) 3nm Separation.
......... .... COK.......... ....... AMB
............... /............ . ........ /
............ (+)............ ...... (+)
Below, how Target Res’ (not touching) would look if used with Synthetic display
........ .... COK AMB
........ ...... /... /
............ (+) (+)
............. [ -- ] = 4/5ths of nothing between (actual aircraft positions) on an Approach RADAR scale screen
Disk, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?, and why it would be a safety PROBLEM!!!!!!!
.... love yer work Creamie 
1. HEL – VH-COK
2. BE20 – VH-AMB
Let's say for arguments sake, the screen range in each case below is 40nm (about right for most Approach functions)
Below, Raw radar (blobs), beacon control slash's (************) not touching = Target Res’
............. COK ............ ......AMB
....... ......./............... ........./
. ****[####]**** ****[####]****
. .... .......[.. . --- 3nm ---.. . ]
Below, same 'actual' distance apart, Synthetic Radar (modern) 3nm Separation.
......... .... COK.......... ....... AMB
............... /............ . ........ /
............ (+)............ ...... (+)
Below, how Target Res’ (not touching) would look if used with Synthetic display
........ .... COK AMB
........ ...... /... /
............ (+) (+)
............. [ -- ] = 4/5ths of nothing between (actual aircraft positions) on an Approach RADAR scale screen
Disk, DO YOU SEE THE DIFFERENCE?, and why it would be a safety PROBLEM!!!!!!!
.... love yer work Creamie
Last edited by The Chaser; 28th Jan 2011 at 05:05. Reason: Raw RADAR - Blob clarity
