TASSIE surveillance night ops
Night surveillance ops? Do you mean the usual practice of detecting indoor Marijuana growing by the heat signature? Heli pilot told me that they stand out like the proverbial on cold winter nights.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm referring to the supposed surveillance approach service being provided by non approach rated controllers using a deficient surveillance system and being restricted to only providing radar standards above A085 even tho the coverage goes almost to the ground... in most places. Not even close to what was fought for.
Another unique piece of airspace for Australia, bit like the corridor of special airspace between YMML and Mildura.
Bet those newspaper's and freight feel safe in the cargo hold of the AAE B737 going down to Tassie.
Bet those newspaper's and freight feel safe in the cargo hold of the AAE B737 going down to Tassie.
Roger - I understood you are providing an approach service when the Tower is off duty as required by the Minister's direction to Airservices.
Last time I heard it mentioned the WAM system still has to be approved for operations below 8500 feet, that altitude being the CASA approved lowest level for use as a separation tool. CASA also provided a dispensation to Airservices to allow en-route controllers to provide the service. (I assume you were trained)
I have no knowledge of Airservices' intentions however it would make sense, if not prohibitively expensive, to prove the accuracy of multi-lat below 8500, and when they have done that, allow you to use it.
Last time I heard it mentioned the WAM system still has to be approved for operations below 8500 feet, that altitude being the CASA approved lowest level for use as a separation tool. CASA also provided a dispensation to Airservices to allow en-route controllers to provide the service. (I assume you were trained)
I have no knowledge of Airservices' intentions however it would make sense, if not prohibitively expensive, to prove the accuracy of multi-lat below 8500, and when they have done that, allow you to use it.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question is the training. The approach service is being provided, but not by approach rated controllers. Due to the apparant low levels of traffic, AsA applied to CASA to use a pseudo approach course, not wanting to spend the money and time on a proper course.
Most of the controllers who have been trained are far from happy with what they got and their limited knowledge base.
What Dick pushed for was surveillance service to the ground. That is not what has been delivered. TASWAM hasn't been proven accurate below A085 because it simply isn't. Don't even ask about the holes in coverage above that level!
If we can't use surveillance below A085 (and without a major expansion to TASWAM or installation of a radar, that isn't going to happen), why not let the approach rated tower controllers, who ARE rated and experienced and are positioned locally do the job they do during the day?
Most of the controllers who have been trained are far from happy with what they got and their limited knowledge base.
What Dick pushed for was surveillance service to the ground. That is not what has been delivered. TASWAM hasn't been proven accurate below A085 because it simply isn't. Don't even ask about the holes in coverage above that level!
If we can't use surveillance below A085 (and without a major expansion to TASWAM or installation of a radar, that isn't going to happen), why not let the approach rated tower controllers, who ARE rated and experienced and are positioned locally do the job they do during the day?
