Amazing Spin by Airservices re. Lack of Radar in Tasmania
Dick Re #18
TASWAM was not intended to provide terminal surveillance at HB and LT.
It's main purpose was provide an en route and arrivals function, feeding to the procedural Class D towers. Generally, a reasonable plan. As I remember it, ASA decided to try and save some money on the installation by using fewer ground stations than recommended by the suppliers. You get what you pay for. Despite a common view, procedural approach at Class D towers works pretty well, especially as the controllers can monitor the display, for monitoring and adjusting sequences. Procedural control, Class D can often be more efficient and flexible than radar separation.
However, I agree that surveillance is overdue at places like these. ASA pays the government a handsome "dividend" every year. That dividend should be going to fund relevant infrastructure(such as surveillance), not general revenue.
The danger is that, ASA being a (ATC) Centre centric organisation, will be pushing for approach controllers based in Melbourne doing multiple approach functions, down to about 1500 ft, and handing over to tower for basically an aerodrome/circuit function. A better solution would be to train and rate the tower guys/gals on radar, and still retain enough vertical airspace (around 6000 ft) to be able to manage and integrate traffic. This is particularly important when you have a wide range of performance mix, from ultralights, to slow lighties, turboprops, jets, military, etc. HB also has CBG, how would the sep be done on radar with that? Very clumsily. Sadly, very few if any senior management have any experience in stuff like this.
You can guess what we'll get in a few years, bet it won't be HB/LT (i.e. tower) based.
TASWAM was not intended to provide terminal surveillance at HB and LT.
It's main purpose was provide an en route and arrivals function, feeding to the procedural Class D towers. Generally, a reasonable plan. As I remember it, ASA decided to try and save some money on the installation by using fewer ground stations than recommended by the suppliers. You get what you pay for. Despite a common view, procedural approach at Class D towers works pretty well, especially as the controllers can monitor the display, for monitoring and adjusting sequences. Procedural control, Class D can often be more efficient and flexible than radar separation.
However, I agree that surveillance is overdue at places like these. ASA pays the government a handsome "dividend" every year. That dividend should be going to fund relevant infrastructure(such as surveillance), not general revenue.
The danger is that, ASA being a (ATC) Centre centric organisation, will be pushing for approach controllers based in Melbourne doing multiple approach functions, down to about 1500 ft, and handing over to tower for basically an aerodrome/circuit function. A better solution would be to train and rate the tower guys/gals on radar, and still retain enough vertical airspace (around 6000 ft) to be able to manage and integrate traffic. This is particularly important when you have a wide range of performance mix, from ultralights, to slow lighties, turboprops, jets, military, etc. HB also has CBG, how would the sep be done on radar with that? Very clumsily. Sadly, very few if any senior management have any experience in stuff like this.
You can guess what we'll get in a few years, bet it won't be HB/LT (i.e. tower) based.
Last edited by growahead; 10th Jul 2015 at 03:48.
Thread Starter
GROWAHEAD - re your post #21 - at last the truth starts to come out.
First of all, your statement
Growahead, that is simply ridiculous! Can you give me one example of where it is more efficient?
It sounds as if the radar standards that are used by Airservices are probably as out-of-date as just about everything else in Airservices other than, perhaps, the ADS-B mandates.
I love your view that it’s a better solution to train tower controllers (who are not even there 24 hours per day) to do radar approach work rather than use people in the centre who are there 24-hours a day. This is classic resistance-to-change.
Surely you understand that over twenty years ago we decided to follow other leading aviation countries and have controllers who operate the low level enroute airspace to also do approach work. That is, we could start dropping the E airspace down to low levels at non-tower airports and give a superb separation service when IMC exists.
Of course, this has never happened. One of the reasons, I would imagine, is it means if you provide the service also to Class D towers it requires a certain amount of de-skilling – that is, the Class D tower controllers become VFR controllers as they are just about everywhere else in the world and the IFR separation duties are done from the centre.
And before you jump in and say we don’t have the radar coverage – that has nothing to do with it. In the USA, every single IFR approach is in a minimum of Class E airspace and 50% of the approaches have no radar coverage at the initial approach fix.
To train the tower controllers on radar would simply be ridiculous because they are not there 24-hours a day.
Growahead, I know your intentions are good but can you tell me if you have ever looked at how other modern aviation countries maximise the use of their radar and separation services for aircraft that are in IMC?
And OZBUSDRIVER – no, I’m not suggesting that you change Hobart and Launceston to Class C airspace. You would only need to do that if you stuck with the old Australian 1950s way of doing things. No-one can tell me that Aussie enroute controllers cannot be trained to do approach work - both procedural and radar - as happens in every other leading aviation country I know of.
First of all, your statement
Procedural control, Class D can often be more efficient and flexible than radar separation
It sounds as if the radar standards that are used by Airservices are probably as out-of-date as just about everything else in Airservices other than, perhaps, the ADS-B mandates.
I love your view that it’s a better solution to train tower controllers (who are not even there 24 hours per day) to do radar approach work rather than use people in the centre who are there 24-hours a day. This is classic resistance-to-change.
Surely you understand that over twenty years ago we decided to follow other leading aviation countries and have controllers who operate the low level enroute airspace to also do approach work. That is, we could start dropping the E airspace down to low levels at non-tower airports and give a superb separation service when IMC exists.
Of course, this has never happened. One of the reasons, I would imagine, is it means if you provide the service also to Class D towers it requires a certain amount of de-skilling – that is, the Class D tower controllers become VFR controllers as they are just about everywhere else in the world and the IFR separation duties are done from the centre.
And before you jump in and say we don’t have the radar coverage – that has nothing to do with it. In the USA, every single IFR approach is in a minimum of Class E airspace and 50% of the approaches have no radar coverage at the initial approach fix.
To train the tower controllers on radar would simply be ridiculous because they are not there 24-hours a day.
Growahead, I know your intentions are good but can you tell me if you have ever looked at how other modern aviation countries maximise the use of their radar and separation services for aircraft that are in IMC?
And OZBUSDRIVER – no, I’m not suggesting that you change Hobart and Launceston to Class C airspace. You would only need to do that if you stuck with the old Australian 1950s way of doing things. No-one can tell me that Aussie enroute controllers cannot be trained to do approach work - both procedural and radar - as happens in every other leading aviation country I know of.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 10th Jul 2015 at 05:35.
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: West of SY OZ
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
asa provides money
The industry does not want a dividend of it's money going to the government at the distinct dis-benefit of the aviation industry.
The dis-benefit could not be shown more clearly than in Edward's case as exposed by the Australian article.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
ASA pays the government a handsome "dividend" every year. That dividend should be going to fund relevant infrastructure(such as surveillance), not general revenue.
Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian
Dick,
1/ Class D, controllers can use profile separation, basically using judgement, vs 5 min ring.
2/ Ever heard of Visual separation? You can get aircraft much closer than a radar standard.
3/ Use of geographic features can allow acft to operate much closer than a 5 mile radar standard (or even a 3 mile approach radar).
There are other flexiblilties available to D towers that the radar towers can't use. I suggest you book a visit to Hobart for a couple of hours, watch and ask for explanations of how D really works in practice.
I have visited control centres and towers in a few overseas countries. I know that tower based radar services are used in many places. I know that US has some great practices, but equally, some not so good. Personally, for example, I don't like a landing clearance being issued when the runway is occupied. That one has gone wrong a few times.
US has many differences, which makes ADSB a far better option than trying to install radars everywhere in Australia.
IFR calling VFR, climbing through traffic, see and be seen, how often has that gone wrong? How many jets have been lost due to the pilots thinking they are visually self separated from VFR traffic?
How many times have pilots on this forum been given specific traffic in close proximity, and either never seen it, or seen it at the last minute, causing a bit of a shock? Be honest! See and be seen shouldn't be relied on, especially when it involves large capacity jets, or even turbo props.
From listening to tapes, watching videos, I'd also say that non standard phraseologies, and extremely rapid speech are among other features I don't like in the US system.
What we should be doing is taking the best from everywhere, not just cloning the US.
When centre gets the approach function, you will have someone who is swapping chairs frequently, multi skilling, or combining as it is known, to save money, and little local knowledge. But, centre mandarins will get another bonus, more underlings and a bigger empire. Good luck to you.
1/ Class D, controllers can use profile separation, basically using judgement, vs 5 min ring.
2/ Ever heard of Visual separation? You can get aircraft much closer than a radar standard.
3/ Use of geographic features can allow acft to operate much closer than a 5 mile radar standard (or even a 3 mile approach radar).
There are other flexiblilties available to D towers that the radar towers can't use. I suggest you book a visit to Hobart for a couple of hours, watch and ask for explanations of how D really works in practice.
I have visited control centres and towers in a few overseas countries. I know that tower based radar services are used in many places. I know that US has some great practices, but equally, some not so good. Personally, for example, I don't like a landing clearance being issued when the runway is occupied. That one has gone wrong a few times.
US has many differences, which makes ADSB a far better option than trying to install radars everywhere in Australia.
IFR calling VFR, climbing through traffic, see and be seen, how often has that gone wrong? How many jets have been lost due to the pilots thinking they are visually self separated from VFR traffic?
How many times have pilots on this forum been given specific traffic in close proximity, and either never seen it, or seen it at the last minute, causing a bit of a shock? Be honest! See and be seen shouldn't be relied on, especially when it involves large capacity jets, or even turbo props.
From listening to tapes, watching videos, I'd also say that non standard phraseologies, and extremely rapid speech are among other features I don't like in the US system.
What we should be doing is taking the best from everywhere, not just cloning the US.
When centre gets the approach function, you will have someone who is swapping chairs frequently, multi skilling, or combining as it is known, to save money, and little local knowledge. But, centre mandarins will get another bonus, more underlings and a bigger empire. Good luck to you.
Last edited by growahead; 10th Jul 2015 at 05:04.
Bottums Up
Growahead, that is simply ridiculous! Can you give me one example of where it is more efficient?
YMHB - Hobart. Not often MEL Approach will approve a late offer of a left circuit to facilitate a departure.
Thread Starter
Growahead
Don’t get me wrong – I think Class D towers are fantastic, especially Hobart. Some of the best movement of lots of traffic including helicopters I have seen anywhere in the world. I’d love to see those procedures used in another Class D tower in Australia but I won’t mention where because I might get delayed next time!
Yes, I have heard of visual separation of course, but how I understand the US system works is that if you are in IMC you remain with the centre controller who has the radar. The minute you are visual you go to the tower and the tower uses all of the visual techniques that we have in our Class D towers now – and more.
From my experience there are no Class D towers with tower-based radar services in the USA. Yes, places like Aspen have a small TRACON in a separate room in the tower and that gives a full approach service. However, what I am talking about is Class D towers offering visual separation and doing it in a really effective way and when IMC exists using the 24-hour controllers in the centre. From my experience it works superbly in the USA, however in Australia we have pilots changing to the tower frequency when they are in good radar coverage and in IMC. This seems ridiculous to me.
Re. the USA – yes, I am sure there are some things we do better. If you remember when I was CAA Chairman in 1990 I arranged for air traffic controllers to go to San Francisco and look at the systems there and then write a report. Many came back with lots of suggestions and lots of comments on what they thought the US does better and what we do better. My success in life is simply the result of going around the world and copying the best of each. If we could do that in aviation we would become leaders in the world.
I would love to see a really good multilateration system working in Tasmania that gives (as was planned) a radar-like surveillance service right to the runway. That is actually what was originally intended if you look at the old Airservices Annual Reports. If it needs a few more multilateration transceivers, let’s wack them in and get a really good service.
It only needs a minor error on the part of a pilot and the ground proximity system not working properly and we could have a classic controlled flight into terrain – say, an aircraft coming in from Flinders Island to Launceston over Mt Barrow.
They don’t swap chairs frequently in the USA – they use the enroute controller to do the approach work and it works superbly.
Don’t get me wrong – I think Class D towers are fantastic, especially Hobart. Some of the best movement of lots of traffic including helicopters I have seen anywhere in the world. I’d love to see those procedures used in another Class D tower in Australia but I won’t mention where because I might get delayed next time!
Yes, I have heard of visual separation of course, but how I understand the US system works is that if you are in IMC you remain with the centre controller who has the radar. The minute you are visual you go to the tower and the tower uses all of the visual techniques that we have in our Class D towers now – and more.
From my experience there are no Class D towers with tower-based radar services in the USA. Yes, places like Aspen have a small TRACON in a separate room in the tower and that gives a full approach service. However, what I am talking about is Class D towers offering visual separation and doing it in a really effective way and when IMC exists using the 24-hour controllers in the centre. From my experience it works superbly in the USA, however in Australia we have pilots changing to the tower frequency when they are in good radar coverage and in IMC. This seems ridiculous to me.
Re. the USA – yes, I am sure there are some things we do better. If you remember when I was CAA Chairman in 1990 I arranged for air traffic controllers to go to San Francisco and look at the systems there and then write a report. Many came back with lots of suggestions and lots of comments on what they thought the US does better and what we do better. My success in life is simply the result of going around the world and copying the best of each. If we could do that in aviation we would become leaders in the world.
I would love to see a really good multilateration system working in Tasmania that gives (as was planned) a radar-like surveillance service right to the runway. That is actually what was originally intended if you look at the old Airservices Annual Reports. If it needs a few more multilateration transceivers, let’s wack them in and get a really good service.
It only needs a minor error on the part of a pilot and the ground proximity system not working properly and we could have a classic controlled flight into terrain – say, an aircraft coming in from Flinders Island to Launceston over Mt Barrow.
They don’t swap chairs frequently in the USA – they use the enroute controller to do the approach work and it works superbly.
Thread Starter
And if you wish to rely less on see and avoid in Australia put in some lower class E airspace. This brings in a mandatory transponder requirement fo all aircraft so you get the double extra safety of mandatory radio and mandatory transponder so the TCAS will work.
Thread Starter
Growy. You state
" TASWAM was not intended to provide terminal survailance at HB and LT. "
Why wasn't it? It's completely against commonsense to spend $6 m on the latest form of Multilateration in Tasmania and then not use it for control purposes where the risks are highest- that is closer to the aerodrome .
Sounds to me more like a deal has been done to keep the local controllers with the maximum amount of airspace .
As a pilot I want to be under radar control when in IMC whenever possible because I know that will make my flight safer.
It's not logical that Airservices would spend so much of our industries money to provide a surveillance service for en route aircraft above 8000'. Where are they going? Antarctica?
I believe the people of Tasmania have been conned. I will do everything I can to get the equipment working properly and a proper surveillance service going. Hopefully before another accident like Lockhart River.
" TASWAM was not intended to provide terminal survailance at HB and LT. "
Why wasn't it? It's completely against commonsense to spend $6 m on the latest form of Multilateration in Tasmania and then not use it for control purposes where the risks are highest- that is closer to the aerodrome .
Sounds to me more like a deal has been done to keep the local controllers with the maximum amount of airspace .
As a pilot I want to be under radar control when in IMC whenever possible because I know that will make my flight safer.
It's not logical that Airservices would spend so much of our industries money to provide a surveillance service for en route aircraft above 8000'. Where are they going? Antarctica?
I believe the people of Tasmania have been conned. I will do everything I can to get the equipment working properly and a proper surveillance service going. Hopefully before another accident like Lockhart River.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately Dick unless we fix up our regulations first, there won't be any aviation left to use the airspace, only things flying will be the RAAF and RPT, no doubt flown by ex RAAF pilots, because nobody will be able to afford to learn to fly.
Originally Posted by Dick
And if you wish to rely less on see and avoid in Australia put in some lower class E airspace. This brings in a mandatory transponder requirement fo all aircraft so you get the double extra safety of mandatory radio and mandatory transponder so the TCAS will work.
Glad to see you have finally admitted that TCAS is an integral component of the safety of your Class E...because See and Avoid doesn't work!
Lookout? I'm a realist, Dick. If my passengers knew the primary method of preventing midair collisions was me looking out the window, they wouldn't be happy.
So how about answering the question? How does VFR "Continuous Two Way" work in Class E?
So how about answering the question? How does VFR "Continuous Two Way" work in Class E?
Dick Smith
I looked at some old Airservices Annual Reports, creative writing perhaps.
Annual Report 2010-2011
Not entirely sure what is meant by surveillance approaches, open to debate, interpretation and mis-interpretation.
Annual Report 2009-2010
En route surveillance and radar-like coverage down to the surface at Hobart. Whilst this is true, the statement is silent on who would be providing the service, Centre vs Tower. Once again, open to debate, interpretation and mis-interpretation.
Airservices is very Centre-centric, two major centres - that is where the $ are earnt (en route charges), Towers have been the poor cousins, in fact for a number of years the Towers were a separate business unit (to the rest of the ATC Group). As I recall, they had been set-up as a separate business unit (Airport Services - Towers and ARFF) as there were indications that the Towers and ARFF could be sold to the highest bidder (Serco, DSE et al) or at the very least "Airport Services" would be contestable. It didn’t happen but there was a huge and expensive divide that needed to be repaired and during the "lost years" there was very little spent on the Towers.
Going from TSAT (the Tower Situational Awareness Tool) to CASR Part 171&172 compliant radar displays in all Towers wouldn’t be cheap. I guess INTAS (Integrated Tower Automation Suite) will deliver that technology but a retro-fit into all existing Towers will be a long and painful process.
Annual Report 2004–2005
Annual Report 2005–2006
The above two quotes highlight that ADSB has been discussed in the Airservices Annual Reports for more than a decade.
I would love to see a really good multilateration system working in Tasmania that gives (as was planned) a radar-like surveillance service right to the runway. That is actually what was originally intended if you look at the old Airservices Annual Reports. If it needs a few more multilateration transceivers, let’s wack them in and get a really good service.
Annual Report 2010-2011
Airservices also introduced the first phase of surveillance approaches to Launceston and Hobart airports in June 2011. These enhanced air traffic control services build on the introduction of advanced air traffic control surveillance technology known as Wide Area Multilateration (WAM), which was commissioned in Tasmania in June 2010.
Annual Report 2009-2010
In June 2010, Airservices commissioned Australia’s first Wide Area Multilateration (WAM) radar system in Tasmania. The $6 million system is one of the largest geographical deployments of WAM in the world. The system provides enhanced en route surveillance of air traffic across Tasmania and radar-like coverage down to the surface at Hobart. The same technology will be deployed in Sydney later in 2010 to enhance parallel runway operations.
Airservices is very Centre-centric, two major centres - that is where the $ are earnt (en route charges), Towers have been the poor cousins, in fact for a number of years the Towers were a separate business unit (to the rest of the ATC Group). As I recall, they had been set-up as a separate business unit (Airport Services - Towers and ARFF) as there were indications that the Towers and ARFF could be sold to the highest bidder (Serco, DSE et al) or at the very least "Airport Services" would be contestable. It didn’t happen but there was a huge and expensive divide that needed to be repaired and during the "lost years" there was very little spent on the Towers.
Going from TSAT (the Tower Situational Awareness Tool) to CASR Part 171&172 compliant radar displays in all Towers wouldn’t be cheap. I guess INTAS (Integrated Tower Automation Suite) will deliver that technology but a retro-fit into all existing Towers will be a long and painful process.
Annual Report 2004–2005
During the year, we began setting up Australia’s network of Automatic Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS–B) ground stations. When the network is complete early in 2006, ADS–B will allow high quality surveillance of suitably equipped aircraft in upper airspace (above 30,000 feet) over the entire continent.
We are working with the industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) towards mandatory ADS–B in certain airspace from 2009. CASA published a regulatory change discussion paper for comment late in 2004, and a notice of proposed rule making is expected in 2006. With ASTRA and Access Economics, we developed a cross-industry business case and cost–benefit analysis for mandatory ADS–B in Australia, changes to navigation equipment of smaller aircraft and extended comprehensive surveillance coverage. Subject to government consideration, this could extend ADS-B into lower airspace.
CASA has approved a five nautical mile separation standard for aircraft operating in the Burnett Basin trial whose positions are derived from ADS–B. This is a significant milestone in our objective to introduce ADS–B surveillance nationally.
We are working with the industry and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) towards mandatory ADS–B in certain airspace from 2009. CASA published a regulatory change discussion paper for comment late in 2004, and a notice of proposed rule making is expected in 2006. With ASTRA and Access Economics, we developed a cross-industry business case and cost–benefit analysis for mandatory ADS–B in Australia, changes to navigation equipment of smaller aircraft and extended comprehensive surveillance coverage. Subject to government consideration, this could extend ADS-B into lower airspace.
CASA has approved a five nautical mile separation standard for aircraft operating in the Burnett Basin trial whose positions are derived from ADS–B. This is a significant milestone in our objective to introduce ADS–B surveillance nationally.
During the year, Airservices continued the introduction of ADS–B aircraft surveillance technology, with five of 28 ground stations commissioned.
ADS–B technology provides:
• low-cost air traffic control that can replace en route radars and allow surveillance to be provided where there is none today
• for pilots, the ability to be aware of nearby air traffic, which reduces risk
• base upon which advanced air-to-air applications can be built, improving efficiency and safety.
ADS–B is an enabler for the future of air traffic management worldwide and will allow air traffic controllers to provide more efficient separation services to suitably equipped aircraft in upper airspace (above 30,000 feet).
After successful trials during the year in the Burnett Basin in Queensland, four new ADS–B stations came on line in June 2006 at Longreach, Bourke, Esperance and Woomera.
The introduction of ADS–B for lower airspace, in lieu of en route radars, is now the subject of consultation with the aviation industry and the government to consider the likely costs involved, the timeframe for introduction and the possible phasing of implementation.
ADS–B technology provides:
• low-cost air traffic control that can replace en route radars and allow surveillance to be provided where there is none today
• for pilots, the ability to be aware of nearby air traffic, which reduces risk
• base upon which advanced air-to-air applications can be built, improving efficiency and safety.
ADS–B is an enabler for the future of air traffic management worldwide and will allow air traffic controllers to provide more efficient separation services to suitably equipped aircraft in upper airspace (above 30,000 feet).
After successful trials during the year in the Burnett Basin in Queensland, four new ADS–B stations came on line in June 2006 at Longreach, Bourke, Esperance and Woomera.
The introduction of ADS–B for lower airspace, in lieu of en route radars, is now the subject of consultation with the aviation industry and the government to consider the likely costs involved, the timeframe for introduction and the possible phasing of implementation.
Last edited by sunnySA; 11th Jul 2015 at 00:15. Reason: [
So how about answering the question? How does VFR "Continuous Two Way" work in Class E?
Thread Starter
I simply don't understand the question. Under ICAO there is no mandatory radio requirement for VFR in E ,F or G.
It will work like the way it does in the USA. Canada and. Europe.
But safer because we have a mandatory transponder requirement for VFR in all E. And far lower traffic density.
Advocate " and radar like coverage down to the ground at Hobart". So why is AsA claiming it was never planned to work below 6000'? I know. They are not telling the truth.!
I hope I can get some support in getting that Tassie system to work as planned. Will make these places safer without doubt.
It will work like the way it does in the USA. Canada and. Europe.
But safer because we have a mandatory transponder requirement for VFR in all E. And far lower traffic density.
Advocate " and radar like coverage down to the ground at Hobart". So why is AsA claiming it was never planned to work below 6000'? I know. They are not telling the truth.!
I hope I can get some support in getting that Tassie system to work as planned. Will make these places safer without doubt.
Somebody give me a slapping... 
Dick, a few posts back you said:
(my bolding)
and now you're saying
Are you serious? Are you saying that you really don't understand how to use the radio in Class E works here, the airspace you should be an expert in and which you are making so much noise about?
As an aside, ICAO needs it's head read if it thinks No-Radio should be mixing it with RPT jets in CTAFs. Or do you, Dick, think that ICAO assumes that RPT jets would always be operating in controlled airspace ie Class D, and would you support that for all of our RPT jet airfields in the regions?
Done your CBA on that?
Dick, a few posts back you said:
Originally Posted by Dick
put in some lower class E airspace. This brings in a mandatory transponder requirement fo all aircraft so you get the double extra safety of mandatory radio
and now you're saying
Originally Posted by Dick
I simply don't understand the question. Under ICAO there is no mandatory radio requirement for VFR in E ,F or G.
As an aside, ICAO needs it's head read if it thinks No-Radio should be mixing it with RPT jets in CTAFs. Or do you, Dick, think that ICAO assumes that RPT jets would always be operating in controlled airspace ie Class D, and would you support that for all of our RPT jet airfields in the regions?
I hope I can get some support in getting that Tassie system to work as planned. Will make these places safer without doubt.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well according to Rupert's weekend rag we are all about to get the US system. Airspace that is, not regulations. Yes, it must be true, its on page 1, "Radical overhaul to deliver safer skies". All supposedly revealed to the rag by Jeff Boyd.
If true, if implemented and if it works like it says on the box we will have safer skies for less and less traffic. Those who are flying will be paying more (c'mon, the cost of all this has to be recovered you know) for the privilege of having controlled airspace down to an instrument approach.
What is so completely funny is that Rupert's rag is claiming the credit for their sustained campaign, along with several notable aviation figures (yes, you know who).
Without regulatory reform the rot will continue. Period.
If true, if implemented and if it works like it says on the box we will have safer skies for less and less traffic. Those who are flying will be paying more (c'mon, the cost of all this has to be recovered you know) for the privilege of having controlled airspace down to an instrument approach.
What is so completely funny is that Rupert's rag is claiming the credit for their sustained campaign, along with several notable aviation figures (yes, you know who).
Without regulatory reform the rot will continue. Period.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My interpretation of Mr. Boyd's comments is that he is an astute fellow, saying exactly what you would expect i.e. we'll look in to things (lowering CTA, ADS-B equipage, UNICOM etc. etc.) and on a case by case basis make a call what is appropriate or not.
All that is entirely appropriate for the regulator, and what they have been doing anyway with their aeronautical studies.
All that is entirely appropriate for the regulator, and what they have been doing anyway with their aeronautical studies.