Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

ATCs can't have much to do if they can also do Flight Watch

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

ATCs can't have much to do if they can also do Flight Watch

Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:42
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It is a nonsense to even consider publishing Farmer Joe's strip on the charts - the clutter would be unacceptable.
Who has ever suggested that??

A strip would only be considered for publication if the traffic movements and therefore the associated chatter reached a level where it started to present a problem.

Exactly the same procedure as now, if the level of chatter on 126.7 at a strip reaches a level where it should be assigned a discrete CTAF.

buckshot1777 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 04:59
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Buckshot - AS it should be! Only registered, certified and military aerodromes have to be marked on charts. The rest are Aeroplane Landing Areas with no published construction or notification requirements. Some ALA such as Gunderoo are marked because the owners wish it to be so.
Roger Gove is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2015, 22:22
  #43 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,550
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this about losing Flightwatch facilities or the bastardisation frequency mess that is NAS?

Flightwatch is the last vestage of Flight Services left extant. Ten consoles in the BN TWR building is all there is. Any saving is purely savings on wages
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 06:45
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,993
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Oh the humanity.

Dick, you were the overseer of all this, and now 20 years later you come on here attacking it??? Please!

I know your hypocrisy knows no bounds, but really, this is beyond a joke.

The system worked beautifully for 40 years before you intervened. Now you are lambasting your own initiatives? Dick.
Hempy is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2015, 07:40
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,110
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I don't believe this has much to do with Dick, but is more about the hard liners in CASA and Industry that fight change no matter what!

FS in its day was excellent, but at what cost? It became obvious in the later '80's that it was a luxury we could no longer afford and change had to occur. There is no going back now, some 25 yrs later.

Yes there are still many changes on the table, some of which we might see. I don't think the debate on ADSB for IFR has even started yet...
triadic is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 07:30
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: YMML
Posts: 2,550
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
DTI was the holy grail. To get rid of FS, us punters had to be made to believe that ATC could do the FS job as well as their normal job because the new kit was so good.....didn't quite turn out that way

The best way was evolution...instead of super AFIZ verbal diahoria the powers that be should have shared the kit. TAAATS has a virtual track function that was never utilised in low level airspace. ATC could have kept their turf. FSOs could have rerated to enroute yet remain FSOs...may have come in handy for TIBA alleviation...moved to BN and ML looked after the same turf.

The big plus that was never looked at. If FSOs activated GA VFR flightplans within TAAATS would activate a virtual track....back to DTI...IFR is still FPR...back then, that is. IFR track is updated. VFR track just keeps on plowing on unhindered unless there is about to be a conflict. FSO contacts the particular VFR for a position update and next ETA...reports IFR traffic to VFR, updates virtual track of VFR and then can report traffic to the IFR and OFFER VECTORS if required.

I still firmly believe this whole affair was a demarcation dispute. Thirty years wasted. Evolution from ATC/FS through to ADS-B. VFR could have kept dumb as long as they submitted a plan and reported any amendments and maintained a listening watch on area frequency. IFR would have received DTI and ATC could have kept to class C....well...I can dream of what might have been if someone had a bit more of a thought about what was really needed.
OZBUSDRIVER is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 08:15
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Melbourne, Vic
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
You are pretty much on the money, Oz, when you talk about a demarcation issue.
Some of the details are fuzzy cos it was nearly 30 years ago, but I remember when I worked in FS in Adelaide, a bunch of nerds turned up from Canberra talking about something they called a flight plan display. It was screen based and the concept was much like what turned out to be TAAATS. Some of us spent a day or so explaining what FS entailed and they went away happy. We sat back and waited to see this piece of kit turn up.
Meanwhile ATC got wind of this and the reaction was "no f..ing way are those smellies getting a screen display - that is ATC kit" Of course, ATCs and FSOs in Adelaide were barely on speaking terms, or at least there was a vocal section of both that promoted that situation so it was no surprise what eventuated.
Robbovic is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 08:35
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 4,722
Received 54 Likes on 30 Posts
I hope you're not suggesting that aviation safety regulation and air service arrangements in Australia are influenced by industrial relations and other political issues? Surely it's just about "safety".
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 11:26
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 54
Posts: 6,865
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Jamair. Are you suggesting all aircraft should get fitted with HF just so AsA can increase management bonuses by not having any VHF Flightwatch outlets. Once again moving the costs to the industry!
Not sure what Jam Jar was suggesting, but if the following happened, ALL of us would be happy including you;

1. ASA install VHF repeaters to give full coverage, and at the same time ADSB.
2. The fleet equip with ADSB unless they are VFR and free in G.
3. Happy with E to 700 AGL if the above is available to all IFR, and the ATC staff are given the tools and the numbers.

Jabawocky is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 12:09
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It was an affectionate term
The name is Porter is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2015, 13:59
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 59
Posts: 864
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi Jabba.

Wasn't suggesting anything actually. Just observing that the OP was commenting in what came across as a negative sense, on HF FW. AFAIK, everyone doing IFR in the GAFA has HF so cant see how this observation is suggesting moving costs anywhere. A listen on any of the HF freqs will show its pretty busy there a lot of the time, so it's probably unreasonable for this rooster to be speaking of ASA in the condescending manner that he did. I think ASA do a pretty good job, esp working HF which despite being 1930s tech, still works. Also probably unreasonable for him to try that same patronising whiny-arse bullshit with me. News flash sport, this is not usa. No-one is going to put radar or even ADSB out here where a lot of the light GA industry does its work. In fact, has ol mate DS got ANYTHING useful or positive to say about ANYTHING? Or is he just an expert on everything and if only the world / country / industry etc would listen to him everything would be just peachy.

Cheers Jabba, must catch up soon.
Jamair is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.