How does Melbourne Centre do the Impossible at Hobart?
VFR are required to contact Avalon approach to transit class E.
Reluctant to stick an oar in here but some points from this preliminary report are relevant to this discussions going on at the moment I think.
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...15FA259A&rpt=p
IFR, VFR mid-air, within radar coverage, in VMC, VFR aircraft not mandated to call ATC.
No system is infallible. (Not even TAWS!)
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.av...15FA259A&rpt=p
IFR, VFR mid-air, within radar coverage, in VMC, VFR aircraft not mandated to call ATC.
For the duration of its flight, the pilot of the Cessna did not contact CHS approach control, nor was he required to do so.
Further, Dick Smith and Leadsled have been uncharacteristically quiet on my oft-proposed scenario of an uncontrolled lighty swanning around in terminal E airpsace, mixing it with A380s. Perhaps they think that that isn't a bad idea...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, who would have thought. WAM for the YSSY PRM has been failing regularly but at least they have primary and secondary radar backup whereas Dick wanted to use a very similar system in Hobart for enroute controllers to provide some sort of terminal service with no radar backup. Procedural control may be slower but it doesn't fail.
Thread Starter
Does WAM work anywhere else in the world as a stand alone certified system for Terminal airspace?
Is it just in Aus that it doesn't work properly? Could the failure be caused by too many negative thought waves?
And I just wanted to know why $6 m of our industries money should be wasted- re Tasmania.
Is it just in Aus that it doesn't work properly? Could the failure be caused by too many negative thought waves?
And I just wanted to know why $6 m of our industries money should be wasted- re Tasmania.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 2nd May 2016 at 10:54.
Thread Starter
Yes it was to provide surveillance to the ground at Launy and Hobart if you believe the suppliers media statements.
Why wouldn't you want such a service if spending $6 m?
There is no measurable collision risk above 6000' in Tasmania so procedural is ok.
Why wouldn't you want such a service if spending $6 m?
There is no measurable collision risk above 6000' in Tasmania so procedural is ok.
Those who operated into LST last night with 40kt+ winds and aircraft having to be parallel parked on the apron, got to witness a very professional display by an ATC coordinating ground operations and managing to separate several aircraft doing ILSs. The safety officer also did a sterling job. New equipment would not have made much difference.
