Radar rated controllers in Tasmania?
 

We all know that with the radar head at Launceston Airport, a radar approach or terminal service is not given by the Launceston Tower because the controllers are not radar rated.

However, here is another query. Is the enroute airspace which is covered by radar over Tasmania “controlled” by radar rated controllers? That is, in good radar coverage, is the airspace treated as procedural or is it treated as radar covered, with properly radar rated controllers?

Dick,

Operating for one of the majors, when we descend into YMLT or YMHB, the controller says something along the lines of "radar services or identification terminated", so I have always thought that up to that point, the service is provided by Melbourne Centre rated radar controllers in radar airspace.

Opposite applies departing these ports.

Hope I'm right with this, otherwise I have got it wrong.

It looks like a typical loaded question, and you had to have read hundreds of your other posts to get what you are on about, but I will answer it anyway.

Melbourne Center provides an enroute radar service over Tasmania using the un-duplicated portable radar that seems now permanently in place at Launy. It provides coverage down to ground level at Launy and about 9000 FT for arrivals via CLARK into Hobart.

Services in the terminal area below 8,500 FT are provided from the towers. They have a TSAD radar display, which they use for situational awareness, not to provide a radar service. The Tower controllers are suitably trained and endorsed to provide a procedural approach service, the radar controllers are not suitably trained or endorsed to provide a radar approach service.

I don't work that sector any more, so I don't know what is planned for when the multilaterator comes on line this year.

In summary, to answer the question you asked literally, yes. To answer the question I believe you think you asked, no.

Spodman, it is still not clear but thanks for the assistance. If the radar service is to ground level at Launceston, why isn’t the Launceston airspace only to 4,500 feet, and the Centre “controls” the airspace above – as per the situation at Coffs Harbour?

Basically what I am saying is that at other Class D towers, we maximise the use of radar when it is available. Why don’t we do this at Launy?

It's already been said Dick, but here it is again...

• To provide a Radar Approach Service, you have to be trained and rated to do so
• Neither the Enroute Controllers above, nor the Tower Controllers below, are so trained or rated
• To train and rate them requires a real Need, Cash, Spare Controllers & Spare Instructors
• I dare say, not a lot of any of the above is available.

I'd also suggest that the same airspace has been kept just in case the radar gets transported somewhere else and they have to go back to mainly non-radar. The time and resources needed to change all the airspace, documentation and TAAATS data sets would be wasted if they pulled the pin on the Launny radar. I speak under correction, but Coffs airspace has been that way for a while and is serviced by permanent radar facilities.

Cheers,

NFR.

You are as easily read as a children’s book after all these years!
.
Spod is correct, also if you are fair dinkum (which you are not, because you have asked and had answered all of these issues previously):-
.
- look at the coordination differences between A085 and A045 TWR/APP's
- look at how many towers the overlying sector have to coord with
- look at the real differences in tactical traffic management
- look at the comparison between TSAD assisted Procedural D/C verses Surveillance Enroute in the close in TMA .... if you think you can do the latter more safely and efficiently .... you are as usual talking outa ya cloacae!!
.
But this is not about airspace is it because you know all these things already, this is about trying to start a bushfire away from the real crime scene (so to speak) … aren’t you? :=

Lads I do not think Captain Dick has made his point yet, he is tea spooning his enormous wisdom to the numb-skull professionals who infest his playground.

It would save Captain Dick much if the radar was turned off permanently and all of Boganville Island was declared Class G. At the very least make the radar solar powered and pass the savings to our GA Genius.

Eh D.N.S we are moving a bit more than nothing down here nowadays .... if we were to add HB, BASS and LT traffic together ... you get the picture .. with greatest amount of respect! :p
.
Besides, once we go solid state, you are welcome to that heap of sh!t :}
.
W.E.K ..... :} ..... :E .... solar powered :ooh: .. now that will have the Green movement all slippery inside :D

Spodman


Does anyone else see the stupidity of the current situation? As Spodman points out the radar coverage at Launceston is down to the ground yet the industry is forced to pay for an expensive radar that is not used below 8500ft AGL where it is needed the most.

Peuce you say

The parliament approved NAS would account for these expenses had it been allowed to be implemented. Can we assume that you would support class E surrounding smaller Class D boundaries should these costs be met in the future?

Scurvy D Dog you say


Open your mind. You must really believe that these operational issues have absolutely no solution. The US can provide class D airspace (radar and non radar) to 2500ft. Surely we can learn from them and provide it to 4500ft and let Centre 'control' the surrounding airspace.

Hello mj :E Open your mind mate, and stop following the blind religion of the Oracle .. or should that be The Oreo :}
.
If ATS experts (in the literal sense) can prove that it can be done safer, cheaper, and most relevantly, more expeditiously (because that costs the Kero-burners big time), with all the appraopriate factors taken into account such as traffic levels … then go your hardest! :ok:

mjbow2: No one said that the radar wasn't being used below A085 - ATC just says that your radar control is terminated. You are still getting a control service to the ground from LT TWR and the aircraft is still identified by the sector controller. It's just the person in the tower doesn't have a radar rating. Outside tower hours the sector controller can still see them descend in Class G and uses it just fine to provide a traffic service.

The situation is not ideal, granted, but with the current staff shortages, AsA don't have the time or resources to dedicate to a rewrite of airspace and procedures, as well as maps and radar datasets. Give AsA the controllers and radar/ADS-B and they can give you radar/CTA to the deck. It's just a dollars thing......and the fact that a good percentage of the workforce are overseas now.

Cheers,

NFR.

With respect N.F.R It is pretty close to ideal!
.
If CTAF (with AWIS on the VOR) between 10pm local and 6am local is an issue (which it is not), we just need doggos and another bod or two .... that verses a whole Approach cell of bod's 24/7 .. which will do what better than the present arrangement ;)
.
In the nicest possible way of course :}

Scurv, by saying 'not ideal' what I meant was wouldn't it be good to have the time and resources to do CTA to the deck 24/7 in various places around Oz. Clearly we don't. The guys and gals in BASS/TAS/HUON (or whatever they are called this week) and the LT TWR staff do a fantastic job - I used to sit next to them!

Respectfully,

NFR......

Interesting comment by SDD about the kero burners.

Question springs to mind - have any of them complained about the current - to TWR or RAPAC?

In fact in our case, with the ability to streamline traffic management with 'surveillance assist' (rather than being hamstrung by it), the feedback is the exact opposite!! :ok:
.
N.F.R :ok:

Mjbow2 is 100% correct when he states

Isn’t it amazing? One day an airline aircraft could spear into Mount Barrow because the radar is not being used correctly.

When the Government decided to support NAS, it included the support of increasing the amount of controlled airspace where air traffic controllers would be employed to actually control aircraft, and to maximise the use of radar.

We have already had 6 people die at Benalla – where the radar was not used to its full effectiveness. Do we wait for an airline to crash in Tasmania or Proserpine before we actually use the radar as it is used in other leading aviation countries?

If the system was operated properly, and if the radar service was provided from the Melbourne Centre, the cost would be very small for each passenger in a kero-burner – to use Scurvy D. Dog’s words.

Then again, around the world pilots have resisted change until hundreds of people are killed, and then the changes are made. Just look at Guam, Kathmandu, and Dallas Fort Worth.

.
Keep it up Oreo, you are helping out nicely :ok:
.
So, did you delete the other thread?? .... you know the Airservices cans ADS-B subsidy – no announcement thread :E

Dick,

The answers to your questions are simple:

Step 1:

As Scurvy said .... Is there a problem to start with? Do the pilots and operators who fly into Launy have a problem with the procedures?

Step 2:

As NFR said ... If there is a problem, lets have a Cost Benefit Analysis of the possible solutions ... including assessment of procedures, equipment, staffing, training, pilot education, costs etc


Living in the past and basing all future decisions on .. " .. the Government decided to support NAS ... " is quite futile ... we have all moved on.

Peuce, you state

You don’t seem to understand resistance to change. For example, look at the Benalla accident. When details were posted on how the radar was not used to advise the pilot that he was at least 1,000 feet below the legal lowest safe altitude, posters came on this site basically blaming the pilot.

That is, if pilots operated perfectly and did not make errors, there would be no need for the radar service to be improved at places like Benalla, Launceston and Proserpine. The problem is that pilots are human, and devices such as the Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System can be unreliable.

The only reason the USA and other leading aviation countries have airlines flying in controlled airspace when under radar coverage is because past accidents have shown that this is a way of improving safety.

You only have to look at the Flight Safety International paper on CFIT accidents to see that radar and air traffic control are given the greatest number of points as safety mitigators.

Are we to wait for a controlled flight into terrain accident similar to the one that nearly happened at Canberra (see here) before we actually use the radar that we have already paid for?

I agree that using the radar for traffic advice has some advantages over not using it at all, however why not use it as it is designed? That is, with proper radar rated controllers that can not only provide a traffic separation service, but in some cases prevent a CFIT. You only have to look at what has happened in Cairns – where CFIT accidents have been prevented by air traffic control a number of times.