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.

Sheesh :rolleyes:

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. :ugh:

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

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.

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!:ugh:

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...:suspect:

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:hmm:

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.

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.

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". :rolleyes:

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.

Solved! :ok:

It was an affectionate term :D

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 bull**** 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.