I will ask again. Why was $6million plus of our industries money paid for a multilateration system if it can't be used by Melbourne Centre controllers to separate aircraft in the terminal area? Remember it's mandatory transponder for VFR in that Tasmanian C airspace. Surely not fair for VFR to have to spend that money when no service is provided.

Why can't the system be got working? If it requires one or two extra stations why not put them in? Who was responsible for this stuff up or does your organisation cover up all management incompetence. Must be good for morale.

I will keep exposing these issues until the truth is told . Fortunately it's still a Democracy with free speech provisions.

So now you're asking a totally different question to the OP? PPRune being filled with logical, technical types tends to answer the questions you ask and doesn't cope well with your media style attention seeking headline style. What could/should/can/does MLAT do? It's been done a million times before. Until you can prove ASA didn't get what they thought they were getting and prove if that was incompetence or criminal then give up. Extra stations at ML centre? At what cost for the bigger all traffic down there? If you want to save money for industry, put radar in at YBSU - procedural there costs time and money for s surprisingly busy GA airport.

As an aside, from memory, your night VFR guy needs GPS and/or NDB and/or VOR. If he can't fly a radial (or precise course) then he shouldn't be there.

Dick, we don't tell you how to fly your assorted aircraft, how about you stop trying to tell us how to separate aircraft when you clearly don't have a clue. A professional give you an honest answer but because you don't understand it you bash him. Or worse still because it doesn't fit with your agenda. You're a right charmer.

Only about 10 people have so far - very suspicious!

Why not listen to the Aussies who have already answered your question a number of times, though clearly not in the way you were after? Or find and read the AIC yourself, heaven forbid, or the information that must be available if an AIC was issued and subsequently superseded by the next AIP amendment.

Are you just ignoring statements like that, Dick? Go and read the AIP before coming out with more silliness like this:

You are a remarkably well informed aviation expert, aren't you? Again, read the bloody AIP and inform yourself rather than using this 'open mouth prior to engaging brain' approach.

You got that right.

Same claims over the past 20+ years, all answered and explained over and over by professionals and those qualified to comment but on it goes, now multiple threads and new ones every few days.

No, don't ask it again. You've asked your questions again and again and again - every answer you're given is not good enough. And then you just ask the same question again in a new thread.

Start your own airspace forum. Start legal action. Knock down the doors of parliament door if you really believe in it.
I and MANY OTHERS don't necessarily agree or disagree with what you are saying. Some of your causes we support. But it's just TOO MUCH.

You're just destroying PPrune Oz. Your ad nauseum repeats of the same thing over and over are pushing professional pilots away from this site. I'm not from CASA, I'm not from ATC, I'm not from the military, and I've never flown through Williamtown airspace. I just want PPrune's Australia sections returned to their former glory.

If you wish to respond to my post, I only want to respond to one thing - not your same old arguments about the same old ****. I want you to respond to why you think most professional Aussie pilots won't come here any more.

Dick, I cannot be 100% sure of every detail I am about to write, because I am a nobody of aviation (refer ABC Radio) and what would I know? And it is true I am not a guru of airspace by any means. Happy to talk engine monitors all day, but this stuff requires hard work and learning from those who do know it.

My recollection goes something like this. As I understand it (Don't quote me as I do not have documented proof - yeah I know I harp on about data all the time). Years ago AsA were looking at Surveillance technologies that might reduce the cost of roll out of Radar (very expensive) to enroute areas. (Remember the ADSB subsidy days) They decided to trial 'Wide Area' Multilat in a green fields site to test it's abilities and accuracy. Bare in mind at that time there were really no other Wide area systems in use (certified) anywhere else in the world. Tasmania was selected as Enroute traffic was increasing, and being done fully procedurally (Vic radar at high level runs out on the Tas north coast). The idea was that should it prove successful, CASA would approve it for enroute 5 Nm separation, and therefore provide a huge improvement to enroute traffic processing. It did and it was.

The system was designed to provide enroute high level coverage, it struggles sometimes low down with Mode A/C TXPDR aircraft as it was never spec'd for that. Yes it is possible to put in more ground stations to improve reliability down low but CASA would be reluctant to then approve its use for 3NM Sep (terminal area). 5NM is not enough in close in the Terminal Areae, plus you would realistically need radar also as a NON-dependent back up.

It was only after enroute approval that you made a big song and dance about the two jets in Launy in G (running late tower was closed), that enroute started doing CTA/R in to the tower airspace PROCEDURALLY). But of course, it is one in one out as they cannot use tower standards as they cannot see out Windows, and have no ability to control the surface aerodrome environment.

I remember something on the wireless about this….some others watching may too :E

Dick, just a few facts.

I have a NVFR rating and, in accordance with CASA CAAP, NVFR Rating, Section 3.2.1, I am REQUIRED to navigate by "visual navigation, augmented by the use of radio navigation aids".

Therefore, the controller will seperate me from IFRS exactly as he or she would in daytime Procedural Class C.

No magic here .....

So $6M to provide enroute coverage over Tasmania and beyond would appear to be good value compared to $30-50m for a couple of SSR facilities.

Interesting that it is claimed that $100M+ has been wasted on aviation reform attempts over the years - source para 7 here:

http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...ity-redux.html

Under The Radar - you said beautifully what I wanted to say.


Guys give up - Dick, you posted a question - it has been answered many many times here. But you are sooooo pigheaded. You will accept no-one else's views, just your own.


A VFR machine in class C is subject to ATC instructions, as simple as that. And those instructions have been explained many many times on this post. For God's sake, accept the expert ATC opinions on here.


And I can already see your next post coming - the Senior RAAF officer in Tassie, Wing Commander Stuffup, is ultimately to blame.


I for one would just once like to see you post "OK guys, I stand to be corrected. Thanks."

Peuce. From what I can see there is no CASA requirement for NVMC to have any nav aids

So how does this unique Australian system work if a no nav aid aircraft wants a clearance?

Of course I already know. " remain OCTA"

Also I bet you can't show me any other country in the world that has class C terminal airspace without radar.


Stupid other countries- they could save a fortune if they exploited their ATCs like AsA do.

He's back... already! :{

CAO 40.2.2

Took me 5 minutes to find it.

Next question?

You'll also find it in AIP GEN 1.5-5 and 1.5-6. To bring you right up to the 21st century, it hasn't been called NGT VMC for at least twenty years. It is NGT VFR.

Has for the last ….I dunno….long long time. ;)

Ireland....

Best to take off and nuke the entire site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

PDR

What airport in Ireland?

Waterford and Derry (technically in the North but under IAA control I believe) at least. Control zones are 25NM wide and controlled by the tower. Class C and Shannon Radar finishes at 5000' (actually FL050) or FL080 (can't remember which).

Derry is even more Australian/Tasmanian - it too has a railway on the undershoot of a runway - the Tower controls railway signals to protect RPT movements and prevents GA while trains are passing.

That would make the guy in the Tower the Fat Controller then?