Outrageous and unsafe ADS-B non-use in the J curve by Airservices
 

I have started a new thread on this as it is a very important issue, and quite separate to just Tasmania.

On the thread "Dick vs ADS-B vs ASA vs CASA vs Cambridge in bad wx", Mr Approach (no doubt someone informed) has made the most extraordinary revelations in post #37. Here is the first one:

Then most importantly (and most disappointingly), he states:

Can you believe this? With Airservices probably spending over $100 million, and with the claimed $30 million to be spent by GA on ADS-B, they are not actually using it where it is most useful for safety.

Everyone knows that the provision of ADS-B over the remote area above FL290 was mainly ego driven, so Airservices could tell the world that they had covered Australia. Of course, the risk there was non-existent. With so little traffic, everyone on full position reporting operating IFR under a clearance, and the best TCAS equipment, there was simply an imperceptibly small chance of a mid-air.

It was considered by most that when the ADS-B was fitted – especially within the J curve – that this would then be used to improve safety. CASA (under Airservices’ direction) has mandated the most expensive form of GPS to make sure that the ADS-B signal is accurate to within 20 or 30 metres.

However we now read that in fact it can only be used for 5 nautical mile separation. This can only be because Airservices has saved money by not updating the terminal equipment. This is simply outrageous. It is clear that the risk is greatest in the terminal area – not only for air to air collision (which admittedly is small) but more importantly for a controlled flight into terrain.

We have seen Airservices force the most draconian and expensive ADS-B requirements on the GA industry, including the existing mandate for all commercial aircraft flying in cloud. No other country yet has such a restrictive and expensive mandate. Yet, as stated above, they don’t even use the system to provide a service.

It sounds to me as if the whole issue is industrial. That is, industrial resistance to change by the air traffic controllers has resulted in a system where our aircraft are fitted with some of the best ADS-B transceivers in the world, but they are not actually used in the J curve in Australia to help prevent accidents.

Yes, it does require a deal with the air traffic controllers. Clearly the ones in the Class D towers need to be de-skilled and just concentrate on the circuit area and the surface, whilst the enroute controllers of the airspace above need to be trained to do approach work as they do everywhere else in the world.

The cost of having an approach cell (as we do now) for every Class D airport in Australia would be ridiculous, and that is clearly why we don’t provide the service. If other countries such as the USA can train air traffic controllers to do both enroute and approach work, there is no reason why it can’t be done here.

This is clearly a repeat of what I mentioned on page 39 of Two Years in the Aviation Hall of Doom, where the ABC could not change over from film to electronic camera equipment, because of an industrial dispute and pathetic management within the organisation. See page 39 here.

Back in 1990, when I was Chairman of the CAA, we solved the ridiculous problem of Civil Air insisting that we have highly paid air traffic controllers working as operational controllers. We did it by paying them out with lots of money. That is what clearly needs to be done here.

The fact that they don’t even provide a service at Ballina down to the limits of surveillance just shows how pathetic the leadership is.

I will presume we will end up with deaths before anything is done. I will say here, what a ridiculous waste to have in Australia the best and most accurate ADS-B equipment in aircraft in the world, but not actually use it in approach airspace. It is completely irresponsible.

If I was an air traffic controller involved in stopping these more modern changes, I would feel very embarrassed.

Everyone knows that the provision of ADS-B over the remote area above FL290 was mainly ego driven, so Airservices could tell the world that they had covered Australia. Of course, the risk there was non-existent. With so little traffic, everyone on full position reporting operating IFR under a clearance, and the best TCAS equipment, there was simply an imperceptibly small chance of a mid-air.

Dick you are making up "facts" here to support a bad argument. The remote areas you mention are overflown by numerous aircraft above FL290. Just about everything to and from Asia goes this way. A look at Plane Finder a short time ago sowed around fifty aircraft there and that's in a quiet time. ADS-B which gives on screen surveillance has allowed separation to be reduced from the large time and distance standards to five miles. Add RVSM and flexible tracking to this and there have been large savings in distance, time and fuel. When I was in Alice Tower in the 80s, the enroute controlled in AS TWR controlled 200nm radius up to FL400. With the improved surveillance and communication, Alice now has a Class D tower 15 DME radius up to 4500.

You say that ADS-B should be used by Class D tower controllers. This was covered in your Tasmanian posts. Take Broome. There is a single ADS-B station there. One is not enough to guarantee surveillance if it fails. At high level, there is more coverage. Who would foot the bill th install extra stations n the Broome area? A similar situation exists in Hobart. The five versus three mile separation was also explained. The processors for the Tasmanian ADS-B sites are in Melbourne. This causes latency problems if trying to use three miles in the HB TMA.

You have often said that you are attacking the system and not the controllers but you have included the following:
That is, industrial resistance to change by the air traffic controllers...

I have never said that the ADSB should be used by the class D tower controllers

Totally the opposite. The airspace when IMC exists should be the responsibility of the centre controller with the survailence rating and the equipment .

That's how it works in leading aviation countries

Total rubbish about needing multiple stations. In many parts of Australia in the high level enroute airspace just one ADSB station at a time provides the full service

There is only one rotating radar head in Canberra. If it goes down there are procedures to cope. Same with ADSB

No Dick. There may only be one radar at CB airport itself for TAR but there will also be enroute coverage nearby. The same as ML has Gellibrand Hill and Mt Macedon. Adelaide TAR on the airport and MLF enroute.

Radar will continue to exist in the terminal areas at the Class C zones where a primary radar source is required to detect non transponder incursions of the CTR.

Dick _ I am pretty sure it is not industrial action, there would be no change to the employment of ATCs if ADS-B was available in Class C TMAs. It is purely a financial decision based on the availability of the new radars. Sure some money needs to be spent but it was spent to introduce multilateration to the Sydney area and certify the system for both 3NM separation and PRM operations.

As for operational control, as I recall the ATCs went quietly and calmly having been given VR because their jobs had been abolished. We now have operational control by companies, which pretty much devolves instantly to the pilots, and leaves us with two B737s diverting to Mildura when it was foggy. But that is a different thread...

To return to ADS-B, it is not the J-curve where the issues are. The J-curve does not need ADS-B, but it will one day when the current radars are phased out. The issue I think you are referring to is the mandating of expensive equipment for all IFR aircraft when some of those aircraft would never operate in controlled airspace or at least in airspace where ADS-B was not going to be used. CASA has gone some way to relieving that situation.

The question now is - if all of our IFR aircraft have ADS-B and there is substantial ADS-B coverage below FL290, why is it not being utilised to provide a service to everyone who had to buy the equipment? A single ADS-B unit can be augmented by more nearby, if there is a will. However do not forget that a farmer somewhere will want to be paid to have this bar fridge sized thing with a satellite dish attached surrounded by a fence in the middle of his favourite paddock! Currently I'm told they are all mounted on existing Airservices VHF outlet or other already owned towers. Someone has to pay.

To my mind the next achievable ideal state would be to first control all IFR aircraft where the terrestrial system is adequate, (Class E) and then have space based receivers looking into every nook and cranny of airspace downloading pictures to the ATC centres. The safety benefit will be to be able to have ATC separation of all IFR aircraft from each other, regardless of altitude, and also to assist similarlly equipped VFR aircraft if they need assistance. (If we were able to adopt the US UATS the VFR aircraft could also see each other) More is possible in the more distant future if autonomous aircraft are anything to go by, but one step at a time.

I must say it annoys me like nothing else, that as a skipper of a high capacity airliner, that it's 2017, and we are still lobbing into 'Capital cities' i.e. Hobart or large provincial cities like Launy, Mackay or Rocky that are still procedural. Either up your game ASA and put in the infrastructure that is required to operate a world class airspace or hand it over to someone that can.

There are no excuses. Radar. End of story. Spend the effing money. Train the people. Upgrade the god damn towers. Rant over. FFS! :ugh:

Hmmm... Lest we forget, I've been warning for many years now that terrorists will use GPS as a drone bomb guidance system. I have warned not to get totally reliant on GPS based systems. I have received much derision and abuse over this subject. Well, its here now...

ADS-B needs GPS to function. Terrorist bomb drones also use GPS to hit their targets. The escalating abilitys of the terrorist drone makers means it wont be long now before there is a major drone bomb incident in Australia. At this time there is no real way to stop GPS guided terrorist bomb drones except to scramble fighter jets at a million plus dollars per drone shot-down, or, turn off GPS.... turn off GPS and what are all those ADS-B reliant users going to do ?

Israel now has a bit of experience with terrorist drones and with the best airforce on the planet they still don't know what to do about the problem. And it will only get worse...
"... In recent years, several Iranian-made drones sent by Hezbollah and Hamas managed to infiltrate Israeli territory with impunity. Meanwhile, the Defense Ministry..." continues - Ynetnews News - The Defense Ministry's failed handling of Hezbollah drone threat


The terrorists are getting into this drone warfare in a big way...
"...Handwritten notes instructed ISIS drone operators to write daily “mission reports” and monthly reports “about the challenges and difficulties you face as well.”
All the accounts were headed “board of development and military manufacturing,”..." https://worldisraelnews.com/isis-usi...icide-bombers/


"...In a new threat to the West, the Islamic State on Tuesday debuted on social media a commercially available drone dropping small bombs with pinpoint accuracy onto Iraqi targets in and around Mosul.
The new capability raises the specter that the Islamic State one day could attack urban areas from the air, not just on the ground. The U.S. military is alarmed by the terrorist army’s quick technological advances..." ISIS drone dropping precision bombs alarms U.S. military - Washington Times


Meanwhile, just north of Australia, the terrorists are recruiting potential drone bomb experts...
"... Counter-terror chief Suhardi Alius said the group of returnees included several graduates, including physics and IT specialists... these well-educated people are also inspired,..." ...interesting that Inspire is also the name of a terrorist magazine. Indonesia 'deradicalising' 75 people deported from Turkey over Islamic State links - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


Until such time as there is a viable anti-terrorist drone defence we should retain all radars and non GPS nav aids... what's left of them at any rate..:hmm:







.

Industrial action? Really?!? To what end? How? Why do the peanuts always blame systemic problems on industrial action?

Affordable safety Dick, affordable safety. The beancounters are the ones in charge - go and ask them. The only thing outrageous are your accusations.

Before we all go chasing rabbits when we should be looking for foxes
 

As Ron Cooper (COCFS) once told me, "It is very hard to argue with someone who is unencumbered with a basic knowledge of the facts."

Let me restate an earlier post in the other thread on this topic.

It is a pity this discussion will likely continue for several days with uninformed input from most posters. And it is also a pity the reporter was also not properly informed.

Both deficiencies would be remedied if someone (perhaps the regulatory agency) commissioned a report from a multi disciplinary group of experts on the safety benefit of surveillance in airspace. Such report should include a tutorial on the various surveillance technologies and be peer reviewed.

The report could then be published so that important discussions such as this could continue on an informed basis. Perhaps then we would see a mutually beneficial result and not nitpicking and personal attacks.



Oh... I understand CASA commissioned such a report some years ago. Perhaps it could be updated and the updated version made available. In the meantime does anyone have a link to the original report?

Gne

Let me give you a scenario of a typical next fatal accident.

A Piper Navajo has been chartered to take 7 passengers from Narrabri to Coffs Harbour. On descent into Coffs Harbour, the pilot makes a simple error and descends on the normal 3 degree glideslope to the aerodrome, forgetting about the mountain ridge – possibly distracted by a sick passenger.

He is on an IFR flight plan and paying full IFR enroute charges. The Navajo has required an expensive ADS-B unit to be fitted. But does that help?

There is no requirement for a ground proximity warning system or TAWS in the aircraft. No doubt the pilot is told not to descend below the DME steps, but there is absolutely no alarm system set up in the Brisbane Centre and there is a chance that the air traffic controller might be looking at his or her TSAD display (if there is one in the Coffs Tower) but of course that is just for ‘situational awareness.’

What happens? Everyone is killed.

Now look at the AMATS system that was accepted for implementation by the Labor Government. It would have been Class E airspace – run by the enroute controller, with all of the alarms empowered. Once ADS-B was added, there would be an even more accurate reading of the aircraft.

However even before ADS-B, there was a radar head at Point Lookout nearby which would have given perfect coverage to prevent an aircraft from hitting the mountain.

So there you have it. An accident waiting to happen. A repeat of Benalla. All dead. ADSB a total waste of money re safety improvement !

Proserpine is similar. It is just sheer bastardry and resistance to change from people at Airservices and CASA that have stopped us from going ahead with a proven system that was Government policy.

So, traffic lights at every intersection.

Just spent $8500 having a new transponder fitted to my 45yo GA aeroplane. The cost is prohibitive for most.
However, having operated an RPT jet into places with no tower for years, I well know the feeling when you are trying to separate from light aircraft that can't/won't talk or use a transponder. I want everybody to see me, all it takes is one...

What I don't get is the exemption for Private IFR flights, which is restricted to class G, E, and class C providing you are flying to a class D airfield. Why aren't you allowed to fly into class C CTR? For example, I can fly through class C into Parafield (class D) but I can't land at Adelaide (class C CTR) but Adelaide doesn't have an ADS-B receiver (as of June 2016)!!! So if I had ADS-B I can fly into Adelaide, but it wouldn't make any difference as they can only use radar and SSR. If I do not have ADS-B then I can't fly into Adelaide despite the fact that they are only going to use radar and SSR! Casa Instrument number CASA 114/16 has got to be one of the most useless pieces of mindless bureaucratic rubbish ever!!!

"All it takes is one..." One terrorist 'air-mine' bomb drone hovering in wait above the airfield - and they don't have transponders. Now, there are even more reasons for pilots to look out the front window.

Sometimes i get the impression that it is all to much hard work for some of them RPT drivers to look out the front window. Much easier to keep eyes in on the dails even on a severe clear day. Considering there's two of them per aircraft yer gotta wonder..:hmm:






.

Bloggs. Traffic lights at each intersection ( or its equivalent ) would be un affordable .

Using the existing equipment and changing an airspace chart and enabling an alarm would be quite affordable .

Why lead the world with the best and most accurate and the most expensive ADSB but then only really use it above FL290 where the risk has always been minimal. ?

Why not copy the best in the world. It's helped me make a dollar and live during five flights around the world .

If we were to copy the "best" we'd need to add a significant number of controllers, spend a huge amount on training, add more consoles and add plenty more ADS-B outlets. Care to write the cheque? Still affordable?

You keep claiming it would cost next to nothing, yet the people who would be doing it say it would cost a motza.

I think people are missing the main point of this thread. Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.

I'm not sure on Dick's motives here. If this is not meant to offend controllers, and going to effect change in the regs, why is he posting here? Clearly should be meeting with ASA and CASA. Not bitching on a forum with pilots and ATC!
We can't do anything about it. Those ATCs in procedures do try and get better things through, but not on the scale that he's looking for. Your gripes should be directed at Canberra and not us. (inb4 he's not attacking ATCs. "If America can do it, why can't you?" doesn't really sit well.)

You're new here, then?

Am I right in remembering that a few years ago Dick was railing against the introduction of ADS-B saying that terrorists could use it to track aircraft yet here he is now wanting to increase coverage?

dick is simply saying that if adsb must be fitted to ga aircraft, then why isn't it being used to improve ga safety?

Resent the implication here. Not aware of doing anything to stop any changes. Supply more information or apologise.

:D Good job buddy. I just fail so see how griping here actually will change anything? Although with wit like yours...

And Dick...Also I think I would struggle to find someone who would be blocking progress of a better framework to work within, or for better coverage, or even surveillance approach at places where it currently isn't. Just because you had to fly into a procedural tower the other day, doesn't mean that steps are being taken to move in a better direction. You of all all people should know that things don't change overnight!

This is a slightly interesting video.

Crandall: Need presidential support to update air traffic control


Maybe the US system isn't so good?


It wouldn't surprise me me if in the future we will have more features come from ADSB. It's new technology, give it a chance to develop Dick.
"Outrageous non-use" - I bet if we scrapped the whole thing and didn't even have it any more you'd probably complain about that.

Why should we have to wait for others to bring in the technology, what's so wrong about us trying to lead the world Dick? Maybe we could try being the best and have people copy us. It won't happen overnight but give it a chance.

We've already had benefits from the ADSB system. Let's keep ticking along and try to add in a little extra benefit here and there.
You'll get a lot more supporters if you approach the topic better. It would be a nice change if the next thread you start about ADSB was a detailed proposal of a workable system here in Australia, facts figures numbers and procedures etc, that can be presented to the powers that be (more so than just "let's make en route do approach like they do in the US").

Spodman, I’m not sure why I should apologise. In the USA, air traffic controllers are just that – air traffic controllers. Everywhere you fly IFR you are separated from other IFR aircraft when in IMC, and when in surveillance coverage you are given full descent protection with instructions and an enabled alarm system.

If you are a professional air traffic controller, why don’t you ask your bosses why you cannot provide the service that is provided in the USA and Canada?

As I have explained numerous times, in the USA and Canada, on descent into a place like Hobart with big mountains around, the responsibility wouldn’t be given to the pilot with an instruction to descend not below the DME steps. There is no such terminology used in the USA and Canada.

Also, at places like Ballina you would be given a full radar separation service to the bottom of the surveillance coverage. However that is not the case here - we still have the old flight service traffic information, or as Airservices have said in their statement about Tasmania:

I know if I was a professional air traffic controller I would be asking why I couldn’t give a proper service at low levels, rather than and old flight service type of service.

Remember, it was I who removed the flight service people from the low levels, with the absolute definite agreed Board and Minister’s plan (there was a Labor Government at the time) to replace it with Class E. This has never happened.

The excuse always given was, “We don’t have as much surveillance coverage as the USA.” This was rubbish because in the J-curve, where we have all our traffic and mountains, we had similar radar coverage to that of busy traffic areas in the USA.

However now that we have spent over $100 million on ADS-B, wouldn’t you think we could train the controllers and provide the service? Surely an enroute controller being able to do a bit of approach work at a place like Ballina can’t be rocket science.

If they can do it capably in the USA and Canada, why can’t we do it here?

I am told by some controllers that actually separating aircraft is simpler than giving traffic, because a controller can solve the separation workload problem by simply keeping an aircraft on the ground for a few minutes. However with our present system, any plane can take off and it immediately becomes workload for the controller.

But keep your mind closed and say it is nothing to do with you as a professional controller, it is all someone else’s fault, and of course nothing will happen until we end up with another horrific accident like the Benalla one. Surely you can’t be very proud of that.

Yeh, just change the airspace on the chart from G to E and provide a "Surely an enroute controller being able to do a bit of approach work at a place like Ballina can’t be rocket science. " will be quite affordable.

The class G controllers could easily issue an altitude alert... to the light aircraft that doesn't have EGPWS, because all the turboprops and jets have it and don't need the 1950s "lookout, you're heading for a hill". Benalla was horrific, but it was not an RPT flight and it was over a decade ago. How much are you prepared to stump up to pay for this service of yours? I don't see you whingeing about the hundreds of thousands of cars on the road that don't have ABS and which probably result in dozens of deaths every year. To replace them would cost millions, that's why.

You're like the Greens and renewable energy. Great ideas in theory, but SHOW US THE MONEY.

Your quote implies I am actively preventing such changes from occurring. I am not. You got it wrong. Apologise.

Dick, there is also no such thing as DGA's in US/Canada. DGA's cannot be fully contained in controlled airspace and therefore if you elect to fly those approaches responsibility for airspace containment is up to the pilot. Lets be clear here DGA's were never intended for use at towered aerodromes, they fit another purpose entirely


If you want full protection from airspace and terrain then you should be flying a runway aligned approach. That is the only option they have in the US/Canada.


We could withdraw DGA's? But then, no doubt you will arc up about lost efficiency or something.


FACT: You chose to fly a DGA
FACT: You apparently also chose to fly it using a dive and drive method
FACT: You had a range of other procedures available that provide airspace and terrain protection


If you had issues in flying this, then there really is no-one else to blame. Even with the greatest technology available this would not have increased your perceived level of safety.


BTW, you didn't crash and you didn't nearly crash which anecdotally suggests that the current system works and the current system is safe. In order to suggest an increase in safety is required you have to establish the current safety baseline. Your assertion that more monitoring using technology increases safety is false. There are numerous instances around the world and in the US where the controller was actively monitoring an aircraft whilst they crashed into the ground.


Alpha

Not necessarily, if the correct class of airspace was used for the traffic densities with the appropriate surveillance, not a half arsed system that doesn't work, then it would be affordable. The real waste is installing surviellance that still requires procedural control, what's the point? Why install a system that gives you situational awareness but can't be used for separation? Name any ANSP that would do that. The truth is, multilat or whatever you want to call it is a massive cockup that no one has been made take responsibility for. Why hasn't Hobart and Launy got surveillance approach? The traffic densities warrant it, so what if a tower controller has to be approach rated to separate using a 3 mile radar standard.

Let someone with finance qualifications deal with that.

The re-equipping of the ATC system in the USA has nothing to do with the airspace classes, nothing at all.

Dick, I feel I must support Spodman here, direct quote from your first post:

This is
a) Completely and utterly wrong. There is no agenda, industrial or otherwise from ATCs to prevent better use of ADS-B to improve both safety and service levels in Australia.
b) Offensive, and borderline defamatory to operational ATCs, all of whom do the best they can with the rules and facilities they have, and many of whom are actively working and advocating to improve procedures and safety levels in spite of bureaucratic difficulties.

For the above quote, you absolutely should apologise. If you want to get operational ATCs on side, don't attack them with baseless accusations.

Operational ATCs would like nothing more than to be able to improve the service and safety level that they provide by fully implementing the benefits of ADS-B, including greater coverage where it is of benefit, airspace and sector design that works with the technology we have, ground system based safety nets that are fit for purpose, procedures, and appropriate separation standards.

We are not the ones you should be attacking, and to do so only serves to alienate a professional group that could be on your side if you choose to make your arguments in a less inflammatory fashion. There are many issues with the rollout of ADS-B in Australia, ATCs want to see it done better too.

If you want to see improvement, perhaps consider that you might be more effective if you got the industry professionals onside.

I apologise.

Why do you think we don't use our en route controllers also to do class E approach work as per the USA and Canada?

Could it be that no one in management has the ability to introduce the training?

Or is it that management believes the workers will demand more money to do this ?

Thank you Dick
Reason #1: The overwhelming majority of operational ATC have no idea that such things are possible, or even done overseas. This majority have started their training AFTER the NAS debacle. They are trained more or less EXACTLY the way I was, they are taught to do Flight Service in G airspace, then how to do Air Traffic Control in the other classes. To this majority this is how ATC is done in Australia, and most would have no idea anybody is interested in doing it any other way. There are not many of this generation of ATC on this forum, they spend more time on Facespace or Tinder...

Reason #2: Of the few that entertain other possibilities and have memories of the Class G Trial, LLAMP and NAS, (as in what was intended in the end state, rather than the partly implemented, partly rolled back thing we have now), including myself, the impression is that every extension downward of ATC service creates more complexity.

At the time of the NAS implementation I was working the sector that contains Mildura and Mount Gambier. When the changes took away the Melbourne-Mildura FL125 E corridor, and lowered the base of CTA to FL180 we were perplexed to discover that Mount Gambier arrivals and departures were more of a workload and complexity issue than Mildura, which was previously considered busier. When the rollback restored the FL125 corridor Mildura again became the workload focus.

In the previous LLAMP concept the proposed 8,500FT base in the same area spectacularly increased workload in the trials I was involved with, even with some visual separation concepts included, (but not to the extent of the NAS Flaky VFR Procedures).

Some ATC who understand the issues were agog for the NAS changes to happen, as they interpreted the concept as generating a spectacular expansion of ATC numbers and overtime to service the extra work! How to pay for such an expansion was an SEP.*

Reason #3: They don't know how to. There are a minuscule number of Enroute ATC who know how to do Approach Control. I personally have no idea what skills I would have to onboard to provide the service.

Reason #4: I understand, (from listening to you), that Septic ATC provide an ATC service to all IFR aircraft, regardless of airspace class, a response to the 1956 Grand Canyon mid-air collision. I also understand this was not an initiative of line ATC, it came from the regulator, the FAA. Our regulator, CASA, has control over what class of airspace is where so could implement this tomorrow, but has done nothing since they gained that authority. I remember you crowing with triumph when such authority was transferred from AA to CASA. How did that work out for you?

I am not privy to what management thinks about such things, but what stimulus do they have to implement such changes? Nobody is asking for it except yourself. They are equally unlikely to install bathtubs at each console, I would not be surprised if this was a more popular innovation.

Training all low-level controllers in such a service would require a commitment of greatly increased numbers to release people to provide and undergo the training, and for the extra ATC that WOULD, IMHO, be required to provide the service.

They have to meet budgets, fulfill their charter and justify expense. Hence the rollback. Hence no impetus for change. SEP.

See notes about complexity above. More Air Traffic Control Services will, IMHO, require more Air Traffic Controllers. Each of them could be directed to do such duties with no extra pay tomorrow. Same as those that were involved in the Class G trial got nothing extra in the pay packet for extra work, and those that got extra work in the NAS got nothing.

In fact the possibility is, that with a demonstrably less efficient service it would be difficult to angle for an efficiency bonus next EBA time, so individual ATC would be faced with the possibility of less pay than they would otherwise be entitled.

Looking forward to more debate, and something stupid posted from Bhingi...:ugh:

*SEP - Somebody Else's Problem, (with a lingering concern for the concept of Affordable Safety).

And as for training controllers to do more (even if was a good idea) how is that even possible, given that they just got rid of one third of the operational simulator staff in Melbourne alone with the CEO's great staff cull, and then closed the simulator for five days each fortnight? That's 130 14hr days or 1,820 hours per year no longer available for ATC training.

So DICK, if this does come in and Enroute ATC start doing low level separation, how long until we see a dozen threads from you howling that the sectors need to be split so that the attention is on the aircraft near the ground with no distraction from those way up in space? You know, like your ongoing procedural tower blabbering.

Apparently Air Services Australia are shedding about 700 "non-essential" jobs. Is this due to the efficiency of ADS-B?


But what of the commercial aircraft flying IFR, who are not ADS-B equipped? (Yes, they are out there.)

Dick, could it possibly be that management and CASA don't think it is required?

Oh dear,.....:)

Hmmm..... I've been called many names here in pprune land over the years with my concerns of terrorists using GPS guided bomb drones..... So, Spodman, to get the debate going, yer don't think them terrorist chaps will ever use bomb drones eh?..:hmm:






.

??? Affordable Service ??? :}