[Peetwo]

Dick, SAAB Sensis & Co call Bullocks on ASA..

From that 'happy little chappy' from Tassie..

Airservices Australia ‘lying’ over use of Tasmania’s radar system  

• by: Matthew Denholm
  
• From: The Australian
  
• August 29, 2015 12:00AM
  

Tasmania Correspondent
Hobart

Airservices Australia has been accused­ of lying about why Tasmania’s radar system is not used to control aircraft at low altitude, after the company behind the system revealed it was designed precisely for that purpose.  

The government-owned air traffic controller has repeatedly suggested the $6 million TASWAM radar-like system introduced in 2010 was not intended to provide radar control of planes below 8500 feet.

Instead, it has suggested its limited use of the system below this level — as an aid to assist “procedural separation” by tower-based controllers relying primarily on radio contact with pilots — is in line with TASWAM’s objectives.

However, The Weekend Australian has obtained a press release­, issued in the US by the company that supplied the system, which categorically states that it was intended to replace procedural separation with full radar control to the ground.

The release by Sensis Corporation, made to global media on November 1, 2010, after TASWAM began operating, says the system means Tasmanian airspace is “now controlled”, allowing radar controllers to “separate aircraft in both en route and (in) terminal airspace”.

It describes this as a “safer, more efficient use of the airspace in a region that was previously controlled with procedural separation”.

However, five years on, airspace below 8500 feet at the Hobart and Launceston airports is still controlled by procedural separation, described by the Virgin Indepen­dent Pilots Association as “nowhere near” as safe as radar control and by aviator Dick Smith as a “1930s” system.

Airservices has accused The Australian of inaccurate reporting in suggesting that TASWAM was not being used to the extent originally intended.

However, yesterday, Sensis — now called Saab Sensis — stood by its 2010 statement that TASWAM was intended to provide radar control to 150 metres from ground level, allowing a “safer, more efficient” system to replace procedural separation.

“From a technical perspective, the system is capable of that (radar control to the ground): at the end of the day, it’s up to Airservices and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to determine how they use it,” a Saab Sensis spokesman said.

“We’ve never had any concerns or issues raised by Airserv­ices Australia in relation to TASWAM operational function.”

Airservices insists procedural separation is safe and appropriate for the level of traffic at Hobart and Launceston airports, althoug­h CASA has ordered a new review of Tasmanian airspace in light of a rise in traffic.

Mr Smith, a former CASA chairman, said the revelations from Saab Sensis showed Airservices had been “lying” to the public to “cover up” its failure to use TASWAM, which uses signals­ to triangulate plane pos­itions, as intended.

“It just shows that Airservices are not telling the truth,” Mr Smith said.

“We are going to end up with an accident before anything happens­. Someone has made a serious­ mistake here.”

CASA has said it will not approve­ the use of TASWAM below 8500 feet because it does not provide sufficient coverage.

Airservices air traffic control general manager Greg Hood did not directly respond yesterday to Mr Smith’s claims, or suggestions that Airservices had misled the public, but insisted Tasmanian airspace was safe.

While not commenting direct­ly on whether TASWAM was originally intended to provide radar control to the ground, he suggested it had allowed safer, more efficient use of Tasmanian airspace as stated in the Sensis press release.

“Airservices uses the TASWAM system to safely and effic­iently manage over 70,000 aircraft movements in Tasman­ian airspace each year,” he said.

A CASA report in December 2011 quoted air controllers and managers complaining that TASWAM was “worse” the previously patchy old-style radar based in Launceston that it replaced.

Minutes of a May 2012 meeting with stakeholders suggest Airservices representative Kent Quigley discussed “coverage issues­” with TASWAM and “the infrastructure required to improve­ surveillance”.

The 2 comments from Rod and old mate Botswanna O'Hooligan are worth regurgitating..

Rodney

2 hours ago

there has to be something involved in this issue that is outside the technical changes happening in the air control system, my guess is that there are union or company vested interests being looked after before they consent to newer and safer tech being used to the full, now, I don't know if unions are involved- they usually are- or if the air services -company has an agenda for its people all of its own, but if wee read of such issues in many other company's we would immediately think, union or company self interest before the general public's safety was the reason. this could range from govt entity's to insurance issues, or even manufactories interests, I certainly don't know, but this is an issue that has been coming up for decades over air services actions. the real reasons for this perception of background noise needs to be exposed.
rod qld

Botswana O'Hooligan

50 minutes ago

Think unions and bureaucratic dinosaurs and you get fairly close to the nub of the matter. Way back when runway 07-25 in Sydney was the main runway and it had the latest in technology with a red white vasis for visual glideslope guidance and a brick chimney was a bit of a hazard to think about when on the ILS on to runway 16, they spoke about an alternate airport, and fifty years later they are still talking about it. That's basically where Airservices are too, fifty years behind and the distance is increasing.

 
MTF...P2