We do not present ourselves as experts in this polling business, but we値l have a go.
It is your Forum and if you think we need some guidance you know how to PM us, we guarantee we値l listen, but we will retain the prerogative to make our own judgments on what is appropriate, you値l just have to trust us.
There are only 5 options available per polling session so we may have to run more than one for such a controversial issue, so we値l start from the beginning and go from there.
We do not expect to produce a definitive answer beyond a general consensus and we are certain that both sides will draw whatever conclusions from the results that suit their personal agenda痴.
Sobeit, we are not here to push one side or the other, we are, as ever, merely a blackboard upon which you may scratch your thoughts and feelings.
The programme, being truly democratic will allow you to vote once only, multiple registrations attempting to influence the vote will be viewed with extreme displeasure.
Be patient, RTFQ, think carefully about each question and your answer and poll away.
"A paradox a paradox a most ingenious paradox" thanks to Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan.
To view and monitor the poll results without having voted requires an extra click, which gets repetitious given our moderating activity.
To avoid this it is necessary for us to vote.
We do try not to take sides on any issue here or seek in any way to influence the vote.
So we will, at an appropriate time be selecting a vote in a way that will have the least effect on the result, but we will not however reveal where, it will just appear just like everybody elses anonymously.
And for the conspiracy theorists amongst us we do not have any, A N Y control over the results of the poll or access to the pollers.
maybe but as I said this may be the first of a number of polls to required to cover the ground and the proponents have suggetsed that airspace reform is an economic answer to our woes .
Feather#3 ahh them were the days :envy: true, but I've only got 5 options per question
In all fairness, it's hardly a scientific poll as W has admitted, and will ultimately prove nothing, a point already graciously made by GT-R. My original suggestion for a poll was suggested rather tongue in cheek to mock Dick's hypothesis that a lot of ATC's support NAS, a proposition so completely removed from reality as to be laughable, but we're becoming used to that sort of unrealistic rhetoric from him.
I know my poll was completely unenforceable and therefore meaningless, but I don't see that making up a poll to reflect what has been quite obviously the massive majority opinion on this forum is going to achieve much either.
I do notice that none of the pro-NAS advocates have been willing to hang their shingle on either a safety or an economic benefit, all choosing a combination of the two. I find this fascinating, implying as it does they genuinely believe there was a net safety benefit behind the reforms, a difficult tenet to propose for anybody except Dick, plus a significant net economic benefit, a suggestion which has been completely discredited by the people appointed to investigate it.
I've thought for a while about this, and have decided I want the US system, with refinements. NAS tried to deliver a system that gave Dick Smith what he wanted (fly anywhere, listen to cd's and fack everybody else). It is just dumb to have ATC sitting at ATC consoles giving the same service Flight Service did 30 years ago.
Look after the big boys with positive separation. Bug-smashers let into the holes between them.
Full ATC service for IFR everywhere else, with the IFR able to opt out of separation when conditions are suitable.
Full advisory service available for VFR, on going, on request.
If we were to adopt the US system completely, I can see that we would need a fair increase in the number of Air Traffic Controllers however.
Why? Well Sectors size would have to reduce to be able to adequately acquit the Class B, C and E traffic passing responsibilties as per the US system. (Remember target resolution or 2.5nm dependant on the class). These time/frequency available critical, as well as display resolution critical actions / scanning requirements make the full adoption of the US system in many ways impractical. It would cost more - not just the airlines, all users.
Dick Smith goes on quite a lot about Australia having less traffic than the US - well he doesnt seem to focus much on the corresponding truth from that perspective - there is a lot less GAand VFR traffic as well. So the adoptionof the US system to fulfill this small requirement is not cost effective - as we have seen in the last year.
The Australian system evolved from putting resources where they are most needed. While there are some improvements that can be made they do not in my view involve adoopting a system that doesnt suit.
The money that has been wasted in the political exercise to date could have in fact solved most of the issues. NAS in that regard has set us back.
You know who to thank.
Remember not that long ago, The Minister, AirServices PR, DOTARS, NASIG etc. were calling the Controllers and the Airline Pilots scaremongerers. Now,they are not saying that. They are saying that the system has failed - not very loudly , but nonetheless those who said it would not work or save money have been vindicated.
There is only one person left still shouting scaremongerer, and blaming the growing list of organisations that will no longer support him in his political quest.
Wouldn't it be nice to know just how much all this has really cost? And exactly how it has been funded?
We might be many, but we only get one vote and we only voted to save us the trouble of clicking "View Results" each time we wanted to have a look.
As we said the poll system only allows one vote per user name and we voted in a way that we thought would have the least effect on the results. The "polling" part of the programme is incorruptible (insofar as any computer programme can be) and we cannot influence the results or access the pollers information even if we were interested in doing so.
You have got to love this thread our national airspace reform process has been formed and rejected based on the dislike of one man now there is real intelligence at work. I suppose people will vote yes or no based on their expert opinion and be backed with statistical analysis of traffic movements or is it perhaps gut feelings what a way to run airspace. Its all a croc the latest news that Qantas are happy to fly through class G into Avalon and mix with GA traffic proves money is the real reason for the rollback.
our national airspace reform process has been formed and rejected based on the dislike of one man
I don't think it has been rejected by most professionals in aviation because Dick is associated with it. It seems to me that Dick is still peddaling the same sort of airspace that has been found wanting over the last 10 or so years.
If Kingsford-Smith, Reg, or some other respected aviaton professional had suggested NAS2b, I'm confident that the rejection of it would be much as it is.