Thanks for all the posts folks, however I feel we've been sidetracked by the NAS a bit. The topic was really intended to challenge the concept that Dick didn't care about aviation in Australia. Having said that, I'll now get sidetracked too.
All the well constructed argument about the NAS is interesting, but the case for the negative has been repeated for years and never backed up with sufficient facts to support the argument.
There is plenty of argument citing the benefits of an ATC separation service, however, this does not seem consistent with the fact that many mid-air collisions occur in CTR's or the circuit area. A mate of mine had a mid-air in the AF circuit and survived, and the closest I've come to a mid-air was in the Wagga CTR although I'd spent years in the BK training area which as we know is quite a bit busier than Wagga, and this was back about 10 years ago when BK was really busy.
For years I felt compelled to disbelieve the rhetoric that many in the industry were quite happy to accept and perpetuate. There are literally hundreds of examples that I could cite in support of the concept of see and avoid and the real safety benefits of the NAS but I'm sure that those opposed to it are unable to accept the argument for reasons that are deeply rooted in their concept of safety. I, too, am unable to support the philosophy that it is better to have someone else responsible for my safety. They are not sufficiently connected to the results of their actions to enable me to rely on them any more than I need. And because they are not sufficiently connected to the safety
and efficiency of my flight operations, then it is obvious that they will err disproportionately on the side of safety, unless they make an error....
My argument is that this does not mean greater safety. This disproportionate bias toward safety away from efficiency fails in a wholistic sense to result in greater overall safety. It aims for greater safety in an area that is already low risk.
Look up the accident stats on the ATSB website if you wish, but I'd guess that you don't need to. You would already be well aware that mid-air collisions account for very few lives. The interesting thing to note from all the mid-airs that have occurred over the years is that more than half involve gliders. Not one in Australia has involved an RPT aircraft. More effort should be put into solving the problems that account for accidents year after year. The only thing that stops us from doing it is the fact that that would not benefit us, the professionals in the industry.
Perhaps that is why Dick has sought to introduce this change. Because we, (read pro-pilots, ATC, and CASA) have failed to adequately consider the problems of the weakest links in the chain. Do you think that we might carry some of the blame on this score?
I can understand other's reluctance to change, especially since their whole concept of safety is so deeply connected to the idea that
MORE IS BETTER . If some radio talk is good, then
more is better . If some checks are good, then
more are better . If some ATC is good, then
more is better . If some aviation regulation is good then
more is better .
What this philosophy fails to accept is that
too much of anything is not good for you . As someone once said, in a debate about "Is too much sex good for you?", "Of course too much sex is not good for you, that's what
too much means!
Things need to be in correct balance. And just what is the correct balance?
I'd guess that the correct balance is struck when the system is able to handle more traffic for less money and effort in the same safety. The correct balance doesn't discount the abilities of any player in the game, instead it relies on all players to work in together. The correct balance doesn't rely on heroics out of anyone. It requires a team effort.
The reason why a disproportionate bias toward factors that we would prefer to address, rather than factors we really need to address, results in less overall safety can be explained quite easily. The fact is though, that it may not be so easily understood, especially if you have a mindset of safety based on flawed concepts.
We as human beings are finite creatures. That is, we can only do so much, process so much, and make sense of so much. If we place an undue emphasis on a factor that has little to do with safety or efficiency then we actually reduce our ability to do, process, and make sense of, those factors that in reality do pose a hazard to our prospects of reaching retirement age. In addition to that, we fail to adequately do , process, and make sense of, air traffic in the belief that it is being done for us, to a greater or lesser degree.
Truthfully, as has been pointed out in the latest AOPA article titled "Do we have an aviation culture deficit?" I think we have.
John King is quoted as saying, "Everything about aviation in Australia seems to be more difficult than in the US."
This could be justified perhaps if we were less capable pilots, less responsible, less respectful of authority, or just plain immature. What do you think is the answer?
Personally I believe that we are at least as capable pilots, at least as responsible, and probably more respectful of authority.
By the way Chuck, I accept your advice about the use of multi-crew analogies. And I didn't intend to patronise. It may have seemed patronising, but believe my intentions are honourable. I have great respect for you and your opinion despite it differing from mine. It has been made abundantly clear to me that only together can we make our industry safe, not in spite of others.
A bit like the philosophy of CRM, yes?
He hesitates to use another multi-crew analogy...
Life's a bitch, then you fly...
