Firstly I must say that I am not "defending" NAS, nor I am yet convinced that it is the answer to all our so called problems.
Having said that, it continues to be quite clear that there are many versions of how one should "participate" within the various classes of airspace. I blame this on both CASA and the flying training industry (including the training within the air carriers) in not providing the required level of training in airspace participation training. There is certainly no standardisation!
Blastoid
Not only that, but they won't even be required to be monitoring the area frequency for traffic. They could be listening out on multicom, area VHF, local tower, the cricket or golden oldies.
I suggest there is nothing from stopping them from doing that right now!! Either due to poor training, no appreciation of the environment they are in or just plain lack of airmanship!
But under NAS the VFR traffic is discouraged from making broadcasts on their position and intentions (see also current issue of FSA and full page advert on "not making unnecessary calls"
Maybe so, but if you read the fine print, there is a belief in the NASIG that the decision making process if exercised by the PIC is sound then many of these issues will go away... like you I am yet to be convinced.
In regard to Roger's advert about unnecessary calls, again it is the training that is at fault because I suggest that many pilots are so poorly trained on how the EXISTING system works they are unable to make a sound judgment on what is and what is not an unnecessary call..! Certainly the QNH calls are more habit than a necessity and the advert is trying to get that message across. Perhaps they should do one on readbacks as well, because again because of poor training many pilots read everything back because they don't know what not to...! (eg: traffic info).
There has been more than one occasion where I have been given IFR traffic, made contact and been told by the other IFR pilot "we are well clear of you" only to see him at close quarters a bit later. I wonder where he thought he was or where I was??
If IFR pilots cannot make judgment/s on traffic conflicts now, then how do you suppose that the part time weekend pilot is going to do that under NAS? He/she will either be drowned in education on how to participate and exercise good sound airmanship or he/she will turn the stereo on/VHF off and let the big sky policy work for them! Like most others posting here, I would prefer the former.
And of course our friends in gliders will be out there (as they are now) doing their thing on a frequency we might only find out about from either local knowledge or a NOTAM.
PGH
What you describe is what I call "good airmanship".. sadly not all that much about these days!
Certainly there is a need for airspace reform in Oz but like others I would like to see the changes bring about some significant improvements in how we go about "drilling holes in the sky". So far there is little evidence that this will occur under NAS, and will certainly not occur unless the level and depth of airspace education is dramatically increased and is ongoing.
"No known traffic"
