Gaunty:
Civil Air and the airline pilots are entitled to their view of the universe, but they should be a whole lot more responsible about how they present it.
Well said. The old saying that "The truth is always the first casualty of war" comes to mind. Thankfully, most thinking individuals (regardless of their occupational status) can see through the propaganda generated by the extreme elements of all stakeholder representative organisations, and generally form their own perspective of what is of value and what's not. Hopefully, all representative organisations in this NAS debate (including AOPA) will heed your advice and only continue to submit balanced and reasoned debate that eventually contributes to an effective and safe NAS.
89 Steps:
If we are to implement what is basically the US system, it not only needs the technical base to support it, but we need to adopt the underlying culture & training as well.
A very valid observation, 89 (sounds a bit like Maxwell Smart doesn't it?). This is a planning aspect of the NAS implementation that hasn't received the attention it deserves. Your point has made me realise that many stakeholders probably don't realise some of the more subtle cultural or economic factors surrounding the operation of the US air traffic management system.
For example:
1. The US ATM system is taxpayer funded, which means that a VFR pilot is entitled to the same level of service from the ATM system as his IFR counterpart. In Australia, the funding base for our ATM system is more discriminatory and favours the provisions of services on a selective basis to IFR/RPT pilots (user pays principle). This fact is quite significant as it means that, regardless of the policy environment, the workface controller in the US, is not in a really good defensible position to refuse services to a VFR aircraft when he knows that the same aircraft has also helped pay for the ATM system in the first place! I don't believe that the ARG or the NASIG has really grasped the significance of this little aspect on the controllers' psyche when they will be delivering ATM services under NAS.
2. Based on my research, I can find very few differences (ON PAPER) between the current US airspace model and that proposed for Australia under NAS. However, PRACTICALLY, there are huge differences, and it is these differences that are significant in assisting the US model to overcome the system limitations that we are discussing in this forum.
For example, the extensive surveillance capability within the US airspace system ensures that, practically, "see and avoid" is never relied on as the SOLE or PRIMARY means of conflict detection and resolution. Following the airline mid-air collisions over LAX and San Diego in the early '70s, the FAA has had a long established (informal) policy environment in place to encourage greater VFR participation in the ATM system so that collision avoidance capability is improved. The FAA recognises that controllers are the key to implementing this "VFR friendly" policy environment and encourages controllers to provide a level of service to VFR aircraft which is generally above that required under national regulation (in other words the system is generally over-servicing the VFR pilot. Not a bad thing in my view)!
Therefore, it is easy to see how the combination of a favourable policy and funding environment, encouraging controller service attitudes, as well as a more effective technical surveillance cability contributes towards the virtual elimination (in the US system) of most of the issues and limitations that we in Australia are trying to come to grips with in the implementation of NAS.
So, 89, you're right. These are crucial ingredients and no-one in either the Department, the ARG, CASA, Airservices, ATSB, Civil Air, AFAP, AOPA or NASIG are addressing them. So who wants to pick the ball up and run with it?
Safe flying and separation to all.