I have been reading this thread as an observer but cannot hold my tongue anymore.
As we are apparently showing our colours I am an ATC, also hold/held ATP, CPL, CIR etc. So to answer certain de facto entry requirements that other correspondents here espouse, am I a professional pilot? - well not any more. Now I just fly my bugsmasher VFR on my days off. I consider myself a professional nonetheless and am quite frankly offended by 'us and them' context of some of the contributors here. Aviation is too small an activity/industry from a 'public perception' for all this infighting.
I have to admit that one could consider some of the press recently to be sensational - however, how does it get to that stage? Well generally the story needs to be 'sexed up' , to quote another political witch hunt , to get the media interested - i.e. to 'get ones story out there' . So you need a punchy one liner or sound grab - because as said elsewhere, the facts are too complicated for not only the journos, but the lay reader/viewer.
The idea of a press release is too get some interest and then develop the nitty gritty from there - I am not a journo and am happy to stand corrected. I believe the pilots association and ATC association were simply responding to an equally 'sensational' whitewash press release from AirServices, NASIG, Anderson et al , that "The System will be safer", "safety is our first priority" etc. - that has no fact either - it is simply rhetoric. I think AIPA, AFAP and CivilAir realised they had to counter with the same level of 'dumbing down / sexing up' that our society now seems to require - might I add, unfortunately. (Perhaps if NAS happens on a particular day John Anderson and Dick Smith could fly onto an Aircraft Carrier somewhere off the Sydney heads, march from their Citation (sounds like something Dick might attempt) in flight suits and proudly proclaim to the assembled waiting hacks and journos "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - THE SKYS ARE NOW SAFE". Eat your heart out George Dubya!
Snarek , may I ask you to elaborate on something you posted:
By the way, how will NAS make your almost hits get better??? I still have to avoid meatbombs around Mission Beach, and they're in C!!!!
Where does this occur? PJE canopies and ACFT should be separated by ATC in Class C.
That is one of the issues with NAS as I see it - e.g. on desc into say CG from the south thru Class E airspace aircraft are currently positively separated from PJE ACFT and canopies at Ballina. Under NAS that aircraft won't even have to be broadcasting or on a discrete code (.i.e. identified) to the controller descending the 767.
One of the big issues that really worries me from an ATC perspective is compliance with procedures. The proposed system is more complex and requires a higher level of compiance with procedures than we have now. But the problem is even NOW we have aircraft entering C airspace without clearances, transponders, or on anywhere near the right frequency. I can honestly say that every 2 days I see aircraft moved off of standard IFR routes in CTA as a precuation against unknown aircraft. A lot of the time we never know who they were - not that we really care if it turns out safe - we are not the cops on this, another thing that is insinuated here. The only reason penetrations are written up is for statistical data to identify possible system/design failures, and identify areas where better (safer) procedures airpspace design is needed.
I too, cannot see how NAS is going to help the GA driver!? There was a rant on here about someone not getting a clearance into CB airspace. Well first of all how do you know how many aircraft were in the zone - were you monitoring all ATC frequencies? Were there NOCOM MIL flights in the area? Was there an airspace release to another authority or Military where you wanted to go? Was there an emergency that the controller may have been dealing with you dont know about? Did you flight plan? Do you know what a controller has to do to enter a flight plan into TAAATS when you hadn't bothered? It is a low priority task when separating aircraft and if you arent aware the flight plan entry window covers over your traffic picture when it is open. So please dont pretend to tell an ATC when he/she can cannot give a clearance - it is our job to give clearances - we dont get any sadisitic thrill or extra money for not issuing them!
I shall pause.....
I am really yet to be convonced of any benefit in this exercise - it appears to me that losing MBZ's for CTAFS is a retrograde step if as we are told 'Safety is the Priority'.
The comment about ATCO's protecting their jobs is laughable - are you aware that NAS requires MORE air traffic controllers to make it work? Did you read the parliamentary Hansard response to the Willoughby report by Bernie Smith - when asked to respond to the reports suggestion that NAS would save $70M Bernie had no idea. Let me tell you for a fact - the amount of overtime that is being spent on training people for NAS at the moment , and changing of airspace and all that entails (simulators, staff released from OPS for training, Maps changes, radar data changes, TAAATS systems data changes just for starters..), is costing a fortune - and remember that is not a contingent cost - it has and is being spent. As an ATCO I can tell you that I feel quite 'safe' in my job security as a RESULT of NAS not in despite of it - so could we please put that spin to bed.
Why did it take CivilAir, AIPA, AFAP to have to speak up about this first - why didnt the airlines? This sounds like groundhog day.....
FollowUp:
And unless someone invents a VTOL 747 I dont see why I can't cross straight over Cairns at 1500 feet (through a lane of course) avoiding the approach and departure run ins (sort of a high Victor One).
There IS a lane.