Well I think you did say in the posts re-Dick Smith that you have had some input to NAS if you were at the workshop? then you know what you are saying is not entirely true. Every step of the implementation was looked at by a wide range of representatives and Hazards were identified and in some cases mitigated correctly to ALARP ie the risk was as low as reasonably possible.
where this was not the case implementation has been delayed for example the new CTAF procedures and the removal of MBZ,s
Personally I feel the process is being handled very well particularly when Dick is not present.
The last workshop was a workshop to examine all the parts that were non compliant with the US system which would make your comments correct but not the first 4 days of part 2b. I kind of think we probably are on the same side here I support NAS 100% but will continue to examine the fine details of each stage raise appropriate hazard concerns and help if possible mitigate them. I do accept some industry concerns but believe they are in most cases not valid and more a case of reluctance to change. As for the scare munger tactics on the Australian public I find it truly hard to believe that they would stoop so low to lie to the Australian public what a sad day for aviation it makes me wonder why I love aviation at times, I think they have forgotten what flying realy is and its not about being a bus driver they are a minority but have such a large voice how sad!. They are using the end state example from the hand out to pilots to scare the public, that picture is an example only and has never been discussed as a final model and never will be untill suitable technology such as ADSB has been put in place.
