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?
Never been to a workshop, but there are many ways to in the weeds of this project.
…and Hazards were identified and in some cases mitigated correctly to ALARP ie the risk was as low as reasonably possible.
This is why I have problems, many characteristics which are not compliant with the US model, (7 out of 10); 5 that matter have Hazards that are not mitigated to ALARP. The possibility is still low that the ultimate consequence will occur, but it is a greater probability than what we have today; I say why, it doesn’t save money, it does increase risk – that’s my point; nobody is addressing my point… This is not the USA model because of the differences 5 of 10 changes for this next stage are not compliant to a point where it matters.
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 MBZ issue will probably be a show stopper, that’s why it got pushed back; two things will happen, it will get pushed back again or stage 2b will be the final model; yuk! I agree keep Dick out of it.
I do accept some industry concerns but believe they are in most cases not valid and more a case of reluctance to change.
The reluctance is due to there being no clearly identified benefit. No benefit, don’t do it. If my mechanic suggested I get Michelin tyres because he doesn’t like Dunlop’s I don’t by them unless there is a reason, not because he doesn’t like them; where is the cost benefit. If however he proves extra safety I will consider changing; if he proves that low safety exists I'll definitely buy new tyres.
…they are a minority but have such a large voice how sad!.
They have a large voice because the consequence of one of their airframes being lost is massive
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.
2B1, if you really believe that then you and I are talking on the same side of the argument; there is nothing in any documentation linking further rollouts to new technology.
ADSB is not going to be ‘operational’ until 2008 (or there abouts). We were supposed to have completed training in December 2002; it’s still not able to go onto the TAAATS platform. Then when it does, it will give some low level coverage, but the sites are chosen to give ‘complete’ coverage above FL350 over continental Australia. ADSB will not provide ‘radar’ like coverage at low levels unless it gets a commitment from the government (probably) to do so; massive expense, even though it is cheaper than radar. Cost is still the problem; $300K per site (initially 20 sites, full coverage 55 sites comes to mind); $5K or more per aircraft, who funds it.
ADSB is the ‘great white hope’; Larry Holmes almost killed him… remember that.
My issue is mostly about trying to get the message about NAS is not the US model; stop saying it is.
Stop rejecting logical well thought out alternatives on the basis that they also are not compliant; safer options, no extra costs, bring them on.
Bottle of Rum