HOPE SOME POSTERS NOT PIC
Having read a number of posts on this page that are pure rhetoric unbiased by any factual content, I can see why there is trouble introducing the NAS.
Likewise the attack on AOPA. Ah well, when facts are unavailable, go the player and by demeaning him try and win the argument.
Is there any chance of the debate coming back to the pros and cons of the NAS issues - supported by statistics or other forms of logic? I would hate any RPT jockeys to be carrying pax with PIC minds in confusion.
We will probably fly Melb CTAF to Bris GAAP tomorrow in a GA aircraft. Radio calls at CTAF or MBZ enroute. The CTAF we are departing will today have skydiving, joyflights, GA and AUF training, powered hang glider joyflights, visitors flying in to the restaurant. Some no radio. We anticipate a safe CTAF today and a safe journey tomorrow causing problems to no-one, particularly our colleagues who fly at FLs.
This is pre-NAS but continues to work well due to standards of operating. That's what it's all about and - now I think of it - its the RPT guys saving $ by short cut procedures that have caused me most concerns since I started flying in 1979. Only a few but does this imply that part of the NAS resistance is not so much "safety" per se but a desire to operate in a protected environment?
What I saw on TV, including GA and RPT "sharing" airspace below 3000 metres - gee, that's something new and scary - was great spin with no fact. Why allow this thread to diminish to that level.
Cheers
Brian H