Wally2
I also don't recall any jets going into CTAFs as RPT (and I also don't recall any 737's carrying hundreds!!).
Logically, theres not a lot of difference between jets and the Dash's, SAAB's (and other turboprop RPT's I'm too lazy to think of) going to CTAFs. The Dash 8 & SAAB carry 30-40 and are as capable of doing the 250KTS limit (in E & G) below 10000' on descent as are the jets. Closing speeds are similar when descending through E & G. If what is being proposed to do at some locations with (say) 737's and CRJ's is unsafe in your view, surely then you would want to call a halt to the current turboprop ops, then?
I'm not saying we should not have a line drawn somewhere, but where do we draw the line, and why? What is the RATIONAL reasoning behind it? Why is it OK for a Turboprop carrying 30-40 and not a jet carrying, say, 50-100?
I agree with you when you say
NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF then NO CHANGE, though.
I think many
aspects of the NAS have been proven safe by usage in many areas of Australia, but not in some others - that's when we need FACTS and DATA not "logical" arguments of the "if one raincoat keeps you dry is safe then two or three will keep you drier (even when it's not raining!)" variety.....
Neither the opponents nor the proponents of NAS have come up with ANY comparative data on which to base their stances - you can
theorise all you like, but if something is well demonstrated by experience/practice, you may as well take the empirical route. If you don't have the data and don't have established criteria from which you are arguing , then it's all so much waffle.
SNAREK
I'd love ADSB too, but I'm sure that the NAS guys don't want this linked to what is likely to be an even more lengthy process!
If we can share the roads, surely we can share the airspace.....
****suT
Good point re: foreign craft - wouldn't the bigger boys have Mode S available, though?
Safe flying
NOtimTAMs