Yes, this is certainly an interesting thread!
It is sad however to see some of the posters drift off topic somewhat in order to try and make a point, some of which are quite valid and some of which are pure rubbish.
As an AOPA member since I learnt to fly in the '60's I am very much aware of the responsibility they see to their membership (and others) in regard to airspace reform. I am also fully aware of the "other" arguments as I have been employed in the industry for all my working life, including almost 20 years flying regional airline type aircraft.
None of the posters to date have really got to the nuts and bolts of the problems discussed to date. And that is what is being proposed has not (as yet) been presented to the industry in a form that all of us understand. In other words there is no level playing field. Both Gaunty and BIK have attempted to list some or all of the issues, but is it really their role on an internet bulletin board to do that? And they are obviously doing it from one end of the non level playing field! With due respect to the board of AOPA (whom I would not want to trade places with) there is still not any significant info on the AOPA web site or forum and I would be correct to say that both Gary and Andrew have said more here than there – I wonder why that is?
Andrew has clearly had difficulty controlling how his fingers wiz across the keyboard as I found some of his posts did neither he nor his cause much good. Next time you feel like that Andrew, save it and come back a few hours later and if on second reading you still feel it is worthy of posting then ok, but please don't shoot from the hip. (and shoot at the target, not the other shooters!)
We must all realise that an association of people with common interests have much more leverage than any individuals (with perhaps one exception!!) and like AOPA, I am sure that the AFAP, AIPA and CAOAA have the best interests of their membership at heart. You are free of course not to agree with any or all of the positions so taken, but please don't allow that to taint the discussion. As professionals (and that includes amateur professionals, or is that the professional amateurs?) I believe that none of these associations would use the safety argument if they did not believe it was valid to do so. There are many issues discussed above which are quite valid examples of concerns that exist right across the industry. Just because I don't fly that type of aircraft or in that type of airspace is no reason to say it does not matter. The "I only want what is good for me" position is unbalanced and inappropriate to the discussion. We must consider the whole picture and how each of us interacts with other users. To do less, dare I say… is not professional.
THE MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE NAS AND ITS INTRODUCTION IS THAT WE IN THE INDUSTRY ARE DEVOID OF ALL THE APPROPRIATE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO MAKE EFFECTIVE JUDGEMENT ON THE PROPOSAL TO DATE AND WHAT THE AIM IS FOR THE END STATE PACKAGE. IT HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN WITH ANY VALIDITY AS TO WHAT IF ANY THE COST SAVIINGS WILL BE AND TO WHOM, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SAFETY WILL NOT BE COMPRIMISED.
The information and education to date is somewhat lacking and I would have to say much of it is provided without any explanation or justification. This to me IS THE PROBLEM.
Certainly the big sky policy is a significant mitigator in terms of a possible mid-air collision, however I know at least one regional airline pilot that had a very close call with a glider in en-route airspace (above 5000ft) a few years back. By the time they saw each other there was no time to move and the glider went under the regional turbo-prop by only a matter of metres – a close one. No TCAS of course, different radio freqs and see and avoid did not work (and would not have). What scares me is that very little or nothing has been achieved to prevent a reoccurrence of such an incident. Certainly a high degree of reliance on the big sky theory.
IF we are to embrace change in airspace reform (which we have needed for many years) then collectively we need to know the answer to all the "why" questions. And I don't believe we do.
The major mitigator of any change to airspace is information and education. (Look at the G Trial – if we had 100 pilots in that airspace, I would bet you there were 90 different ideas on how it should work – no wonder it failed). This education must be significant and on-going, for years if necessary. To date, we have not even seen anything other than an introduction. The rest of the book is blank (and getting thicker).
Of course the problem is not helped by having the whole project made political. Many industry players have attempted to place their case to the Minister without much luck it seems. The Minister should be listening to all of the arguments and then seeking appropriate advice from his advisors. It is sad when it seems he is not entertaining any case which is not in line with what the NASIG have had him sign off on.
Whilst I am a strong supporter of airspace reform, I am appalled at the way this project is being managed (and I don't believe that is Mike's fault – more the NASIG and the Minister I feel).
Obviously the resources necessary to provide the necessary information and ongoing education is either not there or not considered important enough. Whilst this situation continues, then it is quite likely that the transition to a new airspace model will be anything but smooth.
"no known traffic"
