AOPA agrees with AFAP, AIPA and Civil Air
AOPA's position (from snarek's last post):
AOPA IS LINKING NAS AND ADSB AND HAS WRITTEN TO THE MINISTER TO THAT EFFECT.
Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
(From the list of requirements AFAP, AIPA, and Civil Air have advised the Minister that are necessary for a safe airspace (see link in coral's post)).
The full list of these 10 safety requirements sent to the Minister are below (I've added point numbers to assist in discussion).
--------------
1. Transponder coverage in 'E' airspace must be mandatory
2. Directed Traffic Information to remain in all class 'G' airspace.
3. Replacing MBZs with (US) CTAFs is unsafe, not acceptable
4. Frequency boundaries to be included in maps to ensure correct ATS frequencies are known.
5. Airspace designed to capture normal aircraft operating profiles and ensure protection of IFR flights conducting instrument procedures.
6. Require Class C steps abutting/over Class D towers, to the base of Class A.
7. No 'straight in' approaches for non-radio equipped aircraft.
8. Transparent safety case system - nothing hidden or unexplored, mitigation of hazards to be real, not just words.
Increased consultation and exploration with key industry groups.
9. Financial and/or safety benefit to be clearly identified prior to change.
10. Implement ATS surveillance systems where possible (radar or ADS-B)
----------------
These are the concerns these professional organisations have. Some are to do with specific procedural/airspace issues, others are to do with the transparency and accountability of airspace reform in general.
The airspace reform issues obviously assume that the NAS process so far:
- has not clearly identified the safety and financial benefits,
- consultation and exploration with key industry groups has not been sufficient,
- mitigation has largely been cursory and superficial,
- the safety case system is not transparent.
The 10 points above serve as a "roadmap for peace" for implementation of NAS. If the IG and/or Minister address each of these points then there is a way forward for NAS.
Notice that the organisations are not opposing NAS - they have actually communicated a way they see it being introduced safely and responsibly.
As NAS2b implementation approaches, people would be far better off discussing the real contentious issues, such as those above, not wasting time attacking the man, attacking motives, creating a straw man and attacking him, or responding to obviously antagonistic posts unprofessionally or in kind. Doing so detracts from the argument and demeans the poster.
I make the comparison between snarek's ADSB comment and point 10 above, at the start of this post, to illustrate that there are agreements that can be found. How many more points do people agree on?