snarek
I personally believe that the NAS 2B debate is becoming too fractured. Much is said about the frequency issue. My personal belief on that is that there is an incremental decrease in safety with absolutely no practical or economic benefit.
My greatest concern is the significant decrease in safety imposed by the replacement of Class C airspace with Class E in areas of high volumes of RPT traffic.
The relative danger of this airspace is readily apparent: International jets, descending into Sydney will no longer receive a separation service from VFR traffic. This occurs during a critical phase of flight, when cockpit workload is likely to be high. Pilots will be involved in working out STAR level and speed requirements, possibly on vectors for sequencing, or under speed control. To remove separation (from VFR) services at this stage of flight will have a significant deleterious effect on the safety of the fare-paying public. I contend that that this will occur with no significant advantage to GA. The ‘BS’ theory is not enough in this relatively busy airspace.
Remember that a mid-air collision did occur in the United States (San Diego????) between a B727 and a C172, even though traffic information had been passed. The B727 crew saw one aircraft, but failed to see the one with which they eventually collided. (Edited to correct aircraft types)
Will charges to the airlines be reduced to compensate for the lower level of service? I fear not. Will the ability for VFR aircraft to climb unrestricted into this airspace lead to a revival of the GA industry? I doubt it.
The entire industry can be damaged by a single serious safety incident. One mid-air collision could easily cost well over a billion dollars in damages claims, and the concomitant damage to the reputation of Australian aviation would be incalculable.
This is why I believe that this aspect of NAS 2 B needs to be looked at and reversed as a matter of urgency.
The CEO of Airservices has said that NAS 2B is safe. Safety is not a yes/no question. What he has not addressed is the question of whether it is more or less safe than the current system. I believe that it is less safe. This reduction in safety needs to be justified. I don't believe it has been or can be.
Like a Volvo, the current system might be "boxy, but safe". Is it worth trading the family Volvo for a Trabant, when the costs are nearly the same?
Last edited by Four Seven Eleven; 27th Oct 2003 at 05:10.