Yes, the sun rose in the east……
And unfortunately, this demonstrates the abject lack of anything like a detailed safety analysis in implementing NAS. Just because a system is implemented and does not kill anyone on day one, or two or three hundred, does not mean it is safe. More importantly, it does not mean it is as safe as the system it replaced.
Over the last few weeks, innumerable drivers have been prosecuted for drink driving. Yet, each one of these drivers was able to be pulled up, tested and prosecuted for their offence without being killed. Is drink driving therefore safe? Does the sun rise in the east even with drink drivers on the road?
What NAS and the drink driving analogy demonstrate is that it is possible to incrementally reduce safety without immediate consequences. Anyone with even the most elementary understanding of safety management will understand that system safety can be compromised, and yet the system can remain accident free for some time: until all of the factors required for the accident occur at the right/wrong time.
Accidents will occur. Accidents would have occurred with or without NAS. NAS, has, however, reduced system safety to the extent that a collision is more likely: perhaps increasing the possibility from 1:1 000 000 000 000 to 2:1 000 000 000 000.
For me, anything which reduces air safety is anathema.
Perhaps more importantly, NAS has dramatically increased the potential effects of an accident. Pre-NAS, the ‘worst case’ scenario in terms of a (non-ATC error related) mid-air collision was likely to be a regional turbo-prop colliding with a VFR aircraft. Post-NAS, we have introduced the possibility the ‘worst case’ scenario will involve a heavy jet.
This incremental increase in risk has come at no justifiable benefit to any users, has increased the workload of controllers and pilots.
IT has been asked before. but……… why?