Outback Pilot; if having the constitutional right to bear arms was so great, why is it that it happens only in the US?
ANother example of flawed rationale and sarcasm - no substance and zero answer.
Andy,
I really think that you need to look at the new system and stop swallowing hook, line and sinker the propaganda that you are being fed. For Class D towers, how does a reduced airspace (lateral limits for example) enhance safety. Being non-radar, the separation/information is procedural or visual. One of the problems introduced is a greater 'time pressure' imposed on the twr controller. For example, say Tamworth, which has a good mix of RPT turboprops, Air Ambulance, BugSmashers and CT4 and other trg aircraft, with the surrounding C airspace withdrawn, the airpace the twr controller controls is now the D CTA step up to A045 is now 15DME, the time the tower controller has to control an incoming Dash 8 , say doing 220KTS gs on descent, and look at the 'traffic picture'and then give traffic info on VFR aircraft, is 4minutes. Previously, C went out to 36nm (in the SE Quadrant) which gave the controller just under 10 minutes to 'map things out'.
So the argument 'that it is more safe for controllers of D underlying what was C, now E, to be more focussed on traffic close in than far out as this is where - statistically - more incidents are likely to occur' now introduces a greater risk to human error and MAC due to the increase of stress and pressure on the ATCer.
Re the frequency congestion, that could have been solved by not linking frequencies as much as is done, as well as pilots, especially the privates, adhereing to proper radio procedure and phraseology. This would go a long way to reducing clutter. To be honest, if you fly an aeroplane, and you can't sort the wheat from the chaff broadcast wise and what pertains to you in your vicinity, frankly, you shouldn't have a RTF operators licence, or be flying in the first place.
I suspect the real issues are the politics and consultation process of this issue, perhaps more than the fundamental principles of the change. That's what I am hearing anyway.
Whilst it may seem that the critics are on a 'girlie rant'about not being asked, it is not in the sense that it seems to you: you need to look a little closer at the issues.
It is not about being resistant to change, but it is a resistance to change that has negative effects on the safety of our airspace.
When their are cries of lack of consultation, it is not because the industry expects to be asked for permission, it is about 'hey, we operate in this everyday, and we are capable of foreseeing problems in its operation and where the safety of the system is comprimised - we can help iron out the problems, or assist with a fix', instead they don't even get a PROPER SAFETY CASE!
But the implementors, don't want to hear the bad news that the new NAS HAS flaws - and IS an accident waiting to happen - so consequently, ignore the industry, and go about its implementation in an autocratic manner, resulting in, you guessed it, a pissed off industry for having this ****e, for no proven COST or SAFETY BENEFIT, forced upon them.
By the way Andy, I do commend you for sticking your head up and debating the points. Most of your peers have scattered, or can offer no more than sarcasm and cheap shots at the critics.