NAS - Government Policy
We have been reviewing the curious process that is being used to justify the continued implementation of your National Airspace System.
From the Airservices Australia web-site, we found this statement:
Airservices Australia Customer News Flash 20 February 2004: In addition to progressing the above temporary options work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. This model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis.
The critical statement in this extract is “…having regard to government policy that we harmonise with the US model…”.
The “government policy” to which this newsflash refers was actually contributed to, in large part, by Airservices Australia, by way of the response provided to your Minister for Transport and Regional Services in response to his request for a comparative analysis of both NAS and LLAMP.
We understand that that response, though measured, was nonetheless biased towards NAS, and that the Airspace Reform Group established by the Minister to provide an objective position on airspace reform, may have further influenced a bias towards NAS by way of the participation of the NAS architect, and of an Airservices Australia board member as an expert in his own right – even though Airservices Australia had provided a nominally pro-NAS response. Further, we understand that the status quo option, though canvassed internally as a viable alternative, was not offered as an option to your Minister for Transport, as it was not specifically referred to in his request.
In a previous post we have pointed out that in fact the decision to adopt NAS on the basis of a comparative safety analysis was not supported by any international standard. From evidence that we have uncovered, there is little doubt that this fact was available to the senior management and board of Airservices Australia prior to a response being provided to your Minister for Transport.
It is therefore reasonable to assume Airservices Australia not only put forward a response supporting NAS which contributed to its acceptance as government policy, they may also have withheld information that the safety arguments supporting NAS were fatally flawed.
Your Minister for Transport, probably innocently, probably made his decision to make NAS a government policy on the basis of incorrect information.
The argument that Airservices Australia is simply following government policy in pursuing NAS is specious at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst.
It is our considered opinion that if the facts were obtained and revealed to your Minister for Transport, your Government policy may very well change. At worst, all efforts towards NAS should be suspended until a full design safety case has been completed.