PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - Why do we need to be more restrictive than the USA?
Old 19th Apr 2004, 14:08
  #20 (permalink)  
triadic
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick, In answer to your question: No

but:

TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING
Clearly the training for this change has been a complete and total failure. There is no process in place to audit the delivery of the training and at the same time ASA put the price of their charts up to the extent that I would say many VFR pilots now do not even have the appropriate charts. The chart that you say is unsafe is without doubt the most popular and practical chart I have seen for some time.

It is interesting to note that for many of the same reasons Airspace 2000 failed. You may recall that not all of the interested parties and those able to provide professional input were included from the start of that project. The same mistake has been made with NAS. Insufficient training and not involving all the players from day one is a mistake that many project managers learn very early in their career.

The ARG was a joke and served no practical purpose as the members were not operational experts. NASIG with due respect to those in the group were give a task that was akin to mission impossible. There was no obvious project management experience (or for that matter an indication that established project management protocols were used), limited resources, a fraction of the required education, an unrealistic timeline and as you might know, it was political driven (for the wrong reasons?). There was more professionalism in the LLAMP project team. Even with a change of direction that group would have provided much better direction and prevented the fantastic (one of your words) waste of funds to introduce a change that is not understood at large, provided no obvious improvement to safety and saved the struggling GA community zip! I am sure you would put more effort into a marketing campaign for one of your products. Is it any wonder that NAS as we now see it is considered by so many to be a "dud"…?

This whole process is nothing but a change management program that has not been managed very well at all. It has been driven too quickly without an understanding on all the issues, especially training, culture and facility differences. Although your motives may be admirable, your personal passion for these changes has not been sold to those that it must be sold to.

I am sure that many of us support airspace reform. The problem is that it needs to be sold to all the players, it must show obvious benefits in both safety and cost and the education must match what is proposed. None of this has occurred to date with NAS. Over the past 12 years or so we have seen a number of attempts to reform airspace in Australia. Some have survived and others have failed, and you don't have to be bright to know that industry have paid thru the nose for all of this to the extent of somewhere between M$60 and M$100. Fair or not, you will cop the flack as you are the only common denominator in all of them! Overall the chase to implement "worlds best practice" has been, and will continue to be difficult as many believe we already have that, so, they say, why change to a system that even the US operate differently to what ICAO recommend.

There are still lots of unanswered questions and until airspace reform is driven and managed by a project team industry have confidence in, we will continue to see these problems.
triadic is offline