Dick,
It is always good to see you contribute here… especially since nobody else in the NAS IG is prepared to talk in open forum. No wonder there continues to be a credibility problem?
If this is so it is probably because they are not informed correctly in relation to what I am doing. After all, I constantly post my phone numbers on this site and don’t receive any calls.
Dick, the problem here is you are not able to communicate on the same level of those that you wish to sell this project to. And those of us that have called you or spoken to you, often find that we don’t get much to say or you don’t want to listen. Can you blame people for not calling if they don’t think it is worth it??
I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.
Could not agree more!
No one on this site ever comes up with a valid reason why we cannot accept the advantages of the US system. Of course the excuse most often used is that America has more radar coverage.
Perhaps this is because it has not been “sold” to those that have to make it work. As the major proponent of this change, you have to “sell” the changes and convince everyone that we will all be better off. To date, neither you nor the NAS IG have done that in any shape or form.
In the United States lights on the ground were used in the 1920s for the mail planes. Just last year I went to an Airservices meeting in the office below Bankstown Tower where they proposed a new and better flashing light for the light aircraft lane.
I think you will find that the light thing relates to the attitude of those in CASA and ASA that don’t want change and don’t have the ability to do it. If some of the CASA attitudes back in the ‘80’s were a bit more practical, much of this would have been done by now. I think it was a “power” thing! Maybe still is?
Now let’s look at the US system that I (and others) are trying to move to. At a place like Los Angeles, where Qantas flies every day, VFR aircraft are not encouraged to fly by any low level topographic feature or town which is overflown by airline aircraft. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The airline routes are shown on the Los Angeles VFR chart and VFR aircraft flying from south to north (or vice versa) are encouraged to overfly the centre of the LA field at altitudes where there are no airline aircraft. Where VFR and IFR aircraft could potentially collide in the LA system (i.e. when they pass through the same level) they are typically 20 to 30 miles from the airport where the risk of collision is far lower.
What you don’t realise here Dick, is that the Australian culture is not the same as the US culture. You use the word “encouraged” and in other places “recommended”. The problem is this means a very different thing in Australia vs US. That is why we had to have MBZs because it was the only way we could achieve the level of compliance that is required. You ought to know as you were the one that introduced MBZs…!
The ARG and the Government is planning to move to this safer US system. Many pilots who have not been informed probably think that the Aussie system (where no transponder or radio is required for aircraft 300 metres away from an airline aircraft at Hornsby) is the ideal and should not be changed. Commonsense alone shows that this is wrong.
Dick, you don’t seem to realise that the NAS education to date has been a total failure and it does not matter if it is “commonsense” or not. It all depends on what is common and what is sense.. no?
The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.
Dick, this is really where you have gone off the rails. Whilst I agree there needs to be some form of penalty for transgression, You don’t achieve compliance by introducing huge fines, YOU ACHIEVE IT BY EDUCATION AND TRAINING in the first instance, not by making threats. Of course you know that you can be safe and not compliant, and being 100% compliant does not mean you are SAFE. You have to change your approach to this or you will fail big time.
I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there.
Does this mean you are telling the Minister and CASA what to do?
In relation to see and avoid, with the new system there will be less need for collision avoidance by unalerted see and avoid. This is because the US procedures are designed to concentrate everyone’s attention to where the collision risk is highest and to keep IFR and VFR aircraft away from pressure points.
Dick, this only applies if you introduce the US culture in conjunction with the US procedures. To date, neither you nor the NAS IG have addressed the culture differences. When you do that, in conjunction with (and part of) a serious education program which is based on selling the changes and justifying the results then we might see some progress in airspace reform, which one way or the other many of us would like to see - just not the way you are doing it!
"no known traffic"
