Dick, congratulations.
A very compelling, well crafted argument that cannot help but persuade most people that you have public interest at heart in your fight against bureacratic waste.
A compelling, well crafted pack of half-truths and misinformation designed to dupe people who can't see through it.
You are still lying, but getting better at it.
eg.
Many people believe that air traffic controllers, pilots and managers on bonuses at Airservices should decide what airspace we move to. I happen to believe the elected Government should make the decision.
Why, then, do you campaign so vigourously for 'world's best practice', the US system at some times, yet not others? In the US, they let ATC, pilots etc. do it all via the FAA. Surely you would want to copy that system, a proven system, which doesn't allow wealthy individuals to 'stand-over' the member for Gwydir in order to subvert due process in choosing airspace models?
Deception/half-truth? How about this
The differences are so minor they are irrelevant. For example, there were points such as
..... you then go on to quote a few minor differences that suit your argument. Please publish the
complete list , and then show how 'minor' they all are. "SUCH AS" just doesn't cut it.
Lies?
As we move to the US system in an incremental way, and pilots and air traffic controllers learn the “culture”, unnecessary safety incidents will reduce. This is already happening.
Remove the reporting system, then claim less reports? How very 'Yes, Minister'. Are there less incidents? What are the
facts ?
As to learning the "culture", do you mean the way that controllers in the US control traffic, as if it WAS ACTUALLY UNDER THEIR CONTROL, and not as the rules require? Or does it mean their system is creaking at the seams, and they just do 'whatever they have to' to try and make it work? Try telling a VFR in oz to follow vectors or climb/descend in class 'E', and see how far you get. Try telling an IFR flight commencing from class 'G' to wait. All 'cultural', just no basis in 'rules' or 'law'- possibly why you are having trouble introducing a system that mainly exists in 'culture'.
In relation to safety management and the safety case, I can only use commonsense to prove that the US system provides safety levels that are acceptable by Australians. This is because Australians regularly fly in the United States in both radar and non-radar airspace
By your own admission, we are currently in a limbo between what was, and what will be. Where is your 'proven system' that has this interim stepped airspace? Or where is your safety case?
I would far prefer to accept a proven system, rather than a system designed by a group of well-meaning but inexperienced (in airspace design) pilots and air traffic controllers
So who designed ausNAS? I'd suggest people in exactly the same category as those you don't trust? Who designed the US system? I'd suggest the same. Furthermore, HOW CAN YOU BE SURE IT IS THE SAME SYSTEM? Don't you think radar coverage is a fundamental aspect of the US system? Were you and the gentleman from Qantas qualified to factor in the lack of radar in oz? These are the sorts of questions that make the professionals squirm when they read your diatribes about 'proven systems' and who designs what.
Commonsense alone is all that is necessary to know that there will be a substantial cost saving for the industry if there is less holding and fewer diversions
Who do you think you are kidding? You are not saving money, you are cost shifting. THE AIRLINES now have to absorb the cost of diversions, RAs etc. Your 'third party' ops are going to be CAGROs funded by who? Airlines of course!! And guess who are, by far, the largest group of airspace users? People sitting in the back of AIRLINERS!
You are screwing the public for your own selfish ends.
I wouldn’t necessarily say that a Boeing aircraft was safer than an Airbus aircraft. They both meet very high safety standards. I would be happy to purchase either one. Airspace is the same. I am happy to copy a safe airspace system – not build a Nomad.
The trouble is with this analogy is that you are not building a Nomad- what you are doing is more akin to taking a B747 and cutting it down to a B737. You might have end products of each one to look at, but the steps involved might warrant testing?
It stands to reason that if we are going to move away from our system – which relied very much on a traffic information service in Class G (pretty well unique in the world) – run by flight service, to a system run by air traffic controllers, it would be more sensible for us to follow the North American system as the geography has greater similarities to that in Europe.
Why move to a different system. Aren't you happy with world's best practice, the oz system, a system the americans are trying to MOVE TOWARDS? You've already shown your reason for change to be flawed or outright lies.
The difference with the FAA is that it does not profit out of the airspace so there is not a conflict of interest.
So all of this could have been avoided if only you'd changed the charging system, the real cancer? Stopped the govt using AsA as a tax?
If we do this in Australia in relation to aviation we will be leaders in the world.
So, we
copy a creaking, old system, and that will makes us world leaders? Yeah, right......
Anyway, people can make up their own minds. Good effort, though. Much more compelling lies etc.