The NAS Debate: Other Opinions

[WALLEY2]

Broome DAS and charges

The NAS question is complicated but lets try to give Dick and VoR some simple Question or statements. I will start:

Dick, the BME DAS advised the change in risk and cost of a number of options CAGRS/MBZ was the base line. It found CTAF unnacceptable, D tower 20% improvement. Best if tower done on subcontract to AsA:

BME CAGRS record indicates no terminal airspace problems or major incidents, all major users and most pilots say system is fine and cost effective- I say do not change-You now say go to D class Tower no study etc needed.

You say I am worried about my profits. I say CAGRS cost us as our charge was pre Ansett collapse and based on 146 a/c not 737-800 and tower will not cost us as all costs will be passed on to users therefore my profit goes up.

We now seem to agree on MBZ at major regional a/ps and at least CAGRS at BME.

With regards tower, I am worried about:- cost to users- arbitary unstudied decision making- need for transponders that most NW GA a/c do not have and will be a large expenditure for them that some can not afford.

So for NAS to be acceptable to BME all we wanted was studied approach( we would have done and financed this, if asked), consultation with us and stakeholders( we would have organised), alerted see and avoid(mandatory calls now accepted) and third party comms. You are now of this opinion, or one step ahead with D Class Tower.

We could have solved BME terminal airspace and been well down the road to all major regional a/ps and NAS full ahead.

We went ballistic only when Mike Smith said we would be a CTAF(USA) and learn to live with it, even when he could not point to one A/P in the USA as big and diverse as BME that was CTAF- refused to release the taxpayer funded report on the experts trip to USA and bagged Captain Beville-Anderson's report of the same trip that confirmed our desktop study.

We were absolutely worried about safety, bugger profits, I like to sleep at night. We had seen a 15NM MBZ fail and an alarming number of incidents and with CASA help increased the MBZ area and introduced CAGRS. Yet this guy was telling us a 4.5-10NM CTAF was all that was needed. We went head to head to protect the public from this arrogant ,stupid proposal and the system that was trying to impliment it without data, consultation or study.

Looking on this VoR-Dick debate and the Others thread I am coming to the conclusion that it was the- From high,No changes allowed, no studies, no discussion, no trust and Mike Smith lecture approach that has resulted in a major stuff up, much angst and near tragedy. While infact with a more flexibly analysed approach with ARG & NASIG recognising lack of radar, culture difference and therefore some serious changes to say 15% of USA model, the NAS could have been successfully implimented.

So S-T, Capcom etc

Is this over simplistic or could your major concerns on airspace and ATC be solved within a designed analysed hybred NAS that takes account of the differences AUS vs USA or, unlike BME terminal airspace, is it impossible to realistically apply NAS(USA) plus 10-20% changes and get a NAS(AUS). Lets leave aside the question as to wether the existing system needed fixing.

If it could be done, can you try to simply explain what changes were needed to the USA NAS to make a safe transition if properly done. Factors like C vs E, VFR over top, VFR tracking, IFR-VFR seperation without radar. How our ATC, Pilots ways needed to be allowed for. etc

Thanks Mike Caplehorn