There have been many comments on the transponders in "E" outside radar as a "mitigator" with the use of TCAS, which in Oz GA, means "just about everywhere".
The following might be a little subtle for the pro NAS lot but:
www.avweb.com
"Security Mandarins Ponder DC Panic...
Pilot error has been ruled out and now the people who try to keep Washington, D.C., safe from terrorism will figure out among themselves what led them to scramble fighters and evacuate the Capitol last Wednesday for an airplane that never strayed an inch from its approved (and very well-documented) flight path. The King Air 200 carrying Kentucky Gov. Ernie Fletcher (a former fighter pilot) had a waiver to take Fletcher into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport so the governor could attend a memorial for the airport's late namesake. But before it landed, its arrival caused panic (see AVweb's prior coverage") ... perhaps an appropriate reaction to police officers at the Capitol building shouting, "one minute to impact." The pseudo drama began with a balky transponder that quit working shortly after the King Air left Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport early Wednesday afternoon. Following the regulations for such an occurrence, the pilots of the Kentucky State Police aircraft notified air traffic control and maintained contact throughout the flight. "They followed directions from air traffic controllers explicitly," said Doug Hogan, Fletcher's communication's director. "
Yup about the same age as most of the GA transponder equipment operating in the same "Oz just about everywhere".
Myself and the more rational members of the last AOPA board voiced similar concerns pre and post 2b implementation, which in typical fashion brought calumnny and personal vilification upon our persons by the zealot PPL and self proclaimed legends and Smith apologists there, as not "in the interests of members" and the heretical suggestion by us that there should be a means of "verifying" transponder operation for aging aircraft that rarely if ever went near a "radar" as "against the interests of the members and an uneccesary cost imposition".
Biennial radio inspections ? yeah right!
Neither should you assume that the "official" AOPA position in support of the NAS is held by the membership at large, there has been the same form of "consultation" with the AOPA members on this subject as was undertaken by the NASIG at large.!
Before last year the AOPA "Board" (you should not assume the members) position was UNEQUIVOCAL NAS support i.e. "whatever Dick said".
A number of us on the board had to fight very hard, yes against the same relentless calumny and personal vilification, to get it changed to add the very important "but will closely monitor its implementation".
Who in his right mind will give a blanket endorsement to anyone without the knowledge of what will actually get implemented.
I will also state unambiguously, that in my opinon the AOPA board were AT THE VERY LEAST, misled and manipulated regarding the proposed agreed contents and the final release of the actual content of the 2B Training and Educational material.
The timing of which was foiled by an equally concerned Qantas, the other major stakeholder/participant in the T & E material, alerting us to its shortcomings only 4 days before it was to be comitted.
WE at least the then AOPA VPs including the one whose portfolio it was, were NOT addressees to the final 2b iteration from the NASIG, which did NOT include the "frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition", nor were we informed of the meeting that was proposed on the subject in Sydney the Friday before the commital date. There is more which I will not discuss here for the moment.
AOPA had agreed (with I believe Qantas) to "badge", ie endorse the 2B implementation TRAINING AND EDUCATION package SUBJECT to it containing ALL of the mitigators agreed between the NASIG and ALL INDUSTRY as part of the hazard identification process conducted by them in Sydney, around July 2003.
The "TRAINING AND EDUCATION " mitigators in question were, "frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition".
"Frequencies and boundaries on the charts in the transition" was to allow airlines, Qantas and it's regionals and industry the "time" that was not available in the "NAS timetable" for "timely" dissemination throughout their organisations.
The thousands of "orphan" pilots identified by us who did not have easy access to a "knowledgeable" organisation were to be ignored as irrelevant. That is anyone not in the "J" curve.
IMHO the very ones the most exposed in the new system.
There were also to my knowledge many ATCers, who were not yet themselves fully trained nor entirely up to speed with the material.
The "non inclusion" was as I understand it a unilateral decision by a single individual imposed on the NASIG on the grounds, "that it wasn't done in the US model". therefore it couldn't be done here.
The 2B implementation from our perspective was either an unmitigated shambles, an exercise in shameless duplicity or both.
The most prominent proponent of the whole fiasco admitted to me in a telephone conversation that we were serially misled and that the persons involved in doing so should be hailed as "Australian heroes" for ignoring the concern and leading the country to a better system against an incompetent majority. My response that "it is OK for them (the incompetents
) to be misled then" was met with a "whatever it takes".
Oh and whilst I am at it re the "independent" Willoughby and Associates report.
Was there a declaration/disclaimer in the report of who are/were the "Associates" and any "conflict of interest"
I have it on impeccable authority (the Townsville refueller again
) that at least one of the contributors/authors was an employee of Dick Smith.
A "Dorothy Dixer" report indeed?
In closing: for all the concerned pilots and ATCers out there, I also have it on impeccable authority (not the TVL refueller) that this debate and Smiths participation in it is now all relatively immaterial apart from the lessons to be learned.
It is now firmly back where it always belonged in the first place "in the hands" of DOTARS now
actually running NASIG, CASA and AirServices with NASPAG controlled by the relevant CEO's.
I also understand that there have been some seriously career limiting observations made about some by DOTARS.
VOR's classic "Authority WITH Responsibility". I don't imagine really clever public servants get their personal ambitions confused with a non government persons "Influence".
I am not surprised but very pleased to see that neither are VOR deflected by the usual discursive polemic.
I am also really dissappointed that the little bully boy is back with his personal and libellous attacks against public servants and others who by convention have no means of defence.
The idea that the Airservices executive design airspace to increase their bonus is as ludicrous, cheap and bankrupt a notion as is the person who promotes it.
edited to close a bracket.