VoR
Thankyou for answering my question in the main NAS debate thread,
In your researched and careful manner you have shown that the proposed actions by CASA of maintaining MBZ and CAGRS are NAS(USA) and ICAO compliant.
What had me concerned is that not only was Dick appearing to be claiming MBZ and CAGRS were non compliant but CASA-AsA's in the ARM in its comments section were suggesting the same. Combined this appeared a confirmed position.
To me this was very strange as clearly a busy mixed use airport could be in G class and a DAS such as ours at BME conclude an ATS was required. If ICAO Member States wished to graduate their terminal airspace and not jump from CTAF(USA) allowing non radio equipted aircraft straight to costly D class towers, it appeared such graduated intelligent action was non-compliant.
Thankfully I found my ICAO ANNEX 11( cunningly hidden in my in tray on my P.A.s desk and not in our technical Library)
With your advise and reread of ANNEX 11, we are now armed to negate yet another furfy of MBZ being non-compliant in class G, if it is raised again by NASIG etc.
You may find it extraordinary but, late last year I am advised Mr Mike Smith of NASIG actually wrote or instructed CASA to delete CAGRS legislation, without advise to Ayers Rock or BME Airports the only two civil Airports in Australia gazetted to have CAGRS.
Combined we only have 600,000 pax p/a to protect, but Mike Smith,he new best, probably because of his extensive tertiary qualifications in Mathematics,Engineering, or Science and previous experience in Airspace management- funny but I can not find either his thesis or published papers demonstrating this. Open Mike pehaps you could enlighten us on your qualification in airspace risk management or at least tertiary maths and statistical analysis.
Mike Smith surely you would need this training to have the confidence to make such an order to CASA experts without consulting either the persons doing the CAGRS work or the qualified providers and airport owners and their qualified consultants who monitor the service.
Mike Smith, for me that was one of the high water marks in the stupid, arrogant and devisive behavoir by of NASIG. To me, you claimed MBZ and CAGRS was not only non ICAO compliant but also non NAS (USA) compliant I did know the latter was absolute unresearched total rubbish. You then mis-informed the Senate Estimates Committee in a smug and condesending manner "they (STEAMBOAT SPRINGS) like their unicom infact they call it an enhance unicom". Pity you did not ring the airport you quoted as we did to find they had compulsary calls 10 mins out! and radar coverage down to 4000ft and one in one out IFR procedures controlled by Denver.
No wonder the wheels fell off the NAS implimentation, forget industry consultation you did not have the decency to even consult a team of two players.
In hindsight you were probably the right person for the job,you had the attributes to attempt this now discredited illinformed, selectively manipulated, non consultative, expensive, highanded and unqualified approach to airspace reform. thanks for the memories.
VoR, thankyou for your huge efforts, many of us owe you greatly, not least the pax who will never know their safety was so impressively protected by your wise counsel.
Mike Caplehorn
B.E. MIEAust.C.P.Eng. FAICD
Chairman BIA Group