From AOPA website 6SEP04
Comment from the President, Ron Bertram:
AOPA Australia does not blindly support Dick Smith or any other aviation group, AOPA policies on airspace management have been long standing and consistent.
Airservices Australia have made it obvious that they are only interested in the needs of major carriers, those who provide their major revenue, and the narrow vested interests of the several unions involved. None of them give a hoot for the needs of General Aviation, the tens of thousands employed in General Aviation, the thousands of general aviation business, or the essential services that only GA can provide.
AOPA has not changed its position on NAS, AOPA policy has been unwavering.
AOPA supported the Cabinet decision to model the NAS on the very safe and successful US system, after all it is the model for the system adopted by ICAO. NAS is really no different to Airspace 2000, or LLAMPS at their inception, nor is the hijacking of NAS much different to what lead to the abandonment of Airspace 2000 and LLAMPS. ---- Except for one little thing, NAS 2b is in place and successful, and we are seeing a determined rearguard action by "all the usual suspects" to unwind it.
AOPA accepts genuine, arms length professional quantitative analysis, AOPA does not accept the Airservices so called Risk Analysis as meeting any acceptable standard for such an exercise. Every external examination of the Risk Assessment E over D report has raised serious and fundamental objections to every aspect of the methodology. If you all want to put you head in the sand, and say that O'Neil, Broderick, Mills, even R2A et al are all wrong, so be it, fundamentalist believers are seldom swayed by science.
Some feel that AOPA policy merely follows Dick Smith. If you want to believe that, there is little AOPA can do the sway your view, anybody who doubts AOPA policies in the area only has to look at back copies of the magazine. All you will find is a pragmatic policy of demanding that the imposition of any restrictions and requirements (except for mandatory transponder in E) be by a properly conducted costs and benefits justified risk assessment. That goes for all matters of regulation, not just airspace management.
If genuine, honest and professional analysis of any risk really indicates the need for C to be established, AOPA will accept that, but it must conform to the NAS/FAA standard, there must be primary and secondary radar.
That is what we have now, radar C, why would AOPA accept a degraded standard, compared to the present national standard. Non radar C is an endangered species, it's already very rare.
Of course AOPA is concerned about safety in Australia, no AOPA member has a death wish,but the recent Risk Assessment E over D is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be relied upon. It does not prove that E is unsafe, it does not prove that C over D is the only answer, in fact it proves nothing in providing Australia with efficient and cost effective air traffic management.
As for what is now proposed for November, the package goes far beyond just rolling back NAS 2b, and introduces a whole raft of new requirements, without consultation and without the justifications required by Airservices own Act. In effect, it seeks to roll back much of AMATS, the long held desire of a small bunch of aviation flat earthers, whose hearts desire is to see Australia remain an aviation Galapagos, a quaint little backwater.
Anyway, it is now generally accepted that the Airservices board did not make their recent famous decision based on E being "unsafe", but on more general fears of personal liability for making any decision that did other than increase restrictions and extend the reach of ATC. It's no "leak", in our opinion, the Acting Chairman of Airservices has semi-publicly said as much.
As to any potential judicial proceedings, AOPA will be in lockstep with ASAC, RFACA and the RAA, AOPA will not be acting alone. We will be in excellent company, it is many years since the backbone organizations of the "little end of town" have been so united