My opinions of the type of people who feel the need to insult others from under the hood of anonymity, and then try to pass themselves off as Crusaders against the Forces of Evil remains. They are exactly what I said they were. I address my remarks to the many who read but who do not necessarily post, as it is important that they are not led to believe rubbish is fact simply because it is unrebutted. When the first Airspace Reform Proposal was torpedoed by the vested interests that are still peddling their half-truths on this site, I was President of the Australian International Pilot's Association. My concerns were mainly with "shorthaul", in particular the B737 operation into Ayers Rock etc, as in the main the proposals didn't affect the average B767 or B747 pilot much if at all. In order to listen to face to face responses to concerns, real or imagined, I convened a meeting between the AIPA Shorthaul representative, the Longhaul representative, the AFAP representative, and Dick Smith. I had not met Smith before this Airspace Proposal surfaced. The AFAP rep, who as far as I could ascertain hadn't flown outside the confines of N.S.W. wouldn't attend as he said "Dick Smith has nothing to teach me." The debate has stayed at that level ever since.It was the first time that I had encountered the blind jealousy or whatever it is that motivates this hostility against Dick Smith from "professional pilots" and of course the Air Traffic Controllers Union and disaffected CASA staff. I fully confess that Dick's speech and subsequent rebuttal made sense to me, and I might immodestly add that I have flown in most ATC environments, from the uncontrolled radar assisted bunfight in Viet Nam to the peace and quiet of the Australian outback and most in between. I was astounded when the B737 pilot said. "Well I am persuaded but how can I admit that to the others?" Just what was going on here? I can understand that Dick's undoubted impatience and abruptness might offend many whose egos are at risk, (or whose jobs are at risk) but does that make him wrong? He has, for whatever reason, studied Airspace for years, his ideas are almost purely derived from the US system, (despite absolutely incorrect claims to the contrary,) and he knows his stuff. (None of which might make him lovable I admit.) For those who do not wish to read the AOPA postion as detailed in the magazine, that is fine by me, but I do not intend to repeat it here. A few furphys though. E airspace is not dependent on radar. It is of course and obviously enhanced by radar, but one way to look at E is simply a better way to provide Directed Traffic Information. Why make the pilots sort out separation when some person sitting in an office with a table in front of him has the picture? As he is a Controller he issues clearances to those to whom he previously gave information only. That is E, as transparent to VFR as G is, but with added safety of a Controller instead of only information. Radar is better, but no more essential than it is in G. VFR traffic remains in E as it was in G, no more or less dangerous. VFR traffic rarely speaks in the US, except around airports, on CTAFs. There are not even "area frequencies" to speak on. Like the idea or hate it, works fine. I flew from Nashville to New Orleans and back, and the first person to whom I spoke was the Tower in New Orleans. Had I called on the ATC frequency the Controller would have been amazed as Sydney Tower would be if I called him transitting Victor One (the VFR corridor past Sydney Airport Coastal, introduced as a result of AOPA efforts.) Radar is not "everywhere" in the US, but it is true that it does usually exist at those small D towered airports that are overlain with E airspace, and I am not comfortable with jet aircraft climbing into E unless it is in a radar environment. I have flown B747s and B767's in E and it is not comfortable, but then watching a "fast mover" pulling up from a bombing pass heading my way while undoubtedly the pilot was looking over his shoulder at his handiwork was inspiring, but somehow "see and be seen" worked. There are times when VFR should talk of course, but if an occasional non radio aircraft needs to go to a country airport like Dubbo, must it be completely excluded? It is possible to get a non radio clearance into a towered airport, but not into a Mandatory Broadcast Zone! The original proposal in the 90's was to allow non radio in at low level but this was beaten by those regional pilots, and it is not all of them, who believe that only they should exist. It would be boring to go through it all here, but for those who believe that, as planned in LLAMPS, all VFR aircraft should report "climbing, descending, and every 30 minutes" or that most of NSW should be a no go zone for non radio, arrogant old me thinks that you are absurd. And I'll be signing my name.. .Bill Pike
[ 06 February 2002: Message edited by: AOPA Aust ]</p>