…. in one ear and out the other
.
It is clear from the wide spread opinion and technical understanding displayed in this thread (and myriads of threads past), the arguments we mount are sound, based on factual, practical experience and data.
.
Unless and until you can mount sensible contrary plans that are supportable in factual and practical ways that
Improve safety beyond what we currently have, then opinions will not change!
.
…. I might add, I and others who have no other interest except a fierce defence of common sense, efficient, safety practical application of air navigation services, will continue to show the folly of ill thought out, questionable attempts to further undermine our industry, and that includes commercial, recreational and sport aviation … all apparently in the name of change for changes sake! (I suspect the real reasons for your vigour are somewhat more self centric, and well known to most, however I will no longer be giving you currency to complain in this place)
Scurvy.D.Dog, unfortunately I just don’t have the staying power to answer every one of your points.
… staying power? .. or is it you have no supportable retort? …. How about having a crack at the important technical questions raised …. otherwise your ‘fobbing off’ is typical and cheap!
Why don’t you give me a ring on 02 9450 0600 or 0408 640 221?
… why don’t I, because I am not about to have you claim X or Y was said in a phone conversation with no recourse. That is why the arguments are mounted here and elsewhere with a wide audience as participants/witnesses … is that why you would prefer the phone?
Or why don’t you organise a bit of a casual meeting in Launy where we can debate the issues and people can decide for themselves which is the best outcome for Australian aviation?
… the industry in Launy have open access to me 24/7 … we provide first class terminal area and tower services to local GA, Charter, AeroMed, Commercial Regional and RPT operators (QANTAS, VIRGINBLUE, Eastern Airlines and JETSTAR) …. I am sure they would have a view on the services we (and our colleagues from ML Radar) provide, and I would not presume to comment on their behalf, however I am sure they will post if they have anything to say (good or bad) .. I am well aware of the number of industry personnel (both locally and elsewhere) who read these pages! … what I can tell you is that I (and my colleagues) sleep well at night!
.
… as for a ‘casual debate’ … what is the point … you have on a number of occasions in the past been approached by me (in person) to discuss some of these issues … your inability to listen to or accept a contrary view from anyone is borne out in this place also. It makes the exercise futile … I do not like or appreciate being talked at or over!
.
You know who I am, and my work for industry, both professionally as an ATC, and as a voluntary Unicom service provider (at GA airshow and fly-in events) … I do not give a rats ring gear that you know who I am …. I also do not care for your attempts to silence dissenting opinions with threats ….. I stand by the opinions I hold, and the comments I make as I can back them with testimony and documented fact ….. your modus operandi to attack those who disagree shows the hollowness of your agenda .. were it robust or justifiable .. it would not matter to you (or anyone else for that matter) what any of us think ….. go your hardest!
.
… re: Part 71 …. were you the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority during the early CASR drafting process?
... were you liasing with CASA and the Minister for Transport in your capacity as a member of the Airspace Reform Group?
.
.. you were able to introduce CA/GRO (Flight Service by another name) and remove Flight service (F) services prior to that … are you suggesting you had no influence, input or knowledge of Part 71?
.
… and please do not think that I am in any way complimenting you!
I did note that Part 71 is written in a way to keep the status quo. That is, the hurdle rates for establishing Class D and Class C airspace are so high that the status quo will remain.
…. How do you suppose those thresholds were reached? …. or is that another baseless slur directed at a wide cross-section of industry
It is a classic example of “over consultation” with the industry which has a profit advantage in making sure that there are no Class D towers at places like Ayers Rock and Avalon.
…. ‘over consultation’ …. speaks volumes … what would you prefer .. unilateral decision making …. How many industry groups were included in the consultation AND formulation of your ‘vision’ AusNAS? .. what a load of cobblers …. and, I might add, a slanderous slur at those in industry involved in the consultation and formulation of these service thresholds
I love your comment:
Twr/App controller D services could be provided up to A100 or perhaps higher FL125 … that is where the TWR/APP Centre split should be .. not lower!!
Talk about resistance to change! I thought FL125 was where it was a number of years ago.
….. funny thing that! ….. why do you suppose it was at that height …. Bet you cannot rattle off a list of reasons why it would be better (safer and more efficient) at a lower level!?
Yes, this maximises the number of tower controllers and gives them a staggering amount of airspace.
… cobblers … state how and why that is true … cause I can sure as hell tell you why it ain’t .... and before you go on about radar again .... compare apples with apples .... compare centre procedural and twr procedural or centre radar with tower radar .... because in this day and age, the data can be provided to either/both locations!
However my belief is that we follow what Airservices are doing in the United States, where the tower airspace is as small as possible (2,500 ft AGL and 4.3 miles)
… Airservices inherited the airspace arrangement at those towers
allowing the controller to concentrate where the collisions are likely to occur – in the circuit area, on the approach to the runway, or on the runway itself.
…. Hmmm.. see the difference, separate Radar approach provided (and paid for) by the FAA …. Do you see the difference? .. and why this arrangement is different in the Australian context?
If you have one tower controller at a place like Albury or Coffs Harbour being responsible for the close-in traffic, as well as traffic to FL125 (including all overflying traffic), this is an incredible diffusion of responsibility.
…. No, sensible, safe allocation of finite resources …. You were banging on for years about ‘affordable safety’ … seems to me (and others) you are so concerned about your previous aviation polices turning around and bitting you on the empennage that you now want the industry to pay a bucket load more money for things you spent years trying to get rid of, such as ATC Towers (in favour of Unicom or CA/GRO), FS (in favour of ATC providing the FS function), Full SAR availability for VFR (in favour of Mum held SARTIMES) the list goes on ….
Note that NASA did a study on this and found that such a diffusion of responsibility increases the chance of an unnecessary collision.
….. nice headline, but as usual you do not tell the whole story …. NASA also included traffic complexity and densities in that outcome …. Design Aeronautical Studies determine those things …. you know .. those Design Aeronautical Studies you so despise and trivialise!
you were the one who pushed the ‘reference system issue’ and the resistance to aeronautical studies of specific volumes …
Yes, because commonsense said that by looking at a reference system we could get very good data on how safe the resultant airspace would be.
…. Common sense … that would be common sense that ignored the advice of safety and airspace experts from CASA and AsA that pointed out the differences and the net safety impact?
The aeronautical study way (as used in the Class E above Class D Airservices safety case) can end up with manipulated data to support the status quo. This is what happened.
…. Provide proof of this slanderous slur or retract it immediately …. If there were any veracity to your claim you would have continued with your anti-rollback court case …. why did you not continue with that?
If we can accept Boeing 747 previous safety history for certification, why not do the same with airspace?
… because you cannot introduce a DeHavilland Comet and call it a Boeing 747 ….. the product must be the same for Christ sake!