Mr Smith Said:
in relation to Dubbo, you asked who will provide the DTI service. The answer is simple. It will be provided as it is now by ATC. The service in the terminal area will be provided to all IFR aircraft. Aircraft coming in from the controlled airspace above will already be in the system. Aircraft coming into the terminal area from Class G airspace will call ATC and request traffic information.
I will ask the question in simple speak:
How will IFR find out about VFR when as you state IFR will be on ATS freq and VFR’s will be on CTAF/MBZ, more over how do IFR pilots maintain a listening watch for
ulm in his trike whilst listening to ATS on the area Freq for IFR.
Further if ATS can provide a DTI service in G for Nix (I support that by the way), why is User pays being applied inconsistently?
After all your LSP/User Pays system has had only one effect and that is to place services out of the reach of those who fly general Aviation aircraft in the same airspace as commercial operators, leaving them little choice than to move to uncontrolled HOX type circuses! Again that is from your point of view acceptable even desirable as small numbers of fatalities are not 400 Pax!!!
Perhaps you might explain that rationale?
Mr Smith also said:
In time, an airport like Dubbo will go to Class E airspace, and any aircraft performing an instrument approach or departure will require a clearance from ATC – what could be simpler?
I guess then Radar or Procedural separation of IFR’s will create lots of delays and presumably additional ATS positions, or are you expecting already loaded ATC’s to take on additional airspace responsibilities low level.
Irrespective VFR’s will lerk within, ATC will be unable to see or hear them and IFR unable to hear them unless they have 2 Comm’s and the ability to decode 2 freq conversations garbling each other, this will make both the CTAF/MBZ freq’s and area freq’s less effective and thus for mine more dangerous!
WHAT COULD BE SIMPLER?????????
Mr Smith also said:
Most importantly Capcom, of all of the statements in this thread, the most amazing to me was yours
quote:
“Could you explain how Australian Airspace design has anything to do with global competition?”
This is similar to the statement made to me that the lack of reform and the high costs in aviation have had nothing to do with Ansett going broke and 15,000 people being put out of work. The answer is simple. In a global environment, all Australian businesses have to compete. High costs in aviation are added to business costs and therefore our competitiveness. We already have the disadvantages of long distances and no advantages of efficiencies of scale, so we need to be very astute in the way we save every unnecessary dollar.
- Show me how our charges compare with those OS?. Tis’ your LSP regime that has had an effect on those costs levied to Industry offset against reductions of services.
- Show your proof of the assumption that ATS charges had anything to do with the way Ansett was administered and the resulting collapse. As I understand AsA was one of the creditors owed substantive funds. It was a calamity that has caused so much grief and hardship for the Ansett folks, to blame in such a simplistic fashion is crude and wrong!!
Our Airspace infrastructure costs money. The way those costs are levied needs to be looked at!.
Any players operating into Australia would be paying the same for the same, therefore would operate on a level playing field in relation to ATS charges whilst within our Airspace!.
To say that if something is too expensive rather than deemed Unnecessary by the appropriate non-political agency (It should not be AsA!) ie CASA (Specialist Experienced Airspace operations inspectors not Managers!) is “Dictatorial Affordable Safety”.
I don’t want YOUR affordable safety, rather I want Risk assessed Services based on Need!!
If that is prohibitively expensive for GA, I’m sure Howard could find another “Wooldridge Building Grant” that could be Canned to provide a small subsidy to cover the GA folks.
AsA’s Managers Travel Budget could just about cover it!!
Mr Smith also said:
however I find it incredibly difficult when I have no idea of the real names of the people who are making these comments and whether they are genuine or just having a bit of fun.
Why are the Names important??? The Subject matter is the important thing!!
I don’t think anyone participating is “having a bit of Fun” with such a serious subject!!!
Here is a clue Dick- You never did send that box of “Dickheads” you promised on the Frequency!!
Mr Smith also said:
Airservices is a profit making commercial monopoly
Yep, transformed by the owner the Federal Government to its current state.
Monopoly, Yep!! Airports only have ONE tower each, as is en-route and TMA airspace’s!.
Competition???
If the Government use as justification for corporatisation/privatisation of ATS, the notion that ATS will compete for business and therefore costs to industry will be reduced? Answer me this:
- How will 2 or more towers on an Aerodrome or 2 or more Centres providing services in the same airspace work?
- What do you think a private company (Given a necessarily MONOPOLIC service) with profit as it ONLY motive will do to charges and services??
That “Competition” red herring has run its day, the “Spin Dr’s” need a new line!!!!
Mr Smith, many questions have been asked on this thread regarding a great many aspects of your NAS proposal.
On balance your selection of those subjects on which you provide reply re-enforce the concerns I have regarding your apparent influence in Canberra and your understanding of airspace design and promulgation.
ulm
With that attitude in today’s aviation environment, you could go far.
Dick has provided his Phone number a number of times, give him a call and I’m sure his mate Lye-low John will create another seat on the airspace advisory panel for ya!!!
You Peanut!!
Cogwheel
Bernie S will be proud!!! Extra money in your contract Sonny!!!
Creampuff, Tacolote, 4711, 2Xdogs, Ferris, Capt Laptop – Concur and Salute!!