Following is my response to posts up to 10 June. I will respond to later postings soon.
Creampuff, please call me Dick. I apologise for attributing the Class D comments to you.
You state,
“It is reasonable for me to conclude that you are not convinced the NAS model will be at least as safe, or safer than the LAMP model and the existing airspace model, and nor are you convinced the NAS model will be cheaper than the LAMP model and the existing airspace model.”
I believe that the NAS model will be at least as safe, or safer, and I also believe it has the potential to be less expensive than the present airspace system. I do not believe NAS will be cheaper than the LAMP model, because the LAMP model removed the directed traffic service in all uncontrolled airspace.
In relation to the Class D type procedures that were used at the Grand Prix, if they were simply “planting road signs”, the bluff worked incredibly well. All the pilots I saw flying in and out were complying with the Class D air traffic control procedures. It would have been a game one who refused.
Piston_Broke, you state that a number of organisations agreed with the LAMP model and that I should give Ron McGrath a call. I phoned Ron McGrath and his statement was quite simple. He said the majority of the AWG agreed that the LAMP safety case should go to CASA. They agreed no more and no less. As we all know, the LAMP safety case was not accepted by CASA. Just how the LAMP AWG (including QF) could agree that jet airline aircraft would be performing instrument approaches in IMC without even the minimum of a directed traffic service, is beyond comprehension. Please forget the myth that I somehow stopped LAMP. It was stopped because the safety case was not approved and never would be.
You mention the fact that AD operators and airlines “do not want to pay for UNICOMs”. Do you really believe that is how safety improvements should be decided? In fact, there is no measurable cost for a UNICOM. Virtually every airport in the USA has a UNICOM at no cost. We have an effective UNICOM at Taree operated by the airline handling agent and it works superbly at no cost. The airlines already have a person at the airport who communicates with the airline on the private company frequency. Obviously there is no cost to move this transmitter to the CTAF/MBZ frequency. The claims about insurance are a complete myth. When Gerry McGowan of Impulse decided to operate a UNICOM at both Port Macquarie and Cooma, he contacted his insurance company who advised there would be no loading at all, as the service was only being provided to “improve safety” and therefore would reduce the chance of a claim for the airline.
Four Seven Eleven, you ask the most extraordinary questions but I have no idea who you are. Why are you so scared about identifying yourself? What are your achievements in life – do your peers consider you a success or a failure? Come clean in relation to who you really are and what your intentions are, and I will answer all of the questions immediately. Our forefathers fought for people to be able to speak their mind freely in this country. Why can’t you? I look forward to your advice.
Achilles, you ask,
“How will the Class G areas with DTI and Class G areas without DTI be identified (on ERCs, VTCs, NOTAMS, ERSA????)”
The plan is to follow the US system. Please give me a call on 02 9450 0600 and I will explain it to you.
Capn Laptop, I have never stated, nor do I believe that
“Class E corridors will solve all our safety concerns”
The NAS system will not have
“160 odd people operating into a mining strip with NO directed traffic, no SAR watch, nothing”
It will follow the proven and very safe US system. No, I do not plan to shift the costs from one body to another.
You make disparaging comments in relation to the reforms I have introduced into aviation, however you hide behind anonymity. Surely you must have enough self-confidence and have achieved enough in life to be open and honest about your opinions, or are you pulling my leg?
To all contributors on this thread, all of the comments I have seen here could safely be attributed to any genuine person in an open and honest way. Why then hide your true names? Naturally people believe that you could be hiding your true beliefs. This whole secrecy thing seems (to me) to be more suited to Iraq than Australia. Could I challenge you to
also register with your real names when you are commenting on issues that you truly believe in and are not frightened to be held accountable for?