PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - NAS rears its head again
View Single Post
Old 30th Apr 2010, 06:49
  #683 (permalink)  
Howabout
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Dick,

As regards your following comment, I actually agree with you; but for different reasons:

When Airservices reversed the E over D airspace of NAS-2B, they did so because the Board was told that the correct process of safety analysis was not completed before Airservices agreed to change the airspace. It was not that the airspace was not safe, it was the fact that the processes had not been followed and this could leave the Board liable.

The Board made the decision to reverse the airspace, and then had their “experts” complete a safety study to support the Board decision.
I'd say that what actually happened was that the Board was horrified when they were confronted by, and finally realised, the risk level generated by terminal Class E. After all, these guys were just suits with no understanding of airspace. The penny finally dropped, and they were petrified that they could be held responsible (and liable - maybe personally so) in the event of a Tobago and B737 digging a joint hole in the landscape. They needed an excuse to reverse a dumb decision and present a plausible reason to the 'amiable dolt' of a Minister. I agree that the excuse of 'lack of due process' was a smokescreen. But when the realisation hit, with respect to personal responsibility (Airservices was the airspace regulator then, which means the Board would have been fried), they had a case of serious, communal diarrhoea.

To add to Blogg's quote, as follows:

The alarm bells are ringing, the red lights are flashing.
When it came to Launy, from the perspective of the Board, I think that the blue lights were a'sh*ttin' as well. In short, 'get us out of this disaster - any way you can - just make it plausible.'

In respect of your other statement on UK airspace, Dick old fruit, I feel there is a level of inconsistency in your statements. You say:

For example, they actually control IFR airline aircraft in uncontrolled airspace.
I could be wrong, but I seem to remember a statement of yours during the great NAS debate that actually supported aircraft being on the control frequency, when passing from E/C into G and back to E/C, as efficient and sensible.

ARFOR, the memory is dimming, but do you recall that one?

Last edited by Howabout; 30th Apr 2010 at 07:21.
Howabout is offline