Doug,
I agree with your sentiment regarding the need to provide an environment conducive to Aviation flourishing. That said, don ya Skid lid and Duck
: -
I cannot accept that because the Minister for whatever reason has put “AusNAS” on the table in preference to LLAMP, we therefore have to swallow the pill and run with it. Why?
The motivations behind its rise to prominence seem smelly in the extreme. One could be forgiven for thinking this is all about reducing services that do not make $$$ for Howard PTY LTD.
Einstein’s pet ferret could tell that GA could not afford to pay for ATS services by themselves, so they are sold the savior of “You don’t really need them do you"??. Removing VFR participation in the system may be seen as a “good” reform by some. I wonder how many IFR and VFR pilots have but for the grace of god “pass like ships in the night?”
Wild sweeping statement I hear you say! Well time will tell I guess. They won’t always miss, and when they don’t lives are lost in a hideous fashion that the media love to focus on, which I might add stands to do more damage to punter confidence and thus patronage in Aviation than any cost of ATS issue.
To suggest that we must re-invent the wheel to save costs for the GA industry is in its singular form a red herring in my opinion dressed up to allow the Fed Gov’t to abdicate their funding and service provision responsibilities.
I will share will you why I think this is the case: -
Despite all the hype and rhetoric mention has not been made as to why we need change nor how the costs levied to industry will improve. Profit motives are IMHO the driver behind the airspace change debate. Was that not the case why would change be needed? Is there some sort of system problem that AusNAS will fix, NO!
The only thing I have seen on this subject is the ill-informed opinion of an amateur aviator, who considers ATC can take on larger responsibilities geographically for IFR at the exclusion of VFR. That’s fine if we accept the premise that IFR will know about each other and miss the VFR’s purely based on probability (Big Sky), further all things being equal, ATS sectorisation needs to be smaller to enable frequency management of all traffic types.
Nowhere in this AusNAS thing is there any risk mitigated in a way that addresses the climb and descent phases of flight outside RADAR coverage.
The underlying theme has been right from the get go that we will simply be following the US system, and because they have only minimal fatalities it is acceptable for us, BOLLOCKS!. We have less traffic but more importantly ****** ALL CONPARABLE INFRUSTRUCTURE.!!!
Mike says, “see the FAA site to see where we are going”. Well, I have spent the last week on and off becoming conversant with US.NAS, and their 15-year plan for modernisation. It is clearly a program given a lot of resources and very carefully laid out objectives, based on achievable and regularly assessed change timetables. In fact I have not seen such a comprehensive plan from an Aviation body previously.
The following URL’s for the interested reader. I suggest if you really “give a rats”, taking the time to read them will do more for understanding the difficulties of what is being proposed than going around the park endlessly:-
<<US.NAS Architecture.url>>
http://www.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/
<<Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.url>>
http://www.icao.int/cgi/eshop_anx.pl?GUESTguest#an11
<<National Airspace System Architecture Version 4.0.url>>
http://www.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/version4.htm
Great I hear you say, we will copy them!, well that is unrealistic and not possible for the following reasons:-
A) We do not have the Surveillance infrastructure to go with from the start. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT UP; WE DO NOT HAVE THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY RADAR COVERAGE TO ENABLE THE GA COMMUNITY TO FLY WITHOUT USING THOSE PESKY RADIOS OR TRANSPONDERS!
B) We have no funding commitments for the upgrades needed down the track to make free flight for all a reality, unless it becomes a “big sky free for all”.
C) IFR cannot be made aware of VFR if ATC cannot see them or FS cannot hear them. This is the fundamental incompatibility with the US and OZ.
D) The Fed Gov’t are not interested in re-investing profits raised from the commercial sector of the industry! Without that fundamental shift in policy this whole industry will continue to be squeezed until GA no longer exists at an affordable level.
E) ATS has been calved up and now charges itself for everything. You would fall over at the drama involved in getting anything done!!! (Training, equipment, etc) and the costs, Fu…ark!!!
The FAA re-invests in the future needs of the Aviation sector. What happens here????
Suck, suck, suck, whilst the Canberra leeches get rounder and rounder…
If only a tipper truck full of salt would do the trick..!!!
I guess in a nut shell:-
If we are not going to adopt the whole box and dice, (Funding, Infrastructure etc). It ain’t gunna fly!!!!
So lets assume for one moment that they knew that NAS was unachievable?
Then this whole thing was likely an exercise to muzzle a lose cannon and get re-elected!
If not, then they genuinely are DUMB and listened to the verbal diahorrea in the hope it would deliver the cheap option dressed up as a system improvement??
Either way you cut it “It smells like a dead cat!!!”
I believe the other motive here perhaps by coincidence, is the death of LLAMP. As 4711 has asked about the CASA involvement re the LLAMP death I will sit and wait to see what gets coughed up!!!
I believe we can evolve a system in OZ that addresses the concerns of most. However whilst the bean counters and the contract suits are supported by the Fed’s with the ethos of dollar signs in their eyes and nothing else, it is tantamount to urinating on an oil fire to think they will do the right thing.
The only way this industry will thrive into the future is if the mass of ATS Operators, Pilots, Engineers across the board get together, define the fix and bomb the Fa..rk out of the suits in Canberra with it until they are embarrassed enough to do the right thing.
If we cannot get it together and achieve similar, I guess we are not only not serving the industry today, but also leaving *****’ all for the youngun’s in the future.
QF,
VB et al will have fun teaching the kids how to TALK and Fly at the same time.
Feather#3,
Agreed it is not generally desirable to have monopolies, however the option is private enterprise squeezing profits out of individual ATS units that have expensive cost structures by there very nature. OS examples of this folly have without exception ended in higher cost and less service.
Government should provide the services under strict rules on subsidy and price caps.
If there is another solution lets hear it?
I’ll shut up now as the barrel has melted…. Meddddddiiiiiiiicccc….
Rant:- Select OFF