IG Composition
1. The IG will consist of:
(a) a team leader, who will report regularly to the ARG and manage the overall tasks of the IG; and
(b) staff seconded from Airservices, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Defence, DOTARS and other appropriate organisations.
2. The IG will be supplemented as required by an invited representative from the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other experts.
If work has started, who are these people????????
And what:
other appropriate organisations
are we talking about here???????????
Not much content after 9 months
:o
SAFETY ANALYSIS
3.1 Methodology
ICAO provides two methodologies for "determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.
Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe. Provided that the proposed system can be demonstrated to be the same or better than the reference system in all safety aspects, then it may be assumed also to be safe…"19
As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.
Well we have an answer on the safety case!!!!!!!!
I can still find no detail on any of the pages.
As for
One could apply all the same reasonings for Lamp except for the MBZ, but then Lamp submitted a safety case. Silly AsA.
Too Much Information.
As for
What happened to LAMP?
The AWG developed what became the LAMP proposal. In January 2001 it appeared the AWG had been able to reach a position of industry agreement on a preferred model, however, subsequent developments made to the LAMP model resulted in statements from both AOPA and the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation (ASAC) that they no longer supported the LAMP proposal because of its inherent radio requirements and the proposed increase in the number and size of mandatory broadcast zones (MBZs).
We now have it from the horses mouth that the electronic dick killed it all by himself.
This really gives me the SH%^S
One more
What are the main differences between NAS and LAMP?
Three key differences between LAMP and NAS are:
1 remove MBZs and replace them with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) procedures or Unicoms, third party provided traffic information procedures;
2 continued use of 'see and avoid' where radio use remains optional; and
3 expanded implementation of Class E airspace corridors.
All three where looked at by the AWG and discarded by safety analysis and fully documented by AsA. From what I heard from an AWG member about the expanded E corridors, AsA made some maps with E corridors over them, placed these maps on the floor and 12 people tried to work out how one would fly from one destination to another, low level. After 2 hours, not one person in the room could figure them out and could say they where satisfied that they would know what class of airspace they would be in at any one time.
ALL THIS BECAUSE AOPA AND SPORT AVIATION WILL NOT USE A RADIO
If this airspace system is impimented, unfortunately we will not have the safety record we now enjoy, all because some person will not use a radio.
God help us.