Lodown,
A truer and more balanced assessment I have not heard.
Ever thought of a job with Airservices or CASA? But then again, by virtue of such reasonableness, you have just ruled yourself out.
I think there is little point arguing that some reform of airspace is not required. Those that do don’t appreciate how much has changed in technology, work practices and competition over the last decade or so. This is not a criticism of them, simply a statement that while they have been looking after (their) business, doing what they do, other influences (as you have outlined) have been at work altering the nature of the business they are in.
Unfortunately as a result of the dabbling of a certain individual over the last decade, the reasons and intentions for reform have engendered (rightly so) enormous distrust and scepticism within the industry. The industry is quite simply sick of the plethora of
PR bull dressed up as documentation and “education” (and the workload and costs associated with it) only to have it canned and resurrected under yet another acronym a year or two later. No wonder they question the need for reform! It is not reform. It is simply part of the ongoing self promotion and political interference dressed up as reform. NAS is “today’s” acronym.
I believe LAMP's downfall was not as a result of what it wasn’t achieving but what it was. There was the real possibility that it might achieve what the “strolling adventurer and amateur aviator” could not. That would have meant no more chance at aeronautical immortality, no more airspace soapbox to stand on, no more limelight. This would of course also have been a problem for all the Dick- proclaimed experts and coat-tailing bureaucrats who have been rewarded/appointed for perpetuating the myth. Whilst the Emperor may not be in the palace unfortunately, as we have seen, there are still many of these individuals occupying positions of influence.
In any real test of ability they would have been flat out finding the "playing field" let alone making the starting team.
Mike,
Interesting choice of questions that you have decided to answer! Your choice, but it does little for your, or the project’s, credibility.
Snarek,
Much as I concur with your sentiments regarding the actions of the Metro, no regulations were broken (although there is a requirement to notify your intention for a SIA during the inbound broadcast at or near15nm). The metro was only required to give way to aircraft established on base or finals. In terms of appropriate airmanship…based on what you say here…couldn’t agree more. The same however can be said of the light aircraft involved in the consequential breakdown. If they are incapable of adjusting to changed circumstances then they shouldn’t be flying.
In regards to MBZ or no MBZ justification it is completely irrelevant. Failure to comply with either regulatory or airmanship standards is not related to a class of airspace. For everyone of those that fail to comply there are a multitude that do.
It’s a bit like saying “I saw someone run a red light so why have them”.