Ulm
The sports and owners bodies will play politics, that is their job. You say it is with your life, perhaps, but it isn't meant to be. It is against the non-pilot grey cardie set who wake up every morining with a neat new safety initiative and to hell with how much it costs GA.
There is the problem in one paragraph!.
Politics of costs, PERHAPS (Your word) giving rise to jeopardising the lives of others, but it is not meant to be!!!!
Jeezus H!!
, If AOPA really want to serve our industry, forget about the ridiculous notion that costs will only be reduced by sacrificing safety systems (ICAO compliant airspace) and concentrate on undoing the damage that Indiana has caused with his crusades such as LSC, a point apparently acknowledged in the AOPA thread.
Your arrogance is quite frankly breathtaking, as a PPL you consider you have the right to inflict such changes to other sections of the industry because you don’t want to pay yet acknowledge that lives in greater danger might well be the result.
Again (and again and again) ADSB will save AsA millions EVEN IF they are forced by the pollies to pay for fitting every aircraft in the fleet. (And what the hell, even microlights could have one with a small battery!!!).
Again and again and again,that is just plain horse5hit. ADS-B currently being trialed in Bundaberg involves 1 ground station and two RFDS BE20’s. That my friend does not a system make!. If you are going to mount the argument do it fairly ie
ADS-B
- 20 ground station installations (That may or may not increase coverage above that currently under RADAR if ADS-B is assumed to replace RADAR).
- Conservatively , 3,000 odd aircraft installations (Does not include AUF).
- Unless you equip with uprated boxes there will NOT be cockpit traffic advisories (Additional costs).
- If Airservices (Gov Business enterprise ie profit making) pay for the installations, do you really think they will not pass that cost back to the very industry you say cannot sustain safety costs.
- Procedures and separation standards must be developed and training provided.
V’s RADAR Augmentation
- At most 10 additional RADAR heads nationwide to provide coverage in areas where traffic density warrants a RADAR class E airspace arrangement and Class F elsewhere.
- A comparatively small number of transponders fitted to those not currently equipped.
Irrespective of which surveillance system is used it must be installed and commissioned PRIOR to airspace reform!!!
2 Chocolate frogs to the those who can work out which system could be implemented first for the less cost!?
And as for that camel excreta that Phelan put up in the December AA, if that is his idea of providing industry with a balanced view me thinks he exists in weightlessness!!.
One last point 2-dogs. Whinging about AOPA et al wont help, whinging about NAS won't help (read Anderson's latest statement on it in CASA's Flight (un)safety mag. You are gonna cop it.)
Perhaps you are right, amazing what buying silence at an election can do for one President Indiana’s cause. The Jet Set have reported from the US that the system over there does not operate as was purported by Indiana and his underlings! WELL NO 5HIT SHERLOCK!!!!. Maps and airspace boundaries are proving a challenge for the aspiring, think it might have something to do with the extent of RADAR coverage and proposed class E!, WELL BLOW ME OVER AND PICKLE ME GRANNY!!!!
Are we gonna cop it!?!?! We will see I guess
What will help is if all of us stop sniping at each other and hit the government with some combined political clout so we get a system we all think will work.
God damn ULM we agree on something!
, although me thinks “a system we all think will work” does not represent that which you and AOPA think will work. Your response to valid concerns raised above and the vast number of previous threads on these subjects make clear the vastness of the void between beliefs. Unless and until the common ground is struck within those parameters open to industry negotiation (Read that some system design requirements MUST be left to those expert in such matters), the sector will remain paralysed and haemorrhaging with disputation.
And at the moment the only organisation with the size and credibility to do this is AOPA. And anyone who says AOPA is just for PPLs will cop a roasting from hamilton, so, no matter what you think of the guy, he is representing you so represent yourselves to him!!!!
FOX Scat!!!! AOPA wilfully or otherwise has ONLY represented PPL’s in some areas and IMHO poorly, although to be fair to some at AOPA they were dazzled and blinded by the rhetoric and promises of past “rudders”. Flying Training and commercial operators were left out of the very representation you talk about; otherwise AOPA would never have supported some of the horse5hit that Indiana thrust on them such as LSC. If wild Bill does not like to hear it, tough!, his one eyed single minded “Roastings” are the very thing that have alienated so many he is suppose to represent, why then would members serve themselves up for such a roasting?. Anyway, what gives him the right, he’s not Mr Jesus H Christ.
The sooner AOPA start communicating with their members and other Professional groups within industry to seek dialogue and perhaps common ground you will continue to fight alone!!!.
That said and given the annihilation occurring within AOPA at the minute, I sincerely hope the broom through will stop the rot and the organisation can return to doing what it should be i.e Representing the wishes of the majority of its members not the will of a small band of know-it-all’s. I would then seriously give consideration to rejoining, as would I suspect a large number of PPL/CPL ATC’s.
