I must admit that my "guess" answers to the above questions from 4711 were a bit tongue-in-cheek, but it serves to show how some of these proposals will change the culture of our pilots to one which is without doubt less safe. It will only be the "big sky policy" which might save the day?
Many of these changes fail to acknowledge just were "worlds best practice" might presently be. In many cases it is right here in good old Oz. But oh no, we have to go down a path that is suitable for many third world countries. Sure, there are many good ideas and procedures used throughout the world, but does that mean we have to make wholesale changes to comply with procedures used in Africa where the accident rate is significantly higher than elsewhere in the world?
The CEO of Airservices has said that he does not understand where savings of M$70 can be made with NAS and in all probability it is my view there will be
no savings whatsoever. Couple this with the introduction of practices which encourage VFR
NOT TO PARTICIPATE in the airways system and you have ingredients of a potential for a reduction in safety that our politicians will find intolerable once the first accident occurs.
And all this is proposed with minimal pilot and industry education. There has not been any significant education on airspace for over a decade and the amount now required to bring even regular flyers up to speed is probably greater than ten times what is proposed by the NAS group and CASA.
Considering that the savings with the introduction of NAS will be minimal if any, then it is my belief that the status-quo with some panel beating will be the way to go. Everyone is more or less happy with the existing set up and procedures and they are generally understood. Only some changes to make it better should be contemplated, and obviously in line with ICAO recommendations where possible.
"No known traffic" !
