We all think NAS is cobblers - so what do we want?
Who is the
“we” that you purport to be speaking on behalf of?
Would you care to define, precisely please, who it is that makes up the collective
“we”?
Are you perhaps speaking on behalf of air traffic controllers?
If I, or anyone else, wish to fly an aircraft from (say) Griffith to Broken Hill VFR at FL225 then why, exactly, should I be obliged to use and pay for a
“service” that I neither need nor want?
Aren’t air traffic controllers employed to serve the needs of aircraft? Or are the aircraft only allowed to fly because they
make work for air traffic controllers?
Are you down there because I’m up here......or am I up here because you’re down there?
I am genuinely prepared to support any change I see as being driven by industry, the problem is that I see industry as being the pilots and their passengers....
A noble statement – but you appear to fail to carry through. Perhaps you are just understandably ignorant about the nature of air traffic outside the J-curve.
You may be surprised, even shocked, at the number of
“pilots and their passengers” who view the government’s monopoly air traffic
“service” as completely irrelevant to their flight operations. Perhaps you are totally oblivious to the existence of this significant body of
“pilots and their passengers” because you’ve never spoken to them on the radio.
These people fly VFR (although many of them fly IFR-capable aircraft and hold current instrument ratings, and I’m in no doubt that a cloud might get in the way from time to time
) and almost all of them carry a VHF radio. The vast majority of them do make all the required radio calls, eg on CTAF / MBZ frequencies, but will virtually never feel the urge to transmit on a government monitored ATC/ATS frequency. If you’ve never spoken to them on the radio then the chances are you don’t even know that they exist.
These people don’t waste their time and effort on adding to the perpetual political machinations associated with airspace reform and the never-ending diatribe from vested interest groups. These people are able to fly because they are successful in life – something that they have achieved, in part at least, by their ability to judiciously prioritise their own time. In short – they’ve got better things to do!
There is no clear operational concept I can distinguish other than allowing a certain citation driver to fly VFR up to FL245 without talking to me.
Your reference to
“a certain citation driver” and inclusion of the word
“me” is both interesting and telling.
It seems to me, at least, that you have some quite powerful feelings :
- Feeling sour grapes (he’s got a Citation and I don’t).
- Feeling envious (he’s got a Citation and I don’t).
- Feeling a loss of control (he might be allowed to fly his Citation without my permission).
- Feeling that your status is threatened (currently I rule the sky).
- Feeling unwanted (not everyone thinks the service I provide is essential).
- Feeling without purpose (why am I here then?)
- Feeling that your employment is threatened (maybe they’ll need less air traffic controllers in future?)
- Feeling that your livelihood is threatened (I could lose my job).
Whether any of these emotions has any basis in fact is a separate issue.
These are all entirely understandable human emotions.
But they are human emotions that have no place in a national debate on the classification of Australian airspace.
I suggest that air traffic controllers are there to service the needs of air traffic – not the other way round.