“My question is, do we need radical change at all?”
Depends what you mean by “radical”, but on first glance…emphatically, YES!
“If we do, is it the Airspace that needs changing, or is it the charging regime or some other characteristic?”
The airspace procedures. The charging regime and the regs need changing too, but let’s gets the airspace essentially right first. The momentum is with changing the airspace. Don't change direction now. The charging regime can be organized around the airspace. The airspace cannot, and should not be organized around the charging regime.
“What aspects of the present system are you unhappy with?”
1. It’s effectively blocking VFR aircraft out of the system/CTA.
2. It is promoting CTA use solely for scheduled IFR turbine aircraft, and Class G for everyone else.
3. It is too restrictive for overflights of major centres in CTA for any aircraft in the lower flight levels and at all altitudes. VFR aircraft are forced to avoid CTA rather than feel welcomed into CTA.
4. Aircraft remaining entirely in CTA are handled well. Aircraft remaining entirely in Class G are okay. Transitions from Class G to CTA and CTA to Class G are far more complex than they should be and are handled very poorly.
5. Radio calls in Class G are more complicated and numerous than they need to be.
6. The “system” is taking the fun out of recreational flying and adding unnecessary costs to commercial GA operations.
7. (Related to all the above) The “system” is not adaptive to changes in technology and equipment. New aircraft have entered the marketplace – PC12, etc – and the VFR private/commercial pilot/entrepreneur should be encouraged to embrace the new technologies. The system does not have the flexibility to allow the maximum and obvious benefits to be gained from the investment in these new technologies.
“What would you change if YOU had one over the minister?”
It's a direct recrimination on our legislative, regulatory and adminstrative system that getting "one over the minister" is even seen as the only recourse to implementing effective change.
However, to answer in the spirit of the question:
1. I would be pushing for a US-style airspace system as well. To be sure, it has its drawbacks, but the advantages far, far outweigh the negatives in my view.
2. I’d encourage the employment of just a few very knowledgeable and highly respected aviation/legal professionals to identify major hindrances to the growth of aviation within the regulations and to propose solutions.
3. Invest in a national digital terrain database for use with charts and new technologies (off the subject of airspace but highly important nevertheless).
WWT, I think NAS has many advantages over the current “system”. (LLAMP had initial advantages too, until the proposed radio procedures were determined.) They might not be so obvious now, but when the airspace overhead controlled airports allows unfettered access, I think you will see many benefits to GA operations.
Yes! It will be a pain in the rear end for controllers initially. However, the current "system" does little more than encourage airline pilots and controllers to press for ongoing modifications that make CTA more restrictive to non-scheduled operators. I’m not blaming anyone. It is human nature to look for ways to make work easier. However, the fact that Airservices has the major influence over airspace design and at the same time, Airservices is subject to overwhelming influences from controllers and airline pilots, means that NAS was always going to be difficult to implement.
I don’t like Dick Smith’s methods or his
PR-speak at times. I have issues with the design and implementation of NAS and the education, but I also believe the “system” is well overdue for an enema.