Capcom, as I mentioned, I have a number of issues with the NAS as well. Particularly how it fits with the lack of radar coverage for places like Alice Springs as mentioned above. I don’t think we are in disagreement on that point. I apologise for not considering the inland areas in my note above. I got carried away thinking about the Class C’s on the coast.
A big difference this time with airspace momentum is that the Minister is personally involved. They (the Ministers) have all been stand-offish in the past. Lose the momentum and the Minister and his advisors go back to concentrating on other matters and airspace goes back into the wilderness.
It is a shame that the whole lot has to be killed in order to remove some non-negotiable issues in NAS because there are some very good aspects too. If Creampuff’s blueprint had have been allowed to continue from the start (and it was with LLAMP), this might be a different story. (And we all know who to blame there.) However, LLAMP wasn’t really having an effect on the big picture and I can see what Dick meant when he said it was taking too long. It would be years at that pace before reform occurred to the foundations of airspace regulation. It would be nice to be able to modify NAS while airspace is at the front of everyone’s mind, but that doesn't seem likely to happen.
You mentioned two points:
"- VFR reluctance to conform/participate in those procedures set out in a controlled environment. In part due to the generally poor exposure to such procedures (education/radio use) and a belief that it is all too hard and fraught with punitive danger if you stuff it up (the wroth of CASA etc).
- Lessen the financial cost of VFR flight. Fair enough given the cost of User Pays (Thanks Dick!!). Perhaps there is the common denominator!?!?."
I would argue differently, and I speak for myself on this one. VFR aircraft aren’t welcome (or made to feel welcome) at the major Australian city airports. And I mean Sydney, Brisbane, etc. There’s generally no reason for them to land there, which is another matter. I hope Capt Custard will forgive me if I leave Alice and Canberra, etc, out of the argument. So there is very little reason for VFR aircraft to utilize the major airports as a destination. They get hit by a small fortune in payments anyway. However, many VFR aircraft would like to transit by a scenic/direct route through the airspace if it was available. By the time the pilot passes on all the details to be fed into TAAATS; possibly gets held; then gets vectored all over the sky to locations that he/she didn't even consider as realistic track points, it just isn’t worth the time to even try and transit through CTA. A VFR pilot gets directed all over the sky in Australian CTA wondering why he/she can't just be allowed a little autonomy to use the Class 1 eyeballs in conjunction with the radar. It is far more convenient and easier simply to remain at low level and skirt the boundaries. So not only are people concerned about VFR pilots’ poor exposure to CTA procedures, but those same procedures are actively discouraging VFR pilots from getting that exposure. It is “too hard” and too expensive. And then we wonder why there is a conglomeration of VFR traffic scooting around the edge of CTA.
Why can VFR pilots fly in Class E in radar coverage over similar airports to Sydney, Brisbane (Class B, C, D) in the US with considerably more traffic without the same hassles? What obstructions are there to Sydney, Brisbane, etc. doing likewise? They have primary radar. Australia supposedly has the far better ATC information system in TAAATS. Why are there VFR routes IN Class B overhead major airports in the US? I can fly a VFR route at relatively low level over LAX, Phoenix, etc. and am hardly required to speak with ATC. I can’t do that in Sydney. Why can I fly over the football stadium at Philadelphia for an hour, which is just on the southern side of finals and ATC asks me to turn off my transponder because it is setting off the TCAS on arriving aircraft, yet I can still remain there? Why is it that as soon as I receive acknowledgement of my call at Class C in the US, I have a clearance, yet I can’t do that in Australia? I realise visual contact between two consenting captains is part and parcel of this efficiency.
If I want to take some friends up to see the tourist sights and their homes over any city in the US, I can; yet I have to be satisfied in Australia with looking at the major capital cities from the lanes unless I want to spend hours tooling around slotting my friends’ schedules in with those of the airlines. What's the point of going flying in this scenario? What is so different that we can’t at least look at doing the same in Australia without blowing it off and saying it is all too hard to mix VFR 172s with IFR 737s, and besides the 737s pay more so we concentrate on our paying customers? The capital city airports have primary radar. Why can’t it be utilized better in conjunction with, rather than instead of, pilot eyes in VFR? If the weather allows for visual augmentation of the radar screen, it seems silly not to take advantage of a few pilots' eyes.
No doubt someone will mention flight paths. There are noise issues to contend with requiring a multitude of flight paths in Australia, but what is wrong with one or two convenient flight paths for VFR and low level transitting traffic? Why weren't VFR aircraft considered as part of the traffic when these flight paths were worked out? VFR pilots just seem to have been left out of consideration entirely.
This is what I mean by Airservices being influenced by airline pilots and controllers. No, I’m not blaming anyone, but when there is a consultation get-together, the airlines turn up with a team, the controllers have a team, RAAF turn up with a team and yet there is lucky to be one representative from GA. The airline pilots, controllers and RAAF jockeys still get paid and have their transport covered. For the GA rep, the expense often comes out of their own pocket. It is understandable that final decisions benefit the majority at these meetings. I don’t doubt the various reps have VFR pilots in mind, but understandably their priorities lie with their own interests first.
The way things are progressing, current Class C airspace may as well be considered Class P (for Prohibited) airspace to VFR aircraft in the future. I have watched over the years as VFR aircraft have been progressively pushed from CTA with the increase in IFR traffic. The trend will continue unless changes are made.
As I mentioned above, I have issues with a number of NAS points. I don't agree with many of his design initiatives or processes but I still appreciate the fact that Dick Smith is trying to improve the system. No one else seems to have the motivation, urgency or resources to tackle it.
Last edited by Lodown; 21st Aug 2003 at 11:03.