You've probably just hit the nail on the head Chuck, and please don't call my post about "lookout" emotive rubbish. Very well constructed argument throughout the rest of your post though.
There is a fundamental shift in attitude required for people to accept the concept of looking out by using the radio. In IMC this is necessary, but why force users to do this in VMC?
The nail you've just hit is $$$$$. When it costs us personally, we start to expect value. This is the essential difference between IFR and VFR, inasmuch as most IFR are commercial and most VFR are private. And commercial can pass the cost on to the pax/payer.
I think that this is the reason why Dick chose to embrace user pays, in order to make people realize the prohibitive cost of the very labour-intensive system that was in place, and thereby put pressure on the bureaucracy to cut the waste.
Unfortunately, he didn't account for the highly tuned survival instinct of the Public Servant Bureaucrat. I think Dick's concept is sound, and his intentions honourable, it's just the machinations of the public service have been against him and for them. They think that lower costs for aviation = less jobs for them, and less power. Quite understandable really, at least in the short term.
I would agree that it will take a lot more than just the NAS to revitalize aviation in Australia, but it's a start. The start of every long journey is the first step.
Safety.
I really didn't answer roach's big question. How will the NAS improve safety?
I'm sure that this will get Chuck going, but here it is.
Let's say that you're a First Officer on a multi-crew jet and a particularly individualistic captain decides to completely discount your abilities. While on approach to SY, you spot a flock of birds on a colllision course, he doesn't see them because he's the pilot flying, on an ILS approach. You alert him to the birds and call for an immediate pullup, until past the flock. He rejects your call, because it would spoil his approach.
At present, there isn't the flexibility in the airspace system to enable ATC to allow pilots to sight and avoid traffic in Primary CTR's. However, the safety case is much more than this.
First, let's start with a definition of airmanship. " The SafeB]and[/B] Efficient operation of an aircraft, both in the air and on the ground."
Now, let's qualify that statement with this, "Anything that does not demonstrably increase safety and efficiency, actually detracts from it."
This statement needs some explanation. Let's say you decide that the safest car in the world is a Volvo. Very expensive, but you decide that your safety is worth any price. The only problem is that you aren't a competent driver. Can't handle an emergency, don't have the faintest idea about what goes on under the bonnet, but knows the road rules back to front.
In this situation, we could accept that the money would be better spent on driver training. So spending the money on a new Volvo actually detracts from true safety since there is now less focus on the factor that has the potential to have the greatest impact on safety, ie. driver skill.
Now, the pilot is in fact the weakest link in the accident chain. Most people accept that a well trained pilot is the greatest safety device you can have in an aircraft. To truly accept this fact though is to accept the terrible responsibility that goes along with it. YOU, as PIC, are RESPONSIBLE for YOUR OWN SAFETY.
Our society has come to prefer the concept that third parties are better placed to do things for them, even though they are removed from the implications of their actions. ie. Don't get hurt if they get it wrong. Believe it or not, this concept has been very cleverly implanted in our minds by the same bureaucrats who have such a highly evolved survival instinct, for some reason that you may be able to deduce...
The BASI report on the "Limitations of the See-and-Avoid Principle initiated the concept in aviation, and the fact that it benefitted the majority of airspace users, ie. Commercial Aviation, at no cost to them, or private users either at that time, ensured that the flaws in the concept were perpetuated.
Chuck, I'd love to piece by piece disect the argument put forward in the BASI report, but I can't afford the time. Just get yourself a copy, if you haven't already got one, and consider their arguments critically. Some of it is fact, and the rest is nothing more than disingenuous opinion intended more as an official justification for ATC than true safety.
Lookout is emphasised during ab-initio training as the primary Airmanship factor, yet BASI suggests that poor lookout is not a sign of 'poor airmanship'. The report is dishonest intellectualism.
I must admit that this will be a difficult concept to get into your mind clearly, but once it's clear, it's really quite simple. By inferring that ATC will ensure separation from other aircraft, this actually detracts from your safety because you, as PIC will now think that the responsibility of lookout is really with someone else.
How many Loss of Separation incidents have you seen that crucifies the appropriate ATC officer? Not the PIC's problem anymore. This is good for Airline Pilots. No cost to them, permits them to fly without looking out the window, and they don't get into trouble if their pax can see another plane out their window.
Have a mid-air, and it's the controller's responsibility. And even they will be able to escape uscathed with a good lawyer. Ever heard the tape, "What goes up must come down."? Spoken by an ex-pilot ATC in the UK. Puts the whole thing in perspective.
So, in short. The NAS will be safer simply because it places more of the responsibility for separation on the PIC when in VMC. After all, he has the best view in this particular house of cards. The good news is that this will enable greater flexibility and much greater traffic handling capacity by ATC who will be able to utilize the eyes and abilities of the crews of aircraft. It will also enable ATC to focus the resources most on the areas where it can be proven they are most needed.
This is just one small step on the way to rationalising the industry, ie. ensuring that rational thought is the primary determinant when making safety policy. Emotion must not be completely discounted, just put in perspective, as any respnsible parent does when their child expresses an irrational fear of the dark.
At present, the goernment seem more inclined to play on our emotions to ensure less scrutiny of their actions and more compliance with unjust social policy. Thankfully, the implementation of the NAS does not fit in this category. In fact, they seem to be acting more like the responsible parent with the implementation of this policy.
Do you recognize the fundamental difference here Chuck? I believe it is important.
Good Day sirs and madames, and thanks for your responses,
Life's a bitch, and then you fly.