To all Dick dislikers...

[Manwell]

It seems that there are a lot of blokes who subscribe to pprune who aren't fans of Dick Smith. Now I must admit that I'm not exactly an adoring fan myself, however, I can't accept that he is acting out of unashamed self-interest.

Most of his detractors seem to be willing to accept that his intentions are less than honourable while their own intentions seem to be more focussed on the perpetuation of a status quo that they believe benefits them, (or their passengers), to the exclusion of other airspace users. This sounds, feels, and tastes like elitism to me.

Gentlemen, before you assault me verbally for my opinion, I would remind you that it is not a case of us or them. There is no rational reason why VFR and IFR RPT can't live in harmony. In fact, I would go so far as to say that any measure designed to inhibit another's pursuit of happiness, (safety and efficiency), is actually contrary to the realisation of the goal. It's not a battle where only one can win.

I like quotes that offer profound observations about life. Here's one from the preface of "Crime and Punishment" by Fyodor Dostoyevsky.
"No-one may build his happiness on another's pain"

Some may consider that Dick's pursuit of happiness, or safety and efficiency, will be built on their pain. And, I must admit that it will, at least if you accept that it is painful for some to accept change that permits others relief from pain (happiness). Of course, this pain will only last as long as the "victim" wishes to hold onto the hurt, and I reckon that once they get used to it, the NAS and other reforms might actually become grudgingly accepted. With a lot of moaning of course. Can't let them think that we're having too much fun can we?

It should also be accepted that a little sacrifice is good for the soul. Of course I don't mean sacrificing your precious cargo. Dick's reforms, including the NAS can not have that effect, except in your mind. May I humbly suggest that a little self-sacrifice in the manner being postulated in the NAS will not only benefit VFR, but also IFR RPT immeasurably. LIVE, yes, but also LET LIVE!

Another quote from some bloke I know reasonably well,
"You can't elevate yourself by putting another down". Elevate yourselves by all means gentlemen.

Believe it or not, Dick, and Mike for that matter, (wonder if they're related?)seem to have a vision of a better world. They can see how good it could be for aviation in Australia, and are willing to accept the barbs and criticisms of the community to achieve it. Unless you have the courage of your convictions to stand up against the majority to explain how we can do it better, you will not be able to understand them. All leaders have learnt to deal with their detractors, good thing we don't live in pre-, or even post- war Iraq, eh?

Regardless of this, search for the faults in their argument. Make sure that you validify the facts clearly, unemotionally, forgetting all that you think you know. If you cannot put aside all that you think you know you cannot discover anything new.

I'm no genius, but if the Americans can manage with this system in a country with far more aircraft in the same airspace then why can't we?. Yes, they have more radar, but even they don't have radar where it isn't warranted.

And finally, check out BIK_116.8's post on the end of page 2.
The topic is "Reports of excessive and unreasonable CASA actions" on the D&G GA forum.
Anyone who has the guts to personally admit wrong on behalf of a government bureaucracy over which they have personally little control is deserving of more respect than he is getting here.

Another good quote comes to mind. A young student after being admonished for failing to respect his flying instructors. "I used to respect them but they didn't respect us back." Respect is a two way street. Probably not relevant, but I did tell you that I like quotes.

Also, before any replies. My rules of engagement.

Reasoned rational argument only. Robust, yes, but lets keep it clean.

There are plenty of other posts where you can vent your spleen, but here I request that you mind your manners.

Some younger ppruners may be actually viewing your posts in order to understand the issue. Make your post something of which you would be proud for your son to read. Make that your mum if you're unmarried. You get the idea?

Of course, you're a pilot! Quick neural synapses and reflexes and all that. You'll understand my meaning,........ won't you?

;)

[Chimbu chuckles]

Manwell how long have you been in this industry...your post indicates to me that you're a relative newcommer?

FWIW.

I have been flying 23 years, 10000+hrs in everything from SE VFR PNG to International jet command. I have been listening to and reading Dick Smith's words since he penned '20 years in the Aviation hall of doom' back in the early 80s.

It's interesting that when he wrote that he was as vociferously anti CAA as most of us are today...and with good reason...since then he has been CASA boss and upset more professionals within this industry than just about anyone else I can think of.

Clearly he is a very successfull individual in his professional life. Most people who succeed as he has done could be discribed as 'control freaks' and I believe his terrier like pursuit of 'aviation reform' has more to do with proving he is right than anything else.

Do you honestly think that when the vast majority of aviation professional disagrees with him he is still right and we are a bunch of children hell bent on the status quo?

He is convinced that the US system is the best in the world but that is NOT the system he is trying to introduce here. The US system works well enough in the US but our system here works bloody well too...this is not the US.

Our system in Australia already shares many common attributes with the US system, CTAFs are one example. Our IFR system, particularly that used by International IFR RPT traffic is already in line with ICAO and effectively identical to everywhere else.

So that leaves the unwanted tinkering with the domestic VFR/IFR mix that does not effect any international arrivals/departures and therefore does not need to be anything other than what WE consider to be the best system for OUR levels of traffic/weather/levels of infrastructure.

Between 1986 and last November I did virtually no VFR flights in Australia as I was mostly working overseas. When I had left these shores we had full reporting, FS units etc.

Last November I went down to Scone to retrieve my Bonanza after engine overhaul and approached the flight back to QLD with a slight feeling of unease. Mostly because it had been so long since I'd flown VFR but more because I didn't feel good about the VFR system that Australia has now which effectively excludes any aircraft not paying money to the system. While tracking north just inland of the coast in marginal VFR conditons much IFR traffic was arriving and departing from various coastal cities and they didn't know I was there. It bugged me so much I ended up calling ATC with my current position/alt/tracking details and estimates and asked them to inform any IFR traffic that might be nearby. Their initial response was somewhat amazed that I'd bother but soon they asking for weather reports from me etc.

Things got a whole lot safer because I insisted on being in the system and used the radio. When I'm IFR I DEMAND to know who else is ducking and weaving around build ups.

Unlike DS's simplistic view of the world IFR aircraft are not in cloud and, like VFR will be looking for the gaps in the weather to avoid damage from hail etc and to give the pax a smooth ride.

My next flight was out to Longreach. I decided that as the system didn't want to know me I'd play their silly game again. NOSAR/No Details it used to be called....and it's dumb. 30-40nm from Longreach I decided there must be heaps of other aircraft all going to see the 747 arrive so made an all stations call...there were and they all popped up with details...some were quite close and given the mix of high wing/low wing we may not have seen each other until it was too late. Perhaps we may not have known of each other until the last 10 miles...bit late in my opinion.

After that I decided that I would fly as per the good old days with proper flight plans submitted and ATC clearances where required to operate in Class C airspace. My next trip was to Mittagong and I just planned straight through whatever airspace was there at safe VFR levels and got cleared as required by the, as usual, brilliant ATCOs. Easy, pleasant and safe. Everyone who needed to know where I was did and I was able to participate in what, in my experience, IS one of the worlds best systems...equal or better than anywhere else I have flown.

The only clearance I didn't get was across Sydney. I could have been cleared if IFR at FL110 but as my aircraft is VFR only for the time being I declined and went VFR via the Lane of Entry etc. No big deal but around Brooklyn Bridge conditions were marginal and the overall effect was less comfortable and a little less safe. Once again aircraft were close around me and the conditions of cloud and haze made see and be seen the joke it really is...so I used the radio...in the manner that Dick says is innappropriate within that LOE...and avoided a near miss with another VFR aircraft.

I believe Dick Smith is wrong and the fact that so little information is forthcomming from the ARG convinces me that they have few good answers.

As far as the King show is concerned I did not attend. If they were the professionals CASA claim they would have known better than to come to a country they have not flown around before and ,after a quick trip in a IFR Piper Chieftain, pretend that they are qualified to offer any comment whatsoever.

Chuck.

[C182 Drover]

As far as the King show is concerned I did not attend. If they were the professionals CASA claim they would have known better than to come to a country they have not flown around before and ,after a quick trip in a IFR Piper Chieftain, pretend that they are qualified to offer any comment whatsoever.

The Kings have been here before a couple of times over the years. They also fly themselves around Australia......

[snarek]

Very well said manwell.

I note you were immediately tarred with being a newcomer by Chimbu who couldn't help but recite his resume:

I have been flying 23 years, 10000+hrs in everything from SE VFR PNG to International jet command.

Ho hum. What is it about you guys??? I personally find it boring and unimpressive, perhaps I should read back the numbers on my late father's pewter mugs!!!!!

This reminds me of a funny story. Back in the early 80's doing my first dual nav we arrived at (the then uncontrolled) Moroochy. We lined up on final after making all the (then) required calls and hearing nothing. We watched as we slowly drifted down as a F-27 (up up and away) taxied onto the runway. No calls, nuffin.

My (ex airline) instructor casually asked "F-27 Maroochy, whats the weather like there". the posh voice at the other end replied "CAVOK" whereupon my instructor replied "well look out the f&^%$#g window then!".

It works in the US, NAS will work here and the odd RPT 'hero' who doesn't like it will just have to either get used to it or practise saying "would you like fries with that!"

There are plenty of kids out there who can deal with change and are just waiting for your job to come up.

Grrr

AK

[Woomera]

My rules of engagement too!

"Reasoned rational argument only. Robust, yes, but lets keep it clean."

W

[triadic]

Andrew...


It works in the US, NAS will work here and the odd RPT 'hero' who doesn't like it will just have to either get used to it or practise saying "would you like fries with that!"


Yes it may well, but in the process there are some hurdles to jump and they include recognition that we have a very different culture and upbringing here and that the education will have to be significant and ONGOING in order to make it work.

To date the education program is still classified it seems!

I am both an IFR pilot and VFR owner with many years in the industry and I find it criminal that the system does not seem to care about the VFR participant in the airways system. If we educate the VFR pilot in the same manner as the USA then we are stepping in the right direction, but I have seen no sign of that as yet!

Let's see AOPA push for the education program to be out in the open. And I believe it must be ongoing - for years if necessary!

There are pilots out there now that have very little or no knowledge of the airways system when they should and this is the fault of CASA and the flying training system I believe. With all this change, who is taking responsibility to (re)train these individuals?

(and Yes, I am an AOPA member)

"No known traffic" :ok:

[snarek]

Triadic

At last, you have summerised the problem, culture.

I agree VFR pilots will need as much educating as their IFR RPT counterparts as will some levels of ATC. I for instance would like to see identical Civil airspace procedures, particularly around Darwin and Townsville which are for all intents and purposes civil airports.

(Mike Smith and I seem to disagree, I prefer civil ATC, he thinks Mil ATC are more easy to get on with).

Once we see where the problems lay AOPA will respond with safety articles etc in the near future.

Andrew

[roach trap]

They are trying to sell NAS with the promise of cost saving and improved safety, however, NONE of the infomation that they have made avaliable tells us how it will improve safety. They tell me that it WILL improve safety, now I want it explained HOW it will improve safety. Not to much to ask

[Manwell]

Thankyou for all your replies, most of which were within my rules of engagement.

To snarek, don't do it again. And thanks.

Now roach trap. May I call you roach? As far as I can work out, the problem is highlighted by the difference between my "view"
and the "views" of blokes like Chimbu Chuckles. Very well written reply that, thanks Chuck.

You see, I reckon that my eyes are more capable of ensuring that I don't run into someone else, and, for some reason quite obscure to me, others believe that ATC is of greater significance than my experience can justify.

Now, I could theorise as to why others prefer another bloke or lady in a windowless room half way across the country to look out for them while putting more faith in radio alerting than I can honestly justify, but I'd be guessing.

Perhaps Chuck could just explain why he thinks that talking to ATC or other traffic is better than just looking out the window.

In fact, he's right about one thing. Our system is better than the US system. Providing two things.
1. You aren't paying for it, and
2. Traffic levels are low enough to
permit this high level of service

Make that three things, 3. You don't mind relying on a third
party to do things as critical as
looking out for you.

Better make that four, 4. You don't need the flexibility to get
into CTA at short notice, or to even
get direct tracking.

Once I couldn't get out of SY all the way to BK, VFR, because I didn't have a flight plan in the system.

I suppose the difference is one of culture. I'm single pilot inclined, while Chuck is multi-crew through and through.

By the way Chuck, I don't just think Dick is right. I look at aviation in Australia, then the vibrance of aviation in the US, the numbers of aircraft in the same space, worse wx, rougher terrain,
with much easier ATC procedures. And like JFK, I reckon "Why Not?" When you fly airlines a lot you get used to the system. It's not so easy for the occasional user.

In the end, I reckon that we'll all get used to it though. It's not as bad as we can imagine. In fact, nothing's as bad as we can imagine.

Keep up the good work chaps. And snarek, you're not a naughty boy, but your behaviour could be regarded as a little impudent! Chuck doesn't deserve it either.

Life's a bitch, then you fly.:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Sorry to get up your nose snarek but I believe in subjects like this one it is usefull to have an idea of the posters background.

Manwell,

I find it very difficult to believe the US airspace system is responsible for the GA industries alleged vibrancy. Far more likely to be the critical mass of relatively affluent population I think. Also the form of democracy that is practised in the US basically makes it anyones RIGHT to fly an aircraft if they want and therefore the system is biassed that way...in Australia it is deemed a priviledge at best but most of the time, for private ops anyway, a nuisance caused by silvertails with too much money.

Australia's GA industry is depressed for many reasons...just one of which is we're taxed into an early grave by those morons in CB, so many people just don't have the spare cash to fly. Particularly when we, as an industry, have our coastline/watersports to compete with. 19 million odd people just can't spawn as many aeroplane nuts as 260 million!!

But to the subject.

Dick has made claims of 70 million annual savings...how can this be...he's not telling and no-one else seems to be able to fathom where they are either. VFR aircraft already use the system (mostly) free anyway...and in my opinion there are so few VFR aircraft airborne AND going somewhere far enough to warrant the term cross country that if they were included in the system as if IFR in terms of service it would not be significant.

Safety.

It should be self evident that excluding, even a small part of the traffic, from the system is going to be less safe.

The Class E procedures are a classic example...VFR aircraft, unless in receipt of RIS, should monitor Class G area freq. VFR aircraft don't require a clearance in Class E but IFR do, unless operating VFR before an IFR 'pickup'.

While the IFR aircraft in the same airspace are on a different freq!

Tell me how any sane person can believe that is a good idea!! It's analogous to some drivers being allowed to drive at night without headlights. It might work if no-one ever needed to turn right across the flow of traffic.

While we are at it lets remove all the frequency boxes from the charts so the pilot will have to look up an a list to find the frequency he/she needs....great idea that one!!

VFR pilots, where possible, to avoid published IFR routes...How? Show me some routes between airfields that don't have IFR published routes.

CAR 163A is a crock.

Simpler yet...a significant proportion of the price of fuel is tax of one kind or another. I'm already paying for the service and I demand value for my money!

That does not mean I expect to be able to charge willy nilly and operate within/ in close proximity to major airports, like Sydney, with 30 seconds notice. As a VFR user it is my responibility to fit into a system which exists for IFR users who are operating commercially. Not theirs to fit in with me.

I think the claimed savings are BS.

I think the NAS is less safe for no good reason.

I think DS is, while probably well intentioned, totally misguided.

I don't care if the Kings have flown here once or 5 times...they are not qualified to be employed by ASA/CASA as roving ambassadors for a bad idea badly implemented. We are NOT getting the US system we are getting a cherry picked retarded cousin.

What's really sickening is the whole airspace thing is really dog**** simple.

Class A/B/C/D/GAAP remains as is. 30nm MBZs around airfields that warrant it, 15nm CTAFs everywhere else.

Everything else is OCTA...Class G/F if you must.

If you're VFR you fit into the IFR system if above 5000'. Free!!!

If you're travelling more than 50nm/in/out of CTA you put in a plan. It's not hard fer crissake...1x 2 minute phone call gets me out of YBCG VFR. For long distance flights a full flight plan is the absolute minimum preparation you should be doing anyway...doesn't take much more effort to hit 'submit'. Full reporting ensures attention to navigation, fuel planning, etc. It makes it more likely that a pilot will actually read notams/weather etc. It's all there free via the WWW...any pilots/flying schools/charter companies out there who are not online?

DS KISS!!

Chuck.

[flightfocus]

Have to agree with Chimbu - lurve your work :ok:

I would like to know who, other than Uncle Dick, is 'crying out' for the NAS system? :hmm:

And if they save X $millions what benefit will that provide any of the users? Call me crazy but I am NOT predicting ANY reduction to any aspect of operating ANY aircraft due to the introduction of NAS. :{

Except maybe an Agusta 109 ....:\

[Chimbu chuckles]

To answer your questions Manwell.

Talking to ATC/other aircraft lets you know when/where to be looking out for traffic. I can assure you your eyes are not near good enough.

I honestly do believe that our traffic levels are low enough to allow everyone to participate. GA annual hours are way down on what it was in the late 70s early 80s. Places like BK are a ghost town compared to when I was learning there in 80-83.

'You don't mind relying on a third party to do things as critical as
looking out for you.' Sorry Manwell...emotive rubbish:yuk:

We don't pay for it VFR and in the US they don't pay for it IFR either. I personally feel that for Private Ops IFR should be free as well...see my last post re fuel taxes that we currently pay. At what level user pays becomes appropriate is another question...given that the system exists only for reasons of commerce and has been paid for over and over again perhaps only Regional Airlines and above should pay modest airways charges.

Chuck.

[snarek]

Chimbu

Fair argument, and it sounds better without the resume (I am sooooo tired of old men and their type endorsements!!!!).

VFR above 5000 for free??? Are you suggesting VFR should pay??? I hope not, gets back to the 'gods of the sky and their personal airspace' argument that is bound to get me breaking many Woomeri rules of engagement.

I still don't see your point on safety. What is the difference now???

AK

[Manwell]

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.

[poteroo]

'Everyone wants progress - but nobody wants change'

anon saying, but it fits here

cheers,

[snarek]

Well during the roadshows Mike Smith seemed to have changed tack from what I percieved his views on ADSB to be when he was at Avalon.

ADSB will give you a little black box which will tell you where all the traffic is around you.

This will be a huge saving for the airlines because they don't have to pay to upgrade cluncky old primary radars outside of CTAs.

But it could be argued that ADSB will do away with the need for some separation and thus a few jobs (amking aviation cheaper and thus creating jobs elsewhere). But the aforementioned 'save my job' mentality will come into play around ADSB.

That is why we, as industry players, need to get involved and tell Govt to support the ADSB project abnd to support Govt funded ADSB boxes in EVERY GA aircraft.

AK

[Chimbu chuckles]

Manwell

I think you oughta stay away from using 2 crew analogies. ;)

I completetly agree with what you say about bureaucratic survival instincts.

I think you will find the system very much has the flexibility to see and avoid in CTRs...be it via TCAS climbs/descents or visual seperation during seperation breakdowns, rare as they are in radar environments. That is not to say that it is, or should be, the primary seperation technique...which you seem to be suggesting?

"Anything that does not demonstrably increase safety and efficiency, actually detracts from it."

Please explain to us how the Class E procedures, part of your much beloved NAS after all, fit in with this statement....which I agree with BTW.

Your analogy of the Vovo driver is a very good one. As someone who has done my fair share of training and checking over the years, including jets, I can attest to the fact that the standards of freshly minted CPLs are dropping alarmingly...what PPLs must be like, on average, I know not and do not wish to think about. I have said for a long time that NAS is fiddling while Rome burns. Pilot licencing standards are a lot more in dire need of addressing than an airspace system which aint broke!!!

I think you will find that the see and avoid system has been around since Adam was a boyscout and Pontius was a pilat...the BASI reports merely highlights the fact that it is not without limitations...particularly as aircraft have become faster and the skies a little more crowded since the 30s. No-one, least of all me, is suggesting that see and avoid is not a pilots responsibility and is not part of that which we label good airmanship...HOWEVER it's not what CASA/AsA/ARG/DS are now insisting it should be, i.e. a panacea for all ills and a way for the above alphabet groups to reduce levels of service. ALL BASI are saying when the make the statement that 'poor' lookout does not equal 'poor airmanship' is that in todays more complex aircraft and airspace it is unreasonable to label a pilot at fault if, in the few seconds it takes for a midair to happen, he is not looking at the particular piece of sky where the threat aircraft was. He may even be looking up a frequency which used to be on the chart he has neatly folded on the coaming. The human eye is a very fallible tool..I have had two heart stopping near midairs over the last 23 years and I was looking out...believe me!!!

See and Avoid/airmanship is not merely looking out the window, it's more about situational awareness. Knowing where an aircraft was, is going, and at what altitude gives you the maximum chance of seeing and avoiding the aircraft...of knowing when your attention MUST be outside the cockpit. Clearly that level of awareness is not going to be possible all the time (in Class G airspace for instance) but it should be available in places like Class E, D and around airfields with a mix of IFR RPT/VFR traffic.

I believe you're a little nieve if you really believe that placing all responsibility for separation on pilot's eyesight and the hope that they will be looking in the right piece of sky in the right few seconds, purely by fluke, will allow greater airspace capacity and flexibility.

Many years ago two people I knew, one a great friend and one of my early instructors, the other an examiner of airman who had been CFI at the Royal Aero Club for 26 years prior to joining CAA (and who did my initial IR flight test) were killed when the CAA V35 Bonanza they were in was involved in a mid air with a glider on departure. they were hit from above and behind removing the tail and they spun to earth. I knew both these individuals as thorough professionals of the highest order and they would have had both sets of eyes on full alert departing a Glider field...but it still happened.

I have put in a request to Air BP, as an account holder, for a breakdown of what percentage of the $1.08 odd I pay/lt for avgas is Govt taxes. I will be surprised if it's less than 30+% plus GST. This user is well and truly paying when you consider that probably $30 an hour of my direct operating costs are going to the Govt in tax of one form or another yet I'm told I must pay a user fee if I want to fly IFR :mad: Or that by requesting the levels of service that go with IFR even though I may be VFR, on that route segment, that I'm getting something for free. really:mad:

Chuck.

Ps Manwell...carefull you don't allow your posts to become much more condescending, you might end up breaking your own rules ;)

Edit for snarek's last post.

I agree completely re ADSB...but I bet, despite the taxes we pay, ADSB won't be a gift from the Govt.

[Neddy]

Snarek,

I love the rubbish that is being generated in regard to ADS-B.

Mike Smiff like many of those commenting on ADS-B wouldn’t know sh!t from brown clay about how it works, the limitations to use, the savings (?), the costs or anything else for that matter. The trouble is it gets regurgitated by those who think he knows what he is on about. Why do you think he has changed his tune? Because it suits today’s agenda!
Next thing will be he or Dick will be claiming any savings as part of those that NAS provided.

Just for starters it will NOT replace primary radar. It will NOT provide traffic information to anybody except ATC and those that outlay substantial sums on CDTI equipment and I would suspect that if the government of the day does outlay the 100+Million to subsidise fitment (broadcast only) they will be seeking money back in increased charges. It could be argued that it may increase jobs because it now provides radar like coverage where previously it was unviable to provide a service.

While lobbying the Government would you also support it’s use by airport owners for making sure they capture those that use their facilities, Navaids or by CASA/AA for preventing/identifying VCAs? Personally I would but I am sure we will get the usual bleating from those of the paranoid persuasion!

I wholeheartedly support ADS-B. It is a wonderful thing, but there are many issues to be resolved before we are even halfway close to full scale deployment.

[snarek]

Neddy

It will NOT provide traffic information to anybody except ATC and those that outlay substantial sums on CDTI equipment

Wrong

CDTI does not need to be that expensive, it requires logging the squitter info against a known position from a GPS. Since the GPS has to be there (one way or another) to code the squitter then CDTI will not be expensive.

I would suspect that if the government of the day does outlay the 100+Million to subsidise fitment (broadcast only) they will be seeking money back in increased charges

The Government, Airservices actually, has to decide whether to replace all those rotating hub RADARS or go for ADSB. If we did away with ALL RADARS outside of the primaries in the CTA's it would roughly work out. BUT, ADSB doesn't need land, ADSB doesn't need rotating head maintenance, ADSB doesn't need generatot backup (Solar and batteries will do).

The savings on those who need and thus cause primary control and who bleat for DTI (Q, VB and regionals) will (if passed on) be huge. They could fund more 'area' jobs for controllers. They could fund price reductions. It will make IFR mixed with VFR safer accross the whole country (eventually).

But I bet you this. If Q, VB et al try to get it mandated with an 'owner pays' mentality they won't get ADSB. There is no firm AOPA policy on this, yet. But if Govt or Airlines try to make GA pay ADSB will die like mandated ELTs. And I will help kill it (despite loving ADSB to death!).

I think however the ADSB project team are heaps smarter than that and they have done their sums.

AK

[marshall]

And so it begins again......:zzz:

Geeeezzz I love Pprune...:hmm: :hmm: :hmm:

[Neddy]

Snarek,

My mistake! When you said in the first post “primary radars” I mistakenly thought you were referring to “primary radars”.

But now I see that you are referring to SSR radars at what used to be called Primary Control Zones (ten or so years ago) and yes these are the ones that are up for replacement beginning as early as 2008. Sixteen of them I believe.

As to cheap CDTI devices, undoubtedly there will be such. There are already various manufacturers utilising PDAs for WX and moving map displays. Wouldn’t mind one myself! As for them being of a standard likely to be TSO’d (or ATSO’d) so that they could be used for separation, well that’s probably just after handheld GPSs are certified for IFR use and NPAs!

So I guess we’re down to them being used by VFR to enhance "see and avoid". Hmmmm!

There you are we are back to the original thread after a slight diversion due traffic!

Chimbu,

Almost had the same occur to me near Goulburn some years back as happened to your friend in the Bonanza. Fast low wing descending from behind on a slower high wing. Luckily we were both sensible enough to have made an appropriate position report and made suitable adjustments to our tracks. Ya know what? Cost me, and him, nuthin and saved us heaps!

[SmallGlassofPort]

See and avoid should be the last line of defence not the first.
I nearly found out in a big way not long ago. I saw the aircraft on the opposite direction track, I turned right as we are taught, the aircraft went past me on the same level and about 30 feet to my left.... my angle of bank at the time was just passing through approx. 10degrees. Had he been right in front... well you know.
Also how often as an IFR pilot entering a busy MBZ etc and BEING aware of the six other aircraft have you said 'where is he', even when you know they are only 2 miles ahead and 1000 feet removed.
Basic airmanship, CRM, CFIT etc. Every course you ever sit in aviation always mentions the fact that we should use every resource available to increase safety. We already have see and avoid and other resources, why take them away?
Heres a novel idea. The average private pilot cannot afford a safety pilot to do the seeing, so why dont they trade in their radios for a new HUD?

[axiom]

I have refrained from comment on this post because anything I say is invariably "sent to Coventry" by the closet rabble that are let out like baying dogs and seemingly encouraged by some of the moderators.

Be this as it may, I cannot let the comments by Chimbu Chuckles go unanswered regarding the Lord V35B incident at TOC.

Bill was my instructor at RAC also and introduced me to taildraggers in a 210 HP Chipmunk.

I believe it is he you are talking about.

The fact of the matter was, that the V35 took off on RW 27 and turned left into the Blanik which was in the circuit at the time.

Seems that the Beechcraft was climbing and the blanik, in the circuit was hardly in a position to come from behind and above.

The pilot of the Blanik is still around and I've met him to tell the story.

Sixteen odd years was it, perhaps things get mixed up in time, but the irony was, I met before and after both blokes.

Give someone at TOC a ring and you may get the full story.

Ax.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Axiom,

I was not apportioning blame on the glider pilot...my memory of it is as you say, they took off and climbed into the Blanik's flight path...merely using it as an example of the limitations of see and avoid. Bill was a mighty fine chap and so was Paul Hardy. Both very experienced and consumate professionals. Be that as it may, as the story was recounted to me the impact was around the ruddervators and they then lost control.

Chuck.

[Icarus2001]

Mr Kerans, you state

But if Govt or Airlines try to make GA pay ADSB will die like mandated ELTs

Well how about CAR 252A...

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988
- REG 252A
Emergency locator transmitters


(1)
On and after 31 July 1997, the pilot in command of an Australian aircraft that is not an exempted aircraft, may begin a flight only if the aircraft:

(a)
is fitted with an approved ELT:

(i)
that is in working order; and
(ii)
whose switch is set to the position marked "armed", if that switch has a position so marked; or
(b)
carries, in a place readily accessible to the operating crew, an approved portable ELT that is in working order.

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

(2)
Subregulation (1) does not apply in relation to a flight by an Australian aircraft if:

(a)
the flight is to take place wholly within a radius of 50 miles from the aerodrome reference point of the aerodrome from which the flight is to begin; or

(b)
the flight is, or is incidental to, an agricultural operation; or

(c)
CASA has given permission for the flight under subregulation 134 (1); or

(d)
the aircraft is new and the flight is for a purpose associated with its manufacture, preparation or delivery; or

(e)
the flight is for the purpose of moving the aircraft to a place to have an approved ELT fitted to the aircraft, or to have an approved ELT that is fitted to it repaired, removed or overhauled.

So therefore for flights of greater than 50nm do we not indeed have mandated ELT's ?

[Dehavillanddriver]

I challenge anybody to see a jet from front on at a distance of 5-10 nm.

Go to the airport and look at how small a 737 is from front on when it is at the end of the runway (and you are at the other end). In most cases you would be looking at it from 1 to 1.5 nm away - and you know it is there, and where to look.

Now put yourself in an aeroplane, you are navigating VFR, so I assume that you occasionally glance at WAC's, flight plan, the occasional engine instrument etc.

Now scan through as many degrees as you can, paying particular attention to over your right shoulder.

My jet is to your right, high, and closing at 7 miles a minute.

You are below me, well outside my field of view, and as I approach you I cannot see you, nor due to the geometry of the flight deck windows, as well as the checks etc, will I ever see you.

I will however feel the thump when I run you down.

See and avoid is a crock, and we want DTI to give us at least a fighting chance. If we could get VFR back into the traffic messages we would gladly take that also.

the majority of airports in this country were established to support a commercial air service of some form. This being the case the commercial air services should have a reasonable level of say.

A $60 million dollar jet and 180 passengers (plus 7 cew) is a high price to pay to let people opt out of the system because they don't want to play nice. the airspace isn't exclusive to any one group, and individual groups should not be allowed to opt out and duck their fiscal responsibilities.

We all pay for roads, in some cases in places where we would never consider driving, it doesn't mean we can not pay even though commercial trucking uses the same roads. People don't complain about that, why should the same situation be tolerated in aviation.

Yes it is expensive, but that is the nature of the beast. I have spent many thousands getting my qualifications as a pilot, and I don't begrudge the money, but I didn't expect that I could do it all for free and let the rest of the users pay...

[Lodown]

I enjoy reading about NAS and ADS-B in the same argument. So Mike Smith is now using ADS-B as a supporting argument for the implementation of NAS, or is it the other way round? Has he run out of rational supporting arguments for the implementation of NAS so he is resorting to futuristic what-ifs?

I could just as easily argue with ADS-B that we would be safer under the current system. It would be cheaper and more economical in the long run too.

ADS-B looks promising and there are certainly many people pushing for its introduction, but to justify NAS on the basis of possible future technology seems irresponsible and unprofessional.

[SM4 Pirate]

Lodown,

Linking the two is paramount; as we are a long way off getting ADS-B, much testing, much debate, much budgeting required etc.

Phase 3 and onwards delayed until the further roll out of ADSB technology is my mail.

So we should have further stages of NAS by 2008.

First we get 'full' (with holes) coverage at FL350; then when we prove it works, we get all jet's fitted etc. Then we need approval for the third stage of ADSB. Total coverage of all 'radar' blind spots. Massive cost, $100M... benefit? Will it happen. Safety vs Cost? Who pays?

Bringing all this onto the TAAATS platform takes much time, software development, ATC traning, sector re-design standard evalutation etc.

NAS is linked to ADSB, no question.

Bottle of rum

[snarek]

Neddy

Apologies, and flight plans are still pink and green aren't they :)

Dont get me going on TSO. TSO is rubbish and is used by CASA to make things too expensive!!!

TSO makes no difference. It is the same electronics anyway. Electronics is so relaible these days we just plain don't need TSO anymore. But again, CASA jobs at stake here!!!

ADSB with CDTI should cost about $1200. If the govt pays then there is no GST. Fitting, who knows. But it aint hard. put a GPS in my plane the other day, comes with a loom so what's the difficulty??

Icarus.

Playing with sematics old mate. I said (or at least meant) 'madatory fitted ELT's' which is what got stopped. I think you are just trying to start a fight.

AK

[Icarus2001]

Mr Kerans, my old mate, no I am not trying to start a fight. There are already plenty around that I could join in. ;)

I am merely trying to point out that making sweeping statements such as ..
But if Govt or Airlines try to make GA pay ADSB will die like mandated ELTs.
you risk undermining your own credibility on this forum.

As a reasonably unbiased observer of this thread I along with other readers have only one measure of the competence of a poster and that is the veracity of statements that can be checked against known facts, rules regs etc. It is also very hard if you don't actually type what you mean.
Now as we both agree, we do have mandatory ELT's in most cases, except for the C152, C150 type aircraft that only operate in say the training area associated with their operation.

So following your analogy, ADSB would not die if the government or Airlines mandate it's use. How airlines could mandate its use is beyond me however.

I think the most pertinent post so far is from Dehavilland Driver. Try seeing another aircraft at a closing speed of say even 360 knots, that is a Baron and a Navajo closing almost head on.
360 knots is 6nm in one minute. At what distance do you realistically think you will see them? 1 nm maybe 1 1/2nm. So at 1 nm they are 10 seconds away from cold fusion and breaking noise abatement rules.:sad:

[Chimbu chuckles]

I'm starting to wonder whether Manwell is DS in disguise.:suspect:

Chuck.

[paddopat]

You know what.

Icarus, I think you are one of those fraidy cat pilots that needs a security blanket, hence you don't trust the NAS.

You therefore attack everyone who is supporting this change.

Now, via your posts, show me why I'm wrong.

Pat

[Icarus2001]

Okay I'll bite. Why not?

My actual position is that I don't see any strong rational reason for the changes, certainly the reasons given are dubious. Where will the cost savings come from?

Have you been to a roadshow with John & Martha? Mike Smith skips over details like there is no tomorrow. John & Martha believe NAS will reinvigorate the GA sector. How? It presumes that airspace is what is stopping people flying now. I agree (I think) with Mr Kerans that there are many more areas to look at cost cutting to make flying more affordable and accessible.

Yes I like a security blanket. It is called alerted see and avoid and DTI when I am IFR. My paying passengers also expect it.

If that makes me a

fraidy cat

then meeeooowwwww. :ok:

By the way I don't believe I have "attacked" anyone. I picked up Mr Kerans on a small point as he was incorrectly trying to illustrate his (otherwise good) point by using a fallacious argument about ELT's.

My final thought is if NAS is not demonstrablysafer, cheaper and more efficient than what we have now why change it?

[Skin-Friction]

Manwell

The biggest problem with the *rick is that he seems to be a megalomaniac who for some god only knows reason, won't listen to the Australian aviation community. That goes for Pilots, Controllers, the Military and Ground support staff.

No-one I know wants this stupid airspace - except - you guessed it - the *rick! - and his henchmen.

We have a very good system that was designed by Australians - who the hell cares if it doesn't conform exactly with ICAO!!

If the *rick was such a friggin' patriot he would be patriotic about our system - and support it.

I get the feeling that he is just a self serving so and so who is mucking around in an industry in which he wishes he had a professional background but doesn't .

[karrank]

There have at least 4 attempts at airspace reform in the last decade or so. All were driven by (some) Australians. All were vigorously supported by (some) Australians. All were fought against by (some) Australians. All had elements that were unacceptable to (some) Australians. All were killed by (some) Australians.

Say what you like, passing traffic in crap weather is not ATC's job. It should stop now. We should separate where required, regulate the traffic into airports where required, or not be involved. Just because we do something now, because of a pathetic history of achieving changes, doesn't justify continuing to do it.

LLAMP was a last-ditch attempt to achieve a consensus view. Everybody was consulted and their concerns addresses and mitigated. It wasn't just killed by Dick & our pathetic excuse for an Aviation Minister. CASA, the military and GA representatives all had knives in their hands as well.

The only way anybody will be able to achieve change here is if it is imposed, regardless if pilots, operators, service providers or passengers do or don't like it. If anybody other than Dick was pedalling this bike I think I would be much happier, but I do think it's going somewhere useful.

With our nanny-culture safety management systems, the only way ANYTHING can be implemented when some involved THINK its unsafe is to import a system from somewhere else. If this was coming from any other nation on Earth than the decidedly-on-the-nose-lately Goobers I would be much happier, but I can't point at anybodies system I would prefer. Not even at ours.

I reckon we're stuck with it, and him.:ouch:

[SM4 Pirate]

I suspect the majority of the problem is that we are sick of being told 'it's the US model"; it's proven...

Whilst certain elements are the US model; there are significant differences; which are ignored on the basis that 'it's the US model'; it's proven...

I wouldn't mind getting the US model; but don't tell me there are no differences.

1) IFR Pick-up, is a VFR procedure to get an IFR clearance; here it's an IFR procedure to proceed VFR...

2) G Airspace is effectively non existant; where it does exist, it in areas where it is unusable by IFR; LSALTS above base of E. etc...

3) No E space above FL180...

4) Radar coverage is significant and covers most E airspace totally.

5) CTA is designed to keep IFR operations inside CTA; E to 1200AGL or 700 AGL.

These are all important and significant differences; which have ramifications on both Pilot and Controller workloads; 'see and avoid' is becoming the primary means of 'self separation'; fair enough with slow moving VFR traffic, but totally unacceptable for Jet, turbo-prop operations.

Also, any truth to the rumour than 6 weeks ago a turbo-prop hit a VFR on top in the US? 19 dead...?

Bottle of Rum

[Chimbu chuckles]

I find it fascinating that while claiming how wonderfull NAS will be and how much it will save they, the two Smiths/Manwell can't give reasonable answers to reasonable questions.

The VFR on top procedure just seems to me to be rubbish. Why not simply have IFR planned/VFR procedures? Then if the weather deteriorates you simply proceed IFR. Couldn't be due to the difficulty in charging people money could it?

Why do we have VFR only and IFR only cruising levels. What was wrong with evens west/odds east? We certainly DO NOT have enough traffic to need the extra cruising levels!!

karrank if that's not Air Traffic CONTROL'S job, or part of it, what is their job?

sm4 correct. They claim it's a proven system but when you actually study the US system the differences are dramatic. So I wonder why we must have their (da 2 smiffs) peculiarly Australian system when the existing peculiarly Australian system, that everyone understands and that is demonstratively safer than NAS, it's unacceptable because it 'does not comply with ICAO/worlds best practise' or any number of other platitudes.

I've said it over and over. Our system is at least the equal of any in the world and does not require massive overhaul. Tweaking around the edges yes. It is also unreasonable to accept that changes can or should be driven from the perspective of amatuers, either individually or groups. The airways system exists for reasons of commerce. Those who wish to use it for fun, and I count myself in that group as well as deriving a living fom it, should fit in with the primary users...not the other way.

Our fuel taxes and GST already cover more than what we 'cost' the system, which would need to exist in it current form even if < 3000kg VFR/IFR Charter/fun didn't exist. As an example when I fly this weekend down to NSW I will be paying probably in excess of $100 in fuel taxes of one kind or another to the Govt. I'll be VFR because the aircraft needs an Instrument 9 to be otherwise. Despite contributing this money I'm essentially not welcome in the system and should, according to 'da 2 smiffs', leave my radios off and stay out of everyones way visually.:\ If I was an IFR Baron on a charter I would be paying double the above but still be required to pay airways charges. What does it cost for the existing system to watch me proceed south on the screens or ackowledge perhaps two radio calls per hour? What does it cost to pass on known traffic and QNHs? When you look at what AsA charge in airways charges I reckon $20+/ hr in fuel taxes more than covers it already!!!

Taxed into oblivion is why this industry is sick. Airways reform has nothing to do with it.

When the ARG can't answer questions with honest answers and they employ Yanks to try and convince us that NAS will revitalise Australian Aviation it's no wonder they have little credibility!!

Chuck.

[snarek]

Icarus

Yes, point taken and I will be more careful with my words.

Now to ADSB with CDTI. I figure (if we can stop CASA TSOing it into the millions) will cost about $3000. Fitting, well my R-LAME would do it for about $250 (if all looms, connectors etc are supplied).

That is $3250 for a NON-TSO'd CDTI unit in my cockpit. Not a lot, but for fleet owners or struggling pvt owners probably too much.

Now, who wants and needs it. Under NAS the regionals and airlines. Who will save money from it? All IFR and RPT because AsA will not have to build and/or replace rotating head equipment. I don't think we disagree on that.

VFR doesn't really need it, although some may want it. So, if it isn't paid for and isn't mandated you might get some info (even more dangerous if you rely on it) but not all.

If it isn't paid for (by govt) but is mandated I foresee a huge political battle the end result of which will be a 'compromise' where you only need it if you fly above (say) 8000' (again, not a lot of use and dangerous if you rely on it in the circuit).

If it is mandated and paid for, unit prices crash. A set fee for install can be contracted to put a dampner on ripoff R-LAMEs and every a/c will have one. Then, save for U/S equipment, you can descend into the melee in comfort.

But I sure hope this doesn't become another excuse for RPT jocks to not look out the window!!!

Oh, ;), how can Airlines mandate stuff, ask the Minister for QANTAS or the opposition's (Kerry O'Brien's) chief advisor for "aviation and anything else that gets the Hostie union more money at everone else's expence".

AK

AK

[karrank]

If AirServices replaces Enroute radar with ADS/B the savings would apparantly pay for the aircraft gear for all the aeroplanes. I understand this is the Kiwi intention. It could be here, or it could be user-pays and a rooly big dividend for the feral gummint that year.

Chimbu, when its really IFR my job is separating. When its not IFR it doesn't matter what sort of dials are on the dashboard, alerted look-out-the-windows will do it. Pity we don't have much radar but.

[2B1ASK1]

Honestly you guys are in dream land I have not read so much drivel in my life no wonder GA is falling apart here. everybodies reluctance to change and the Australian attitude that it works for us is bull****. We have one of the highest incident accident rates in aviation in the world not counting third world countries, instead of attacking everyone that tries to change things why not help.

Most of the fairy stories I have read on this post bare no resemblance to the truth about NAS or the ARG, I do not like to quote so I wont but to say that nobody from the industry is supporting this is garbage if fact at the NAS workshop most of the industry there supports the need for change but as usuall there are a few negative doom and gloom people present. Some of the things are correct yes US NAS is different and will not fit into Australia but the fact that there accident incident rate is lower than ours with 5 times as much traffic has got to have a plus, the argument about they have greater radar coverage is also crap. US ATC will not warn VFR merging traffic for fear of litigation in alot of cases. Australian air services has agreed to warn merging traffic if you really feel you need this kind of service listen into the frequency you feel will give you the service. Remember the frequencies you monitor are not mandatory only advisory.

I have flown in the sydney basin area for some years now as I instruct out of Bankstown on a daily basis this is arguably one of the most busy training areas in Australia sharing the same training area as three other GA aerodromes funny how in all this time I have not had to make a radio call in the traininig area to let other pilots know where I was or where I was going. I am also a member of berrima district aero club flying out of Mittagong on a regular basis and have never felt the need to ramble out position reports and have never even come close to another aircraft, to the post that claims he had a near miss I suggest you look out a little more and worry less about making position reports.

There is the argument that states making a position report only encourages less looking out the window, after all why do we need to we have told everyone where we are and if they were anywhere near then they would say something so I can relax and assume no one is around.

Facts- we have not got a system that is perfect, the new system is being tailored to suit our needs in Australia by highly experienced and respected people in the industry. If this system helps to eventually reduce incidents and accidents then we should encourage and help it move forward. For those of you that want more facts because you are so sceptical then get of your backsides and look it up there are so many refferences and studies on NAS now its not funny, if you cant be bothered or make a constructive comment then don't bother many of us out here want to rebuild GA not slate and destroy it, sure we can all quote accidents in the US but look at the big picture.

10,000 hour flight experience I respect your flying ability but not the I am always right because I have 10,000 hours to say so, well Im sorry but your not always right and your attitude is why GA is dying.

Well done AK keep the good work up and for all you out there that want to find spelling mistakes and errors in this post have fun I have no time to check it as I and others like me are too busy trying to build GA back up again. :ok:

[Skin-Friction]

10,000 hour flight experience I respect your flying ability but not the I am always right because I have 10,000 hours to say so, well Im sorry but your not always right and your attitude is why GA is dying.
Sorry mate, but I don't buy this one, it is a bigotted and unjustified remark. There are many reasons for GA going down the tube, mostly relating to costs.




I have flown in the sydney basin area for some years now as I instruct out of Bankstown on a daily basis this is arguably one of the most busy training areas in Australia sharing the same training area as three other GA aerodromes funny how in all this time I have not had to make a radio call in the traininig area to let other pilots know where I was or where I was going.
Well I can tell you fella that I have had to make radio calls on a number of occasions WITHIN AN MBZ to avoid traffic on/close to a collision course.
Out in the training area, the big sky principal applies and anyway class g outside MBZs won't be affected by NAS proposal so you have made a meaningless statement.

[2B1ASK1]

Skin-Friction your comments demonstrate what you realy know about NAS ie nothing! MBZ's have been put on hold untill suitable mittigators have been put into place to address the risks or perceived risks associated with there removal as raise by the regional airlines. As I have stated alot of work is being put into this by all sectors of aviation and all risks are being identified and addressed. Nothing gets implemented untill all safety issues have been addressed. Your tone suggests you may in fact be one of the regional jockeys that thinks the world will fall apart if things change, with your attitude it may well, I am not attacking you please try and keep a open mind on NAS alot of people out there are on your side and working for a better system. Dick does not get it all his own way I can assure you the implementation group are a mixed bag and working bloody hard for us to inprove Australian airspace.

GA aviation should be simple and safe teaching someone to fly is the easy part teaching them the rules and regs and understanding where they can and cant fly and why, its a crock and takes 10 times the training than the actual flying. Thats partly why GA is dying trust me the cost is only a small part, none of my students complain about the cost, they complain about how complicated rules and regs are and why there are so many restrictions. I have been in aviation for 23 years and am dissapointed on a daily basis in the manner we attack each other in other countries being a pilot PVT,COM or ATPL is something to be proud of and there is no I am better because I hold an ATPL attitude this is the Australian cultural difference everyone is on about don't even attempt to deny or justify it I have been on many sides of the fence and see it all the time, remember GA supplied that licence without GA aviation will collapse.

You are realy missing the point this is not about Dick personally I dont like the man its about lowering the accident incident rate and improving our airspace and safety standards and making GA a more user friendly environment. Just because you can't fully understand how NAS will work please don't destroy it keep your mind and eyes open I can assure you with the amount of people working on this every safety issue you can possibly think of has probably been raised and mittagated.:ok:

[C182 Drover]

There is another great thread HERE (http://www.aimoo.com/forum/postview.cfm?id=421403&CategoryID=145649&startcat=1&ThreadID=987629) regarding NAS issues.

[SM4 Pirate]

its about lowering the accident incident rate and improving our airspace and safety standards and making GA a more user friendly environment....

How does NAS do any of that? current state? after 27 November? End state?

I can assure you with the amount of people working on this every safety issue you can possibly think of has probably been raised and mittagated.

The majority of mitigators are eductaion or pilots and or controllers... Where is the pilot training package for the next round of changes; how many people actually even know what it is they're about to get...? IMHO consultation has been disgraceful.

Bottle of Rum

[2B1ASK1]

SM4 Pirate

Why I waste my time I don't know, the training package is there, just because you can't be bothered to get of your backside and attend the seminar's around the country or go to the 30 or 40 links and documents posted in various Mags and on various forums to find out the information don't assume others won't. What do you want them to do hand deliver it to you in a gold plated envelope please give us all a break.

Personally I think your a brick short of a full load probably a regional pilot that things GA owes you a living and the average GA pilot should not share the same airspace as you please impress me and show me otherwise perhaps read some of the info or stats on NAS and attempt hard as it may be to look outside the tiny bubble you live in and understand where its coming from and its potential to increase safety in our skies by easing the workload and looking out a little more to name just a few concepts. I suggest the best thing for you would be to give up flying and take a more appropriate hobby up such as knitting.

I notice that the majority of people that object to NAS are regional pilots Isuggest you all stop trying to protect your nest eggs and give a little back to GA the very people that got you there in the first place after all if NAS is so dangerous why are the national carriers flying into the US simple because its lucrative for them to do so. I dont hear them complaining about VFR aircraft transiting over major capital airports or they are worried that non radio equipped aircraft may stroll into their path why I wander? simple concept realy just because you dont have to carry a radio does not mean that the majority are stupid enough to do it. At least give Australian pilots enough credit to do the same. Sure you will get the odd dope taking the rules to the limit I suggest to you that they are the same dopes that do it today under our current system.

How you cant be so negative astounds me the US system has far fewer accident and incidents than ours this crap about them being so different is only a cop out a plane is a plane and we are only pilots if we can bring our stats down to similar rates then even better as I stated in my first post on the topic wake up and smell the coffee.:ok:

[SM4 Pirate]

You are one

Why make it personal, I'm smelling the coffee, freshly brewed every day.

I have participated in the devlopment of many HAZID's HAZLOGs etc, for implementation of procedures. To claim that I have little or no knowledge is a clumbsy attempted attack, I'm neck deep in the weeds of NAS implementation.

I am convinced that NAS is safe; but it is less safe than what we have now, show me why I'm wrong; CASA has just said that last week, when they approved the design safety case.

There are no cost savings to be had overall from NAS; sure some elements will deliver some savings, many more elements will deliver increased costs.

The US model works because of their infrastructure; which we simply do not have. To say otherwise would be misleading. Where is the evidence to say they have a safer system? Where is the evidence to say they have a cheaper system? There just isn't any; you can't line up apples and oranges.

The training packages are pathetic; and delivery of Stage 2B packages is under real danger of not being met; so what is it I'm supposed to be relying on? Where is the mitigation for many of the Hazards, which was pilot training? Mike Smith himself stated at the Melbourne J&M King road show; that he didn't understand the procedures himself; he came back after the break and corrected himself after being 'savaged' from the ML ATC implementation manager.

Where in the USA do the 5 points I listed earlier occur; how is it that NAS is the US model; when clearly it is not.

I don't care whether we get NAS or not; we might just end the process on 27 November, from what I'm hearing; which is to who's benefit.

Convince me it is safer than what we have today, I'm willing to listen and/or smell the coffee. Don't ask me to find out why myself (I think I'm fully briefed), that's just weak; tell me your side of the story.

Bottle of Rum

[2B1ASK1]

SM4 Pirate

Your teasing me suppose I better hit you with some facts. Your welcome to look up the following statistics to verify their contents. To be fair to all I will pick the accident rates and fatality rates over the last 12 years both here and the US. Period 1992-2002 GA accidents and deaths US average out at 7.51 accidents and 1.45 deaths per 100,000 flying hours NTSB US report can be verified on numerous websites. Australia 10.80 accident and 2.3 deaths per 100,000 flying hours again can be verified on ATSB website. Some may think that they are pretty close after all whats 1 more death per 100,000 flying hours you may say. Its worse US have almost 6 times the traffic and flying hours than Australia. Further more looking at the two trends the US statistic are improving on a yearly basis not so in our case they have a made very little change and our annual hours are dropping in GA.
In fact when looking at a 30 year trend if we were ever lucky enough to match GA US in flying hours our accident rate would be around10 times higher looking at the trend of accident rates versus annual flying hours over the last 30 years.

Wake up Australia has an unacceptable GA accident rate, infrastructure my backside its clearly easy to see that the US system is better and although there will be a few problems in cultural change it will be for the better, don't quote US radar cover as a big issue simple fact US pilots look out the window far more than we do and are far safer they have managed to reduce the cockpit workload and allow PVT pilots to concentrate on looking out. The average student here has such a workload trying to avoid unnessesary large CTA steps, military zones frequency changes and fear of breaches and regulations he may or may not have remembered that actually looking out and flying the aircraft becomes second to looking down at his map and trying to navigate complicated airspace, I see this every day.

You have to be a regional jockey please stop trying to use NAS to feather your own perceived safety issues you owe it to GA. CPL and ATPL as in you case perhaps are a minority 6000 CPL 6000 ATPL and 18,000 PVT I think at last count Im pretty sure some regional jockey out there will correct me, thats not the issue we are all pilots and need a better system our accident figures are high many countries are adopting the US system in whole or part and are getting good results.

In answer to your statement I don't think your are fully briefed or have in fact looked outside the information provided to you by the workshop if you are neck deep in the process then with your attidude NAS is doomed to fail and GA will continue to decline in Australia. If it does end on the 27th Nov then it will be a sad day and you will have got what you want and put another nail in the GA coffin. I emplore all pilots to work together on this and help it work don,t listen to the crap about the training package not being out in time contact your local school if your not sure part 2b is not a great change just a small step of many changes dont,t let regional dictate how our airspace is run which in fact is whats happening and at our cost and there benefit simple fact the average regional does not think we should share the same airspace. There argument that they have such responsibility is also garbage, the prestige of being a regional pilot good pay and fast toys is the real motive. When the poo hits the fan and when the your final day is near, wisest of us know not when the good old human self preservation steps in and in fact passengers become non exsistent statistically and psycologically speaking please ask me for a refference if you wish.

I have no axe to grind, no fence to sit on or side to support personally I have always been a facts and figures man and dont jump to to many conclusions without evidence to support it. So to re-cap the main issue U.S accident rate not only lower but 5 to 6 times the amount of traffic GA booming Australia higher accident rate than most other non third world countries and dying please don't ask for quotes as I have spent far too much time on this topic. As I said smell the coffee or at least change brands. This is by no means personal so don't make that an issue.:ok:

[Chimbu chuckles]

For the sake of it I'll assume your figures are correct. You're assuming that all those oz accidents are caused by over complicated airspace causing pilots to not look out/see and aviod!

That's just rubbish. We have virtually no midairs in Oz...what 1 or 2 a year on average? The yanks have 20 or 30 which probably yields a similar rate given the vastly increased annual hours flown in the States.

NAS will have NO EFFECT on air safety in Australia!!!

NAS will have NO EFFECT on rejuvinating aviation in Australia!!

This is just 'spin' to convince dumbies.

Spend as much effort on reforming CASA and Flight Licensing Standards and you could improve air safety heaps...but that's just too hard!!!

Chuck.

[triadic]

Chimbu is 100% right on this.

I have supported airspace reform for many years (pre AMATS) and we do need it… and yes it would be good to see a similar effort go into regulatory reform and in particular training.

NAS will not provide any savings to GA whatsoever. It is not as safe as the existing system. That does not mean I am anti NAS – just a realist!

Part of the problem is that many pilots (both GA and airline) do not understand the existing system. (just listen to the r/t any day, especially the dredded readbacks) And why is that? Well show me the training in airspace knowledge and participation and where it is examined on? It's just not there. One is supposed to just pick it up from your instructor or training Captain .. and who sets the standards for that training?? Nobody! (and the AIP is not a training manual)

The major mitigator on the introduction of any changes is TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING…and don't stop. The training program for NAS is not good and there is no evidence that it will be on-going (five years plus?), which it must be in order to succeed.

"No known traffic" :ok:

[roach trap]

2B1ASK1

I had the same thought as Chimbu how many accidents in Oz are caused by the airspace?

(stats mean nothing 9 out of 10 people know this)

[2B1ASK1]

You guys are obviously to stupid to see the facts, thats the real problem stick to bus driving as thats your limit. You know very little about statistics cant enven get of your arse to look up facts, the figures assume nothing they indicate only that the US system has a accident rate somewhat less than ours and that most countries that operate a similar system are getting similar figures and this is over a 12 year period not just a snapshot, your attempts to squash NAS are pathetic to say the least. Wow lets ignore the figures and make up our own and I can get enough regional pilots to agree because it must be true because I say so come back to me when you have grown enough brain cells to actually give some real facts. REAL FACTS LESS DEATHS AND LESS ACCIDENTS! HELLO something must be working.

The NAS training package is working there are schools offering working nights across the country personal letters have gone out to school owners from NASIG stop wasteing our time atempting to de-rail NAS to feather your own interests I have listened to your regional representatives blackmail NAS by threats of walkouts I suggest to you that people like you are the real people that are destroying GA stick to what you know ie nothing.
We are working hard to improve flying standards at student level on a daily basis and things are getting better but is hard to get a student to understand and airspace system that is fractured and comlicated and has only been changed over the years to cater for regional airline demands. :ok:

[2B1ASK1]

Roach trap

Try running a business and tell me stats mean nothing 9 out of 10 stupid people may belive this, mmmm interesting maybe you should run for prime minister and work out the countries budget maybe gov forcasted spending is not worked out on statistics or our road system not worked out on statistics or the sewrage plants and power supply you have a very interesting theory exuse me if I don't decide to run my company by wont you.

Statistics are just what they say they are if you lot want to twist and bend them to suit your needs then go ahead if it makes you feel better and more able to justify your week and crumbling opinions about NAS, perhaps you will de-rail it go ahead 1less death is one less death and 3 less accident are exactly that 3 less to top 5 to 6 times the amount of GA flying. Are you guys for real?.

[q1w2e3]

2B1ASK1

You are exactly the type of person the 'Smiths' love. Some flying qualifications and experience and absolutely no f*cking idea.

The fact that you believe that the NAS is safe for ALL airspace users is 'forgivable'.

The fact that you can not understand that the statistics you are quoting have absolutely nothing to do with airspace is not.

This combined with your inarticulate and poorly spelled ramblings perhaps demonstrate why we have the accident rate we do. Because they are being instructed by morons like you.

[2B1ASK1]

q1w2e3

Did that keep you up all night thinking of what to say you would not have a clue when you have got more than 5 mins in the industry and actually have something intelligent to say talk to me Ill just get my secretary to check my spelling, who gives a sh#t the point is the same grow a brain. x

[OpsNormal]

Your's and the FAA's/ NTSB's figures match-up precisely. Unfortunately you have possibly either deliberately or unintentionally mislead everyone here by the lack of inclusion of the disclaimer....

...."Not all instances of either accident or inccident will be shown here for reasons of successful outcome"..... - FROM THE NTSB's WEBSITE!!!!

The "New and improved" rules relating to accident reporting came into effect in August 2000 - FAA - Accident Reporting (http://www2.faa.gov/avr/aai/8020_11b.pdf)

Loosley interpreted under the old FAA rules, an engine failure in a twin gets a mention in the FAA's/NTSB's database if the outcome is that the aircraft crashes or suffers major structural damage as a result. If the aircraft manages to land safely with either no structural damage or loss of life, then there is no accident/incident in their eyes as there was a safe resolution to the flight. They do have to report it, but there is no data compiled upon it nor is it included in their final accident figures.

As you are aware, here 'one only has to sneeze without a serviceable hanky and they call it pilot error', as a person who will remain nameless, but he went-on to head what was then the CAA, said once upon a time.

You've done well, but didn't have the full story of the figures you're quoting.

To paraphrase someone off pprune about 5 years ago "Statistics are like lamposts - meant for illumination, not support."

It's all about context and apples and oranges - Your ball tiger!:ok:

[Pharcarnell]

When text for the first year of an MBA is "How to Lie With Statistics", who in their right mind would ever believe them.
Given any set of raw data, and manipulating them with allowable, legal statistical analysis, you can get diametrically opposite answers.
As has been quoted, "There are 3 great untruths, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics ".
When you resort to quoting numbers, you've lost, give up!

[2B1ASK1]

You guys are great Im glad you did not serve in the military as you feet would be full of holes. The only people twisting statistics is you guys sure they changed the goal posts in recording but I do have stats from over ten years ago and funny they pretty much say the same thing and just incase some of you want to open your minds to the real facts if only half the accidents were recorded from some parts of the industry here EG AUF then our figures would be so bad its not funny.

These figures are not to support NAS or argue the fact they are just raw accident figures. Anyone that is realy aware of whats happening in GA in this country would know that there is a **** load of accidents that happen yearly that dont get recorded or fall into the correct basket Im not twisting the stats in anyway the reson stats dont work in general is because of how they are used and or twisted.I would ike to see any of you lot try to run a business without them one thing I can be sure of is that it wont be a business for long.

[SM4 Pirate]

2B1,

This is text from the official CASA documentation on the approval of the Design Safety Case...

CASA has reviewed the Design Safety Case (DSC) dated 1st September 2003 and makes the following comments:

1. The DSC identifies 10 ‘characteristics’ to be changed in Stage 2b, 7 of which are assessed as being not compliant with the US FAA/NAS model and thus subject to the Design Safety Case requirement.

2. The detailed evaluation of the presented DSC evidences that the Stage 2b implementation will bring about an increase in risk beyond that which exists in Australia today, but CASA is unable to determine the degree of this additional risk from the material supplied in the DSC.

3. CASA believes that the US FAA/NAS model is safer than the existing Australian airspace system. Therefore, any increase in risk over the existing airspace system will also be a greater risk than the US FAA/NAS model.

4. The DSC states that each airspace design and each procedure is safe.

5. Material supplied to CASA by NASIG claims that it is necessary for the full implementation of the Australian NAS that Australia transition through this interim stage.

6. Based on the statement contained in paragraph 4 above, the expectation that full implementation of the NAS will provide a significant decrease in risk and that appropriate risk mitigation strategies are in place in the interim, CASA has no objection to NAS proceeding to the next phase.

7. CASA is not amenable to these transitional arrangements remaining in place for an extended period and requires advice as soon as practicable when the transitional arrangements will end in accordance with the NASIG Terms of Reference (IG Task 4c).

I think we can draw from that text: (my slant from the weeds)

Point 1 AUSNAS isn't he same as USNAS.

Point 2 Stage 2b implementation will bring about an increase in risk beyond that which exists in Australia today

Point 3 This phase of implementation is increasing the already higher risk.

Point 4 Each element is safe; but is it safer, not at this phase...

Point 5 We are sure that end state will be safer than what we will have in November.

Point 6 Bring on the next phase, fast, we don't like this one...

Point 7 Hurry up... We think staged implementation sucks...

Bottle of Rum

[triadic]

We are working hard to improve flying standards at student level on a daily basis and things are getting better but is hard to get a student to understand and airspace system that is fractured and comlicated and has only been changed over the years to cater for regional airline demands
2B1ASK1




The real problem is that the levels of training and any training in airspace participation is just not there. Every instructor thinks he is an expert, but is that the case.... I doubt it! Who taught the intstructor? What standardisation program is in place...? What examinations were sat and who set them?

The real deal with airspace is there is no real training, no standardisation and no exams. Only CASA can do that and they fail big time in setting standards in airspace education... and that is with our existing system....geeeeez!!

Any changes must be subject to additional education and a complete change in the way it is undertaken. And whats more over a long period of time (5 years).

Without such changes to education....NAS will fail ... no matter how good it is.


"no known traffic" :ok:

[2B1ASK1]

SM4 Pirate

Shame on you you like shooting your self in the foot.
Yes CASA has agreed that US NAS is safer than our system which is why we should have it as you are well aware, your one of the prime reasons for non compliance and the rest of the regionals attempting to change the model to suit there needs dont attempt to pull the wool over poeple eyes we would have the much safer US system if it was not for the basic bully and blackmail tactics use by the regionals at the workshop that were basically voicing personal feelings with no facts to back it up you and I both know this is true.

It has been agreed by many proffessionals the the US airspace system is far better for many reasons which is why many countries are adopting it sorry to say this but Austrailia is not the only country the has different requirements but we are the only country thats to arragant to accept change and move on.

You have only reinforce my previous posts and proved that the real reason NAS will fail is not to protect GA but to protect the regional jockey's wallet and jobs shame on you all at least my conscience is clear. You should start your own forum the proffessional backstabbers rumor network because in truth all regionals have done is put a knife in the back of GA with people like you we have no hope very very sad.:(

[2B1ASK1]

triadic

I know I may be harsh on this subject and I am very passionate about flying in general. I agree with what you say but there is alot of us out there trying to stamp out the old sausage factory schools and improve training standards. I also know NAS is moving fast it would have moved much smoother and training packages earlier if the regional airline representatives present at the workshop did not insist on drastic changes. SM4 Pirate I apologise for being so harsh (bad day) I will edit it if you wish I am sure if you were present and are dealing with NAS you will understand what I am saying I may be directing it at the wrong person if so I am sorry. To finish most of my working day is spent trying to improve GA and has consumed most of my life and makes it difficult to not get hot under the collar so I apologise to all those I may have offended happy flying to all. :ok:

[snarek]

Reading (with interest) this tooing and froing I am beginning to form a scary opinion.

It seems, to me at least, that in the sentiment expressed above, there are members of a certain group, who for brevity I shall call 'regionals', who think they should have all the say in uncontrolled airspace.

I am further surmising that this gaggle of 'regionals' feel GA should just get out of their way.

Now this is dangerous and could be expensive. I operate from a regional airport. Whenever a 'regional' comes in we ALWAYS do the right thing and extend (or whatever) so they can get in and out as quickly (and thus cheaply) as possible. Not the law (and it never will be) but courtesy? yes, also though an important part of keeping the profit margins where you 'regionals' stay viable.

Now, should one or two of you (I am loath to paint all 'regionals' with the same brush) so p!ss GA off to the extend an enimity forms, your safety, timetables and profitability could suffer as you are told to "get st^ffed, slow down and join the circuit!", then possibly, there go your jobs!!!!.

So those of you who THINK you have some sort of priority, and those of you who know a fool who thinks this, sit down, do some naval gazing and work out where the political lobbying power is.

As for NAS, the sooner the better, I am here in LA at the moment and, apart from cr@p visibility, the system works fine and me n my bugsmasher get the same priority as a white rat jumbo :E

wooohooo!!!

AK

[SM4 Pirate]

2b1,

Sorry, you need to understand context.

CASA has stated that US system is safer, we are not getting their system! That's my point. If we were, bring it on, you are beleiving the bad PR.

The US model is safer, why? Terminal airspace, statistically is safer; because most of the terminal airspace is call B. and has Transponder and radio vails. Are we getting that? Control towers, with radars at most RPT destinations, etc.

Enroute airspace statistics is reversed; Enroute here is safer, than the US system. Why because less Class 'E'; which is statistically less safe than Class 'C'.

This phase is giving us the worst of both possible combinations; no change to the less safe Terminal areas; which CASA says is less safe, combined with lots of change to the enroute areas which is already safer...

This is why I think this sucks, not because it isn't safe, it's because it is less safe, and doesn't save money... So why do it? The money isn't real, the big boys say more costs, the provider ASA says more costs, more cost to them equals more costs to users and customers, who benefits from that other than consolidated revenue?

PS I'm not a regional... keep fishing...

Bottle of Rum

[Winstun]

Enroute airspace statistics is reversed; Enroute here is safer, than the US system. Why because less Class 'E'; which is statistically less safe than Class 'C'. ......:rolleyes: .....Oh my gawd, why I am I not friggin surprised? :ooh: Only several tens of thousand more planes plying the skies at any one time perhaps? I am only guessing SM4 not lost his virginity cause its less safe. :zzz:

[roach trap]

2B1ASK1 I think you missed the joke in my comment but I would not expect much less from an obvious to$$er

[SM4 Pirate]

Winny you are a fool. We are implementing the worst of both systems; that's the point.

The stats say eighteen times more planes, 20 times more ATCs, 30 times more incidents in enroute...

As for my virginity; further evidence of the first line in this post.

Bottle of Rum

[KAPTAIN KREMIN]

Crikey the hidden agendas must be stinky for so many groups to be hammering so many others within the industry. I'm not a Regional but let me get this straight - fairly fast aircraft, busy in the cockpit, full up with POBs down the back, no-radio traffic, no mandatory calls, no specified area freq, no mode Charlie, not even a freq boundary, all sorts of things in the air from Hornets to plastic seat with a lawn mower engine driven by anyone who can afford a plastic seat and a lawnmower engine - in busy terminal areas.

Everything recommended - nothing prescribed - yeah that's gotta be safer. Why not scrub all the lines on charts, wipe the AIP, and ditch ATC - gotta be safer! Hey we could do that with the pharmaceutical drug industry - drug prices would drop - everybody coud afford them because the companies would drop prices (whilst maintaining quality of course). The US drug system would suit us to a T.

You guys!!!!!!!!!!

Us turkeys!!!!!!!!!

You got us a bewdy there.

Yeah - the Regionals have a reason for concern. Especially with all of those peddlers of US NAS cure-all poison. They have all the statistics, from another country, in another environment, with different people, with almost total RADAR to almost ground level. Anyone who has been around aviation safety for more that five minutes knows the value and hazards with safety performance indicators - they are just not accurate to the point of being worthless - never mind if they are from another system in another country.

What smells to me is the energies the IG has gone to implement without design safety case. Tantamount to selling a used car without a warranty and so there goes the IG's credibility and integrity day one. Why implement a system warts and all when you have an opportunity to get the best and discard the crap. Are we really so dense that we think that US NAS is perfect.

You lot have two choices - accept the good with the crap or lobby for the best outcome overall with reasonable safety margins that are appropriate to AUSTRALIA and not the United States of Australia.

Watch out for those who do not wish to compromise, argue only with dodgy stats, keep saying this is good for you etc. They have the scariest hidden agenda. You will also find them hidden underground when we have the first attributable collision.

[Manwell]

Thanks for all the posts folks, however I feel we've been sidetracked by the NAS a bit. The topic was really intended to challenge the concept that Dick didn't care about aviation in Australia. Having said that, I'll now get sidetracked too.

All the well constructed argument about the NAS is interesting, but the case for the negative has been repeated for years and never backed up with sufficient facts to support the argument.

There is plenty of argument citing the benefits of an ATC separation service, however, this does not seem consistent with the fact that many mid-air collisions occur in CTR's or the circuit area. A mate of mine had a mid-air in the AF circuit and survived, and the closest I've come to a mid-air was in the Wagga CTR although I'd spent years in the BK training area which as we know is quite a bit busier than Wagga, and this was back about 10 years ago when BK was really busy.

For years I felt compelled to disbelieve the rhetoric that many in the industry were quite happy to accept and perpetuate. There are literally hundreds of examples that I could cite in support of the concept of see and avoid and the real safety benefits of the NAS but I'm sure that those opposed to it are unable to accept the argument for reasons that are deeply rooted in their concept of safety. I, too, am unable to support the philosophy that it is better to have someone else responsible for my safety. They are not sufficiently connected to the results of their actions to enable me to rely on them any more than I need. And because they are not sufficiently connected to the safety and efficiency of my flight operations, then it is obvious that they will err disproportionately on the side of safety, unless they make an error....

My argument is that this does not mean greater safety. This disproportionate bias toward safety away from efficiency fails in a wholistic sense to result in greater overall safety. It aims for greater safety in an area that is already low risk.

Look up the accident stats on the ATSB website if you wish, but I'd guess that you don't need to. You would already be well aware that mid-air collisions account for very few lives. The interesting thing to note from all the mid-airs that have occurred over the years is that more than half involve gliders. Not one in Australia has involved an RPT aircraft. More effort should be put into solving the problems that account for accidents year after year. The only thing that stops us from doing it is the fact that that would not benefit us, the professionals in the industry.

Perhaps that is why Dick has sought to introduce this change. Because we, (read pro-pilots, ATC, and CASA) have failed to adequately consider the problems of the weakest links in the chain. Do you think that we might carry some of the blame on this score?

I can understand other's reluctance to change, especially since their whole concept of safety is so deeply connected to the idea that MORE IS BETTER . If some radio talk is good, then more is better . If some checks are good, then more are better . If some ATC is good, then more is better . If some aviation regulation is good then more is better .

What this philosophy fails to accept is that too much of anything is not good for you . As someone once said, in a debate about "Is too much sex good for you?", "Of course too much sex is not good for you, that's what too much means!

Things need to be in correct balance. And just what is the correct balance?

I'd guess that the correct balance is struck when the system is able to handle more traffic for less money and effort in the same safety. The correct balance doesn't discount the abilities of any player in the game, instead it relies on all players to work in together. The correct balance doesn't rely on heroics out of anyone. It requires a team effort.

The reason why a disproportionate bias toward factors that we would prefer to address, rather than factors we really need to address, results in less overall safety can be explained quite easily. The fact is though, that it may not be so easily understood, especially if you have a mindset of safety based on flawed concepts.

We as human beings are finite creatures. That is, we can only do so much, process so much, and make sense of so much. If we place an undue emphasis on a factor that has little to do with safety or efficiency then we actually reduce our ability to do, process, and make sense of, those factors that in reality do pose a hazard to our prospects of reaching retirement age. In addition to that, we fail to adequately do , process, and make sense of, air traffic in the belief that it is being done for us, to a greater or lesser degree.

Truthfully, as has been pointed out in the latest AOPA article titled "Do we have an aviation culture deficit?" I think we have.
John King is quoted as saying, "Everything about aviation in Australia seems to be more difficult than in the US."

This could be justified perhaps if we were less capable pilots, less responsible, less respectful of authority, or just plain immature. What do you think is the answer?

Personally I believe that we are at least as capable pilots, at least as responsible, and probably more respectful of authority.

By the way Chuck, I accept your advice about the use of multi-crew analogies. And I didn't intend to patronise. It may have seemed patronising, but believe my intentions are honourable. I have great respect for you and your opinion despite it differing from mine. It has been made abundantly clear to me that only together can we make our industry safe, not in spite of others.

A bit like the philosophy of CRM, yes?
He hesitates to use another multi-crew analogy...

Life's a bitch, then you fly...


:ok:

[WhatWasThat]

Did it occur to you that the reason for the lack of RPT collisions is the system that you are attempting to dismantle?

[brianh]

Actually, no!

It is more likely because at most of our RPT airports outside Class C you could stand on the runway 23.5 hours a day and not get hit by anything except training aircraft following existing - and more stringent proposed - CTAF rules (given that the new CTAF rules embrace MBZ procedures).

I'm not sure how the existing IFR to IFR separation arrangements by radio, not including any VFR component, are watered down by the NAS in the out of radar areas.
Brian H

[snarek]

I had a look at airspace around brisbane last night, just for some light entertainment.

Little lines everywhere, everyone getting out of the way of Brisbane (and I have no problems with that, however a little simplification would be nice), but Maroochy, spare me!!!

It is C, to a certain level, then D. It is C out of Brisbane, D around the tower, but only at certain times and not unless Mrs Jones of Coolum has had a roast chook for dinner this month.

No simple corridors anywhere, no easy transits, no wonder gun happy knuckleheads had a lightie in their sights!!!!

Roll on NAS I say, lets clean up the mess and make flying fun again!!!

Andrew Kerans
AOPA Director

[apache]

the idea that MORE IS BETTER . If some radio talk is good, then more is better . If some checks are good, then more are better . If some ATC is good, then more is better . If some aviation regulation is good then more is better .

Fair point Manwell.... but let us change the record....

Years ago we had MORE ATC services, I thought it was good.
Now we have DEGRADED SERVICES.... and using your argument more DEGRADED services would NOT be better ... hey, I agree.

Nowadays we are getting charged MORE $$$ to fly, once again, I agree that less $$$ is better.

This argument of yours will work well, if you are on the same side of the fence as the person you are arguing with.
Say for example, you want to argue with a bean counter at QF, and the argument is about COMPETITION... some might argue "More is Better", guaranteed that QF exec will disagree that more competition is better... FOR QF! Speak to Joe Public... he will say that 'More competition IS better, because he gets better service at a lower cost, and more flexibility with his travel."

However ther ARE times when I will agree with this theory of yours .... MORE OF DICK SMITH, is DEFINITELY not better!!!!

I am still having a hard time trying to figure out what "too much sex" is.

BTW, if regionals started sacking pilots for 'joining the circuit on downwind', or by having a less courteous GA, then maybe they shouldn't be in business! If your entire profit margin is based on a C172 giving way to your DHC-8 at Moree, then YOU have problems!!!!

Sure, it helps but Jeeez.... what sort of a threat is that ?

Reading back thru SNAREK's post .... I too have flown in LA, and whilst I agree that the visibility IS poor, and the ATC service IS good... I must say that I would HATE to be having a problem where i required ACTUAL help from ATC, as one just cannot get a word in at a controlled and calm pace. there are also twice to three times as many freq changes required.

I also have a couple of questions for you :
1/ How much money does the FAA ( or whoever) get from the taxpayer to fund ATC in the US ? (I honestly do not know)
2/ what percentage of that money makes up the entire budget for ATC in the US ? (once again, I honestly do not know)
3/ from the shortfall, how much does the average PPL have to pay every time he flies ? (once again, I do not know)
4/How much tax is there per litre of AVGAS/AVTUR bothe here and in the US ? (again, I do not have actual figures)
5/ Why is it that AOPA is a vehement supporter of DICK SMITH? and considered a joke by the rest of the aviation fraternity in Australia ?

Is it any wonder that the AOPA acronym has a somewhat differing meaning to what the association would like ?

I apologise, snarek, if this is a little personal, however I have found in my experience, that Dick, and to a lesser extent AOPA, have NOT made the airways either safer OR cheaper for me.

[snarek]

Apache

I have been on the board for 3 years now. I didn't enjoy the first two. On that Board the wisdom of a couple of members was unassailable. This board works, and it works well and effectively across the spectrum of GA.

I didn't support NAS then. Because I don't ever trust force fed wisdom, and that's all I got from the dominant board members and from both Smiths.

Now, while I find Dick Smith to be a little full of his own importance, I took the time to listen to him re NAS. He has his own hype sure, but he made sense.

I also spoke to Mike Smith, now he and I probably don't like each other, we certainly joust. But he has a job to do and delivers his message well.

The same can't be said for the transparrent scaremongering of CivilAir and AFAP.

It is that honourless rubbish that has contributed as much to my support for NAS as the Smiths. However I personally (ie not the AOPA view) think NAS needs ADSB to allay the real fears of the one or two genuine people on here.

But those that think AOPA is irrelavent are probably skipping hapilly in a field of claymore mines. This is a new AOPA, with political experience and clout and the ability to get the Government to listen. If the AFAP and CivilAir people are stupid enough to ignore such a foe, then winning for NAS will be easier than i thought and they are stupider.

AK

[C182 Drover]

It looks like AOPA ballsed it up in representing their members with NAS. It appears the media do not even know who we are to even rank a mention. This needs to be changed so we capitalise on the use of the media to help us move forward.

[axiom]

Woomera;

the name AOPA was mentioned and you haven't frozen the post.

I take it that things are going "swimmingly" if one of your mates posts, but if someone else, does things go sour.

Why don't you let these blokes "spruik" on the AOPA forum and let us people who see through their perceived importance in GA get on with being a strong opposition to their aquiesance with CASA. This mob have been neutered and not by the members, but their own doing.

Strong representation, STRUTH !!!

[Woomera]

Axiom et al

Use of the word "AOPA" in a post is not reason to close or moderate a thread.

I have no association with AOPA, but am getting tired of attempts to subvert PPRuNe into an "unofficial AOPA web site for the disenchanted" and the time taken to read (and moderate) uninteristing, repetitious ramblings, which rightfully belong within the AOPA organisation.

Or anywhere, except PPRuNe!

I give you fair warning: AOPA topics of general aviation interest are welcome on PPRuNe. However should the thread degenerate into repetitious, rambling, slanderous direct or indirect attacks on anyone (AOPA Director, Member or any other person), the threads will be removed and posters banned - without fear or favour!

If you don't like the Rules to play with Danny's toys, go get your own toys.

Woomera

[apache]

Snarek,
Please don't misunderstand me, which I am sure you haven't. I respect your words, and your ability not to take my post personally. However, I am also sure you can see why I do not entirely trust the organisation you direct, as a matter of fact I have banned my fiancee (years ago, but still ) from buying Dick Smith products.
I am all FOR change, when it is for the better. Air Services Australia did not get the axiom of Air NoServices for no reason, and whilst it is NOT the fault of the guys and gals at the coalface who are to blame, a continued reduction in VALUABLE services is NOT acceptable to me.
Since I started flying I have seen :
Tower closures
Sydney Airport closed due lack of staff
Degradation in the quality of pilot training
Cost of flying (excuse the pun) soar
Class G Airspace reform, which led to many near collisions and, which after being rejected by the industry AS A WHOLE, is being brought in by stealth... starting in the NT.
Congested CTAF's , resulting in many a near miss.
LSP fees including for circuit training.
Pay as you fly, resulting in pilots flying less than IFR machines in TOTAL IMC to save a few bucks
Fuel Crises.... including a group (nameless) who used it to "drum up membership"
CAO48, which I believe was in place to PROTECT the pilot, about to be substituted by fatigue (mis)managment .

just to name a few.

I once flew with a pilot who said, whilst we were VFR, "DO NOT make any radio calls, as it clutters up the frequency... just listen!" Now, call me naiive, but if EVERYBODY "just listened' then there would be nothing to listen to! ie just like flying without a radio at all..... now THAT to me reeks of the 1920's et al.

In EVERY instrument rating renewal, I have been told, and DO, use everything at my disposal... an UNUSED instrument is a USELESS instrument.

If, as you say, AOPA has become a force to be reckoned with... why not take up a legitimate fight, like pilots wages and conditions? You can start with the instructors, which will lead to a better quality of training, less people going north with starts in their eyes, and will flow on to a pilot shortage in the north which might lead to pilots being paid what they are worth/entitled to.

please prove me wrong.

[Manwell]

Woah!

I come back to have a look at what's been going on since I've been away, and I'm a bit disappointed.

Please re-read the thread heading and rules of engagement, my rules. There are plenty of places you all can go to vent your spleen, just make sure it's not here. Reasoned, rational argument, please gentlemen. Otherwise, please play on someone else's thread.

Can't you blokes see how bloody obnoxious you become when anonymous? This thread is for general viewing, ie. I'd like you to be proud for your sons, spouses, Mums, etc to check out your posts.

To all the gentlemen who have observed my rules of their own volition, without the threat of legislative enforcement, I have a deep respect and admiration for you.

And the rest of you,.....I will, if you respect my rules for this thread.

Life's a bitch, then you fly.
:ok:

[snarek]

Apache

Most instructors and low end CPLs are not members. If these people represented the majority, then thier gripes/problems would be represented.

AOPA is an organisation of its members. We aren't here to fight for non-members.

On GA, we are trying. last year we gave away 16 x $4000 'learn to fly' scholarships (funded by AsA). That has got to be a good start.

This year we are discussing an advertising capaign where we provide a 13AOPA number and people get given a TIF at THE AOPA AFFILIATED school of thier choice (we will give them the schools within Xk of their location), a logbook and a trial AOPA membership.

But to do more we need more. The money we get is membership money, we have to be very careful to make sure our MEMBERS get benefit from their subscriptions. That's why we aren't being a union for CPLs.

AK

[NOtimTAMs]

Snarek

Are you saying, then, if more CPLs/Flying Instructors were members, then AOPA would be more likely to take up their views and present them?

Sounds fair enough to me. :ok:

Safe flying:ok:

NOtimTAMs

[snarek]

NTT

AOPA is not a PPL's organisation. It leans that way because they make up the majority of members.

We do however have a lot of CPLs, ATPLs, instructors etc. We have a number of the above on the Board.

Now if all the 'younger' CPLs and instructors out there joined and got involved, AOPA would then represent their opinions and wishes to Government.

I hear a lot of 'why doesn't AOPA do this etc', usually from non-members. Well I'd respectfully (or otherwise ;) ) suggest that if people wish an organisation of which they are not a member to represent them or fight for them they should first try the CWA :E

AK