NAS on the skids?

[dickluvva]

The pilots and ATC unions appear to be having their say on NAS with a formal request to defer rollout...

Joint Letter to the Minister for Transport (http://www.civilair.asn.au/bulletins/otherdocs/nasmin.pdf)

Any opinions?

[Dog One]

Can't help but agree. So far the NAS implementation leaves me with a real cold feeling in regard to safety.

[DickyBaby]

The voice of reason raises its head once more. No more wading through the anal emanations of Winstun and BIK 116.8 to try an find a grain of truth in their reality challenged visions of the way the world "should" be.

GA will say that this is the big boys just throwing their weight around to protect their own patches. Too bloody right! The patch that's being protected is home turf to the vast bulk of the travelling public.

It's too good to be true - no doubt Dick will find a way around it.

[QSK?]

Couldn't agree more guys (gals?). A combined approach from the (very concerned) industry is the only way the politicians and government are going to listen to reason.

I invite you to have a look at my comments on NAS lodged today under the topic "Dick Smith and the NAS Design Safety Case". I urge you all to go and buy the mag and read the article by Dr. Neal Fulton carefully, particularly the comments relating to MBZ/CTAF alert times, enroute cruising levels and see-and-avoid.

[Capcom]

Interesting timing isn’t it that the Minister for “Dick” is parading ADS-B on ABC News tonight.
He made it sound like it is in place now and will replace those antiquated RADAR’s that cost soooo much.:yuk: http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/jpshakehead.gif

Worried about a lack of surveillance coverage are you “Lye Low John” ??? http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/nono.gif

- No mention of the cost of nationwide ADS-B ground station installations or when or who will pay!
- No mention that **** all aircraft can use it at the moment and only in one part of QLD
- No mention of who will pay for GA/RPT fleet installation

SPIN SPIN SPIN SPIN……………..SPINING HARD as he can…!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/boohoo.gif

I think I might refer to him as “The REVOLVER” from here on in!!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/smokin.gif

Careful where you point yourself “REVOLVER” you would not want to shoot your own “Richard” now would you..!!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/knob.gif

But seriously..

QSK

I have read your post on the safety case thread and have also read the article to which you refer.
BRAVO and CONCUR. Your considered comments and those of our esteemed regular contributors are “right on” for mine.:ok:

[tobzalp]

Lucky I kept all the documentation from when I was working with the LLAMP project.

[slice]

From todays (19/09/03) Australian

But Mr Anderson said the introduction of CTAF was a critical part of the National Airspace System reforms and would have a much stronger emphasis on good airmanship.

Andersons biography doesn't mention anything about a pilots licence so I am wondering what he understands by the term "good airmanship". If it comes from the dick then I know he has been fed BS.

AS for US CTAFs one thing the John and Martha show didn't point out was that the US has about 420 Towered Airports (vs Aus around 30) and that virtually all of the high speed jet RPT flies between these Airports - they don't have the situation that we have here in Australia at Broome and Uluru where Jets and lots of 210s,310s etc mix it up. Why is the redesignation of MBZs to CTAFs so critical to the reform. I can't see any cost saving there as it is only a proceedural change (for the worse in my opinion).

BTW - exactly who will putting a stronger emphasis on good airmanship?:suspect:

[KAPTAIN KREMIN]

I have watched a World Class airspace and procedures system twisted and decimated for over 10 years now all because of the selfishness of one individual, the power that money provided that individual and the sychophancy of supporters with similar self-centred and arrogant attitudes.

I have witnessed the arrogant and disrespectful stupidity of this one person, with five minutes in the industry, who is hell bent on destoying what is left of a once simple and safe system. I have witnessed his disrespect to giants of the industry who have huge levels of experience, expertise and common sense. I have watched amazing orchestrations and productions of wonderfully irrelevent safety statistics to implement a system which has little application to Australia. I have watched some industry and government members prostitute themselves and bypass most of the established safety processes - what for - a 15% bonus?

I remember the safe simplicity of OCTA and CTA. Sure it had its inefficiencies however all of these were manageable to greater efficiency with far less effort compared to the cost and waste of all of these other changes - who has quantified that and why are the perpetrators not accountable.

This past ten years has a future in Four Corners. The fact that such havoc can be wrought on Australia by one minimalist qualified individual is reprehensible and an anathema to our democracy. I have no doubt whatsoever that an investigation would reveal disturbing and questionable methods to attempt to achieve endstate. It would also reveal failure to perform designated function by individuals, political or government body.

I remember the days when the value of the life of a passenger or pilot was not distinguised by the VFR or IFR.

As an idealist I have always believed that the interests of the passenger was being looked after by the politician or agency tasked with that responsibility. Sadly this has not been the case and the interests of the passenger is now being looked after by the somewhat courageous actions of certain persons employed by commercial operators, union representatives/members and ground operators.

The actions of these groups brings hope to the best of the industry - those who strive for a realistic and responsible balance between efficiency and the safety of pilots and passengers.

[tobzalp]

KK here here.

This latest reform of course is payment for a full page advert in a certain paper one election. This reminds me of the sickly kid at school who did not have the skills or aptitude to play the game at lunch that we were all playing and wanted to change the rules to suit himself and his band of idiots.......

[WALLEY2]

As many of you are aware the Airport Owners (AAA ) have been fighting the MBZ to CTAF(USA) changes.

Unlike other non professional pilots or ATC experts we have not questioned the enroute aspects of the NAS, though technical reading in particular the Captain B-ville And--son Report and the Unissued Report of the CASA AA and NAS IG of thier USA fact finding tour, made clear there was also concerns in this area.

I will post these reports and other relevant reports next week for others to access.

We have had numerous correspondence with the Dep PM department on the NAS terminal Airspace changes. We recieved letters from them advising that airports like Broome and Ayers Rock work well in CTAF in the USA.

Then later we were to be told via a Mr D S--th Press Release that there are no such airports in the USA and we must install a D Class Tower.

Clearly this tower idea then flows on to other major regional airports and the implications of costs are huge. Once again no thought given to data or analysis. As an engineer I personally find it amazing. Why not flip a coin save time and money.

Heads: CTAF Tails: D Tower if it stands on its edge: keep the same proven MBZ system, done now lets go and save the World.

A number of the regional airports are considering advising the Minister that if they try to impliment CTAF at major regional aiports without a site specific safety case we will close the aiports.

In view of the letter posted here and to stop the union bashing counter attack I will try to get the first letter from concerned airports out Monday.

KK I found my self having to post this comment after reading yours Mr D S--th has been kind enough to ring me on a number of occasions to discuss my concerns, though none of the correspondence we were discussing was initially addressed to him.

These chats take 1 hour plus, though my air time is usually restricted to 10 mins, the last of these chats was two days ago.

Mr D S--th kindly phoned to advise me he had told the Dep PM I was stupid and shelfish and an idiot, who was being hoodwinked by unionist and fools. He couldn't understand how a fellow entrepeneur (me) could be so naive.

I felt rather special to be so mentioned in dispatches at the highest of levels and in my absence.

Now I find I am just a Johnny come lately at the end of a long queue, are well I will console myself with the hope that my fellow fools and idiots gone ahead of me are cut with the same cloth.

We the damned, those precious precious few !!!!



KK

[Lodown]

The intention was for C17 airspace, but in reality we're getting the Nomad...again...



The politicians can blow off the concerns of the pilots, but when the airport owners start making noises and the local councils shift in their seats, life with the National Party gets very, very uncomfortable.

[no_name_oz]

Never have so many owed so much to so few

Great to hear the voice of reason with so few dissenting opinions. Maybe people are starting to realise what it is that we're giving away. The relentless push of economic rationalism seems to make special interest groups or individuals have a disproportionally loud voice. Kitchen cabinets are formed - people are appointed to boards and change for the sake of change becomes the order of the day.

Remember the olden days when we had DCA, DOT, DOTC, DOA etc.? Then the razor gangs came through and gutted the service provider in the name of a more efficient industry (with the blessing of politicians slavering at the thought of being associated with reducing the bureaucratic overheads in the eyes of a public fed by media spin from people like Dick).

In the end we provide less service - it's certainly cheaper per movement but did we really save anything or was it a volume based change due to happen anyway? AsA is now much slimmer. I just wonder what the balance sheet looks like if you add together Airservices, CASA, DOTARS, CAGROs, contract maintenance staff (Navaiads, runways etc.) and all the airport staff around the country that used be DCA before the sell-off. I think the actual price the travelling public pays wouldn't be that much better.

Add to this the turmoil in the industry across the past 15 years and personal costs borne to the public in hidden expense such as welfare management for the massive redundancies as people were drummed out of (previously) public services and employed in private industry to perform the same tasks (often at a higher pay rate). Have we backed a winner at all?

I'd be interested to see if anyone has the wherewithall to gather some figures.

PS I didn't mind the Nomad - it's just that it was supposed to be a learjet!

[WALLEY2]

Slice

While John and Martha were selling the USA GA angle, to be fair after the Perth show we sat down and had a beer.

I explained Broome,Ayers etc traffic levels, Pax, a/c types Martha and John listened, asked relavent questions discussed it at length and finally said "Nope in the USA we have no such airports as CTAF" and in the USA you would have a D class towers but these are paid from aviation general revenue.

They knew the USA regional airports like the back of their hands and were very nice very motivated people.

Interestingly it was not long after their return to the east that D--S--- made the unilateral decision to put out the press release that Broome was to get tower contradicting the Dep PM and NAS IG.

I think after getting the facts John and Martha told DS that CTAF was not the answer for such large mixed use airports. They had previously advised me on the USA mainland they knew of no 737 RPT flights into non towered airports. I think they told DS that as well.

Keen GA trainers wealth of experience nice people probably being missused and not aware of the manipulations going on.

Anyway that was how I found them.

[BIK_116.80]

“...so few dissenting [ie pro NAS] opinions”? :confused:

There are lots of dissenting opinions.

But the majority of them are held by people who have much better things to do with their time than spend it posting here.

Here, yet again, we have an anti-NAS thread populated predominantly by contributions from air traffic controllers.

Whilst everyone is entitled to express their opinion, it concerns me that this is the professional pilots rumour network, and a casual reader might mistakenly get the impression that the plethora of anti-NAS posts from air traffic controllers are actually the anti-NAS opinions of pilots.

From my own perspective, I’d be interested to know what other pilots think about NAS. Not so much the [I]“back in the good old days” style of post that reminisces about how good things were decades ago, nor the “gold plating” style of contribution that advocates a Rolls Royce airspace system without any regard for how much it costs, rather, I’m more interested to learn what perceived shortcomings (if any) other pilots see in NAS in regard to specific operational rules and procedures.

I have to admit to being somewhat less interested in the all-too predictable contributions from members of self promoting special interest groups like air traffic controllers.

My particular concern is that what’s in the best interests of air traffic controllers is not always precisely the same as (and in many cases is diametrically opposed to) what’s in the best interests of pilots.

The about pprune (http://www.pprune.org/go.php?go=/about.html) page says :

Welcome to PPRuNe, The Professional Pilots RUmour Network

and

Although PPRuNe was originally set up to cater for airline pilots, as more and more people who are involved in our industry became interested in our 'network' we accommodated them with their own forums and now they are the core of the website.

and

The PPRuNe community is made up of professional pilots and people from the thousands of other professions and trades that are all a part of one of the most exciting businesses in the world. If you have an interest in the business then you should be reading PPRuNe. After a while you will learn to sort out the 'wheat from the chaff'.

I’d like to be able to easily “sort out the wheat from the chaff”.

I’d like to see some way of quickly and clearly identifying which opinions come from air traffic controllers and which opinions come from pilots.

As a suggestion, Woomera, would you consider creating a D & G Air Traffic Controllers forum where interested persons can go and flagellate themselves until their heart’s content and co-ordinate their self-interested lobbying, but from where they are less likely to distract pilots wanting to discuss topical issues with other pilots, and from where they are less likely to distract the casual reader into a mistaken belief that their consistently anti-NAS posts express the opinions of pilots.

[KAPTAIN KREMIN]

BIK - if PPRUNE is only for Professional pilots then why do you post?

If you are who others infer you are then you are certainly not and never have been a Professional Pilot. Owning your own aircraft is not a qualification for that and of course that would be, therefore, (another) arrogant and disrespectful assumption for you to make such claim. I believe one, two or more pilots who grew from GA would support that point.

BTW I am a Pilot and I was a 'PAYE' pilot so I guess that makes me a professional pilot. I did not pay for my licence, pay for my aircraft and just go for a jolly old fly and then call myself a professional pilot with the biggest and best knowledge of all things aviation. Bit different mate!

Touche' for me - but again why do you again arrogantly insult a part of the industry (ATC) when you have no qualification and clearly little knowledge of? Most ATC's I have met, have or do fly. They and the airport operators provide a valid angle and input to this debate. Why oh why should you wish to exclude them?

[Keg]

BIK, AIPA represents about 2300 Qantas pilots and the AFAP takes care of DJ, various parts of Qantas Link and so on. Organisations that represent 90%+ of the RPT pilots in the country reckon that NAS has significant flaws in it.

It's not my part of the ship in AIPA but I certainly trust those whose part of the ship it is.

[WALLEY2]

BIK
I for one state clearlly I am not a prof pilot or ATC. Yet this NAS matter should be made known to Prof pilots and I see this as a good forum to advise them and get their feed back.

I am an aiport Engineer. From KK post you have not displayed your back ground, so do tell.

[DickyBaby]

Dear BIK,

Thanks for finally wading in. It was with a heavy heart that I read all the supporting opinions in this thread - mind you I never for a moment considered that mine or the other opinions posted before your vitriolic spray of fertiliser indicating that the professional users of the airspace aren't entitled to a say, was the ONLY opinion.

Of course different viewpoints will be there depending what your usage is. I just can't reconcile a system where you do whatever you want whilst the RPTs pay for it. There's plenty of scope for you to pull on your terry-towelling hat and strap on your kneeboard before going flying for free. You can't do everything for free - be satisfied with a balance that ensures that someone will come looking for you when you don't cancel your SARtime (indeed that there's somewhere for you to lodge your SARtime), and equally when you do go flying at 70KTS true, the SAAB running up your arse gets reasonable warning before the flysh!t on the windscreen sprouts wings.

In the words of Tobzalp "Grow up". The 6000 odd pilots and controllers whose signatures are behind the letter to the Minister should be entitled to a say.

PS I may not be a pilot but I am professional. Don't forget it.

[ferris]

Well, well, well, didn't take long for that tried and true tactic of yours- SHOOT THE MESSENGER- to surface, did it? It must really gall you that the internet allows an infomation flow that can't be stifled by power and influence. Really, really sticks in the craw, doesn't it? Do you ever feel embarrassed when you re-read your posts? You've tried, spin, misinformation etc to try and change the system, and now that the wheels are falling off (which as an aside, if you had listened to the professional pilots and others would never have got this far with this farce) you're lashing out. Shame that the letter comes from AIPA and AFAP as well. Sort makes you look, well, petulent and silly. BTW......

“...so few dissenting [ie pro NAS] opinions”?

There are lots of dissenting (not just ATC) opinions.

But the majority of them are held by people who have much better things to do with their time than spend it posting here.

Here, yet again, we have an anti-NAS thread populated predominantly by contributions from wealthy gents with country estates.

Whilst everyone is entitled to express their opinion, it concerns me that this is the professional pilots rumour network, and a casual reader might mistakenly get the impression that the plethora of pro-NAS posts from yourself are actually the pro-NAS opinions of PROFESSIONAL pilots.

From my own perspective, I’d be interested to know what other pilots think about NAS. Not so much the “back in the good old days” style of post that reminisces about how good things were in the USA, nor the “tin plating” style of contribution that advocates a safe airspace system without any regard for how little it really costs, rather, I’m more interested to learn what perceived shortcomings (other than the many already pointed out) other pilots see in NAS in regard to specific operational rules and procedures.

I have to admit to being somewhat less interested in the all-too predictable contributions from members of self promoting special interest groups like wealthy gents with country estates.

My particular concern is that what’s in the best interests of wealthy gents with country estates is not always precisely the same as (and in many cases is diametrically opposed to) what’s in the best interests of PROFESSIONAL pilots.

The about pprune page says :



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Welcome to PPRuNe, The Professional Pilots RUmour Network
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



and


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although PPRuNe was originally set up to cater for airline pilots, as more and more people who are involved in our industry became interested in our 'network' we accommodated them with their own forums and now they are the core of the website.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



and


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The PPRuNe community is made up of professional pilots and people from the thousands of other professions and trades that are all a part of one of the most exciting businesses in the world. If you have an interest in the business then you should be reading PPRuNe. After a while you will learn to sort out the 'wheat from the chaff'.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I’d like to be able to easily “sort out the wheat from the chaff”.

I’d like to see some way of quickly and clearly identifying which opinions come from wealthy gents with country estates and which opinions come from PROFESSIONAL pilots.

As a suggestion, Woomera, would you consider creating a D & G Wealthy Gents with Country Estates forum where interested persons can go and flagellate themselves until their heart’s content and co-ordinate their self-interested lobbying, but from where they are less likely to distract PROFESSIONAL pilots wanting to discuss topical issues with other PROFESSIONAL pilots, and from where they are less likely to distract the casual reader into a mistaken belief that their consistently pro-NAS posts express the opinions of PROFESSIONAL pilots.

And Bindick, just for the record, I am a private pilot, too.

[no_name_oz]

Just doing a little investigative journalism here. Have a quick look at BIK 116.8's profile

Location: Bindook
Interests: Morse Code
Occupation: Navigation Aid

Forgive me for stating the blatantly obvious but this doesn't appear to qualify for either a CPL or PPL. What's the story Binnie?

PS BIK VOR/DME owned and operated by Airservices Australia (Who's a special interest group now? Don't get much more specialised than that!)

[tobzalp]

My favourite part was when Bindook said something stupid.

[QSK?]

Hello BIK

Time you were NOTAMed off as U/S, buddy, because your signals are really confusing everyone now that you're scalloping so badly.

Of course, controllers (I'm not one) are entitled, and most welcome by the majority of us, to use this site for the following reasons:

1. there's a good chance that the controllers who participate in Pprune are also recreational, or semi-professional, pilots who, I'm sure, would have a vested interest in ensuring that any system they participate in as flyers offers an acceptable level of personal safety; and

2. like other safety-critical occupations (eg pilots, medical profession, emergency services etc), for a controller to lose a life on their sector or shift (particularly when the distress event is protracted and very personal) would have to be one of the most shockingly traumatic events they could experience, even when the causal circumstances or subsequent events are beyond their direct control. Now imagine what the post-disaster trauma would be like for a controller if the catastrophe (eg a mid-air) was due to a failure of the system to provide the controller with adequate decision tools and safety-net processes for them to provide their function safely? Even though the controller would probably escape litigation, if it could be proved the mid-air disaster was caused by systemic failure, this would only offer a small comfort to the controller who, on waking every day, would first ask the questions "if only I had done..." or "what if I did...."! Do you think the controllers on duty, when the mid-air collision occurred at Bankstown last year, just went home, got a beer from the fridge and put their feet up in front of the TV? Even though that particular accident was not of their doing, I'm sure they went home, probably cried and asked themselves the same questions as above, while thinking about the horrific final moments of that family, particularly the children.

No, to be fair BIK, I think the controllers are entitled to have a say in how the NAS is designed and implemented, if for no other reason than to ensure that any system they work with provides them with the requisite safety-nets so that they never have to face a situation like the one above, and its associated post-event trauma.

[Creampuff]

I don’t know who BIK is, I don’t know what he does, and I don’t agree with him on some NAS-related points. I do know that his posts are among the most objective and intellectually rigorous on this forum, though not so in this thread. However, the posters who’ve responded in kind strike me as pots calling the kettle black.

But as an acne-stippled, wheelchair-bound geek from Hicksville USA, my opinions are of course presumptively to be ignored.

Carry on ‘professionals’ …

[Lodown]

Well said Creampuff.

[snarek]

This is getting nasty. Poor old BIK.

Well, I support NAS!! :p (Didn't used to until I read some of the anti-GA stuff eminating from some 'professional' pilots on here, which made me decide their opinions were worth merde).

A letter with 6000 members hey???

Well I am penning one that effectively negates that, on AOPA letterhead. :)

More GA pilots than RPT = more votes. A more reasoned argument from you guys might be more persuasive, but I ain't seen it yet.

Start shooting guys :E

AK

[QSK?]

Snarek, you are right - it is getting a bit nasty but that is due to a large extent (in my opinion anyway) toBIK's penchant for "playing the man rather than the ball". I, like you, would like to see us focussing on the real issues at hand here, not the personalities.

Personally, I am supportive of the introduction of the majority of the elements of NAS, particularly those relating to improved access to airspace and procedures for VFR flights, subject to adequat safety assessment.

However, what I do not support is the concept pushed by some members of the ARG that every single aspect of the US airspace model can be (and will be) faithfully replicated here in Australia without proper, and formal, consideration of the safety or cost impacts on the Australian industry. I also believe that over the years, Australia (along with other nations) has developed some very innovative and useful procedures for enhancing aviation safety, based on years of hard learnt experience under Australian conditions. Do we really want to throw the baby out with the bath-water?

My vision for Australia is that we implement an airspace system that can responsively evaluate and accommodate the best that the world has to offer in terms of safety management and optimum cost; be it from NZ, the UK, South Africa, Germany or Canada; all systems that I have working experience with. A slavish replication of the US airspace model implies that that particular system has all the answers and effectively shuts the door on any other procedural innovation that may emerge in other countries.

[Blastoid]

BIK,

You advocate the creation of an ATC forum here on the PPRuNe site. For your information, there already is one, hosted on the Civil Air Forum (http://www.civilair.asn.au/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl). Perhaps it might interest you to have a read. Given your previous posts, unlikely.

As an aside, the many (supposed) ATCs who participate in this forum do so as professionals in the industry, who have an interest in knowing what is going on in the piloting fraternity. Most don't participate to push the ATC barrow, despite your beliefs.

Oh, and regarding NAS and "professional" pilots - I would rate local RPT operators as "professionals", particularly in the way they conduct themselves on a daily basis. And when their cheif pilot(s) notify their crews NOT to be involved in NAS procedures (i.e. VFR procedures in Class E airspace), you will find it is not just ATCs who have an opinion on NAS. You can't tell me these operators aren't professionals or pilots. :hmm:

[tobzalp]

Reference the letter who is the civil aviation authority?

[Neddy]

Interesting that Mike Smiff seeks to rely on the infamous Willoughby Report in response to the questioning of any perceived or real benefits to be attained under NAS.

At the recently held RAAA conference Mike, in a response to a question specifically questioning the benefits of NAS and indeed the Willoughby Report, said (words to the affect) that he doesn't think anybody should really take any notice of that report.

I understand the forums are recorded so it would be interesting to see if he has expressed the same sentiment to the Minister!

[Blastoid]

This is what Bernie Smith, the CEO of Airservices Australia, had to say regarding the "anticipated savings" forecast by the Willoughby Report:

(Extract from Australian Hansard June 2003 (http://parlinfoweb.aph.gov.au/piweb/Repository/Commttee/Estimate/Linked/2526-2.PDF))

Senator O’BRIEN—The report says that the Australian national airspace model has a potential financial
benefit of over $70.2 million. Do you understand how Mr Willoughby calculated this figure?
Mr B. Smith—No.
Senator O’BRIEN—Do you agree with the rationale and assumptions used in the costing?
Mr B. Smith—No, we do not.
Senator O’BRIEN—Was Airservices involved in any way in calculating the figure?
Mr B. Smith—We provided a certain amount of financial information to Mr Willoughby, but it was clearly
not utilised, or it certainly was not apparently utilised, in the final figures that came out.
If the CEO of AsA doesn't agree with the potential "financial benefit", then how can it be touted to the industry??? :yuk:

[tobzalp]

http://www.spindoctors.com/press.jpg





NASIG

[QSK?]

Coral, thanks for highlighting the existence of the NASIG letter to Civil Air. Let's address some of the issues highlighted in Mike Smith's response:

1. The Wes Willoughby cost-benefit analysis: the Minister approved the implementation of NAS on the condition that

(a) a system-wide cost benefit analysis be undertaken proving that the implementation of NAS would offer benefits to the industry and

(b) safety analyses be undertaken by CASA before any proposed changes were implemented.

The industry scuttlebutt is that the Wes Willoughby financial report is both substandard in content and extremely flawed in its assumptions and recommendations and, therefore, has not yet received endorsement from the Minister. Yet, NAS implementation activities continue unabated. How can this be allowed to happen?

2. The statement by Mike Smith that "See and avoid is a PRIMARY (my emphasis) means of maintaining separation in VMC, and contributes significantly to the US safety record…." is blatantly incorrect and requires the strongest possible challenge by all of us.

To demonstrate my point let me put up some examples for members' review:

(a) Scenario 1 (the USA): I'm an IFR private flight (Seneca V) departing a non-towered airport in VMC, and on departure will be climbing to my flight planned level of FL150 on a non-published IFR route. After departure, I enter E airspace at 1200 ft agl and contact Centre who advise me (because they have radar) of VFR traffic cruising at 9,500 in my 12 o'clock. I try to call the VFR aircraft to arrange separation with no success (possible comm failure). Because I can't contact the aircraft, Centre offers radar headings to ensure that I avoid the aircraft, which I accept gladly. Once I pass, 10,500 I rejoin my flight planned track, again with the assistance of ATC radar headings. Drama impact rating: 0

(b) Scenarion 2 (NAS Australia): I'm an IFR private flight (Seneca V) departing a non-controlled airport in the middle of Australia under VMC, and on departure, will be climbing to my flight planned level of FL150 on a non-published IFR route. I give Centre my departure call and enter E airspace shortly after. Unfortunately, unknown to both Centre and myself there is VFR traffic on my track cruising at 9,500 feet. As we all know, E airspace in Australia doesn't enjoy full radar coverage and VFR aircraft don't require a clearance or have to communicate with ATC, so Centre had no way of knowing the VFR aircraft was in conflict with me. Passing 9000ft, I saw what looked like dirt smudge on my windscreen. At the last moment, I realised to my horror it was an aircraft on my direct track and I immediately took avoiding action. Unfortunately, I was not successful and I fatally clipped the wing of the other aircraft whilst also suffering structural damage and injuries to my aircraft and passengers. I declared an emergency and finally managed to land successfully, however the other aircraft was totally destroyed in mid-air with the loss of all life. Drame impact rating: 10+

So what is the major difference between these 2 scenarios?

First and foremost is that the US airspace structure under Scenario 1 offers a level of safety redundancy because of the superior aircraft surveillance capabilities available to Centre. These enhanced surveillance capabilities allowed Centre to be able to detect and resolve the potential conflict despite the fact that the VFR aircraft had neither flight planned or was communicating with the ATC system. Secondly, because both the controller and pilot had access to radar suveillance capabilities, allowing the presentation and utilisation of a range of alternative tracking and separation options, the need for "see and avoid" was no longer the PRIMARY means of traffic separation and was therefore, relegated to SUPPLEMENTAL status, as soon as the controller offered, and the pilot accepted, alternative radar headings. The real fact is that, in the US, "see and avoid" is INVARIABLY NEVER relied on as the PRIMARY means of separation in enroute airspace for IFR aircraft because of the wide coverage and integrity of the national radar surveillance system.

On the other hand, the proposed airspace structure for Australia simply cannot be classed as offering the same level of inherent safety as its US counterpart, unless the surveillance capabilities over the whole of Australia are significantly enhanced (maybe through ADS-B). With the present level of surveillance infrastructure, the proposed system for Australia offers no redudancy in terms of conflict detection and resolution options, particularly for aircraft not participating in the ATC system. The proposed Australian system also TOTALLY relyies on "see and avoid" as the PRIMARY and ONLY means of traffic separation in all cases; despite the fact that both BASI and CASA have cast doubts on its suitability as a primary tool in the past following extensive study.

So, where does this leave us? In 1972, the FAA adopted a policy position that recognised that reducting the number of unknown aircraft within the airspace system was one of the most productive steps in collision avoidance. It is also important to appreciate that "surveillance" does not necessarily imply the use of radar or ADS technologies. Many pilots will recall that in the past, large areas of Australia got by very well with procedural position reporting as the (only) method of surveillance, which allowed ATS to first alert pilots to potential conflicts (PRIMARY separation tool) and, second, gave pilots the option of segregating themselves from the conflict area through pilot communications or relying on "see and avoid" for resolution (SECONDARY separation tools).

So long as the NASIG continues to peddle "half-truth" propaganda regarding the "similarity" between the current US system and the proposed Australian NAS, or blatant untruths regarding potential safety and cost benefits, I will always consider the NAS to stand for the "NO AIRSPACE SAFETY" system and I will continue to resist its implementation until the system is properly, and independently, evaluated in terms of safety and cost by reputable organisations. On a positive note, the NAS does offer some improvements and benefits and I would hate to see the whole system canned just because NASIG persisted with its current deceptive tactics, and was eventually "found out" by the industry. That, in my view, would also be a retrograde step.

[SM4 Pirate]

It should be pointed out that this letter from Mr Smiff; is not in response to the joint letter at the start of this thread. Things don't move that quickly when the government is involved.

This letter is a response to a similar letter sent to the minister by Civil Air in mid August.

To my knowledge there has been no response to the joint letter; not even a we got your letter response.

Bottle of Rum

[W.O.Bentley]

if NAS is on the skids i would love to know how much money has been wasted on it so far.
Instead of spending it on dicks pet project it just could have been shared with everyone and we all would have been happy with no degradation in service.

[triadic]

QSK

I understand that the Minister was advised NOT to table the Wiloughby report for the reasons outlined, but obviously other political reasons prevailed.......

In regard to


(b) Scenarion 2 (NAS Australia): I'm an IFR private flight (Seneca V) departing a non-controlled airport in the middle of Australia under VMC, and on departure, will be climbing to my flight planned level of FL150 on a non-published IFR route. I give Centre my departure call and enter E airspace shortly after. Unfortunately, unknown to both Centre and myself there is VFR traffic on my track cruising at 9,500 feet. As we all know, E airspace in Australia doesn't enjoy full radar coverage and VFR aircraft don't require a clearance or have to communicate with ATC, so Centre had no way of knowing the VFR aircraft was in conflict with me. Passing 9000ft, I saw what looked like dirt smudge on my windscreen. At the last moment, I realised to my horror it was an aircraft on my direct track and I immediately took avoiding action. Unfortunately, I was not successful and I fatally clipped the wing of the other aircraft whilst also suffering structural damage and injuries to my aircraft and passengers. I declared an emergency and finally managed to land successfully, however the other aircraft was totally destroyed in mid-air with the loss of all life. Drama impact rating: 10+


You do of course realise that the example you give here is possible in the existing Class G (OCTA) airspace ?

Even with DTI you would not get traffic on the other VFR aircraft and would have to rely on a visual sighting to avoid... so having class E is no change in that example whatsoever.

All the Class E is going to do is provide a separation service instead of a traffic info service. The existence of VFR in a non radar environment is not going to change one bit.


"No known traffic":ok:

[tobzalp]

I think the point he was making is that there is going to be more airspace where these unknown aircraft are therefore degrading the safety of the system as a whole.

[triadic]

tobzalp

No.. the point I believe he is trying to make is that Class E in those circumstances is less safe in Oz vs USA. The example is not the same as radar is the mitigator in the USA example.

In Oz under NAS there would be NO repeat NO difference to the existing class G with the proposed class E in an area that did not have a radar service.

I would be interested to know where you are getting "more" airspace from?? There would in fact be more class E than at present, but to the VFR operator that does not count.

These "unknown" aircraft are out there today and making more class E is not going to change that one bit...they will still be there and unknown to the system (as they are now).

Class E is used more than any other class of airspace worldwide both in and out of radar coverage. It is not less safe than the existing Oz class G, otherwise why would so many countries use it (and successfully whats more)??

If you think class E is the problem with NAS then I don't think you understand either the existing system or the proposed one.

That brings me to the big E word.... EDUCATION .

So far we have not seen any significant education of pilots or controllers... when we do, then we might start to collectively get a handle on it. So far it is a joke (and it aint funny!).

"no known traffic" :ok:

[Aus ATC]

Class E airspace will replace not only Class G (for a higher level of service to IFR - and also less flexibility off radar), but also Class C. Currently RPT jets and turbo props benefit from a full separation service on arrival/departure from places like Coffs Harbour, Rocky, Mackay. With NAS (and its overlying Class E airspace) they will now be reliant on radar traffic advisories and TCAS to avoid overflying VFR traffic as they climb/descend. Lets just hope the VFR remembers to turn the transponder on!! OOps - I forgot, the RPT pilots have to be looking out the window for traffic closing on them at 300+ knots!

The NAS propoganda is placing plenty of emphasis on the 'natural separation' achieved by having VFR and IFR cruising at different levels - but nothing is said about actually getting to your cruising level.

Maybe?? there are some longer term benefits in all of this, but it seems to be a lot of effort to reduce our levels of service so Dick and his mates can fly wherever they want without talking to ATC.

[Blastoid]

You do of course realise that the example you give here is possible in the existing Class G (OCTA) airspace ?

Yes, it is. But under NAS the VFR traffic is discouraged from making broadcasts on their position and intentions (see also current issue of FSA and full page advert on "not making unnecessary calls" :yuk: ).

Not only that, but they won't even be required to be monitoring the area frequency for traffic. They could be listening out on multicom, area VHF, local tower, the cricket or golden oldies. :ugh:

[PGH]

Bloomin' hell. The last couple of responses seem to indicte to me that the professional IFR pilots think that they have the absolute responsibility for the "see-and-avoid". No. This is a shared responsibility Now and with NAS. You IFR types can rest assured that I am also looking out which decreases any risk significantly. I pride myself on the fact that when I hear an IFR RPT inbound call; I can manouvre my aircraft away from yours, sight and pass you. Of course today I have to tell you all about that, but with NAS I can SAFELY manouver out of your way, sight and pass without having to make a call or even bother you with my whereabouts. This will leave you with less (not more) to do in the landing phase and also be able to concentrate on aircraft which you do need to concern yourselves with. Comment? s welcomed.

[tobzalp]

But PGH, what frequency will you be on to hear this inbound call? The CTAF, the area frequency that is not printed on a map(well the boundary any way).


Triadic

The problem I can see with regard to safety with Class E is that it is replacing Class C in various parts of the country. No more, no less. I agree that the E and G in some instances are identical for the users (VMC) and that if IMC existed by default the VFR could not be there. But that is not what is the problem (one of many) re airspace classification, as a whole protection is taken away from airspace that already has it.

[triadic]

Firstly I must say that I am not "defending" NAS, nor I am yet convinced that it is the answer to all our so called problems.

Having said that, it continues to be quite clear that there are many versions of how one should "participate" within the various classes of airspace. I blame this on both CASA and the flying training industry (including the training within the air carriers) in not providing the required level of training in airspace participation training. There is certainly no standardisation!

Blastoid
Not only that, but they won't even be required to be monitoring the area frequency for traffic. They could be listening out on multicom, area VHF, local tower, the cricket or golden oldies.


I suggest there is nothing from stopping them from doing that right now!! Either due to poor training, no appreciation of the environment they are in or just plain lack of airmanship!


But under NAS the VFR traffic is discouraged from making broadcasts on their position and intentions (see also current issue of FSA and full page advert on "not making unnecessary calls"

Maybe so, but if you read the fine print, there is a belief in the NASIG that the decision making process if exercised by the PIC is sound then many of these issues will go away... like you I am yet to be convinced.

In regard to Roger's advert about unnecessary calls, again it is the training that is at fault because I suggest that many pilots are so poorly trained on how the EXISTING system works they are unable to make a sound judgment on what is and what is not an unnecessary call..! Certainly the QNH calls are more habit than a necessity and the advert is trying to get that message across. Perhaps they should do one on readbacks as well, because again because of poor training many pilots read everything back because they don't know what not to...! (eg: traffic info).

There has been more than one occasion where I have been given IFR traffic, made contact and been told by the other IFR pilot "we are well clear of you" only to see him at close quarters a bit later. I wonder where he thought he was or where I was??

If IFR pilots cannot make judgment/s on traffic conflicts now, then how do you suppose that the part time weekend pilot is going to do that under NAS? He/she will either be drowned in education on how to participate and exercise good sound airmanship or he/she will turn the stereo on/VHF off and let the big sky policy work for them! Like most others posting here, I would prefer the former.

And of course our friends in gliders will be out there (as they are now) doing their thing on a frequency we might only find out about from either local knowledge or a NOTAM.

PGH
What you describe is what I call "good airmanship".. sadly not all that much about these days!

Certainly there is a need for airspace reform in Oz but like others I would like to see the changes bring about some significant improvements in how we go about "drilling holes in the sky". So far there is little evidence that this will occur under NAS, and will certainly not occur unless the level and depth of airspace education is dramatically increased and is ongoing.

"No known traffic" :ok:

[QSK?]

triadic:

Yes, your are correct. I do realise that the Oz scenario I depicted is exactly what happens in our non-radar G airspace today. The only reason that I related the scenario as Class E airspace was to ensure an effective "apples vs apples" comparison with the current US model where Class E significantly predominates over Class G airspace (unlike Australia). It is also my understanding that the NASIG eventually intends to replace the majority of Australian Class G with Class E, so my scenario 2 was intended to reflect a future airspace environment pedominated by Class E. Cheers.

tobzalp:

Ref yr response. Yes I am becoming increasingly concerned at the number of unknown aircraft in the system - and it looks like it is going to get worse under NAS. In the latest "Aircraft&Aerospace" magazine (p22), Dr Neal Fulton of the CSIRO points out that, prior to 1991, the number of unknowns was less than 2%. It is now estimated to be between 60 and 80%. You'd think with that sort of increase, the NASIG would be more focussed on designing an airspace system that relies less on "see and avoid" as the primary means of separation.

[no_name_oz]

It’s been quite interesting following this thread over the past few days looking at the style of reply. The thread started out with a post notifying that AIPA, AFAP and Civilair had signed a joint letter to the Minister stating (paraphrasing) that the original stated reasons for undertaking the airspace change were being demonstrated and requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the progress or not of the transition.

Replies for the first couple of days seemed to be supportive of this position, presumably with posts from ATCs and Regional/RPT pilots. The thread was obviously a sleeper until a little vigorous argument came from BIK 116.8. Over the past 2 days posts have more than doubled and today marks the start of print, radio and presumably television coverage on the issue (although sheep in the Middle East is still bigger).

I was deeply offended to read that one of my fellow aviation enthusiasts would seek to exclude ATCs from discussing issues that affect every day of their working lives. Despite some of the opinions expressed here ATCs are not focussed on destruction of the industry. Our livelihood depends on the livelihood of the aviation community at large. Similarly I cannot believe that someone can so lightly write off the combined opinions of 3 professional associations by saying that:
A letter with 6000 members hey???

Well I am penning one that effectively negates that, on AOPA letterhead.
and goes on to say that:
More GA pilots than RPT = more votes.

The letter that started all this doesn’t say NAS is a crock of sh!t. It doesn’t say we’re all going to die. What the letter says is that if the premise we went into this for is not occurring, why are we proceeding? In other words “Please explain”.

My personal opinion is that we’re giving away a lot more than we’ll gain. Most of the controllers I know don’t support the airspace changes but even though we didn’t ask for it, we’re all doing the training, sacrificing days off and break time, in order the meet the mandated cutover dates. The bottom line is that we’re not going to die if it goes wrong but we sure as hell don’t want to sit by and watch some poor b@stards run together and die to prove our point.

There are enough people questioning the process to warrant further discussion. If you presented any politician with a petition of 6000 signatures on what, to the public, is a limited interest topic, they’d start jumping. The fact that there are more GA pilots out presumes that they all agree that NAS is a good idea. Equally the letter from the unions does not imply that that all of the membership thinks that NAS sucks. Open discussion is healthy, we won’t solve it here but at least we get an idea of what people think (however wrong they may be if they have a different opinion to me).

I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t think it’s going to save money and the CEO of Airservices is of the same opinion. Dick has started promising additional towers that haven’t been costed which means additional airspace regulations at these locations. I don’t l know if I’m right but I’m enjoying the discussions

[tobzalp]

Speaking of enjoying, my favourite part is still where Bindook said something stupid.

[Blastoid]

triadic,

RE: the radio calls,

I suggest there is nothing from stopping them from doing that right now!! Either due to poor training, no appreciation of the environment they are in or just plain lack of airmanship!Agreed. But at least under the current rules VFR are still supposed to make broadcasts and supposed to monitor area VHF. But I don't dispute your point that that doesn't stop many from doing whatever they want even now. As you indicate, education is largely the problem, but policing is also nearly impossible. I know for a fact many situations where Dash 8s in MBZs have had TCAS help avoid potentially ugly situations (ever wondered what the "M" stands for? :eek: ).

RE: the FSA ad. I think the message in the ad was a little strong (crossed arms, grim face, etc.) ... there are already a lot of VFR pilots out there who are "scared" of troubling ATC ... indeed education would help. But the other day I had a VFR that called up for a no-plan clearance which I denied due workload, and when I finally got back to him for the clearance (say about 10min later) he mentioned engine trouble. Now if he had said that the first time, he would have been given priority. Now what initially appeared to be a "nuisance" call ended up being a rather important one!

Of course there are many situations like this (and vice-versa), but from my own point of view I like knowing, through area broadcasts, who is in the airspace and their intentions etc. If it means I give the Area QNH from time to time, so be it. It helps to keep the picture, especially the provision of traffic OCTA. But I digress.

And of course our friends in gliders will be out there (as they are now) doing their thing on a frequency we might only find out about from either local knowledge or a NOTAM. Umm, let's not forget the meatbombs in Class E that don't need to talk to ATC and all we can see (if we're lucky) is the aircraft from which they originated ... and there is a jet going right through the middle. Now that's scary! :uhoh:

no_name_oz,

I would'd have gone so far as to give credibility to the person you describe as one of your "fellow aviation enthusiasts" :E

tobzalp,

Agreed! :ok:

[Blastoid]

Gotta say the news I saw tonight was surprisingly more anti-NAS than I thought it would be.

ATC union pushed the safety perspective, Dick pushed the anti-ATC (they all resist change) barrow.

That and the US NATCA statement have got me believing we are looking back down the barrel of another 11th hour "backflip".

Another well thought out change process :mad: NOT

[tobzalp]

Mike Smith cut and pasted from Ninemsn...

""It won't be introduced until both Airservices and CASA (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) are absolutely satisfied that it can be done safely," Mr Smith said.

"We have a safe system today; the system we're introducing is even safer.

"The idea is to make the airspace better match the technology we're using to manage it, recognise the changing traffic patterns and where aircraft operate, improve the services ... and hopefully generate some efficiencies for operators that might save them some money and stimulate the industry.""



Thats right Mike, and all the little elves will dance and sing while you eat olives off the hips of virgins....
:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:


For that little gem you win this...

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/duh.jpg

[Capn Bloggs]

Go Dick!

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2003-9/404879/seeavoidweb.jpg

[SM4 Pirate]

"I can ensure you that it will be a safer system, but it will be more efficient with less cost and that's important"

and

"The Air Traffic Controllers normally always oppose any change at all, and so basically it's opposing change, rather than saying can we do something better."
Way to go Dick.

Safer, CASA said less safe than the current system.

Same old trump card hey, lets blame the controllers and their ability to not cope with change... Last time I checked there were three organisations who said NAS should be stopped. Two of them with pilots as members.

Last time I checked there were 45 TLI's dealing with changes in procedures and instructions in the last 30 days, in my area alone. Heard about them, no, because we can cope with change.

Winning friends fast Dick. We are not opposed to change, but if it doesn't deliver on safety or money, what's the point.

Bottle of Rum (please)

[WALLEY2]

Now let me see,we have ATC(aus), ATC(usa),International pilots,domestic pilots,Aussie Airports(on terminal airspace) all saying in writing this is very worrying.

We have reports by

BASI 1991 Limitations to see and avoid

CASA 2002 Safety Analysis CTAF vs MBZ

Capt Beville-Anderson USA vs NAS report

Other team report on USA vs NAS

Broome Safety analysis 2003

All with data and analysis saying either USA system is different & unsafe for Australia without huge infrastructure (enroute radar and towers) and/or don't use "see and avoid" or CTAF at our large uncontrolled airports.




On the other side we have, Dick & Mike & Dick & Mike & Dick & Mike

I agree with the statement " IN GOD WE TRUST ALL OTHERS MUST HAVE DATA"

So to balance the argument the Minister must know either Dick or or Mike, or Both, are divine. You anti NAS guys could be in deep trouble!! :\ NAS is it DIVINE or DOES the EMPEROR have NO CLOTHES

[snarek]

Walley.

In order to stay as out of touch as possible, I have read most of that. Must say I found the B_A report to be a bit woeful.

I read the CivilAir press release too. And you guys accuse NASIG of being clever with the truth....geeez!

AK

[WALLEY2]

SNAREK

I am not ATC and would love to read an analysis that could help to show what the risk is for CTAF airport with GA and 737 mixing it.

Or even a major regional airport in USA similar to ours at AYERS, BROOME, KAL etc.

I just hate proceeding without that analysis and instead a "trust me approach" led by a person who was so damningly criticised by BASI for very poor leadership and over involvement in other staff rightful responsibilities, in an airspace trial carried out in Aust !!!

If you look at NASAs woes you can't help but see the same pitfalls of the process that leads to a disaster.

To date this is not a lineball decision going in favour of NAS vs Alternatives. There has been no data presented or analysed by the proponents of NAS.

The "it works in USA it will work here approach" is not even supported by the team they sent to USA or the USA experts they had barn storming around Aust. Both groups say our Reionals would be towered and 737s would be flying within radar and positive ATC.

OK that knocks out comparative analysis; so do a design analysis. Oops for CTAF that has been done CASA, BIA and it says can't use CTAF and See-and-avoid.

No sane manager of airspace architecture would impliment the terminal airspace suggested when informed of these facts from credible data and credible analysis by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel.

No facts no analysis then NO CHANGE sorry but that is the only sane approach and I condemn anyone who proceeds without that modus operandi.

Every court in the Land will judge the action not just foolhardy but negligent. If you have read the CASA 2002 report you will see that the Chief Justice has defined the act of negligence for Risk Management.

Under Justice Gibbs dictum if the implimentation of CTAF to a regional airport contributes to a disaster then it is a civil and quite possibly a criminal act.

That is the stakes we are playing for unfortunately the Minister would be protected by his Sovereign rights. Not the other non government players,they are open for legal liability and prosecution.

None of this helps those who are damaged due to the flaw in our airspace changes.

Airspace accidents happen around uncontrolled airports don't mess with its procedures without proof of the acceptability of the intended changes.

NO FACTS, NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF NO CHANGE:(

[Jamitupyr]

Walley2

Keep at man - NAS is a fraud. It is simply about VFR being able to fly "free". In Aus we don't have the Federal funds to make this so - somebody has to pay, it should be the users (all of them)

The heavy metal operators would sure be hurt in any subsequent litigation by a litigant who wanted to pursue their silence and acquiescence during this period should the NAS ever get up. The lawyers will go after the money!

People who buy tickets on airliners are entitled to the respect and safety that a proper en-route and terminal airspace system that captures all traffic to the system will deliver.

[ugly]

I read the CivilAir press release too. And you guys accuse NASIG of being clever with the truth....geeez!After reading this press release, I see where this FUD on the ABC website came from

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s955905.htm

From the end of November, aircraft travelling below 10,000 feet will not be required to notify air traffic control, operate radar transponders, lodge flight plans or turn on their radios.

classic...

[BIK_116.80]

KAPTAIN KREMIN,

Your post amuses me. :)

If you are who others infer you are then you are certainly not and never have been a Professional Pilot.

It seems likely that you have allowed others to mislead you.

Most ATC's I have met, have or do fly.

Yep – many do.

But they also know which side their bread is buttered on. It’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.

They and the airport operators provide a valid angle and input to this debate. Why oh why should you wish to exclude them?

Yep – I agree that they do. I have not suggested that they should be excluded.

Rather, I’ve suggested that it would be desirable to be able to more clearly and more readily identify the vested interests of contributors.

Rather than coming on to a pilots forum and posting as if they were pilots, why don’t ATCers prefix their opinions with something like “I’m proud to be an air traffic controller and I reckon....”

I can respect someone like WALLEY2 when he says :

I for one state clearly I am not a prof pilot or ATC....I am an airport Engineer.

From what I can see the vast majority of the anti-NAS posts on these forums are from ATCers. In my mind those posts don’t carry the same weight as posts made by pilots because ATCers are suppliers with a service to sell. Pilots are the customers who may or may not actually require the service being offered. Air traffic control exists to service the needs of pilots – not the other way round. It’s the needs of the pilots that should be paramount – not the needs of the air traffic controllers.

As I said earelier :

....what’s in the best interests of air traffic controllers is not always precisely the same as (and in many cases is diametrically opposed to) what’s in the best interests of pilots.

I was once accosted by a small group of street spruikers touting for business outside a Kings Cross adult entertainment venue. They were polished salesmen with a service to sell and their pitch was quite compelling. They insisted that the service they were selling was of a high quality. They were quite certain that the service they were selling was infinitely more preferable than the alternatives – both locally and overseas. They pointed out the many and varied virtues of the service they were selling and they explained how utilising their service would bring life enhancing happiness. They were able to argue quite convincingly, as you would expect from someone who’s livelihood depended on it, that there was no possible way that I could enjoy a satisfactory life unless I bought the service they were selling.

At the end of the day a decision to buy (or not) came down to these three questions :

Did I need or want the service they were selling? No.

Was I going to use the service they were selling? No.

Was I willing to pay for a service that I neither needed nor wanted and that I did not use? No.

As far as I can see many of the anti-NAS posts from ATCers are analogous to a group of street spruikers touting for business outside a Kings Cross adult entertainment venue. They have a service to sell and they need customers.

The real question is whether or not the customers need or want the service that they have to sell.

G’day Keg, :ok:

It’s nice to see another pilot on here. ;)

AIPA represents about 2300 Qantas pilots and the AFAP takes care of DJ, various parts of Qantas Link and so on.

How many of those many thousands of pilots have the RPT pilot’s unions formally and explicitly sought an opinion from (in relation to NAS)?

Of those who’s opinions have been formally sought and obtained and who have concerns about NAS, what, precisely, is the nature of their concerns?

What proportion of these concerns are from people who would be anti anything that Dick Smith is associated with, irrespective of any merits a proposal might have?

What proportion of these concerns are philosophical concerns rather than operational concerns? (ie wanting a Rolls Royce airspace system whether it is really needed or not, irrespective of cost)

To what extent is the AIPA / AFAP letter simply an example of the trade union movement closing ranks? What quid-pro-quo arrangements have been put in place between Civil Air and AIPA / AFAP? Has the ATC trade union agreed to support the RPT pilot unions next time they find themselves involved in a dispute?

Organisations that represent 90%+ of the RPT pilots in the country reckon that NAS has significant flaws in it.

Ah yes – but what do the pilots think? You’ve only told us what the trade unions think.

Even if AIPA and AFAP have obtained the detailed opinions of every one of their several thousand members (and I am quite certain that they have not), these pilots do not own the sky to the exclusion of all others.

According to the most up to date figures available on the CASA website (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fcl_lic/fcl_req.htm), there are 33,127 pilots in Australia. Members of the RPT pilot unions are just a small fraction of the Australian pilot population.

I suspect that some of the RPT pilots would prefer it if the sky was theirs and theirs alone. I refer to snarek’s post : Between the NAS lines (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?postid=1000883&highlight=regionals#post1000883).

I can understand that some RPT pilots might wish that their airline employers held a commercial monopoly on the sky, but thankfully Australian society does not work that way. In Australia the bloke in his Cessna 182 has just as much right to fly as the sky-gods in their Scandinavian turbo-prop or the super-heros in their Long Beach kero-burner.

Thank god Australia isn’t like some countries – private aircraft ownership not allowed, VFR flights not allowed, all airspace (effectively) class A. I’m sure that such an arrangement might suit some of the RPT pilots. Thankfully, that isn’t the way it works in Australia.

WALLEY2,

Thank you for being upfront and stating that you are not a pilot.

I am a pilot.

DickyBaby,

I just can't reconcile a system where you do whatever you want whilst the RPTs pay for it.

I am more than happy to pay for all the services I need.

I chose to fly VFR because I don’t want to have to pay to be delayed.

I don’t need or use any of the services that AsA has to offer.

Please send me a bill for $0.00.

You can't do everything for free - be satisfied with a balance that ensures that someone will come looking for you when you don't cancel your SARtime (indeed that there's somewhere for you to lodge your SARtime)

If I needed or wanted a government department to keep a SARtime for me then I would be happy to pay for it.

But I don’t.

To be entirely honest I can’t even remember the last time I bothered using a SARtime for a VFR flight. I can’t see the point - unless you don’t have any friends.

If you do have friends then it is far more effective and efficient to leave a flight note with one of them, rather than generate work for an expensive government bureaucracy.

In my view the government SARtime service for VFR flights is a complete waste of time because it is no more effective than leaving a flight note with a responsible person.

I am reminded of VH-JTI, a TB20 Trinidad that crashed near Kanangra Walls (just a few miles from Bindook) on a foggy Sunday in October 1993.

The aircraft had set out from Bankstown on a VFR flight to Forbes. The Trinidad was piloted by 20 year old Scott Grezzle and travelling with him as a passenger was his good friend, 21 year old Hamish Wallace. The pilot had about a hundred hours flying experience and was not instrument rated.

The clouds were very low on the hills that day and after a fair amount of ducking and weaving trying to find a way across the Great Dividing Range the aircraft collided with rising terrain at the western end of a steep gully.

Both occupants survived the crash, but were miles from civilisation and were suffering from impact injuries and shock. They would soon be suffering from exposure too.

In accordance with the aircraft operator’s advice, the pilot had nominated a SARtime with air traffic services. An uncertainty phase was declared when the aircraft failed to report its safe arrival at Forbes.

Barbara Wallace, the passenger’s mother, was contacted by telephone. She was asked if she knew where VH-JTI was, and was informed that the aircraft was overdue.

Barbara was understandably confused, mystified, and angry.

“You are the air traffic controllers – aren’t YOU supposed to know where the planes are?!? Why are you asking me where the plane is? What do you mean ‘you don’t know where the plane is?!?’”

The pilot had used the government’s SARtime service – the highest level of government SARwatch available to the non-instrument rated pilot. But the best the authorities could do was to telephone the passenger’s mother to ask he if she had heard from them.

The young pilot and his passenger were no better off for having nominated a SARtime with air traffic services than they would have been if they had left an appropriately detailed flight note with a responsible person.

Government SARtimes for VFR flights are a complete waste of time – a flight note with a responsible person is just as good.

(Both young men subsequently died.)

....and equally when you do go flying at 70KTS true, the SAAB running up your arse gets reasonable warning before the flysh!t on the windscreen sprouts wings.

I can’t remember the last time I flew at 70 knots TAS above about 1,000 feet AGL. If the SAAB is at or below 1,000 feet AGL then I would expect that he is in the circuit area of an aerodrome – most likely on base leg or on final. He wont have to look out the window – he would already be aware of me from his TCAS display and from my “all stations” broadcasts on the appropriate CTAF frequency. I’d be aware of him too.

Once again, I’m happy to pay for all the air traffic control services I need - ie none.

The 6000 odd pilots and controllers whose signatures are behind the letter to the Minister should be entitled to a say.

Of course they are entitled to a say. No one is suggesting otherwise. See earlier.

ferris,

Another disappointing post from you.

You consistently seem to bite off more than you can successfully masticate in your attempts to instigate an unarmed battle of wits.

I can only find two comments in your post that are worthy of reply :

It must really gall you that the internet allows an information flow that can't be stifled by power and influence.

I disagree completely with that ridiculous assertion.

I fail to understand how you could even come to such a conclusion.

Here, yet again, we have an anti-NAS thread populated predominantly by contributions from wealthy gents with country estates.

Lets deal with each element of this non-sense separately.

wealthy : are you trying to suggest that if a person is “wealthy” (whatever that means) that their opinion should count for less than a person who is not “wealthy”? By this reasoning, should the poorest people in society have the greatest say?

gents : are you trying to suggest that if a person is a “gent” (do you mean ‘an adult male’, or do you mean ‘of good character - not a scoundrel’, or do you mean ‘of upper-middle-class social status’) their opinion should count for less than a person who is not a “gent”? By this reasoning, should female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels have the greatest say?

country estates : are you trying to suggest that if a person owns a “country estate” that their opinion should count for less than a person who does not own a “country estate”? By this reasoning, should those who do not hold property have the greatest say?

By your reasoning, poor female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels and who don’t hold property should be running the country! :rolleyes:

Your comments are nothing more than your typical left-wing socialist non-sense, as I am sure you are already aware. :rolleyes:

QSK?

....there's a good chance that the controllers who participate in Pprune are also recreational, or semi-professional, pilots who, I'm sure, would have a vested interest in ensuring that any system they participate in as flyers offers an acceptable level of personal safety....

Indeed, many of them are.

But it’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.

....for a controller to lose a life on their sector or shift (particularly when the distress event is protracted and very personal) would have to be one of the most shockingly traumatic events they could experience....

Oh boo-hoo! :rolleyes:

Would you say that the air traffic controller’s trauma would be more or less than the trauma experienced by a pilot or passenger in an aircraft involved in a mid-air collision?

Are you trying to suggest that the primary airspace design criteria should be that it doesn’t upset the air traffic controllers?

Tell you what, let’s go one step further – remove the air traffic controllers altogether so that there is no risk that they will get upset. Let the pilots work out their own mutually arranged separation, as already happens at most Australian aerodromes. We wouldn’t want to risk an air traffic controller getting upset now. :rolleyes:

Do you think the controllers on duty, when the mid-air collision occurred at Bankstown last year, just went home....

Thank you for raising the subject of the VH-IBK v VH-JTV (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=397) mid-air collision at Bankstown. It raises a number of interesting issues.

In the last few years there have been two fatal mid-air collisions at capital city GA airports – one at Bankstown (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=397) and one at Moorabbin (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occurs/occurs_detail.cfm?ID=425).

It’s interesting to compare and contrast these two accidents.

The Bankstown accident happened in broad daylight with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.

The Moorabbin accident happened on a clear night with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.

In the Bankstown accident there were three air traffic controllers in the tower providing a GAAP air traffic control service, whereas in the Moorabbin accident the tower was closed and the aircraft were using mutually arranged see and avoid in accordance MBZ procedures.

Without air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Moorabbin.

With air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Bankstown.

If the very expensive GAAP air traffic control service is not able to do any better than the pilots’ mutually arranged see and avoid under MBZ procedures then why do we bother incurring the expense of having an air traffic control service?

:confused:

I think the controllers are entitled to have a say in how the NAS is designed and implemented....

Of course they are – no one is trying to suggest otherwise. See earlier.

....if for no other reason than to ensure that any system they work with provides them with the requisite safety-nets so that they never have to face a situation like the one above, and its associated post-event trauma.

Nope – you’ve lost me there I’m afraid. Air traffic control exists to serve the needs of pilots – not the other way around.

G’day snarek, :ok:

More GA pilots than RPT = more votes.

The latest available CASA data (http://www.casa.gov.au/avreg/fcl_lic/fcl_req.htm) says that there are 33,127 active pilots in Australia.

Blastoid,

You advocate the creation of an ATC forum here on the PPRuNe site. For your information, there already is one, hosted on the Civil Air Forum.

I am aware of that forum.

What I don’t understand is why the air traffic controllers don’t use that forum instead of coming on to a pilots forum and appearing as if they were pilots. I don’t imagine that too many pilots would go on there and appear as if they were controllers.

....the many (supposed) ATCs who participate in this forum do so as professionals in the industry,

Air traffic controllers are not part of the aviation industry.

Air traffic controllers are part of a separate support industry which exists to provide a service to the aviation industry.

If we had 1,000,000 more air traffic controllers but 10,000 less aeroplanes you wouldn’t call that a successful and thriving aviation industry, would you? I certainly wouldn’t.

QSK?,

Scenario 1 : you don’t need radar vectors or traffic information or alerted see and avoid to miss the other traffic at 9,500 feet. The probability that you will miss each other is sufficiently great even without the involvement of ATS. It’s the big sky theory. Why try to make work for everyone?

Scenario 2 : Un-notified VFR aircraft have been flying in Australia’s class G airspace for over ten years now. During that time there have been ZERO mid-air collisions in the enroute environment (ie away from an airport). What is the problem that you are trying to solve?

The main difference between the airspace in the USA and that in Australia is not that one has radar and one does not (although it may seem that way to air traffic controllers). No – the real difference is that in the USA there are a gazillion more aircraft. Australia, by comparison, has relatively few aircraft but a comparable amount of sky. Australia doesn’t need expensive ATC radar – the sky is sufficiently large, and the traffic density is sufficiently low, that the statistical probability of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so remote that it is not worth worrying about.

PGH,

You sound eminently sensible. Keep up the good work. :ok:

tobzalp,

But PGH, what frequency will you be on to hear this inbound call? The CTAF, the area frequency that is not printed on a map (well the boundary any way).

The CTAF, obviously.

Away from the airport the sky is sufficiently large and the collision risk is sufficiently small that I (and I suspect many others) will be listening to the CD-player – not the rabble on VHF.

Jamitupyr,

NAS is a fraud. It is simply about VFR being able to fly “free”. In Aus we don't have the Federal funds to make this so - somebody has to pay, it should be the users (all of them)

I would agree with you that each user should pay for whatever services they need and use.

Since most VFR pilots don’t need or use any AsA services that is precisely what they should be paying for – nothing.

People who buy tickets on airliners are entitled to the respect and safety that a proper en-route and terminal airspace system that captures all traffic to the system will deliver.

I’m not precisely sure what you would call an “airliner”, but if you mean all scheduled passenger flights then you may as well be suggesting that all Australian airspace should be class B. It simply aint gonna happen. Not now and not in a million years from now.

“Tell him he’s dreamin’, son.”

[q1w2e3]

BIK_116.80

A great post from another dumb VFR bugsmasher pilot who has no grasp of the big picture.

[snarek]

Perfect example of arrogant IFR drivers who think we owe them a living. Get a life sunshine.

I shall redouble my efforts to assist NASIG.

AK

[q1w2e3]

snarek, BIK_116.80 etc


The travelling public cares about what the professionals have to say. The politicians care about what the travelling public and professionals have to say.

The simple fact of life is that NO BODY cares what private VFR bugsmasher pilots have to say.

The proof of this is the absence of anything even remotely related to private VFR bugsmasher pilots and the NAS in the recent media coverage.

You guys really need to get out more and get a life and stop taking yourselves so seriously because no body else is.

[Time Bomb Ted]

Mr Lang from CIVILAIR said; "The Australian Government will relax existing airspace rules on November 27 to allow any aircraft to fly across, or directly at, descending international and domestic traffic paths without notifying air traffic control, operate radar transponders, lodge flight plans or turn on their radios."


ARE YOU ON DRUGS?

Where the hell did you come up with that one???????

Obviously you have not even seen what the 27 Nov changes are. What a shameful piece of media hype. You and your executive should be ashamed of yourselves.

Don't flog rubbish to scare the public into believing you. We won't respect you in the morning......

You can't just fly over class C airspace without a clearance so stop lying to us.

Shame on you....

Rant over.

TBT

[snarek]

The 'shameless hype' from the flat earth societies, AFAP and CivilAir, has had a good result.

The AOPA board has strengthened its resolve to debunk this rubbish.

the travelling public couldn't care less and the reality is what has been said is verging on lies, so we will see in the end.

I predict a better NAS than the one envisaged :)

AK

[Lodown]

q1w2e3 - don't kid yourself about the public listening to professional pilots or controllers. The public and the politicians don't really give a hoot about what professional pilots and controllers have to say. The politicians DO sit up and take notice when the airport owners and regional councils start making noises though, and until that happens, I will be betting on NAS to go ahead.

[QSK?]

Thanks BIK for your response to all and sundry.

Firstly, your responses to my inputs imply that you think I am also a controller. I'm not. I normally "fly" a desk, with occasional outings where I only fly VFR (for both business and pleasure) mainly in a single engine PA32RT.

Secondly, like you, I was generally unfazed about "see and avoid" as being the ONLY method of separation (didn't think about it much really, to tell you the truth; just accepted that was the way things were). That was until last year, when I had 3 VERY CLOSE "near-collisions" (I don't call them near-misses; too serious for that) in G (enroute) airspace over the space of some 4 days, even though I had made all the required broadcasts and maintained a good (well I thought it was good) visual scan. It was at that point, that I decided that I should start taking an interest in the background issues related to flying in Australia eg CASA regulatory reform, airspace design, ATC procedures etc.

Thirdly, unlike you, I am definitely starting to now feel unsafe in G airspace, considering the number of aircraft no longer participating (intentionally or otherwise) in the system and I no longer have confidence that "see and avoid" is an effective, sole source means of ensuring conflict detection and resolution.

Fourthly: most of your response was dedicated to detailing what services YOU REQUIRE from "the system" and what YOU ARE prepared to pay for. I respect and have no argument with that and I believe any robust and well-designed system should be capable of accommodating your requirements. However, my needs are different to yours (and probably others).

I would like to access and use (as a VFR pilot) the full range of services the system offers, such as SAR alerting and traffic information and, what's more, I am prepared to pay for them! So, where's the respect from you for my needs and requirements? It would appear to me that the old system where B050/A050 was the delineation point where those who wanted to fly like BIK stayed below and those who wanted to fly like me went upstairs. This appeared to me to be an entirely sensible system, which worked well and simply required that when we each visited each other's "house", we adopted and abided by the established "house rules". The part that I find disappointing about BIK's approach is that he has no respect for the way that I want to fly and just wants it all his own way.

Tell me where we go from here?

[snarek]

QSK?

Unlike most Air traffic Confusers on here I feel you might actually listen.

ADSB, if fitted to every aircraft in the fleet, will give everyone more information at less cost. You will be able to see everyone around you and BIK won't have to pay for it.

CivilAir don't want to run with ADSB because it weakens their Chicken Little arguments. AFAP are still pondering VHF Aural ranging!!!

Airservices ARE considering fitting ADSB, for free for every aircraft. To get this we ALL need to pressure the Minister and tell him what a great system it is and that we want it ASAP.

By the way, how will NAS make your almost hits get better??? I still have to avoid meatbombs around Mission Beach, and they're in C!!!!

please e-mail the minister!!!

AK :ok:

[QSK?]

Thanks snarek:

I agree with your comments re ADSB both here and in the other forum "Dick Lovers". You should also note that I have suggested the implementation of ADSB in an earlier entry (page 3) of this forum.

Certainly, I believe that the implementation of ADSB will overcome a lot of the safety concerns that I, and others, have for G/E airspace operations under NAS. The only problem I have is that the NASIG is hell bent on implementing the airspace changes now, when I believe that any implementation without ADSB (or some other surveillance or conflict detection tool)to be completely unsafe. No one will ever convince that "see and avoid" is a satisfactory SOLE MEANS of identifying and resolving conflicts. I tried that, and I assure you it don't work!

Its not that I don't think there are some positives with NAS, its just the "slash and burn" implementation approach that NASIG is adopting that scares the sh#$ outta me! Isn't CASA supposed to be oversighting the safety aspects of the NASIG implementation. Where are they on this issue?

[snarek]

I agree with you re ADSB, I believe it must be implimented together. I must stress, this is not the current AOPA Board position although I have put it to them.

AOPA have however triumphed ADSB to the minister and ask it be implimented ASAP as a free fit for all of GA.

The slash and burn seems to me to be a reaction to underhanded scaremongering by the ATC and 'little pilot' unions. If someone tells porkies then obviously NASIG is going to push harder and faster before the poo flung from the ramparts starts to stick.

They certainly convinced me they were a pack of turkeys not to be listenbed to!!

AK

[gaunty]

Media Release 30 September 2003

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
PO Box 26 Georges Hall, NSW, 2198
Phone: (02) 9791 9099 Fax: (02) 9791 9355

National Airspace System

AOPA Australia, who currently represents over 4000 pilots and aircraft owners, would like to respond to the comments made by Civil Air yesterday.

Whilst we have high regard for the professionalism and skills of the Air Traffic Control members of Civil Air and the airline pilots, we are concerned that these bodies appear to be engaging in an unnecessary scare campaign on the traveling public over the implementation of the National Airspace System.

There are some isolated issues in the change from “C” Class to “E” Class Airspace that have already been identified by the regulatory authorities, but we are confident they will be properly dealt with, as have been many other issues, in the normal course of implementation.

AOPA, as Australia’s largest pilot representative body, supports the implementation of the NAS is closely monitoring the implementation and is confident that the safety case analysis applied by BOTH Airservices and CASA before its implementation will ensure that the systems are safe, simple to use and based on world’s best practice.

AOPA is working closely with and supports NASIG in the preparation of educational material and the process, crucial to its success.

Airservices Australia whose responsibility it will become is recognised world wide as a benchmark leader in the provision of Air Services. They are a valuable export commodity for Australia.

AOPA’s President, Marjorie Pagani, is available for a response on the comments made yesterday and she would like to express her support for the NAS.

Marjorie is available on 0407 267 203 between 1:15 pm & 2:15pm and after 5:00 pm today.

OR
Vice President
Ron Lawford on 0407 267 209 all day

OR
Vice President
Gary Gaunt on 0407 267 200 all day

[QSK?]

Snarek:

Our dialogue this arvo has been quite enlightening from my point of view as, up to this point in time, I had considered AOPA's formal views on NAS to be as extreme and one-sided as the views of the opposition that you keep caning. It's good to see that you are thinking of the issues, and retaining an individual perspective. That is very important for all of us, and something which I respect.

I think my position re NAS and airspace reform sits comfortably somewhere between AOPA and CivilAir/AFAP; probably with a slight leaning towards the latter. Hopefully, you'll respect that too.

However, I won't endorse your comments on ATC for the following reasons:

1. Every system has its stakeholders and every stakeholder (in my view) has a perspective, as well as a right and an obligation to present that perspective in the interests of system safety and efficiency;

2. I have received nothing but professionalism and excellent service from all controllers/FSOs that I have had the pleasure to deal with over the past 30 years. I also count some controllers as my friends; and, lastly

3. For us to keep "bagging" other stakeholders is a waste of time and counter-productive, in my view. If we hope to achieve the best airspace system, it is far more beneficial that we focus our efforts on the issues not the personalities; "play the ball, not the man" is a quote that comes to mind with the imminent kickoff of the Rugby World Cup just around the corner. Obviously, you and I have different positions on the NAS issue, snarek, but I have found its been very productive that we were able to arrive at common ground on the implementation and use of technology. That's good news, and represents what this forum should always be about.

No, hopefully, I'll continue to focus on the issues at hand and stay away from the mud slinging. My experience is that people will place more value on what you have to say, and respect your position even if they don't agreee with it, if you can do that successfully!

Take care and safe flying, AK!

PS: Controllers: My point 3 also applies to you guys/gals who want to sling the mud around! Focus on the issues and arguments because, you never know, you might be lucky enough to just sway an AOPA member back towards your viewpoint! Makes far more sense to me in the long run.

[karrank]

Can't seem to get a poll to work anymore, so I'll just ask the questions...

Will the minister backflip, forced to admit there are bits of this stage that are less safe than at present - even if it can be shown they are still reasonably safe?

Will CASA not say "Yes it's safe" (as demanded by ASA board), in the face of pressure from the airlines who don't want this stage written in stone in case it ends up being the end-state by default?

Will the ATC and airline pilots unions do something really interesting to avoid all change?

Will Dick say something even dumber in public (like Broome Tower) that finally makes somebody important wonder why anybody listens to him?

Will it happen on 27th November?

[SM4 Pirate]

Will we get no further than stage 2b, on time on budget?

Will we get a propoer training package, for pilots and ATCs?

I believe it will get really ugly when the CTAF/MBZ issue comes up; and will hit the too hard wall.

As for Transponders, there is no change to requirements in E on 27 Nov; but look what happens in stage 3; that's what is up Civil Airs' and the prof pilots associations nose.

Replacing C with 'E' (in the J curve) or C with G (over Tassie); is no cost benefit, extra risk... why do it; not for safety, not for money... doesn't stack up.

Bottle of Rum

[tobzalp]

good point sm4 pirate haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!

Look at the rest of the NAS model. It just gets worse. This is far from the watershead.

[tsnake]

Lowdown,

As usual nailed it in one! You did leave out one small rider. Yes, the government will listen to the airport owners and regional councils and then to the airlines, but only after an accident.
As we both know the views of pilots do not represent the views of their employers who are only really interested in making money, despite their mouthings about safety. Qantas, and to a lesser extent Virgin Blue, have much bigger fish to fry eg. trans-Tasman and getting their maulers on Air New Zealand.
You can bet Anderson has had quiet words in the ears of both Dixon and Godfrey. He wants Dick to have a nice present for his 60th birthday. The party's at Gundaroo so John won't have to go too far.

Gaunty,

I admire the efforts you and the team have made to make AOPA relevant and effective in aviation matters but to be blunt, that press release is a joke. I can certainly understand a desire to maintain good relations with all players in the industry but the media aren't in the least interested in such reasonableness.

I have commented before on the challenge AOPA faces. Until it can prove to the media it is not a club for very rich boys and girls indulging in a hobby, it will not be regarded as a serious player. This press release doesn't help one iota.

[gaunty]

tsnake

Thanks, I accept the view, yes there is some work to do, it will take some time to turn around and I will take your observation on board, however the phone hasn't stopped all day with requests from the media for our position and comments.

We do not run our business and negotiate with Government and Regulator in a way to satisfy what appears to be the medias insatiable need for sensation, I would be interested in your views on how you might have handled it.

It is outrageous, the public are now scared sh!tless about something that hasn't even happened, nor is going to.

Footage of Jumbos approaching Sydney airport with the voiceover suggesting that "invisible" lighties are going to be charging across their path and crashing into them just isn't on.

A senior journo told me today it is just too difficult a subject for them, so they revert to "death plunge" mode. The public know even less, so any information is going to completely confuse them.

Civil Air and the airline pilots are entitled to their view of the universe, but they should be a whole lot more responsible about how they present it.

It is in the same mode as the Airports mob suggesting that the new system will allow terrorists to enter airport airspace loaded up with missiles and bombs without telling anyone. :rolleyes: I'll bet they haven't done their Dangerous Goods Certificate, they'd better watch out, CASA will get em. :=

Ron Lawford who has been fielding the calls on this issue is hoarse from responding and we haven't finished by a long shot yet.

Let's see what came out of the meeting between them and M Smith today and we'll go from there. :ok:

[Time Bomb Ted]

Good onya AOPA. It is about time AOPA got its act together and represented the GA pilot. The new board seems to be representing the average GA pilot, by having a couple of GA pilots on the board. Well done.

I was one of the approximately 4000 people who attended the NAS mass briefing around the country. I think that there would have been about 0.1% of the total in Brissy who would have opposed the NAS. Just a couple of ATC types who would have thrown a hissy fit in between calculating their Super Payout...... As a senior instructor who will have to teach the up and coming Airline Pilots of this country, I say one thing. BRING IT ON!

I'm sick and tired of hearing, "Clearance not available, remain OCTA". We have some of the best Air Traffic Controllers in the world, but they seem to be hamstrung by the system. Case in point. I was flying out of Canberra last week when we were told to hold OCTA. There was 2 other aircraft in the whole Canberra Zone....... 1 X Dash 8, 1 X RAAF Biz Jet. Holy butt fluff batman, 2 aircraft in nearly 15,000 square kilometers of airspace. Must have been a collision hazard. We were then told to make best possible speed down final for runway 30. First hold then stoke up the coals........ Make up your Freekin Mind..... It costs us money you know.

Stop yer whingin an get on with it.

TBT

[Time Bomb Ted]

Cost benefit.....Design Safety Case.....Yada Yada Yada..... Public service mumbo jumbo. The average pilot would not know the difference between a safety case and a suitcase......Enough all ready.....

Who will blink first....NAS on the Skids... Fer Crisssake give it a rest will ya.

Out of the 35000 pilots in Aust, less than 3000 are RPT type and there is only about 700 ATC. Why do you have such a strong voice? Why does your union spread such rubbish about no radio or TXPDR over class C airspace. For a professional group, your unions sure seem pretty amateurish. Just the facts Mam.Just the facts.(Columbo).

[Wirraway]

Wed "The Australian"

Airspace worries to be put to Anderson
From AAP
October 01, 2003

Australian airspace reforms will make the skies less safe, pilots and air traffic controllers have told the group charged with implementing the reforms.

The Australian International Pilot's Association (AIPA) and Civil Air, who represent air traffic controllers, met with the National Airspace System (NAS) implementation group in Sydney today to discuss concerns over the new system.

Under the new rules, light aircraft will be allowed to operate below 10,000 feet (3,050 metres) without radio or radar contact, or notifying air traffic controllers.

AIPA and Civil Air believe it is a dangerous system that will force pilots to keep a lookout for other planes by making it their responsibility to do so.

Civil Air president Ted Lang said the NAS implementation group would put their concerns to Transport Minister John Anderson and a response was expected within days.

"The position of Civil Air has not changed in light of today's meeting," he said.

"Air traffic controllers maintain serious concerns about the safety of the proposed airspace rules."

Mike Smith, of the NAS implementation group, confirmed he would take the concerns to the minister and defended the system.

"There will always be a difference of opinions but it is important that everyone knows their opinions are valued," he said.

"There is no intention to undermine the safety of the industry, in fact quite the opposite."

AIPA safety officer Richard Woodward said he believed the minister would be responsive to concerns about the changes.

"The majority of professional users of the airspace, the AIPA and Civil Air are unhappy with the model as it stands and we hope the minister will take that on board," he said.

Concerns over the safety of the reforms were dismissed by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which represents around 4,000 pilots and owners around Australia.

"We fully support the NAS proposal as it stands," AOPA vice president Ron Lawford told AAP.

"The public are becoming concerned but the safety authorities are bound to ensure the new airspace will be as safe as possible and we are confident in their ability to do so."

It was extremely improbable that any pilot would fly in Australia without a transponder or radio, Mr Lawford added.

"I think what's happening is the present system requires a disproportionate use of the number of air traffic controllers to the number of aircraft in the sky," he said.

"I think they're opposing it because they're worried about their jobs."

The Department of Transport today reaffirmed its commitment to the NAS, the first stage of which comes into effect on November 27.

==========================================

[divingduck]

Well guys, I have watched this debate with great interest, not because I have any stake in it whatsoever, but because it is a very serious issue.

I agree with whoever said it a short while back, stop bagging each other for God's sake.

I am not a pilot, I am an ATC. Before all the usual suspects start to flame me for having the temerity to post on a Professional pilots network I would ask that if that were the case only Professional pilots be asked to contribute.
That of course leaves out most lighty pilots, nes pas?

I also do not live in Oz any longer, I am currently happily abiding in the Middle East, so you can see that I really have no axe to grind whatsoever.

The only thing I would point out is that the Professional pilots ie the heavy metal guys and the ATC's have to live with and deal with this system every day like it or not.

The "weekend warrior" types that make up AOPA get to deal with it roughly an hour or so every other week.

Naturally we will all have different viewpoints. Let us engage in rational debate for the good of all.

One minor point that I would like to make is that many of the AOPA guys that have commented on this thread have been in the "what's in it for me" mode.

I think it needs pointing out that the ATC and Professional pilots that have been copping quite a bit of stick here are thinking of the travelling public..ie plain old Joe that buys his ticket to fly to Kal or Alice or Rocky etc.

Finally, those that think that the ATC's are trying to protect their jobs should wake up a bit. There are many many jobs available around the world for controllers, sometimes at vastly increased salary packages....we dont' need to protect them here.
Perhaps you should walk a mile in the other guys shoes before spitting the vitriol.

Good luck with it all.

stay safe, orderly and expeditious.

[89 steps to heaven]

Declaring my viewpoint first, I am an ATC.

Just trying to put a slightly different view on the subject. Over many years, the Australian & US aviation cultures have developed in ways that were suitable for each situation. Similar but different culture & training.

If we are to implement what is basically the US system, it not only needs the technical base to support it, but we need to adopt the underlying culture & training as well.

For safe implementation, this needs to be in place before the change. Is a 4 week lead time enough?

ATC's have been developing procedures and training packages for many weeks, but I understand that many commercial operators have not yet started any training and PPL's, unknown.

I do have concerns with the changes, no advantage at all by changing class C to class E, why do not all aircraft involved in IFR pickup have a say before someone climbs through their level, etc, but I believe that we should always review what we do to see if we can do it better.

The current NAS2b implementaion proposal has too many flaws. Lets do it properly and not have cause to regret at length.:confused:

[snarek]

Some good and rational debate for a change. :ok:

I welcome input from ATC, and I will listen to and take up any issues PM'd me with the AOPA Board. On NAS I am a supporter, but have swung that way after listening to reasoned debate. None of that has been presented by AFAP or CivilAir, thier scaremongering has turned me very much against their agenda!!!

I am an unashamed 'bugsmaher' pilot. I fly my way, I fly about 10 hours a week 'commuting', I occasionally fly IFR (but don't like it in a SE a/c) I have a transponder, I keep it serviced to give IFR people nice accurate TCAS (even though I don't actually need it). I even change track to make it easy for the Dunk-Cairns guys to get in and out. What I am saying is, "we are all in this together".

But, I too am sick of "remain OCTA" because there is one Dash-8 in the Maroochy airspace mish-mash. And unless someone invents a VTOL 747 I dont see why I can't cross straight over Cairns at 1500 feet (through a lane of course) avoiding the approach and departure run ins (sort of a high Victor One).

Anyway, feel free to PM, I am interested and will listen and represent your views.

AK

[Chief galah]

Nothing within current or near future NAS allows you any freer access to airspace you currently enjoy, apart from overflying a D class tower above 4500' in E airspace. This assumes the November 27 changes go through. The CTAF changes next year are not ATC related, so it's hardly a industrial issue with ATC.
You can transit the ML CTR at most times VFR, including over ML airport at 1500ft, if you are competent with procedures. No flight plan required. However, if your track conflicts with departing and arriving traffic, you will get dicked around. I think it is quite unreasonable to expect an airline aircraft to give way to you, when it has been slowed/vectored/held to facilitate their arrival.
It must be remembered there is no provision in NAS to change the C class separation rules or priority. IFR have to be separated from VFR so there is and will be no change to how controllers deal with VFR in CTR's.
So, for all the money spent so far, we've saved nothing and increased the risk.
That's a bum deal in my book.

[QSK?]

Gaunty:

Civil Air and the airline pilots are entitled to their view of the universe, but they should be a whole lot more responsible about how they present it.

Well said. The old saying that "The truth is always the first casualty of war" comes to mind. Thankfully, most thinking individuals (regardless of their occupational status) can see through the propaganda generated by the extreme elements of all stakeholder representative organisations, and generally form their own perspective of what is of value and what's not. Hopefully, all representative organisations in this NAS debate (including AOPA) will heed your advice and only continue to submit balanced and reasoned debate that eventually contributes to an effective and safe NAS.

89 Steps:

If we are to implement what is basically the US system, it not only needs the technical base to support it, but we need to adopt the underlying culture & training as well.

A very valid observation, 89 (sounds a bit like Maxwell Smart doesn't it?). This is a planning aspect of the NAS implementation that hasn't received the attention it deserves. Your point has made me realise that many stakeholders probably don't realise some of the more subtle cultural or economic factors surrounding the operation of the US air traffic management system.

For example:

1. The US ATM system is taxpayer funded, which means that a VFR pilot is entitled to the same level of service from the ATM system as his IFR counterpart. In Australia, the funding base for our ATM system is more discriminatory and favours the provisions of services on a selective basis to IFR/RPT pilots (user pays principle). This fact is quite significant as it means that, regardless of the policy environment, the workface controller in the US, is not in a really good defensible position to refuse services to a VFR aircraft when he knows that the same aircraft has also helped pay for the ATM system in the first place! I don't believe that the ARG or the NASIG has really grasped the significance of this little aspect on the controllers' psyche when they will be delivering ATM services under NAS.

2. Based on my research, I can find very few differences (ON PAPER) between the current US airspace model and that proposed for Australia under NAS. However, PRACTICALLY, there are huge differences, and it is these differences that are significant in assisting the US model to overcome the system limitations that we are discussing in this forum.

For example, the extensive surveillance capability within the US airspace system ensures that, practically, "see and avoid" is never relied on as the SOLE or PRIMARY means of conflict detection and resolution. Following the airline mid-air collisions over LAX and San Diego in the early '70s, the FAA has had a long established (informal) policy environment in place to encourage greater VFR participation in the ATM system so that collision avoidance capability is improved. The FAA recognises that controllers are the key to implementing this "VFR friendly" policy environment and encourages controllers to provide a level of service to VFR aircraft which is generally above that required under national regulation (in other words the system is generally over-servicing the VFR pilot. Not a bad thing in my view)!

Therefore, it is easy to see how the combination of a favourable policy and funding environment, encouraging controller service attitudes, as well as a more effective technical surveillance cability contributes towards the virtual elimination (in the US system) of most of the issues and limitations that we in Australia are trying to come to grips with in the implementation of NAS.

So, 89, you're right. These are crucial ingredients and no-one in either the Department, the ARG, CASA, Airservices, ATSB, Civil Air, AFAP, AOPA or NASIG are addressing them. So who wants to pick the ball up and run with it?

Safe flying and separation to all.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

I have been reading this thread as an observer but cannot hold my tongue anymore.

As we are apparently showing our colours I am an ATC, also hold/held ATP, CPL, CIR etc. So to answer certain de facto entry requirements that other correspondents here espouse, am I a professional pilot? - well not any more. Now I just fly my bugsmasher VFR on my days off. I consider myself a professional nonetheless and am quite frankly offended by 'us and them' context of some of the contributors here. Aviation is too small an activity/industry from a 'public perception' for all this infighting.

I have to admit that one could consider some of the press recently to be sensational - however, how does it get to that stage? Well generally the story needs to be 'sexed up' , to quote another political witch hunt , to get the media interested - i.e. to 'get ones story out there' . So you need a punchy one liner or sound grab - because as said elsewhere, the facts are too complicated for not only the journos, but the lay reader/viewer.

The idea of a press release is too get some interest and then develop the nitty gritty from there - I am not a journo and am happy to stand corrected. I believe the pilots association and ATC association were simply responding to an equally 'sensational' whitewash press release from AirServices, NASIG, Anderson et al , that "The System will be safer", "safety is our first priority" etc. - that has no fact either - it is simply rhetoric. I think AIPA, AFAP and CivilAir realised they had to counter with the same level of 'dumbing down / sexing up' that our society now seems to require - might I add, unfortunately. (Perhaps if NAS happens on a particular day John Anderson and Dick Smith could fly onto an Aircraft Carrier somewhere off the Sydney heads, march from their Citation (sounds like something Dick might attempt) in flight suits and proudly proclaim to the assembled waiting hacks and journos "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED - THE SKYS ARE NOW SAFE". Eat your heart out George Dubya!

Snarek , may I ask you to elaborate on something you posted:

By the way, how will NAS make your almost hits get better??? I still have to avoid meatbombs around Mission Beach, and they're in C!!!!

Where does this occur? PJE canopies and ACFT should be separated by ATC in Class C.

That is one of the issues with NAS as I see it - e.g. on desc into say CG from the south thru Class E airspace aircraft are currently positively separated from PJE ACFT and canopies at Ballina. Under NAS that aircraft won't even have to be broadcasting or on a discrete code (.i.e. identified) to the controller descending the 767.


One of the big issues that really worries me from an ATC perspective is compliance with procedures. The proposed system is more complex and requires a higher level of compiance with procedures than we have now. But the problem is even NOW we have aircraft entering C airspace without clearances, transponders, or on anywhere near the right frequency. I can honestly say that every 2 days I see aircraft moved off of standard IFR routes in CTA as a precuation against unknown aircraft. A lot of the time we never know who they were - not that we really care if it turns out safe - we are not the cops on this, another thing that is insinuated here. The only reason penetrations are written up is for statistical data to identify possible system/design failures, and identify areas where better (safer) procedures airpspace design is needed.

I too, cannot see how NAS is going to help the GA driver!? There was a rant on here about someone not getting a clearance into CB airspace. Well first of all how do you know how many aircraft were in the zone - were you monitoring all ATC frequencies? Were there NOCOM MIL flights in the area? Was there an airspace release to another authority or Military where you wanted to go? Was there an emergency that the controller may have been dealing with you dont know about? Did you flight plan? Do you know what a controller has to do to enter a flight plan into TAAATS when you hadn't bothered? It is a low priority task when separating aircraft and if you arent aware the flight plan entry window covers over your traffic picture when it is open. So please dont pretend to tell an ATC when he/she can cannot give a clearance - it is our job to give clearances - we dont get any sadisitic thrill or extra money for not issuing them!

I shall pause.....

I am really yet to be convonced of any benefit in this exercise - it appears to me that losing MBZ's for CTAFS is a retrograde step if as we are told 'Safety is the Priority'.

The comment about ATCO's protecting their jobs is laughable - are you aware that NAS requires MORE air traffic controllers to make it work? Did you read the parliamentary Hansard response to the Willoughby report by Bernie Smith - when asked to respond to the reports suggestion that NAS would save $70M Bernie had no idea. Let me tell you for a fact - the amount of overtime that is being spent on training people for NAS at the moment , and changing of airspace and all that entails (simulators, staff released from OPS for training, Maps changes, radar data changes, TAAATS systems data changes just for starters..), is costing a fortune - and remember that is not a contingent cost - it has and is being spent. As an ATCO I can tell you that I feel quite 'safe' in my job security as a RESULT of NAS not in despite of it - so could we please put that spin to bed.

Why did it take CivilAir, AIPA, AFAP to have to speak up about this first - why didnt the airlines? This sounds like groundhog day.....

FollowUp:

And unless someone invents a VTOL 747 I dont see why I can't cross straight over Cairns at 1500 feet (through a lane of course) avoiding the approach and departure run ins (sort of a high Victor One).

There IS a lane.

[Spodman]

Actually CG, there will be a bone for Snarek's C airspace gripes.

From Stage 3 you get:

Characteristic 42 - Target resolution - Separation standard between IFR and VFR aircraft within Class A and B airspace.

This means ATC don't need a separation standard, just have to avoid scraping the edges of the radar symbols.

From Stage 4 you get:

Characteristic 14 - Class C dimensions - Class C airspace will consist of a 5NM radius core surface area that extends from surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius step that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.

Characteristic 15 - Class C dimensions will have an upper limit consistent with the United States model.

Which both mean you could fly over MC without clearance at about 4500.

[snarek]

if you are competent with procedures

Yeah, but hardly ever go to MB. How can I be so???

Perhaps that is not a good example, but in places like Cairns where traffic comes in and out on one runway I dont see why we can't have an E corridor right over the top.

I also still fail to see the reason for C at Coffs, Maroochy, Hamilton Is etc etc. The 'whitsunday' airspace is an embuggarance to all who fly it and just isn't necessary.

We need better airspace, I think NAS goes some of the way towards that.

AK

[homeoftheblizzard]

The 3000 RPT type pilots were responsible for the safety of 33,700 000 passengers in Australia last year. The same year GA pilots flew 1,700 000 hours (includes training and airwork) and at a generous guess flew 3 million passengers?

So if we throw into the mix all the stakeholders who are effected by NAS it would seem reasonable that the RPT pilots (and by default their passengers) get heard.

They may have a strong voice - but no-one is yet listening to what they have to say. NAS2B is still scheduled for 27 Nov.

[Chief galah]

You make it so easy for me.

MB is GAAP airspace.
Coffs, Maroochy and Hamilton Is. are all D Class zones.

Can we be certain that the pro NAS group actually know the current system, let alone what's to come?

My only concession is that above A045, C becomes E and transit VFR without clearance will be possible. Good luck.

Spodman

A airspace - VFR not permitted.

B airspace - where?

C separation rules same as now, including wake turbulence separation, I believe. Mind you, the official NAS website (DOTARS) is pretty thin on detail.

IF MC has E steps from NOV 27, then I suppose VFR flight in VMC will be possible above A045. DONT QUOTE ME.

I see LT and HB are exempt from E steps. Does this mean B717, B737, SF34, DHC8 and all other IFR's have myopia in these areas?

CG

[homeoftheblizzard]

Dear Galah,

you are incorrect in stating that Launy and Hobart are exempt from Class E steps. Each will have Class E steps from A045 to FL185.


Confusing isnt it

[ferris]

I hope you , as a super-NASite, are starting to get the picture. ATCers are concerned about the safety (and in some cases the methods of change) of this debacle. You can bleat about "job protection" and self interest all you want. Hopefully others are getting the message.
I find it amusing that a lot has been made of the 'sensational' way it is being brought to the public's attention. You Machiavellians crack me up. Something about 'your own medicine' comes to mind.
And as to your reply- well! If you read my post, I was actually reflecting your own post back at you! If you think the post lacked intellectual rigour- better think before you type next time. And that old "I have a ball, it is red, therefor all balls are red" argument wouldn't get past my five-year old.

Keep spitting that dummy though- very amusing!

And good luck with the process from here:ok:

[Shitsu-Tonka]

TBT-

The average pilot would not know the difference between a safety case and a suitcase......

Kind of our point really - best leave responsible comment to the pilots who do understand the implications.

[tobzalp]

yup. Plus the accusations of backwatching are quite pot kettle black etc.




My favourite part was where the AOPA persons thought they mattered.

[tobzalp]

Yeah George, from the HAZlog outcomes, ATC requires more staff. BIK (some numbers here) seems to think we stand to make something from it failing. All I see is extra cashola in my pay and more jobs in the future. Please beat another drum or get a clue.. whichever, I don't really care.

[Chief galah]

I stand corrected re. the ML-LT-HB Class E airspace.

After reading AIC H7/03 ten times over, I think you are right.

All airline crews who ply the airspace a hundred times a day please resume looking out for the once a year VFR who could be lurking there.

CG

[tobzalp]

someone seems to have deleted their post!!!!!

[snarek]

CG

Well I checked and you are right, Maroochy and HI are D, under and around C (near Bris) but no B anywhere ;)

All to bl@@dy confusing. Roll on the NAS and ADSB. Then we can all be friends again. :ok:

AK

[snarek]

blatzapcr@p

Heh heh, you are certainly helping me get the members riled, keep it up :ok: :)

Bliz, yeah, but those pilots ain't the ones making the stink (and hysterical bull-merde arguments), it is the AFAP crowd all upset about safety in CTAFs. Nuffin to do with millions of passengers or REX wouldn't be trying to get Public Servants forced to use their cramped little airplanes!!!

Of course the airport operators are upset too, it must be safety, they wouldn't be cynically using the safety bandwagon to protect a cash cow now would they. I'm sure AVDATA wouldn't either.

I mean, if they were to do that, it'd undermine safety, now wouldn't it. I'm sure AFSAP and CivilAir would never allow that :rolleyes:

Y'know, if we had a FAIR system of landing fees where a broker didn't skim off 40 - 60% you'd probably find a 100% radio call compliance. But then, that argument ain't gonna keep TOZZY in a $130K a year desk job now is it???

AK

[BIK_116.80]

ferris,

Your shadow boxing is somewhat amusing but entirely misplaced.

Keep going mate – PMSL! ;) nah really I am ;)

[snarek]

This was sent to me today by a very well repected and experienced aviation writer and aviator.

Just about sums it up. :ok:

AK

1.. First, the "jumbos crashing into lighties" scenario does not exist. Nothing will change at Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane, Townsville or Cairns for example, as the unions have untrithfully implied it will. What they're talking about is Dash 8 and BAe146 country and the occasional B737 (eg at Ayers Rock) with VFR aeroplanes overflying in uncontrolled airspace.

2.. They conveniently forget that the aircraft perceived as a threat are operating to visual flight rules, and therefore won't be around in IMC weather. To the response that VFR pilots do irresponsible things, it should be noted that a large number of incidents have been due to airline pilots entering a terminal area, calling up on the wrong frequency, hearing nothing, and assuming they are alone in the sky until a C172 appears in their windscreen.

3.. Un-notified aircraft complying with quadrantal rules will be able to use the airspace above (for example) Coffs harbour, Rockhampton and Dubbo, just as they are now, slap bang over Los Angeles International.

4.. The hue and cry is NOT coming from "pilots and air traffic controllers", it is coming from their unions. The AFAP demonstrated its corporate intellect in 1989 by resigning en masse, and the ATCs' union appers to believe that aeroplanes and pilots were put on this earth to create employment for air traffic controllers.

5.. Almost all the pilot noise is coming from regional airline pilots represented by the AFAP, who have coined an interesting new expression - "commercial air space" which does not appear in any of the catalogues of abbreviations I've ever seen.

6.. The perceived problems could be resolved in the nearer term by requiring that aircraft in the relevant airspace carry and operate transponders.

7.. The perceived problems will cease to exist altogether when ADS-B is implemented in low level air space. It is a measure of the controllers' union's intellect and attitudes that when they see ADS-B aircraft painting on their radar screens they get excited about the increased amount of airspace they'll be able to control.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

They conveniently forget that the aircraft perceived as a threat are operating to visual flight rules, and therefore won't be around in IMC weather

ROTFLMAO

But then, that argument ain't gonna keep TOZZY in a $130K a year desk job now is it???

The first casualty is the truth.

I am an Air Traffic Controller, admittedly not quite yet on the top salary level. I earn about 55K plus shift penalty and allowances (rolled up to one package many years ago).

The is NOT an argument about ATC jobs. This is NOT an argument about Industrial Relations. (see my previous post on the Willoughby report) This is a stand on purely professional issues. Don't hijack the debate into something it is not.

Leave that to the Minister and his spin doctors.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

All to bl@@dy confusing. Roll on the NAS

Is that a tongue in cheek demonstration of juxtaposition?

[snarek]

Don't hijack the debate into something it is not.

Too late mate, CivilAir and AFAP did that via the media last week. Now they sook cos we responded with a little reality. I am more certain every hour that common snese will prevail and in a coupla years this will all be seen as the storm in a teacup it really is.

And those $130K desk jobs DO exist, you just ain't got one yet. I have no probs with the pay either, when doing the work, the problem I have with that deal is keeping the pay when yoy retire to a desk. The pay is for the stress and professionalism you guys DO show when working the tower, it isn't for blokes (or blokettes) signing leave forms!!!

AK

[Blastoid]

Snarek,

Ragarding the "truth" which has been revealed from the well-respected and experienced aviation writer:

3.. Un-notified aircraft complying with quadrantal rules will be able to use the airspace above (for example) Coffs harbour, Rockhampton and Dubbo, just as they are now, slap bang over Los Angeles International.Yep, don't disagree. What is not pointed out is that neither Coffs nor Dubbo (in the examples you provided) have the radar coverage (and RK has SSR only so you need a transponder) to see that aircraft over the top. LAX can see anything that's airborne and moving. Notice a slight difference?
6.. The perceived problems could be resolved in the nearer term by requiring that aircraft in the relevant airspace carry and operate transponders. Once again, handy when you have RADAR (or if you're lucky enough to have TCAS). Let's not forget the rollout of E across the continent, much of where RADAR surveillance is not avialable.
7.. The perceived problems will cease to exist altogether when ADS-B is implemented in low level air space. Ummm ... sure, don't disagree. :cool: But let's look where ADS-B implementation is currently. Training was supposed to start LAST december. The project has been continuously delayed (for several reasons) which means that presently the operational TRIAL hasn't even started (i.e. ADS-B equipped aircraft cannot yet be seen at the console). Then talk about the rest of the rollout of the other 20 sites across the country, equipping all aircraft with the enhanced Mode-S transponders (which does NOT mean they will have the traffic picture in the cockpit - that bit of kit will be an expensive optional extra) and we are still talking years away. i.e. we don't have it yet.

When we have RADAR-like surveillance across the country, many of these concerns will be allayed (not to say there will be none).

Bindik,

:yuk:

[Chimbu chuckles]

Just a few quotes from Mr. Keirens.

‘Well, I support NAS!! (Didn't used to until I read some of the anti-GA stuff emanating from some 'professional' pilots on here, which made me decide their opinions were worth merde)’.

Great reason to support NAS!!

‘The 'shameless hype' from the flat earth societies, AFAP and CivilAir, has had a good result’.

When you start using that language you really are exposing yourself as bereft of cogent argument.

‘I am an unashamed 'bugsmaher' pilot. I fly my way, I fly about 10 hours a week 'commuting', I occasionally fly IFR (but don't like it in a SE a/c) I have a transponder, I keep it serviced to give IFR people nice accurate TCAS (even though I don't actually need it). I even change track to make it easy for the Dunk-Cairns guys to get in and out. What I am saying is, "we are all in this together".

‘You fly your way huh? Well sorry to cramp your style but I’m sure you can imagine the results if everyone took your stance!

’But, I too am sick of "remain OCTA" because there is one Dash-8 in the Maroochy airspace mish-mash. And unless someone invents a VTOL 747 I don’t see why I can't cross straight over Cairns at 1500 feet (through a lane of course) avoiding the approach and departure run ins (sort of a high Victor
One).’

Well take a look at the missed approach path for rwy 15 and then tell us where your 1500’ V one is going! Missed approaches happen in VFR weather too and given the terrain around CNS I would suggest what you ask for is problematic....unless we only apply your “I want” principle.

‘Yeah, but hardly ever go to MB. How can I be so???’

MB has procedures that are unique...or can’t you read?

’Perhaps that is not a good example, but in places like Cairns where traffic comes in and out on one runway I don’t see why we can't have an E corridor right over the top.’

See above and have a look at the CNS approach/ departure plates...it’s not that simple.

’I also still fail to see the reason for C at Coffs, Maroochy, Hamilton Is etc. The 'Whitsunday' airspace is an embuggarance to all who fly it and just isn't necessary’.

Because jets on RPT fly in there and as the Yank NAS cheer squad said they’d have them in the US too!

AOPA claims to represent 4000 pilots yet 6000 have signed the letter that voices concerns over the implantation of NAS. Somewhere else on the various NAS threads I read ‘33000 active pilots in Australia’...you seem to represent a minority.

On the latest post we see a list of concerns that have been voiced by the professional ‘alphabet groups’...not one says scrap NAS, and the requests are perfectly logical from an aviation safety point of view.

AK AOPA needs to admit that the professional groups that oppose much of the proposed changes do so because the actually understand how the airspace works in its entirety, and as a result, how your wish list will impact.

You and AOPA continually display;

1/. Lack of understanding of how complex airspace is around CTR and the protected airspace required for jets...and that without all the added burden of noise abatement procedures imposed on various airports by scumbags who bought cheap houses and now want increased capital gain.

2/. Inability/lack of motivation to actually make yourself aware of how the system we have can actually work for you, in its current form, to give you what you want. Hell why study and understand what we have when you can change it to a system which you seem to believe won’t require study/understanding.

Your arguments, AOPA, and those of Bindook, sound more and more like a spoilt 12 year old....”Me, me, me, I want”.

It should be obvious to a moron that we are not getting the US system as it functions there...so what are we getting?

Chuck.

[Woomera]

Ton up, starting new thread and merging another from GA Forum