NAS Area frequencies and boundaries

[LeadSled]

All,
The following is an extract from the November/December issue of (Australian) Flying magazine dealing with the NAS 2b changes coming up, showing the key features of the November 2003 changes.

The full page can be seen at <http://www.users.tpg.com.au/awetzel/AUST%20FLYING%20NAS0001.jpg>

Part of the much discussed chart changes and the removal of area frequency boundaries is covered in the following, extracted from the NAS supplement in Flying magazine
__________________________________________________

« No longer an area frequency for VFR
This new system is based on ICAO airspace classifications and proven international practice, especially those of the USA. A major change is that there is no longer an area frequency for VFR to monitor when enroute. Rather than a pilot having to look down at maps to ascertain the area frequency boundaries, as well as monitoring a constant babble of communications directed to other aircraft, the VFR pilot can concentrate on navigation, good airmanship and keeping a good lookout.

VFR aircraft flying enroute would normally monitor the guard ( Emergency) frequency of 121.5, or possibly a nearby Flightwatch outlet. The important point is that when enroute, if flying through airspace used for approaching and departing traffic at an airport, the frequency of that airport should be monitored.

A prudent pilot will avoid the approach and departure airspace of airports on the way, and strictly follow good radio practice when in the CTAF/MBZ.
__________________________________________________

I'm told that the new charts are on the way, should be in the mail any day now.

Tootle pip !!

[tobzalp]

VFR aircraft flying enroute would normally monitor the guard ( Emergency) frequency of 121.5,

for what reason?

[LeadSled]

All,

Why ??
Because that is the frequency that is monitored by all airline aircraft in cruise, most of the time, and the frequency on which you are most likely to get an immediate answer if you are at low level and you have a problem.

I have lost count of the times, from "on high" I have picked up somebody on 121.5, when all other frequencies have failed to get a contact. When they are IFR, and I am calling for ATC, why no answer to ATC on the area centre frequency?? Who knows, black hole. any number of reasons, turned the volume down to talk to somebody, deselected VHF 1 to make an HF call, and forgot to reselect.

121.5 is the one where you might get to hear an ELT first, and help somebody else.

The real point about the training package is that is it is asking pilots to think, and use the frequency that is most appropriate for where they are and what they are doing, rather than a cast iron set of rules that only fit where they touch.

And to be damned sure they are on the local CTAF/MBZ frequency when they are any where near an aerodrome, stay away from approach and departure areas when reasonably possible, use the AIP provisions to fly off track, and so on.

In short, fly smart, stay right out of the way of the RPT aircraft.

Tootle pip!!

[Creampuff]

Leadsled

You've been a little reticent of late - welcome back.

To what safety problem is the removal of the frequency boundaries the solution?

How do frequency boundaries on charts prevent prudent pilots from doing all of things you suggest?

[John Eacott]

We went out NVFR at O'crack sparrow for the C172 search earlier this week, and I (foolishly) grabbed the new VNC for my co pilot. Much angst on the way as he tried to find frequencies, until we realised the mistake and used the current chart.

WTF are we supposed to do to communicate? I'm at a loss to understand the removal of area freqs from VNC & VTC's, although the AF's still "exist" and are promulgated on ERC's :rolleyes: Advance in safety? Improvement in communications? Warm & fuzzy feeling for the Rocket Scientist who has had the location of transmitters added to the frequency box? :confused:

The mind boggles, quite frankly. I'm glad that I have a full IFR chart subscription, it will give me a clue when it all turns to tears.

[Duke16]

I have flown extensively in the U.S. in various capacities and am amazed at the preoccupation Australian pilots have with pilot to pilot talk on ATC freqs. The U.S. sectional charts (U.S. version of VNC's) have no area frequencies or boundaries and pilots do not talk pilot to pilot on ATC freq's. VFR pilots basically fly looking out the window, at the proper VFR cruising altitude, and squawk 1200. If you want to make a controller very unhappy, just try having a pilot to pilot yik yak on his frequency. I fly around the Sydney Basin and hear a large amount of pilot to pilot talk on the ATC freq's....most of which has zero safety value to me and where I am flying. I actually think this not a good safety practice...I just find myself wanting to turn the volume down on the radio.

Perhaps the reason we have so many incidents in CTAF/MBZ's is because by the time pilots arrive at the airport, their ears are numb.

I believe safety will improve after these reforms when pilots are quiet on ATC freq's enroute where the risk is low, and listen up and communicate on the CTAF/MBZ where the risk is higher.

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

Good to hear that the new airspace is going to reduce the already high workload for VFR pilots and let them now concentrate more on effective scanning techniques, which as we all know is THE most effective way of traffic mangement and seperation.

Radios are a thing of the past. In fact it's amazing that radios and their use in aviation became so wide spread considering that you don't need them at all to sperate yourself from anyone else that might be sharing your airspace.

And as we know, everyone keeps a listening watch on 121.5 so if the need does arise to dust the cobwebs off the ole set and talk to someone who looked like they filled the windscreen a little we can use this frequency and ask them if they were using an effective scan rate. (obviously they wouldn't of been)

As mentioned already, reducing radio induced ear numbing is another great side effect meaning that all of these over stressed, high workload VFR pilots when having to talk on the MBZ or such can do so without ear or voice fatigue, once again improving their ability to scan the horizon.

Good one :ok:

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Well everything is just 'wizzo' then.

Now lets write ourselves some Christmas cards.

BTW, dont forget your NASwear:

http://www.wizzowear.com/images/products/hats/terri_cloth_towel.jpg

[jindavik]

Duke16 You are absolute proof that the inmates have taken over the assylum. You are trying to wind us up surely.

[ferris]

Because that is the frequency that is monitored by all airline aircraft in cruise, most of the time, and the frequency on which you are most likely to get an immediate answer if you are at low level and you have a problem There's a great way to save money- get a community safety net (formerly known as a listening watch) provided by overflying RPT aircraft- albeit on a random basis.:rolleyes:

Perhaps the reason we have so many incidents in CTAF/MBZ's is because by the time pilots arrive at the airport, their ears are numb. So one minute VFR pilots are too stupid to operate radios, the next minute they are to .....And to be damned sure they are on the local CTAF/MBZ frequency when they are any where near an aerodrome, stay away from approach and departure areas when reasonably possible, use the AIP provisions to fly off track, and so on. :hmm:
In short, fly smart, stay right out of the way of the RPT aircraft. How does that sit with AOPA philosophy, freedom of the skies etc. being sold as a major plus of ausNAS?;)
An inclusive system is the best system. This proposal is almost the opposite of inclusive. The U.S. system is inclusive. IMHO this system will drive pilots like myself (low time VFR) away. The radio and CTA bogeyman just gets scarier.
Another nail in the GA coffin. Just wait until the first proper airmiss. That'll really fill the flying schools- not.:sad:

[eta23]

Roll on November 27th. At least we'll be uninterrupted by irrelevant drivel on the area frequency when my co-pilot or passenger calls traffic.

Anybody worried by these changes should promise never to fly in the US.

In what way is the US system inclusive and the NAS not so?

I've flown VFR in gliders and GA private aircraft in the US. In radar coverage in dense traffic airspace you may use the radar service but the rest of the time you look out. No area frequencies and no requirement for enroute communication VFR.

I've flown a glider over the airport LBJ went into in Air Force One when he went home (long runway) at less than 1500 feet because it was being used as a turnpoint in the contest. I did this along with 64 other people in 64 other gliders that hour. Nobody thought it remarkable.

The contest used other places like Laughlin AFB(4000 jet movements a day) as turnpoints too. Mix in biz jets, lots of private GA, Navy jets out of Corpus Christi on medium level cross country navs all with no radio alerting and you very quickly get good at scanning and seeing other traffic. Again this is regarded as unremarkable.

One day flying back into the sunset getting a little low and needing a thermal I spotted two corn husks above the horizon. Saved again I thought for a moment then the "corn husks" turned into two F4's going by.

What would you guys on the area frequency have been doing -looking at the map for the frequency boundary?

I've also seen lots of GA aircraft in 2500 hours of cross country gliding in Oz. The only ones who respond to my wing waggle are crop dusters which says something about the lookout standards. Relying on the radio to alert us are we? Well guess what - there are things out there from gliders down to eagles who never were on the area frequency.

I'm really looking forward to the blessed silence enroute particularly with my new ANR headset.

[James Taylor]

nope i dont like your new ERC's they are about as usefull as Tits on a bull.



but hey they are RED like my redcan

[bush mechanics]

Hold File,
Sure a good scan is handy,but its also good to know where to look!!Soo its safe if 1 a/c is cruising at a VFR level and the other a/c cruising at a IFR level ,Doing the right thing!!but I still have to climb/decend thru the IFR levels to get to my VFR level dont I.
Wheres the saftey when 2 a/c in diffrent catergorys,of the same type ,ie Speed,are going into the same place which isnt a CTAF/MBZ
I fly in areas where IFR(below 10,000)mixes with VFR below 10.And also we have a lot of jet traffic,737s,146s.
and alot of the places we fly to arnt CTAF or MBZs.Soo Its listen out,not just look out.Unless we get radar how can it be safer?

Q,Dont they have total radar coverge in the states?
PS If you nothing constuctive to say,dont bother!!!

[Capn Bloggs]

Lead Sled,

use the AIP provisions to fly off track

What might these be?

The next obvious observation is that whilst now not looking intently at the frequency boundary (none of which is actually anywhere near an airfield: so much for that red herring), our erstwhile VFR experts, upon all the fare-paying pax rely on for separation, will be intently looking at their new toy, the GPS, diligently flying 1nm off track!

Get a grip you lot: radio use at an airfield with mixed high-speed traffic is the only practical way to keep aircraft apart.

Otherwise, lets mandate the ICAO recommendation, soon to become a requirement, that ALL aircraft, regardless of where they are or their category, have and use a transponder.

[Feather #3]

Those of you who are incredulous at Duke16's post should read it again; it's a fact. :D

It's actually the reason Dick S wants the US system here; it's really simple.

I see that elsewhere there's a post saying that somebody goes into an aerodrome which isn't a CTAF/MBZ and intimates that terminal comms are a problem. This is a classic example of lack of education [which will sink this NAS proposal {and me happy to keep the status quo, BTW}] to cross the cultural boundary in introducing a mature system from another place.

Let me explain carefully; if you are flying to an aerodrome that is not in a CTR or MBZ, IT IS A CTAF!! You use 126.7 [if there's no other freq allocated] to communicate at a distance appropriate to your speed to let folks know you're coming. Simple.

If you're operating at an aerodrome which isn't at or in a CTR or MBZ and doesn't have a non-126.7 allocated frequency, you should be listening on 126.7 if you have an operable radio.

Hope that helps a bit. :)

G'day ;)

[snarek]

I personally must admit to not being completely comfortable with the new charts.

I am also not personally happy with the way NASIG have been going about their business.

But we do need some change, and we are now stuck with these charts.

So I suggest we fly em for the next 3 - 6 months and whinge on here when something stuffs up. Then we (AOPA, CivilAir or whoever) can go back to NASIG and tell em to fixit.

AK

[kimwest]

How about - -
1730 LMT, inbound to a CTAF, from the West, at 230kts, and at 30 nm commence descent, the CTAF elev is say 1000 ft. A VFR has, following all the good advice, been tracking North towards the CTAF, and decides to pass abeam the CTAF to the West.
Suddenly, from out of the sun, the VFR has the windscreen filled with a 230 kt inbound.
The VFR didn't hear the CTAF inbound call from the 230 knotter, and there was no area freq for the two of them to have been advised on.
Do I misinterpret what is going to happen, or have I missed something?

:suspect:

[Aussie Andy]

Hi there,

I am in favour of NAS changes in Australia, but I should disclose my interest: as a UK resident holding a UK/Euro JAR-PPL, I welcome the changes which make Australia less different to ICAO norms. I fly (VFR only) in a number of territories besides the UK including several European States, the US and last Christmas back in Australia. All of these territories have their own regional peculiarities that the VFR pilot needs to be aware of (e.g. LARS services and MATZ in the UK), but generally speaking are pretty close to ICAO norms. I found Australian airspace and charts etc. to be the most peculiar compared to the norm.

Of course, Australia is an island state and I understand that many of us think that the rest of the world is so far away as to not matter, and I have declared my interests as an ex-pat occasional visitor up-front, so I understand that these considerations might not seem important to all of you guys back at home. Bear in mind though that there are benefits to having a less peculiar approach. These include a more internationally standard environment for flight schools who earn foreign exchange by training foreign nationals, an easier transition to foreign airspace when you blokes rent an aircraft in the US, UK or eslewhere when on holidays, and (lastly! :D) an easier time of it for blokes like me visiting home (OK I accept the last one won't convinve you guys that its worth the effort!!)

If you accept that safety is not diminished by the changes (I appreciate that this is being debated, but experience elsewhere indicates the more standard approaches are not realtively unsafe) then I think the main problem is just the need for education and for everyone to get used to the new arrangements: change can often be difficult to accept at first, so its not surprising this is hacking people off...

So, I agree with what Duke16, eta23 and others have said.I have flown extensively in the U.S. in various capacities and am amazed at the preoccupation Australian pilots have with pilot to pilot talk on ATC freqs.Likewise, here in the UK we rarely get to speak to each other air-to-air on ATC frequencies, except when making blind calls say at an airfield which is unmanned and some other rare circumstances. We also don't have blanket radar services here - yet we have MUCH greater traffic density, especially in the class G under and around the class A London extended TMA/CTR areas (these cover half of southern England) where we are restricted vertically and horizontally and we have a mix fo IFR and VFR traffic. Someone asked if they have blanket radar coverage in the US: they do not (although it is extensive, but only in areas with high traffic density which I don't see as comparable to most of Australia).

I agree with Capn Bloggs: the sooner everyone gets a transponder the better (although we rue the fact that we are having to shell out for mode-S over here and envy that you are maybe getting ADS/B surveillance over there!)... flying last weekend in a friends new Cirrus SR-22 which has a large multi-function display with an overlay of traffic information on the map was a real eye opener as to how valuable transponders can be: must be even more important for our ATPL colleagues flying IFR to be able to see us. Ultimately I think this is the best and most efficient way to keep IFR/VFR alert to each other's presence in shared airspace such as class E. Of course you still have to have your head up and your eyes looking out of the window mostly!

In summary, I think you guys will get used to it and eventually appreciate some of the benefits. I wish you a safe transition!

Best to all,



Andy :ok:

p.s. kimwest: a) does the RPT have TCAS? b) does the VFR a/c have Mode C? Problem solved...

[3putt Pete]

Agreed that it's much easier flying in the US (and UK) than in the cocktail flying environment of Australian airspace.

I've done several trips with US pilots and the main difference I see is that "they" they offer to assist you, and they do. Want radar? You've got it, no problem - glad to help, have a nice day.

Here, "they" obviously want to relegate all VFR pllots to the status of bike riders on a freeway.

It is no burden to have area frequencies on a map or chart; it takes 3 seconds to verify that the correct frequency is being monitored, hardly a distraction; and it is nice to know what's going on around you.

Educate pilots: no need to remove the facility.

[black sparrow]

Aussie Andy

You raise a good point.....should all aircraft have a transponder?

What about gliders and ultralights?

This would certainly solve the problem RPT and large charter faces when operating around the smaller aircraft.

[Aussie Andy]

Hi black sparrowWhat about gliders and ultralights?This is an issue: the problem is that traditional transponders are both heavy and require a lot of battery power, which is obviously a problem for these a/c.

In the UK, they reckon that a small, light-weight solid-state and "relatively" cheap mode-S transponder design has been tested by Qinetiq (http://www.qinetiq.com) (I think) to show that mode S in all VFR (required by 2008) is possible.

As yet however, there is no manufacturer making this AFAIK, and who knows what "cheap" will mean! I guess if its mandated there will be a volume market and so price should become reasonable? Maybe, maybe not...

Until such a device is either available cheaply enough for all to install, or itis mandated, we will have to maintain a lookout for gliders etc. as we do now. I find them hard to spot!

Andy

[snarek]

Black Sparrow

This would certainly solve the problem RPT and large charter faces when operating around the smaller aircraft.

Yes, it would solve a problem for RPT, but create one for GA.

The average cost of buying a 'cheap' Txp is $2500. Installation is about $3000 because of stupid CASA requirements like 'drawings' and 'electrical load calculations' and 'CAR 35 approvals'.

Then add about $200 a year to maintain it and probably $1000 every 4 to repair it or its associated antenna.

So, who pays, RPT??? The Govt???

I personally doubt that compulsort transponders in E will get up, it isn't US NAS, so why the change. Either that or E will be limited to 8500 and it will be G below that unless 'on top' of a C.

FIS boundaries.

I hope no one thinks from my previous post that I support FIS boundaries on charts. I don't, i think they are dangerous. Going Tvl to Cns I change freqs just south of Dunk. That exposes me to traffic that has made calls on the Nth freq and is operating assuming i heard.

What I'd like to see is frequencies whereby I can monitor ops when I need to, ie parachute ops, gliding ops, high density IFR etc.

AK

[ferris]

Aussy Andy, eta23 etc.
You keep talking about the US system. Australia is not getting the us system! You need to read all the NAS threads, then a lot of stuff won't be repeated ad nauseum.
Australia developed a unique way of doing things, because the airspace use is unique. The UK has some huge differences to ICAO, which you acknowledge, to suit what it sees as the best solution for it's airspace. The US system is certainly not ICAO, and the way it is operated is not even the way it is written in the books (in reality there is a lot more service provided {and expected}). The US relies heavily on it's radar coverage, and the reason you can jump in your glider and fly over airbases etc without even receiving a service is because the other- fast- users are receiving a service. There is probably no point in providing traffic to a slow aircraft versus a jet. The jet will be the one doing the avoiding. But the slow aircraft still has to be included (whether he knows it or not) for that to work. Full radar coverage (even in the J-curve) aint going to happen in oz. So to say "the US system is great, let's do it here" is either misguided or setting out to mislead. I'm sure those on the NASIG know which:hmm:
The poms don't subscribe to the 'only one party in the conflict receives a service, and if you are VFR you can call up and get any help you want' attitude that the yanks are happy with, but in oz we are going to try the 'one party in the conflict may/may not receive a service, and if you are VFR you are on your own' system.

AK.
Is AOPA going to support mandatory transponders? How about we stop putting the cart before the horse, and find out what the end state will be, what equipment will be required, what equipment would make it work etc etc before sabotaging the airspace? Still no response about confusing the charging system with the airspace system, from either yourself or AOPA.

[snarek]

Ferris

That depends on who pays. If the cost of either ADSB or mandatory transponders in E is to be passed to the owner, then I personally will be looking for no E below 8500 or no compulsory transponders/ADSB.

Remind me of the confusion between charging and airspace.

AK

[Bill Pike]

There is no doubt that the changes are a shock to the way Australian aviation operates. Frequently one hears IFR separation standards used to self separate, ie "you maintain 3,500 I'll maintain 4,500 until we pass," and in most Class D and C airspace controllers still separate traffic as if it was B. Perhaps this is "safer", (perhaps we would be safer if one was still required to have a man with a red flag walk ahead of any motor vehicle, as once was the case) but overseas experience indicates that it is overkill. Traffic levels overseas simply preclude that level of chatter. My experience with the much referred to "radar service" in the States has more been in the order of "multiple VFR targets your area" rather than the personal separation service that one would imagine exists judging from some of the posts here. Many Australians appear to believe that to manouevre to avoid traffic is some sort of emergency rather than a normal every day occurence.
There always was a great deal more traffic out there than the two VMC pilots unable to pass in safety without half a dozen transmissions each, jamming the airwaves for hundreds of miles around..

[eta23]

The day the glider contest I was referring to went to Laughlin was the day the radar was unavailable because of scheduled maintenance. This was briefed before takeoff. So much for the fast movers relying on the radar service. They use it when available and operate without it when it isn't.


Ok our use of the airspace is "unique". Lets see - we fly aircraft in it and it has about the same pressure, density etc as anyone else's air. This is unique?

If we aren't getting the US system then what pray tell are we getting?

As I understand it we are getting the US system at a level appropriate for our traffic densities. About like around Resume Speed, Idaho.

As for lack of radar coverage - whenever I fly the bugsmasher in the J curve the transponder seems to be getting interrogated most of the time. When it isn't it's awful lonely out there back of beyond.
The only reason you think pilot to pilot communication on an area frequency works is because we don't have much traffic. Get enough traffic and it rapidly stops working. It is meant to be radio alerted see and avoid not radio arranged separation after all.

While we are at it if you guys flying 3rd level airlines and IFR twins want radio useage how about getting some good radio systems? The worst ones I hear are on this class of aircraft.

[Chief galah]

For those who think we're getting the US system,

read this.....

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/185864-1.html (http://)

So much for reduced comms between ATC and VFR pilots.

121.5 will end up as a chatter frequency, totally against it's true reason for being there.

We will be stuck with the Nov 27 airspace structure for many years. Airservices don't have, and in my opinion, will ever have the ability to administer the full blown end state of NAS.

Please show me my increased freedoms for VFR's with the Nov 27 changes, except the ability to over fly D towers above 4500 feet. The rules are that VFR avoid IFR routes, so that precludes actually overflying the aerodrome. To avoid IFR routes, we need ERC's, to know where those routes are. We've all got those,
haven't we?

CG

[gaunty]

Chief galah

I understand that all pilots will recieve a free 1 yr subscription to ERC by postcode.

[snarek]

CG, I see you have come around to supporting NAS :)

Quoting the ATC in your article ...


"I know what some of you are thinking: "Why would I want to listen to ATC yak at airplanes while I'm trying to enjoy the scenery?" Good question. There are a lot of people who feel that way. I mean -- a lot of them. I see them every fall. They're out there flying willy-nilly through the sky squawking 1200 and having a grand ol' time (I suppose).

There's nothing wrong with that, of course. It's perfectly legal. It's even relatively safe. It's got to be at least as safe as riding a motorcycle down the Blue Ridge Parkway, anyway. Some of you probably expect me to have some kind of recommendation about which is better, but I don't. Truth be told, we couldn't work all of the VFRs that are out there. So if you don't want the hassle of talking to ATC, don't."

But the article is good stuff and is what NASIG should be doing re education.

AK

[brianh]

Got the charts today - found the area freqs OK on the ERC - VTC no problems - VNC less info but that's why I carry the ERC.

We took a GA8 Vic to Archer recently to support the ferry back of a Tiger Moth. Effectively ran radio silent except at GAAP/CTAF/MBZ just to simulate a NAS trip. Used AERIS/AWIS for QNH and weather. Luvverly trip - no problems, no near misses.

When I go back to my statistical training, and probability theory, and look at the daily volume of traffic outside the Terminal Areas, there is more chance in open space of winning Tattslotto than an air collision.

If high speed RPT is entering CTAF perhaps a call at 10 miles on the CTAF is appropriate - leave the other COM on the area freq.

I operate at a CTAF on the very border of ML RAS with people coming at it on different frequencies. We have ultralight users, powered hang-glider, ultralight and GA training and movements, fly-in restaurant, non-radio aircraft, and parachutists. When I was learning, the then CFI was a barsteward for operating no radio and scaring me witless - I continue therefore to support the see and be seen concept ahead of guys using radio for a crutch. Interesting actually how the radio calls seem to be modified when jockeying for circuit positions by some - eg those who call downwind when 5 miles out!

I have a couple of queries in with the NAS people. Other than those trivialities, I am happy to give the NAS a genuine go and feedback any concerns.
Brian H

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

Bush_mechanics

Yes mate, I agree totally with you.

Obviously my words were not rolled in enough sarcasm.

[Chief galah]

I'M STILL WAITING FOR SOMEONE TO TELL ME HOW I'M BETTER OFF!

Sorry for yelling

CG

[tobzalp]

and look at the daily volume of traffic outside the Terminal Areas, there is more chance in open space of winning Tattslotto than an air collision.


Thanks goodnes for that because someone wins the lotto every week......twice........

[triadic]

snarek


The average cost of buying a 'cheap' Txp is $2500. Installation is about $3000 because of stupid CASA requirements like 'drawings' and 'electrical load calculations' and 'CAR 35 approvals'.


Never paid that much ?... is yours gold plated?


I personally doubt that compulsort transponders in E will get up, it isn't US NAS, so why the change. Either that or E will be limited to 8500 and it will be G below that unless 'on top' of a C.



There are no winners in a mid-air collision. If having a transponder in any airspace places me on someone's TCAS, I am all for it and will gladly have a transponder installed and operating. I have one in my a/c and gladly keep it serviceable and switched on for all operations and I am not based in radar coverage.

AOPA have previously agreed to transponders in E and I don't see they can back away from that position just because it is not a requirement in the USA. In this day and age, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. As a member I would lobby strongly to keep that policy in place.

You should be aware that ICAO already have a standard which provides for transponders in all classes of airspace for all those aircraft with the power to drive one. Both CASA and the NAS IG have turned a blind eye to that so far. If we are going down the international harmonization then how can we not heed that?

I still believe that the issue with NAS is education and not the package. No commitment to enough over a long term seen to date…. but still watching….


no known traffic...:ok:

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Hate to crash the big NAS love-in here... (especially all you 'new names' with 1 & 2 posts - do you think we are idiots?)

I do want to say this though, on behalf of the 200+ controllers who will be recruited and trained over the next few years to implement the final NAS stage endgame.... thank you!

The extra cost to industry for these controllers (positions which of course had been consolidated out over the last few years) will have to be funded, but dont worry - the RPT's will be paying for it while Dick is batting for the towel hats - so it is only the travelling public that will be effectively paying for it.

Maybe all you crap claims about protecting ATC jobs were correct - we just didnt realise you lot would be doing our bidding. At least we wont be hearing your voices anymore - after all you will be too busy seeing and avoiding and won't know the frequency anymore. If this is progress... good luck to all of us.

[ferris]

The day the glider contest I was referring to went to Laughlin was the day the radar was unavailable because of scheduled maintenance. This was briefed before takeoff. So much for the fast movers relying on the radar service Have just spoken to a yank colleague. He states "You're getting some bad info. What day did this happen? Laughlin AFB is covered by overlapping radar, and would never be blank. No way jets are going near gliders without it, they can't see them". Something to ponder?:hmm:
AK.
I have been perplexed by AOPAs role throughout. It cracks me up that you buy newspaper ads to decry 'CivilAir scaremongering', but how exactly are you achieving your aims of furthering member's interests by acting as a branch of NASIG? As Chief Galah keeps asking, "what's in it for the lighties"? If your ads were decrying the appalling state of the charging system (and subsequently GA), I'd say bravo. You keep strangely quiet on such issues, yet find money to do Dick's bidding.:confused: The U.S charging system is great, let's get that.
Tobzalp.
I'll think you'll find more than 2 people win Tattslotto every week.

[Aussie Andy]

I'll think you'll find more than 2 people win Tattslotto every week Yes, but more people buy lotto tickets than fly GA every week...

Sheesh!

Andy :p

[Chimbu chuckles]

snarek are you really so nieve as to believe that the govt will ever pay for ANYTHING being fitted into a private aircraft?

To do so would require that they first admit that they have changed the airspace model to one that is less safe!!

I can just see tha Minister of the day reporting to the House, "We have decided that AusNAS, which we insisted on against all professional advice, both local and international, would be made significantly safer if we paid for all private aircraft with electrical systems to be fitted with ADSB/CDTI/ Mode S Transponder equipment at a cost to the public purse of xxxmillions$. This, once again shows the Govts unwaivering support for aviation safety!!!

What chance of that?

I'm getting pretty sick of your's and AOPA's constant whining along the lines of "WE WANT TO FLY ANYWHERE AND WE'RE NOT PAYING A CENT".

And what makes me chortle with undisguised glee? You're not getting, nor will get, what you all seem to believe is some sort of holy grail. Freedom to meander over the top of Sydney/Canberra/Melbourne/where ever, VFR/sans radio:rolleyes:

And what's this crap about VFR avoiding IFR routes?

Anyone seen a ERC/Jepp chart lately...pick me route from say Redcliffe to Cairns avoiding all navaids, airfields and published route data...but thinking about it why would I fly from A to B with no published route data, wouldn't that be unsafe...irresponsible even?

Hell I might even blunder through a live restricted area full of.....high speed jets:{

There's not a country on the planet that 'conforms' to ICAO! Hell in China they use metric and the only time they use 'english' is when they are talking to foriegn registered aircraft. Great fun...believe me!!

We're not getting USNAS.

It's going to cost more money not the huge savings claimed by the spin doctors and biscuit makers.

More ATC being told to give less service and 'we' WILL end up paying.

200 more ATCOs...seems like enough to answer the odd enroute question to me!!

I am coming to believe we are approaching a time when we will be 'between systems' for an extended period...why?

Because of meddling on the part of individuals & groups who have no business in the airspace design process.

It wasn't broken, it didn't need fixing.

Education?

Why bother when a proportion of the users can't be bothered knowing enough about the current system to get exactly what they want MOST of the time!!

E for VFR is just G by another name and will be treated as such by the likes of snarek and the rest of the "Im not paying" brigade.

In future, unless I'm a LONG way off the beaten track, or below 5000' I'll be filing IFR. And you can bet I'll be monitoring appropriate ATC frequencies even VFR.

NASIG = Not A Sensible Idea Group.

Chuck.

[bush mechanics]

Feather #3,
Mate I use 126.7(multicom) all the time.Alot of places we fly too dont have published IFR routes ,so how do we know when to avoid flying these route when going VFR? Everyone seems to be talking light a/c conflicting with Ifr jet traffic.Out here IFR traffic could be another 210 operating below 10.Ive still got to climb/decend thru his IFR level,He dosnt have TCAS and most of the 402s,Chieftans Ive seen dont either.
Time will Tell.

[snarek]

Triadic

AOPA have previously agreed to transponders in E and I don't see they can back away from that position just because it is not a requirement in the USA. In this day and age, it would be irresponsible to do otherwise. As a member I would lobby strongly to keep that policy in place.

That is not my understanding of the AOPA position. My understanding we supported them above 8500. Transponders in E is also not the US NAS model. I doubt there are many aircraft out there not Txp fitted, but I cannot see that they should be fitted if E is to be lowered to almost ground level under NAS. The idea of E is it is transparent to VFR.

There is no clear benefit to VFR having transponders in E. If there is a Govt funded fit for ADSB then that problem will evaporate, however I doubt AOPA will assist the Govt to get a mandatory, owner funded, fit.

Of course, as a member we welcome your input and experience, but we also need to take into account members with $30K PA 28s on $45K a year.

By the way, have you priced a King Txp lately with Mode C. About $1800 US. It costs about $250 to 'tune' the Mode C, what expence for Mode S???

That alone wouldn't be so bad, what offends me is the ABSOLUTELY NEEDLESS CAR 35s, drawings and 'load calculations' for VFR aircraft, which I think are never really done, just charged for!!!

Edited to add this bit.

Ferris

What is in it for lighties, no more stuffing with stupid airspace over places like the Whitsundays. No more 'remain OCTA' outside Canberra just cos there is a DASH-8 in the sky somewhere when all you want to do is go to Cootamundra. No more disturbing the ATCOs golf game in Coffs or Tamworth to get a clearance, no more getting charged for services we just don't need.

AK

[Bill Pike]

AOPA agreed to compulsory transponders in E above 8,500.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

What is in it for lighties, no more stuffing with stupid airspace over places like the Whitsundays. No more 'remain OCTA' outside Canberra just cos there is a DASH-8 in the sky somewhere when all you wnat to do is go to Cootamundra. No more disturbing the ATCOs golf game in Coffs or Tamworth to get a clearance, no more getting charged for services we just don't need.

Thats your argument is it?

[snarek]

ST

By that comment I suppose you are arguing that the fr#kken airspace mess over the Whitsundays or North of Brisbane is necessary, simple and 'user friendly'???

Bah :E

AK

[Chimbu chuckles]

snarek....you not ignoring me, are you?:} :hmm:

chuckles.

[snarek]

Nah, I'm getting inundated!!! :confused:

The NZ Govt gave interest free loans for mandatory transponders. AsA and RPT will save heaps with ADSB, better direct routing, less diversions etc, so it is really in their interests to have it in all GA aircraft.

Costs for maintaining creaky old French RADARs are high, costs for installing new ones for more coverage are higher. They will actually all save money with ADSB. (I installed some Thomson CSF stuff once ... eeeewwwwww!!!!)

So I doubt they will risk it by trying to push the cost on a sector which frankly doesn't need it and has nothing to gain by carrying it.

"WE WANT TO FLY ANYWHERE AND WE'RE NOT PAYING A CENT".

When I want and need a service I am happy to pay. But I ain't paying for a service I neither want nor need just cos someone else comes along and demands it. i.e Coffs, Canberra, Tamworth, Albury, Hamilton etc. I also think that when Airlines discover sleepy little towns, like Cairns, then infrastructure is fair enough, but it is there for them, not me and I don't want to fund it as well as cop the inconvenience of an unfair priority system.

Like you said, gimme the US model, first come first served :E

So, two choices, dig in the bottom of the garden and find a viable alternative to this Government and thus get rid of the user pays mentality or come up with a user pays system that really is user pays and doesn't try to foist service on people that don't want or need it.

AK

[Sandy Reith]

I support the new rules and wonder if anyone could workout the correct freq at present on some tracks where one could be changeing freq's 'frequently' especially over oblique area boundaries....that to say that to be sure of the exact boundaries one would have to have an auto gps locked system. Very impractical, and in any case where would be the benefit ? Haveing made a VFR flight recently from Vic to NSW I can safely (?) say that it's virtually impossible to know exactly when to change freq's under the present system. 35 yr CFI CP multi RPT etc

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Wren 460 : Welcome to PPrune. Good to see lots of 'new' people popping up on this thread - all apparently in support of NAS!

AK:

When I want and need a service I am happy to pay. But I ain't paying for a service I neither want nor need just cos someone else comes along and demands it

RPT dont want NAS. But they (thru their customers) will be paying for it. Because you demand it.

Notice any glaring inconsitistencies in your selfish stance yet?

[gaunty]

ferris mate.

I have been perplexed by AOPAs role throughout. It cracks me up that you buy newspaper ads to decry 'CivilAir scaremongering',

Would you mind pointing me at these "ads" they are news to me?

[snarek]

None

Because NAS will be somewhat cheaper for them and gives VFR the level of service it needs - IN MOST CASES NONE.

Your argument came unstuck the moment you intimated that RPT should somehow be subsidised by VFR.

AK

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Snarek, RPT's subsidise the service for the VFR's who don't want to pay anything to maintain the service.

You say that in most cases you don't need a service but when something goes wrong on your "no service required flight", the service that the RPT's have been paying to maintain, will be the one you will turn to, to save your butt.

Only problem is now with the frequencies removed from the charts the VFR that is in trouble will have a hell of a time knowing what freq. to call on to get that assistance.

[ferris]

What was Sept 30?
Pity AOPA don't put as much effort into advancing their members true interests, as they do into pushing NAS. I, and am sure others, are very interested as to why you don't persue a better charging system rather than a different airspace system?

[Bill Pike]

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Brisbane or Melbourne is likely to "save my butt". How many times has this fanciful event actually happened, I wonder? (Here we go. "There was once this private pilot lost....") 121.5 is more likely to find an in range overflying airliner who will quickly connect you with ATC if necessary. Given the amount of "concern" expressed here, one can only wonder how the US manages to get along without all of this. Wait, I remember, they have these thousands of radar operators with primary paints on Piper Cubs giving them all headings to steer.

[ferris]

Well, Bill, back when I was working in oz I did speak to a young man lost in a valley in Tassie one day, who did not enjoy the benefit of the 'random overflying RPT safety net'. I am certain that ATC/Flight Service saved that young guy's butt. But heck, it's only one, right? I can recall AT LEAST 2 other (different) occasions, one where a gent in light twin with half a doz on board took off from King Isl and flew the wrong way (toward Sth Africa- they would have fruitlessly searched Bass Str and never known what happened). A switched on lass spotted his error for one paint on radar and gave him the heads-up. Another involved a learjet and a chieftain that thought they had passed but were still nose to nose. These are just off the top of my head and with little experience. I am sure stories abound. But you don't want to hear that, right? And before you roll eyes and poo-poo these real stories ala .I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Brisbane or Melbourne is likely to "save my butt". How many times has this fanciful event actually happened, I wonder? (Here we go. "There was once this private pilot lost....") think about it- these types of events are not recorded (with the exception of the lost in cloud scenario- they are written up as IFE), and would probably have resulted in deaths. Why is that lost on the NAS crowd? How many times these things happen- who knows? They are not recorded, because they had satisfactory outcomes. That is the problem with safety- it's good results aren't seen.

BTW-
The US manages to 'get along' with full radar, full comms, and full service. How much of that will we have available in oz?

edit; Yes, Bill, they do have thousands of radar operators (sixteen thousand, actually ). Though they aren't 'giving piper cubs headings', they can- you can request flight following. They do give 747s headings to avoid piper cubs, and that is an important difference you seem to not understand. GA is included in the US system, even if it not obvious to the piper cub

[QSK?]

OK, so I got my new charts today and I can see the little frequency "clouds" on the ERC charts, but can somebody tell me how the heck I'm supposed to know when I should change from one frequency to the next? I'm a VFR pilot, so does this mean that I have to carry around a set of the old ERCs, as well as a set of the new ones - or is there another docuement that I can refer to that is going to give me some boundary guidance?

Anybody?

[Bill Pike]

As I've said before, the only GA traffic advisories I have been given in the US were in the nature of "multiple VFR targets your area."
I"m pleased that someone lost in a valley in Tassie was still in VHF contact and you were able to save him, but are you sure that the fact that you spoke to him and the fact that he survived are directly related?
I'm not the enemy of ATC and though the other examples sound like IFR, I know they do a good job. As they do in the States. Without anywhere near the amount of radar coverage we hear on this site, with a minimum of mandatory quack. And a maximum of looking out the window.

[QSK?]

Sorry Bill:

I think you got me mixed up with someone else, cobber.

I'm not a controller and I certainly havn't spoken to anyone lost in Tassie. My enquiry relates to the simple fact that I like to listen out on the area frequency just so that I don't hit any other pieces of flying tin while I'm enjoying the bird's eye view of the scenery.

The new charts don't make it easier for me to determine what frequency I should be listening on, let alone talking to anyone!

Your thoughts?

[Bill Pike]

Apologies QSK, I was responding to the post before yours. Read LeadSleds original post. The idea is that while looking out the window looking at the scenery also look out for bits of metal flying about. Not just the one or two that you used to talk to, but the others that were also always there as well. Bit like driving your car on the road without the obstructions to vision that occur at ground level.

[Chief galah]

Vote 1 - Chimbu Chuckles for NASIG President.

snarek, Brianh and Bill Pike.

Your posts continue indicate a lack of knowledge of the current, iminent and proposed systems. AOPA's fanciful notions of increased freedoms are typical navel gazing and insular thinking.

Brianh

Effectively ran radio silent except at GAAP/CTAF/MBZ just to simulate a NAS trip. Used AERIS/AWIS for QNH and weather. Luvverly trip - no problems, no near misses.

So you have proved you can do that now under the current system. From Nov. 27 and into the forseeable future, it will be no different.

snarek

You wont be able to do anything different between CB and CTM (your post of 30/10). CB steps will still be C and clearance will still be required. They will get upset if you try to go through without asking. I hope the appropriate frequency is apparent.
I think you have the wrong idea about charging. If you are VFR, you pay no enroute or terminal charges. You should only be charged (by Airservices) $7.45/tonne to land at a towered airport. Minimum charges may apply at bigger airports. At ML airport, Airservices take $3.45/tonne with a minimum charge of $21. The remaining $149.94 goes to the efficient private airport owner.

Maybe we need to look at the RAAF a bit more closely. For example East Sale still retains its 20nm radius CTR and 50nm radius R areas. 20nm CTR for circuits!!! ML CTR is 8-12nm, contains two airports, and on a typical day has 800 combined movements, not including through non planned pop up VFR fixed wing, choppers and ILS training. The system can, and does handle VFR's, all you have to do is ask.

The transponder issue is intriguing. Experience has shown that a pilot will not be aware his transponder is not on or malfunctioning until someone (ATC) gives him a reminder. If the radar sensor is SSR only, and radio silence is being adopted by the pilot, the aircraft will be invisible to ATC and TCAS. This will apply at all our D towers with E steps. Some of these towers are getting limited radar information. But without primary backup, transponder problems render this information unreliable.
IMHO this is a serious safety problem, and must have had trouble getting up in a safety case, if it was ever done.

New CTAFs. Surely nothing is simpler than what we have. For VFR, four mandatory calls, two for arriving, two for departing. The unwritten additions are - shut up, look out, listen and transmit briefly when required. If they want to add a 45 degree downwind entry procedure, it's just another line of text in the book. If you're non-radio - refer unwritten additions, deleting parts 1, 3 & 4.
We talk of "US style CTAFs" but does anybody really know what they are?


QSK?

Each aerodrome in ERSA has an "ATS FACILITIES COMMUNICATION" entry. This lists the ATS FIA frequency for that location. Unless you're out in the bindoo, and as long as you have half an idea of your position, this will give you the closest ATS FIA frequency. Still inconvenient, however.

Long posts are boring

CG

[gaunty]

ferris

I'm not being cute, but what and where on Sept 30 did we advertise.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

AK: I intimated no such theory (you lost me there?)

It is going to cost more not less - 200 extra controllers to wont be recruited, trained and paid for free. What has the cost been so far - who is paying for that ? Youve already said you wont! You want ADSB to somehow solve this mess down the track too - who pays for that ? Once again - not you.

Where are these savings for that small non-AOPA element of Civil Aviation in Australia again?

[eta23]

****su- Tonka.

I was in the US at that glider contest in 1986 and we were briefed that there would be no radar coverage at Laughlin that day. This may have changed nowadays.

All we are going to lose is the VFR requirement to maintain a listening watch and respond if we think we may have a conflict with an IFR aircraft. Enroute we are at different levels so this really should not happen anyway. Note that gliders have always been there and have never participated in this.

Close to airports if I can't realistically avoid them I'll now be on the relevant CTAF or maybe listening to a radar controller. My single engine has a Mode C transponder so TCAS will also be there for the regional airliners fitted with it.

I'm going to enjoy the opening up of more airspace to VFR without getting a clearance. The currrent priority system doesn't look so good to those at the bottom. I can see how the people higher up the list may have a different view. I don't like flying over totally unlandable terrain because clearance is unavailable even after I've filed a flight plan well before departure.
The military is the worst so I'm looking forward to reforms of this too. We already share G airspace with fast movers with only a notam danger area and no ATC service at all.

Currently not many VFR pilots are making position reports anyway. It is pretty quiet except for the irrelevant garbage on the area frequency. Better to use the comms in the higher risk areas where they will be meaningful.

ATC doesn't mean no collision risk. There have been quiet a few where a pilot or controller makes a mistake resulting in a collision.
The relatively recent one near the Swiss German border comes to mind.. In really low density airspace not having ATC is probably no riskier than having it. At least without it you are free to look outside and don't have a false sense of security.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

ETA23:

Your simplified safety case is noted. I have raised my technical concerns about the airspace proposals on the last thread on this topic. What I thought were salient points were never answered by those from the AOPA/Smith camp - their support is obviously total - and totally blinkered. I cannot see any point therefore on arguing once again why your position is flawed - it is on the record.

The campaign being waged is testimony to the absolute power of political lobbying - even in the face of unanswered serious questions about the nuts and bolts of making it work - let alone the far greyer legal implications.

Those who take legal responsibilty into their hands 'every' working day, are far from convinced the safety case is complete. Having seen this all fall over twice before at the 11th hour there is a nervous humor that this will once again be the outcome - this time I am not so sure. Political pressure has been applied to some sensitive parts, and the screws must be tight because those with the most to lose (financially) are still staying Mum.

Even if you dismiss safety implications, put them to one side, and look at the costs - it simply does not make sense.

I honestly - and I mean truly - can only see this costing everybody more. The airspace configuration alone is going to cost millions - please dont think the taxpayer is going to absorb it.

If you thought AOPA/Smith lobbying was effective, watch the fiery QF/VB lobbying for costs back onto GA when ASA try to stick up the NavCharges to pay for this - maybe then the thumbscrews wont feel so tight on them.

Or have you already thought of that in your next move?

[Bill Pike]

"snarek, Brianh and Bill Pike.

Your posts continue indicate a lack of knowledge of the current, iminent and proposed systems. AOPA's fanciful notions of increased freedoms are typical navel gazing and insular thinking.
Chief Galah."

Chief Galah,
(Aptly named?)
While you assisted the others, you failed to indicate where I was wrong. Please rid me of such ignorance.

[ozm8]

G'day all,

I'm currently a university student studying aviation (management, not pilot) at a reputable university. I am only a few weeks from finishing and I have a mini-thesis to finish before the end of next week. (Don't worry, I have nearly finished it!! :))

My thesis is loosely about the NAS and the safety issues surrounding it. A question on the last page about a US CTAF. I was wondering that myself so I asked a few people.

Nobody I asked had any idea what the difference is! This included GA pilots and flying instructors, who, I assume, would be using CTAFs fairly regularly. I even had a chance to ask a pilot from the US, and, after explaining the procedures we have in our CTAFs, he had no idea either. I think there may be a communication/education issue for NASIG here.

Finally I spoke to a friend of mine who is an airline pilot who flies internationally. He referred to his manuals about flying in the US (Jeppesen manuals, I think) and gave me the definition. I'm not going to post it here word for word (unless someone really wants me to), but I think it can be summarised as this:

- there is no "airspace" assumed for the CTAF. Any radio-equipped aircraft in the vicinity of the aerodrome should monitor the CTAF. Some common sense should be exercised here.

- CTAFs can offer services! There may be a third-party operator (this is not explicitly stated, but can be inferred) giving services such as weather, NOTAMs, basic traffic (how many in the circuit, etc.), runway in use and some other stuff that I can't remember right now. This is called a flight service station (FSS). Obviously, these services are not available at all aerodromes all the time.

But without those services, I struggle to find any other difference, apart from the "airspace" issue. We can probably all guess how many aerodromes in Australia will actually have those services when we change over to the NAS. Does anyone from Airservices know? Is it higher than zero?

On another issue, one thing I would like to know is how useful a radio is when flying enroute. I am a low-hour (I have exactly 50 hours), GFPT pilot and I've not been flying in about three years. I've not done any navigation flights yet, so I don't really know. In other words, I'm asking seriously, even though it may be a silly question, because I don't know. It does seem silly to me, however, that the FIA frequency boundaries are on the new ERCs, but not the VNCs. Does that mean that VFR pilots will now have to look at TWO charts, instead of ONE, when they are finding out what frequency they have to use?

Sorry for the long post, but sometimes they are necessary - I hope this one was...

Cheers,

Oz Mate!!

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

All we are going to lose is the VFR requirement to maintain a listening watch and respond if we think we may have a conflict with an IFR aircraft. Enroute we are at different levels so this really should not happen anyway

Sorry I'm wrong and you are right eta23, aircraft don't climb or descend in enroute airspace they vertically climb to their cruising level in Terminal airspace and then vertically descend in terminal airspace on arrival.:hmm:

I'm trying to imagine a scenario in which someone sitting in an air conditioned office in Brisbane or Melbourne is likely to "save my butt". How many times has this fanciful event actually happened, I wonder? (Here we go. "There was once this private pilot lost....") 121.5 is more likely to find an in range overflying airliner who will quickly connect you with ATC if necessary

I'll just say as a controller in Australia for 8 years, I experienced an ultralight who got in trouble near Mildura and who was very relieved to be able to quickly contact ATC and recieve assistance. Another VFR had a rough running engine who put down on a highway, who while not necessarily having his butt saved again was very relieved to know the relevant ATC frequency and recieve navigational and SAR assistance.

The bottom line in safety is that if only one VFR aircraft gets into trouble EVER and due to these changes doesn't know where to turn for help and people die because of these changes, its once too often and makes the people pushing through these ridiculous unneccesary changes culpible for those peoples deaths.

The most common and most important service a VFR will request off the ATC is for navigational assistance by radar, and this does happen often, and Bill if you don't think the recieving of this in a timely manner is critical to the safety of the pilot and the passengers you are kidding yourself. With the new charts (as has been mentioned by many of the pilots on here, the frequency information is a joke) it will make it almost impossible to know what frequency to call for assistance on, and 121.5 is not an adequate alternative, purely because when asked if the domestic RPT's if they are monitoring 121.5 the response was invariably "NO". The international guys appear to monitor 121.5 religiously but I have found the domestics to be less likely. Where does that leave the now very lonely confused VFR pilot wondering why those goats are dancing in the clouds.

[185skywagon]

as pilot in the inland area, i think that there is a case for a ctaf below a certain alt eg. 5000'. area freq would be available if required. that way i would only have to listen to traffic within 70 miles of me. obviously this would not work in the more congested coastal "J Curve", but would work just fine in the majority of the inland. most ifr operates above 5000' except when there are huge westerlies. the new charts have one problem that i can see straight up. the vtc area freqs are very hard to seee as they are the same colour as the relief colours, especially in the qld south east. my other beef is that when ifr pilots report TOD to centre, they think they are the only ones around. no distance or direction from their destination. fine if you are familiar with a particular area and daily traffic, but what if you are not.
just my thoughts.

[divingduck]

Dear Bill,
I can only echo what ANSA and others have said here...also well done Chimbu, you really should run for office!!:ok:

As for how many times??? Scores...lost count really...and I have to say that it's been a very rare event that we (the controllers/and FSO's in a different era) have had to asisst an IFR aircraft...it has almost always been a VFR driver in difficulties.
Personally I have assited loads of lost (perhaps geographically embarrassed if you prefer) lighties, including several solo navex guys that were right on the edge of panic. We had them climb, identified them, vectored them for the nearest decent airfield and in several cases, IFR drivers in the air at the time came up on freq to give them some really good gen about the spot they were about to land.
Please don't think that this doesn't happen. And of course you are right...how do we know that anything that we had done made even the slightest difference?
I also remember a time in Sydney when a VFR guy was vectored onto the runway at Mascot..the little guy had got lost and was flying after last light..not NVFR.

You might try speaking to your members instead of speaking for them.
Not everybody is a sky God.....

just my 100 baisars worth.

[Bill Pike]

I am no longer on the Board of AOPA and I speak only for myself old son.
It works in the US. It can work here. Some Australian pilots have developed some bad habits, due mainly to the lack of traffic. There are a lot more aircraft out there than the two jammimg the airways arranging IFR separation standards between each other on a gin clear day.

[Blue Sky Baron]

Thgis debate is certainly quite interesting. I must admit that I have not studied the new proposals in great detail as yet (not flying at the moment) and have not really decided if the changes are the best thing or not, however what seems to be a fact without too much doubt is that there are a lot of very confused people out there who are supposed to be using this system in the next month. It seems that the dissemination of practical information is somewhat lacking. Some seem to believe the new system is the greatest thing since sliced bread, others believe its a disaster waiting to happen - maybe both are right as well as wrong. I do tend to believe, from the little I've read that we are not really getting the "best" system that we could have and at the same time not really getting a system that is a whole lot better than the one we currently have. Just my opinion, I could very well be proved wrong - it wouldn't be the first time. I thought I was wrong once - but I was mistaken!

Having said all that, I received my package from NASIG yesterday and while not having studied it in detail, the little that I did see has made me wonder who has put this together. From my perspective it seems that not a lot of thought has gone into some of the theory of how this system should work. For example:

From page 30 of the Reference Guide, VFR Airmanship-

"Avoid, as far as you can, tracking via aerodromes, navaids, instrument approaches and holding patterns."

What next? Don't track via aerodromes!, get serious, thats what you are TAUGHT to do in your training. Avoid navaids!, also part of the nav training you receive. What are you supposed to do, plan your flight over terrain that does not have easily identifyable waypoints. The best one though is to avoid aerodrome instrument approach paths. Firstly how many VFR pilots carry instrument approch plates, and even it they did, where do they get the training to read and understand them?

As an IFR rated pilot who has been known to fly VFR as well, I can see the flaws in this system from both perspectives.

See and be seen is great in theory but anyone who has had a 'close encounter' in the air will tell you that they only saw the other traffic as it went past, or was far too close for comfort when observed. I know the odds of a mid-air are small, but so are the odds of winning Tattslotto, but someone wins almost every week. Food for thought.

I don't want to get into an argument with anyone - I just want a workable system that affords the maximum safety for all that have the privelige to partake in aviation.

BSB

[triadic]

What the likes of Bill Pike, Dick Smith and some others do not seem to appreciate is that although the air and the planes are the same, the culture is very different.

Pilots in the US have grown up with certain procedures in place and yes they work over there. The problem with importing some of those very same procedures into Oz is that that the pilots here have NOT grown up those procedures and put in very simple words the established culture is therefore DIFFERENT.

Only those pilots trained after the change will have a culture which understands the new procedures with no memory of what existed in the past. Tell me how many years did it take for airline pilots to realise that AERADIO had been replaced by FLIGHT SERVICE? (5 to 10 years - and that was only a name change!!) Both now only a memory.

The only way to address the change of culture is by education and training. The package in the mail this week is only a start and I would hope that there will be lots more.

The other issue is that this sort of self help education has limited potential for success and the responsibility for ensuring there is standardisation rests with CASA, who have been very quite on this of late.

"no known traffic" :ok:

[Chief galah]

For 21,000 hours of my 51,000 hour controlling career, I have been entertained by your band of mary (sic) men, blundering thru' on their BFR's. They are under educated on the current system, and will be less on NAS.

AMATTS in the early 90's was your best win. No longer having to account within the ATS system. Thank god for GPS, it came along just at the right time. No need to worry about navigation anymore.

CG

[CaptainMidnight]

Blue Sky Baron
At least you have received your package. I've seen nothing since the useless 126.7 sticker and other blurb.

[LeadSled]

All,
Most interesting, this is the first thread I have started, must try it again some times.

With all the references to Tattslotto, and games of chance in general, you have a far greater statistical probability of winning a national lottery than winning ( loosing) the air to air lottery.

It’s a pity we have given airspace names A through G. The automatic assumption ( the culture) is that A is better ( higher class, safer, superior, what ever) than B, and so forth through G, who must be a quite low class chap. Except we are not talking about school football teams.

Maybe we should have Red, blue, green, chartreuse etc airspace.

What ICAO standards actually call for is “separation assurance”, based on rational risk management principles, so that the level of services provided by an CNS/ATM (note that word Management, NOT control) service is commensurate with achieving the required separation assurance standard.

And what’s that all mean, I hear you cry. There is no such thing as "safe" and "unsafe" in terms of risk management, which is what we each and all practice in almost every thing we do, every day of our lives. There are only varying levels of risk, and individual, collective and governmental decisions about acceptable standards of risk.

It means that the maximum risk of a mid air is the same in any airspace, if the CMS/ATM ( there's that word Management, NOT Control again) services have been properly allocated/provided.

At present, we wildly over service. And we all pay. And the real cost goes well beyond raw AA charges, and who pays them.

In reality, even after the NAS (assumed to be non ADS-B) end state, I would bet we will still over service in Australia, over provide CNS/ATM services, given the present and likely future traffic levels in D,E and G airspace. It's the culture. It's also ecomonic waste, for no reduction in real world risk.
________________________________________________

Cap’n Bloggs. (early post) that’s just what is intended, be on the frequency that is applicable --- around an airfield, not an ATS frequency, if it's in E or G.

There are many of us who have been flying “off track” for years, including in Class A airspace, the improvements in navigational accuracy of modern equipment make it even more important, now we can do it “legally”.
________________________________________________

Feather 3. Spot on. And maximize the real world value of alerted see and avoid.
________________________________________________

Aussie etc. The answer is MicroAir, they will have a very cheap, light, low power drain Mode S, ADS-B enabled transponder available, just need Mode S and GPS cards added to the existing unit, the initial units are probably up and running now.
________________________________________________

Chief Galah,
You talk about “rules”, that’s part of the Australian cultural problem, can’t leave it to proper training and indoctrination, gotta’ have rules.

Part of the cultural change that must happen (not just for NAS) if we are to achieve the US world leading standards of air safety outcomes ( and it was finally publicly admitted at SafeSkies this year that we DO NOT have the world'a best air safety record, and that include RPT) is to wean ourselves off the ideas that we can write “a rule” to cover everything, and then all we have to do is “obey the rules”. And something called "air safety" will be the result.

Many of the upcoming “Parts” of new CASA rules are the ultimate expression of the old culture, in draft form so far. For learning, licensing, operating or maintaining aircraft alone, the number of pages of rules is already somewhere between 10,000 and 20,000, and climbing, as MOS's are churned out like there is no tommorrow.

Repleat with thousands of "strict liability" ( no defence) offences.

Just can’t work. Doesn't now, will not in the future, we have to change. Much of the rest of Australian industry have made the change, in improving workplace safety, what's wrong with the aviation sector, that we are so far behind the rest of Australia.
With a worse air safety record than US.

_________________________________________________

Triadic. What a condemnation of what has passed for years here, and a very good reason for a major cultural shift. If we get it right, we have some chance of achieving US air safety outcomes. If we don’t, we condemn Australian aviation to continue with the same mediocre air safety outcomes that we have racked up for years.
_________________________________________________

Who said “ It’s the culture, stupid”. With most of our aviation woes, it certainly is !!

Tootle pip !!

[eta23]

Leadsled - Well said.

Sure hope the media don't get to this site. Could lead to a reduction in people wanting to fly in OZ airspace after seeing the posts by supposedly professional pilots and controllers.

Note: nothing to do with the NAS, just the hopeless attitudes and inability to understand plain english or accept that something shown to work in other parts of the world could possibly work here.

As for controllers "helping" - I stopped relying on that years ago after they lost a flightplan and didn't want know when I called in an amendment due wx. I now have a good friend of mine do SAR for me.

As I told the South Australian RAPAC in the 80's - for VFR and sport aviation ATC is NOT a service, it is a hindrance. And the controllers I met there were unimpressive to say the least.

Roll on GPS/ADS-B. Then can we fire some controllers???

[SM4 Pirate]

Roll on GPS/ADS-B. Then can we fire some controllers???

Shows how much you know about that stuff Mr. eta23; ADS-B will probably result in more sectors, because you need to use a scale that you can see.

Also no wonder me and my colleagues are getting more and more annoyed at this whole NAS process. All these spurious things getting wrapped up in this project; when in reality they have nothing to do with this project.

We see a degredation in the services we provide (under NAS); and say it's just stupid; private pilots come out in mass and say get rid of controllers; great responce. I love the xxxx hours flying so "I know boats"... You don't no ****e about ATC; we don't tell you how to fly, so don't tell us how to control.

Doing Class C airspace is less difficult and more safe than doing Class E. It takes the same amount or less controllers to do Class C than Class E; fact. See USA model, more ATCs per flying hour than here.

The ultimate consequence of all this is that the majority of users, i.e. the ones that use it regularly will get less and it will cost them more. Great stuff.

My understanding is that thorough annalysis from Airservices' states that nearly 200 extra controllers will be needed just to keep up with NAS by 2005. So those looking for an ATC career, the entry bar will be low because they'll need nearly 350 trainee controllers in the next 2 years. Cost effective, awsure. More efficeint.... well really.

Better use resources where the risk is higher, cr@p with a capital 'C'; the same resources are in the same seats just doing ****e different.

Bottle of Rum

[Chief galah]

Lost flight plan????

RAPAC in the 80's???

You really know how to hold a grudge.

Says it all from your side of the argument.

CG

[snarek]

I hope ADSB gives us more controllers.

Imagine the growth of GA if they could fly safe direct controlled sectors anywhere anytime!!! Passenger confidence would improve out os sight and the whole industry and country would benefit :)

I see you point about C being safer than E. But for VFR or even private IFR ops that comes at cost in both thers of money and delays, which is why the 'bottom end' of GA is supportive of NAS. I really can't see that this cost and inconvenience pays back proportionally.

On a long drive from Townsville to Can'tberra this weekend I was pondering our differences, I figure basically they step from a lack of a viable alternative to this current Government and an aceptance by all of us that 'user pays' is unassailable.

Is it???

AK

[Bill Pike]

It isn't a question of whether or not C is safer than E, it is a question of whether or not the traffic levels require C. Where E has replaced G with DTI (sorry about the acronyms but I'm sure that you are with me. E with Directed Traffic Information is really F but in Australia we are used to that, we call airspace D but ATC still use C procedures etc.) Nevertheless E with a professional controller separating must be better than G with two pilots trying to sort out Rafferties Rules separation in their cockpits, regardless of what VFR are doing on the radio or whether or not VFR are equipped with anti stealth gear. I think of E as like our G but the supplier of DTI, i.e. someone in an office on the ground, with the overall picture clearly in front of him, (and some professional training and computer aids to assist him,) must be the best person to sort out IFR separation in all but the quietest environments surely? If transponders aren't required in G, why make them compulsory if that G is replaced with E, a better alternative? Doesn't make sense to me. The problem is that some of our controllers, having grown up with C airspace, (which is really B here, culture at work I agree) can't imagine having "controlled airspace" without owning everything that moves in it. This has to be the only country in the world wherein the tug driver needs a bloody clearance to drive across the tarmac after pushback!! That doesn't mean that they can't adjust, in my opinion the level of service from ATC (co-operation, flexibility, etc) has improved out of sight over the last say ten years, but if we need to retrain some old Flight Service Officers who don't have the same culture of control, well why not?.
The argument that our pilots are not competent to operate in the U.S. because of our "culture" is not one that I support and my experience indicates the opposite. It certainly is true that some will find it difficult for a while to fly without quacking on the radio , but the adjustment won't take long.

[eta23]

More controllers with ADS-B??? Whatever for?

Wait until pilots have an in cockpit display of all traffic around them, sorted by in cockpit computer power into threats and non-threats and voice alerting to the most likely threats. In VMC or IMC, day, night , automatically. Trivial in computing terms.

Automatic SAR activation/location.

This is not rocket science.

Like the internet such a system is robust and one VHF voice channel is a last ditch backup further backstopped by looking out in VMC.

Who needs controllers at all??? I guess someone has to look after the parking slots at the airport terminals.

The pity in all this is we actually had a demonstration in this country 4 years ago using one VHF frequency and simple commercial GPS receivers. I had lunch with the designer last week.

Cheap enough to fit TWO in every aircraft.

ICAO harmonisation killed it and we have the ICAO ADS-B system complete with gold plating over the triple platinum. Read expensive.

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Sounds like Guard will get a good workout..

Low level military aircraft going 240 knots spots T-CAS traffic..
1> Now there are no freq boundary's , how are we going to be on the same freq (VFR won't be by the sound of it, just on guard..).. > resulting in guard being talked on...

How are LL military aircraft going to see where to change freq's if we can't get it off the ERC lows?

PAF

[Transition Layer]

I still haven't made up my mind on the new system, so I won't be expressing an opinion as yet, but I will put forward this scenario, based on a real-life event (one of many) I experienced and subsequently resolved because of the use transmissions on the area frequency.

The setting is NW WA, late afternoon, VMC exists but visibility slightly reduced due smoke haze. Two VFR aircraft - aircraft "A" a single with a TAS of around 150kts, tracking roughly 200 degrees, maintaining 6500'. The other aircraft "B" a twin with a TAS of 175kts is tracking approximately 260 degrees (i.e. looking into the sun), climbing to 8500 having departed from an ALA/Multicom some 20nm to the East of aircraft "A"s track.

Aircraft "A" is monitoring the local area frequency, and only has one VHF comm and one HF. Aircraft "B" has two VHF comm radios plus HF, and gives all necessary calls on the Multicom frequency, advising tracking details and altitude on climb to. Aircraft "B" then makes an "All-stations" broadcast on the area frequency when approximately 10nm from departure aerodrome, advising positon, altitiude and tracking details. Aircraft "A" hears this, and advises "B" of their position, altitude and tracking details. Aircraft "B" makes the decision to level the climb at 5500' until they are visually clear. Aircraft "A" acknowledges.

Aircraft "B" sights and passes directly under "A" by 1000', and acknowledges so, then continues climb to 8500'.

The pilot of Aircraft "B" sees the pilot of "A" the next day at another airfield and comments that he did not have "A" visual until the very last moment because of haze/sun, despite being aware of "A"s approximate position and positively looking for traffic in the area.

Is this not good airmanship? It blocks the area frequency for probably a total of 15 secs at the very most. The aircraft were obviously on conflicting tracks and passed directly under each other.

With NAS, would this exchange have taken place on 123.45 or some other frequency?

Thoughts/comments?

TL :confused:

[ferris]

TL.

Obviuosly, under NAS, as both are VFR in enroute airspace, they won't be using the radio. Relative speeds, angles of attack, sun, haze etc have nothing to do with it. The primary, secondary and be-all-and-end-all method of missing is see and avoid.
The NASites will argue that in that scenario, would the aircraft have actually collided? The answer is: Probably not. Even if they miss by a foot, they didn't collide. But you roll the dice enough times, you get double 6, or in this case 666. This doesn't seem to bother them.:rolleyes: Some of the rest of us might like more than a bee's dick between us and a horrible, unnecessary death.

The very scenario you describe is what Dick & co. rave on about. Unnecessary use of the radio. In their opinion. Read Dick's posts. VFR aircraft shouldn't be talking on the radio. This is the philosophy driving NAS, and about to be visited upon all airspace users, like it or not. Do you get a feeling for where some of the opposition is coming from now?

eta23. ATC jobs my arse! Controllers won't be the ones doing the crashing. NFI, mate, NFI.

[ugly]

Don't post Micro$oft Word Docs - they're bloody annoying. Post as PDF or html - easier to read (not everyone likes to make Bill Gates rich...)

[Aussie Andy]

ugly: the docs linked to above were to the CivilAir website, so probably not much point venting your anti-BillGates spleen here on the subject :confused: And even if you "don't want to make Bill Gates rich" you can probably read the above docs using OpenOffice for free anyway.

Transition Layer and ferris: Isn't it suggested that you tune to the relevant aerodrome frequencies (typically 126.7 I think) near to your track when en route for this reason? So instead of broadcasting the impending departure to the whole region on the area frequency, aircraft B's initial call would have been on the CTAF (say) and if aircraft A was employing good airmanship he would've been monitoring same whilst passing nearby.

This is how it works in many places - here in the UK, for example, if in class G and flying nearby to an airfield en route at low-ish levels, and if you were not in receipt of some other traffic service (e.g. LARS), one might typically tune the TWR, AFIS or RADIO frequency when within say 10 miles or so. I just don't see how doing this on an AREA frequency instead (I guess that would be equivalent to say LONDON INFORMATION which covers the whole of England practically) has any advantage?

(Note that England is a fraction of the size of the East Pilbara Shire in the NW of WA in which I once resided - not that its relevant, but still ... :cool: )

Moreover, think how much safer the scenario you describe would be if both a/c were transponding Mode-C (at least) and if at least one of them had a TCAS display (can be included even with relatively cheap gear like GNS-430 these days). If such were common fit, then it would seem to make even less sense to to tie up an AREA frequency and other people's time hundred's of miles away with the transmissions you describe.

That's my thoughts anyway...



Andy

[eta23]

Coral

I suspect the intended end result of the NAS will be fewer controllers. The controllers have obviously figured this out.
I'm not the least bit surprised at what their trade union is doing.

What it doesn't have is anything to do with air safety despite the bleatings emanating from various so called "professionals" here and elswhere.

The biggest threat to air safety after Nov 27th will be from the unprofessional behaviour of controllers and pilots opposed to the new system because for once they won't have got their own way.

Interestingly, I was in the US not long after Reagan fired all the controllers in 1981. I heard not one word of sympathy for them from any of the aviation people I talked to ranging from soaring pilots to commercial charter operators, airline employees, military, NASA etc. This was in the US where the controllers are actually friendly and helpful.

[ugly]

ugly: the docs linked to above were to the CivilAir website, so probably not much point venting your anti-BillGates spleen here on the subject And even if you "don't want to make Bill Gates rich" you can probably read the above docs using OpenOffice for free anyway.

Sorry - should have made that 'make Bill Gates richer'

M$ Office or OpenOffice - still a bloody slow way to read something that should be html or pdf.

The docs were in closed topics on civilair forum so couldn't reply there - I was hoping the poster might occsionally visit here ...

:rolleyes:

[Duff Man]

Not one controller worth his or her salt will ever behave unprofessionally. I for one will professionally and safely deliver whatever service I'm required to provide.

It's probably been said before (not a regular reader of the NAS threads) but I'm afraid it will probably take an incident post 27/11 for a rollback of airspace and procedures. I suspect this will be east-coast closish to capital city in high density VFR areas.

ps/ it might be the PCs that i use, but PDF files take a lot longer to load than word docs.

[Creampuff]

Open Mike is being grilled by the Senate Committee as we speak. Go here: http://www.aph.gov.au/live/webcast1.asp
and pick the link to the Senate Committee and Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport broadcast

[Ushuaia]

I'm an RPT pilot. Received my "Pilot Pack" yesterday in the mail. Frankly, I'm stunned. This airspace system means RPT flying is less safe than before. I challenge anyone to tell me otherwise. Passengers flying on RPT aircraft in Australia are being exposed to a less safe system. This is despite Mike Smith's assertion at the start of the glossy:

"And most importantly, [the current airspace system] does not deliver the level of safety that could be achieved by adopting a system designed to world's best practice"

What an obscure statement. He is trying to create the impression that the new system is safer. However the statement can really be read two ways: and one way is that the new level of safety achieved could actually be lower. It doesn't say the level of safety achieved is actually higher!! So I'll say it again: this is a less safe system for RPT passengers. Someone explain to me otherwise.

B747's, 767's, 737's, 717's now mixing it in Class E airspace with unknown, unnotified VFR traffic. Reliant on the VFR bloke remembering to turn his transponder on. Or we have to look out the window whilst doing 330kts and 4500 fpm descent, see a guy and manoeuvre to avoid hitting him? Pleeeeease.... And he may not even be on the same radio frequency. One of my near misses in a former life was in Class E airspace off the coast of L.A. Controller tried to advise us but got stepped on..... He managed to get an urgent heading change to us at the last second - as the TCAS went off.... Hmmm, Class E, great system of airspace..... right....

Yes, Duff Man, what's it going to take....?

[8kcab]

Just having a read of the "Propaganda Pack".
- They say "There is a suite of tools to assist see and avoid, which includes flying at correct hemispherical levels, radio, use of lights, TCAS and ATC Radar"

I am sorry for the VFR pilots out there in GA world, because when descending from FL 180 in E space,in a PC9, IFR, My lights are not on (attached to the gear( gear speed is 150kts)),I don't have TCAS, and I am descending at 250kts+and about 4000FPM. Single pilot, no autopilot, and yet be able to see and avoid other VFR traffic. Yeah Right.

Bring on the Near Misses!

[Pinky the pilot]

Just my 10 toea worth;
As an unemployed CPL with background in Charter and RPT; Recieved my pilot pack yesterday. Very nicely laid out, glossy\expensive etc. Read and ''inwardly digested" same.
Could someone please inform me why I have feelings of trepidation?

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Perpetual_Hold_File]

A disaster waiting to happen.

The first paragraph on the page titled "WHY CHANGE?" in the flashy propaganda booklet sums it all up.

Until the 1920s, pioneer Australian aviators flew "by the seat of their pants" - without air traffic control and with no radio contact with the ground

We're going back to the good ole days.


...some area frequencies and all boundary information has been removed from the charts. This reduces chart clutter and is consistent with a much greater emphasis on monitoring a range of appropriate frequencies...

But how does that tie in with;

Constantly monitoring an ATC frequency, where most of the calls may not be relevant, can lead to a false sense of security and reduce the effectiveness of alerted see and avoid where it really matters in the aerodrome area

Pages describing effective scanning techniques including "having a clean windscreen" and "avoid high traffic areas" show that this new airspace model is a joke.

Situational awareness through listening to the radio is a lot easier than scanning a windscreen from left to right for hours at a time.

What are VFR pilot going to think now? Turn the transponder on, listen to 121.5 and plough on up into it.

When the blood spills as a result of this inadequate, outdated and unsafe system where will the blame lay?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Welcome to the debate - we have been trying to get pilots involved in opposing this in its current design for months but to no avail. Read the now closed NAS thread - nobody seems to see the madness.

[tobzalp]

It I suppose makes some sense that most pilots did not really have an opinion until now. We at ATC have had these procedures and all of the paper work for quite a while and have been able to see the idiocy as it unfolded. Pilots have only recently received their info and from the new arrivals here are now adding to the growing concern.

Lets check a few things off here.

ATC don't think it is safe
Pilots do not think it is safe
A growing band of the Public (via their representatives) do not think it is safe.
NO JOBS WILL BE LOST FROM THE WORKFACE
THE TRAINING COST IS MASSIVE

So we have all the users and the customers saying it is not safe. Can someone tell me why we are doing this if it saves no money but costs lots for a degredation of service?

[OpsNormal]

The ATSB have been very quiet, or did I miss something?

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

Please answer those concerns just voiced by the pilots above. Eta23 you may hate controllers because of your lost flight plan, but there are a lot of guys out there flying for a living who appreciate what we do, and most importantly agree that the new system and the new charts are a joke (a very dangerous joke). So please respond, and try going the issues not the man. Also if you are able try and place yourself in a real pilots shoes and try and see there genuine concerns.

Those guys aren't trying to save there jobs, as you like to say, so why oh why are they agreeing with us that the system is more dangerous???

[Duff Man]

It's suddenly clicked. ATC don't think it is safe
Pilots do not think it is safe
A growing band of the Public (via their representatives) do not think it is safe.
NO JOBS WILL BE LOST FROM THE WORKFACE
THE TRAINING COST IS MASSIVE
Take the above quote in the context of Airservices' TCU Integration project. Common thread? An incompetant department of transport? A minister being used as a puppet? Spare me the conspiracy theories but something is seriously wrong in this industry right now. I just hope ABC's Four Corners are starting their research now, it'll sure be a big story in the next few months. Oh, but I guess the old ABC bias chestnut will be trotted out. As chestnuts do.

[Creampuff]

Than proof Hansard of the Senate Committee’s hearing will be put here, within the next couple of days: http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/s-rrat.htm

Search for “04/11/03” at that link, later today or tomorrow.

Interesting evidence by ATSB on the Whyalla tragedy, BTW.

[Chimbu chuckles]

****su tonka I think I've been on here for a while voicing a pilot's concern over this debacle:D

As stated above, pilots have only recieved, until the last 36 hours, small piecemeal snippets of 'education' on NAS. I recieved mine last Monday and have been reading it off and on since.

Let me first say the education package is truly impressive...oh that we had been given it three months ago. But then I suspect the result would have been more informed opposition to those aspects which are not terribly well thought out. Hardly what NASIG would have wanted!!

Big shame the effort hasn't been put into education on a airspace system which is inclusive of ALL airspace users and one that the majority of regular users believe is an improvement on what we had.

It's fairly obvious that the BIG winners in NAS is the VFR end of the industry, and if you read the education package from that narrow perspective it's all good news.

As an aircraft owner who frequently flies VFR I can see that being able to overfly class D at 4500 is kinda cool. But then I used to happily do that anyway...all it took was "Maroochy Tower, ABC, Moffet Head, 2500, tracking coastal north bound, request airways clearance"

Class C was/is no more dramatic, I just file a flightplan before leaving home...takes several minutes...big f**king deal!!!

We're told that NAS means a massive increase in Controlled airspace with it's attendant 'increased' levels of service. Well maybe but when is CTA not CTA. From VFR pilot's point of view it's a massive decrease in CTA with an attendant decrease in service.

I drew rye satisfaction from the "Let's Go Flying-Case Study". Having told us ad-nauseum that VFR should avoid IFR routes they actually managed to find two points not joined by an IFR route, I wonder how long that took. Two points among a spider web of IFR routes...man I just hope none of the pilots at Armidale or Gunnedah want to fly to Narrabri, Quirindi, Tamworth etc.

And on page 45 the picture of the single engine aircraft superimposed on the TAC/ERC under the heading how to use them...wandering northbound miles to the east of the IFR Route.

No real probems with the little 'frequency bubbles'..I'm used to that using Jepps on International flying...but then I'm not worried about looking outside at FL370 while I search half the chart to find the next frequency I need...and usually trying more than one to get two way comms!

TCAS has now been elevated from last ditch collision avoidance to, along with looking out the window, a primary self seperation tool. What a shame that a significant % of IFR aircraft aren't fitted. But that's OK affordable safety means that B717 etc don't hit anything....must be deemed affordable if a B200/C441/B58 etc clean up a non reported VFR, with his head down searching for the frequency 'good airmanship' now dictates he should be monitoring.

TCAS WAS NEVER DESIGNED AS A PRIMARY SEPARATION TOOL!!

VFR pilot's seem to now require, on top of WACs etc, a set of IFR charts and approach plates...not that they will be allowed to access the information therein to enhance the safety levels of their own operation...just so they can stay away from airspace which encompasses approaches used by IFR traffic.

Now I carry my Jepps on every flight, because I'm Instrument rated and may need them/do use them, but they're not cheap...do we really believe the average VFR pilot will be flying with current IAL information? Given the continued rhetoric from AOPA about they're not paying for this and that I hardly think so.

From an IFR pilot's point of view, particularly High Capacity RPT pilots, Australian airspace is about to become a scarier place.

So many gains for VFR users, who pay (virtually) nothing towards the systems upkeep. No gains but, arguably, less safety for IFR users who do pay.

Looks to me as though Professor Reason's Swiss cheese slices are lining up just a little better:mad:

Chuck.

[the wizard of auz]

I just got my pilot pack......... what a load of propagander and rubbish. I am now being ordered to fly around like the half licensed cockies in unserviced machines that have no idea whats going on in the real world, that we all rubbish.
If they ever had to change the globes in my aircraft they would never tell us to keep our lights on either.
What an expensive load of unnecessary bolloks.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Apologies to you Chimbu:ouch:

[tobzalp]

Chuck you made me realise that all of my concerns re the NAS are unfounded. I missed the very important characteristic of the model that VFR aircraft must avoid IFR routes and approach and departure areas. Thankfully when this hapens this means that all VFR aircraft will be well and truely out of the way of any collision risk.

Obviously seeing all of the VFR support for NAS the pilot of such will be heeding the rules and avoiding all of these above mentioned areas. It quite obviously is MUCH MUCH more restrictive than the current system where you can fly where ever you want. But hang on, you can fly anywhere you want AND MORE under NAS if you listen to some of the 'pilots' in this debate. Guess what, no you can't. The model alone tells you not to so by supporting it you support flying even more restrictively.

Tell me who this benefits again?

[max1]

Having followed most of the Nas threads, I thought I'd throw my two bobs worth in . I've been a controller for seventeen years.

We have, in the last 5-10 years ,seen major changes and reductions in staff numbers. The do more with less mantra. Thats fine. Most of these changes haven't been well thought out at a middle management level and usually involve the workface making it work until it is properly thought out .e.g. the TAAATS system is somewhere in the 19 000 faults area in 6 years. The great majority of controllers are here to help, we don't get any joy from delaying aircraft or denying clearances.

NAS looks like it is going to happen, well thats something else we have to implement. My greatest concern is that if the nightmare does occur ( a midair), however remote some may see that as happening, who are the lawyers going to go after? The people with the most money ( insurance), which will probably Asa.

What will Asa do? , try to prove that the controller was at fault and Asa was blameless. I have seen it occur. The Seaview incident is still vivid in my mind, the controllers ,who were blameless were deeply affected by their grillings by lawyers with 20/20 hindsight and glib tongues. And our employers did jacksh*t to assist.

If something does happen (however remote) my sincere condolences to the families, but spare a thought for the controller who will no doubt be tried to be fitted up with the blame for the whole fiasco. Even though he never spoke to the aircraft nor saw either of them on radar, even though the controller did everything by the book, he is the bunny and the most conveneient scapegoat. Think about it before replying

[Pass-A-Frozo]

I think the best thing to do is write you MP. You can do it on the web. Go to your Federal MP's web site, and put your concerns on there, and they will pass it on to the Minister for Transport (and ....)

[tobzalp]

(....and) he will call you confused.:hmm:

[Pass-A-Frozo]

Such little faith in our democratic system.
:confused:

[Chimbu chuckles]

tobzalp...perhaps you didn't catch the deeply sarcastic/cynical 'tone' of my last post...or perhaps I didn't catch the correct tone of yours;)

Spoke to a Grade 1, and experienced, Instructor today. All the instructors she works with are dismayed by what they've recieved in the mail the last few days. Come to think of it I reckon not a professional I've asked about NAS has anything positive to say.

I can see a few positives in the NAS...but they are so few and so minor that they are swamped by the negatives....this change is not worth the agravation IMHO.

Chuck.

[SM4 Pirate]

Thank Christ, it looks like the penny is dropping.

We the ATCs have been in full knowledge for some time, what with our hazard assessments and procedure developments and training...

I'm very encourage by the turn in this (these) threads in the last two days.

Max1, having being involved in the very event of which you discuss; the ATCs will be in the sights of the lawyers, both prosecutors (to get the money) and OoLC (to save ASA). As soon as they can finger a 'grossly negligent' employee the sooner the pressure comes off the higher insurance bills; that would be just too cynical right?

Just look at the cr@p that's going on post the BK accident. ASA ducking and weaving, changing reports, words, intent etc. Really supporting their employees huh, only if it gets them out of the ****e.

Bottle of Rum

[OpsNormal]

The ATSB take on.... "See and Avoid" (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/editorial/cavoid/index.cfm)

Problems encountered, and ways to fix the mess of the first "go" at fixing the airspace... (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/gspace.pdf) The most gripping reading is contained in Part 4 of the report.

How many of the people who are championing this new airspace fall into this group? Very interesting reading... (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/sdi/hffaa.cfm)
... and what is to be gained by making the system fit their needs better, at the expense of using an on-going useful safety tool (situational awareness booster), such as a humble radio? Used correctly, it is another pair of eyes which can be an invaluable asset, especially where the airspace is busy.

The fact that some people seem to ignore the fact that most of the origin of the 'constant noise' as they put it, is primarily due to the fact that many frequencies are paired together, sometimes many many frequencies can be heard over just one outlet. This is not the aviators problem, but the fault belongs squarely at the feet of the people who decided in the first place to cut a few jobs and chuck a couple of atc frequencies together. From there it got worse.

I am sorry, but even in my position within my company I cannot see much in the way of enhancing safety coming out in these new publications that have just arrived. From what I can gather the ones who stand to gain are the ones who fly the least, and certainly not for a living.

Flying is a priveledge, not a right. Wasn't getting your levy off your fuel enough, you are now chasing the very thing that was boosted-up in it's place to keep the government coffers ticking over because now you believe that it is your right to fly when/where you want?

The bottom line is... one of the most useful tools for avoiding a potential conflict is being further removed from our hands. A more realistic outcome would be to introduce that further spoken about gps thingie (radar replacement), and then perhaps reorganise the airspace and reporting requirements to suit that higher level of coverage.

Creamy, thanks for the link.... :ok:

I know I will pi$$ many of the masses off when I say this, but I feel that I will still be position reporting when changing frequencies. Sorry, I want others to have some idea that I'll possibly be blundering through their flightpath and give them the chance to either ask me to level, or level themselves.

[Chief galah]

IFR's

Cockpit workload increases while operating in a climb or descent phase. You should ensure that during this critical phase of flight your workload does not prevent you from looking out from the cockpit.
The risks are recognised here in writing. Can anyone tell me what the visual scan area from the cockpit of a B737 is? I imagine the vertical limits are restricted and the horizontal limits not much better. Have they examined if the "conflict window" exceeds the crew's ability to see and avoid? i.e. Is a potential collision intruder outside the normal scan view from an airliner's cockpit?

The worst case will be when climbing out of a D tower into the E steps. If there is a scattered to broken cloud layer topping out at 3-4000ft, and a unnotified lighty is legally VMC 1000' above the layer, then there will be little time for a crew to visually acquire the traffic, assess the risk, (disengage autpilot?) and take appropriate manoeuvring action.

The locations where this can occur have the greatest risk factors

No radar
Low level E airspace
VFR traffic not notified
Transponder serviceability or setting unable to be monitored by ATC
"Appropriate frequency" subjective.

If these points can get up in a safety case, (if indeed it has been done at all) then we could probably prove working with live electricity whilst standing in water is safe.

The snarek brigade have gone quiet. Second thoughts perhaps?

CG

[snarek]

CG

I am hardly a brigade. If you knew the internnal deleiberations of the AOPA Board you would know that I am neither black nor white on NAS.

However my personal concerns with NAS 2b are not strong enough to hold it back, as my problems are of a technical nature, and especially as some of it has been deferred.

I basically have frequency/comms concerns, but rather than whinge now, I intend to fly the system for a few months and try to make some constructive suggestions. I have spoken to people who have indicated they are open to and even supportive of changes based upon experience in the system rather than just an ideological union position.

I talk to as many people as I can, and in stark contradiction to what I read here, one senior RFDS pilot said to me "NAS is fine and the whingers are the second rate pilots" (or words to that effect). I have encountered some NAS concern, very little 'anti-NAS' sentiment and a general admission that what we have now is messy, expensive and unnecessary and urgently needs fixing.

AK

[Niles Crane]

Chief,

None of these issues have been "Safety Cased" as they are the same as the US system.

Only the differences have been safety cased and even those where done in the presence of the Biscuit King! So CASA had no choice but to agree with the system.

What is needed is some Niagras from the Acting Director of CASA or he will find himself in front of a coroner explaning his actions. The Minister will exonerate himself by saying he was under the advise of the Acting Director of CASA.

Once again we are being legistlated by the lowest common denominator!

We Live in Interesting Times.

[Chimbu chuckles]

CG...you're not suggesting they'd 'do a smiff' on us are you?:}

I agree that the D/E interface will be a potential disaster area. I tried posting this last night but got 'server to busy..' I'll use MC as it's one of snarek's bugbears.

My hypothetical;

Chap rents a 30 yr old C172 from Redcliffe to take family on a weekend trip up the coast somewhere. Having read carefully the NAS package he selects 'alt' on the mode C as he lines up on 07.

A strong SE wind is giving him a great GS as he heads north.

8 Dme MC he changes to MC TWR freq but just misses out on hearing takeoff clearance being issued to a Flying College LR45 which is being flown by a 300 hr cadet and an Instructor.

Something along the lines of "SQxxx maintain FL170, rwy 18, clear for takeoff, make left turn, contact Brisbane Radar 125.7 leaving 6000."

The cadet takes a good 30 seconds to settle himself before pushing up the thrust levers. Neither he nor the instructor notice a TA on the TCAS as the sun's shining on the IVSI and the instructor was destracted with line up checks, acknowledging takeoff clearance and final 'hints' to the young tyro in the RHS...it only being his second ride in the Lear pocket rocket.

By now the C172 is a little north of Point Cartwight over water as the pilot is carefully avoiding the runway approach/departure and is hoping to spot some whales for his kids to see.

As our cadet hit's 500' he curves left onto 090 to pick up the 120 radial on initial climb to FL170. As he rolls out on heading the aircraft is accelerating through 250kts and is climbing at 4000'/min. Within seconds he's curving right in an attempt to capture the 120 radial cleanly, and now above 1000' and they get an RA. For this readers not familiar with TCAS RAs are not given below 1000' so that they don't fly you into the ground.

Precious seconds pass as they sort out what's happening and, with the instructor pushing on the controls as well they get the needle in the IVSI into the green arc while searching for the threat aircraft.

A C172 appears in the windscreen passing agonisingly slowly from right to left and...too late... the left wing of the Lear hits the tail of the 172....they both spiral into the sea several miles apart.

What happened?

Why didn't TCAS and 'see and avoid' stop this tragedy?

Well the C172 pilot felt pretty safe at 4500' so close to the runway....what can climb to 4500' within 6nm?

He was also distracted by his 8 year old throwing up down the back of his neck.


What about the Pros in the Lear 45?

Well they were busy as f**k quite frankly.

The cadet was trying to drag his brain from mid cabin while the instructor had glanced down to check the gear and flaps were 'up lights out', the pressurisation was working & climb power set. He was coaching his cadet and selecting 125.7 to the active frequency so he could call Brissy approaching 6000 (in about 15 seconds from now)...all in preparation for the cadet to call "After takeoff checklist" (hopefully, remember his brain is just aft of the fwd galley by now) after established on track/above MSA and establishing two way comms with Brissy.

But they got the IVSI in the green arc...they should have (just barely) missed the 172?

Well after dragging the two aircraft from the sea and checking maintenance records ATSB's best guess is that perhaps the transponder was transmitting an altitude a little higher than actual. It hadn't been checked for over 10 year as there is no such requirement for VFR aircraft.

Or perhaps the 172 pilot saw the LR45 in the last few seconds, nose high and clearly climbing at an unbelievable rate, and in a reflex shoved the controls fwd to avoid the midair...thereby rendering the TCAS RA useless.

What could have stopped this chain of events?

"Maroochy twr, ABC, Moffet head 2500 for Hervey Bay, request airways clearance".

"ABC maintain 2500, track direct to the field, taffic is a departing LR45 rolling shortly rwy 18, left turn"

"Direct the field, 2500, ABC"

SQxxx- Maroochy twr, Traffic is C172, 6nm south at 2500', maintain 1500, rwy 18 clear for takeoff make left turn"

Couldn't happen?

Well that's not the experience in the US.

Chuck.

editted for snareks last post. Just yesterday spoke to an experienced grade 1. She was horrified by the NAS package and suggested that was not an uncommon reaction by the other instructors she knew!

[snarek]

Actually

It hadn't been checked for over 10 year as there is no such requirement for VFR aircraft.

There is, and mine has just been serviced again on the request of Cairns controllers. The trouble with 'scheduled service' is it often stuffs up a perfectly good unit that then has to be recalibrated as was the case this time.

I would prefer to have mine checked by the (obviously new) system the approach guys have and not do the Inst 8s or 9s.

As for your scenario, well the VFR was operating legally, seems the IFR was not.

I am sure there are people out there who are 'horrified', I just haven't found any yet. From an AOPA perspective, the current Board policy is set by the majority and that policy is to support 2b and monitor the implimentation of the rest.

That means AOPA is open to any suggestions AOPA members may wish to make on the topic and this comment may change Board majority opinion. So, I suggest you ask any members you know who are 'horrified' to contact any one of us as a matter of urgency.

AK

[Shitsu-Tonka]

I have spoken to people who have indicated they are open to and even supportive of changes based upon experience in the system rather than just an ideological union position.

WTF does it matter if it is a 'union' that is bringing this to your attention? There is no industrial benefit in it. It is purely on professional (i.e. safety) grounds that the controllers association (and many others if you hadnt noticed) are trying to get heard amongst the 'noise' of private aircraft owners and their knight in shining tam-tim armour.

By now it is apparent for all and sundry to see that rolling out the 'union protecting their jobs' line is a transparent fallacy - try it out on gullible newcomers to this debate, but don't insult our intelligence - you might just appear two faced.

How about addressing the real and specific practical concerns that have been raised by those here with a daily dose of this system - and all the points raised in the previous incarnation of this thread.

Glossing over the sticking points should be left to the Minister and his spin doctors - after all, they are so good at it.

[Chief galah]

snarek

There is an aviation world out there besides AOPA and it's members. From my dealings with part-time pilots, they have little idea of the big picture of the industry. This is evident in their posts as well.

Even tho' we "control" C CTR, where transponder use is mandatory, we are constantly reminding pilots to activate transponders, change code, check alt, recycle. The discipline is not there now and I can't see this improving. Additionally, faulty transponders are not detected until ATC intervenes. It's only the primary radar backup that reveals the aircraft in the first instant.
But as primary backup is not available at remote locations, faulty transponders render traffic invisible to all detection.

I would like to know how many are going to be able to take advantage of E airspace. Apart from the riskiest area of E steps to D towers, will your members be able to drag their Grummans above 8500? Just a poultry (sic) few I suspect. So why have we placed the paying public to unnecessary and increased risk. There is no logic to it.

Niles C.

This is the folly of NAS. Anyone who thinks we will have the same as the US, obviously has serious delusional problems.

CG

[AOPA_members]

I am sure there are people out there who are 'horrified', I just haven't found any yet. From an AOPA perspective, the current Board policy is set by the majority and that policy is to support 2b and monitor the implimentation of the rest.
That means AOPA is open to any suggestions AOPA members may wish to make on the topic and this comment may change Board majority opinion. So, I suggest you ask any members you know who are 'horrified' to contact any one of us as a matter of urgency.

Do you really think the New board is interested in its members perspective?

If they really are interested in us members they should set up their web site with a quiz on pressing issues a bit like an online Survey. You can see an example of this @ http://www.ozipilotsonline.com.au/home.php

They should also get out in the Aviation Community at the grass roots and see what people have to say. We need to see the human side of the AOPA board as real people who are genuinely concerned about us individuals and collectively too.

The perception of the AOPA board needs to be turned around from Board members from pushing their own personal agenda’s once elected, to pushing the collective agenda of the AOPA members & General Aviation for what they where elected for.

At the moment when you vote in a AOPA election it is a bit like playing Russian roulette or spin the bottle as none of the candidates have a policy, so we know what we are getting if we elected the individual. It is a bit like investing in something without knowing what the return is going to be in the end.

We just have to hope this all changes in the future, so the AOPA members are not flying blind when it comes to election time.

[snarek]

CG

There is an aviation world out there besides AOPA and it's members

Yes there is, but we are here to represent them against the regionals (who, given the opportunity would own all the airspace), the RAAF (who, given the opportunity, would own all the airspace) and the ATC union (who, given the opportunity would control all the airspace thus pricing VFR out of the system).

Just as your union represents you, we represent our members and because they pay the bills, we listen to their opinions.

You want your opinion considered by us, join.

But as primary backup is not available at remote locations, faulty transponders render traffic invisible to all detection

And transponders ain't mandatory in 'E' now, so NAS improves this situation markedly!! :ok: (not that I'm agreeing to mandatory txps below 8500' anyway).

How many members can drag...

their Grummans above 8500

I thought you guys were supposed to know about aeroplanes :E

Well both the Tiger and Cheetah can operate quite hapilly at 12,000' as can most normally aspirated a/c with more than 150 horses. I regularly use 9500' on longer trips. Many of our members have TC'd Arrows, Cessnas, Bonazas, Twins, 'super' homebuilts etc. For many of these FL250 is no challenge!!!

Oh, and in answer to the typical 'anti-AOPA bleat' of the previous poster, I did this already on

www.aopa.com.au

Just go to forums, Airservices issues.

AK

[Chimbu chuckles]

Umm snarek what were the IFR Lear crew in my hypothetical doing that was 'illegal'.

I'm as fallible as the next guy but that example of a departure with a young inexperienced trainee was pretty much, in general terms, what I have experienced first hand.

Not knocking the excellent fellas at SQ Flying College at all...just a generic example of what CAN go wrong.

I see in your post above you don't even support mandatory transponder below 8500 in E....so in my hypothetical they wouldn't even have got the RA in the first place!!!:mad:

Chuck.

[buzztart]

What drivel again snarek,
AOPA is a union( for pilots and owners), no different to civilair, AMA etc. Its job is to protect its members and enhance their position. Civilair does not want to own all the airspace, but rather make all the airspace safer and more user friendly. :O

[ferris]

Snarek:
How does not using the radio make flying cheaper? How does NAS 2b make flying cheaper? What changes are proposed in the charging system that will make flying cheaper? What NAS end state will make flying cheaper?

[Capn Bloggs]

Snarek,

You said:

And transponders ain't mandatory in 'E' now, so NAS improves this situation markedly!! (not that I'm agreeing to mandatory txps below 8500' anyway).


Rubbish. Have a look at AIP ENR 1.6 8.1.3: if you've got one, it MUST be on AT ALL TIMES and AIP GEN 1.5 6.1.2: in E airspace, transponders are mandatory unless you're flying a bugfrightener.

Given your fairly senior position in the AOPA pilot's union (and therefore, I assumed incorrectly, with a good grip on the rules), this merely demonstrates that the average joe-blow VFR jock is far removed from the skilled, competent and knowledgeable VFR airspace system user that you mob are relying on to prevent midairs. Here's a question for you: how many of your members actually know what an AIP is??!

If I had a dollar for every VFR I have asked to turn on their transponders because they were off, I'd be able to retire and not put up with being dicked by Dick.

[triadic]

Snarek

Andrew, as a very long term AOPA member I am really concerned at your ill informed comment on this subject thru this post.

YOU ARE .. WRONG WRONG WRONG
The concerns expressed here by both regional pilots and ATCOs is all safety based. No other reason. Neither party want to own any airspace or control any airspace that does not need to be controlled. The military have less airspace than a decade ago and its availability to civil aircraft has also improved over the same time period. These members of the industry do however want to ensure that how either they participate in the airspace or manage it is as safe as it can be and that all identified risks have been mitigated against to the best extent possible.

Please by all means express your OWN opinion, but don't peddle the cr@p of late as a representative of the AOPA board, giving the impression that AOPA policy is what you say when it is clearly not.

And by the way... have a read of your AIP - GEN 1.5


6.1.2 All aircraft, except aircraft operating to the VFR which are not fitted with an engine driven electrical system capable of continuously powering a transponder, must be fitted with a serviceable Mode A and Mode C SSR transponder when operating in Class E airspace.



You should not be suggesting to any light aircraft pilot that they don't operate their transponder when failure to do so may place them at risk. Remember there are no winners in a mid-air, just loosers - we all loose. Why, because it puts our industry on the front pages when it is going through its worst time ever - and you know what the media are like, not to mention our insurers!

All responsible light aircraft pilots that operate aircraft with transponders should operate them AT ALL TIMES and any suggestion that they either don't have to or should not is most irresponsible.


70. OPERATING REQUIREMENTS FOR TRANSPONDERS
70.1 Pilots of aircraft fitted with a serviceable Mode 3A transponder must activate the transponder at all times during flight in non-controlled airspace, and if the transponder is Mode 3C capable, that mode must also be operated continuously.



Again as an AOPA member I am concerned that MP has accepted without question the whole story peddled by the NAS IG. Not once have we been asked as members what we think, neither have we been given a list of the questions asked and the replies when those briefings with the NAS IG took place. Supporting 2b was an easy out to remain politically acceptable to those in power and not necessarily acting either in the best interests of the members and the industry at large.

If the hard questions were asked and answers provided then most of this thread would not be here.

"no known traffic" :ok:

[Creampuff]

All your NAS questions answered, at page 53 onwards:

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S7054.pdf