How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

We have heard alot of talk about the negative aspects of the NAS.

The question is, especially to supporters of the NAS, how does the NAS actually improve the safety of Australian airspace?

[Beech Boy]

Yep

Lets hear it...................

[Capt Claret]

This shoud be interesting.

From an initial perusal of Enroute and Terminal charts, it seems that Control Steps are easier to work around, mostly they seem more concentric now than perhaps in the past. This must help somewhat.

However, whereas in the past one could remain in CTA for an entire flight between controlled airports, one may not be able to do that.

How Class E can be called controlled airspace when only IFR are controlled has yet to be explained to my satsfaction.

I read another post somewhere, which I understand to be suggesting that in part NAS is to allow VFR greater use of the airspace, by allowing entry into Class E without needing a clearance, or to neccessarily be on the same frequency. If my understanding is correct, and that's the view of the wider VFR fraternity, I'm worried.

It's a long time since I've flown VFR, however, I don't ever recall being denied a clearance to operate in CTA or any discouragement to do so. It almost seems that NAS is to allow VFR greater freedom without the attendant responsibility.

In short, I don't see that NAS improves safety one iota. Rather the opposite actually. :eek:

[ferris]

Air safety will be improved because there will be less chance of actually colliding with anyone. It's axiomatic- less movements equals less collision risk.
Whilst NAS diverts attention away from the real cause of the slow death of GA in oz (the relentless increase in charges, either for previously subsidised services or the addition of charges by the sale of public assets such as airports and infrastructure- don't even get me started on taxes and GBEs), the decline will continue.
Keep fiddling while Rome burns.




A genuine lament.

[On Track]

Ferris:

I think your remarks would be funny if they weren't true.

Capt Claret:

As one who usually flies VFR. I have to say that I believe that I should be on the same frequency as the IFR guys when I'm in Class E (or even Class G if there is no more relevant frequency to monitor).

It's all very well to say that IFR and VFR cruise at different levels, but there are times when both IFR and VFR climb and descend and I think that's when situational awareness is paramount.

Now that I've had a chance to study the new VFR charts (in particular the Sydney VNC), I just don't understand why some of the ATC frequencies have been removed.

Which brings me to my question: If I'm flying near Tuena (a little place nowhere near an airport) and have an engine failure in a single, on what frequency should I give a mayday call?

The new VNC doesn't tell me which ATS unit I could talk to, or for that matter, which frequency local IFR traffic would be on if I wanted someone to relay a message for me.

(Is anyone really going to be monitoring 121.5?)

The old VNC shows very clearly that it would be Melbourne Centre on 135.25 and that 124.1 would also probably work.

To get that sort of information now, I have to go to another chart (the ERC).

I just can't see the "safety benefit" in that.

On the positive side, though, I think it's great that they've decided to print the Flightwatch and AERIS frequencies on the charts.

And I've also noticed that the frequency for Victor One has appeared on the Sydney VTC for the first time - more than 10 years after Victor One was instituted.

[Offchocks]

Capt Claret....your understanding of E airspace is correct, I and many others are concerned as well. I get to see it on Sunday for the first time doing three days of ground hog (SYD/MEL).
By having "see and be seen" accompanied with transponders for VFR aircraft and TCAS for airline aircraft, everything is supposed to be fine and dandy.....in someone's office on the ground maybe.
TCAS is a last resort device. "See and be seen" is not that functional if you have closing speeds of 6nms per min (about 1.1km in 6 seconds) or IFR popping out of cloud in front of VFR!

On Track....90% of the time, Qantas aircraft monitor 121.5 and I presume Virgin do as well. You would stand a good chance of being heard, especially on the East Coast. You may also hear someone calling their ops dept!!!! :O

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

One of the most incredulous aspects of the new NAS and its implementation, and this is just one of MANY, is the way that the propagators and supporters of this system scatter like rats up a drain pipe whenever any probing or hard questions that require proper, fact based answers to safety concerns of the people who operate in the new airspace, whether they are professional or recreational, are asked.

I find it astounding that people like Dick Smith and Mike Smith who put in an appearance on these forums some time back thinking it would be a cakewalk and then promptly disappeared when the questions got too hard and the kitchen got too hot.

Likewise, people like Snarek, 2B1ASK1, Time Bomb Ted et al are good at making sarcastic and unconstructive commentsand masking their lack of supportive ideas by treating professional aviators with arrogance and dersion, yet where are the safety facts?

Your silence on this subject matter - the benefits to safety brought about by the NAS - is deafening.

The excuse of 'why speak to people who don't want to listen' is a convenient one to hide behind, but I can assure you that I for one would like to hear the positive safety benefits, just in case I missed something, or there is something I am not considering. I am sure that there are others with the same idea.

As it states on the licence, flying is a 'privelege' not a right. If you can't handle flying in CTA, using the radio correctly and operating your aircraft without requiring the whole system to be effectively 'dumbed down' to the point that safety becomes comprimised, well you shouldn't expect everyone else to carry the can, risk wise.

Still,we all await to hear from the supporters of the NAS, how safety is improved under the new system.

Supporters of NAS, the soap box is all yours...........let's hear it.

PS Edited for brevity

[320/20]

And try this for size..

today two lighties requested codes for entry into Coolies airspace...where r u boys..you got transponders...??? oh yes but one had his turned off and the other on standby

subsequently turned out both had been flying extensively in class E airspace around YBBN and YBCG

and NAS only 2 days old.

being one planted in front of a radar screen all I can say to you guys is good luck. Even your TCAS wont save you because of the likes of these two cretins!

Dick Smith, Mike Smith, John Anderson - remember those names..they will be the accused!

and I for one hope and pray (and I am not a religious type) that we dont see San Diego 1978 revisited.

320/20

[Aussie Andy]

320/20:and NAS only 2 days oldWell I suppose its when its new that you are going to get more people not yet "educated" that they need to have their transponders on above 10,000' (it was above 10,000' was it?)... If so I trust you duly reported this lack of complaince so it can be followed up appropriately.

Col. Kurtz:
we all await to hear from the supporters of the NAS, how safety is improved under the new system.We seem to love our soapboxes on planet NAS a bit! :) I don't think you can suggest people aren't answering each others points in the reams and reams of argy-bargy and insult that's been verging - at times - on being a genuine debate in these fora... (now I'll get off my soapbox ;) ...)

I think that there is a bit of a circular argument going on, and the stage has been reached when you guys just aren't going to see eye-to-eye here. So, you will fly the system and see how you get on with it and then deal with the problems - I think thats where we are now, right? For good or for ill.

But to try and answer the point you raise, as an outsider, I'm not sure that the argument that has been postulated is primarily that safety will be improved under NAS, but that the US system on which NAS is based is demonstrably safe enough, so, au contraire, the problem you seem to have is to explain why it is necessary to maintain what was a radically different system from that of almost every other jurisdiction on the planet which features what some would see as a number overly restrictive and inefficient practices - including lots of pilot-to-pilot broadcast and two-way chatter on wide area ATC frequencies. You may disagree, but the law (ok, regulations) of your land have changed in this regard, on the 27th, with the introduction of NAS2b...

At this point, the anti-NAS group tend to say Oz is unique because "in the rest of the world they have radar everywhere..."; then the pro-NAS group say "that's not true..."; and so the "debate" becomes circular.

Meanwhile, there is a point that has been made suggesting that there is a positive safety impact brought about by NAS (in addition to the reduction of chatter on wide-area ATC frequencies, which I know you won't agree with). The suggestion is that controllers responsible for Class D will, under NAS, be obviated of the need to also manage their overlying Class C sectors (where this was the case), and that this therefore means that they will be providing more focussed attention on the traffic closer to the airfield, and that as this is where more accidents have tended to occur, that this should result in a better safety outcome. To which the anti-NAS response has been that this alleged safety benefit will be offset by the perceived degradation of safety where Class C has been downgraded to Class E. And you won't agree, and again the argument has become circular.

I do not imagine that the above will resolve the debate: but I think it shows the falacy of the claim that "the silence is deafening" as arguments are being made on both sides: its just that you're not agreeing. This is compounded perhaps by some frustration, so you are getting all emotional (understandable if you passionately believe that safety will be degraded I suppose) which leads people to make such dramatic statements, I guess.

Does this help!?

Cheers all,



Andy

[MoFo]

It never ceases to amaze me that a reasonably intelligent human being, flying VFR, would leave the transponder switched off, or without Mode C.

I mean WHY???? If the thing is fitted into the instrument panel why wouldn't you turn it on in all modes?

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Andy, I asked a simple question.

There have been no positive answers, not even yours.

This post was not a soapbox rant, it was a question. eg 'It does because....."

Many supporters of the system come up with all sorts of rationale to support the system, but when pushed for the benfits, especially toward safety, well things go quiet.

I am yet to see an answer to the question. But there are plenty of guys I named previously who are quick on the keyboard to express sarcasm and insult the professionals who work in this environment on a daily basis, knowing there are guys, by their own admission, who can't do a VFR flight across 60 miles and actually get the ****e together enough to deal with 2 frequency changes once exiting the CTAF, or others who can't switch on a transponder. And then they wonder why airline pilots worry about having to share airspace with them when they may be known or unkonown, and may not even be monitoring another frequency - but still lay blame at the árrogant regional drivers'- do you consider this 'safe enough'.

What constitutes 'Safe Enough'? What kind of % risk of a MAC or accident becomes acceptable? At which point do we accept that an increase in that % is ''safe enough'. At what point is the floor of 'safe enough'.

For a start, part of basic airmanship demands that we do everything possible to minimise the risks, and ENHANCE safety in our flight operations. Yet you have a government and an implementation group who are increasing the risks attached to flying, especially RPT flying.

At this point, the anti-NAS group tend to say Oz is unique because "in the rest of the world they have radar everywhere..."; then the pro-NAS group say "that's not true..."; and so the "debate" becomes circular.

The Anti NAS group say that the new system IS unique, because despite what the propaganda would have you believe, the new system is only loosely based on the US system. Too loosely to be adopted directly and implemented without a proper safety case being made.

And this is one of the biggest concerns and cause of concern to most, if not all, critics of the system.

Yet the pro-NAS sector use the argument that the critics are afraid of change, or are greedy users of the airspace. I think I can generalise here that and state that professional pilots have no problem whatsoever with sharing airspace with all aviators, professionals or recreationals, as long as it is done so in a SAFE MANNER. You would find few who critics of the NAS who are against an IMPROVEMENT in airpace and the SAFETY Australian airspace.

But why replace a WORKING and safety proven airspace with some uniqueness, to ANOTHER uniques airspace arrangement that has alot of safety 'unknowns'. LAst time I checked, Australia was not the 53rd State of the USA (despite our current governments wet dream)

Do you fly IFR? Do you fly high performance aeroplanes? Do you have to transition in one of those aircraft from C to D and vice versa through E knowing that there is a very strong possibility that there are known and unknown aircraft, like the guys that 320/20 talks about. I suggest not. Otherwise mentioning terms like 'safe enough'would not be.

There are plenty of resons why the new NAS is less safe, and there have been plenty of discussion about that on these forums. Just because the 'government' has çhanged your regs' does in no way remove them from criticism or in the very least moral responsibility for creating a more hazardous work environment for pilots and cabbin crew, as well as for the travelling public and the people who live under the airspace.

So the question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?

[I'm gone!]

Gday all,

Col. Kurtz,

I don't beleive you will ever have your question answered. There is in no way known to man that the implementation the NAS could EVER provide ANY increase to Aviation safety by pure virtue of its design :confused:

I dearly hope that myself nor anyone I know is involved when the enevitable happens.

Sad state of affairs is all I can say:mad: :yuk:

Cheers,
I'm gone!

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

yeah, that's ok.

But why don't they just come out and say it:\

"We want to make/save money, so we are going to increase the risk to flight. In the process, so we can look like we have some legitimacy, we will garner the support of the private aviating sector by dumbing down the system down so they don't have to actually be on top of their game, they will fly more, and we will look like we are the saviours of GA. If we ignore the industry, including the airport operators, long enough, they just may disappear, complaints and all'

The weirdest thing is that the biggest part of the problem seems to be the biggest supporters - but they can't back up their rationale!!

[Chief galah]

Finally someone has cottoned on to the operation of transponders.
As 320/20 pointed out, there is enough evidence to show pilots forget to switch to alt. or the transponder is faulty. I can back this up 100%. Even our professional IFR's forget more than one would think.
At the critical locations (AS, LT, HB), operation of transponders by the local GA's is probably even more unpredictable. They've never had to bother too much about transponders, and they've never had to worry about transponder serviceability. ATC at those locations don't have the ability to remind pilots of transponder problems. So TCAS is useless in those situations.
The last line of defence is to expect the VFR's to be monitoring the "appropriate frequency" and to respond when they think they are in conflict with other traffic. I find this just as fanciful as expecting them to know where all the holding patterns are, and to be able to avoid them.
And MoFo, there are plenty of reasons why transponders are not operated by VFR pilots. Some of these reasons, believe it or not, are because

1. They think big brother is watching them, and
2. They do not wish to be pinged for some illegal operations.

These are the sad facts.

CG

[Capt Claret]

Perhaps a slip of the fingers, or perhaps not yet around Transponder requirements.

320/20 was refering to lighties in Class E.

Transponders are required for flight in Classes A, C and E; as well as all flight above A100.

Interesting that they don't seem to be required in Class D? :confused:

[Pole Vaulter]

Now that the ERC chart is the best (and sometimes only way) to check what frequency to use, as of 1 Dec when you go to buy one at your local pilot supplies store you will find Air Services have increased the price from $2.85 for each chart to $9.20. Nothing like a 300% plus price rise as a way of showing how NAS will save us money. Sure you will get 1 free chart for the current issue and in 6 months time but what of the people who need all 8 ERC's for exams (ATPL) and 5 charts for CPL. Most of the time you do not even look at the maps that you are required to take in to the exams. Just another way of bleeding money fron the GA pilots. Shameful act from AirNoServices.

[Aussie Andy]

****suDont spout this TCAS crap anymore if you cant even turn your transponder on when cruising in E. What a rude t*sser you are: "I didn't spout any TCAS crap" - and if you can't be civil I will ignore you. Dipstick.

Pole Vaulter: £3 for a chart!? You don't know you're born...

[Pole Vaulter]

Dear Mr Andy,
There is an old saying "when in Rome etc" I am not comparing the Aussie ERC's with any pommie charts. This post was made to show what a farce is was to say this was to save money and immediately a 300% increase in one single chart is made. Wait for the others. As to the price of charts in the UK. You my man made the choice to be there. If I was as mixed up as you I could put in the prices of charts in the US and Canada but then again that is not the purpose of the post.

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Andy, I notice that if you can't answer a question, you will ignore that too!

Alot of the issues regarding the changes to airspace significantly affect the professional pilots who, by virtue of the fact that the operate in this new airspace on a near daily basis, poses a greater risk to them than 99.9% of the PPL/Recreational pilots who feel that this airspace is the 'great white hope'.

Also, the ATCers who have to monitor the airspace, and probably feel a moral responsibility to work to avoid the potential MACs the new system has opened greater opportunity for.

Neither groups have been consulted properly, many many questions have not been answered satisfactorily, and as a result, there is a great amount of frustration, resentment and concern (just in case you missed it) about the WHOLE thing.

So, if people get a little bit 'mouthy', well it should be understood. I don't remember anybody appointing you moderator. Whilst I personally wouldn't use the same phraseology as ****su, I think he is right in that for months, after the questions got a bit too 'hot', well certain people 'dissappeared', when there was still alot of questions to be answered.

I can assure you that there is a huge difference between flying a warrior up the BK LOE to Williamtown and flying an RPT jet or turboprop mulltiple sectors per day into what is now safety degraded airspace.

My suggestion is to you is to cease being the moral policeman, stop diverting attention from the issues by your ignorance, answer the questions when you start debate, and/or stick to your area of 'expertise' - flying private aeroplanes in the UK.

[Aussie Andy]

Morning' all!

G'day Sgt. Kurtz ;)Andy, I notice that if you can't answer a question, you will ignore that too!But, maaaate, you ignore the answers you don't like! I tried - honest guv'nor - to answer your questions when you said no-one can any what the safety benefits of NAS are, so I listed two that have been suggested by proponents of NAS in these fora, namely:

i) that it is more safe for controllers of D underlying what was C, now E, to be more focussed on traffic close in than far out as this is where - statistically - more incidents are likely to occur; and

ii) that it is more safe for the wide-area ATC frequencies to be uncluttered by broadcast messages which were being heard hundreds of miles away and, arguably, were generating R/T congestion and increased controller workload.

I also understand that there are counter-arguments to these points - which you and others have made. For a start, its clear that you and many others are not persuaded that i) above is safer than the current system, and that you don't think ii) matters. I can understand why you think this, and that you think that a better safety case for the new system overall should be published before implementation of the changes. I think that's a fair point, and as I have said above (elsewhere) it seems that the implementation is a bit rushed, with the education material only being sent to you blokes a short time before the cutover to NAS 2b.

So why do you still say "the question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?" I think perhaps it is not because no-one has answered the question, but because you don't agree with the answers provided, which is what I was trying to say earlier on. So its a bit specious to suggest you are just being ignored, which is the impression I think you were trying to give.

No I don't think I have been appointed moderator (and that would be a tough job!), but if someone's just blatantly rude to me I will respond in kind then ignore. Fair'nuff?

I don't doubt your - or anyone else's - expertise by the way. But I think the great thing about these fora is that all the different viewpoints can be aired, which surely helps us all understand where the other side are coming from better than without the debate? But you seem to feel that unless someone has your same "expertise" (I have mine too but its not as an airline pilot ;) ) then they should not be entitled to a view: sorry, but that's not one of the choices!

I also just think that there's such a ranting and a wailing going on, that someone should voice the aletrnate view, based on the idea that what is being introduced and what is being worried about is viewed as pretty normal elsewhere and there is not evidence that the basis of the system has generaly more unsafe outcomes in other countries. But you think otherwise, I know, because you say its not EXACTLY the same in Australia... and round we go!

So I hope that my thoughts and contra-views are helpful - if not you can ignore me, change the channel or whatever :-)

BTW, which point didn't I answer? If it was the one about where in southern England is there an IFR/VFR approach mix through Class G without radar, then the answer given was Shoreham. Sorry if I missed another point - but I have had to put some time and energy into my day job too y'know!

Pole Vaulter: point taken (that they are putting up the prices) - but I don't think the price of maps will be a significant component of the overall economic benefit analysis of the new system, do you? Yes I have chosen to be here, but I am not mixed up about it? What's that about? :confused:

I think Chief Galah makes a very good point about transponders being "fail off" and the reasons for this, that some VFR pilots think big brother is watching them, and they do not wish to be pinged for some illegal operations. This is a real issue and a terrible danger - whether your aisrpace regs changed or not - and should be clamped down on hard. I also just can't understand why - other than simple forgetfulness? - you wouldn't squawk Mode C at all times... I have plenty of mates here who fly commercial passenger services who suffer from TCAS alerts caused by some dipstick at low-level only showing Mode A etc. It just causes grief. Still I believe that most traffic is squawking as it should, and that the problem is to properly police and severely punish / make an example of those that don't when they should (in Class E say). I think it should be treated in the same manner as airspace infringements.

Best to all,



Andy :ok:

[Capt Claret]

In the view of many, myself included, the concept of a Class D tower controller having a much reduced area of responsibility making it safer doesn't hold water.

Imagin the poor sod having several IFR, which through ATC co-ordination, the Tower will know about, roll up on frequency at 15nm, along with several VFR popups.

Practice in the immediate past was to contact Alice Tower, for example, at 60DME. They would then issue onward instructions, occasionally imposing speed control. The Tower had a complete picture of what was coming and enough distance to massage competing requirements and priorities. Soon (Alice tower looks after Class E to FL125 until about Jan) he'll have only a few minutes.

[Aussie Andy]

G'day Capt Claret:Imagine the poor sod having several IFR, which through ATC co-ordination, the Tower will know about, roll up on frequency at 15nm, along with several VFR popups.Good point. If this environment at Alice is as busy as you say (i.e. that you routinely have several IFR and VFR pop up at once 15NM out) then it sounds like your real problem is that there should be a radar environment, and perhaps no one has funded that? Why do you think that is? Surely the airspace regs is a separate (albeit complicating) issue, and you would already have a need for radar if your airspace is such a high density environment? Or is it the case that the airspace is not high dnesity enough to warrant radar? Or for all I know the real underlying problem here is purely budgetary?

Andy

[Capt Claret]

I don't agree. Radar would be nice but the controllers at Alice have managed very nicely without it.

The point I was trying to make is that they will have less forewarning than pre NAS, yet the argument for reducing the size of their patch, is to increase safety. Sorta out of sight out of mind!

I don't think any of the Alice controllers are happy about the changes either. Yet another example of what others on these fora have pointed out. Namely the Implementation Group haven't consulted any of the coal face professionals, or answered any concerns, other than to say our complaints are an industrial ploy or resistance to change.

[Aussie Andy]

Hi,the Implementation Group haven't consulted any of the coal face professionalsSo from what you and others say, I suspect the real issues are the politics and consultation process of this issue, perhaps more than the fundamental principles of the change. That's what I am hearing anyway.

Andy

[Capcom]

Col. Walter E. KurtzAlso, the ATCers who have to monitor the airspace, and probably feel a moral responsibility to work to avoid the potential MACs the new system has opened greater opportunity for.Absolutely!
3 days in the seat and I am already convinced that when “**** turns to trumps” AusNAS is gunna contribute to a MAC eventually.

The following rumoured to have already occurred:-
- VFR Nil Transponder 20nm from a D zone at A065 in E
- VFR Nil Mode C, Nil Comm O’fly D in E
- VFR leaving D into E A045 6nm out monitors a G freq instead of D/E till clear of the terminal area
- VFR cruising at IFR levels in E

Individually not a huge deal, relatively quite for each, won’t always be that way!

It is becoming clearer that any ability to “catch separation” for IFR and a pop up VFR is all but lost in E i.e.

DHC8 30nm on descent “Visual Approach” leaving A090, VFR calls At 20nm in E A050 for clearance into D at a “Bearing from the airfield” (within 20deg of the track of the DHC8), what do ya do?

1st – Issue mutual traffic information (15-30s) as we apparently cannot attempt to separate IFR from VFR in E just in case by altering the flight path or altitude (Maintain) of the IFR could cause a collision with another UNKNOWN VFR in E!?!?
2nd – Try to ascertain a more accurate position of the VFR for separation/segregation into D, if in any doubt! Then
3rd – Leave the VFR in E until a sight and follow or some other form of separation/segregation becomes apparent! Or
4th – Update traffic information and let them both rip on into D……..Faaark!!!:zzz:

Result

VFR are delayed into D if a confliction is considered “close”
IFR have “traffic info” only for descent through the VFR in E
Preventing collisions to aircraft under our control cannot be effectively achieved i.e. IFR/IFR and VFR in D and IFR and IFR in E, when VFR are already in the E airspace at close proximity to D vertically and laterally.

In this case the DHC8 monitored the traffic on TCAS for the descent, lucky the VFR in this case was not Mr Example 1 above!!!!

The same scenario with “C” over D

VFR would call at 35nm and receive a clearance inbound on descent, (before the DHC8 called although I have an estimate well prior so I know the Dash is coming) positive separation applied to the DHC8 above i.e. A step descent (Any level assignable not just IFR levels) until both visual to the tower, or lateral or one of the many other standards available. EASY and SAFE!.

There are lots of other operational difficulties with Tower E (outside radar coverage) over D, this is but one to highlight the retrograde step E is over C.I think he is right in that for months, after the questions got a bit too 'hot', well certain people 'dissappeared', when there was still alot of questions to be answered.Yep, interesting the ones he left completely alone, the rest was political waffle that did in no way address the practical aspects of AusNAS and particularly 2b. In the end there really was no point continuing debate with them. I guess they worked that out also and slipped away to Timbuktu and elsewhere quietly.

They went away, The Kings came and went and we were none the wiser, we now know why!.

Aussie Andyi) that it is more safe for controllers of D underlying what was C, now E, to be more focussed on traffic close in than far out as this is where - statistically - more incidents are likely to occur; andWell if they said that and you believe them then explain why?

I explain above, IMHO it has made our airspace less safe and less flexible!!So why do you still say "the question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?" I think perhaps it is not because no-one has answered the question, but because you don't agree with the answers provided, which is what I was trying to say earlier on. So its a bit specious to suggest you are just being ignored, which is the impression I think you were trying to give.Yep, “IGNORED”, these questions have been asked of the handful of NAS supporters and NOT ONCE have they backed their support with answers that resemble practical or statistical analysis. When we (Professional Pilots and ATC’s) put the practical aspects back at them they flee…I think Chief Galah makes a very good point about transponders being "fail off" and the reasons for this, that some VFR pilots think big brother is watching them, and they do not wish to be pinged for some illegal operations. This is a real issue and a terrible dangerThat is the sort of thing that makes me wonder?, you think AusNAS is OK yet accept that Transponders are an important mitigator in class E (TCAS as a primary separation tool), yet will not accept that in C TCAS and pilots eyes remain a "Second tier safety net" only needed when ATS or Pilots screw up!. That does not happen that often compared to the number of successful separations effected each and every day.
NAS E cannot in anyone’s language be considered as safe or safer than C.
Not ranting, wild accusation, just FACT that cannot be denied by the NAS brethren.

When it eventually happens:-

Anderson will plead - “But the experts said it was safe!”
Smith and Smith will plead – CASA and AsA said it was safe!”
CASA and AsA will plead – the ATC’s/Pilot’s did not prevent the collision!
Do you have any idea how many years the legal process takes to run its course, can’t blame the next of kin wanting answers and accountability can we?!.

Aside from the potential loss of life and loss of confidence in our industry! Which end of town do you think will get it in the neck post accident? …………… “Big Picture” my man!!!

With respect Andy, you have not provided anything other than transnational interference. Enjoy your RADAR E and leave Oz to us.

"The question remains: How does the new NAS improve Air Safety in Australia?"?

Oh, I get it!:E
It’s a trick question!…………
………..There is NO answer!!!!:\ :ugh: :hmm: :{

Not surprised to hear about the SW4’s………………….5hit Oh Dear!!!
:uhoh:

[Binoculars]

In other words, "Aussie" Andy, if RPT pilots and controllers in the UK were having an exchange of views about proposed and arguably dangerous changes to their system, what credibility do you think an Australian private pilot would have if he stuck his nose in because he flew there twenty years ago?

I notice Dick got his opinions printed in the national newpapaer again this weekend, sprouting the same old stuff. Reminds me of how the national road toll was going to reduce because Dick's reforms to airspace meant that aviation would be so cheap and so safe everybody would be flying. A pity the newspapers don't come here and listen to the views of the workface pilots and controllers instead of swallowing this simplistic boy scout nonsense.

The CEO of AirServices, yet another Smith, has confirmed that ASA have no say in this whole business. They don't formulate policy; they simply implement it. In other words they do what they are told. By whom? By a minister who knows nothing about aviation, guided by a private pilot with his hand up the minister's back.

Why is the minister listening to this private pilot when all around him the protests from those who actually work the system are getting louder? What an excellent question. Well, Minister? Are you a bit worried about a popular (except with professional aviators) independent threatening to stand against you in your electorate unless you pass these changes?

No? Oh well, just a thought.

110 paydays to go, if I make it that far. :yuk:

[ferris]

Andy, you keep trotting out the lie "but they do it like that elsewhere, and it's fine". Either you are perpetuating this lie because you believe the NASIG spin, or you are being dishonest. The differences are all over these threads (the primary one being radar coverage).
Airspace System . You can't just change the services provided in parts of the airspace, then claim "it's the same as the U.S.", unless the whole system is changed (radar coverage, FS, flight following, 'control culture' etc etc.).

And yes, it would help if you understood the politics as background. It might give you some insight into the frustration and anger displayed. (eg. watch with dismay while large area freqs are joined onto control freqs, despite the warnings, in order to sack the FSOs for "efficiency". Then have "freq congestion" cited as the reason some of these stupid changes are required. The same people who stuffed the system are stuffing it further. The U.S. system has FSOs, so when will they be re-hiring them? We are getting the U.S. system , right?)

[Outback Pilot]

May I ask, if Australia's Air Space system was so safe before 27th Nov 2003, then how come none of the other Countries are using it? :ok:

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Outback Pilot; if having the constitutional right to bear arms was so great, why is it that it happens only in the US?

ANother example of flawed rationale and sarcasm - no substance and zero answer.

Andy,

I really think that you need to look at the new system and stop swallowing hook, line and sinker the propaganda that you are being fed. For Class D towers, how does a reduced airspace (lateral limits for example) enhance safety. Being non-radar, the separation/information is procedural or visual. One of the problems introduced is a greater 'time pressure' imposed on the twr controller. For example, say Tamworth, which has a good mix of RPT turboprops, Air Ambulance, BugSmashers and CT4 and other trg aircraft, with the surrounding C airspace withdrawn, the airpace the twr controller controls is now the D CTA step up to A045 is now 15DME, the time the tower controller has to control an incoming Dash 8 , say doing 220KTS gs on descent, and look at the 'traffic picture'and then give traffic info on VFR aircraft, is 4minutes. Previously, C went out to 36nm (in the SE Quadrant) which gave the controller just under 10 minutes to 'map things out'.

So the argument 'that it is more safe for controllers of D underlying what was C, now E, to be more focussed on traffic close in than far out as this is where - statistically - more incidents are likely to occur' now introduces a greater risk to human error and MAC due to the increase of stress and pressure on the ATCer.

Re the frequency congestion, that could have been solved by not linking frequencies as much as is done, as well as pilots, especially the privates, adhereing to proper radio procedure and phraseology. This would go a long way to reducing clutter. To be honest, if you fly an aeroplane, and you can't sort the wheat from the chaff broadcast wise and what pertains to you in your vicinity, frankly, you shouldn't have a RTF operators licence, or be flying in the first place.

I suspect the real issues are the politics and consultation process of this issue, perhaps more than the fundamental principles of the change. That's what I am hearing anyway.

Whilst it may seem that the critics are on a 'girlie rant'about not being asked, it is not in the sense that it seems to you: you need to look a little closer at the issues.

It is not about being resistant to change, but it is a resistance to change that has negative effects on the safety of our airspace.

When their are cries of lack of consultation, it is not because the industry expects to be asked for permission, it is about 'hey, we operate in this everyday, and we are capable of foreseeing problems in its operation and where the safety of the system is comprimised - we can help iron out the problems, or assist with a fix', instead they don't even get a PROPER SAFETY CASE!

But the implementors, don't want to hear the bad news that the new NAS HAS flaws - and IS an accident waiting to happen - so consequently, ignore the industry, and go about its implementation in an autocratic manner, resulting in, you guessed it, a pissed off industry for having this ****e, for no proven COST or SAFETY BENEFIT, forced upon them.

By the way Andy, I do commend you for sticking your head up and debating the points. Most of your peers have scattered, or can offer no more than sarcasm and cheap shots at the critics.

[piniped]

A question...

if the US airspace is sooooo much better than ours, how come they are about the only first world country (or 2nd and most 3rd ones as well) not to be using RVSM?

Does this mean that the RVSM that is used in the rest of the world is unsafe?? OR, is the US lagging behind us in this as well as other ways.

Just makes you wonder doesn't it?:*

[bekolblockage]

Spot on piniped. Think Oz led them with civilian DME, T-VASIS and Interscan as well. Strip away the glitz and glamour from the good ol' US of A and you find a tired old dinosaur underneath. Health system, Education system and ATC systems are all the same- held together with string and sealing wax but lots of mirrors and marble to make it look good. We just make all the same mistakes as them but about 30 years later. NAS will be another.

[MrApproach]

Piniped I think the answer to your question is that the US has not only more aeroplanes than anywhere else but also more old aeroplanes than anywhere else, particularly high flying freighters, biz jets and the like. The cost of fitting them all for RVSM is astronomical and the operators are still fighting the move. It will of course come because it dramatically increases the efficiency of the airspace ---but back to the real topic