View Full Version : NAS truth challenge, can you post without the attacks????

Gunner B12
19th Dec 2003, 21:20

I am just a low time PPL but this ongoing debate about NAS is beginning to get confusing.

So the challenge is, if you post to this thread you must have either sound factual evidence for your stance / argument, or reasonable support for your position.

I don't accept the wait and see argument! If you were the one introducing this as legislation, in a fair and real world, you would have to quantify your reasons for your belief this is right. I am a very intolerant person and will delete this post if people don't comply with the rules, then repost without the offending posts. so I would appreciate it if you could keep my involvement in that regard to a minimum.

The floor is open......

Convince me......

20th Dec 2003, 07:03
...the gap between the expert view of risk and public perceptions of it. Brief Discussion of some tosser's book (hope that doesn't count as an attack (http://www.decisionresearch.org/Publications/Books/Perception/)

What you ask is impossible Gunna, there is no real way to rigidly quantify the risks. Learned boffins (and passing amateur f'wits) have examined the data on collision rates in the US & Oz, and drawn the conclusion that there would be no decrease in safety to implement the US system. Reasonable enuf I suppose, but we are comparing a system where airliners bang into lighties with one where they haven't.

Other learned boffins (and now-entrenched f'wits) have drawn up lists of what we can't actually implement from the US (radar coverage, sectors the size of house blocks, hundreds of VOR, crews & ATC that grew up with the system and understand it, loads of regional/secondary airports, lots of towers) and have decided these aren't important. This is an assumption, can't be proven, either way.

As the system is implemented and people try things previously thought unsafe and nothing happens, or bad things happen or overactive imaginations sweat or even rational thinking about the possibilities occurs when they look at their bedroom's ceiling at night; everybody involved then extrapolates the risks in their head. Sadly, they're not qualified to do it. Not the ATC, not the pilots, (or the f'wits,) they are reacting to their percieved risk. The aforementioned boffins supposedly understand it, but (personally) I don't believe they do.

The percieved risk to an airline CEO who's golden parachute depends on a high share price threatened by the possibility of a clang dropping aluminium on an orphanage is different to that of a charter operator sending an old, expendable aeroplane out with a kid at the controls who pays for the privilege of flying it.

Tis a leap into the unknown. Even a clang or two in the next few years may not prove anything either way.

Mixture Rich
21st Dec 2003, 09:24
My chance has finally come. My Login problem has been solved. So many posts - none of which have appeared.

TO set the record...270hr PPL with NVFR. Fly every week in a well maintained aircraft. Just ask my LAME and my wife...one smiles while the other cries. Have just installed Whelan Comet strobes, new wingtip quartz halogen landing lights and Pulslite (aka Sunstate dash 8 - 300's to improve conspicuity to other aircraft.

So there you have it. I am an amateur. Flying is not my profession BUT I still try to fly professionally AND that statement does NOT need to incur flames from CERTAIN (ie, not all) ATPLS, CPL's and ATC's who feel that THEY and they alone have the rights to any and all things profesional in australian aviation! I am an amateur yes, but I am NOT an idiot.

Having said that, I accept the fact that there are some idiots in GA. Can I postulate that, having read all posts on all threads relating to NAS2b, GA does not seem to hold the rights to the affliction. It seems to have spread to some of the professionals as well. Let's hope it does not become an epidemic.

Now, on to NAS2b.

In my, amateur, opinion and those of my PPL colleagues whom I have asked agree, the system seems less safe. Whether that reduction in safety will cause the sky to fall and aircraft to follow, is yet to be seen. The Minister says one thing ie keep away from airports, navaids, IFR routes etc, the AIP's say another ie avoid WHERE POSSIBLE. Centre frequencies are on the maps, in places, but no boundaries. That's why I have kept my old maps. We are not suppose to talk on or monitor centre frequency. Codswallop. Airmanship dictates that we MUST if appropriate.


I have NO intention of flying over mountainous terrain, real tiger territory, to keep away from airports and navaids just to satisfy Dick Smith's greater plan.

I have NO intention of NOT monitoring the APPROPRIATE frequency, which will be CENTRE Frequency on Comm 1 and the next appropriate MBZ / CTAF / UNICOM frequency on Comm 2.

I WILL ask for a Tx check on departure and on approach to Class C airspace and I apologise in advance if this upsets Controllers.

I DO NOT apologise to the Head Honcho at Brisbane Centre, whose photo has recently appeared in numerous advertisments, for taking up valuable airtime when his Controllers are obviously "busily" attending to "emergencies".
BTW, whoever is responsible for that pic should be dismissed. They obviously have NO idea about body language. His photo depicts an image of a man being threatening, obstructive and non-cooperative. But then again, perhaps that's the image he wanted to portray. I hope not and it is a shame if it is because I know his Controllers are not like that. I know many personally. The VAST majority are professional, obliging, easy to get along with (barring bad hair days) and, when workload permits, even jovial. Now that I am NOT ALLOWED to converse with them I will miss all that.
All in all, I guess the only thing I wont be doing is making a broadcast to Centre freqncy when I leave my MBZ. However, if I am aware that there is an RPT on it's way in then I will be. If I get a slap on the wrist from a Controller then that will be a small price to pay for safety. I am yet to depart on a flight of any substance where I submit a flight plan..ie ALL flights other than a jolly to the beach late on a sunday arvo where the airspace is only occupied by me, a few pelicans and a few ultralights. I don't know as yet, when I depart on a planned flight into E, if I will be given a discrete code and if, in that instance, I will be asked to contact Centre. I guess I wont as I dont need clearance into E. Bloody crazy isn't it.
In summation therefore, can I advise all PROFESSIONAL pilots, including some of the ones on other threads who, unable to control their emotions, have been unsulting, childlike and denigrating, that I will continue to fly under NAS2b as professionally as I did under the old airspace. I will continue to monitor centre frequency as being the most appropriate and I will continue to alter track, slow down, speed up etc to facilitate YOUR RPT aircraft as much as possible.
There is not much more I can do or say except to say that I applaud the post from Bush Pelican on another thread. He appears to be experienced, sensible, intelligent and calmly used fact not fiction nor insults to make his point.
Stay safe up there and have a great Festive Season.

21st Dec 2003, 09:44
Good post MR

Merry and safe Christmas.

BTW I will be suprised if you hear a controller briefing you for any such commendable R/T - if you do I hope they walk differently the next day because I suspect peer pressure (reaming) will prevail.

Chief galah
21st Dec 2003, 12:27
There are plenty of pilots

(1) like MR who want to be involved and aware of what's happening around them,

(2) who don't particularly care.

NAS has made it harder for (1) and easier for (2)

Give us a call anytime MR


22nd Dec 2003, 13:49

Nice post!- I agree entirely with the above comments!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/smokin.gif

Here’s a precedent that our VFR brethren can "hang their hats on": -

- Class D tower – Procedural E A085 – A045 (with a pinch of Clayton’s RADAR, TSAD), D below.
- Local Operator of a large number of “lighties” involved in ALL facets of flying training (Instrument Training VFR etc). Since Nov 27 have been:-
- Broadcasting their positions and intentions in E so they then become “Known traffic”, and issued as such (Workload permitting..)!.


Because THEY CAN NO LONGER BE SEPARATED and DO NOT want to be INVISIBLE to others. They want to be HEARD and hopefully SEEN, because that’s as good as it gets in procedural E!.

Can’t blame them!.

If its deemed necessary by those operators as “the only mitigator available other than Eyes”, I cannot see why other VFR should not broadcast in and around the terminal area if it is relevant!.
Common sense prevails.
Listen early to what is around and if it is “flat chat” delay entry into the terminal area for 2-5mins, keep listening until your clearance into D on descent or over-flight intentions can be handled without causing additional frequency saturation problems.
NAS2b has already increased saturation problems with the amount of traffic information being issued instead of the lesser chatter necessary with positive clearances/separation i.e. (Less blah blah of DTI). :mad:
“Late announced” traffic in E (Traffic Info for o/fly or clearance into D) can quite easily create “proximity” problems with insufficient time to “Issue Traffic” in an attempt to “Prevent a collision”.:sad:

ATC have been instructed that we cannot attempt to separate VFR and IFR in procedural E for fear it could cause a collision with other Unknown VFR traffic:hmm: , but given enough “time”, we can issue Mutual Directed Traffic Information!.
As I said, best you’ll get from procedural E and definitely what RHS would call “OVERSERVICING”!. Better than nothing I guess!

Lets face it, if it is that busy, who in their right mind would want to be hanging around unannounced in E waiting to be clobbered by a NIL TCAS Metro/Kingair or heaven forbid a B738 in RA mode attempting to avoid “Biggles” and his “recently tested transponder” that has an encoder error of 300-400ft!.http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/Gif/WBWileE.gif

Happy holidays to those that have them!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/Flowers.gif

And to the rest:-http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/moreek.gif
You lucky, lucky, lucky bastards.............................:hmm: :E

.............................Coming Aunt Morag…….F..http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/vscared.gif

22nd Dec 2003, 17:35
Procedural E???

How for out, 20 nm???

Call who, tower??? Or whoever is in the biscuit???

AF via Mackay, Rocky and Maroochy tomorrow, so I will give it a try.


22nd Dec 2003, 18:59
Evening Ulm

Procedural E is Non-RADAR E i.e. IFR are separated from IFR using procedural separation standards such as VOR lateral, DME distance, INM from a geographical point, vertical, visual or various combinations running together etc.

Depends on your altitude but easiest rule of thumb is 10nm prior to the CTA step applicable for your height!

D Tower in the first instance if youre not sure and they can advise you if there is more appropriate frequency i.e. If radar coverage exist to the top of class D then the sector folks might be administering A045 and above and therefore their frequency might be more appropriate.
That’s one of the ridiculous things with this E stuff is that each D tower has a different set of operating norms dependant on RADAR, INST APP heights etc.
How any pilot in E is suppose to know if the are being monitored on RADAR (Centres) as traffic or NOT (Tower E) is beyond me, thus better to ask if you are not sure.

If other ATC's from Centres or D towers with low-level E airspace have any thoughts on this I would appreciate your inputs?

Hope the trip goes well!:ok:


23rd Dec 2003, 09:00

For what it is worth I can not think of ONE controller worth their salt who upon seeing that advertisement , who did not shake their head in disbelief and disgust.

Actually, I laughed........................OMG you mean that was SERIOUS ? I thought it was Roger showing the Brisbane troops his sense of humour :bored: :ugh: :yuk:

23rd Dec 2003, 09:16
This may be old news, but just incase,

Article from yahoo news: CASA to review air safety system


Safe flying

Mixture Rich
26th Dec 2003, 09:57
Thanks guys,( & Girls) for the positive responses.

I think that with the application of common sense ( ie turn those bloody transponders on for Chrissake, who cares if it costs 10 bucks in terms of landing fees or Nav charges - if you can't afford that, you can't afford to fly) and, some tolerence for the bound to happen occassional slip up that we all make from time to time by the less perfect amongst us, me included, we can make this poorly fitting shoe which has been thrust upon us, fit.

It wont be a good fit and it will make us stumble from time to time but if we are careful we, hopefully, wont fall A over T.

In the meantime, perhaps Minister Anderson, ( 'cos he didn't llisten to my letter ) CASA, AA, Mike Smith and HRH R Smith, will listen to the concerns we pilots (from GFPT to ATPL) and ATC's are voicing and modify the current NAS to suit Australian conditions. Either that or we import the complete US system to bring ours up to scratch...but then we cant afford that, which is why we have the Silly Solley's version.
Compliments of the Season to all and yeah, Im workin' too.