Can anyone spell ROLLBACK?

[SM4 Pirate]

Big rumour doing the rounds, NAS2B Part B is on the cards, which includes removing most if not all E airspace and replacing it with C...

Draft MAPS have be sighted; I understand that a big meeting has been called in Sydney tomorrow, about 20 people from ML and BN attending with 15 hours notice...

Seems like the legal eagles might have caught up with all this; insurance issues...

CEO's and GM's looking shakey, someone has to take the fall for John Anderson...

Ex HATCs must be feeling a little better right about now, I suspect.

Bottle of Rum

[Next Generation]

Where are you now Dick ???????????:hmm:

[barleyhi]

Please put the frequency boundaries back on the charts!! Then at least we can listen on the right frequency

[Spotlight]

How many took Jeppesons advice to hang on to the old charts?
Seemed a reasonable precaution at the time.

[ozbiggles]

I don't think it has to much to do with insurance but everything to do with politics. IMHO I think the (insert word here) transport minister has realised(?) that its easier to deal with one person no matter how famous and how often he threatens to stand against him in an election than a 737 with a Cessna embedded in it.
As for the charts and airspace that should be easy, dig out the old ones that everyone saved because we could see this happening.
Still to early to say we told you so but maybe a new dawn of common sense will occur....hmmm no I don't think i can back that up.

[tobzalp]

If this is indeed more than a rumour I for one am thankful.

[Captain Sand Dune]

Well if it is a rumour, I like it!:D

[compressor stall]

They will most likely roll back the E with C bits that are the biggest safety concerns, but implement some other OCTA changes that would otherwise have got a huge outcry.

"Why are you complaining when we listened to you?"

A small concession to get the other bit in.

:}

Yes, Transport Minister.

[KLN94]

Yes bring back the frequency boundaries. And if the issue is clutter on the radio due to chatter, why not have two frequencies for each sector; one for below 11K and the other for flight levels?

[tobzalp]

I saw a piece of paper that said frequencies were being put back on, design was to change and new eduaction material was coming out. Of course just rumour.:ok:

[contrails03]

But you have to ask yourself, what would have happend if we didn't have the Launceston "serious incident". Sometimes a tragedy has to occur before people admit they were wrong. There is no room for this in Aviation.

I hope once the airspace is cleaned up, our politicians learn a big lesson, don't trust any tom DICK or harry with airspace reform :ooh:

[Atlas Shrugged]

Quote from "The Australian"

"............However, private pilots support the changes and are likely to be incensed by any attempt to roll them back......."

Can someone please explain to me why the media insist on making statements based upon an assumption that I, as a private pilot, support NAS and will resist any attempt to roll it back?

I am a private pilot who does not support NAS for a number of reasons many of which have been discussed in other threads and I for one, will be more "incensed" if they do not roll it back.

Bottom line - take airspace which is controlled and remove that control either in part or wholly, and it becomes less safe. This is a plain and emotionless fact and the same whichever way you look at it or whichever way you want to twist or distort it. End of story.

I do not support such system and how dare those :mad: 's in the media assume that I do?

Atlas
(That feels much better!)

[KLN94]

Quote The Australian: "And it wants new charts to include radio frequencies at airspace boundaries.

So common sense is prevailing...!

[turbantime]

Good to see things being done about the whole debarcle.

From a flying instructor's viewpoint though....what do we say to students? Hey sonny, remember what I taught you a while back, well forget it all cause it's gone back to the way it was! :oh:

[poteroo]

NAS 2c is even worse than 2b - we need to roll it back before implementation

You must feel sorry for reporters -they just don't research their subject. My experience of what PPL's know and feel about NAS is just the opposite.

The PPL's that I contact in WA don't want to change anything as per NAS 2b or 2c. They have enough problems staying current, and are fearful that these dictated changes will be difficult to learn, and inherently less safe.

There is no way that 2c will improve safety. With radio, perhaps, but without - you're joking.

If you can't afford a radio in your bugsmasher - then you shouldn't be flying. We can't register a car without turn indicators to give prior warning, ( = situational awareness), to our fellow drivers. We have had 60 years experience with radios in aircraft, and they are cheap. A lot cheaper than human life - which is what we need to equate them to.

An ag aircraft in the USA may well be able to operate noradio - but most don't - because they understand the basics of 'situational awareness'. But, if they want a government or local government contract - they must have (1) a turbine - for noise abatement, and (2) DGPS - for accuracy and accountability.
In other words, technology has been written into everyday business arrangements.

Yet here we are in OZ, arguing about whether it's important to allow for freedom of expression via not mandating carriage of VHF radio! Radio is part and parcel of becoming situationally aware = safety. So too is GPS.

How indeed can we explain this deliberate 'ignoring' of technology to the general public, and not feel somewhat backward?

NAS 2c ignores technological progress. It's a step backwards for all aviation.

happy days

[Chimbu chuckles]

Is it just me or has everyone else noticed the almost complete lack of pro nas posters of late....you know all those tossers who were so dismissive of informed, concerned anti nas opinion?

The obvious exception being Big Dick...I truly cannot say want I would like to about this individual on this BB.

:mad:

Chuck.

[tobzalp]

Alot of those tossers were actually all the one guy so it turns out (Hi Andrew).:8 := :cool:

[SM4 Pirate]

Whilst not trying to defend Steve Creedy at the Australian, I suspect that reading between the lines he was refering to AOPA; who purport to represent all private pilots. We all know this isn't the case, but it's just easier to do it the way he did it.

The editor prabably cut 7 or so key words...

The hazard workshop on Wednesday came up with the 'final' best option to achieve ALARP.

There are many others working on alternates to the alternate.

Seems the clowns (ASA Board) want resolution within days, but we all know that is extremely unlikely.

Watch out for the NOTAM reclassifying Class E to Class C... The risk of someone undertaking a VCA is the same as the current situation so no more risky. Assumption is that most will get it right; result increased safety levels for all.

Big meetings between all key players this week, decision by the end of next week; after all the hazards have been identified... hmmm.

Bottle of Rum

PS NAS is Dead, long live, what is it?

[Ushuaia]

The move comes as major airlines are understood to have increased pressure for changes by adding their concerns about the new system to safety fears expressed by air traffic controllers and pilots.

It'd be interesting to know exactly HOW and WHERE the majors are suddenly applying this pressure. To date, they have steadfastly, publicly, supported NAS and Anderson. They have been afraid to get on the wrong side of the man for all sorts of strategic reasons. I've heard this first-hand.... Frankly, to have left it for the employees/unions to fight the battle is pretty disgraceful. The same can be said about Airservices management. It also puts the management chains in very uncomfortable positions in the event of an incident or worse.... i.e. if you know something is wrong then you have a DUTY OF CARE to speak up or you could be considered to be partly responsible.

Now the "airlines" (ie management) are sensing it's politically savvy to apply the screws to NAS? Sheesh.... thanks for your timely support! :(

[KLN94]

Quote: Bottle of Rum

PS NAS is Dead, long live, what is it?

Just some thoughts on what we could refer to the system in use prior to NAS...

PAS - Previous Airspace System?
OAS - Old Airspace System
BAS- Better Airspace System
LAS - Logical Airspace System

Any further suggestions?

[tobzalp]

Haz ID meeting Wednesday.

Insurance
Attorney General
Oooops
AsA CASA Split stuffed up
Oooops

[amos2]

Don't you just love silly old John who said that he expected that there would be the odd incident or two while the system was "bedding in"!

Not too far removed from saying that he expected the odd hull loss or two while the system was "bedding in"!

Wonder whether his wife and kids have been doing any regional flying lately?

[Islander Jock]

amos2,
Wonder whether his wife and kids have been doing any regional flying lately?

I think you will find an answer to your question here

Coffs Harbour Advocate - Editorial (http://beachfrontapartment.web1000.com/advocate_scan_ja.pdf)
link originally posted by ****su-Tonka on 17 Jan

The silence by the many of the chief protagonists of NAS on this and other forums is almost deafening
:O :O

[triadic]

Like other scribes to this forum, I have been enlightened by the by Voices of Reason thread and congratulate VoR for his/her/their efforts in putting together the information and promoting the discussion. I will not distract from the quality of the discussion on that thread.

Whilst a proponent of airspace “reform” for some years, I, like many others are always concerned when matters like this go “political” because the direction or push for the change takes on a completely different direction, which usually does not fit in with what many may think is in the best interests of the industry or the nation. The national good must come first, not the ego’s of those in power or those that may have influence in those (upper?) circles.

It is tragic that during the course of this project the bending of the truth has become an art form (some call it lies?) and in fact some of the presentations have been in direct conflict with others, sometimes by the same presenter!

The ARG, are a complete farce, with little credibility in terms of airspace design or management experience. Individually they are out of their depth in providing such specialist advice, and as a group they are a joke. Clearly it is there as a vehicle only for the Minister to say he has some experts (in what) to make these decisions or provide him with advice. Some might say it is a vehicle to give Dick a more valid platform for his views? Not once to my knowledge have the ARG presented themselves to the public let alone the industry to justify their views and decisions, which have now been proven to be misguided. The special meeting of the ARG on Monday with the Minister will be interesting and it will take all the political skills of the Minister and his advisors (poor ones at that) to get him out of this mess. Both he and Dick have walked the plank on this one and it will be fascinating to see how far it will bend before it breaks?

The reform of airspace in Australia over the past decade would now have cost close to $50M in my estimates, when you factor in the costs of ASA, CASA, DoTRS etc. ASA would have spent somewhere between $10 and $20m alone. And where have we got?

NOWHERE

One does not have to be very bright to know what the common denominator has been on all of the attempts to date to make changes to Australia’s airspace structure. It’s all about politics, not safety or efficiency or saving costs. Remove the common denominator and we just might see some successful reform?

Not since the AMATS project in the early 90’s has there been anywhere near the amount of education that is required when major change (of any sort) takes place. Mike Smith has said that he is of the belief that the education has been significant, well sorry Mike, but you need to do 4 or 5 times more to get anywhere need the amount needed. One of the reasons that this project is now clearly about to show (yet again) how we can waste money in this country. Education is the key to any change. It is a pity that the proponents of this so called reform don’t seem to understand that and the many associated issues (such as culture) that need to be tackled in the process.

The recent comments of the new CASA boss Bruce Byron are encouraging as it is CASA that has significant responsibility in monitoring the implementation of any change process in aviation. At least he has recognised what many have said for sometime and that is these changes (including the education package) must be set in concrete a minimum of three months prior to the implementation. Common sense I would have thought, but then it went political.

My sources suggest there has been much unrest and concern within CASA and ASA on the direction and methods taken by the NASIG, but they have all been either ignored by DoTRS and it’s senior officers, who perhaps have not made these concerns known to the Minister. Seems they have been told to follow the policy of the Government (or else?). Politics at it’s worst, especially when safety is involved.

The recent incidents were quite predictable and may have been avoided in part if the education had been up to the required level. We can always blame the changes, but I question if more of an issue is the very entrenched culture that we have in Australia and the total failure of NASIG to address it with any success. If the participants don’t want the change and it is not sold to them there is little chance it will ‘take-off’. Many have believed for some time that we already have “world’s best practice” in many of the things we do, so why should we have to change? Politics again I suggest! Certainly VoR has addressed this matter and I believe he is right on the mark.

Not even the USA follows ICAO and has many differences (both notified and others). As those that have been about for some time would know, it is often said that it takes seven (7) years to process changes through ICAO (but I hear it is getting better!). Well, it is also a fact that to make any change in the US is very difficult again because of the very entrenched culture. A response in an international forum, a few years back, when a question was asked relating to when the FAA controllers would start conforming with a particular ICAO recommendation, the answer was that it would be easier to change the ICAO recommendation - that says it all!

Yes, call it rollback if you like, but it is the only clear choice right now. The existing direction is well off the tracks and has little hope of success until there is confidence in the proponents and the political pressure is removed. We have the ability to make significant efficiency gains and comply with most of the ICAO recommendations without the pain of the existing NAS proposals. Let’s do it.

[QSK?]

KLN94:

SAS: Safer Airspace System

Atlas Shrugged:

Me too! I am a private pilot who has been against NAS the day it was first mooted and have also contributed extensively on this forum with a view to destroying NAS.

I would sincerely hope that the other professional pilots/controllers on these forums also viewed me as a "professional" pilot even though I only have a VFR rating!

[tobzalp]

Seems I have an admirer. Careful? Cornered? Sounds nasty. Check pms.

[Duff Man]

Just saw a newsbar headline on ch 7 'sunrise'
Airservices Australia admits problems with new airspace - but no changes.
Can't see any press releases or stories online yet.

Sounds like the spin doc has made a house call; perhaps the real fixes/rollback to be incorporated in a rushed NAS 2c.01?

Especially odd considering the AIPA release 'applaudes [asa's] proposal ... to make significant changes' to NAS.

[QSK?]

I've also heard this morning, that the only changes will be to some E airspace around capital cities and frequencies back on charts. Essentially, NAS 2b to remain.

[Duff Man]

Airservices Australia media release (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mediainfo/press/Archive/prarchive2004/PR03_04.asp)

Airservices Australia has previously indicated it is undertaking a review of certain aspects of the National Airspace System introduced in November 2003.

Chief Executive Bernie Smith, in the course of reviewing the NAS operation, said today the corporation had identified that certain governance obligations may not have been met in relation to the NAS 2(b) changes introduced in November 2003.

He also said that when the Board approved the changes they were satisfied the changes were safe.

“Nothing has come to light since then which indicates there are unacceptable risks to safety in the system – but improvements are and will always be considered,” he said.

Our review has included the input of air traffic controllers and pilots at hazard identification workshops over the past fortnight.

“Unfortunately this process has led to media speculation that a reversal of the changes is imminent,” Mr Smith said.

“No such decision has been taken”.

“The Airservices Board and management continue to work towards completing the review and responding to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau report as a priority.”

The Minister for Transport and Regional Services expects agencies to report back on the review before 19 February 2004 .

[404 Titan]

Sounds like a face saving exercise to me. Don’t expect them to say they are rolling it back. Too many egos will be bruised if that happens. As long as they re-establish “C” airspace around primary airports and non-radar primary airports that correspond to the decent profile of commercial jet transports and put the frequencies back on the charts, then I will be happy.

[DirtyPierre]

"certain governance obligations" = spin doctor speak for uh oh!

The rumour is that the Board of AsA of which Bernie is a member and also CEO of AsA, were told by the OOLC of AsA (Office of Legal Counsel) that if there is an accident under NAS, they will go to gaol. The Board is legally liable, particularly as they have received expert advice about limitations of NAS.

Stay tuned for more announcements.

[compressor stall]

No, they spin doctors paid millions will never admit that they will roll it back. They will create the required changes (E to C) but they will be blended into a reform package with other changes as a cover.

Yes, minister.

[KLN94]

Wonder why Time Bomb Ted deleted his friendly post directed at Tobzalp?

Remorse?

[tobzalp]

TBT and I discussed it PM stylez and it appears he misunderstood my intentions. He did apologise and it takes a bit of effort to do that. Hopefully those responsible for NAS take a leaf from his book and do the same but to the tax payer who they have ripped off once again.