John Forsyth resigns, NAS where to from here? [Archive]

Wirraway

12th Feb 2004, 23:29

Fri "The Australian"

Air traffic chief quits after reform bungle
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
February 13, 2004

AIRSERVICES Australia chairman John Forsyth has fallen on his sword in the wake of the air traffic control organisation's bungling of airspace reforms.

Transport Minister John Anderson announced the long-serving Airservices chairman's resignation yesterday after a week of controversy sparked by a proposal to wind back the reforms.

Mr Forsyth will be replaced by his deputy, Air Marshal Les Fisher, as the board meets today to decide whether to significantly reverse the airspace changes or make less dramatic modifications.

The resignation comes after a fiery meeting on Monday between Mr Anderson and the Airspace Reform Group charged with guiding the airspace changes. Mr Anderson has personally backed the reforms and is angry public confidence has been undermined by controversy about the proposal to reverse the changes.

Airservices admitted this week that it had botched the introduction of the airspace reforms by failing to meet "certain governance obligations".

It is understood Mr Anderson did not ask for Mr Forsyth's resignation.

"Given Mr Forysth's decision to resign, Mr Anderson felt it was appropriate that he accept that," a spokesman for the minister said. "The board and the (NAS) process needed immediate certainty and strong leadership which we believe Air Marshal Fisher will most certainly provide."

Mr Forsyth had been chairman since 1996 and presided over significant advances at Airservices.

"Airservices is vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," Mr Anderson said yesterday.

"The organisation is held in high regard both in Australia and internationally."

Airservices has refused to elaborate on the nature of its bungle but The Australian understands it relates to requirements that a decrease in safety standards be offset by a corresponding benefit. Industry sources believe the oversight left Airservices exposed legally.

The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes. Unions say the changes increase the risk of a mid-air collision but Airservices maintains the reforms are safe and says the recent problems have not changed that assessment.

At a hazard identification meeting last week, however, Airservices stunned industry representatives with a proposal to change significant sections of the new E-class airspace back to C-class.

That proposal remains the only one taken to industry, although Airservices earlier this week said it was still reviewing other options.

Canberra sources believe today's decision will involve some winding back of the November changes but not necessarily the dramatic reversal suggested to industry.

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

Fri "Melbourne Age"

Air space chief quits after review
By Mark Russell
February 13, 2004

The head of Airservices Australia has quit only two days after the organisation admitted to failings in its introduction of controversial new rules governing air safety.

The resignation of Airservices chairman John Forsyth was announced by Federal Transport Minister John Anderson. No reason was given.

On Tuesday, Airservices Australia chief executive Bernie Smith admitted that "certain governance obligations may not have been met" in moving over to the new system.

The new airspace rules, which allow light planes into areas used by commercial airliners largely based on "see and avoid" principles, have been widely criticised by pilots and the air traffic controllers' union, Civil Air.

The Federal Government ordered a review of the new system after the findings of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into a near miss between an airliner and a light plane over Launceston airport on Christmas Eve.

The bureau found the near miss occurred because of the new air space rules.

The Airservices Australia board is due to report back to Mr Anderson next Thursday on its review of the air space system.

A spokesman for Mr Anderson said the Government did not demand Mr Forsyth's resignation.

"John felt he should accept it because the board (of Airservices Australia) needs certainty and they're working through this process and they need strong leadership," the spokesman said.

Airservices deputy chairman, retired air marshal Les Fisher, will be acting chairman until a permanent replacement is named.

Federal Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said a full explanation was needed about the reasons behind Mr Forsyth's resignation.

"There are significant concerns about the new air space system that the minister must address immediately," Mr Ferguson said. "If Mr Forsyth's resignation is anything to do with the air space system, then those reasons need to be made public sooner rather than later."

Captain Richard Woodward, Australian International Pilots Association's technical and safety director, said he had heard rumours that heads were going to roll over the air space system and Mr Forsyth appeared to be the first victim.

"I suspect a few more heads will roll," Captain Woodward said.

Civil Air president Ted Lang said there was a lot of speculation over Mr Forsyth's resignation but he was reluctant to comment. "You're probably able to put two and two together but it's not for me to comment on that," he said.

Mr Anderson, in a statement last night, praised Mr Forsyth's contribution since he began the job in 1996. "Airservices Australia is a vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," he said.

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

DirtyPierre

13th Feb 2004, 06:01

I think that John Forsyth will be the first of many scapegoats, although John was part of the ARG.

John Forsyth was after all doing the minister's bidding like a good dog, and now because it is all coming unstuck the dog gets a kick in the behind. Well looks like this dog decided to find a new master, one that didn't blame it for its master's mistakes.

I wonder how the CEO will fare.

separator

13th Feb 2004, 06:47

The official Media Release from ASA.
Perhaps more significant for what it doesn't say, than for what it does.

sep

No. 4/04

CHAIRMAN LEAVES STRONG LEGACY

The outgoing Chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth, has overseen a period of major change and exceptional growth, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Bernie Smith said tonight.

“John Forsyth has been totally dedicated to the task of advancing the interests of the aviation industry in Australia since he took up the top position in July 1996, “ Mr Smith said.

“He will be a big loss to the organisation because of his unswerving dedication to safety, his business acumen and leadership and his drive and commitment to airspace reform.”

Mr Forsyth has been a tireless advocate of the importance of the primacy of safety to the organisation, Mr Smith said.

“He was instrumental in several major initiatives in the industry including the implementation of the world’s most advanced air traffic control system - the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS), pricing reform and the attainment of the high international reputation enjoyed by the corporation today,” he said.

“Under his stewardship, the corporation reduced its operating costs by over $140 million a year through real price reductions of over 25 percent, making the organisation more commercial and highly competitive against international air navigation service providers.”

“In addition, during his tenure, Airservices customers have harvested fuel savings from enhanced operational traffic flow procedures in excess of $80 million a year. This reduced fuel burn also has eliminated 890,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually”, Mr Smith said.

“The corporation and the aviation industry as a whole is greatly indebted for the reforms he has overseen.”

Mr Smith said Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret), who had been deputy chairman to John Forsyth for nearly three years and had joined the board in July 1999, will provide continuity for the organisation until a permanent replacement is appointed.

12 February 2004

Binoculars

13th Feb 2004, 07:08

Agree with Dirty Pierre 100% here. It appears Anderson has moved the "Buck Stops Here" sign and put it on Forsyth's desk. A fine example of Ministerial accountability by this weasel.

I fail to see why the CEO should be under threat at all. He was instructed to implement policy formulated by the Board and did so.

The credibility of AirServices as an organisation has taken yet another hit, and the job of airspace reform has become more difficult after yet another cockup, but perhaps one benefit will come out of this in the long term. Surely, SURELY, the lesson has finally been learned now that Dick Smith must play no part in aviation reform in this country ever again?

SM4 Pirate

13th Feb 2004, 07:26

I fail to see why the CEO should be under threat at all. He was instructed to implement policy formulated by the Board and did so. Bernie is a board member... Bernie allegedly ignored the advice of the HATC and 'guaranteed the sign off process' after the HATC said he wouldn't sign it, allegedly...

Bernie has continually abused his staff, their union and backed the safety credentials of the NAS, despite having clear advice that it was less safe and more costly.

Bernie must go, he has no credibility; he should have said no, he didn't because he might be sacked, now he'll be sacked (or resign) anyway.

Was it just me that saw Bernie getting his contract extension done whilst this project was at the pressure point; one wonders if he did a secret deal?

Bottle of Rum

Woomera

13th Feb 2004, 08:02

Richo. G'Day big fella!

Politically, NAS change can occur only two ways:

1. "Fine Tuning" will be an acronym for a major re vamp – akin to changing a Ferguson tractor into an Aston Martin – if the politicians can get away with it.

2. “Public Service Suicide” will be if NAS is scrapped and replaced with yet another system and involve senior bureaucrats committing Hare Kari in order to preserve the politicians purity.

It seems number 2 above may have commenced!

Woomera

Capt Claret

13th Feb 2004, 09:15

It's hard to believe that Dick was given another chance (the current one) to stuff our airspace system. I fear that we can't presume that he won't be given another! :sad:

The greatest threat to aviation safety known to mankind, IMHO and when I read Two Years in The Aviation Hall of Doom, I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air! :\

NAMPS

13th Feb 2004, 10:04

IMHO I can't see a rollback to the good ole days.

Anderson has put his neck out a little too far in support of NAS and a total back flip will damage him politically (as we have seen, his lap dogs are bearing the brunt of this debacle).

I reckon 'fine tuning' (read major changes) will be the order of the day.

Capt Claret

13th Feb 2004, 11:33

If Little Johnny can do a back flip over super, perhaps big John can do one over NAS?:}

Dick N. Cider

13th Feb 2004, 16:48

The stories have been around the ATC centres since mid-last week when the Haz Id process was conducted for possible "fine tuning" of the airspace.

What is clear is that Airservices feels it is exposed legally, the "NAS naysayers" of a fortnight ago are happily saying "I told you so" now and the Pro-NAS lobby voices seem to have all found a common lull in the conversational process (and haven't anything to fill it with - where's BIK 118.6 when you want him for 2000 quick words on this topic?) The model that's being touted at the moment not only rolls back the NAS carpet but appears to give us MORE class C than we had before. Given the amount the process has cost to get to this stage (bean-counters are already rattling abacus late into the night and keep coming up with figures in excess of A$50 000 000) it would appear that if a significant number of people don't fall on swords then the night of the long knives is not far off.

Leaving aside the airspace arrangements such that they might be, where to from here? The Minister has been a bit quietish, what with his super to think about and all, he probably isn't giving this too much thought. He was, you will recall, very vocal that NAS was the right way to go and the RA type incidents were simply the airspace working the way it should.

Has anyone else seen Minister Anderson standing in front of mirrors practicing cryptic phrases such as "simply another example of flexible government responding to the needs of the industry" while John Howard smiles fixedly in the background and edges quietly backwards?

What ever happened to that "Disgruntled employee" that said this was a joke and was effectively driven out of the position of Head Air Traffic Controller by a CEO and executive only too happy to throw him to the wolves for expressing his genuine concerns?

Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma?

Col. Walter E. Kurtz

13th Feb 2004, 17:46

If the costs of this bull$hit 'process' are anything NEAR rumoured costs, there should be a royal comission into the whole thing, and the blame should go right to the top.

A bloody disgrace:mad:

Capcom

14th Feb 2004, 06:37

Has anyone else seen Minister Anderson standing in front of mirrors practicing cryptic phrases such as "simply another example of flexible government responding to the needs of the industry" while John Howard smiles fixedly in the background and edges quietly backwards?Practice he might, spin will not save his arse this time.What ever happened to that "Disgruntled employee" that said this was a joke and was effectively driven out of the position of Head Air Traffic Controller by a CEO and executive only too happy to throw him to the wolves for expressing his genuine concerns?

Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma?Yup, Just one of many appalling decisions taken by the contract sycophants who were so ready to form a conga line and lick, lick ,lick monsignor bickieman!:mad:

I guess P F might make himself available when the time comes, I dare say those responsible for this mess will be praying he stays OS?!:hmm:
Come home mate and set the record straight, make these bastards accountable!:ok:

Report goes to Anderson on the 19th (Last sitting day). They (House of Reps) do not sit again until the 1st March. (Saucer of milk JA?):hmm:

Keep you eye on parliament first 2 weeks of March!;)

busconductor

14th Feb 2004, 07:12

Keep you eye on parliament first 2 weeks of March!

And on Senate estimates next week??

Four Seven Eleven

14th Feb 2004, 08:39

As NAS ‘enhancements’ are imminent and the various personalities involved scuttle about trying to make the best of a bad situation, it may be time to quietly reflect on why this attempt at aviation reform went so badly wrong. These are my views.

Firstly, aviation reform was propounded by an individual (Dick Smith) with no clearly defined goal or any cogent reasons offered for the change. The claims of costs as a reason for change were soundly refuted on two fronts. Firstly, the industry did not see cost as a major issue. In fact, an independent Eurocontrol study found that Australia’s costs weer already lower than both Europe and the US. Secondly, the claimed cost savings put forward were found (by the Airservices CEO in evidence to the Senate) to be based upon an erroneous analysis of the financial data provided by Airservices in the first place.

Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, NAS went wrong because of the manner in which the reform was attempted. A telling analogy is the case of the Ansett B743 nose-wheel up landing at Sydney some years ago. This could have been Australia’s first wide-body hull loss.

So, what led to the Ansett incident? Why, when the Boeing 747 has successfully been introduced into airline fleets around the world, did Ansett have an accident on their first revenue flight?

The “can do” culture
According to Ansett’s own analysis, the failure was in part due to the way in which the change (introduction of a new and very different type) was attempted. Captain Trevor Jensen attributed the failure in part to a “can do” culture within the Ansett group. Most airlines attempting the introduction of a Boeing 747 into a fleet like Ansett’s at the time would take approximately 12 months to complete the transition. Because of commercial pressures, Ansett attempted the change in the space of approximately 4 months. This led to serious deficiencies in the change management process, pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc.

Experience
Ansett found that the experience level of the crew in VH-ING was deficient, particularly in terms of the gradient of experience between the captain, FO and SO. The captain was very experienced on type, but not with Ansett, the FO (or SO) was on his first revenue flight for Ansett and also on type. The CRM aspects of such a steep experience and skills gradient became obvious when a relatively simple engine shut-down led to an approach that was too fast, without the correct flap setting and no nose-wheel. Despite all of this, the approach and landing was continued.

The similarities between this and NAS are startling. It is argued by some proponents that NAS works ‘safely’ in the United States, and they see no difficulty in introducing it into Australia. Leaving aside the issue of ‘how safe is safe?’, let us examine the parallels between the introduction of a new system (NAS) and the introduction of the 747 in Ansett.

”Can do” airspace reform
Airspace reform in the United States has taken many years. The culture and the system have developed in response to many competing pressures, including safety, commercial considerations, effective use of taxpayer funding and the influence of lobby groups such as AOPA (US).

In Australia, the attempted introduction NAS in a short space of time was akin to Ansett’s attempt to introduce a new type in about a third of the average time.

This led to deficiencies in pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc. Exactly the things that led to a near disaster at Sydney, led to a near disaster at Launceston and Melbourne.

Experience
Like the Ansett flight deck, Australian pilots and controllers have little experience of NAS. Where this situation occurs and cannot be avoided, it can be mitigated by a slow, careful and considered introduction of change. NAS is/was being introduced in stages, but it readily became apparent that the changes were not being absorbed in terms of experience and culture.

So, why did we rush into this? According to Dick Smith, the Minister was frustrated that no reform had occurred over the preceding two years and wanted something done quickly. Mr Smith has previously shown his feeling about safety cases/analyses, when he said:” Is it because you believe safety cases are to be used to stop reform, not support reform. What other reason could there be for your inconsistency? ie, if you or your colleagues personally want the reform there is no need for a safety case, but if you do not want the reform there is the need for such an involved and detailed safety case that it will never be completed.”

What we are left with is a situation where:
1. Public confidence in aviation has been eroded. This cannot have any positive affects on the financial viability of airline and other operators. How many more operators going bankrupt will it take before aviation reform is done properly, by the professionals and with broad consultation and agreement?
2. Further confusion will arise from any ‘rollback’ of NAS, leading to the possibility of further incidents.
3. The chairman of the Airservices’ board has resigned. His talents will no longer be available to benefit aviation reform and aviation safety in Australia.
4. An enormous amount of money has been wasted on now-defunct training, documentation, etc. A further amount of money will be expended undoing the mess.

The costs of NAS, in terms of economic loss, loss of reputation and time are considerable. The people who made these decisions should be held to account. It is incumbent upon all of us who have been affected to support attempts to determine the truth of how NAS was allowed to proceed in the way it did.

Keg

14th Feb 2004, 09:23

Nice read 4,7,11. I haven't had time to really think the issues through but on first glance you have a decent synopsis of what has occurred and why.

Interesting times!

And now for the brickbats....

fire wall

14th Feb 2004, 19:47

Anderson is an amateur in the role of transport minister and has proven such on a number of occasions…….perhaps one occasion too many.
I flew Mark Vaille around a couple of times and can say he impressed with his knowledge and answers to off the cuff questions that I posed to him. Perhaps he may have a new portfolio come the next sitting of parliament.

karrank

15th Feb 2004, 10:16

What the wise men promised has not occurred,
What the damned fools said has come to pass...

Regardless of 4711's excellent analysis, I think the main reason we have come to this is the structure of NAS S2B. It took away more than it gave.

If they had left the C airspace exactly where it was and just plastered around a bit more E I don't think there would have been the fuss there is. Regardless of the biscuit purveyor's fetishes the C was not the problem. It is only manic near-religious fervour that could rationally propose E as safer than C, mainly on the grounds that providing a C service to aircraft was distracting tower controllers from looking at the runway... But such attitudes deemed any ARG whim away from the US model as unchallengably safe, yet anybody elses opinions (whether whims or reasoned approaches) as "non-compliant".

Well done Dick, your crash through or crash attitude appears to have crashed again. At great cost to the industry and the political will of the idiots who tell the minister what to say. You have no credibility left.

SM4 Pirate

15th Feb 2004, 10:56

Credibility in airspace reform:
Well done Dick, your crash through or crash attitude appears to have crashed again. At great cost to the industry and the political will of the idiots who tell the minister what to say. You have no credibility left. I'm sorry Karrank but he lost that some time ago in my book; G-NAF was a good start.. don't make me going back further...

Bottle of Rum

Four Seven Eleven

16th Feb 2004, 14:52

Latest Airservices media release

Airspace Review Continues

The Airservices Australia Board has considered the status of the National Airspace System implementation and the Corporation’s review of E class airspace in light of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report on a recent aircraft separation incident in Launceston, the Corporation’s Acting Chairman, Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret) said today.

Air Marshal Fisher said the ATSB had identified areas where improvements should be considered by Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). “Airservices experts have undertaken a review which has identified a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation,“ he said.

“This includes deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies.”

Air Marshal Fisher said the Board had also agreed to options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace.

“This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal Corporation practice,” he said.

“I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms”.

Monday 16 February 2004.

Contact: David Gray Tel: 0418 487794.
So perhaps the ‘scaremongers’ who pointed out that lack of radar coverage, lack of frequency information on charts and the inappropriate classification of airspace were dangerous were right after all.

Question: Why did it take a near miss and the risking of hundreds of lives to ‘realise’ this, when Airservices and the government were told all of this, in advance, by their own air traffic controllers and the professional pilots concerned? Why was all of this expert advice ignored? Whose head should roll next?

SM4 Pirate

16th Feb 2004, 15:16

But what does it mean? The second press release in a row that says nothing...

All of a sudden the transportable radar gets a gig... We've been asking for that for years... lousy sitting in the back buildings, where it occassioanlly turns in the breeze.

Bottle of Rum

Wirraway

16th Feb 2004, 22:46

Tues "The Australian"

Rush to restore faith in airspace
By Steve Creedy
February 17, 2004

AIRSERVICES Australia said last night it would immediately implement "safety enhancements" to restore public confidence in botched airspace reforms, amid indications the wrangle could stretch out for months.

The air traffic control corporation said last night its experts had identified "a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation".

It said the fixes included deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance in some areas and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies.

But Air Marshal Les Fisher, installed last week as acting chairman after the sudden resignation of predecessor John Forsyth, said the board also had agreed to "options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace".

It was not clear whether these options referred to the drastic rollback of the reforms explored by Airservices staff at a meeting with industry almost two weeks ago.

"This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal corporation practice," Air Marshal Fisher said.

"I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and they mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms."

The vague nature of the statement, on the eve of a Senate estimates committee expected to grill Airservices officials over their handling of the reforms, brought renewed criticism.

The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes.

Australian and International Pilots Association spokesman Richard Woodward warned that pilots would proceed with moves to slow down aircraft and activate seatbelt signs earlier unless Airservices met demands for a significant rollback of the reforms.

Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson accused the Government of failing to come clean on problems with the reforms.

"This is not about the minister being decisive and making decisions, this is about dribbling out a process of change to protect his backside," Mr Ferguson said.

But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms.

ASFA president Hank Meertens said the confederation had made an enormous effort educating members and implementing the changes, and believed they could not be reversed without a similar process.

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

404 Titan

16th Feb 2004, 23:43

But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms.
What the ***k. How the hell can they claim to have so many members when there are only about 50000 pilots in Australia. Either it is a misprint or someone is telling porky lies to make themselves appear bigger than they really are to try and sway political opinion.

Maybe the Australian tax payer can take legal action against ASFA to recover some of the public money wasted because of the introduction if this whole ill-conceived NAS BS that they and other like minded amateur organizations and individuals fooled the government into implementing. :yuk: :mad: :*

Capt Claret

17th Feb 2004, 05:10

The anti NAS side are still not getting their message across correctly in my view. The oft repeated line "class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft" gives an incorrect understated value. We all know that Class C separates all traffic, hence its far higher level of safety.

By constantly referring to Class C separating light aircraft from commercial aircraft, I believe the impression formed by most of the non aviation savy, is that it's the big boys wanting more airspace for themselves at the expense of the poor little 'uns.

Had the true picture been painted, perhaps there would have been more public interest in the issue from the start.

Atlas Shrugged

17th Feb 2004, 08:28

Air Ace

17th Feb 2004, 09:17

Profile: captain marvellous
Interests: saving the world
Occupation: super hero

Yup. That sounds about right! :yuk:

Sterner Stuff

17th Feb 2004, 17:26

Does anyone else see the real irony here? No-one in places of power seems to actually give a rat's @rse that the NAS arrangements were causing Virgin sphincters to pucker every time they set off into the wild blue yonder wondering when the near miss was going to become "well - they nearly missed". The philosophical problem I have is that the roll-back isn't happening for the right reasons. This is all about @rse-covering on a scale not seen since - since - well last week when Johnny back-flipped on Super for pollies. The Chairman of the Board of Airservices has resigned without a word from anyone as to why whilst the industry is in turmoil trying to avoid a mid-air and guessing what the spin-doctors are going to put up next week. Call me old-fashioned but was he getting out of the way and taking his golden handshake before the sh!t hits the fan?

The "enhancement" of the airspace that everyone's so glibly throwing about IS about rolling back. The result will probably be NAS dead in the water. I'm not personally upset at that prospect but am compis mentis enough to realise that a lot of people have invested a $hitload of dollars in trying to make it work and are going to be angry to have to spend more to get out of it. Meanwhile deafening silence from Dick Smith other than to lob a quick "the only reason we don't have a tower at Uluru is that controllers don't want to work there".

X-file-o-philes are no doubt beside themselves in orgiastic rapture at the benevolent "Voices of Reason" clearing things up for the rest of us but when is someone going to cop it on the chin for this god-almighty F@^%-up? Over 50 million AU$ before we start winding back. Although, on Dick's calculations it was going to save 70 mil so we're 20 mil in front. One third goes to the industry as discounts, one third to the government as dividend and the remainder to Airservices staff as a productivity bonus. Carry the 6 and divide by Dick's undy size, that means I've got $5714.28 (ish) before tax coming my way...:ok:

Dog One

17th Feb 2004, 18:11

Some excerpts from a magazine called "Aero Australia" It arrived on my desk the other day with the editoral page highlighted. The editor by name of Stewart Wilson has some nasty comments about the resistance of certian sections of the industry against the airspace changes.

Under the head-line "Crying Wolf" we read

"Australias new airspace rules came into effect on 27 November, the occasion preceded and followed by an unprecendented campaign against them by certain sections of the aviation community, notably some airline pilots' and air traffic controllers unions."

Other comments include

"those involved have been waging basically a scare campaign designed to alarm the general public...........

started talking about how NASIG and others associated with the changes "will have blood on their hands", and similar opinions........................

creating the very definite impression that RPT aircraft had some kind of divine right to use Australia's airspace and that general aviation was a second class citizen and nuisance that gets in the way of the Mighty RPT. "

I wonder now after the event if his mouth is big enough to put his foot in. Funny how the ATSB found the same faults that the nasty scaremongering unions kept terrorising the general public with!!!!!!!!!!

DirtyPierre

18th Feb 2004, 06:57

Just like to point out to those who reckon the reason there is no tower at Uluru is that ATCs wont go there is...a load of old ****e.

Controllers in Australia love working outstations. Its "real" aviation work, where you get to see the aircraft and crew you work with on a day to day basis.

The big centres are cold and remote working environments. They are pleasent working places, but you are remote from the aviation world. Aircraft are symbols on a screen, and you only communicate by voice on radio or by datalink.

There is no problem staffing outstation towers in Oz.

ferris

18th Feb 2004, 16:53

DP- yeah there is! The problem is that they are uneconomical, hence AsA, as a business, doesn't want to staff them. The whole idea of the CAGRO trial at AYE was to save money. All part of 'user-pays'.
I'm sure there would be no shortage of guys wanting to go.

piniped

18th Feb 2004, 18:26

Ferris, you beat me to it!!

I seem to remember the pratt that just claimed that places were not staffed as the controllers didn't want to go there, was the same one that oversaw the closure of just about all the Flight Service and outstation towers?

I may be wrong and I'll happily apologise if proved incorrect.

Not about calling him a pratt though...certain things are self evident.

Dehavillanddriver

19th Feb 2004, 05:16

Can someone please let us all know what the Airservices plan actually is?

The press talk about portable radars and frequencies on charts.

Are they going to reclassify the E airspace into the major and regional airports into C airspace?

If they won't they will not be achieving a re-alignment of the risk, and the major risk factor will still be there.

If another incident occurs - or god forbid an accident occurs, AVM Fisher, Bernie Smith, the other two Smiths and Anderson should be held accountable.

Interesting that the common surname around this whole debacle is SMITH....maybe SMITH should be a synonym for stuffups

- "oh look - the tyre has picked up a nail and is SMITHED"
-" **** - I smithed that landing"

If AIPA and the AFAP want to gain some respect from the coal face troops, they should seriously investigate the possibility of taking legal action against the main protaganists in this debacle.... I certainly would be much happier to see the squillion of dollars I spend on union subs put to some decent use.

Lodown

19th Feb 2004, 05:57

DHD, that's "portable radar". No "s", because from what I hear there's only one portable radar. Where would you like it?

Frequencies on charts? How would you like them? There's nothing produced that accurately depicts frequency boundaries. It could be a bigger safety issue to print the frequencies on the charts now.

Plan? What plan? The plan has just been shot to pieces and the head instigators are waving feathers from behind bunkers trying to convince us the thing will still fly.

Plan? They're scrambling trying to put one together now. It took us more than three years to get to this point. It might take us close to that time again to sort it out.

As for accountability, I have a feeling that "accountability" is behind the rapid backpeddling that is going on now.

Philthy

19th Feb 2004, 08:06

Yeah! We could put the radar in Tassie one week, Uluru the next...

We could even have 'radar specials' for the customers - "Get extra safety this week on trips to Hobart", perhaps with a little extra something added to the airways charges. Or maybe we could auction off radar coverage to the highest bidder. Now there's 'growing the business' for you!

D'oh! That won't work - it takes at least a month to move it! Oh well, back to the drawing board.

separator

19th Feb 2004, 08:44

The latest from Bernie Smith, ASA CEO. I find the bit "The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis" interesting.

sep

Note to all staff from the CEO

National Airspace System (NAS)

In the Media Release I sent to all staff on Monday, the Acting Chairman referred to options to improve airspace which would be tested over the coming months.

In particular, the Board has agreed to specific options (others may emerge during the process) being tested over the next three months which could further improve the management of Class E airspace (this would be followed by a further three month implementation period of the recommended options). These are:

(a) reclassify portions of Class E airspace around Class C and D towers to ensure the three degree aircraft flight path profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C airspace;

(b) reclassify Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C, in additional to (a) above).

In addition to progressing the above temporary options, work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis. This work will be performed in strict compliance with our Safety Management System, and at this stage we estimate it will take 12 months to complete.

Further face to face briefings will be provided by senior management and me over the next week.

I also appeared before the Senate Legislative Committee on Tuesday night and my opening comments to the committee read as follows:

“The committee would be aware from a media statement by Airservices Australia that it has found a problem with the process used to put in place the changes to airspace implemented on 27 November 2003. Airservices wishes to put the following information on the record for this committee in order to clarify issues which we expect are of interest to it.

Airservices has a statutory responsibility to consider and approve changes to airspace design and management. In managing change, either on a day-to-day basis or in relation to reforms such as NAS, Airservices is always in a position where risks exist and need to be managed. This is clearly an integral part of the business that we are in. In considering such changes, Airservices takes very seriously its obligation in regard to safety as the primary consideration.

Airservices has recently formed the view that its process for considering the changes on 27 November 2003 may not have properly discharged all its responsibilities under the act. The nature of the gap in our process relates, firstly, to the extent to which Airservices may have relied on the work of other parties—the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation Reform Group, the National Air Space Implementation Group as examples—rather than its own comprehensive research and analysis. And secondly, to the way in which we chose to manage an identified risk related to the implementation of class E airspace. The first issue is now being addressed by Airservices commissioning a full and comprehensive review and validation of the safety premises which underpin the NAS reform. This will take the form of a design safety case of the full NAS reform program. The second matter involves undertaking a more extensive risk analysis of the changes implemented last year. This review, which will be undertaken over the next three months, needs to be seen in the context of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations on the Launceston incident. At that point the board will decide the extent and the need for any change to the current E airspace.

Despite media speculation, Airservices continues to have insurance policies in place and there are no new operational risks that were not known when the decision to implement the changes was taken. The sorts of enhancements the board will be asked to consider after a full safety assessment involve changing certain portions of E airspace. The calls for reversal of some of the reforms implemented last November must be seen in the context that any change, even going back, carries risks. Airservices must properly assess all of this before making a final decision on the most appropriate way forward. “

DirtyPierre

19th Feb 2004, 10:35

Ferris and piniped,

Com'on guys, I was talking about the reason given that ATCs wouldn't work remote/outstation towers. Not the fact they are "uneconomical" to operate. Don't muddy the waters.

Ferris, you sure took the option to work at a remote establishment. Give up OZ to work in the middle east. How's the surf?

As for the last communique from Bernie. Well that's as about face as you're likely to get from him.

As for the portable radar. Its not compatible with TAAATS, it can't be used for separation, and the tower controllers aren't rated to use it. Balls on the pope might be more useful.

pitten

19th Feb 2004, 12:43

Transportable radar does connect to the Airservices system. It was used at Maroochydore for CHOGM a couple of years ago

tobzalp

19th Feb 2004, 13:02

I don't think it fits into the radar tracking tolerances. It was a monitoring for violations of the restricted area tool not a separation tool. None of the control consoles had it defined as a radar for the mosaic (but I could be wrong there) but the 'trafiic manager' console at the end of aisle 1 did.

SM4 Pirate

19th Feb 2004, 13:24

I here that Ops Managers are being asked to write a business case as to why they should get it for their areas.

Seems that LT and WA Goldfields are current front runners; late submissions from AYE/AS area to apply screws, also AY, MC and TW are getting a mention...

It can be plugged into TAAATS, it needs 6 weeks to commission it at a cost of somewhere near $2M... and then an ongoing $1M in annual maintainance... Don't we all feel warm and fuzzie now... A true bargain this NAS wasn't it.

Seems that the non-TAAATS towers need it most... do you see the problem; can you say $15M to TAAATSify a non-TAAATS tower?

Bottle of Rum

Binoculars

19th Feb 2004, 13:43

Can somebody please enlighten me as to the purpose of these mobile radar(s)? I confess complete ignorance of their existence until this week, but in my little corner of the world we have a you-beaut TSAD display receiving the same TAAATS feed as Brisbane.

So what? As DirtyPierre points out, procedural tower controllers are not radar rated so we can't use it for separation anyway, so what possible benefit could a magic mobile radar have?

Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here.

:confused:

tobzalp

19th Feb 2004, 14:41

I bet it will be used as a mitigator for unannounced VFRs. The tower will be allowed to pass traffic from the display but not separate based on the VFR within 40nm a a D tower in E airspace must have a transponder no exceptions rule.

Capt Claret

19th Feb 2004, 16:22

On PM tonight, Qantas' Chief Pilot, Capt Chris Manning said "we are happy with the current system".

Glad no QF drivers have expressed dissatisfaction with NAS 2b! :hmm:

Dehavillanddriver

19th Feb 2004, 16:27

well that just goes to prove that he is a little misinformed!

how much pressure was brought to bear by senior management and where is AIPA ?

Capcom

19th Feb 2004, 20:06

Separator

Ain’t the devil always in the detail or lack of it!Note to all staff from the CEO

National Airspace System (NAS)

In the Media Release I sent to all staff on Monday, the Acting Chairman referred to options to improve airspace which would be tested over the coming months.

In particular, the Board has agreed to specific options (others may emergehttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/smiley_watchout.gif during the process) being tested over the next three months which could further improve the management of Class E airspace (this would be followed by a further three month implementation period of the recommended options). These are:

(a) reclassify portions of Class E airspace around Class C and D towers to ensure the three degree aircraft flight path profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C airspace;

(b) reclassify Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C, in additional to (a) above).Great! ButIn addition to progressing the above temporary options, work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis. This work will be performed in strict compliance with our Safety Management System, and at this stage we estimate it will take 12 months to complete.Anyone want to bet they will avoid location specific Aeronautical Studies?http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/really.gif

AndAirservices has a statutory responsibility to consider and approve changes to airspace design and management. In managing change, either on a day-to-day basis or in relation to reforms such as NAS, Airservices is always in a position where risks exist and need to be managed. This is clearly an integral part of the business that we are in. In considering such changes, Airservices takes very seriously its obligation in regard to safety as the primary consideration.We knew that, so are you saying that you big ol’ management gurus did not? If not why not?Airservices has recently formed the view that its process for considering the changes on 27 November 2003 may not have properly discharged all its responsibilities under the act. The nature of the gap in our process relates, firstly, to the extent to which Airservices may have relied on the work of other parties—the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation Reform Group, the National Air Space Implementation Group as examples—rather than its own comprehensive research and analysis.As Pauline H would have said: “Who’s responsible?” and “Please explain?”, especially as that question was asked prior to 27 Nov!And secondly, to the way in which we chose to manage an identified risk related to the implementation of class E airspace. The first issue is now being addressed by Airservices commissioning a full and comprehensive review and validation of the safety premises which underpin the NAS reform. This will take the form of a design safety case of the full NAS reform program. Hmmmm The second matter involves undertaking a more extensive risk analysis of the changes implemented last year. This review, which will be undertaken over the next three months, needs to be seen in the context of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations on the Launceston incident. At that point the board will decide the extent and the need for any change to the current E airspace. Wacko, fancy that but? In the NAS 2b meantime…..Despite media speculation, Airservices continues to have insurance policies in place and there are no new operational risks that were not known when the decision to implement the changes was taken. Great, so their all (Asa management) insured should you and your pax be killed in E whilst we wait….That’s a reliefhttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/rolleyes.gif. Are the insurance companies watching the ball here…………Hello, Hellooooo anyone asleep at the wheel, helloooooooooooo?http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/ZZZsleep.gifThe sorts of enhancements the board will be asked to consider after a full safety assessment involve changing certain portions of E airspace. The calls for reversal of some of the reforms implemented last November must be seen in the context that any change, even going back, carries risks. Airservices must properly assess all of this before making a final decision on the most appropriate way forward.What a difference a public display of the laundry basket can make. Oh well at least the lesson is learned…but 3-6 Months to go back to C (HAZ ID’s are already done)? Apart from Charts, Notams and Briefings for industry ( Up to 3 months according to Byron) I cannot see why returning to the previous arrangement could take so long?, 6 months?, a cynical mind might consider it delaying tactics, maybe there is more to this littl’ jem than at first glance!?

We remain stuck with the “E” debacle for what could be 6 months while they develop the most painless exit strategy which might be anything from what we have now to a full rollback. Perhaps something like this:-

Give the appearance that they are working to undo NAS 2b “Safely”,http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/dizzy.gif meanwhile back at the ranch just north of CB they will be quietly:-

Fast tracking the following:-

- Design and Implementation Safety Cases to Keep E within radar coverage
- Design and Implementation Safety Cases to make what was C over D into D over D
- Frequencies on maps for VFR and;

The whole while resisting any attempts to invoke “Aeronautical studies” of “specific volumes of airspace”! Ya’ll know why he wouldn’t want Aeronautical studies to happen…..!

All to coincide with the “long” time frame nominated to return to the Pre-NAS System. They can then proclaim:-
We do not need to go back to C after all because ‘LOOK’, we have done all this hard work just in time to implement “NAS 2b Enhanced” which will save millions and prove the first implementation in Nov 2003 was not too far off the mark.

- Saves face for the Pukes in CB and President Dick!
- May provide continuity to the subtle fib that NAS is safe (Not as SAFE or SAFER than Pre NAS 2b but SAFE cause Uncle Sam does it, but don’t mention the mid-airs they have)!
- All the Anti-NAS sentiment was just scaremongering!( Cause there is no difference between NO midairs and Some midairs!)
- The wasted money will be paid for by the industry and swept under the carpet! (By then probably over A$100mil)
- JA will enjoy the fruits of his 2001 pre-election shenanigans, Super and the restored Landrover without a passing thought for the damage done
- The industry will be paying even more for even less, AGAIN

And so Aviation in Australia will continue onwards and downwards into the abyss!http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/jpshakehead.gif

Night all, sleep tight, I know I will.http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/moreek.gif

separator

20th Feb 2004, 07:55

Capcom,
Last night I steeled myself and had a look at the Hansard report of Senate Estimates where Bernie, sundry CASA, ATSB and DoTaRS suits were weaving their magic with smoke and mirrors.

Quite a bit of political byplay was going on, especially over the LT incident, with some of the questioning apparently deliberately going well wide of the mark.

I have just seen "Voices of Reason"s view of the transcripts and he/she/they raise some valid points about training.

The URL is below and you need to go to Page 52 to commence, and it goes for about 40 pages from memory.

http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S7315.pdf

It seemed to me that there was more ar$e-covering going on than you would find in a bum-kicking contest in a nudist colony.

From what I could make of Bernie's press release the stage is being set to allow the whole thing to slip onto the backburner so as to avoid too much immediate scrutiny and the inevitable "Well we warned you" from all those that the Minister slagged off.

Even the highly esteemed R. Dudley appears to have gone quiet, which is most unusual, considering that he is the one wheeled out to accuse Civilair of everything from square-dancing in a roundhouse to the murder of Rasputin along with being the cause of "The End of Civilisation, As We Know It".

Once again the "Enfant Terrible" DS appears to have urgent business elsewhere. Possibly a charity is to suddenly benefit from his kindness, to be duly noted by an adoring media. Undoubtedly it will be both a magnificent and magnanimous gesture.

I suppose that is the way the biscuit crumbles.

sep

Creampuff

20th Feb 2004, 08:01

From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s AM program of 20 Feb 04, transcript available at: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1049399.htm TONY EASTLEY: The Transport Minister John Anderson may be forced to change a contentious aspect of his air safety regulations.

The Government regulator, Airservices Australia, has recommended a key element of Mr Anderson's airspace reforms be wound back over the next six months.

Under the new plan, light planes would have to obtain air traffic control clearance to enter airspace used by large commercial jets.

Air traffic controllers say it's a significant victory, but aircraft owners are furious. The Opposition meanwhile says the reforms were doomed from the start.

Alison Caldwell reports.

ALISON CALDWELL: It was the most controversial aspect of the Federal Government's airspace reforms and now the Transport Minister John Anderson has little choice but to change it.

Aircraft owners are furious, Bill Hamilton is the Director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

BILL HAMILTON: It is completely unjustified.

ALISON CALDWELL: Why?

BILL HAMILTON: There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done. It will have a very serious impact on the whole of the aviation reform program, of which the airspace reform program is a very significant part.
…

So there you go: Bill’s got it sorted.

And Bill: congratulations on becoming “the Director” of AOPA.

NAMPS

20th Feb 2004, 08:26

There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done.

Bill obviously hasn't read the ATSB report re: incident at Launy.

I can't think of anything more "demonstrable".

Bill ... you're an idiot!

bonez

20th Feb 2004, 11:14

18 Feb 2004

Airspace system refinements welcomed by aircraft owners and pilots

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association President, Ron Lawford, today reiterated its continued support for the National Airspace System and welcomes the refinements announced by Airservices Australia earlier this week.

“AOPA will continue to support the NAS architecture and its successful introduction,” Mr Lawford said.

“We welcome the fine-tuning of the NAS and will continue to work with the Government in ensuring the continued implementation of the system.”

Since the introduction of the NAS, AOPA has been campaigning for changes to the recently upgraded charts.

“We expect that these changes will enhance a pilots ability to operate in the new system but we have always believed the new system to be safe.”

-----

Woomera

20th Feb 2004, 19:42

Edmond Roy reports.

EDMOND ROY: For the few months, air traffic controllers, aircraft owners, pilots, bureaucrats and politicians have been fighting a public battle over changes to Australia's airspace rules.

This morning air traffic controllers believed they had won a significant victory, when it was made clear that under the changed set of rules, light planes would have to obtain air traffic control clearance to enter airspace used by large commercial jets.

Under the national airspace system, introduced by the Federal Government, that requirement was not necessary. To aviation experts, this was one of the most controversial aspects of the Government's airspace reform package, and now it was to be changed.

On AM this morning, Bill Hamilton, the Director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association didn't understand why the Federal Government had to give in.

BILL HAMILTON: It is completely unjustified.

ALISON CALDWELL: Why?

BILL HAMILTON: There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done. It will have a very serious impact on the whole of the aviation reform program, of which the airspace reform program's a very significant part.

EDMOND ROY: By this afternoon, his colleagues at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, had to rein him in.

The association's president is Ron Lawford.

RON LAWFORD: Well, we're taking that up with Mr Hamilton.

EDMOND ROY: So Mr Hamilton made those comments without consulting you?

RON LAWFORD: That is correct.

EDMOND ROY: Has it gone any further than that?

RON LAWFORD: We are discussing the matter with Mr Hamilton today.

EDMOND ROY: What can you do? I mean, it's out there now.

RON LAWFORD: Well, we are making the position of AOPA known through, for example, this discussion I'm having with you, and we'll be putting out a media release pointing out that Mr Hamilton did not speak on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.

EDMOND ROY: Have you had any talks with Mr Anderson?

RON LAWFORD: Uh, I haven't directly but I have taken action to ensure that Mr Anderson is aware that Mr Hamilton did not speak for the board of AOPA.

EDMOND ROY: This incident once again, highlights the confusion surrounding the changes to Australia's airspace rules. So for the record, what does the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia want changed?

RON LAWFORD: We would like to see the frequencies on the visual navigation charts, and there are a number of, if you like, peripheral issues which we would like to have implemented.

For example, we would like to see the pilots who fly visually, integrated into the system. And at the moment, the pilots who fly visually are virtually excluded from the communications system and we would like to see that changed back to a system where they can access the system easily and (inaudible).

EDMOND ROY: This whole business could have been avoided, could it not have?

RON LAWFORD: Yes it could have been, had there been adequate training and education, and we consistently call for a much longer period of training and education, and for a much longer period of consultation on the various aspects which we questioned, and that was not done. And to an extent, the problems which have arisen have arisen because they were not implemented as we asked for.

EDMOND ROY: So far the Transport Minister John Anderson has refused to comment on the issue. A fierce defender of the new national airspace system, Mr Anderson has said that it would be introduced in 50 stages. But with the pain of the first stage unbearable for most concerned, the future of the next 49 is unclear.

ferris

20th Feb 2004, 21:21

Not being in oz ATM, I can't say I have the 'feel' for what is going on. I must say, however, that from afar this just keeps getting more incredible and embarrassing ! Can't they say "we made a mistake", consign Dick to his own "Hall Of Doom" and then move on? They'd have a lot more credibility (although that hasn't historically been necessary for a successful career).

continues to have insurance policies in place That made me laugh! The policies might be in place, but try making a claim! Insurance 101- smile, take the money, and when they try and claim point out why they can't ie. "Did not inform us of change in risk". You can pretend to the public that risk hasn't increased, but insurers are not so gullible.

Good to see AOPA cementing it's correct place in oz aviation.:rolleyes:

DirtyPierre.
I wasn't trying to muddy the waters, just pointing out that Dick was right in that AsA doesn't want the outstation towers (uneconomical). They'd have no trouble staffing them (might even lure some of us 'extremely-outstation' workers.) I bet there are dozens of guys in Centres who would give their left knacker to get back out amongst it. But, unlike the US, AsA is a business. Interesting to see the doyens of 'world's best practice' (the yanks) are touring the world as we speak , to see how they can make their ATC more 'cost-driven' (REF. Flight Int.). And yeah, the surf's crap.

As for 'mobile radar'. Makes me wonder if this whole exercise hasn't been orchestrated 'Yes, Minister' style, to get radars into some of those places. More than one way to skin a cat. Oh, and a tower at AYE (just for Dick).

karrank

20th Feb 2004, 21:28

Oops Edmond, with the pain of the first 13 stages unbearable for most concerned, the future of the next 37 is unclear.

I think thats the right number, with all the f@rting around with which characteristic is in which stage, the lack of up to date infor on the DOTARS site and my mangled memory...

Capcom

20th Feb 2004, 21:36

Fools like Hamilton who continue to scurrilously misrepresent the views of that organisation and its members only add to ongoing damage to AOPA Aus. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/nono.gif
Well done Ron Lawford for correcting the record so quickly. Would not have been an easy thing to do. http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/sunnies.gif

The sooner AOPA Aus are rid of the dead wood of Hamilton’s ilk the better for its disenfranchised members and the wider General Aviation fraternity.

I’ll bet Bickieman put him up to that stunt!:E

Or was it the brains trust over at Air Safety Australia?http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/tongue3.gif
(There is an oxymoron if ever I heard one! Air Safety Australia,http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/cheesy.gif)
Staff: Jim Dawson Chief Air Safety Investigator!......http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/icon_lol.gif.....................BWAHHHHH…………

……….Oh my ribshttp://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/lol.gif ………

…FFFFiiiiiiii.....:ooh: ……http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/smiley_watchout.gif..........................BWAHHH.....http ://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/lol.gif

Lodown

20th Feb 2004, 23:31

Ron Lawford, if you're reading this - well done. Bill discredited himself and AOPA again in his usual foot-stomping way, but you and your team made the best of the situation and turned it around.

There are some good aspects to the airspace changes. Hopefully, this "rollback" won't kill the initiative, but once emotions settle down and cataclismic momentum removed, eventually allow a more modest, considerate and planned approach to prevail over the gung-ho attitude and impatient leadership that has brought airspace change to this point.

AirNoServicesAustralia

21st Feb 2004, 10:44

we would like to see the pilots who fly visually, integrated into the system. And at the moment, the pilots who fly visually are virtually excluded from the communications system and we would like to see that changed back to a system where they can access the system easily and (inaudible).

I thought that is what AOPA wanted, that is for the VFR's to fly around not getting clearances and not having to talk to those pesky controllers. I was led to believe by all those Pro-NAS supporters (who magically disappeared after the first near miss), that they didn't want to have to monitor ATC frequencys and put up with all those irrelevant calls. Well you got what you asked for, yet now you'd like to be welcomed back into the fold. Here is an idea, to allow you to be integrated into the system properly, how about making it a requirement, to make one initial call on ATC frequency on entering and leaving Class E airspace, and if in Radar coverage, a compulsory Mode C check would help as well. Just a thought, although I can't see AOPA supporting that one.

Agree with Ferris, the surf is non-existent here, but damn the weather is good!!!! And no E airspace or Dick Biscuits over here!!!

QSK?

23rd Feb 2004, 11:12

Binos:

In answer to your query re portabale radars.

The Govt is rolling back the E airspace around the major primary airports but doesn't want to be seen to be rolling back ALL the E airspace implemented since 27 Nov last year. So, I think its the Govt's intention to improve the integrity of the E airspace (around the less politically sensitive areas like AS etc) by installing radar so that the controllers can detect, and advise on, potential traffic conflictions which may not be communicating with ATS but still sqwarking. This way they still save some face.

Of course, as we all know, for the radar to be truly effective as a conflict detection tool it would also need to offer primary detection capability to pick up those pilots who do not see the need to switch on their transponders when operating beyond the Blue Ranges.

See ya PMs

ferris

23rd Feb 2004, 16:52

Just read ANSA's comment about the radio call upon entering E. Warrants looking into, I think. It flies in the face of the AusNAS no-talking 'culture', and would be treated warily by AsA (duty of care goes up when you can identify the traffic), but maybe it's about time the whole 'culture' became more about safety than arse-covering?

Garry M

26th Feb 2004, 14:59

As I understand it there are about 20000 commercial movements a day in the US... in Australia about 1000. How come the NAS system in Australia is so unworkable?
Theres lots of areas in the NW of the US were radar coverage is poor or non existant (Sun Valley Idaho is busier than hell and buried in some very impressive mountains) yet they seem to have no trouble there.
Australia in comparison to the European and North American continents is a pretty benign place to fly, not a lot of big mountains, reasonable weather and low traffic densities...
I've got quite a few thousand hours flying all over and can't fathom the often fanatical abhorrence to the NAS system in OZ.Can someone elighten me?

Annex 11

26th Feb 2004, 16:13

Someone pointed me to a Hansard extract in which the Airservices CEO was asked when they became aware of the problem with governance and process with regard to the implementation of the NAS. He responded that it was around 11 December.

I understand that the frustrated employee, sometime in September, formally handed his boss a memo in which he stated that he was unable to exercise his delegated power in relation to re-classifying Class C to Class E and still behave in accordance with Section 9 of their Act, that is to retain safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.

Richo

26th Feb 2004, 16:24

Ok GArry so you don't understand, and I think part of the problem is that niether do we.

Piss poor education and consultation before the changes,
bieng lied to by the NASIG,
1. Cost savings we were told ???
2. Safer, we were told ???

Changes for change sake and no benifit, now you tell me, does that make any sence to you??

I am sure that the ATC guys have some concers with future entitlements and jobs, but they are certinaly also seeing the less safe and cost efectiveness of this system, so do we blame them for pointing that out.??

Now NAS as a system has some good points, but some of the changes made on 27 Nov and some of the proposed 2c changes seem to me and many others to be changes for no benifit with reduced safety, but I am not alone in this, ATSB and AsA also think this is correct.

So why did we have to make all these radical (less safe) changes, the words used by the dicktator is "harmonisation" and that old relibale "worlds best practice". Sorry but that is BS.

The system we had worked and it had a higer level of safety, it did need some refinement and we did need to reduce costs, but we have not got a better system and we have not got less cost with NAS.

So now Garry you tell me, should we just say Hello NAS, because we are told its great and it works in the BIG old US of A, but then keep quiet when we find that it is NOT.

I mean how dare we Australian's think we could be different and have a system that works for us. God forbid.

SM4 Pirate

27th Feb 2004, 04:43

I am sure that the ATC guys have some concers with future entitlements and jobs, but they are certinaly also seeing the less safe and cost efectiveness of this system, so do we blame them for pointing that out.?? It goes much further than that, many of my colleges pointed out that NAS as proposed would mean more jobs, not less, be less safe not more and cost heaps more. The only winners would be VFRs who wouldn't need clearances anymore, see the end state proposal. No clearances, no avoiding the CTA steps; so increased efficiency for the people that contribute the least to the sector, financially speaking.

The critical error that we have made is that RPT high performance aircraft now have to mix it with unknown elements, on the basis that statistically the chance of hitting an unknown is low; yet those that actually know the airspace system know how the 'unknowns' fly, mostly on GPS now days, thus accurately, which increases the chances of being in the same place as the big boys; and statistically improves significantly the chance of the worst.

TCAS the ultimate mitigator; pity about what VoR said on the other thread. It has worked so far, but the clock is still ticking

NAS was going to solve the VCA problem, because they only occured because of complex airspace design; have the numbers gone down? No, will they, you bet because they won't need them anymore, end state so the problem is solved...

It's a joke. 'Safety is paramount', 'Without exception everyone is responsible for safety', 'sniff out the risks', 'spot the hazard', 'lean towards the safe side'. 'safety is our business'; all fantastic catch phrases that are nothing more than words; ASA Canberra management are a joke... Get real you clowns.

Bottle of Rum

calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...

ferris

27th Feb 2004, 23:18

Garry M.
I thought we were about due for another "what's wrong with NAS" psuedonym to come out of the woodwork. When the search function comes back, look up the 500 or so posts on why oz isn't getting the "US system", the 'motivation' for change, the illegal manner the changes have been rammed home in, the every-second-week new poster "what's wrong, guys, it works in the US" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Are you an AOPA member? Did Bill authorise your post?

Garry M

29th Feb 2004, 11:38

Ferris buddy... take a valium!

I'm not tied to AOPA and I have no idea who Bill is. If the current system was so safe one would assume the Australian accident rate must be superior to that of countries running NAS style systems... and that doesn't seem to be the case. While I'm not a fan of change for change sakes I am open to reasonable debate. There are so many interest groups with various agendas involved in this deal now using safety as the key catch phrase, that it seems inevitable that any chance of reasonable debate is now gone.

And with that, I bid this sorry thread farewell.

ferris

29th Feb 2004, 18:24

Garry;
If you genuinely want to know the answer to your questions, go back and read the 500 or so posts on these forums about ozNAS. It's just a bit tiring going over and over the same ground (such as untruths about safety records- compare Australia's mid-air collision rate between RPT's and lighties {it's ZERO BTW} with that of the US. We have the biscuit man telling us that it's now an improvement and 'resource allocation' to remove classC protection).
You are not open to reasonable debate, as you have taken your bat and ball and gone home.
As for agendas- well, ask for a reason for the NAS debacle.

separator

2nd Mar 2004, 07:52

Latest Press Release from Bernie "Where did it all go wrong?" Smith. From memory this portable unit is SSR only and not TAAATS compatible so I would expect that it would probably be more trouble that it was worth.

"Deployment of transportable radar

No. 07/04

Airservices Australia will install, on a temporary basis, a transportable radar unit near Launceston in April, the Corporation’s Chief Executive, Bernie Smith said today.

Mr Smith said the unit will assist air traffic controllers, based at Melbourne airport, to increase aircraft surveillance and situational awareness to pilots over Tasmania.

“The system involved is used to back-up the Airservices Australia radar network and is available to replace a sensor when required. It is normally stored in Melbourne but will now be kept operational at Launceston, “he said.

“However, it will still be used in other locations if required.”

Mr Smith said Airservices experts had assessed as to where best to place the mobile radar unit to achieve optimal results.

The analysis has taken in airports in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania, he said.

“Launceston airport was chosen because of the type and volume of commercial and general aviation traffic and as the site best suited to operation of the radar system.”

For further information contact: David Gray 0418 487 794"

sep

Chris Higgins

2nd Mar 2004, 09:04

Yes here we go again...the American example of how everything should work in OZ.

It doesn't quite work that way folks...yet again!

Sun Valley Idaho, where I fly into reguarly, is very heavily controlled by a Charted Visual Approach Procedure. The airport is for all intents and purposes a one way strip, blessed with mountains both sides of the approach path.

The procedure calls for pilots who are inbound to stay right (East) and for pilots that are outbound to stay right (West). There is a road that delineates the centre of the valley.

Your field of view for traffic scanning is very protected by the absence of any possibility of a plane appearing form out of a mountain, although you should be careful not to hit the hills all the same.

Not to make anyone else upset, but the belief that Sun Valley is not covered by radar or places like Steamboat Springs, Colorado or Butte, Montana, is pretty much rubbish. We do "hold for release", but before the after take-off checklist can be completed we are told that we are in radar contact.

Yes Dick! It's Class E airspace...I know! I know! The difference is that everyone has working transponders and that the culture dictates that they are talking to an approach or center facility.

Just one final note. There is only one type of "commercial" pilot in the United States, that is one that has an instrument rating. If you don't have an instrument rating they only allow you to fly 25 miles from your departure airport (scenic flights). I wonder why that is? Maybe, the Americans realise that you can't fly around in ignorant bliss and call yourself a professional either!

Like most Australians.