Nas, Broome, Roberts, Hall

[Voices of Reason]

NAS AND SAFETY CASE


In the space of just a few weeks, we have witnessed probably the first scientific and structured debate in the public domain regarding the airspace change proposals being implemented in Australia.

The report by the Broome airport, and the well argued responses by both Dr Robert Hall, and Dr S J Roberts, are effectively doing what a public and open Safety Case process should have done – that is, identify the purported hazards, discuss and argue the potential impacts of those hazards, and then make reasoned and reasonable judgements about the safety effects of change.

We are not sufficiently aware of the nuances and peculiarities of the Australian airspace models to make judgements as to whether or not the Broome study, or the comments by Hall and Roberts are valid.

What we can say is that this is the type of debate that should have taken place BEFORE your changes were implemented. AND it needs to take place in the open, so that the arguments are transparent. Your NAS Implementation Group should, if it were truly interested in safety, publish all three reports on its website, and invite the authors to a cooperative hazard workshop, so that they can agree a strategy to move forward.

Only then will the users of the airspace trust that the model that is chosen, and implemented, has been properly assessed, and risks appropriately mitigated – even if that model is not one that may have wished to see implemented.

Your Mr Dick Smith - we suspect inadvertently - has, by responding to the Broome report, and by publishing the Hall and Roberts reports, finally grasped the nature of a Safety Case – free and frank discussion of potential safety hazards and effective mitigations.

It is a pity that over $75,000,000 (conservatively) has already been expended to get to this point (refer our post under “NAS Reform – the $ Cost So Far”).
[B]

[Chris Higgins]

I really have no idea who you guys are..."The Voices of Reason", were a name a bunch of American Airlines Pilots wished to call themselves during their last dispute during the Clinton era. I cannot accept that you represent NATCO with a hotmail address and I wish to know what your end game is in offering advice on Airspace to an Australian audience.

As a pilot who spent three and a half years based in JFK International, your writing doesn't actually even sound like the language of an active controller. I cannot help but hold a healthy level of cynicism here. I spent the evening with some controllers in Atlantic City the other night who are working with software interfacing with the FAA on ATC tooling. They didn't know what it was you were trying to achieve either.

We need to get to the bottom of this! Quite frankly, I am considering going back to Australia to see if there's anything I can do to help sort this mess out. I have almost a month of vacation time owed to me.

Please, VOR, inform us,

What is your source of information?

Your source of funding?

What are you trying to gain?

How many contributors are you?

Why are there so many inconsistencies in your posts?



Sincerely,

Chris Higgins

[tobzalp]

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/tg.jpg

[Icarus2001]

Chris Higgins So are you saying that because you do not know the motvation, funding and qualifications of VoR his points are not valid? Twaddle.

So because we know what Mr Smiths motivation is his points are valid?

A well made point is just that whether it comes from a baggage handler (no offence intended) or the cleaner (likewise) or the CEO, or a passenger.

The truth always comes out ask Robert Hill at present or Peter Reith two years ago.

[Chris Higgins]

You think we should just take advice from anyone? I thought everyone was being critical of Smith because we all said he is an amateur?

I think it's time we had some rationale to these "experts" advice to us all.

[Icarus2001]

Chris I have no problem with Mr Smiths amateur status. I know many amateur pilots who outfly many commercial pilots. that is hardly the point.

You seemed to be challenging VoR to disclose who or what they are so that we may validate or otherwise their opinions and comments.

It seems to me that one of the great things about this forum is that we usually have no idea who is posting so their argument can only be judged on its merits rather than through the filter of say knowing the poster is an Airline Captain or an ATCO or John Anderson. It is the veracity of the comments made and their logic and foundation in good airspace management principles that is important isn't it?

For example I know many pilots switch off when they hear the words Dick Smith. Now I personally have always kept an open mind. I have met him and agree with some of his points but disagree with others. However when I see him spout half truths or half of the message then I can only wonder why he is so adamant that we need this system. He does not answer reasoned argument and selectively quotes US airports.

Where are the cost savings coming from?

[Pass-A-Frozo]

tobzalp:
Absolute classic! ha! :=

[Chris Higgins]

I have no difficulty believing that you know PPLs that fly better than some of the current crop of CPLs. I have been making references to declining commercial training standards for years. In fact, I think a new training, testing, and ground school syllabus should be set for Australian certification. Back to our original argument though...I am having a really hard time accepting that Voices of Reason and 4711 are being motivated by pure thoughts of altruism.

Is it sufficient for you to get on an airliner next time and just here a deep voice and say, "well, that sounds like a captain to me". No, the airline that paints it's name on the side of the plane assures you through rigorous levels of accountability, that in fact, the guy or girl sitting in the hot-seat is in fact qualified to be there.

That's all I'm asking for!

[Voices of Reason]

Chris Higgins.

You are absolutely right to question both the content of our posts, and our qualifications to make the statements that we do. On the whole, we support free and frank exchanges – with transparency – and not anonymity. That is the way in which we have been able to participate in other on-line fora, including PPRuNe.

Unfortunately, the people who have provided information to us have done exactly that – that is they have attended open fora, provided expert inputs, made considered and reasoned appeals to senior management in Australia’s service provider organization, regulator, investigator and government – only to be either rebuked, or told to hold their counsel.

We are replaying their information in the interest of ensuring that all of the information necessary to make decisions on a subject as emotive as airspace reform in Australia is in the public domain. On some occasions we have made judgements – however generally we have simply played back factual data, most of which we have referenced.

To release ourselves from anonymity at any point would severely compromise the qualified people to whom you refer who have taken some risks releasing material. We have been at pains to ensure that any material published is not defamatory, or technically incorrect.

We have stated on a number of occasions that we do not oppose airspace reform. We support the use of all of the ICAO airspace classifications – including Class E airspace - and find that the application of those classifications in other States, such as the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe and so on, is effective and safe.

Mr Dick Smith is absolutely correct when he makes claims about the efficacy and efficiency of application of procedures and airspace classifications in the United States.

What we have repeatedly stated is that you cannot simply pick up a set of procedures from one country – be it the United States or Mongolia – and apply them in another State, without addressing the potential safety issues [and by the way we have already stated that we don’t believe there is a significant safety issue associated with the proposed changes] – AND implementing the changes safely.

The United States has grown up with a culture of free access to airspace. You only have to spend time with US AOPA management to realize that the culture is GA focused, with air transport having to fight for access to – or retention of – controlled airspace. Type “Class E airspace” into your internet search engine, and you will find hundreds of references to legislative processes around simple matters such as establishing Class E surface areas. Being based in North America, you will also be aware that it is the States of the United States that request Class E airspace in excess of corridors associated with IFR routes – and that is why some States have blanket E, and some simply have corridors. Changing terminal area routing at major airports in the United States requires at least two years notice, and legislative change.

Australia, from what we can determine, has grown up with an opposite culture – that is, airspace, from early days, was controlled – or serviced - over large volumes, regardless of traffic, complexity, or risk. Releasing that airspace to appropriate service levels is a major cultural change. We witnessed the same cultural issues in the former Soviet Union, and more recently in China, in both of which domains, airspace was effectively Class A airspace to the ground.

Is Class E airspace safe – yes. Can it be implemented safely – yes. Is it being implemented safely in Australia – no. Are the United States’ CTAF procedures safe – yes. Could they be introduced safely – probably. Are they being implemented safely in Australia – no.

As to our altruism, we participate as every other participant on this site, on these topics – in the interest of generating the debate and discussion that should have been allowed in open fora during the design and implementation of Australia’s airspace reform.

[Icarus2001]

Chris Higgins I am a little confused you say
I have been making references to declining commercial training standards for years. In fact, I think a new training, testing, and ground school syllabus should be set for Australian certification

On another thread you say you have a multi-million dollar carrer(sic) in the USA. So how much exposure do you have to the latest crop of CPL holders in Australia?

Exactly how many "new" CPL holders have you flown with in say the last two years?