Enough BS! How about we DO something!

[Ultralights]

Ok! I am sick of all this NAS BS!
Its blatently obvious that a lot of you here dont like Mr D.Smith for whatever reason, but the fact remains, He has the Political clout that most others here do not! but i dont see how arguing with him here will help anything.

Basically i am a 500Hr GA/Recreational Pilot that owns his own aircraft! and all this NAS BS means to me is a lot more confusion! and More Cost!

Sadly i remeber the good ol" days of cheap flying and small commuter and charter operators all over the country! now that is all gone.

The fact is, GA/ Commuter/ Charter etc is in a steep decline! the grassroots flying where ALL Professional Pilots earnt their wings!

So Instead of non stop crap from everyone, why dont we put our combined energy and weight into getting something done that will WORK!

even if that means Helping Mr Smith and his political influences in CASA/ Airservices circles, and come up with some new changes and suggestions that will achieve what we are after, a Great SAFE Flying environment for ALL!!

So how about it people! your all professionals here? and get some healthy discussion to come up with solutions to the problem!!!!!! I dare ya!

[Wizofoz]

Ultra,

Could you please outline EXACTLEY where the rollback of NAS will increase your costs?

[Ultralights]

I am not against of for the rollback, either way, it will not have much of an impact on me personally, but i am trying to look at the bigger picture and the greater aviation community, rollback or not, either system does not appear to favour any parties. all i have noticed is ever increasing costs, most recently the airservices proposal to increase landing charges at YSBK and others.

what i am proposing is some healthy Civilised discussion to come up with a solution. maybe even a totally new approach to airspace usage! that will work effectivly and cheaply in OZ to help promote safer skies and be less of a financial burden that will see renewed growth in the aiviation.

im pretty sure most will agree, everything so far has been a waste of money, and has not been of any benefit to aviation in this country.

[Bula]

I think something healthy has finally come out of the system with the implmentation of the 2b plans. Honeslty it makes it safer because all you recreational pilots will actually turn your transponders ON for once because you need a clearance ;)

Really i dont know what all the whoo haaa about class C above class D is.. How many class D aerodromes do we have in this country anyway?

How about instead of fighting the system we work with it.

Now common in all honesty.. do you really think that a change in airspace is going to bring GA back to the golden days....... :rolleyes:

[Wizofoz]

Ultra,

I'm not suggesting you are anything but sincere and rational. But before we can get anywhere you are going to have to set some specific targets.

You're basically saying "Let's all get together and fix it!!". Fix what exactley? The whole point of this debarcle has been that, whilst considered and rational change is always welcome, there was nothing so fundementaly flawed about Australian airspace as to need radical change.

Australain aviation DOES shoulder higher charges for airspace than the US. NOT because our airspace is less efficient (It isn't), but because our goverment owned service provider charges for its services, whilst the FAA doesn't.

Dick Smiths contention that GA is somehow doomed because of the NAS roleback, whilst it would be saved under his regime, is ludicrous to say the least.

By the way, Airservices doesn't charge landing fees at Bankstown. It may charge for use of the tower, but the people who OWN the airport levy airport charges.

[gaunty]

Ultralights

Apart from congratulations and happy flying I cannot but agree with your sentiments.

The fact is, GA/ Commuter/ Charter etc is in a steep decline! the grassroots flying where ALL Professional Pilots earnt their wings! maybe maybe not, I choose to think not.

Mr Smith and his cohort actually have no idea from whence you come but would appropriate your "cause" as theirs.

The future is not nearly as bleak as he/they would present.

Neither is Mr Smiths "political" influence anywhere near what you would imagine or he implies and it is certainly not something that you would want on your side if you want to be taken seriously.

He carries waaay too much "baggage" deserved or not, to be taken seriously anywhere.

That he resorts to PPRuNe to state his case, is in itself a measure of his desperation.

PPRuNe is a place where discussion on publicly stated positions is conducted, it is not a place where you would normally reveal policy. :p

[tobzalp]

We could have a meeting called the Luggage Point Meeting at the Pinkenba Pub. We could get some self important know it all to fly out from the USA and then not actually achieve anything. Somehow I remember this occuring recently.

[Buster Hyman]

but i dont see how arguing with him (DS) here will help anything.
Well, I have no vested interest in the whole NAS matter (except for being a punter occasionally), however being a fencesitter, I think everyone is rather fortunate to be able to have an opportunity to debate with the man himself. Like him or loathe him, you've got to respect someone who will take questions and answer criticism from his anonymous peers.:ok:

[Howard Hughes]

Buster, to be a good communicator and able to pull two opposing groups together you need to LISTEN and show a little EMPATHY, two traits that Dick has totally failed to demonstrate in the whole NAS debacle.

Not once in all the pages of debate in these hallowed halls has Dick directly answered a question! Instead he choses to spout rhetoric and be totally oblivious or just plain not interested in points made by the other individuals on this forum.

I am not anti NAS nor am I anti airspace reform. I have flown in the US system and can see some advantages in introducing certain aspects of that system here. However what we need to be do, is only implement those parts of the US or any other airspace system for that matter, that will improve and enhance safety and make our totally unique system more efficient and cost effective!!

Of course all that has been demonstrated with the botched implementation of NAS is degraded safety and no quantifiable cost savings!!

I think I need a lie down now!!

Cheers, HH.
:ok:

[Spodman]

Well Dick has been sorta forthright in what he wants, though he has repeatedly whined that stuff that isn't on the list or still TBA hasn't bedded in yet, (duh!). Isn't it possible you'll get some more "...all this NAS BS means to me is a lot more confusion! and More Cost!" if you get on with "...Helping Mr Smith..." This is the confusion and cost you'll have to deal with, plus rolling back everything being rolled back:

Stage 2c - Probably TBA again...

29 - Change to CTAF
US CTAF procedures will apply at all aerodromes in Class G airspace. (This includes MBZs reclassified as CTAFs).

Stage 3 - TBA
5 - US Transponder Requirements
Introduce US requirements for transponder carriage.

6 - Unicom
Operators of scheduled services will be encouraged to arrange for UNICOM services to be provided when scheduled RPT services are present on the CTAF.

7 - Class C & D CTR VFR Clearances
Procedures for VFR aircraft will follow the US model in respect of clearances where establishment of communication with ATC constitutes a clearance.

11 - Class C terminal areas
Class C airspace will exist in terminal areas (TMAs) associated with CS, BN, CG, CB, SY, ML, AD and PH. Class C procedures will also apply to the joint Civil and Military user airfields, DN, TL and WLM.

12 - Tower Class C
Class C CTRs (all or segments) will be allocated to control towers to visually manage low level VFR aircraft arriving into or departing the zone.

13 - Class G adjacent to Class C VFR flight following
An on-request flight following service will be available to VFR flights within radar coverage in adjacent Class G.

16 - Class D Airspace
US model Class D airspace will exist at non-radar controlled TMAs where a tower service is provided.

17 - GAAP Class D
Existing GAAP aerodromes will be redesignated Class D aerodromes.

23 - Class E terminal airspace trial
Class E terminal airspace will be introduced at two specific locations.
_
24 - VFR pop-up procedures
Pop-up clearance (en-route VFR upgrading to IFR rules) procedures introduced.
_
25 - VFR pop-up procedures
Introduce low level Class E corridors, where required, above 1200FT AGL and above A085.
_
26 - Class E corridors
E corridors, where implemented, will be designed to a GPS cross track error dimension.
_
27 - Class E VFR flight following
An on-request radar flight following service for VFR aircraft will be available on a sector specific and workload-permitting basis.
_
30 - ENR DTI withdrawn
Directed traffic information services for en-route IFR aircraft will be withdrawn.
_
31 - IFR discrete class G Frequency
A radio frequency will be allocated for IFR pilot to pilot communication.
_
32 - IFR DTI – Class G terminal areas
A directed traffic information service will be provided for IFR aircraft on other IFR aircraft in terminal areas, with published instrument approach procedures.
_
33 - IFR Class G services
IFR aircraft that submit a plan will receive the following services where possible:
• Hazard alerting,
• SARTIME alerting based on aerodrome arrival and departure, and
• On request traffic information service in relation to observed radar tracks.
_
34 - Class G VFR flight following
An on-request radar flight following service for VFR aircraft will be available on a sector specific and workload permitting basis.
_
36 - Alert Areas
Amend Danger Areas to Alert Areas (Alert areas are depicted on aeronautical charts).
_
37 - Restricted Areas
Military Restricted airspace will be rationalised.
_
38 - Warning Areas
Warning areas will replace Restricted Areas, which are currently established outside Australia's territorial limits.
_
39 - Military Operating Areas
Military Operating Areas (MOA) are established and vertical and lateral limits established.

40 - Military Training Routes
Military Training Routes (MTRs) are established where necessary.
_

42 - Target resolution
Separation standard between IFR and VFR aircraft within Class A and B airspace.
_
43 - Visual Separation
Separation standard between aircraft in controlled airspace in VMC.

NAS stage 4
TBA

9 - Class B
Class B airspace may be established at Australia's busiest airports.

14 - Class C dimensions
Class C airspace will consist of a 5NM radius core surface area that extends from surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius step that extends from 1,200 feet to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.

15 - Class C dimensions
Class C terminal airspace will have an upper limit consistent with the US model.

18 - Class D dimensions
The lateral and vertical dimensions of Class D airspace will be individually tailored. Generally the CTR will extend to 2,500 AGL.

35 - Low density Class G terminal areas
Aeronautical study methodology will be used to assess the removal of directed traffic service in low density Class G terminal areas.

[Buster Hyman]

Fair enough HH, I'll take your word on that as I haven't really followed the threads on this matter.:ok:

I'm only coming from the angle that it'd be nice to get other "notable" individuals to take the time and be available to us mugs, once in a while. I would certainly haved liked an opportunity to quiz Mick Toller, for example, even though I would have a fair idea as to his responses to the questions I would ask. :rolleyes: Flaming people will only drive them away and an opportunity to provoke a response from them is then lost...just my 2cents (rounded up to 5):)