Senate hearing and NAS – interesting answers from CASA

[Dick Smith]

During the recent Senate hearing of the Committee of Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport, Bill Heffernan received some interesting answers from Mr Peter Cromarty, the head of the Office of Airspace Regulation.

Here are some examples.

Firstly, in relation to the Qantas incident at Canberra (where the crew inadvertently entered the wrong point for the holding distance and ended up heading towards Tinderry Peak, 300 feet below its altitude – see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/11chapter10.pdf)), Senator Heffernan asked why a radar control service was not given in that airspace when the tower closed, considering that Melbourne Centre operates 24 hours per day.

Senator Heffernan – I understand that, but they can actually monitor the approach so that mob there does not fly into a hill.
Mr Cromarty – I do not know why. You would have to ask Airservices that one.

“I do not know why,” – and this man is the head of the Office of Airspace Regulation at CASA on a staggering salary. CASA has never asked Airservices to use the radar properly in that airspace. Surely as CASA is the regulator of safety it would be up to CASA to make the request. Why would Airservices want to have more responsibility without any extra income, unless it was a requirement of the safety regulator?

In a question relating to the NAS objective of Class E over Class D, Senator Heffernan asked Mr Cromarty:

Senator HEFFERNAN—You are a full supporter of the full implementation of the NAS class E over D airspace in Australia?
Mr Cromarty—I am a full supporter of a risk-based approach and if that is the appropriate cost-benefit solution then I am a full supporter.
Senator HEFFERNAN—That is a very good bureaucratic answer. You will never get the sack while you answer questions like that.

In relation to the obvious resistance by some people in CASA to move to the NAS airspace policy, the following exchange took place about the proposed draft Airspace Policy Statement – which deletes any reference to the NAS safety upgrades that are in the current policy set by Mark Vaile.

Senator HEFFERNAN—What I am trying to make sure is in people’s minds here is that there is not a conspiracy in CASA to dump the Mark Vaile version of events for some other change of events because the difficulty that some people see is that there is a document, which is the draft document, which takes out all the air safety stuff. It has all been deleted—but, anyway, I will come to that. Mr Cromarty, is there some resistance by well-meaning people in CASA to the US model of E over D?
Mr Cromarty—Not that I am aware of, Senator.

Later, the following was said.

Senator HEFFERNAN—Have you had an expert of the US airspace system working with the Office of Airspace Regulation in the last couple of years?
Mr Cromarty—No, Senator.
Senator HEFFERNAN—Would that have been a good idea if you had the money and the budget?
Mr Cromarty—I do not think it would, Senator, no. We act in a professional and thorough manner in the way that we do all of our—
Senator HEFFERNAN—So if I was to ask you why haven’t you, you would say, ‘We didn’t need to.’
Mr Cromarty—I would say that is the case.

Senator Heffernan later referred to the fact that Peter Cromarty hailed from the United Kingdom, saying:

Senator HEFFERNAN —So, given that you hail from there and they do not have NAS, do you have a solid knowledge of the US National Airspace System that is current government policy?
Mr Cromarty —I have a solid knowledge of the current government policy, yes.
Senator HEFFERNAN —Do you support that policy?
Mr Cromarty —I do.

Very interesting times!

[Capn Bloggs]

Very interesting times indeed.

Heffernan asking questions on NAS. Yeh right.

Re E over D:

"Put it this way, senator. What would your opinion of E over D be if, for example, at Alice Springs, a jet operated by "that mob" carrying 180 people collided with a Cessna that had been flying over the airport at 6000ft not in radio contact with the tower, whereas for absolutely no extra cost, both aircraft could be positively separated by an Air Traffic Controller (as is currently the case with C over D)? Well Senator? Would you like to contact your brain's trust?"

the NAS safety upgrades that are in the current policy set by Mark Vaile.
"Current Policy"? You mean cajoled into by powerful lobbyists...

Re Canberra: make sure the tower is open. Although it could also be argued that EGPWS technology was used there to save Airservices the cost of keeping open another TAAATS station (what was the value you were quoting a few years back Dick, $1m per annum?) just to monitor the IFRs that try to run into a hill.

What does your cost-benefit analysis tell us about manning the extra TAAATS stations to provide coverage for your beloved E airspace?

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, go on, keep your mind closed – it is almost as if it is set in concrete.

What you constantly leave out is that while Class C may be safer than Class E when it is adequately staffed, you don’t mention that Airservices don’t put on extra staffing – they leave the controller in the Class D airspace below (normally one person) to be responsible for procedural separation in huge amounts of Class C.

It is obvious that one day, if the workload is high in the Class C, resulting in an accident in the Class D below - where the risk of collision is far higher - many people could die.

Bloggs, open up your mind.

[Capn Bloggs]

they leave the controller in the Class D airspace below (normally one person) to be responsible for procedural separation in huge amounts of Class C.
Keh? On departure out of Alice, we get handed to Melbourne Centre by 8000ft normally. Huge volume? You're being a tad dramatic methinks. On arrival, we get handed over to the tower at about 45nm, but that is for obvious reasons.

So Dick, by saying that extra controllers would be required to run C over D, you are implying that there is obviously a lot of VFR traffic in E. That very traffic, in E over D, would then become invisible apart from a shaky transponder requirement in a non-radar environment where there is no need or indeed no way of checking that said transponder is actually working.

I think it is you who needs to open up your mind. This is not DC-3 verses low-perf low speed lighty of the 50s and 60s. As I have said numerous times, nobody in their right mind in this day and age, if designing a piece of airspace, would knowingly mix no-radio VFR with IFR, especially high-cap, transponder or not. Get over it, Dick. E is is from a bygone era.

[Dick Smith]

So you would not support upgrading class G to E?

[GaryGnu]

Dick,

I have stated elsewhere that all the questions asked by Senator Heffernan achieved was to publicly highlight the current Government's intention to remove the NAS policy from the forthcoming Australian Airspace Policy Statement. If they do in fact do that I, for one (and perhaps Capn Bloggs for two?) will applaud them. It is not an illegitimate policy change however much you campaign against it.

NAS was an overly prescriptive policy imposed by the Minister on the regulator and service provider (at the time the same identity) without due thought and with inadequate process and safeguards. If anything good came out of the NAS debacles it was that airspace processes were objectified to include risk and cost/benefit analyses and gave a clear separation of the regulatory and service provision functions in airspace policy.

NAS was a blip in the regulatory evolution of airspace that allowed someone outside the structures of government to have undue influence on airspace designation. That mistake has been acknowledged and may finally be removed from Government policy.

A couple of specifics.

As you would know very well the Approach Control Service for the terminal area airspace around Canberra was provided from Melbourne Centre. If I recall correctly the rostered ATC was running late that day. One of the many errors that contributed to the eventual incident. I don't yet understand what it is you are advocating for that particular airspace during tower closure hours. If it is a remote approach control service then all that is required is an extension of the current arrangements to go around the clock. I would suspect that is a matter for the regulator and service provider to determine after conducting the aforementioned analyses. If you want an enroute service through there why does it have to be Class E? Why not Class C as it would be at night and there would be little if any VFR traffic (in fact there would be little traffic at all- hence the reason for the tower closure and reversion to Class G).

I have previously questioned your apparent enthusiasm for Class E above low-level non-controlled aerodromes where it is currently Class G on the grounds of cost. I have since been told that it may be possible with little if any increase in cost. My informant could be wrong but if not then I would certainly support such an idea where appropriate. I hope this demonstrates openness to new ideas that you lament is not prevalent around this place and other more tangible arenas.

[Howabout]

Dick,

I'm a bit confused; maybe I am a little slow.

On the one hand you advocate that Class E over D is the way to go, which, in my opinion, unnecessarily increases risk (see Bloggs' comments); while on the other, you attempt to tie in an upgrading of G to E as being consistent with a reversal of C to E in terminal areas. As I said, maybe I'm a bit slow, but that's adding 2 and 2 and getting 7 IMHO.

I don't think anyone would disagree with your call for G to be upgraded to E where this is possible - it makes sense. Why have an inferior class of airspace when a better service can be provided through an achievable upgrade? I think that you would have almost universal support on that one.

But, once again, there seems to be a level of inconsistency. I may be wrong, as the memory is a little hazy, but I seem to remember something along the lines of 'G = Good :ok:,' that was repeated ad nauseum earlier in the airspace debate. Now G seems to be 'not so good:uhoh:.'

[Duke16]

I admit my bias that Class E works well and is a very flexible airspace. I admit that I have flown a lot in the US and globally in RPT operations. I understand there is great debate on the virtues of the US NAS in Aus from many different perspectives. The argument I hear most from naysayers is that Australia has so much less radar coverage that the two systems are incomparable. In previous threads I have read about the Canberra incident involving a QF 737 on arrival after tower hours.

I just cannot understand how any pilot would tolerate a system that requires flying an airliner at night after the tower closes into Australia's capital with excellent radar coverage and then just go it alone during the final stages of descent. The debate seems to focus on the great concern of the itinerant no talk no squawk VFR in Class E and the result is we end up with "Cleared to leave control area on descent....good night" Class G. Just how many itinerant non compliant VFR aircraft are droning around CB at 1130 pm?

Towers close late at night all across the US and it is unreasonable for many reasons to keep them open. But we descend in Class E with center and they are part of my team until very low level. If the crew is tired and blows an MSA, they let you know. Isn't that a good thing?

[Howabout]

Duke 16,

I doubt that you will get any argument. The majority, I would guess, is with Dick on this one and would totally agree with you as well. But the rider is 'where it's achievable.' The ATC fraternity has been at pains to point out that either they don't have the staff right now or that radar coverage in certain areas precludes a service. I don't have the expertise, or knowledge, to dispute their claims, but I have not seen anyone on here from ATC say that E replacing G is a bad idea.

What is in dispute is the replacement of C with E.

[Dangly Bits]

Was Senator Heffernan the clown that "Whooped" it up then ran away in the corridors in Parliment House in front of the media?

Yep I'd put my faith in him..... Good call....

[Capn Bloggs]

Duke,

A couple of points, if I may:

• The QF flight into Canberra was supposed to have the tower opened: the controller was late for his morning start. See GaryGNU's post above.

• While 1130PM may be a quiet time for lighties, you cannot have E airspace turned on or off easily. I have been in many situations where workload during CTAF segregation with VFRs (and other IFRs) would have made also complying with procedural ATC a nightmare had we had E down to 700ft at that airport. If I had cancelled IFR so I could better manage the situation what was the point of having it in the first place?

• I can see little point in being procedurally controlled by an ATC down an instrument approach. They are not going to stop me flying into a hill. Now if we had low-level ADS-B coverage, fair enough, but Dick won't let us have that. E just will not work efficiently outside surveillance (radar or ADS-B) coverage. So what's the point? To separate IFRs? Do we need it with the traffic levels we have? Ironically, in some areas, Class E would gridlock the airspace, whereas our G-Plus works well.

Let's face it, the only reason Class E was invented was to allow VFR free reign, off frequency, hoping they don't clobber a jet (how many RAs on VFR occur in E airspace in the US?). Nothing more, nothing less. The John and Martha King (IIRC) roadshow, sponsored by the NASIG a few years ago, said exactly that.

If we can afford to have a controller watching every IFR approach in IMC to stop them running into a hill, (or at least be manned for the worst case) then fair enough, but Dick is screaming from the rooftops about pilots losing jobs because of costs, so what is he on about? The fact is nobody has done an accurate study of just how much replacing G with E would cost. I know the controllers in my part of the world just could not cope with procedural E without a significant split-up of the sectors, based on what I hear on the radio.

Was Senator Heffernan the clown that "Whooped" it up then ran away in the corridors in Parliment House in front of the media?
Wasn't he also seen running towards Terry Hills yelling "I'm gunna get you for this!". :}

[le Pingouin]

Howabout, spot on. Give us the resources and we're all yours Duke16. Until then it's a pointless academic debate.

[Quokka]

Ahh... Senator Heffernan... the man who, in true Liberal/National Party Coalition form, paraded fabricated evidence under protection of Parliamentary Privilege to destroy a good man's reputation... and then ran from being held accountable.

Coward.


"This sad affair really stands on its own.

It's a case of a parliamentary member using parliamentary privilege, which is an enormous privilege that he possesses, to engage in what is in my respectful opinion a scurrilous attack on a judge, a justice of the High Court.

It is without excuse."

Sir Ronald Wilson

(Appointed a justice of the High Court in 1979, and sat on that bench until 1989)


So, Mr Smith, have you chosen the disgraced Senator to champion your cause?

[bilbert]

Give Heffernan his due. he's the only politician who gives a RA about aviation and asks some very astute questions. Obviously should be the Minister for eveything with wheels and propellers in the next govenment.

[Dick Smith]

Gary, you are so right. We can’t have anyone such as an elected Minister giving a Direction as to how CASA should operate – that would be outrageous. Of course any Direction on how CASA should operate should come from a bureaucrat like Peter Cromarty, the head of the Office of Airspace Regulation.

I understand Peter’s original training was with the UK CAA. Yes, the UK CAA, which is responsible for one of the worst airspace systems in the world. Remember, this is an airspace system with vast amounts of Class G, where airline aircraft are controlled – yes, “controlled”, by air traffic control – even though the airspace is uncontrolled.

For example, at Plymouth airport the whole non-radar tower, complete with air traffic controllers, sits in uncontrolled airspace with an ILS. Controllers actually “control” airline aircraft on the ILS, whilst other aircraft can fly in cloud right through the ILS approach path – totally legally.

It is obvious that there is not one person in the British CAA with enough ability to upgrade the airspace and take on people like yourself who will resist change in every way.

Also remember that the British CAA has singlehandedly destroyed one of the best aviation systems in the world. In the UK they originally manufactured both airline and general aviation aircraft. Now virtually nothing is made there. There is some part manufacturing, and those units are sent to the USA for professional completion.

The UK CAA is so incompetent and without any proper decision making that it insists a resident fire fighting service is required for flight training. This has resulted in such high prices for flight training in the UK, that English magazines are full of ads from American companies offering the UK licence in Florida, where the cost of fire fighting is not required.

Yes, go ahead Gary – resist change in every way you can. I don’t know how you ever moved up to a 737 cockpit. Surely you would be more comfortable in a DC-4 – at least it has 4 engines, not just 2!

[Dick Smith]

By the way Gary, you now seem to think that by demonstrating “openness to new ideas” that we will now move to Class E airspace. Ha ha. That won’t happen unless the Office of Airspace Regulation is ordered to do so. Surely you understand that they make no decisions. Simply look at the last few years since they were established.

I don’t want the approach control service to be going for 24 hours per day for Canberra. That would be ridiculous. The cost would be too high and the approach controller would sit there with nothing to do. I want the proven NAS system, where the enroute controller – who has virtually no workload – is trained to do the approach work when approach closes down. What could be more logical?

The cost is nil because the radar is going all the time, and the controller is present at the console.

Before everyone starts abusing me and saying that it would require extra training, yes, I’ve always said that. When we moved to the safer NAS system, enroute controllers will have to be trained to provide the approach service.

Before everyone yells that the sectors are too big, yes, we would have to remove the ridiculous stratification of the sectors so they are smaller, with the same number of controllers.

I don’t expect this to come from the Office of Airspace Regulation or from Airservices. It will have to come from a Direction by the Minister.

Gary re Government NAS policy, you would have to be joking. The Minister has to personally sign the airspace policy statement. Do you really delude yourself into thinking that he will sign a document which removes all of the NAS safety initiatives that the opposition pushed for, but were not completed by CASA? I can guarantee that there will be no chance of the Minister removing these NAS safety initiatives.

Remember the CASA statement when Airservices reversed the airspace?

By reversing some of the elements introduced in NAS 2b, further progress towards the improved airspace system would seem difficult to achieve.

What do you think of improving the safety of GAAP airports by changing to Class D? Yes, I realise IFR would be separated from IFR in certain circumstances, but that is the safety improvement I want. Or do you want to keep the less safe GAAP system, which is obviously the policy of the Office of Airspace Regulation?

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, you are so ill-informed. You state:

If I had cancelled IFR so I could better manage the situation what was the point of having it (Class E) in the first place?

This is painful, but let me explain again. The reason Class E exists is because you cannot see other aircraft when in cloud. So Class E is like Class A when IMC exists – you are separated from other aircraft for safety purposes. When VMC exists, a sensible pilot will operate in Class E as if it is Class G – which we have now, and you seem to like so much.

In Class E, the pilot will cancel IFR and still be given IFR traffic information (just as they were when it was Class G) but also be able to facilitate moving in and out of an airport without any IFR procedural separation delays.

You don’t seem to understand that Class E has the advantages of Class A when IMC exists, and the advantages of Class G when VMC exists.

By the way, I totally support low level ADS-B coverage. I just don’t support a delusion that the airline industry is going to pay for ADS-B in all VFR aircraft – they are not. I recommend to any operator to fit ADS-B. Indeed, I have been trying for over 12 months to have ADS-B fitted to my Caravan, my Agusta and my CJ3 – all to no avail. I haven’t been able to get a quote for a properly certified unit.

Now that the ADS-B outlets are going in, they will be completely useless with Class G airspace. We already know of traffic on the other aeroplane. However if Class E is extended to low levels, the controller will be able to use an ADS-B standard to separate one aircraft in IMC from the other – this will be highly efficient.

Bloggs, you seem to think everything has to be mandated for responsible operators and pilots to comply. This actually is not so. Airline aircraft of between 10 and 30 passengers don’t require TCAS in Australia, however many operators have complied – they are responsible.

[cbradio]

Obviously should be the Minister for eveything with wheels and propellers in the next govenment.

:eek:


and Deputy PM to Prime Minister McGauran!!

Have you actually read any Hansard of the two gentlemen?

:ugh:

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, there is no inconsistency at all. You do not seem to understand risk management. The best way to ensure the safer system is to allocate our resources effectively. To over allocate resources where the risk is small means you have less money to spend where the risk is higher.

The fact that I want to upgrade some Class G airspace to Class E – especially in the terminal area where we have jet airline aircraft, mountains, and good radar coverage – is quite consistent with me wanting to change Class C above D to Class E. As I have said many times before, this is so the controller in the Class D airspace below can concentrate where the risk is highest. That is the only reason other countries have small amounts of airspace around their towers. That is where the risk is highest, and if you have a controller responsible for circuit traffic and keeping aircraft apart on the runway also being responsible for procedural separation of IFR and VFR aircraft over 20 miles away, it is obvious that safety will be reduced.

The amount of effort required to procedurally separate an IFR and a VFR aircraft in Class C is actually far greater than separating aircraft in the circuit area or on the runway. Remember, in these Class D towers, we often have just one controller. That controller needs to concentrate where the risk is highest. Do you understand that?

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,

Thank you for your concern but I do have a grasp of what E is all about.

I say again:

In VMC, I have to battle lightys in the CTAF. I do not want to be hassled at the same time by procedural separation by ATC so I cancel IFR and get IFR traffic, just like I have in G Plus now. So what's the point of E?

In IMC, there are no lightys. I do not need IFR separation from the one or two other IFRs in the area because I can do it myself much more efficiently than procedural ATC can. So what's the point of E?

The only conceivable reason could be to provide TAAATS terrain avoidance (and only if surveillance [RADAR/ADS-B]) is available), and that could be easily implemented by instructing the Class G controller to pipe up on the low level ATC freq. After all, it would be exactly the same person we would talk to if E were in place, but without all the hassles of controlled airspace. We are required to maintain comms with ATC at all time's you know... And that is of marginal value now that EGPWS is the norm.

Yes, the UK CAA, which is responsible for one of the worst airspace systems in the world. Remember, this is an airspace system with vast amounts of Class G, where airline aircraft are controlled – yes, “controlled”, by air traffic control – even though the airspace is uncontrolled.

Sometimes I wonder whether you do this just to get a bite. When the Airspace 200 debacle was in full swing, the delegation to the USA was told that IFR in G are treated exactly as your quote! I quote from page 4 of Robin BA's report:
When the question of IFR in Class G airspace was raised at the FAA headquarters in Washington, Mr Reggie Matthews, Manager Airspace and Rules Division, who is the FAA executive with policy authority to make an interpretation on ATC regulations, stated that FAA policy requires IFR aircraft in Class G airspace to operate on a clearance. This policy is not documented, however Mr Matthews advised that it is current custom and practice, both for industry and FAA, to function in this manner, and that if an interpretation was required it would come to him for decision.
You're clutching at straws. Leave it alone and enjoy your retirement.

[GaryGnu]

Dick,

So many points...where do I start?

I know nothing of the progress, or even existence of an Airspace Change Proposal to redesignate some Class G airspace to Class E around some non-controlled aerodromes. It is you who, in another thread, had heard rumours of an impending change. All I have done is amend my previously stated position on the issue on the basis of advice given to me by someone I judge as knowledgeable about these things. I wouldn't for a minute dream that the attitude of one anonymous individual would influence the decision making of the OAR.

You bemoan the inertia of the OAR. I actually agree that they are a little slow and reluctant to make controversial decisions. However, let me remind you that this entire bureaucratic structure of OAR and a specific branch of the Department dedicated to airspace policy was set up after the industry tore itself apart over your NAS "policy".

Your vision for the Canberra (and others like it) terminal airspace may have merit. Why don't you submit an ACP to the OAR and see how it goes? You never know all your naysayers may be proved wrong (but they may also be proved right) on cost grounds. I reckon the task would be easier in the Canberra case if it were kept Class C though.

On Class C vs E generally I will have to defer to the words of le pinguoin

A tiny bit of convenience for a tiny number of users.

I maintain that NAS was inappropriate policy. It was, to borrow a phrase, far too down in the weeds. The minister should not be directing which designations should apply to certain volumes of airspace. He/she should set the overall tenets by which the airspace should be administered and the long-term strategic goals to be achieved by airspace management. As to whether the NAS characteristics enhanced safety, we'll never know as at the time there was never any proper analyses carried out nor were they implemented properly (which if I recall correctly was one of the Voices of Reasons central themes - happy to be contradicted on that though).

Whether the NAS is actually pulled from the Airspace Policy Statement is immaterial though as I understand that any remaining characteristics, some of which may actually work in Australia, are to be subject to the proper processes that you never insisted upon when heading the Airspace Reform Group.

I am no expert on GAAP vs Class D procedures anymore but I am happy to abide by whatever decision the OAR may make after proper analyses.

Just remember it was you that has politicised airspace management in Australia. The industry is happy to leave it to due process by professionals but you insist on imposing your vision for airspace with a crash or crash through approach.

If you are so keen on seeing your vision implemented get involved in the process instead of sniping through your political proxies.

[Howabout]

bilbert, on matters aviation and so-called 'astute questions', I doubt Senator H would know a prop from his elbow. It seemed pretty clear to me, and it seems some others, that he'd been fed his lines. Neat, though, the way risk increasers were sold as 'safety improvements.' Gotta pay credit to his handler on that one.

Or was ya just joshin' an' bein' all sarcastic like?

[Dick Smith]

GaryGnu, you are not even confident enough to put your own name on a post when you are commenting about safety issues that affect the people you fly. What complete gutlessness!

I love your comment:

Just remember it was you that has politicised airspace management in Australia. The industry is happy to leave it to due process by professionals but you insist on imposing your vision for airspace with a crash or crash through approach.

First of all, I have never had a “crash or crash through approach” – you have fallen for the left wing propaganda from Liz Jackson at 4 Corners. She is an inaccurate journalist who is so sloppy that she should hand back any awards she has ever achieved.

By the way, if I hadn’t imposed a vision on this industry, we would still have something like $100 million per annum being spent on a full position VFR reporting system – which would have cost $1.7 billion over the last 17 years, and probably meant that you wouldn’t have a job.

[Dick Smith]

Capn Bloggs, I love it. So set in your mind is the fundamentalism of what you learnt that you can’t possibly grasp that there could be something better.

For example, you state:

I do not need IFR separation from the one or two other IFRs in the area because I can do it myself much more efficiently than procedural ATC can. So what's the point of E?

Bloggs, haven’t you realised that there is absolutely no standard for IFR separation in Class G? If you are in cloud with your fare paying passengers, and at the same time there is a low time pilot who has just got his or her instrument rating, that is the standard that would be set.

Why do we bother to have controllers at all if pilots can safely separate themselves when in cloud in the terminal area? Why would we have procedural standards at all? Why don't we let air traffic controllers make up the standard for separation in IMC if we allow low time pilots, just having got their instrument rating, to decide the "standard" they are going to use to separate their aircraft from yours when in cloud in Class G?

Capn Bloggs, at least you are consistent. Everything you state is about retaining the status quo. You simply can’t believe there could be a better way of doing things.

[Howabout]

Sorry Dick, can't help myself, but the argument can logically be extended to question why we would 'allow low time pilots, just having got their PPL, to decide the standard they are going to use to separate their aircraft from your jet in Class E?'

I love my old Longines automatic watch, which is akin to 1950's airspace procedures that put the onus for separation on the LCD; but my modern, battery-driven, quartz model is more reliable and accurate.

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, because the backup is vigilance and see and avoid when in VMC in E. In cloud you do not have that backup! Thats why I want class E where we can afford it.

[Chimbu chuckles]

because the backup is vigilance and see and avoid when in VMC in E

Great stuff Dick!!

The 'backup' is the most widely discredited form of 'separation' known to aviation.

So how about the lighty cruising 1000' below cloud in E, transponder not on/not calibrated/not in mode C, and possibly not paying a great deal of attention to the radio/not aware of which frequency/on right frequency but insufficient SA , when I come busting out of the could on top of him in my B767 at 350-400kts and 4000'/minute?

[Dick Smith]

Probably the same as what happens now in class G in which we have many thousands of jet operations per year!

God some people are dopey. If see and avoid does not work you should inform your passengers of the fact that there will be times that that's what you will be relying on.

And you should get another job.

[Howabout]

Chimbu, you are obviously 'resistant to change' and a dead-set 'fundamentalist.' It's called the big sky theory you dummy, Haven't you caught on yet?

SA is not important - I just put a fresh CD in my player, ignore the radio and keep a good lookout when in E or G. After all, what's the chances of being cleaned up - probably 'vanishingly small.' 1000' is generous - try the scud-runners.

Ah, Mr Boeing's 767 - my favourite.

[Dick Smith]

Also keep a good lookout when in VMC in D,C,B and A as thats where most of the RPT mid-airs happen.

[Quokka]

Also keep a good lookout when in VMC in D,C,B and A as thats where most of the RPT mid-airs happen.

So, Mr Smith, you're stating that in Australia, where Class A, B, C & D Airspace are re-classified to Class E, the number of Close Proximity Incidents between RPT jets will fall to zero?

[Dick Smith]

I am stating no such thing, just remain vigilant in all airspace as human beings and machines make errors.

[apache]

remind me again: who used to cruise in "g" airspace and have a go a people who made VFR radio calls?

normally aspirated piston engined aircraft had a bit of a hard time at 10,000'. 8500' was/is the lower limit for "E" ergo cruising at 8000' and getting ATC separation etc was almost impossible in , say a c310/b58/ac50/pn68/be76 etc etc etc.

so now.... in "G" airspace, which was the ONLY airspace available to us, we were NOT permitted to hear radio calls from diligent VFR aircraft, and were NOT able to get radar traffic from ATC IF/WHEN we needed to descend into an aerodrome! Whose brainwave was this?

DICK... do you deny that you used to listen on the radio and chastise pilots for making VFR calls? .... YES or NO?

[Capn Bloggs]

Sorry Dick, I've been away fluffing around in dangerous Dirt Road airspace. At night, too. :eek:

GaryGnu, you are not even confident enough to put your own name on a post when you are commenting about safety issues that affect the people you fly. What complete gutlessness!

God some people are dopey.

And you should get another job.

Stick to logical argument, Dick, and not the man.

Probably the same as what happens now in class G in which we have many thousands of jet operations per year!
And that's your problem. You have no idea what happens in the real world.

IFR to IFR directed-traffic segregation the same as See and Avoid. Yeh, right.

at the same time there is a low time pilot who has just got his or her instrument rating, that is the standard that would be set.
So that would be so much more dangerous than your would-be no-radio CTAFs also occupied by thousands of jet operations per year would it? Where did you say most of the midairs occurred again? In the vicinity of the aerodrome, was it?

Thank God somebody with brains strongly encouraged (for a time) pilots at MBZs to reply to other aircraft, so we, the ones with all the punters, could make sure he, the just-out-of-flying-school VFR driver, hadn't messed up his situational awareness and wasn't going to run into us. But all that changed with your NAS: "shut up you lot: pilot to pilot conversation is discouraged", AIP said. Actually, IIRC, didn't you write that in a letter to us all when you were in the chair in the 90s?

[NAMPS]

We all know about the limitations of 'see and avoid'

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/1991/pdf/limit_see_avoid.pdf

RECOMMENDATION : R20040015 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/recommendations/2004/R20040015.aspx)

[Joker 10]

Ah Owen Stanley at his acerbic best, no debate just vitiation

[Dick Smith]

Apache, you state:

DICK... do you deny that you used to listen on the radio and chastise pilots for making VFR calls? .... YES or NO?

Yes, I do deny it. That claim was well covered on a previous thread on PPRuNe. Eventually an Airservices manager came on the thread, said he’d listened to the tape, and the voice was not mine.

Having said that, I’ve certainly written a lot about VFR pilots making announcements on frequencies which are used by air traffic control to separate IFR traffic. For example, there was an incident with a 747SP a number of years ago, where the excuse given by the air traffic controller for nearly putting this aircraft into another (and killing hundreds of people) was the diversion created by a VFR pilot making self-announcements.

I strongly support announcements when approaching an airfield or in the circuit area. In fact, I moved to take the two announcements that we typically had to move to the 5 US NAS announcements. More announcements and less dialogue will improve safety.

Making announcements flying up and down the Sydney VFR lane, when the frequencies are retransmitted on Sydney approach or departures, will potentially only lead to an airline accident.

If you want to make VFR announcements, we need to return to the old full position system. This means all the announcements will be on a separate frequency and not on an ATC frequency used for separation. The cost will be about $100 million per year – resulting in lots more pilots losing their jobs. If we can go by the last 17 years, no measurable increase in safety will exist for the $1.7 million expended.

AirNoServicesAustralia, I do not believe there is an agreement with ASA which says that you cannot talk publicly about safety issues, and I do not know of any airline that would have a similar agreement – either in writing or implied. If such an agreement was leaked to the press it would make front page headlines, as the travelling public expect pilots and air traffic controllers to speak out about safety issues.

Capn Bloggs, you imply that I support “no-radio CTAFs.” I have never done that. I support the US NAS system, which has the highest compliance of radio in CTAFs that I’ve seen anywhere in the world. That is because it is a simple system, not incredibly complex like ours.

I agree that the system in our old MBZs resulted in some pilots entering into dialogue with other aircraft when in VMC. This may have worked in the old days, when there was hardly any traffic, but once the traffic levels go up it is obvious that dialogue completely jams the frequency with only two aircraft. Announcements do not jam up the frequency as much. Instead of having to discuss on the air when an aircraft is going to turn base, it is known that the aircraft will make an announcement when turning base, so there is no need to jam the frequency with dialogue.

NAMPS, I’m glad you published the ATSB “closed – accepted” response to the see and avoid issue. I totally agree with the statement:

CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace.

I am surprised by the air traffic controllers and airline pilots who support the ASA and airlines initiative to put profits in front of safety and do everything they can not to have Class D, but to try to introduce no cost complex non-ICAO mandatory radio procedures in an attempt to get an equivalent level of safety. This is impossible.

Justapplhere, I hope the above covers the Apache and AirNoServicesAustralia issues.

In relation to removing relevant frequencies from charts, I think you may be getting it mixed up with the NAS design of not having air traffic control sector boundaries shown on charts. Australia is the only country which shows this. Air traffic control sector boundaries are designed for the workload of air traffic controllers – not for the widest coverage of the VHF transmitter. For example, if a VFR pilot is monitoring the frequency in the sector at Jenolan Caves, it is not within VHF coverage of the transmitter – even though there is a nearby transmitter on a different frequency.

The sector boundaries came from the old Flight Service days. If you want to go back to that, do so, but be prepared to pay about $100 million per year. That is, $1.7 billion over the 17 years since it was removed – and there has not been one fatality attributed to this.

KittyKatKaper, you are only game to go on with this rubbish in relation to “arguing with zealots” because you don’t put your own name on the post. If you are going to defame a poster, at least have the guts to do it under your own name.

If you were game enough to actually phone me, you would find that I’m not a zealot, I’m simply a person who wants us to finally either move back to the old duplicated ATC/full position Flight Service system, or move forward to a system run by air traffic control. This half-way point is ridiculous and only exists because there are no decision makers in the Office of Airspace Regulation to make the decision to go back or go forward.

I love your comment:

He occasionally has good ideas but IMHO he does not consider the costs, practicalities and just what is required behind the scenes to achieve what he wants to impose on the rest of us

If that is so, how did I get any success in my three business operations? I can tell you it was because I had the ability to ask advice, copy the success of others, but have the common sense to decide which was the correct advice.

By the way, if I occasionally have a good idea, why don’t you support that idea? At least it would mean we would move ahead on something.

The reason the US has full radar coverage at flight levels is because it has 20 times the amount of traffic. It has little to do with fuel taxes.

I will say it for the hundredth time. Why don’t we use the safety advantages of the US system where we have good radar coverage? That is, from Melbourne to Cairns. When I say good radar coverage, it is as good as anything I have seen in equivalent areas in the USA.

It looks as if many of the posters on this thread work for the Office of Airspace Regulation, take their huge amounts of money, and also ensure that no change takes place at all so they can’t be held accountable. Then when something goes wrong (like the midair collision at 2RN) they will say, “It wasn’t my responsibility, I knew nothing about it,” in true Wheat Board style.

[ollie_a]

I do not believe there is an agreement with ASA which says that you cannot talk publicly

It is specified in the Code of Conduct:

It is Airservices Australia‘s policy that all media contact is to be coordinated by Corporate Affairs. Individual employees should not communicate any information concerning Airservices Australia’s business activities to the media

Media contact is defined as including internet forums.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Capn Bloggs, you imply that I support “no-radio CTAFs.” I have never done that. I support the US NAS system, which has the highest compliance of radio in CTAFs that I’ve seen anywhere in the world.
Compliance? With what?

That is because it is a simple system, not incredibly complex like ours.

Get real. It is not incredibly complex. If you think it is, you shouldn't be in the business.

I agree that the system in our old MBZs resulted in some pilots entering into dialogue with other aircraft when in VMC. This may have worked in the old days, when there was hardly any traffic, but once the traffic levels go up it is obvious that dialogue completely jams the frequency with only two aircraft. Announcements do not jam up the frequency as much. Instead of having to discuss on the air when an aircraft is going to turn base, it is known that the aircraft will make an announcement when turning base, so there is no need to jam the frequency with dialogue.

Yet another example demonstrating that you have little idea of what goes on in the real world. I suggest you get out of your bugsmasher mindset and start listening to the people that do this stuff for a living. As I pointed out to your yank ATC mate Richard Woodward a few years back, management of a confliction in the circuit works much more efficiently than me, in my 50 tonne jet, trying to avoid a C152 by listening to his 5 radio calls but otherwise doing his own thing.

I suppose though that this ideological codswallop is expected from experts who aren't really experts at all.

I totally agree with the statement:

CASA agrees that the limitations of see-and-avoid should be taken into account when planning and managing airspace. Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace

What a joke. No-radio CTAF straight to a tower. What a waste of money and pilot's jobs. What happened to your famed Unicoms? Or were they just a bit of icing to make you feel warm and fuzzy coz that's what they do in the USA?

[CaptainMidnight]

Dick Smith said:I think you may be getting it mixed up with the NAS design of not having air traffic control sector boundaries shown on charts. Australia is the only country which shows this. Australia does not show air traffic control boundaries on charts .......

Per chart legends, the green lines are Class G Flight Information Area boundaries.

Some individual lines may happen to coincide with part of an ATC sector boundary, but the primary function of the lines is to designate the FIA frequency to be used in the area, and are often placed with respect to VHF coverage to assist pilots select the most appropriate frequency.

[apache]

very well then, Dick. If it wasn't you then I apologise.
Having said that, I still disagree with the policy of VFR not talking.

[Dick Smith]

Ollie_a, it sounds to me as if talking about safety issues is covered. Note particularly:

Individual employees should not communicate any information concerning Airservices Australia’s business activities to the media

The very fact that it specifically says “business activities” sounds to me as if you can talk about safety issues.

Why wouldn’t they want you genuinely talking about safety issues under your own name? Then you are more likely to say what you really believe the truth is, rather than stating a number of furphies for the fun of it.

Capn Bloggs, you may not think it is incredibly complex, but low time pilots (especially farmers) certainly do.

For example, the US prescriptive procedures in relation to non-tower airports are about 80 words long in the FARs. Previously our prescriptive wording was over 300, and the latest proposal is over 1,000 words long. As you know, this includes (due to demands by your regional airline mates) requirements like having to call at 10 miles if you have one radio in the aircraft, and 8 minutes if you have two radios. You don’t think that is complex?

Capn Bloggs, “management of a confliction” (i.e. aircraft to aircraft dialogue) is necessary when in IMC and has the advantage that there is often not a lot of traffic in IMC at the same airport at the same time. It is a lot more difficult to try to do the same when VMC exists - i.e. trying to “manage” traffic as if you are an air traffic controller with every VFR aircraft in the area.

I will say it again. Once you jam the frequency with dialogue, no one else can say anything. That is the reason for minimal dialogue at our GAAP airports - simple announcements and directions mean a lot of traffic can be handled safely.

Bloggs, I stand by this statement:

Where traffic densities are such that see-and-avoid does not provide the required level of safety, CASA will require Class D or a higher level of airspace.

If you want to cut corners, you can. I just don’t want to. Class D is the first class of airspace which requires mandatory radio for VFR under ICAO. This is for logical, sensible and rational scientific reasons. If you don’t have an air traffic controller to confirm that the radio is working, you would be pretty stupid to design a system which relied on radio for the required level of safety.

CaptainMidnight, I can assure you that Australia does show the Class E air traffic control boundaries on charts. Or are you suggesting that the Class E radio frequencies shown on charts are different to the air traffic control sector of the Class E controller?

Resist change as much as you like CaptainMidnight, but the frequency boundaries on the charts were put there because of the old full position Flight Service system. If you want to go back to that, do so and spend the $1.7 billion. If you want to move forward, frequency boundaries clearly reduce safety by making the VFR system so complex that VFR pilots are sometimes on the wrong frequency in the CTAF because they have been juggling so many frequencies and so many charts that they don’t quite know where they are.

If other countries can provide a very safe system by keeping it simple, there may be a lesson in that for us.

[CaptainMidnight]

CaptainMidnight, I can assure you that Australia does show the Class E air traffic control boundaries on charts.

They are Class E frequency boundaries, not ATC sector boundaries. A low level ATC sector boundary normally encompasses a number of Class E frequency and Class G FIA frequency areas.

I repeat:

The function of the lines is to designate the E or FIA frequency to be used in the area, and are often placed with respect to VHF coverage to assist pilots to select the most appropriate frequency to communicate with ATC for the area in which they are operating.

And what is wrong with that?

In fact, Industry requested the boundaries be republished ASAP after they were deleted by the NASIG. To quote from some RAPAC minutes:

Don Mitchell proposed the following motion:

‘The QLD RAPAC Convenor write to Mr. Mike Smith NAS Implementation Group and express concern that previous correspondence has been ignored on the issue of reduced safety by the introduction of NAS. We draw your attention to the following points and require that they be addressed in writing prior to the published implementation date of 27 Nov 03:

1. We perceive a safety issue caused by the deletion of frequency boundary demarcation.

2. Inadequate and insufficient training material of specific reference for instructors and trainers.

3. Timing of distribution of Instructor Pack and difficulty in interpretation of documentation distributed.’

[Joker 10]

Vitiation is generally understood quite readily by educated people

[Howabout]

Boom, Boom, ACROBATIC. Nailed it in one!

OS, as someone else commented, it is a recurring argument. But if you don't keep rebutting, and just roll over, then the specious claims will be accepted as fact. Fact that the US NAS is superior, fact that what we have here is sub-optimal, fact that there is going to be a mid-air disaster etc.

As annoying as it is the debate needs professional people like yourself to rationally debunk the specious claims that are made on this forum - that includes playing the ball, not the man; regardless of what the opposition does. Otherwise, we will be back in the time where no one benefiitted, where the ill-will between sections of the industry was poisonous and where thousands, possibly millions, of taxpayers dollars were wasted in the chase for some sort of illusory 'airspace reform' holy grail.

I, for one, don't want to go back there.

[CaptainMidnight]

Well, I along with many others have debated these issues here for the last 9 years. Now I only rarely participate because I’ve had enough of the repetition, getting nowhere and personal attacks.

However on the NAS issue –

I have always believed – and said here many times - before any proposed change to airspace architecture and associated procedures, there must first be:


a cost-benefit analysis exercise conducted, proving beneficial outcomes
a thorough safety analysis and hazid conducted
comprehensive industry consultation and – importantly – agreement by the industry that the changes are necessary and beneficial, and
a thorough industry education campaign.

If these say I'm someone who will Resist change as much as you like CaptainMidnightthen I'm comfortable with the brand :)

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, some "professional" people.

They are not even game to put their names to the debate!

More like amateur fundamentalists if you ask me!

Captain Midnight, why is it that not one other country in the world shows such boundaries?

It's like having unique road rules - we don't because international tourists would not be able to drive here without a special Australian licence and that would substantially reduce tourist income.

Then again we don't want foreign pilots flying here-- might bring in overseas funds and we don't want that in aviation.

By the way, the reason no other countries show the boundaries is that safety is actually reduced by making the system complicated and unique- it's why we get so many problems in CTAF's.

Before 1991 you were told when to change frequency when full position VFR- just like IFR today..

If you want that again pay the $1.6 billion

[Joker 10]

Dick, well said, fundamental to all the more centralist views is the concept of absolute safety at any cost, no matter that this is impossible in a transport environment.

The vitiation of rational argument is a palpable response to any person who opposes the ultra conservative fundamentalist view.

Very little is said in respect to Risk Management Principles.

[le Pingouin]

Howabout, some "professional" people.

They are not even game to put their names to the debate!
We're just small cogs that our employer would be perfectly happy to sacrifice. You clearly don't understand the sort of people we work for - they are quite prepared to hold witch hunts & have done so.

If I'm going to risk it all it'll be for something worthwhile, not this little sideshow. Revealing my name would add nothing to the debate - I'm just a controller.


More like amateur fundamentalists if you ask me!
<snort> Looking in the mirror I see. Name calling won't get you anywhere. At least I'm employed in a relevant area.

[Barkly1992]

I get somewhat confused at times about all this vitriol whenever Dick Smith raises an issue and pushes his point of view.

I more often than not do not agree with some of his quick fixes but have to say that he has got some basic elements very right that we sometimes forget. It should not be personal and I think Dick needs to be given credit for the moderate language he usually uses.

Like the alphabet airspace - the concept is great and works well. We just seem to argue about which bit of spaghetti needs to be put where and this is legitimate and should be encouraged.

Yes - FSUs were closed - yes many Met Offices were closed. As far as I am aware the ATSB has not attributed any accident to the fact that this happened. More of an inconvenience if anything.

Some control towers were also closed - quite right when only two or four RPT flights a day were being handled.

Like the abolition of full reporting for VFR - aircraft have not crashed into to each other as everyone predicted - except we have had a few mid-airs in controlled airspace (not in G since December 1991) - yes it was that long ago.

Now we seem to argue about the use of radar - what little we have.

Keep the debate going - and maintain the rage.

But I remember one of the most important messages promoted at the time of AMATS - if you can See outside - Look outside - IFR as well.

Barkly
:ok:

[Howabout]

Dick,

You have little idea, I suspect, as regards the level of admiration that exists among those of us that don't want a bar of your airspace 'reforms.'

We've sat there riveted when you flew DIK around the world. We've seen the Ball's Pyramid stuff - original and revisited - and we sit back and marvel at your adventurous spirit. You are admired mate, but we don't want to revisit a costly, worthless exercise that will divide industry once more.

It's taken two years to recover from the bloodshed. Don't do it to us again.

[Chimbu chuckles]

When FS went the way of the Dodo and was no longer there to inform pilots when a frequency change was required was it not simply common sense to incorporate frequency boundaries so a pilot would know when to change frequencies without being told?

I would suggest it makes perfect sense. That other countries chose not to do so simply proves the old adage of common sense being rather uncommon.

Vast areas of G airspace in a country like Australia, with its traffic densities, is simply a fact of life. It doesn't make sense to have any other system. That some towns in the GAFA warrant a jet service and that jet service functions in G airspace is also just an unfortunate financial fact of life...NO one says its ideal or how we would prefer it in a perfect world...but we don't live in a perfect world.

That does NOT mean that E airspace around BN/SY/et al is a good idea or even a better idea. Any airspace requiring a clearance/flight plan etc for IFR traffic but is free range for VFR aircraft (flown by a wide variety of skill levels) is simply an airspace horse's ar$e.

Just because Gove or Ayers Rock has a daily 717 that is forced by life's realities to fly in G doesn't mean that forcing dozens of 767s/737s/747s and sundry silly french aeroplanes (that's humor) to fly through E inbound to Brisbane, for example, is world's best bloody practice!!

You want simple?

We had simple - and you cocked it up.

We had CTA/OCTA - C/G if you want. You thought that was too complex for foreign pilots?

We had a few common sense radio calls, then we had 'don't use the radio' - complete with a very stern looking AsA person - and now we have 5 freaking calls every circuit.:ugh:

Simple? Australian pilots, even instructors, can't keep up with the BS - what hope foreign pilots?

But then DOTARs, or WTF they are called this week, fixed the foreign pilot issue with the completely moronic ASIC cards - and destroyed several businesses in the process - didn't see you throwing your 'expert' status at that fight?

We had worlds best practice once...now we just have a half ar$ed version of what other countries do.

[le Pingouin]

Barkly,

Yes, sometimes his ideas have merit but as you say often they don't. The problem is he has at time had the ear (or is that testicles?) of people with influence and power (aka our ertswhile political leaders) who can't tell the difference.

[ferris]

Some quick questions, Dick.

Was 'the industry' healthier back in the 80's, in the days when there was full-reporting, free charts, FSUs etc- all those things you proudly claim the removal of, as achievements? Was it?

After you 'saved' all those billions of dollars from the industry, where did they (the billions) go? Did they develop the industry in some way? Promote it? Did they expand airports and their infrastructure? Did they pay for better servicing of the industry in anyway?

Is it cheaper to fly now, or was it then? Do you think that the difference in expense has anything to do with the 'state of the industry'?

Finally, why do you think anything you did concerning 'the industry' helped it in any way, and what do you base that on?

[Chimbu chuckles]

Nothing was 'free' in the good old days...we payed for it all via fuel tax.

Was a very good and fair system too..user pays in fact...now we have 'user pays' on top of higher taxes on fuel and get less for our money:ugh:

[peuce]

Dick,

In the spirit of putting the facts on the table, I can recall when you were personally advised, back in the AMATS days, that ...

"having Controllers work controlled & uncontrolled airspace together would create situations where vectoring jets could be interrupted by VFR transmissions ... WX requests, flight plan submissions, QNH requests, self separation management etc ..."

That was poo-pooed. Unfortunately, the chickens are coming home to roost.

And, as I can read your mind now, before you say ... "Ah, but if they did it the way I intended (that is, shut up) then there wouldn't be a problem"

My suggestion would be to take a large dose of reality ... that ain't gunna happen! VFR pilots need to, and will always, communicate with each other. It's one of the 3 principles of professional flight ... Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

[peuce]

Dick,

As for "where's the $1.7 billion's worth of lost safety since the demise of IN/OUT ..."

For example, there was an incident with a 747SP a number of years ago, where the excuse given by the air traffic controller for nearly putting this aircraft into another (and killing hundreds of people) was the diversion created by a VFR pilot making self-announcements.

What would be the $$s on the loss of two 747 hulls and all souls on board?
I daresay you might have gobbled up a large slice of the (alleged) $1.7billion in one accident.

Have there been any other near misses or increases in VCAs??

I would also suggest that Air Traffic Control has had to manage far more safety and risk mitigators than before taking over OCTA. I'm not sure, but having to manage, say, 20 mitigation actions, instead of 10 ... would put an extra strain on the Safety Management System. ... with the potential creation of more holes, for the lining up of, in the Swiss cheese.

[Dick Smith]

Chimbu Chuckles, I think you will find the reason other countries don’t have frequency boundaries is so that pilots will concentrate on being on the CTAF frequency when in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome. This gives very high levels of safety in countries with many times the density of traffic that we have. Extraordinarily enough, they don’t have anything like the problems we claim to have in relation to radio in CTAFs.

The latest document from CASA trying to solve the CTAF issue is now over 1,000 words long – making it more and more complex, more and more mandatory, and no doubt with more and more threatened fines - which are never enforced.

Where does it get us? I’d say with even more errors due to the complexity.

If you go to the United States, Europe, UK or Canada you will find that they are not obsessed with radio calls in CTAFs. Before I started the reforms, we didn’t have CTAFs. All aerodromes were either on the area frequency, or a local Flight Service frequency in an AFIZ.

Moving to CTAFs we needed to go to a simple, proven system. That hasn’t yet happened. That is why we have continuing problems.

I’m not giving up because I’m going to make sure we either go back to the proven system we had prior to 1991 – with all its incredible cost – or move properly forward to a proven system that is different to our pre-1991 system.

I am not prepared to let us remain in this half-baked experimental system that exists because of constant resistance to change, and ill-informed people doing everything they can to resist reform.

Howabout, if you have ever wondered why I’ve had some success in things like flying around the world (while you were riveted) and in climbing Balls Pyramid successfully, it is because I ask advice and copy the success of others.

I have absolutely no doubt that we will end up with a proven safe airspace system. It is going to take a few years longer. One of the reasons I have no doubt is that not one of you people are game to put your name to your beliefs. That can only mean you don’t really believe in what you are saying.

All this crap about you not being allowed to talk openly about safety issues is just that – crap.

You don’t put your name to what you say because you know that reasonable thinking people would realise that your minds were closed and all you were trying to do is stick with the status quo.

Look at the Office of Airspace Regulation. It has been there for two years but no measurable change has come out of it at all. Have we been able to improve the use of radar as per the ATSB recommendation after the Benalla crash? No. Have we been able to resolve the CTAF issue? No. Have we been able to rationalise the military airspace classifications? No.

Those who had high hopes about moving airspace regulation from Airservices (the profit making organisation) to CASA (the so-called regulator), it has all failed.

As Qantas employee Alan Green fought like mad to stop the Victor 1 lane – and failed – other people who resist change without any rational or scientific reason will also fail.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, in the good old days you were referring to, the costs were actually paid by an annual air nav fee for GA. This, and the amounts paid by the airlines, covered about 50% of the cost of the whole catastrophe.

The Government of the day – long before I was involved – decided that not only should the industry pay its way, but in relation to air traffic control a profit should also be given to the Government.

I was the one who vocally stated, “If you are going to do that, you will have to bring in some pretty major efficiency gains and copy the best from around the world, or we won’t have an industry at all.”

I personally loved Flight Service – they were friendly blokes who helped a lot – however the cost may have been afforded by myself, but not by the general industry.

Yes, I accepted that you could not have controllers working controlled and uncontrolled airspace if VFR aircraft were making self-announcements. That is why we looked around the world and decided to copy a system which did not have such an occurrence.

You can fly across the USA or Canada all day, monitoring the Class E or Class A IFR enroute frequency and never hear a VFR pilot make an announcement. Remember that there are around 240,000 aircraft in the United States.

VFR pilots are going to need to communicate to each other but there is a frequency to do that – it shouldn’t be on an air traffic control “control” frequency.

Don’t worry, I’m getting somewhere. There used to be wall to wall chatter in the Sydney light aircraft lane, jamming the approach frequency on a weekend. That has virtually completely gone now, so people do learn.

No VFR pilot wants to cause an air traffic controller to put one airliner he or she is controlling into another airliner.

I’ll say it again. We either have to complete the reforms and move to a proven system, or return to our old system of full position reporting with completely separate frequencies for Flight Service and ATC. That will be very expensive and thousands more jobs will be lost in aviation.

It would be great to return to the system where the general taxpayer paid 50% of our costs, but I can’t see that happening and I’m not the person to call for it. People would say that I was selfish!

[Capn Bloggs]

If you don’t have an air traffic controller to confirm that the radio is working, you would be pretty stupid to design a system which relied on radio for the required level of safety.
Civil Air would be pretty happy with that.

You are the fundamentalist, stuck in your 1950s USA time warp, not knowing what goes on in the real world, desperately holding on to an outdated, inflexible airspace labeling system. Let it go, Dick.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, you state:

I would also suggest that Air Traffic Control has had to manage far more safety and risk mitigators than before taking over OCTA.

You are 100% correct. That is because we haven’t moved to the system that was decided by the Board in 1991. You obviously haven’t read Unsafe Skies (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/21complete.pdf). I would suggest you spend 30 minutes in reading it, and you will see what the story was.

The present system is a disaster for air traffic controllers and one day, one will be held responsible for an accident that was caused because we are at a half way point. I cannot understand why controllers don’t support either going back to the dual system, or moving forward to a disciplined system where air traffic controllers control aircraft and you do not have VFR aircraft on air traffic control frequencies and making announcements.

The present system is sort of like an amateurish, childish version designed by Enid Blyton.

The reason we have this system is because of constant, ill-informed resistance to completing the reforms which were started in 1991. Look again at the diagrams in Unsafe Skies (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/artman/uploads/unsafe/21complete.pdf)). The airspace was to closely follow that of North America, which is a system designed by professional air traffic controllers with the prime aim of high levels of safety while ensuring controllers are not held responsible for accidents they have minimum control over.

For example, in the USA, the FAA would never design a system so all VFR aircraft in Class E were on the air traffic control frequency by law, had a transponder, and therefore were the responsibility of the air traffic controller who is not even providing a control service or a radar advisory service.

The present system is a disaster for air traffic controllers. Of course many of the airline pilots like it because they think are getting something for nothing, and that maximises the profits for their bosses while increasing the risk for air traffic controllers.

I was amazed that when the Government made the decision to go to NAS, many informed controllers phoned me and said this was a good decision. It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS, so we ended up with a half-way system of amateur airspace.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
You speak of
amateurish, childish
and then you make comments such as
Of course many of the airline pilots like it because they think are getting something for nothing, and that maximises the profits for their bosses

the whole catastrophe.
Entirely appropriate at the time and with the technology levels available, and before the Americans probably knew what aeroplanes were.

Amateurish and childish indeed. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

The IFR Directed Traffic Information service, required by the Class G spec (or should we call it Class F, as it is transitory airspace on the way to ADS-B surveilled Class E if you get your way), used to be provided by FSOs, who saved the industry quite a lot of money as they were not paid as much as ATCs. The current system (which you and your ATC cohorts put in place) actually costs more. But that doesn't matter, because "our" prime concern, much to your surprise, probably, is not money but safety, affordable safety. Since Class E without surveillance coverage of some sort just will not work, it is entirely logical to use the same "controller" to provide DTI and then the clearance when it becomes available. It works well "over here" with the sectorisation at FL290.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Chimbu Chuckles, I think you will find the reason other countries don’t have frequency boundaries is so that pilots will concentrate on being on the CTAF frequency when in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome

What do they do for the 98% of their flight time NOT in a CTAF?

This alleged $100 million/annum saving from closure of the old FSO system?

Some back of the envelope musings.

Say there were 200 FSOs at any one time - earning say $60k (that was a lot of money in 1991) and say the total cost/employee was double that to take into account training/super/annual lve/sick lve etc?

Plus some infrastructure costs obviously, but given the nature of the beast fairly minor I would suggest. An office/FAX/computer (these days)/2x HF and 2 x VHF radios/phone line/printer and office consumables - Oh and a little weather station thingamy. For those posted remote a (very cheap and fully depreciated) govt house. In fact having been in a fair number of the briefing offices in those years I'd say the book value of those would have been bordering on zero too:hmm:

I would have thought $35-40 million/annum would knock it over stone cold dead?

Where does the other $60-70 million/annum come from - would that be a 'rounding error' Dick - you aren't overstating the figures for the sake of your legacy are you?

[cbradio]

many informed controllers phoned me and said this was a good decision. It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS, so we ended up with a half-way system of amateur airspace.

was that the half that was brought in, or the half that was left?

and I presume those "many informed controllers" are all anonymous?

[le Pingouin]

I was amazed that when the Government made the decision to go to NAS, many informed controllers phoned me and said this was a good decision. It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NAS, so we ended up with a half-way system of amateur airspace.

Do you honestly think those expressing their opinions on PPRune were the sum total of controllers who disagreed with you? How many NAS related threads were initiated by you? I'd hazard a guess that it's been the vast majority. Expressing personal opinion is hardly running a campaign. Repeatedly initiating threads on a subject sounds more like one.

[flying-spike]

G'day CC, I resigned from Flight Service as an FSO2, Domestic and International air-ground operator in 1988 and from memory I was on about 38k. 60k would have been a rating and development guy's salary. I would be interested to see what an air ground guys would be offered now. I don't think it would be as much as people suspect and certainly nowhere near a controllers pay. Dick said he would like to see the system go one way or the other. When we did have FSOs/FSUs it appeared to work and was effective. Let's go back to the future! (and no, I'm not looking for a job)

[Chimbu chuckles]

Thanks Flying Spike.

60k was a pure guess I deliberately guestimated high. How man FSOs do you think were employed total...was my 200 guess close?

If it was around 200 people @ 60K/annum (total employee costs always much more than wages) that's $12 million/annum...I wonder what the other 88 mill was for:hmm:

I suspect DS' $100 mill/annum figure is like so many of his claimed 'savings':ugh:

[CaptainMidnight]

CC - I recall in the very late 90s a Flight Service manager was quoted as saying that FS then cost about $15m/year to operate, so your guess is about spot on.

Dick Smith said: It was a small group of ill-informed controllers (without even enough confidence to use their own names) who ran a campaign against NASNo, it was widespread industry concern:

MINUTES WESTERN AUSTRALIAN RAPAC MEETING 2003/02
26TH NOVEMBER 2003

5.4. NAS

A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.

• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.

• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.

• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.

• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.

• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.

• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.

• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.

• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.

• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.

• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.

Any future proposed changes to airspace architecture and procedures that don't have widespread industry support are doomed to failure.

[An Interested Party]

Guys,

Why engage in this pointless and repetitive exchange with Dick. The following extract from the Department's website indicates clearly that Mark Vaile's directive to CASA is dead, and a new directive will be given to CASA soon. NAS is dead and will soon be buried. No amount of defibrillation by Dick will bring it back to life.


Extract from Department's Website:

Under Section 8 of the Airspace Act 2007, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Hon Anthony Albanese MP, is responsible for making the Australian Airspace Policy Statement (AAPS).

The AAPS provides guidance to the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR), in the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), on the administration of Australian airspace noting the functions of, and exercise of powers by, the OAR as set out in the Airspace Act 2007 and the Airspace Regulations 2007.

As part of the launch of the Government's Aviation Green Paper on 2 December 2008, the Minister announced the Government would be finalising an updated AAPS, to reflect the Government's airspace policy objectives and released a draft updated AAPS for comment.

The Department is currently finalising its consideration of comments received on the draft AAPS from Government agencies and industry.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Mr Smith, for your benefit I have located a complete ADS-B capable transponder AND receiver for your aircraft. The total cost is $5124.01AU for the two units.(Plus fitment..of course) Please reply here if you are still interested. Both units comply with current TSO. The receiver also incorporates a GPS to provide a certified output foir the transponder if you do not already have one. It also incorporates modeS and FLARM depiction accurately out to 16nm around your aircraft. I would say this would be a perfect solution for operations around GAAP. An audible alert is sounded when there is a proximity warning so you do not have to have your head buried in the cockpit monitoring your instruments.

http://www.funkwerk-avionics.com/cms/upload/Produkte/tm_250.jpg

http://onlineshop.funkwerk-avionics.com/images/TRT800A.jpg

Enjoy:ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Yes. Mr B, that just about sums up the entire five pages. Well said, that man:ok::D:D:D

[OZBUSDRIVER]

OK, I thought this also may be interesting..from the same hansard of committee-
Senator HEFFERNAN—I think the best thing I can do is to follow it up personally with the department
and bring it to the minister, because it seems that these people might have a case. If it was you that had the
problem, I would be trying to help you too. So that is that matter. Now, on the matter of air traffic controllers
and class E airspace, as we know, the air traffic controllers are not keen to have the class E come down under
8½ thousand feet; is that right?

Mr Russell—Senator, that is not so. I am aware of a particular commentator in the industry that thinks that,
but it is not so.

I am aware of a particular commentator in the industry that thinks that,
but it is not so

And I wonder who would be that person?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And-
Senator HEFFERNAN—This would mean more work for the air traffic controllers, by the way, because
the class E will come down, so that that plane that crashed in Benalla would actually have been under control.
As it was, that plane was on radar. There was no obligation for the air traffic controllers to tell them that they
were going to fly into a hill. Then there was the plane that nearly crashed in Canberra, which involved
Canberra airspace when the approach radar is closed—not that there is much difference with the approach
radar. In the case of the 737 incident, in a near collision with Tinderry Peak, are you familiar with that?
Mybolds-

Dick, you just do not give up, do you?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

And further on-
Mr Russell—No, but I make the point, because it is an important issue. We, in Airservices, are of the view,
and it is not a view shared by the commentator you may be talking to, that our radar coverage is not reliable
below 5,000 feet in that area and, therefore, the aeroplane could not be subject to air traffic control below that
height. That was the point of view we made

Dick, you keep feeding Heffernen this stuff and he will ignore you in the end.

[An Interested Party]

Well, now we know NAS will be buried soon!

The parallel post about the new CASA Board announcements makes it a complete certainty that the Minister wants to see CASA focus on the safety of high end aviation, and to reinforce risk management rather than populist hysteria as the guiding principles for CASA.

Alan Hawke is no friend of NAS - and that's for sure. It almost brought his career to a halt as departmental head back in the late 90's and required some serious side stepping by him - he is DEFINITELY no friend of Dicks, and you can be sure that he will 'shape the debate' away from inane airspace reform and back to serious issues like risk aversion and risk management.

NAS is Dead - long live common sense!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I also like-

This
document does say it will be modelled on the US system; it does not say we will adopt the US system.[/B] There
are a few other issues, I think, particularly on page 15 of the document to which you refer—the airspace policy
statement signed by the Hon. Mark Vaile—which says:
5.5 How major changes to airspace will be made
... These steps will include:
• risk management analysis consistent with the CASA Risk Management System and the Common Risk Management
Framework (see below);
And there are further references to that common risk management framework. My own inquiries have
discovered that that common risk management framework has never reached a final version.]

Which is also quite telling from a different point of view.

Senator HEFFERNAN—When is it planned to have the NAS reforms completed?
Mr Cromarty—Senator, the airspace policy statement, as Mr McCormick has just pointed out, is not, ‘Do
NAS; copy the United States system.’ It is, ‘Do NAS, subject to analytical process and cost-benefit analysis.’And I would draw your attention to paragraph 5.2 on page 14, where it says:
Future stages of the NAS will be implemented subject to the results of an enhanced analytical process, including cost–
benefit ...
That is what we have been doing.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If anyone else wants to get direct info from the Hansard of this committee-
RURAL AND REGIONAL AFFAIRS AND TRANSPORT
LEGISLATION COMMITTEE (http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S12046.pdf)

It is a long read. Lots of colour and intrigue:}

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Another thread bites the dust:ok:

[KittyKatKaper]

oh gosh no.

In a few weeks time, Mr. Smith will yet again broadcast his views to try and convince the irrational few in Oz who as yet do not acknowledge that the USofA system is the only true (tm) aviation system.

Those who dare to question him, or who disagree with him, or who raise irritating issues of practicality and or cost, will be summarily denounced as 1950's troglodytes who post behind pseudonyms and whom he can thence ignore.


Repeat the above cycle every few months when Mr. Smith has a few spare moments.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Probability close to 100% correct. Parliament is on winter recess so will more than likely see Mr Smith bob up again when he wishes to draw attention to what he got Sen. Heffernan to ask in committee.

[Dick Smith]

Owen, even if the radar coverage went to ground level at Benalla the result ould have been the same- 6 people dead.

As it was, there were plenty of radar paints below the LSA/MSA that could have set off an alarm if it had been enabled.

Keep your mind closed - more people will die!

Oz, I will get a quote on he TCAS.Has it been fully TSOd ?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, this is NOT TCAS!

This is ADS-B Rx or "IN" If you do care to investigate you will find that using ModeS it will be as accurate as a TCAS unit. However, depicting FLARM or ADS-B Tx or "OUT"? TCAS cannot hold a candle to it!

EDIT I know where this is leading. Dick , you need to embrace this technolgy before too many people die. Do not blame the ATC for something that is way out of their control. Give them the tools AND the manpower to do the job safely. You intended to have the safest airspace in the world. DO THE JOB YOU INTENDED BY GIVING THE SYSTEM THE EYE'S IT NEEDED AT THE BEGINNING. TAAATS was cutting edge technolgy but it still needs the tools to guarantee security behind that suite of alarms in it's armoury.

[Joker 10]

Definately not TSO'd

[davidgrant]

Gosh gentlemen,
I read through all the posts on this topic, and to be frank I really despair.
Just an observation, but it would seem that when someone dosnt seem to have a rational argument they resort to personal villification. I had to ask myself what could be Mr. Smiths motive to bash his head against a brick wall....he for sure dosnt need money...besides how could he possibly gain finacially from this...I have to conclude that he is a serious thinker who perhaps would like to see our industry move on...also to achieve a safer and affordable environment for us all to fly in.
My personal experience in other areas of regulation in Australia indicates an attitude by our various regulators of..."All the rest of the world is wrong...we are right!!"....is this true of our Aviation regulator??...I guess sometimes that is correct...but who in this world has a monopoly on knowledge???, to deny what works and is affordable elsewhere in the world is a folly, which costs this country dearly.I wonder how many of these posts are from those with a vested interest in resisting change and maintaining the staus Quo??
I am not an expert on anything, just a pilot who has accrued some 25,000 hours flying around the world...does the US system work...in the US, yes it does... very well!!,...old American saying " Works well lasts a long time"... Would I like to see it work here??...yes I would.
Since I returned home after some thirty years over "there", I can honestly say I have never felt more uncomfortable, unsafe and uneasy flying anywhere else in the world, if you want to be embarressed read what is written in many of the corporate pilots guides about Australia.I flew a BBJ from Europe to Australia...the fees from Port Headland to Sydney were more than the Fees from Europe to Port Headland...Parking at Sydney for three days I could have got in UK or Europe for a fortnight...Whatever system we end up with it has to be affordable, something I think our regulator totally ignores, to its peril...cant regulate an industry that dosnt exist!!... If we do not change, we all may as well go grow advocado's or something.
Gentlemen, please, lets have a rational debate instead of personal attacks.I'm not pushing Mr. Smiths agenda, I'm just an old fella who has spent his whole life in this industry from 16 years of age, and dearly want to see it prosper, I know experience counts for nothing these days, but what I do know is our system does not work and is patently unsafe...I really do believe that is what Mr. Smith is trying to address...disagree with him if you will, but at least put up a rational argument as to why he is wrong.
Incidently this post is my real name, Toss your crap at me as much as you like...
It washes off you know!!...
Safe flying to all
David

[Blockla]

I flew a BBJ from Europe to Australia...the fees from Port Headland to Sydney were more than the Fees from Europe to Port Headland...Parking at Sydney for three days I could have got in UK or Europe for a fortnight...Been to Europe lately?

[davidgrant]

Thanks owen,
thought I'd get buried in so much crap I wouldnt be able to breath...
Call me Naive, but I have seen what works, maybe with open minds, not pushing agenda's, we might adapt something to work here...but then who am I to disagree with the self appointed experts...Like I said, I'm not an expert, but at least I can recognise what works and what dosnt.

David

[ferris]

David, you have raised something that many of us here have been saying for ages I flew a BBJ from Europe to Australia...the fees from Port Headland to Sydney were more than the Fees from Europe to Port Headland...Parking at Sydney for three days I could have got in UK or Europe for a fortnight...Whatever system we end up with it has to be affordable There is something wrong with the charging regime in Australia. Mr. Smith ignores totally this aspect of the 'system', pointedly refusing to be drawn. On the odd occasion that he is drawn, he makes comment along the lines of "that's too hard' etc. He is quite happy to crow about how much money he has saved (read "ripped") from the industry, yet remains blissfully ignorant about what happened to the so-called savings. It doesn't do aviation any good to rip money out of the industry, if aviation doesn't reap the benefit!!
Mr. Smith claims to want to introduce 'the US system', but the 'US system' includes a different attitude to revenue collection, has flight service etc. etc. etc. Just altering some airspace classifications is not 'the US system'. But this has all been done to death, David, over and over. If you've got a couple of weeks you could trawl thru the many threads Mr. Smith has participated in. Then come back and see how the tired claims of "Change Resistance" look.
As your main point of dissatisfaction seems to be with the charges levied on your flight, you may like to explain how what ANY of Mr. Smith proposes addresses this?

[davidgrant]

blockla..opps did I get that right...sorry.
No mate, not for four years, although I am still in touch with a few mates who do operate there. Cant imagine costs have accelerated that much in four years...but I will defer to an expert like you if I'm wrong. perhaps your "handle" tells it all
David

[davidgrant]

Ferris,
Thank you...a rational reply.
yes I totally agree with you....our system must be affordable....at the same time it must be Safe...quite a balancing act...if we want or require total safety then put everything in the hanger...no accidents..perfect safety..
somewhere in the middle is the answer...that will be reached by rational debate, not by personal attacks. As I have said, I dont necessarily agree with Mr. Smith, but for goodness sake let us have a rational discussion rather than savaging each other.
David

[davidgrant]

Ferris,
I'm very sorry, I didnt fully read your post...I jumped the gun as it were.
Yes, you hit the nail right on the head...our charging...revenue raising...whatever you want to call it, regime.
I'm being fasicious here, I lived in a tax free environment for too long...Once upon a time we paid taxes and the government provided us with services...Now we pay taxes...and GST plus we pay for every government service we may require. I think the beauracrat who invented the word cost recovery should have got a peerage....nice little earner!!
Since I returned to Australia and got involved in managerment, its frightening to see the end result of the charging regime of CASA, the reluctance to inform, request assistance, apply, even wish them gooday!!It may cost you!!
Good grief, if we cant seek advice...or even talk to our regulator without it costing money, we are in serious sh...t. Sigh!!!...we've flogged everything else off maybe the Govnt should flog Casa to Maquarie bank as well.
There has to be a better way...I hope!!!
David

[Chimbu chuckles]

I can honestly say I have never felt more uncomfortable, unsafe and uneasy flying anywhere else in the world, if you want to be embarressed read what is written in many of the corporate pilots guides about Australia.I flew a BBJ from Europe to Australia..

And

I know experience counts for nothing these days, but what I do know is our system does not work and is patently unsafe...I really do believe that is what Mr. Smith is trying to address...disagree with him if you will, but at least put up a rational argument as to why he is wrong.

Australia makes you feel less comfortable and is less safe, in your opinion, than Indonesia, All of Africa, All of South America, China, India, Afghanistan, Pakistan and Saudia Arabia...hell even western Europe (unless you think changing frequencies every 3-5 minutes is safer)? (not exhaustive list)

You don't honestly feel safer inside the French, Russian and Chinese FIRs with them chatting away in French, Russian and Chinese do you?

Sorry sir but having a rational debate with someone who starts from your premise is just a tad difficult.

And Mr Smith is NOT trying to address this issue anyway. I have been debating Mr Smith in this place since the first day he turned up here and what Mr Smith is all about is cherry picking those parts of the US system that he likes because they let him do what HE WANTS in his aircraft but leaving the greater part of the US system in the US.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, you appear to be making a judgement on what I might do by what you would do.

The safer system that is government policy that I want would actually have me following ATC instructions more than the present system.

Why is it that those who are against NAS all hide their real names?

They do not have one spokesman in a population of 20 million who has the self belief to stand up to me and state why the current government NAS policy is wrong!

Weak and pathetic with no real genuine evidence as to why they constantly resist change is the only explanation.

[ferris]

Ferris, you appear to be making a judgement on what I might do by what you would do. How, exactly, do you arrive at that conclusion? Did you mean to direct your comment to another poster?

David, you said ..that will be reached by rational debate, not by personal attacks in the apparent assumption that posters here get personal RE; Dick Smith.
Barely a few posts later, and Smith is all Weak and pathetic with no real genuine evidence as to why they constantly resist change. I was going to retort your claim that the personal attacks are about Dick Smith. Dick's post are laced with references to anyone who doesn't agree with him being change resistant/hiding behind anonymity/fundamentalist/Luddite/dirt roaders/having personal gain etc. etc. as evidenced in this thread.
As soon as Dick runs out of argument (ie. his ideas are demonstrated to be flawed), he goes the man.
The safer system that is government policy Safer? False. Govt policy? Haha- not for much longer.
Why is it that those who are against NAS all hide their real names? fear of retribution, Dick.
You see, David Grant (even though you post under your real name), those of us who would engage with Mr. Smith can only do so under anonymity, as we work in the industry. How can knowing a posters identity possibly sway argument? Surely an argument should rest purely on it's merits, regardless of who utters the words? If so, then what possible interest could there be to Mr. Smith in who utters the words? Cynics who have had dealings with Mr. Smith might surmise that the only possible reason for knowing a posters identity is to have that poster silenced.

Surely you agree?

[le Pingouin]

Ferris, you appear to be making a judgement on what I might do by what you would do.Great example of that with the rest of your post Dick.


Why is it that those who are against NAS all hide their real names?
Speaking for myself - I'm just a controller and using my name would add nothing to the discussion other than leaving myself open to reprisal from my employer.


They do not have one spokesman in a population of 20 million who has the self belief to stand up to me and state why the current government NAS policy is wrong!How can there be a spokesman? That would imply some sort of organised campaign. Or do you actually believe there's a secret cabal of recalcitrant dinosaurs?


Weak and pathetic with no real genuine evidence as to why they constantly resist change is the only explanation.Nice try.

[CaptainMidnight]

Dick Smith said:Why is it that those who are against NAS all hide their real names?

They do not have one spokesman in a population of 20 million who has the self belief to stand up to me and state why the current government NAS policy is wrong! The various regional RAPACs certainly made their views known over the years:

MINUTES WESTERN AUSTRALIAN RAPAC MEETING 2003/02
26TH NOVEMBER 2003

5.4. NAS

A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.

• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.

• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.

• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.

• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.

• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.

• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.

• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.

• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.

• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.

• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.

And the RAAA:

http://www.raaa.com.au/Issues/Articles/Regions/From%20the%20Regions%20Jul%2007.pdf

davidgrant: Many of us have been here rationally debating this exact issue for the last 9 years .....

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Joker, nice try. If you must see the term TSO DO260a then go look up a device Trig TT31 and have a read. Take note of the price while you are there.

[Mr Brewster]

I could reply, but my posts seem to disappear.

Who cares if an ADSB-IN is TSO'd as long ast the ADSB-OUT is (or is certifyably accurate for VFR).

TSO is a dinosaur anyway.

What happened to the ADSB funding debate anyway???

[Frank Arouet]

The ADS-B roll out continues

Yes it is mandated for above FL 290. and rolling with the momentum of a three toe'd sloth.

those a-holes at Macquarie bank should pay for it

Once mandated why would "anybody" subsidise it?

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Thanks Owen Stanley, like the Zen Master says..."We'll see:ok:"

Time will prove all arguments. ADS-B is not going to go away for these guys. No matter how much mud they throw and how many ministers and senators they mis-inform. ADS-B cometh!

[Joker 10]

Didn't take long for the Bus Driver and Owen to lose debate and get personal, moderators take note !!!!!!!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Sorry Joker, time will tell. I have no need to throw mud. I know who you are, yet, I have no need to know you. I only comment here when you attempt to mis-inform.

WRT the equipment? Time will tell. You have wasted more than a few electrons, 1s and 0s on attempting to prove the world is flat. Time has told your arguments as very hollow indeed! NO equipment, no gps, no format compliant with any other country, an orphan product like VanX, ARINC only, The spoof! $70,000 equipage, airline only, no TSO and and and...time will tell!

Of all people, you yourself should know to never bet AGAINST technology.

PS. Tell your mate to stop telling porkies to Senators...something about burning bridges?

[ARFOR]

:D well said OZBUS and Owen et al! :ok:

[OZBUSDRIVER]

"I have seen the light!"

.....the TWO amigoes...just doesn't ring right does it:}:ooh::D

[Chimbu chuckles]

Gee..Mr Grant didn't stay and play for long:confused:

[davidgrant]

Mr Chimbu,
My sincere apologies, afraid other commitments, like work, kept me away, but I am intensely interested to read what some of you have to say.
To start with I only put my two bobs worth in because I couldn’t see the arguments clearly, just the personal attacks...sorry I missed out on the past...what did someone say? nine years of debate. As I said in the beginning I'm not an expert on these issues, just have some experience with what seems to work and what doesn’t, which was why I asked " Why wouldn’t the US system work here?...it works very well there. What I have noticed since I returned to Oz is what appears to be a rather arrogant refusal by our policy makers to learn the lessons of others around the world, this is not just directed at our Aviation Regulators, it seems to be pervasive throughout our bureaucracies, and as we now have to pay tax and fees for Government services our costs are rising at an ever accelerating rate.
The really sad thing I note reading these posts is those of you at the coal face, for whom I have the greatest respect and admiration (you've saved my bacon a few times over the years) being too afraid to criticize or debate for fear of retribution. says a lot about our democracy...and I always thought our regulator encouraged input from the industry, perhaps they now more interested in the "bottom line" than practical, affordable safety.

[peuce]

Mr Anderson .... just sounds better than Mr Grant,

I asked " Why wouldn’t the US system work here?...it works very well there"

For that answer, you will have to read back through many threads ... and receive many different opinions.

However, from my point of view ... It could work here IF we had the same geography, same weather, same population, same aircraft density, same pricing and costing structure, same aviation infrastructure, same radar equipment, same Flight Service system etc, etc, etc ... not to mention, sufficient staff.

Why don't we use US Dollars?
Why don't we drive on the right hand side of the road?
Why don't they play Aussie Rules?
Why don't we all carry guns in the street?
Why don't we all wear our caps on backwards?
Why don't we have a black Prime Minister?
Why don't they play cricket (badly, like us)?
Why don't we have a Bill of Rights?

It's horses, for courses !