More on NAS

[triadic]

Hmmmmmm!


HANSARD - House of Reps - 28 May 2003 (14801)

Aviation: Reform
Ms LEY (3.00 p.m.)—My question is addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Would the minister update the House on recent developments in the advancement of airspace reform?

Mr Zahra interjecting—
The SPEAKER—I warn the member for McMillan.

Mr ANDERSON—I thank the honourable member for her question and acknowledge her very real interest in aviation. She is herself a pilot and has a great interest in this very important sector in Australia.

As a government, we have moved to reform low-level airspace in Australia, because we believe real savings can be made at the same time as we move to improve safety. We believe those savings will encourage the development and growth of general aviation in Australia, the smaller end of the aviation industry in particular, at the same time as they will help us to build a bigger place in the sun for Australian educational exports—specifically in this case, the training of airline pilots and aviation pilots in general— and, if we can reform the environment in which they operate, to continue the growth of the manufacturing sector and the technical sector in this country. With the need for major reform of low-level air-space in Australia to harmonise with best practice internationally—and after considerable consultation, including with my good friend Dick Smith—we decided to move to the adaptation of a broadly based American national airspace system, or NAS, as it is known. Stage 1 of three stages has been completed. It is now locked in. After decades of trying to reform airspace in Australia stage 1 of the three stages is now locked in, which leaves two stages to go. In talking to the people who are progressing this and who believe in it, as I do and as the government does, we realised a while ago that there were still some who needed to be persuaded of the benefits. As we sought to take people with us, to consult widely and to train widely, we recognised that we needed to again remind people that real savings can be made at the same time as safety is improved. To that end, we took on Wes Willoughby and Associates to do a re-view of NAS and the competition for airport related services. They have issued a report which I would like to table here today. It emphasises the value of the reforms that the government is undertaking—in particular, the financial savings which will be of great interest to everyone who wants to build light aviation in Australia—and it also recognises the real value of reform, in that it will ensure that we achieve our des-tiny as a major supplier of aviation training around the world. That can only benefit Australia in economic terms and in terms of the future of aviation in this country. I table the report.



Has anybody seen the Willoughby report? Is it on the web?



"No known traffic":ok:

[Neddy]

Triadic,

Yes, it's an interesting way in which we carry out reformation of national assets and interests in OZ.

Get a mate or two together over a cup of coffee and a discussion of election strategies and funding, come up with a boy scout's interpretation of a non existant airspace model, apply the Dodgy Bros. Inc. school of economics assessment of savings and John's your uncle you've got yourself a "world's best practice" system.

This is of course the same friend whom the Minister (and I use the term loosely) referred to as "nobody takes any notice of Dick Smith about aviation except Dick Smith" (or words to that affect).

This is going to get much uglier!

[triadic]

From what I hear Willoughby was given a bucket load of informatin by ASA and did not use it or perhaps ignored it in arriving at his results saying there was M$70 savings out there. Maybe he was "told" what to say (?). Anyway the Minister tabled the report and there is some suggestion that he was advised by some advisors not to for what to some may be obvious reasons?

The CEO of ASA says effectly that there is NO savings to be made from NAS.

My info says the only way ASA can save that sort of money is reduce the number of controllers by about 200.

That would be interesting.......

Minister Anderson says:

As a government, we have moved to reform low-level airspace in Australia, because we believe real savings can be made at the same time as we move to improve safety.


Somebody (?) is certainly misinforming the Minister as these reforms will NOT (we are told) bring about any savings and will certainly NOT improve safety.

And certainly not if the manner in which they are now being processed continues without some acceptance of the differences in culture between the USA and Australia and the resulting need for a real big heap of education and training at all levels.

GA and Training is the worst it has been in 50 years and NAS is not going to change that situation one little bit. There are other areas where change may help the industry but the Government does not seem to want to help in a way that will achieve any real results in improved activity and safer operations.

There is just too much self interest!



"No known Traffic" :ok:

[Neddy]

So who is lying?

Part of the transcript of the Senate Estimates Committee hearing on May 29, 2003 in which Bernie Smith, the CEO of Airservices, was questioned in regard to the Willoughby Reportthat the ARG Commissioned.

Senator O’BRIEN—The report says that the Australian national airspace model has a potential financial
benefit of over $70.2 million. Do you understand how Mr Willoughby calculated this figure?

Mr B. Smith—No.

Senator O’BRIEN—Do you agree with the rationale and assumptions used in the costing?

Mr B. Smith—No, we do not.

Senator O’BRIEN—Was Airservices involved in any way in calculating the figure?

Mr B. Smith—We provided a certain amount of financial information to Mr Willoughby, but it was clearly
not utilised, or it certainly was not apparently utilised, in the final figures that came out.

And later…..


Senator O’BRIEN—Do you agree with the costings in the report relating to the training of air traffic
controllers in software development?

Mr B. Smith—No, Senator.

Senator O’BRIEN—Can you tell me which parts of the report that you do agree with? That is probably the
most difficult question I have asked you.

Mr B. Smith—You have me struggling, Senator. I must highlight again that I have only seen it in draft
form, but that report that I did see—I certainly asked our folks to analyse it—in many areas just gave no
substantiation that made claims. There may well be things that are valid in the report, but there was no way of
analysing that to tell whether they were true or not. There were others that were absolutely wrong and clearly
wrong. I thought that we had conveyed all the figures and support necessary to Mr Willoughby to draw that
conclusion. I was absolutely gobsmacked when I saw the draft.

[Niles Crane]

The Parliment library will send anyone a copy free of charge. Just call them on 02 62774808

[Chief galah]

I finally understand what NAS is all about.

NAS is all about PAYING for "SAFETY".

The structure will be like the US model except for the vast areas of G airspace. G airspace is now bequeath to the small IFR operator, and the pond scum VFR's.

The E airspace base levels of 8500/14500 feet eliminate most of your non-pressurised aircraft that might possibly wish to partake in the benefits of the airspace. If, as an operator or pilot, you plan to enter E airspace, IFR, you will PAY for the "priviledge" of a clearance, separation, flight information, SAR etc. and the of course, the SAFETY.

Otherwise you stay in G and get nothing. But it SHOULD cost you nothing.

So, if you've currently operated IFR YORG to YCTM at 10000 feet, you've paid enroute costs for the ATS services - all the way, and you've got yourself a shiney clearance. Under NAS you should only PAY if you go above 8500 feet. Get your clearance, get the appropriate services and get the SAFETY.

Otherwise, go at 8000 feet, it will be G all the way and you SHOULDN'T have to PAY a cent. Pretty good deal, even though you're on your own. It's all about choice.

There may be a frequency to monitor so you can work out your own traffic. We've already been set up to get our own Area QNH, so no probs there.

This is a bargain for Airservices - they won't have to staff for the G airspace they are handing over to you, the pilot. You can rejoice - no longer having to listen to the boring chatter of the airliners. Because the cubic metreage of G airpace will be huge, AsA will be able to eliminate many low level enroute positions. A great saving for the industry. More rejoicing.

The low level E corridors can be absorbed into the operations of the high level sectors, and although the E procedures may cause a few delays from time to time, we can all be satisfied that the E users are only PAYING for the SAFETY they can NOW afford.

The rest of the IFR's can sneak around the E airspace or tool through VFR without bothering anyone.

It's a win win situation.

CG

Er, excuse me while I check the spin cycle

http://www.casa.gov.au/hotopics/media_rel/03-06-13.htm

[karrank]

I read Wes's report carefully for the first third (missing a few pages the one on the slopey desk is...) but, due to cracking a rib laughing, had to skim the rest.

What a load of hot cock!:yuk: :yuk:

By careful examination of the figures he reckons all Oz could be worked from 10-15 consoles. Apparantly, each work station (when averaged over 24 hours) only works 12 aircraft. But a busy Yank sector can work 17 or 18. So changing the airspace will fix this discrepancy. It is horsesh*t thinking like that that figures we'll save $70M a year. Oh, and turning off the HF.

Even when he mentioned dollars it was all based on LLAMP!!! If the biscuit salesman thought his plan was so radically different to LLAMP how could the costings be even remotely similar. (Papa Smurf should have shredded everything...):}

And all this comes from an ATC who is reasonably keen on the project...

[BIK_116.80]

Chief galah,

"It's all about choice." and "It's a win win situation."

I agree. And I think that's terrific. :ok:

[Chief galah]

BIK_116.80

There will be times when IFR ops will have their choices made for them by a controller. In IMC there will be no choice. IFR will get a separation service no matter how long it takes to provide it.

Without radar coverage, E corridors will be very restrictive at times.

Almost everyone puts up with ATC at the main centres of traffic, but at remote country locations, I'm not so sure pilots want that intervention. Especially when that intervention comes from a controller in ML or BN, who will only have a vague idea of the actual met conditions.

I don't really care how all this pans out. However, having been in the game for a while now, some changes are just changes that haven't improved anything.

We are still battling with readbacks after 3 years. It has only created more frequency congestion.

It's important that pilots/operators/controllers know exactly the day-to-day operational impact of NAS.

CG