NAS - The Insider Info...

[DickyBaby]

Given CASA's reluctance to sign off on the next stage of NAS as it drifts further from the US model that allowed implementation without developing a full safety case, it appears the NASometer is on the move...

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

Any comments?

[Capn Laptop]

I think that we can all think of things we can put in the bottom of the bulb to replace NAS - it is an accurate measure of a lot of things!!

particularly in the aviation industry....

Excellent work Dicky Baby!

[tobzalp]

That is probably a bit ahead of time. That is where the thermometer will be 2 weeks after 2b implementation.

[Captain Custard]

Dicky baby,

Yer not PB by any chance, are U??!! Loose code sinks ships!

[DickyBaby]

Captain Custard,

With deepest apologies I must advise I am not PB (long may his, her or its work reign in our memories). Nice try though. We wily ATCs aren't quite so silly as to leave that short a paper trail...

As for Tobzalp, the night of the long knives approaches. Whilst AsA is busily rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic with the last front bench reshuffle, idle hands in the background are doing much mischief.

All this jocularity aside, can't help but wonder why ATCs and Civilair are copping all the cr@p thrown at them as if they're driving the NAS agenda. Nothing could be farther from the truth from where I sit. The targets are set by people well displaced from the workplace either as pilots or ATC, implemented on a schedule no-one seems to be resourced to cope with, with resulting poor understanding by all involved.

Given that this is an industry not known for being forgiving to in-flight SNAFUs, it would seem that the moment of reckoning will definately be to some unfortunate sod's detriment.

[Tank Tinker]

Understand that the CTAF component of 2B has been deferred to the middle of next year on Bernie's recommendation to the Airspace Reform Group. But the replacement of Class C below FL180 with E is still a goer for November. Thank God for TCAS and mandated transponders in Class E.

Wonder who Dick (the real Minister for Aviation) is going to appoint to CASA as Mick Toller's replacement? Possibly an FAA NAS compliant retiree? If so he will get on well with the new Head ATC who, rumour has it, will be a NAS politically correct septic if John Forsyth has his way. Maybe Airservices/CASA should just relinquish Oz airspace to uncle Sam and save an awful lot of time, trouble and taxpayers money.:ok:

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Lets go one step further and let the FAA run the lot.

- Aviation would be helped not hindered.

- AOC's etc would be simpler and quicker.

- Documents would be simpler - (US FAR/AIMs is a book issued just twice a year for under US$20!).

- Airspace & ATC would be simpler for the tower crew and aircrew.


Despite the negative comments one hears about the US system from some in the industry -

Why is it that the US system has a safety record no worse than here, despite more traffic, higher terrain and substantially worse WX?.

[DickyBaby]

Why is it that the US system has a safety record no worse than here, despite more traffic, higher terrain and substantially worse WX?

Sorry, am I reading this right? An average of 35 midairs a year over the past 10 years is no worse than our record. Give me a break - even if you account for the variation in movement numbers we sh!t all over the US stats.

Try and get a grip on reality.

[Under the Hood]

RFG. "a safety record no worse than here". Where is your evidence? or is it your opinion?

[SM4 Pirate]

What we all need to understand is that the AUSNAS is a degradation of services and therefore protection for no financial benefit; so why do it?

The 2b changes for November have C airspace significantly reduced and E significantly increased; some G gets replaced by E...

IFR and RPTs currently fly mostly in C or above, unless operating to an aerodrome in G. Many company ops say don't go into G unless it is unavoidable (QFA for example). Every RPT and IFR will now be forced to fly in E, unless you have a unrealistic profile. This is a reduction in services and protection, with not $1 saved; infact many spent/wasted training and promoting this project. Again cost benefit?

AUSNAS is less for no cost benefit, but hey if you are VFR, you're going to luv it, because you can do what you want and it won't cost you a thing... Will the end result be increased IFR charges, as no VFR will pay for anything except aerodrome charges...

Bottle of Rum

[Winstun]

An average of 35 midairs a year over the past 10 years is no worse than our record. Give me a break - even if you account for the variation in movement numbers we sh!t all over the US stats. ..........:ooh: Nother Aussie wet dream..:rolleyes: Facts please, the average number of US midairs is less than 20, mostly light private aircraft (some balloons), with a survival rate of around 50%. Risk of collission is an exponential probability....example for simple pilot mentality: when you land at twice the speed, you use more than twice the runway.
Annual accidental death statistics in the US:
machinery 350
firearms 1500
suffocations 3300
fires and burns 3700
drownings 4000
poisonings 8600
falls 14900
car wrecks 43200
So you all now.....untighten your butts and acknowledge NOT really an issue!! ....:rolleyes: :hmm: :zzz:

[Rich-Fine-Green]

Messers Dicky Baby & Under the Hood:

Try this for size:

General Aviation - Year 2001 (the last year I have figures for; source NTSB & ATSB published)

USA

Hours flown = 27,451,000

Fatalities = 558

I make that 1 fatality every 49,195 hours.

AUSTRALIA

Hours flown = 1,703,000

Fatalities = 39

I make that 1 fatality every 43,667 hours.

Hmmmmmmmmmm.


Gentlemen & Ladies, before you rush to your stat books and twist the above to make it look like Australia is safer when it is a full moon on Tuesday or that on the third week of July 1951 Australia had a better safety record.............

I stand by my statement:

The US is no worse than here................


Now Dicky Baby - how about a grip on reality 'ol mate.

Despite a complex and over regulated system set by both CASA & Air Services - Australia is no better off 'safety wise' than the USA.

[ferris]

Rich-Fine-green
This is not a "twist" of the facts; how many of the hours you quote from the US were flown outside radar coverage? Convenient to forget that bit, isn't it?

Winstun.
Providing statistics that prove the average american is stupid beyond doubt has little bearing on the argument. One can only hope that the fervant supporters of ausNAS are the first among the 'statistics'. If you really do fly planes- this means you .

Better start developing that 'Chuck Yeager' eyesight. Y'all gonna need it.

[Winstun]

Providing statistics that prove the average american is stupid beyond doubt has little bearing on the argument :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: .....and is that why most of you are getting round in Boeings? And what aviation technical wonder does Australia boast of?...the friggin GAF Nomad!!!! My Gawd!!!:uhoh: Not to mention our military submarine expertise...:{ My point was, pay attention now, that a handful of middairs mean nothing to your average citizen, pilot or otherwise, US or OZ, (excepting small butt tightened minority frequented here).

[Neddy]

Ya know Winnie, some years back when Dick Smith was making his second tilt at the CASA "windmill" (mid '90s) he ran a series of seminars around the country based on a similar "sky is falling" mentality. His premise, like your's was a comparison of fatalities and hours flown crap.

Makes for great headlines (which I suspect was the aim of the exercise) but has very little bearing on the overall state of safety of the industry. On that basis if we were to have "one" airline accident suddenly Oz's overall standard of safety is shot regardless of the cause. What a load of cobblers!

As you stated in an earlier post (but rather selectively) other factors such as wx and terrain need to be considered when comparing systems. Similarly (the bits you left out), as many here have attempted to point out, so does radar coverage, charts, FIS services, ATC numbers, culture, infrastucture ..........

These are the items that NAS continues to ignore. Surely a safety case would put these "unfounded" fears to rest! Or would it?

And the cost/ benefit analysis?

[Under the Hood]

RFG- Nice point. But you figures are very slightly out of kilter.

GA 2001

USA Hours flown 27,451,000
Fatalities 562
Thus, 1 every 48,845 hours

Oz Hours flown 1,714,000
Fatalities 41
Thus, 1 every 41,824 hours

BUT
Same year (your choice)
RPT

USA Hours flown 17,098,000
Fatalities 531
Thus, 1 every 32,199 hours

Oz Hours flown 1,043,900
Fatalities 0
Thus, Oz is very safe

Of course 9/11 was a factor but they still had a rolling five year average of over 90 a year before then and Oz was less than two.

[WhatWasThat]

Although this has been raised in a previous thread, it is probably worth noting again that the recently commisioned independent study of ATS provision by Eurocontrol indicated Australian ATC is more efficient by some degree than either US or European ATC.

It seems to me that much of the angst evident from GA is generated not by the airspace system but the charging regime, with the US recovering the bulk of their enroute costs from fare paying passengers, and almost nothing from GA. Whilst it may appear to a GA visitor to the States that their system is simpler/cheaper it is in fact more expensive, they just hit someone else for the dollars.

I note that there seems to be a very clear division in opinion on NAS between lighty pilots who are generally positive, and ATCs and heavy metal drivers - who are overwhelmingly negative. Whilst I am simpathetic to GA, my guess is the PUBLIC interest lies with the big boys.

Oh Winstun, I had come to the conclusion that you are merely an amusing troll, but you seem to take debate about NAS very seriously indeed. Perhaps you should create a second profile for this purpose, so that your Soldier of Fortune/Combat medic/ lawyer/astronaut/international man of mystery persona does not cause people to take you less seriously.

[karrank]

Hey guys, I've got it figured!

I was leafing through a copy of the VFR on top AIP/SUP during the last half of a bottle of cheap bourbon and it all came to me. The procedures made sense, I felt the urge to jump into an aircraft and try them out. Even the phraseologies seemed to come naturally. The secret is not to think too hard about these procedures, just get blasted and try them out.

Then, (like nude motorcycle riding, playing in fountains, showing your bare ars* to police on duty,) haven broken the ice of trying them you can coldly evaluate their value or advisability the next day, if you survive.:E

[tobzalp]

Winstun


.......... Nother Aussie wet dream.. Facts please, the average number of US midairs is less than 20, mostly light private aircraft (some balloons), with a survival rate of around 50%. Risk of collission is an exponential probability....example for simple pilot mentality: when you land at twice the speed, you use more than twice the runway.
Annual accidental death statistics in the US:
machinery 350
firearms 1500
suffocations 3300
fires and burns 3700
drownings 4000
poisonings 8600
falls 14900
car wrecks 43200
So you all now.....untighten your butts and acknowledge NOT really an issue!! ....


lovely stats. How sill of me to think that as long as there are not as many deaths as car crashes then it must be ok. Looking at that we should think up a phrase to describe this theory. I know. We can call it AFFORDABLE SAFETY. (Plazbot runs off into the woods with the fairies... la la la llala lalala lala)




p.s. winstun = smith?

[karrank]

I wondered that myself topzalp, but decided he/she just wasn't well enough informed. Not about aviation, just what Dick's up to...:}

[tobzalp]

plus i video taped this on my recent trip to Madras.







http://www.fanta.dk/showmovie.asp?mid=9F1B03FE-C837-4360-B2A6-889314F3153A