NAS on the skids?

[snarek]

we will see

The 'shameless hype' from the flat earth societies, AFAP and CivilAir, has had a good result.

The AOPA board has strengthened its resolve to debunk this rubbish.

the travelling public couldn't care less and the reality is what has been said is verging on lies, so we will see in the end.

I predict a better NAS than the one envisaged

AK

[Lodown]

q1w2e3 - don't kid yourself about the public listening to professional pilots or controllers. The public and the politicians don't really give a hoot about what professional pilots and controllers have to say. The politicians DO sit up and take notice when the airport owners and regional councils start making noises though, and until that happens, I will be betting on NAS to go ahead.

[QSK?]

No Airspace Safety System

Thanks BIK for your response to all and sundry.

Firstly, your responses to my inputs imply that you think I am also a controller. I'm not. I normally "fly" a desk, with occasional outings where I only fly VFR (for both business and pleasure) mainly in a single engine PA32RT.

Secondly, like you, I was generally unfazed about "see and avoid" as being the ONLY method of separation (didn't think about it much really, to tell you the truth; just accepted that was the way things were). That was until last year, when I had 3 VERY CLOSE "near-collisions" (I don't call them near-misses; too serious for that) in G (enroute) airspace over the space of some 4 days, even though I had made all the required broadcasts and maintained a good (well I thought it was good) visual scan. It was at that point, that I decided that I should start taking an interest in the background issues related to flying in Australia eg CASA regulatory reform, airspace design, ATC procedures etc.

Thirdly, unlike you, I am definitely starting to now feel unsafe in G airspace, considering the number of aircraft no longer participating (intentionally or otherwise) in the system and I no longer have confidence that "see and avoid" is an effective, sole source means of ensuring conflict detection and resolution.

Fourthly: most of your response was dedicated to detailing what services YOU REQUIRE from "the system" and what YOU ARE prepared to pay for. I respect and have no argument with that and I believe any robust and well-designed system should be capable of accommodating your requirements. However, my needs are different to yours (and probably others).

I would like to access and use (as a VFR pilot) the full range of services the system offers, such as SAR alerting and traffic information and, what's more, I am prepared to pay for them! So, where's the respect from you for my needs and requirements? It would appear to me that the old system where B050/A050 was the delineation point where those who wanted to fly like BIK stayed below and those who wanted to fly like me went upstairs. This appeared to me to be an entirely sensible system, which worked well and simply required that when we each visited each other's "house", we adopted and abided by the established "house rules". The part that I find disappointing about BIK's approach is that he has no respect for the way that I want to fly and just wants it all his own way.

Tell me where we go from here?

[snarek]

ADSB

QSK?

Unlike most Air traffic Confusers on here I feel you might actually listen.

ADSB, if fitted to every aircraft in the fleet, will give everyone more information at less cost. You will be able to see everyone around you and BIK won't have to pay for it.

CivilAir don't want to run with ADSB because it weakens their Chicken Little arguments. AFAP are still pondering VHF Aural ranging!!!

Airservices ARE considering fitting ADSB, for free for every aircraft. To get this we ALL need to pressure the Minister and tell him what a great system it is and that we want it ASAP.

By the way, how will NAS make your almost hits get better??? I still have to avoid meatbombs around Mission Beach, and they're in C!!!!

please e-mail the minister!!!

AK

[QSK?]

Thanks snarek:

I agree with your comments re ADSB both here and in the other forum "Dick Lovers". You should also note that I have suggested the implementation of ADSB in an earlier entry (page 3) of this forum.

Certainly, I believe that the implementation of ADSB will overcome a lot of the safety concerns that I, and others, have for G/E airspace operations under NAS. The only problem I have is that the NASIG is hell bent on implementing the airspace changes now, when I believe that any implementation without ADSB (or some other surveillance or conflict detection tool)to be completely unsafe. No one will ever convince that "see and avoid" is a satisfactory SOLE MEANS of identifying and resolving conflicts. I tried that, and I assure you it don't work!

Its not that I don't think there are some positives with NAS, its just the "slash and burn" implementation approach that NASIG is adopting that scares the sh#$ outta me! Isn't CASA supposed to be oversighting the safety aspects of the NASIG implementation. Where are they on this issue?

[snarek]

I agree with you re ADSB, I believe it must be implimented together. I must stress, this is not the current AOPA Board position although I have put it to them.

AOPA have however triumphed ADSB to the minister and ask it be implimented ASAP as a free fit for all of GA.

The slash and burn seems to me to be a reaction to underhanded scaremongering by the ATC and 'little pilot' unions. If someone tells porkies then obviously NASIG is going to push harder and faster before the poo flung from the ramparts starts to stick.

They certainly convinced me they were a pack of turkeys not to be listenbed to!!

AK

[gaunty]

Media Release 30 September 2003

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia
PO Box 26 Georges Hall, NSW, 2198
Phone: [phone] Fax: [phone]

National Airspace System

AOPA Australia, who currently represents over 4000 pilots and aircraft owners, would like to respond to the comments made by Civil Air yesterday.

Whilst we have high regard for the professionalism and skills of the Air Traffic Control members of Civil Air and the airline pilots, we are concerned that these bodies appear to be engaging in an unnecessary scare campaign on the traveling public over the implementation of the National Airspace System.

There are some isolated issues in the change from “C” Class to “E” Class Airspace that have already been identified by the regulatory authorities, but we are confident they will be properly dealt with, as have been many other issues, in the normal course of implementation.

AOPA, as Australia’s largest pilot representative body, supports the implementation of the NAS is closely monitoring the implementation and is confident that the safety case analysis applied by BOTH Airservices and CASA before its implementation will ensure that the systems are safe, simple to use and based on world’s best practice.

AOPA is working closely with and supports NASIG in the preparation of educational material and the process, crucial to its success.

Airservices Australia whose responsibility it will become is recognised world wide as a benchmark leader in the provision of Air Services. They are a valuable export commodity for Australia.

AOPA’s President, Marjorie Pagani, is available for a response on the comments made yesterday and she would like to express her support for the NAS.

Marjorie is available on 0407 267 203 between 1:15 pm & 2:15pm and after 5:00 pm today.

OR
Vice President
Ron Lawford on 0407 267 209 all day

OR
Vice President
Gary Gaunt on 0407 267 200 all day

[QSK?]

Snarek:

Our dialogue this arvo has been quite enlightening from my point of view as, up to this point in time, I had considered AOPA's formal views on NAS to be as extreme and one-sided as the views of the opposition that you keep caning. It's good to see that you are thinking of the issues, and retaining an individual perspective. That is very important for all of us, and something which I respect.

I think my position re NAS and airspace reform sits comfortably somewhere between AOPA and CivilAir/AFAP; probably with a slight leaning towards the latter. Hopefully, you'll respect that too.

However, I won't endorse your comments on ATC for the following reasons:

1. Every system has its stakeholders and every stakeholder (in my view) has a perspective, as well as a right and an obligation to present that perspective in the interests of system safety and efficiency;

2. I have received nothing but professionalism and excellent service from all controllers/FSOs that I have had the pleasure to deal with over the past 30 years. I also count some controllers as my friends; and, lastly

3. For us to keep "bagging" other stakeholders is a waste of time and counter-productive, in my view. If we hope to achieve the best airspace system, it is far more beneficial that we focus our efforts on the issues not the personalities; "play the ball, not the man" is a quote that comes to mind with the imminent kickoff of the Rugby World Cup just around the corner. Obviously, you and I have different positions on the NAS issue, snarek, but I have found its been very productive that we were able to arrive at common ground on the implementation and use of technology. That's good news, and represents what this forum should always be about.

No, hopefully, I'll continue to focus on the issues at hand and stay away from the mud slinging. My experience is that people will place more value on what you have to say, and respect your position even if they don't agreee with it, if you can do that successfully!

Take care and safe flying, AK!

PS: Controllers: My point 3 also applies to you guys/gals who want to sling the mud around! Focus on the issues and arguments because, you never know, you might be lucky enough to just sway an AOPA member back towards your viewpoint! Makes far more sense to me in the long run.

[karrank]

Who will blink first - NAS

Can't seem to get a poll to work anymore, so I'll just ask the questions...

Will the minister backflip, forced to admit there are bits of this stage that are less safe than at present - even if it can be shown they are still reasonably safe?

Will CASA not say "Yes it's safe" (as demanded by ASA board), in the face of pressure from the airlines who don't want this stage written in stone in case it ends up being the end-state by default?

Will the ATC and airline pilots unions do something really interesting to avoid all change?

Will Dick say something even dumber in public (like Broome Tower) that finally makes somebody important wonder why anybody listens to him?

Will it happen on 27th November?

[SM4 Pirate]

one more karrank

Will we get no further than stage 2b, on time on budget?

Will we get a propoer training package, for pilots and ATCs?

I believe it will get really ugly when the CTAF/MBZ issue comes up; and will hit the too hard wall.

As for Transponders, there is no change to requirements in E on 27 Nov; but look what happens in stage 3; that's what is up Civil Airs' and the prof pilots associations nose.

Replacing C with 'E' (in the J curve) or C with G (over Tassie); is no cost benefit, extra risk... why do it; not for safety, not for money... doesn't stack up.

Bottle of Rum

[tobzalp]

good point sm4 pirate haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaar!

Look at the rest of the NAS model. It just gets worse. This is far from the watershead.

[tsnake]

Lowdown,

As usual nailed it in one! You did leave out one small rider. Yes, the government will listen to the airport owners and regional councils and then to the airlines, but only after an accident.
As we both know the views of pilots do not represent the views of their employers who are only really interested in making money, despite their mouthings about safety. Qantas, and to a lesser extent Virgin Blue, have much bigger fish to fry eg. trans-Tasman and getting their maulers on Air New Zealand.
You can bet Anderson has had quiet words in the ears of both Dixon and Godfrey. He wants Dick to have a nice present for his 60th birthday. The party's at Gundaroo so John won't have to go too far.

Gaunty,

I admire the efforts you and the team have made to make AOPA relevant and effective in aviation matters but to be blunt, that press release is a joke. I can certainly understand a desire to maintain good relations with all players in the industry but the media aren't in the least interested in such reasonableness.

I have commented before on the challenge AOPA faces. Until it can prove to the media it is not a club for very rich boys and girls indulging in a hobby, it will not be regarded as a serious player. This press release doesn't help one iota.

[gaunty]

tsnake

Thanks, I accept the view, yes there is some work to do, it will take some time to turn around and I will take your observation on board, however the phone hasn't stopped all day with requests from the media for our position and comments.

We do not run our business and negotiate with Government and Regulator in a way to satisfy what appears to be the medias insatiable need for sensation, I would be interested in your views on how you might have handled it.

It is outrageous, the public are now scared sh!tless about something that hasn't even happened, nor is going to.

Footage of Jumbos approaching Sydney airport with the voiceover suggesting that "invisible" lighties are going to be charging across their path and crashing into them just isn't on.

A senior journo told me today it is just too difficult a subject for them, so they revert to "death plunge" mode. The public know even less, so any information is going to completely confuse them.

Civil Air and the airline pilots are entitled to their view of the universe, but they should be a whole lot more responsible about how they present it.

It is in the same mode as the Airports mob suggesting that the new system will allow terrorists to enter airport airspace loaded up with missiles and bombs without telling anyone. I'll bet they haven't done their Dangerous Goods Certificate, they'd better watch out, CASA will get em.

Ron Lawford who has been fielding the calls on this issue is hoarse from responding and we haven't finished by a long shot yet.

Let's see what came out of the meeting between them and M Smith today and we'll go from there.

[Time Bomb Ted]

Good onya AOPA. It is about time AOPA got its act together and represented the GA pilot. The new board seems to be representing the average GA pilot, by having a couple of GA pilots on the board. Well done.

I was one of the approximately 4000 people who attended the NAS mass briefing around the country. I think that there would have been about 0.1% of the total in Brissy who would have opposed the NAS. Just a couple of ATC types who would have thrown a hissy fit in between calculating their Super Payout...... As a senior instructor who will have to teach the up and coming Airline Pilots of this country, I say one thing. BRING IT ON!

I'm sick and tired of hearing, "Clearance not available, remain OCTA". We have some of the best Air Traffic Controllers in the world, but they seem to be hamstrung by the system. Case in point. I was flying out of Canberra last week when we were told to hold OCTA. There was 2 other aircraft in the whole Canberra Zone....... 1 X Dash 8, 1 X RAAF Biz Jet. Holy butt fluff batman, 2 aircraft in nearly 15,000 square kilometers of airspace. Must have been a collision hazard. We were then told to make best possible speed down final for runway 30. First hold then stoke up the coals........ Make up your Freekin Mind..... It costs us money you know.

Stop yer whingin an get on with it.

TBT

[Time Bomb Ted]

Cost benefit.....Design Safety Case.....Yada Yada Yada..... Public service mumbo jumbo. The average pilot would not know the difference between a safety case and a suitcase......Enough all ready.....

Who will blink first....NAS on the Skids... Fer Crisssake give it a rest will ya.

Out of the 35000 pilots in Aust, less than 3000 are RPT type and there is only about 700 ATC. Why do you have such a strong voice? Why does your union spread such rubbish about no radio or TXPDR over class C airspace. For a professional group, your unions sure seem pretty amateurish. Just the facts Mam.Just the facts.(Columbo).

[Wirraway]

Wed "The Australian"

Airspace worries to be put to Anderson
From AAP
October 01, 2003

Australian airspace reforms will make the skies less safe, pilots and air traffic controllers have told the group charged with implementing the reforms.

The Australian International Pilot's Association (AIPA) and Civil Air, who represent air traffic controllers, met with the National Airspace System (NAS) implementation group in Sydney today to discuss concerns over the new system.

Under the new rules, light aircraft will be allowed to operate below 10,000 feet (3,050 metres) without radio or radar contact, or notifying air traffic controllers.

AIPA and Civil Air believe it is a dangerous system that will force pilots to keep a lookout for other planes by making it their responsibility to do so.

Civil Air president Ted Lang said the NAS implementation group would put their concerns to Transport Minister John Anderson and a response was expected within days.

"The position of Civil Air has not changed in light of today's meeting," he said.

"Air traffic controllers maintain serious concerns about the safety of the proposed airspace rules."

Mike Smith, of the NAS implementation group, confirmed he would take the concerns to the minister and defended the system.

"There will always be a difference of opinions but it is important that everyone knows their opinions are valued," he said.

"There is no intention to undermine the safety of the industry, in fact quite the opposite."

AIPA safety officer Richard Woodward said he believed the minister would be responsive to concerns about the changes.

"The majority of professional users of the airspace, the AIPA and Civil Air are unhappy with the model as it stands and we hope the minister will take that on board," he said.

Concerns over the safety of the reforms were dismissed by the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), which represents around 4,000 pilots and owners around Australia.

"We fully support the NAS proposal as it stands," AOPA vice president Ron Lawford told AAP.

"The public are becoming concerned but the safety authorities are bound to ensure the new airspace will be as safe as possible and we are confident in their ability to do so."

It was extremely improbable that any pilot would fly in Australia without a transponder or radio, Mr Lawford added.

"I think what's happening is the present system requires a disproportionate use of the number of air traffic controllers to the number of aircraft in the sky," he said.

"I think they're opposing it because they're worried about their jobs."

The Department of Transport today reaffirmed its commitment to the NAS, the first stage of which comes into effect on November 27.

==========================================

[divingduck]

The NAS debate

Well guys, I have watched this debate with great interest, not because I have any stake in it whatsoever, but because it is a very serious issue.

I agree with whoever said it a short while back, stop bagging each other for God's sake.

I am not a pilot, I am an ATC. Before all the usual suspects start to flame me for having the temerity to post on a Professional pilots network I would ask that if that were the case only Professional pilots be asked to contribute.
That of course leaves out most lighty pilots, nes pas?

I also do not live in Oz any longer, I am currently happily abiding in the Middle East, so you can see that I really have no axe to grind whatsoever.

The only thing I would point out is that the Professional pilots ie the heavy metal guys and the ATC's have to live with and deal with this system every day like it or not.

The "weekend warrior" types that make up AOPA get to deal with it roughly an hour or so every other week.

Naturally we will all have different viewpoints. Let us engage in rational debate for the good of all.

One minor point that I would like to make is that many of the AOPA guys that have commented on this thread have been in the "what's in it for me" mode.

I think it needs pointing out that the ATC and Professional pilots that have been copping quite a bit of stick here are thinking of the travelling public..ie plain old Joe that buys his ticket to fly to Kal or Alice or Rocky etc.

Finally, those that think that the ATC's are trying to protect their jobs should wake up a bit. There are many many jobs available around the world for controllers, sometimes at vastly increased salary packages....we dont' need to protect them here.
Perhaps you should walk a mile in the other guys shoes before spitting the vitriol.

Good luck with it all.

stay safe, orderly and expeditious.

[89 steps to heaven]

Declaring my viewpoint first, I am an ATC.

Just trying to put a slightly different view on the subject. Over many years, the Australian & US aviation cultures have developed in ways that were suitable for each situation. Similar but different culture & training.

If we are to implement what is basically the US system, it not only needs the technical base to support it, but we need to adopt the underlying culture & training as well.

For safe implementation, this needs to be in place before the change. Is a 4 week lead time enough?

ATC's have been developing procedures and training packages for many weeks, but I understand that many commercial operators have not yet started any training and PPL's, unknown.

I do have concerns with the changes, no advantage at all by changing class C to class E, why do not all aircraft involved in IFR pickup have a say before someone climbs through their level, etc, but I believe that we should always review what we do to see if we can do it better.

The current NAS2b implementaion proposal has too many flaws. Lets do it properly and not have cause to regret at length.

[snarek]

Some good and rational debate for a change.

I welcome input from ATC, and I will listen to and take up any issues PM'd me with the AOPA Board. On NAS I am a supporter, but have swung that way after listening to reasoned debate. None of that has been presented by AFAP or CivilAir, thier scaremongering has turned me very much against their agenda!!!

I am an unashamed 'bugsmaher' pilot. I fly my way, I fly about 10 hours a week 'commuting', I occasionally fly IFR (but don't like it in a SE a/c) I have a transponder, I keep it serviced to give IFR people nice accurate TCAS (even though I don't actually need it). I even change track to make it easy for the Dunk-Cairns guys to get in and out. What I am saying is, "we are all in this together".

But, I too am sick of "remain OCTA" because there is one Dash-8 in the Maroochy airspace mish-mash. And unless someone invents a VTOL 747 I dont see why I can't cross straight over Cairns at 1500 feet (through a lane of course) avoiding the approach and departure run ins (sort of a high Victor One).

Anyway, feel free to PM, I am interested and will listen and represent your views.

AK

[Chief galah]

snarek

Nothing within current or near future NAS allows you any freer access to airspace you currently enjoy, apart from overflying a D class tower above 4500' in E airspace. This assumes the November 27 changes go through. The CTAF changes next year are not ATC related, so it's hardly a industrial issue with ATC.
You can transit the ML CTR at most times VFR, including over ML airport at 1500ft, if you are competent with procedures. No flight plan required. However, if your track conflicts with departing and arriving traffic, you will get dicked around. I think it is quite unreasonable to expect an airline aircraft to give way to you, when it has been slowed/vectored/held to facilitate their arrival.
It must be remembered there is no provision in NAS to change the C class separation rules or priority. IFR have to be separated from VFR so there is and will be no change to how controllers deal with VFR in CTR's.
So, for all the money spent so far, we've saved nothing and increased the risk.
That's a bum deal in my book.