NAS on the skids?
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But PGH, what frequency will you be on to hear this inbound call? The CTAF, the area frequency that is not printed on a map(well the boundary any way).
Triadic
The problem I can see with regard to safety with Class E is that it is replacing Class C in various parts of the country. No more, no less. I agree that the E and G in some instances are identical for the users (VMC) and that if IMC existed by default the VFR could not be there. But that is not what is the problem (one of many) re airspace classification, as a whole protection is taken away from airspace that already has it.
Triadic
The problem I can see with regard to safety with Class E is that it is replacing Class C in various parts of the country. No more, no less. I agree that the E and G in some instances are identical for the users (VMC) and that if IMC existed by default the VFR could not be there. But that is not what is the problem (one of many) re airspace classification, as a whole protection is taken away from airspace that already has it.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly I must say that I am not "defending" NAS, nor I am yet convinced that it is the answer to all our so called problems.
Having said that, it continues to be quite clear that there are many versions of how one should "participate" within the various classes of airspace. I blame this on both CASA and the flying training industry (including the training within the air carriers) in not providing the required level of training in airspace participation training. There is certainly no standardisation!
Blastoid
I suggest there is nothing from stopping them from doing that right now!! Either due to poor training, no appreciation of the environment they are in or just plain lack of airmanship!
Maybe so, but if you read the fine print, there is a belief in the NASIG that the decision making process if exercised by the PIC is sound then many of these issues will go away... like you I am yet to be convinced.
In regard to Roger's advert about unnecessary calls, again it is the training that is at fault because I suggest that many pilots are so poorly trained on how the EXISTING system works they are unable to make a sound judgment on what is and what is not an unnecessary call..! Certainly the QNH calls are more habit than a necessity and the advert is trying to get that message across. Perhaps they should do one on readbacks as well, because again because of poor training many pilots read everything back because they don't know what not to...! (eg: traffic info).
There has been more than one occasion where I have been given IFR traffic, made contact and been told by the other IFR pilot "we are well clear of you" only to see him at close quarters a bit later. I wonder where he thought he was or where I was??
If IFR pilots cannot make judgment/s on traffic conflicts now, then how do you suppose that the part time weekend pilot is going to do that under NAS? He/she will either be drowned in education on how to participate and exercise good sound airmanship or he/she will turn the stereo on/VHF off and let the big sky policy work for them! Like most others posting here, I would prefer the former.
And of course our friends in gliders will be out there (as they are now) doing their thing on a frequency we might only find out about from either local knowledge or a NOTAM.
PGH
What you describe is what I call "good airmanship".. sadly not all that much about these days!
Certainly there is a need for airspace reform in Oz but like others I would like to see the changes bring about some significant improvements in how we go about "drilling holes in the sky". So far there is little evidence that this will occur under NAS, and will certainly not occur unless the level and depth of airspace education is dramatically increased and is ongoing.
"No known traffic"
Having said that, it continues to be quite clear that there are many versions of how one should "participate" within the various classes of airspace. I blame this on both CASA and the flying training industry (including the training within the air carriers) in not providing the required level of training in airspace participation training. There is certainly no standardisation!
Blastoid
Not only that, but they won't even be required to be monitoring the area frequency for traffic. They could be listening out on multicom, area VHF, local tower, the cricket or golden oldies.
But under NAS the VFR traffic is discouraged from making broadcasts on their position and intentions (see also current issue of FSA and full page advert on "not making unnecessary calls"
In regard to Roger's advert about unnecessary calls, again it is the training that is at fault because I suggest that many pilots are so poorly trained on how the EXISTING system works they are unable to make a sound judgment on what is and what is not an unnecessary call..! Certainly the QNH calls are more habit than a necessity and the advert is trying to get that message across. Perhaps they should do one on readbacks as well, because again because of poor training many pilots read everything back because they don't know what not to...! (eg: traffic info).
There has been more than one occasion where I have been given IFR traffic, made contact and been told by the other IFR pilot "we are well clear of you" only to see him at close quarters a bit later. I wonder where he thought he was or where I was??
If IFR pilots cannot make judgment/s on traffic conflicts now, then how do you suppose that the part time weekend pilot is going to do that under NAS? He/she will either be drowned in education on how to participate and exercise good sound airmanship or he/she will turn the stereo on/VHF off and let the big sky policy work for them! Like most others posting here, I would prefer the former.
And of course our friends in gliders will be out there (as they are now) doing their thing on a frequency we might only find out about from either local knowledge or a NOTAM.
PGH
What you describe is what I call "good airmanship".. sadly not all that much about these days!
Certainly there is a need for airspace reform in Oz but like others I would like to see the changes bring about some significant improvements in how we go about "drilling holes in the sky". So far there is little evidence that this will occur under NAS, and will certainly not occur unless the level and depth of airspace education is dramatically increased and is ongoing.
"No known traffic"
Last edited by triadic; 25th Sep 2003 at 07:41.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"No Airspace Safety" (NAS) System
triadic:
Yes, your are correct. I do realise that the Oz scenario I depicted is exactly what happens in our non-radar G airspace today. The only reason that I related the scenario as Class E airspace was to ensure an effective "apples vs apples" comparison with the current US model where Class E significantly predominates over Class G airspace (unlike Australia). It is also my understanding that the NASIG eventually intends to replace the majority of Australian Class G with Class E, so my scenario 2 was intended to reflect a future airspace environment pedominated by Class E. Cheers.
tobzalp:
Ref yr response. Yes I am becoming increasingly concerned at the number of unknown aircraft in the system - and it looks like it is going to get worse under NAS. In the latest "Aircraft&Aerospace" magazine (p22), Dr Neal Fulton of the CSIRO points out that, prior to 1991, the number of unknowns was less than 2%. It is now estimated to be between 60 and 80%. You'd think with that sort of increase, the NASIG would be more focussed on designing an airspace system that relies less on "see and avoid" as the primary means of separation.
Yes, your are correct. I do realise that the Oz scenario I depicted is exactly what happens in our non-radar G airspace today. The only reason that I related the scenario as Class E airspace was to ensure an effective "apples vs apples" comparison with the current US model where Class E significantly predominates over Class G airspace (unlike Australia). It is also my understanding that the NASIG eventually intends to replace the majority of Australian Class G with Class E, so my scenario 2 was intended to reflect a future airspace environment pedominated by Class E. Cheers.
tobzalp:
Ref yr response. Yes I am becoming increasingly concerned at the number of unknown aircraft in the system - and it looks like it is going to get worse under NAS. In the latest "Aircraft&Aerospace" magazine (p22), Dr Neal Fulton of the CSIRO points out that, prior to 1991, the number of unknowns was less than 2%. It is now estimated to be between 60 and 80%. You'd think with that sort of increase, the NASIG would be more focussed on designing an airspace system that relies less on "see and avoid" as the primary means of separation.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: The Antipodes
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What's this thread about?
It’s been quite interesting following this thread over the past few days looking at the style of reply. The thread started out with a post notifying that AIPA, AFAP and Civilair had signed a joint letter to the Minister stating (paraphrasing) that the original stated reasons for undertaking the airspace change were being demonstrated and requesting an urgent meeting to discuss the progress or not of the transition.
Replies for the first couple of days seemed to be supportive of this position, presumably with posts from ATCs and Regional/RPT pilots. The thread was obviously a sleeper until a little vigorous argument came from BIK 116.8. Over the past 2 days posts have more than doubled and today marks the start of print, radio and presumably television coverage on the issue (although sheep in the Middle East is still bigger).
I was deeply offended to read that one of my fellow aviation enthusiasts would seek to exclude ATCs from discussing issues that affect every day of their working lives. Despite some of the opinions expressed here ATCs are not focussed on destruction of the industry. Our livelihood depends on the livelihood of the aviation community at large. Similarly I cannot believe that someone can so lightly write off the combined opinions of 3 professional associations by saying that:
and goes on to say that:
The letter that started all this doesn’t say NAS is a crock of sh!t. It doesn’t say we’re all going to die. What the letter says is that if the premise we went into this for is not occurring, why are we proceeding? In other words “Please explain”.
My personal opinion is that we’re giving away a lot more than we’ll gain. Most of the controllers I know don’t support the airspace changes but even though we didn’t ask for it, we’re all doing the training, sacrificing days off and break time, in order the meet the mandated cutover dates. The bottom line is that we’re not going to die if it goes wrong but we sure as hell don’t want to sit by and watch some poor b@stards run together and die to prove our point.
There are enough people questioning the process to warrant further discussion. If you presented any politician with a petition of 6000 signatures on what, to the public, is a limited interest topic, they’d start jumping. The fact that there are more GA pilots out presumes that they all agree that NAS is a good idea. Equally the letter from the unions does not imply that that all of the membership thinks that NAS sucks. Open discussion is healthy, we won’t solve it here but at least we get an idea of what people think (however wrong they may be if they have a different opinion to me).
I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t think it’s going to save money and the CEO of Airservices is of the same opinion. Dick has started promising additional towers that haven’t been costed which means additional airspace regulations at these locations. I don’t l know if I’m right but I’m enjoying the discussions
Replies for the first couple of days seemed to be supportive of this position, presumably with posts from ATCs and Regional/RPT pilots. The thread was obviously a sleeper until a little vigorous argument came from BIK 116.8. Over the past 2 days posts have more than doubled and today marks the start of print, radio and presumably television coverage on the issue (although sheep in the Middle East is still bigger).
I was deeply offended to read that one of my fellow aviation enthusiasts would seek to exclude ATCs from discussing issues that affect every day of their working lives. Despite some of the opinions expressed here ATCs are not focussed on destruction of the industry. Our livelihood depends on the livelihood of the aviation community at large. Similarly I cannot believe that someone can so lightly write off the combined opinions of 3 professional associations by saying that:
A letter with 6000 members hey???
Well I am penning one that effectively negates that, on AOPA letterhead.
Well I am penning one that effectively negates that, on AOPA letterhead.
More GA pilots than RPT = more votes.
My personal opinion is that we’re giving away a lot more than we’ll gain. Most of the controllers I know don’t support the airspace changes but even though we didn’t ask for it, we’re all doing the training, sacrificing days off and break time, in order the meet the mandated cutover dates. The bottom line is that we’re not going to die if it goes wrong but we sure as hell don’t want to sit by and watch some poor b@stards run together and die to prove our point.
There are enough people questioning the process to warrant further discussion. If you presented any politician with a petition of 6000 signatures on what, to the public, is a limited interest topic, they’d start jumping. The fact that there are more GA pilots out presumes that they all agree that NAS is a good idea. Equally the letter from the unions does not imply that that all of the membership thinks that NAS sucks. Open discussion is healthy, we won’t solve it here but at least we get an idea of what people think (however wrong they may be if they have a different opinion to me).
I don’t think it’s a good idea. I don’t think it’s going to save money and the CEO of Airservices is of the same opinion. Dick has started promising additional towers that haven’t been costed which means additional airspace regulations at these locations. I don’t l know if I’m right but I’m enjoying the discussions
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
triadic,
RE: the radio calls,
Agreed. But at least under the current rules VFR are still supposed to make broadcasts and supposed to monitor area VHF. But I don't dispute your point that that doesn't stop many from doing whatever they want even now. As you indicate, education is largely the problem, but policing is also nearly impossible. I know for a fact many situations where Dash 8s in MBZs have had TCAS help avoid potentially ugly situations (ever wondered what the "M" stands for? 
).
RE: the FSA ad. I think the message in the ad was a little strong (crossed arms, grim face, etc.) ... there are already a lot of VFR pilots out there who are "scared" of troubling ATC ... indeed education would help. But the other day I had a VFR that called up for a no-plan clearance which I denied due workload, and when I finally got back to him for the clearance (say about 10min later) he mentioned engine trouble. Now if he had said that the first time, he would have been given priority. Now what initially appeared to be a "nuisance" call ended up being a rather important one!
Of course there are many situations like this (and vice-versa), but from my own point of view I like knowing, through area broadcasts, who is in the airspace and their intentions etc. If it means I give the Area QNH from time to time, so be it. It helps to keep the picture, especially the provision of traffic OCTA. But I digress.
Umm, let's not forget the meatbombs in Class E that don't need to talk to ATC and all we can see (if we're lucky) is the aircraft from which they originated ... and there is a jet going right through the middle. Now that's scary! 
no_name_oz,
I would'd have gone so far as to give credibility to the person you describe as one of your "fellow aviation enthusiasts"
tobzalp,
Agreed!
RE: the radio calls,
I suggest there is nothing from stopping them from doing that right now!! Either due to poor training, no appreciation of the environment they are in or just plain lack of airmanship!
).RE: the FSA ad. I think the message in the ad was a little strong (crossed arms, grim face, etc.) ... there are already a lot of VFR pilots out there who are "scared" of troubling ATC ... indeed education would help. But the other day I had a VFR that called up for a no-plan clearance which I denied due workload, and when I finally got back to him for the clearance (say about 10min later) he mentioned engine trouble. Now if he had said that the first time, he would have been given priority. Now what initially appeared to be a "nuisance" call ended up being a rather important one!
Of course there are many situations like this (and vice-versa), but from my own point of view I like knowing, through area broadcasts, who is in the airspace and their intentions etc. If it means I give the Area QNH from time to time, so be it. It helps to keep the picture, especially the provision of traffic OCTA. But I digress.
And of course our friends in gliders will be out there (as they are now) doing their thing on a frequency we might only find out about from either local knowledge or a NOTAM.
no_name_oz,
I would'd have gone so far as to give credibility to the person you describe as one of your "fellow aviation enthusiasts"
tobzalp,
Agreed!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS winding down...
Gotta say the news I saw tonight was surprisingly more anti-NAS than I thought it would be.
ATC union pushed the safety perspective, Dick pushed the anti-ATC (they all resist change) barrow.
That and the US NATCA statement have got me believing we are looking back down the barrel of another 11th hour "backflip".
Another well thought out change process
NOT
ATC union pushed the safety perspective, Dick pushed the anti-ATC (they all resist change) barrow.
That and the US NATCA statement have got me believing we are looking back down the barrel of another 11th hour "backflip".
Another well thought out change process
NOT
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Smith cut and pasted from Ninemsn...
""It won't be introduced until both Airservices and CASA (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) are absolutely satisfied that it can be done safely," Mr Smith said.
"We have a safe system today; the system we're introducing is even safer.
"The idea is to make the airspace better match the technology we're using to manage it, recognise the changing traffic patterns and where aircraft operate, improve the services ... and hopefully generate some efficiencies for operators that might save them some money and stimulate the industry.""
Thats right Mike, and all the little elves will dance and sing while you eat olives off the hips of virgins....
For that little gem you win this...
""It won't be introduced until both Airservices and CASA (the Civil Aviation Safety Authority) are absolutely satisfied that it can be done safely," Mr Smith said.
"We have a safe system today; the system we're introducing is even safer.
"The idea is to make the airspace better match the technology we're using to manage it, recognise the changing traffic patterns and where aircraft operate, improve the services ... and hopefully generate some efficiencies for operators that might save them some money and stimulate the industry.""
Thats right Mike, and all the little elves will dance and sing while you eat olives off the hips of virgins....
For that little gem you win this...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media Grab's
"I can ensure you that it will be a safer system, but it will be more efficient with less cost and that's important"
and
"The Air Traffic Controllers normally always oppose any change at all, and so basically it's opposing change, rather than saying can we do something better."
and
"The Air Traffic Controllers normally always oppose any change at all, and so basically it's opposing change, rather than saying can we do something better."
Safer, CASA said less safe than the current system.
Same old trump card hey, lets blame the controllers and their ability to not cope with change... Last time I checked there were three organisations who said NAS should be stopped. Two of them with pilots as members.
Last time I checked there were 45 TLI's dealing with changes in procedures and instructions in the last 30 days, in my area alone. Heard about them, no, because we can cope with change.
Winning friends fast Dick. We are not opposed to change, but if it doesn't deliver on safety or money, what's the point.
Bottle of Rum (please)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now let me see,we have ATC(aus), ATC(usa),International pilots,domestic pilots,Aussie Airports(on terminal airspace) all saying in writing this is very worrying.
We have reports by
BASI 1991 Limitations to see and avoid
CASA 2002 Safety Analysis CTAF vs MBZ
Capt Beville-Anderson USA vs NAS report
Other team report on USA vs NAS
Broome Safety analysis 2003
All with data and analysis saying either USA system is different & unsafe for Australia without huge infrastructure (enroute radar and towers) and/or don't use "see and avoid" or CTAF at our large uncontrolled airports.
On the other side we have, Dick & Mike & Dick & Mike & Dick & Mike
I agree with the statement " IN GOD WE TRUST ALL OTHERS MUST HAVE DATA"
So to balance the argument the Minister must know either Dick or or Mike, or Both, are divine. You anti NAS guys could be in deep trouble!!
NAS is it DIVINE or DOES the EMPEROR have NO CLOTHES
We have reports by
BASI 1991 Limitations to see and avoid
CASA 2002 Safety Analysis CTAF vs MBZ
Capt Beville-Anderson USA vs NAS report
Other team report on USA vs NAS
Broome Safety analysis 2003
All with data and analysis saying either USA system is different & unsafe for Australia without huge infrastructure (enroute radar and towers) and/or don't use "see and avoid" or CTAF at our large uncontrolled airports.
On the other side we have, Dick & Mike & Dick & Mike & Dick & Mike
I agree with the statement " IN GOD WE TRUST ALL OTHERS MUST HAVE DATA"
So to balance the argument the Minister must know either Dick or or Mike, or Both, are divine. You anti NAS guys could be in deep trouble!!
NAS is it DIVINE or DOES the EMPEROR have NO CLOTHES
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walley.
In order to stay as out of touch as possible, I have read most of that. Must say I found the B_A report to be a bit woeful.
I read the CivilAir press release too. And you guys accuse NASIG of being clever with the truth....geeez!
AK
In order to stay as out of touch as possible, I have read most of that. Must say I found the B_A report to be a bit woeful.
I read the CivilAir press release too. And you guys accuse NASIG of being clever with the truth....geeez!
AK
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SNAREK
I am not ATC and would love to read an analysis that could help to show what the risk is for CTAF airport with GA and 737 mixing it.
Or even a major regional airport in USA similar to ours at AYERS, BROOME, KAL etc.
I just hate proceeding without that analysis and instead a "trust me approach" led by a person who was so damningly criticised by BASI for very poor leadership and over involvement in other staff rightful responsibilities, in an airspace trial carried out in Aust !!!
If you look at NASAs woes you can't help but see the same pitfalls of the process that leads to a disaster.
To date this is not a lineball decision going in favour of NAS vs Alternatives. There has been no data presented or analysed by the proponents of NAS.
The "it works in USA it will work here approach" is not even supported by the team they sent to USA or the USA experts they had barn storming around Aust. Both groups say our Reionals would be towered and 737s would be flying within radar and positive ATC.
OK that knocks out comparative analysis; so do a design analysis. Oops for CTAF that has been done CASA, BIA and it says can't use CTAF and See-and-avoid.
No sane manager of airspace architecture would impliment the terminal airspace suggested when informed of these facts from credible data and credible analysis by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel.
No facts no analysis then NO CHANGE sorry but that is the only sane approach and I condemn anyone who proceeds without that modus operandi.
Every court in the Land will judge the action not just foolhardy but negligent. If you have read the CASA 2002 report you will see that the Chief Justice has defined the act of negligence for Risk Management.
Under Justice Gibbs dictum if the implimentation of CTAF to a regional airport contributes to a disaster then it is a civil and quite possibly a criminal act.
That is the stakes we are playing for unfortunately the Minister would be protected by his Sovereign rights. Not the other non government players,they are open for legal liability and prosecution.
None of this helps those who are damaged due to the flaw in our airspace changes.
Airspace accidents happen around uncontrolled airports don't mess with its procedures without proof of the acceptability of the intended changes.
NO FACTS, NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF NO CHANGE
I am not ATC and would love to read an analysis that could help to show what the risk is for CTAF airport with GA and 737 mixing it.
Or even a major regional airport in USA similar to ours at AYERS, BROOME, KAL etc.
I just hate proceeding without that analysis and instead a "trust me approach" led by a person who was so damningly criticised by BASI for very poor leadership and over involvement in other staff rightful responsibilities, in an airspace trial carried out in Aust !!!
If you look at NASAs woes you can't help but see the same pitfalls of the process that leads to a disaster.
To date this is not a lineball decision going in favour of NAS vs Alternatives. There has been no data presented or analysed by the proponents of NAS.
The "it works in USA it will work here approach" is not even supported by the team they sent to USA or the USA experts they had barn storming around Aust. Both groups say our Reionals would be towered and 737s would be flying within radar and positive ATC.
OK that knocks out comparative analysis; so do a design analysis. Oops for CTAF that has been done CASA, BIA and it says can't use CTAF and See-and-avoid.
No sane manager of airspace architecture would impliment the terminal airspace suggested when informed of these facts from credible data and credible analysis by appropriately qualified and experienced personnel.
No facts no analysis then NO CHANGE sorry but that is the only sane approach and I condemn anyone who proceeds without that modus operandi.
Every court in the Land will judge the action not just foolhardy but negligent. If you have read the CASA 2002 report you will see that the Chief Justice has defined the act of negligence for Risk Management.
Under Justice Gibbs dictum if the implimentation of CTAF to a regional airport contributes to a disaster then it is a civil and quite possibly a criminal act.
That is the stakes we are playing for unfortunately the Minister would be protected by his Sovereign rights. Not the other non government players,they are open for legal liability and prosecution.
None of this helps those who are damaged due to the flaw in our airspace changes.
Airspace accidents happen around uncontrolled airports don't mess with its procedures without proof of the acceptability of the intended changes.
NO FACTS, NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF NO CHANGE
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: A previous life
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Walley2
Keep at man - NAS is a fraud. It is simply about VFR being able to fly "free". In Aus we don't have the Federal funds to make this so - somebody has to pay, it should be the users (all of them)
The heavy metal operators would sure be hurt in any subsequent litigation by a litigant who wanted to pursue their silence and acquiescence during this period should the NAS ever get up. The lawyers will go after the money!
People who buy tickets on airliners are entitled to the respect and safety that a proper en-route and terminal airspace system that captures all traffic to the system will deliver.
Keep at man - NAS is a fraud. It is simply about VFR being able to fly "free". In Aus we don't have the Federal funds to make this so - somebody has to pay, it should be the users (all of them)
The heavy metal operators would sure be hurt in any subsequent litigation by a litigant who wanted to pursue their silence and acquiescence during this period should the NAS ever get up. The lawyers will go after the money!
People who buy tickets on airliners are entitled to the respect and safety that a proper en-route and terminal airspace system that captures all traffic to the system will deliver.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I read the CivilAir press release too. And you guys accuse NASIG of being clever with the truth....geeez!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s955905.htm
From the end of November, aircraft travelling below 10,000 feet will not be required to notify air traffic control, operate radar transponders, lodge flight plans or turn on their radios.
classic...
on your FM dial
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KAPTAIN KREMIN,
Your post amuses me.
It seems likely that you have allowed others to mislead you.
Yep – many do.
But they also know which side their bread is buttered on. It’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.
Yep – I agree that they do. I have not suggested that they should be excluded.
Rather, I’ve suggested that it would be desirable to be able to more clearly and more readily identify the vested interests of contributors.
Rather than coming on to a pilots forum and posting as if they were pilots, why don’t ATCers prefix their opinions with something like “I’m proud to be an air traffic controller and I reckon....”
I can respect someone like WALLEY2 when he says :
From what I can see the vast majority of the anti-NAS posts on these forums are from ATCers. In my mind those posts don’t carry the same weight as posts made by pilots because ATCers are suppliers with a service to sell. Pilots are the customers who may or may not actually require the service being offered. Air traffic control exists to service the needs of pilots – not the other way round. It’s the needs of the pilots that should be paramount – not the needs of the air traffic controllers.
As I said earelier :
I was once accosted by a small group of street spruikers touting for business outside a Kings Cross adult entertainment venue. They were polished salesmen with a service to sell and their pitch was quite compelling. They insisted that the service they were selling was of a high quality. They were quite certain that the service they were selling was infinitely more preferable than the alternatives – both locally and overseas. They pointed out the many and varied virtues of the service they were selling and they explained how utilising their service would bring life enhancing happiness. They were able to argue quite convincingly, as you would expect from someone who’s livelihood depended on it, that there was no possible way that I could enjoy a satisfactory life unless I bought the service they were selling.
At the end of the day a decision to buy (or not) came down to these three questions :
As far as I can see many of the anti-NAS posts from ATCers are analogous to a group of street spruikers touting for business outside a Kings Cross adult entertainment venue. They have a service to sell and they need customers.
The real question is whether or not the customers need or want the service that they have to sell.
G’day Keg,
It’s nice to see another pilot on here.
How many of those many thousands of pilots have the RPT pilot’s unions formally and explicitly sought an opinion from (in relation to NAS)?
Of those who’s opinions have been formally sought and obtained and who have concerns about NAS, what, precisely, is the nature of their concerns?
What proportion of these concerns are from people who would be anti anything that Dick Smith is associated with, irrespective of any merits a proposal might have?
What proportion of these concerns are philosophical concerns rather than operational concerns? (ie wanting a Rolls Royce airspace system whether it is really needed or not, irrespective of cost)
To what extent is the AIPA / AFAP letter simply an example of the trade union movement closing ranks? What quid-pro-quo arrangements have been put in place between Civil Air and AIPA / AFAP? Has the ATC trade union agreed to support the RPT pilot unions next time they find themselves involved in a dispute?
Ah yes – but what do the pilots think? You’ve only told us what the trade unions think.
Even if AIPA and AFAP have obtained the detailed opinions of every one of their several thousand members (and I am quite certain that they have not), these pilots do not own the sky to the exclusion of all others.
According to the most up to date figures available on the CASA website, there are 33,127 pilots in Australia. Members of the RPT pilot unions are just a small fraction of the Australian pilot population.
I suspect that some of the RPT pilots would prefer it if the sky was theirs and theirs alone. I refer to snarek’s post : Between the NAS lines.
I can understand that some RPT pilots might wish that their airline employers held a commercial monopoly on the sky, but thankfully Australian society does not work that way. In Australia the bloke in his Cessna 182 has just as much right to fly as the sky-gods in their Scandinavian turbo-prop or the super-heros in their Long Beach kero-burner.
Thank god Australia isn’t like some countries – private aircraft ownership not allowed, VFR flights not allowed, all airspace (effectively) class A. I’m sure that such an arrangement might suit some of the RPT pilots. Thankfully, that isn’t the way it works in Australia.
WALLEY2,
Thank you for being upfront and stating that you are not a pilot.
I am a pilot.
DickyBaby,
I am more than happy to pay for all the services I need.
I chose to fly VFR because I don’t want to have to pay to be delayed.
I don’t need or use any of the services that AsA has to offer.
Please send me a bill for $0.00.
If I needed or wanted a government department to keep a SARtime for me then I would be happy to pay for it.
But I don’t.
To be entirely honest I can’t even remember the last time I bothered using a SARtime for a VFR flight. I can’t see the point - unless you don’t have any friends.
If you do have friends then it is far more effective and efficient to leave a flight note with one of them, rather than generate work for an expensive government bureaucracy.
In my view the government SARtime service for VFR flights is a complete waste of time because it is no more effective than leaving a flight note with a responsible person.
I am reminded of VH-JTI, a TB20 Trinidad that crashed near Kanangra Walls (just a few miles from Bindook) on a foggy Sunday in October 1993.
The aircraft had set out from Bankstown on a VFR flight to Forbes. The Trinidad was piloted by 20 year old Scott Grezzle and travelling with him as a passenger was his good friend, 21 year old Hamish Wallace. The pilot had about a hundred hours flying experience and was not instrument rated.
The clouds were very low on the hills that day and after a fair amount of ducking and weaving trying to find a way across the Great Dividing Range the aircraft collided with rising terrain at the western end of a steep gully.
Both occupants survived the crash, but were miles from civilisation and were suffering from impact injuries and shock. They would soon be suffering from exposure too.
In accordance with the aircraft operator’s advice, the pilot had nominated a SARtime with air traffic services. An uncertainty phase was declared when the aircraft failed to report its safe arrival at Forbes.
Barbara Wallace, the passenger’s mother, was contacted by telephone. She was asked if she knew where VH-JTI was, and was informed that the aircraft was overdue.
Barbara was understandably confused, mystified, and angry.
“You are the air traffic controllers – aren’t YOU supposed to know where the planes are?!? Why are you asking me where the plane is? What do you mean ‘you don’t know where the plane is?!?’”
The pilot had used the government’s SARtime service – the highest level of government SARwatch available to the non-instrument rated pilot. But the best the authorities could do was to telephone the passenger’s mother to ask he if she had heard from them.
The young pilot and his passenger were no better off for having nominated a SARtime with air traffic services than they would have been if they had left an appropriately detailed flight note with a responsible person.
Government SARtimes for VFR flights are a complete waste of time – a flight note with a responsible person is just as good.
(Both young men subsequently died.)
I can’t remember the last time I flew at 70 knots TAS above about 1,000 feet AGL. If the SAAB is at or below 1,000 feet AGL then I would expect that he is in the circuit area of an aerodrome – most likely on base leg or on final. He wont have to look out the window – he would already be aware of me from his TCAS display and from my “all stations” broadcasts on the appropriate CTAF frequency. I’d be aware of him too.
Once again, I’m happy to pay for all the air traffic control services I need - ie none.
Of course they are entitled to a say. No one is suggesting otherwise. See earlier.
ferris,
Another disappointing post from you.
You consistently seem to bite off more than you can successfully masticate in your attempts to instigate an unarmed battle of wits.
I can only find two comments in your post that are worthy of reply :
I disagree completely with that ridiculous assertion.
I fail to understand how you could even come to such a conclusion.
Lets deal with each element of this non-sense separately.
wealthy : are you trying to suggest that if a person is “wealthy” (whatever that means) that their opinion should count for less than a person who is not “wealthy”? By this reasoning, should the poorest people in society have the greatest say?
gents : are you trying to suggest that if a person is a “gent” (do you mean ‘an adult male’, or do you mean ‘of good character - not a scoundrel’, or do you mean ‘of upper-middle-class social status’) their opinion should count for less than a person who is not a “gent”? By this reasoning, should female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels have the greatest say?
country estates : are you trying to suggest that if a person owns a “country estate” that their opinion should count for less than a person who does not own a “country estate”? By this reasoning, should those who do not hold property have the greatest say?
By your reasoning, poor female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels and who don’t hold property should be running the country!
Your comments are nothing more than your typical left-wing socialist non-sense, as I am sure you are already aware.
QSK?
Indeed, many of them are.
But it’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.
Oh boo-hoo!
Would you say that the air traffic controller’s trauma would be more or less than the trauma experienced by a pilot or passenger in an aircraft involved in a mid-air collision?
Are you trying to suggest that the primary airspace design criteria should be that it doesn’t upset the air traffic controllers?
Tell you what, let’s go one step further – remove the air traffic controllers altogether so that there is no risk that they will get upset. Let the pilots work out their own mutually arranged separation, as already happens at most Australian aerodromes. We wouldn’t want to risk an air traffic controller getting upset now.
Thank you for raising the subject of the VH-IBK v VH-JTV mid-air collision at Bankstown. It raises a number of interesting issues.
In the last few years there have been two fatal mid-air collisions at capital city GA airports – one at Bankstown and one at Moorabbin.
It’s interesting to compare and contrast these two accidents.
The Bankstown accident happened in broad daylight with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.
The Moorabbin accident happened on a clear night with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.
In the Bankstown accident there were three air traffic controllers in the tower providing a GAAP air traffic control service, whereas in the Moorabbin accident the tower was closed and the aircraft were using mutually arranged see and avoid in accordance MBZ procedures.
Without air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Moorabbin.
With air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Bankstown.
If the very expensive GAAP air traffic control service is not able to do any better than the pilots’ mutually arranged see and avoid under MBZ procedures then why do we bother incurring the expense of having an air traffic control service?
Of course they are – no one is trying to suggest otherwise. See earlier.
Nope – you’ve lost me there I’m afraid. Air traffic control exists to serve the needs of pilots – not the other way around.
G’day snarek,
The latest available CASA data says that there are 33,127 active pilots in Australia.
Blastoid,
I am aware of that forum.
What I don’t understand is why the air traffic controllers don’t use that forum instead of coming on to a pilots forum and appearing as if they were pilots. I don’t imagine that too many pilots would go on there and appear as if they were controllers.
Air traffic controllers are not part of the aviation industry.
Air traffic controllers are part of a separate support industry which exists to provide a service to the aviation industry.
If we had 1,000,000 more air traffic controllers but 10,000 less aeroplanes you wouldn’t call that a successful and thriving aviation industry, would you? I certainly wouldn’t.
QSK?,
Scenario 1 : you don’t need radar vectors or traffic information or alerted see and avoid to miss the other traffic at 9,500 feet. The probability that you will miss each other is sufficiently great even without the involvement of ATS. It’s the big sky theory. Why try to make work for everyone?
Scenario 2 : Un-notified VFR aircraft have been flying in Australia’s class G airspace for over ten years now. During that time there have been ZERO mid-air collisions in the enroute environment (ie away from an airport). What is the problem that you are trying to solve?
The main difference between the airspace in the USA and that in Australia is not that one has radar and one does not (although it may seem that way to air traffic controllers). No – the real difference is that in the USA there are a gazillion more aircraft. Australia, by comparison, has relatively few aircraft but a comparable amount of sky. Australia doesn’t need expensive ATC radar – the sky is sufficiently large, and the traffic density is sufficiently low, that the statistical probability of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so remote that it is not worth worrying about.
PGH,
You sound eminently sensible. Keep up the good work.
tobzalp,
The CTAF, obviously.
Away from the airport the sky is sufficiently large and the collision risk is sufficiently small that I (and I suspect many others) will be listening to the CD-player – not the rabble on VHF.
Jamitupyr,
I would agree with you that each user should pay for whatever services they need and use.
Since most VFR pilots don’t need or use any AsA services that is precisely what they should be paying for – nothing.
I’m not precisely sure what you would call an “airliner”, but if you mean all scheduled passenger flights then you may as well be suggesting that all Australian airspace should be class B. It simply aint gonna happen. Not now and not in a million years from now.
“Tell him he’s dreamin’, son.”
Your post amuses me.
If you are who others infer you are then you are certainly not and never have been a Professional Pilot.
Most ATC's I have met, have or do fly.
But they also know which side their bread is buttered on. It’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.
They and the airport operators provide a valid angle and input to this debate. Why oh why should you wish to exclude them?
Rather, I’ve suggested that it would be desirable to be able to more clearly and more readily identify the vested interests of contributors.
Rather than coming on to a pilots forum and posting as if they were pilots, why don’t ATCers prefix their opinions with something like “I’m proud to be an air traffic controller and I reckon....”
I can respect someone like WALLEY2 when he says :
I for one state clearly I am not a prof pilot or ATC....I am an airport Engineer.
As I said earelier :
....what’s in the best interests of air traffic controllers is not always precisely the same as (and in many cases is diametrically opposed to) what’s in the best interests of pilots.
At the end of the day a decision to buy (or not) came down to these three questions :
- Did I need or want the service they were selling? No.
- Was I going to use the service they were selling? No.
- Was I willing to pay for a service that I neither needed nor wanted and that I did not use? No.
As far as I can see many of the anti-NAS posts from ATCers are analogous to a group of street spruikers touting for business outside a Kings Cross adult entertainment venue. They have a service to sell and they need customers.
The real question is whether or not the customers need or want the service that they have to sell.
G’day Keg,
It’s nice to see another pilot on here.
AIPA represents about 2300 Qantas pilots and the AFAP takes care of DJ, various parts of Qantas Link and so on.
Of those who’s opinions have been formally sought and obtained and who have concerns about NAS, what, precisely, is the nature of their concerns?
What proportion of these concerns are from people who would be anti anything that Dick Smith is associated with, irrespective of any merits a proposal might have?
What proportion of these concerns are philosophical concerns rather than operational concerns? (ie wanting a Rolls Royce airspace system whether it is really needed or not, irrespective of cost)
To what extent is the AIPA / AFAP letter simply an example of the trade union movement closing ranks? What quid-pro-quo arrangements have been put in place between Civil Air and AIPA / AFAP? Has the ATC trade union agreed to support the RPT pilot unions next time they find themselves involved in a dispute?
Organisations that represent 90%+ of the RPT pilots in the country reckon that NAS has significant flaws in it.
Even if AIPA and AFAP have obtained the detailed opinions of every one of their several thousand members (and I am quite certain that they have not), these pilots do not own the sky to the exclusion of all others.
According to the most up to date figures available on the CASA website, there are 33,127 pilots in Australia. Members of the RPT pilot unions are just a small fraction of the Australian pilot population.
I suspect that some of the RPT pilots would prefer it if the sky was theirs and theirs alone. I refer to snarek’s post : Between the NAS lines.
I can understand that some RPT pilots might wish that their airline employers held a commercial monopoly on the sky, but thankfully Australian society does not work that way. In Australia the bloke in his Cessna 182 has just as much right to fly as the sky-gods in their Scandinavian turbo-prop or the super-heros in their Long Beach kero-burner.
Thank god Australia isn’t like some countries – private aircraft ownership not allowed, VFR flights not allowed, all airspace (effectively) class A. I’m sure that such an arrangement might suit some of the RPT pilots. Thankfully, that isn’t the way it works in Australia.
WALLEY2,
Thank you for being upfront and stating that you are not a pilot.
I am a pilot.
DickyBaby,
I just can't reconcile a system where you do whatever you want whilst the RPTs pay for it.
I chose to fly VFR because I don’t want to have to pay to be delayed.
I don’t need or use any of the services that AsA has to offer.
Please send me a bill for $0.00.
You can't do everything for free - be satisfied with a balance that ensures that someone will come looking for you when you don't cancel your SARtime (indeed that there's somewhere for you to lodge your SARtime)
But I don’t.
To be entirely honest I can’t even remember the last time I bothered using a SARtime for a VFR flight. I can’t see the point - unless you don’t have any friends.
If you do have friends then it is far more effective and efficient to leave a flight note with one of them, rather than generate work for an expensive government bureaucracy.
In my view the government SARtime service for VFR flights is a complete waste of time because it is no more effective than leaving a flight note with a responsible person.
I am reminded of VH-JTI, a TB20 Trinidad that crashed near Kanangra Walls (just a few miles from Bindook) on a foggy Sunday in October 1993.
The aircraft had set out from Bankstown on a VFR flight to Forbes. The Trinidad was piloted by 20 year old Scott Grezzle and travelling with him as a passenger was his good friend, 21 year old Hamish Wallace. The pilot had about a hundred hours flying experience and was not instrument rated.
The clouds were very low on the hills that day and after a fair amount of ducking and weaving trying to find a way across the Great Dividing Range the aircraft collided with rising terrain at the western end of a steep gully.
Both occupants survived the crash, but were miles from civilisation and were suffering from impact injuries and shock. They would soon be suffering from exposure too.
In accordance with the aircraft operator’s advice, the pilot had nominated a SARtime with air traffic services. An uncertainty phase was declared when the aircraft failed to report its safe arrival at Forbes.
Barbara Wallace, the passenger’s mother, was contacted by telephone. She was asked if she knew where VH-JTI was, and was informed that the aircraft was overdue.
Barbara was understandably confused, mystified, and angry.
“You are the air traffic controllers – aren’t YOU supposed to know where the planes are?!? Why are you asking me where the plane is? What do you mean ‘you don’t know where the plane is?!?’”
The pilot had used the government’s SARtime service – the highest level of government SARwatch available to the non-instrument rated pilot. But the best the authorities could do was to telephone the passenger’s mother to ask he if she had heard from them.
The young pilot and his passenger were no better off for having nominated a SARtime with air traffic services than they would have been if they had left an appropriately detailed flight note with a responsible person.
Government SARtimes for VFR flights are a complete waste of time – a flight note with a responsible person is just as good.
(Both young men subsequently died.)
....and equally when you do go flying at 70KTS true, the SAAB running up your arse gets reasonable warning before the flysh!t on the windscreen sprouts wings.
Once again, I’m happy to pay for all the air traffic control services I need - ie none.
The 6000 odd pilots and controllers whose signatures are behind the letter to the Minister should be entitled to a say.
ferris,
Another disappointing post from you.
You consistently seem to bite off more than you can successfully masticate in your attempts to instigate an unarmed battle of wits.
I can only find two comments in your post that are worthy of reply :
It must really gall you that the internet allows an information flow that can't be stifled by power and influence.
I fail to understand how you could even come to such a conclusion.
Here, yet again, we have an anti-NAS thread populated predominantly by contributions from wealthy gents with country estates.
wealthy : are you trying to suggest that if a person is “wealthy” (whatever that means) that their opinion should count for less than a person who is not “wealthy”? By this reasoning, should the poorest people in society have the greatest say?
gents : are you trying to suggest that if a person is a “gent” (do you mean ‘an adult male’, or do you mean ‘of good character - not a scoundrel’, or do you mean ‘of upper-middle-class social status’) their opinion should count for less than a person who is not a “gent”? By this reasoning, should female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels have the greatest say?
country estates : are you trying to suggest that if a person owns a “country estate” that their opinion should count for less than a person who does not own a “country estate”? By this reasoning, should those who do not hold property have the greatest say?
By your reasoning, poor female children from lower social classes who are scoundrels and who don’t hold property should be running the country!
Your comments are nothing more than your typical left-wing socialist non-sense, as I am sure you are already aware.
QSK?
....there's a good chance that the controllers who participate in Pprune are also recreational, or semi-professional, pilots who, I'm sure, would have a vested interest in ensuring that any system they participate in as flyers offers an acceptable level of personal safety....
But it’s the ATCing income that pays their mortgage – not the flying income.
....for a controller to lose a life on their sector or shift (particularly when the distress event is protracted and very personal) would have to be one of the most shockingly traumatic events they could experience....
Would you say that the air traffic controller’s trauma would be more or less than the trauma experienced by a pilot or passenger in an aircraft involved in a mid-air collision?
Are you trying to suggest that the primary airspace design criteria should be that it doesn’t upset the air traffic controllers?
Tell you what, let’s go one step further – remove the air traffic controllers altogether so that there is no risk that they will get upset. Let the pilots work out their own mutually arranged separation, as already happens at most Australian aerodromes. We wouldn’t want to risk an air traffic controller getting upset now.
Do you think the controllers on duty, when the mid-air collision occurred at Bankstown last year, just went home....
In the last few years there have been two fatal mid-air collisions at capital city GA airports – one at Bankstown and one at Moorabbin.
It’s interesting to compare and contrast these two accidents.
The Bankstown accident happened in broad daylight with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.
The Moorabbin accident happened on a clear night with a light breeze and a total of six aircraft in the circuit.
In the Bankstown accident there were three air traffic controllers in the tower providing a GAAP air traffic control service, whereas in the Moorabbin accident the tower was closed and the aircraft were using mutually arranged see and avoid in accordance MBZ procedures.
Without air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Moorabbin.
With air traffic control there was a fatal mid-air collision at Bankstown.
If the very expensive GAAP air traffic control service is not able to do any better than the pilots’ mutually arranged see and avoid under MBZ procedures then why do we bother incurring the expense of having an air traffic control service?
I think the controllers are entitled to have a say in how the NAS is designed and implemented....
....if for no other reason than to ensure that any system they work with provides them with the requisite safety-nets so that they never have to face a situation like the one above, and its associated post-event trauma.
G’day snarek,
More GA pilots than RPT = more votes.
Blastoid,
You advocate the creation of an ATC forum here on the PPRuNe site. For your information, there already is one, hosted on the Civil Air Forum.
What I don’t understand is why the air traffic controllers don’t use that forum instead of coming on to a pilots forum and appearing as if they were pilots. I don’t imagine that too many pilots would go on there and appear as if they were controllers.
....the many (supposed) ATCs who participate in this forum do so as professionals in the industry,
Air traffic controllers are part of a separate support industry which exists to provide a service to the aviation industry.
If we had 1,000,000 more air traffic controllers but 10,000 less aeroplanes you wouldn’t call that a successful and thriving aviation industry, would you? I certainly wouldn’t.
QSK?,
Scenario 1 : you don’t need radar vectors or traffic information or alerted see and avoid to miss the other traffic at 9,500 feet. The probability that you will miss each other is sufficiently great even without the involvement of ATS. It’s the big sky theory. Why try to make work for everyone?
Scenario 2 : Un-notified VFR aircraft have been flying in Australia’s class G airspace for over ten years now. During that time there have been ZERO mid-air collisions in the enroute environment (ie away from an airport). What is the problem that you are trying to solve?
The main difference between the airspace in the USA and that in Australia is not that one has radar and one does not (although it may seem that way to air traffic controllers). No – the real difference is that in the USA there are a gazillion more aircraft. Australia, by comparison, has relatively few aircraft but a comparable amount of sky. Australia doesn’t need expensive ATC radar – the sky is sufficiently large, and the traffic density is sufficiently low, that the statistical probability of a mid-air collision in the enroute environment is so remote that it is not worth worrying about.
PGH,
You sound eminently sensible. Keep up the good work.
tobzalp,
But PGH, what frequency will you be on to hear this inbound call? The CTAF, the area frequency that is not printed on a map (well the boundary any way).
Away from the airport the sky is sufficiently large and the collision risk is sufficiently small that I (and I suspect many others) will be listening to the CD-player – not the rabble on VHF.
Jamitupyr,
NAS is a fraud. It is simply about VFR being able to fly “free”. In Aus we don't have the Federal funds to make this so - somebody has to pay, it should be the users (all of them)
Since most VFR pilots don’t need or use any AsA services that is precisely what they should be paying for – nothing.
People who buy tickets on airliners are entitled to the respect and safety that a proper en-route and terminal airspace system that captures all traffic to the system will deliver.
“Tell him he’s dreamin’, son.”
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek, BIK_116.80 etc
The travelling public cares about what the professionals have to say. The politicians care about what the travelling public and professionals have to say.
The simple fact of life is that NO BODY cares what private VFR bugsmasher pilots have to say.
The proof of this is the absence of anything even remotely related to private VFR bugsmasher pilots and the NAS in the recent media coverage.
You guys really need to get out more and get a life and stop taking yourselves so seriously because no body else is.
The travelling public cares about what the professionals have to say. The politicians care about what the travelling public and professionals have to say.
The simple fact of life is that NO BODY cares what private VFR bugsmasher pilots have to say.
The proof of this is the absence of anything even remotely related to private VFR bugsmasher pilots and the NAS in the recent media coverage.
You guys really need to get out more and get a life and stop taking yourselves so seriously because no body else is.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place. Think of a happy place
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Lang from CIVILAIR said; "The Australian Government will relax existing airspace rules on November 27 to allow any aircraft to fly across, or directly at, descending international and domestic traffic paths without notifying air traffic control, operate radar transponders, lodge flight plans or turn on their radios."
ARE YOU ON DRUGS?
Where the hell did you come up with that one???????
Obviously you have not even seen what the 27 Nov changes are. What a shameful piece of media hype. You and your executive should be ashamed of yourselves.
Don't flog rubbish to scare the public into believing you. We won't respect you in the morning......
You can't just fly over class C airspace without a clearance so stop lying to us.
Shame on you....
Rant over.
TBT
ARE YOU ON DRUGS?
Where the hell did you come up with that one???????
Obviously you have not even seen what the 27 Nov changes are. What a shameful piece of media hype. You and your executive should be ashamed of yourselves.
Don't flog rubbish to scare the public into believing you. We won't respect you in the morning......
You can't just fly over class C airspace without a clearance so stop lying to us.
Shame on you....
Rant over.
TBT
