Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Old 21st Oct 2003, 09:14
  #201 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
We've all missed the boat. The posts on my topic "NAS apathy" from way back showed little interest or understanding of what was going to be foisted upon us. And in typical fashion, the users, including Civilair, are bleating well after the horse has bolted.

Snarek

re. your anecdotes

It'll still be the same after Nov. 27. Nothing in NAS would change the events you mentioned.

I spoke with John King. Nice fellow, but no idea of the immutable differences in Australian airspace infrastructure. His catch phrase that he "strongly believes......." was just the hollow parroting of his sponsors.

CG

Last edited by Chief galah; 21st Oct 2003 at 17:17.
Chief galah is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 10:07
  #202 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 42
Snoop

Chief Galah

I suppose if the 'helpful' attitude had prevailed and the 'unhelpful' one suppressed (or oppressed) then CivilAir might have more allies today!

Safety concerns aside, I feel for the people who think thier jobs are at risk that fall into the first category. I hope AsA has a way of filtering the d!cks out if ever there are redundancies.

Cairns ground even offer to call the fuelies for new arrivals, now that's service

AK
paddopat is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 11:00
  #203 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Paddopat/SNAREK
I suppose if the 'helpful' attitude had prevailed and the 'unhelpful' one suppressed (or oppressed) then CivilAir might have more allies today!
How long have you been in the dark; how many people work CB Approach at anyone time and how many work CS? Why do you allegedly get better service? Nothing to do with numbers is it? I think in the past 10 years there have been massive improvements in so called 'attitude'; everytime one of my ATC mates does something 'NASTY' they have to answer for it, so it's easier to not do it in the first place. If only Dick would leave us alone... I'm sick of his letters... I did my job and kept everyone alive and Dick writes my boss a letter saying that in the US the controller could have done X instead of Y, yet when you check with US mates they say no we couldn't.

In Cairns, despite VERY heavy traffic loads, I have never been denied a clearance. Clever ways are used to 'feed' me in and if I am flexible (like steep turns onto base for 12) then I am rarely delayed either.

However in Canberra, where there is often SFA traffic, I have been told 'remain OCTA' and then got grumpied at cos I did 'remain OCTA' by descending and popping up later on tower.
Why did they stay outside? Did they have your details? It can take up to 30 seconds to get them, if youíve got no other entries to make, if you have then the 30 seconds starts againÖ If NAIPS determines that on profile or plan you avoid enroute airspace CTA it is probable that plan is totally suppressed. This means ring NAIPS in Brisbane and get the plan manually sent to TAAATS; up to 5 minutes, should take 60 seconds on average. Helping yourself to descent below the steps and calling the tower direct does nothing to helping you get into the system; in fact it could make it worse; got the details, call the pilot to give him/her the clearance, no response, where have they gone? SAR actions? more workÖ I suggest that you avail yourself of a tour of the ML centre next time you get this far south. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing; you are clearly displaying little knowledge.

Your anecdotal story will not have a different result come 27 November? So how is removing all the Enroute class C going to help you, or help the big guys stay safe?

Chief Galah
We've all missed the boat. The posts on my topic "NAS apathy" from way back showed little interest or understanding of what was going foist upon us. And in typical fashion, the users, including Civilair, are bleating well after the horse has bolted.
I suspect you are right.

WALLEY2

You are absolutely right; why is it that Mike Smith is telling us DJ and QF are behind NAS? Where is their voice? Donít forget the fact that they canít come out and say itís not safe, because if they do they canít ground their fleet if it goes ahead can they?

THIS IS NOT PRETTY and is VERY WORRYING and CLOSE to BEING UNLAWFUL and NEGLIGENT
You said it brother.


4711
A question for the NAS proponents who claim that VFR aircraft have been unduly delayed and penalised by the current sytem: "How many times has a controller's response of 'remain outside control area' led to an actual delay in your flight?" I have used this phrase on many occasions as a 'paper stop', while a clearance and separation was formulated. I cannot remember a single occasion on which a VFR aircraft has been required to hold outside CTA or alter its track in any way. In all cases, a clearance has been issued prior to the CTA boundary.
I think this is a standard response based on an un-alerted or unexpected call; it doesnít mean you wonít get one; it just means that in this particular micro second I canít give it to you. Come 27 November this will not change. In the 13 years I have been an Enroute ATC I have never delayed an aircraft a clearance; perhaps it wasnít provided at the planned level, but there always was a clearance issued. There is always an anecdotal story to counter the facts; but the facts remain that more than 95% of traffic (in ML Enroute) gets the clearance that they wanted (that means route and level); KPI issued last week.

'stand by for clearance'
The pain of this phrase would mean the time that you couldnít clear them in, for what ever the reason, is the time they help themselves; because I thought I was going to get one.

In terms of redundancies, that would imply job reductions because of NAS. If anyone can identify to me any single position which be reduced at any transitional point or end state then I'll listen, otherwise just keep dreaming; working Class E requires more ATC than class C, it's harder and you have more responsibilities with less information; combined sectors will effectively become a thing of the past. Should do wonders for efficiency.

This has nothing to do with closing Class D towers, so no jobs can be claimed from NAS at those locations, any other choices?

BIK, SNAREK? anyone?
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 12:27
  #204 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
AAP

Airspace reform on track: Anderson
October 21, 2003

CONTROVERSIAL airspace reforms would proceed on schedule with major changes to the amount of controlled airspace to be introduced on November 27, the Government said today.

Transport Minister John Anderson said a comprehensive training and education package would enable pilots to move safely to the new arrangements.

"Those changes will dramatically increase the amount of controlled airspace in Australia and will be implemented on November 27 as scheduled," he said in a statement.

Mr Anderson said for the first time all pilots would receive an initial subscription to new improved charts for their area of operations.

He said the National Airspace System would introduce improved procedures aligned with international practice.

They were designed to enhance safety, improve access, simplify operations and reduce costs, he said.

"The implementation of this stage of the NAS project represents a significant improvement over the existing system and demonstrates the Government's commitment to this important reform," he said.

CASA acting director of aviation safety Bruce Gemmell said CASA had accepted the safety cases prepared by the NAS Implementation Group.

"Our acceptance follows the incorporation of changes in updated pilot and air traffic controller training and education material regarding radio use, operations in non-controlled airspace and the inclusion of additional safety mitigators," he said in a statement.

Airservices Australia chief executive Bernie Smith said the board had approved immediate distribution of the new documentation which was essential for safe implementation of the changes.

"The Airservices Australia board and management are satisfied that the safe implementation of the changes can proceed following appropriate safety analysis and final CASA acceptance," he said.

Aviation Reform Group chairman Ken Matthews said he was satisfied the proper processes had been followed.

"It is gratifying that Airservices Australia, CASA, Defence, the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the NAS Implementation Group have been able to work together constructively and complete their work on time," he said.

The air traffic controllers union has criticised new airspace maps saying they miss vital radio frequency information pilots need to avoid mid-air collisions.

Civil Air said this meant pilots would not know which radio frequency to tune into and would not be able to hear collision warnings from other planes.

AAP

===========================================
Wirraway is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 13:14
  #205 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
SM4

Remain OCTA means remain OCTA, not hang roung where you are until I'm ready (if you want that just request an orbit). Oh, and I'm talking unplanned flights, no NAIPS. I am a little kinder to Cairns because of their workload (and possibly their very different attitude), I remain unconvinced Canberra needs a tower at all most times never mind an approach. If anything it would be one area where E over C would work quite well.

Interestingly in Cairns they ask me if I can descend and stay on approach. CBR it is 'Clearance unavailable due traffic remain OCTA'. So in Cairns I can creep down the Western VFR 'OCTA' but with a code and on approach and as soon as they can slot me, in I come.

Mackay is another 'great' service that springs to mind. Coming in one day I voluteered to swing west so an RPT could get straight in. The tower thanked me and brought me back ariound from the north. A 'cheeky' Gonad driver then asked to cut me off (which would have resulted in at least another 2 orbits). The tower nicely told him " Join number 2 to the Grumman on long final".

Must be a Qld thing

Almost an 'American' style of service but with much better scenery

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 14:42
  #206 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837
snarek

Looks like this whole thing has been a great learning experience for you, right? I bet you now know a whole lot more about the big picture (including how controllers do their job). But you still don't understand completely. For instance, if you had any idea about the sort of regime ATC works under, you would realise that the phrase "remain OCTA" can mean precisely "do an orbit where you are until I can get your details", however the controller can't just come out and say that because he then assumes (some) liability for whatever you then do (eg. prang into someone else). It doesn't mean the controller is being "grumpy". Likewise, if your mate couldn't keep control of his aircraft (due turb or any other reason), I would've been expected to be informed of the fact (if I was the ATCO concerned). Someone randomly entering and leaving CTA is going to get chipped. Although not under NAS, because VFRs never have any reason to use the radio or know what frequency is where, right?

Keep learning though.

I also feel obliged to say something about your last comment ('american service'), as I feel it has a lot to do with this whole NAS thing.
The attitude of aus ATC to VFR is not what it could be. And that is induced by this whole user pays philosophy. ATC has been forced to staff and provide services to enroute aircaft that AsA doesn't get paid for. Flight service was dismantled and the workload placed onto ATCs, who received no recognition or recompense. I have no doubt that this led to a certain amount of resentment towards lighties. As a PPL, I used to be amazed upon visiting Centre at how little of the operation was directed at the VFR end of town. But when I became an ATC, I realised that it's the heavy metal that pays the bills. Which brings me to what IMHO opinion is wrong with the whole system. ALL AIRSPACE USERS have to be included for the system to work. The yanks know this, and their airspace and CHARGING REGIME is geared for it. They consider their airspace important enough to pay for it as a community. Subsequently, the whole community is entitled to service. This seems to have been lost on the NAS proponents. They want to be able to opt out and not pay. Well, I'd argue that they already pay (via things like fuel tax, and selling off public airports and then being charged for their use ) and the nature of air travel requiresinclusion.
An inclusive system. Those pushing for anything else are damaging their country.

Last edited by ferris; 21st Oct 2003 at 15:07.
ferris is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 17:13
  #207 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Education?????

As an ATC and VFR PPL I'm still waiting for my NAS training and education.

Are AIC's H10,9,8,7/03
updated pilot and air traffic controller training and education material
the education package?

Sorry to be so negative.

CG
Chief galah is offline  
Old 21st Oct 2003, 22:33
  #208 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Andersons Statement is a white-wash.

He clearly doesnt understand the issues - the questions asked and asked over the past months have NOT been addressed - spinning crap like:

The implementation of this stage of the NAS project represents a significant improvement over the existing system and demonstrates the Government's commitment to this important reform
tells us nothing.

And some of you wonder why Civil Air and AIPA are a little colorful in their press releases - to jolt the apathetic media , public and government out of their spin-led malaise and start addressing the real safety issues - not the perceived warm and fuzzy stuff that emanates from Anderson.

Glad to see that CASA and ASA are happy with the procedures - will the members of their boards be staking their livelihood on its success? or will that just be those of us who hold a licence that will be prosecuted?

This is madness, and I am not interested in any response from you clowns who support it anymore as nobody has demonsrated a grasp of the issues here from your point of view. It is clear what your point of view is for all to see. You are luck to have an advocate who knows where the LIB.NAT bodies are buried.

Cant wait for my comprehensive education and training to commence - better get a wriggle on John.
Shitsu-Tonka is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 00:05
  #209 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 3,404
Gentlemen,

As far as I can tell the final iteration of the NAS 2b Implentation Training and Education material was signed off by CASA, Airservices and after a looong telephone hook up with the NASIG, so did the AOPA Board only last night.

I understand QF also.

It will be out there real soon to all parties.

Much has been learned by ALL parties about timing and consultation and there is a common determination that there will be a more efficient process using these lessons in going forward from here.

We will certainly be continuing to monitor the progress of the implmentation and it is imcumbent on us all to do likewise.

I have no doubt that there will be some knobs and excrescenses that must be removed to bring it into true form, but I believe that with good will and extra vigilance we can work our way through this.

I am concerned that there has been "personalisation" of the issues by the stakeholders in an attempt to win a point of view.

The regionals this and the bugsmashers that.

We are all flying around in the same airspace, controlled where we need to be by the same ATC professionals who have always been there and where we are not, we should trust that each of us will practise good airmanship.

None of us has the mortgage on the desire for safe operations.

At the end of the day it really doesn't matter who was the hittor or the hittee the nett result is the same.

So why don't we all just get on with it and show each other how mutual cooperation, common sense and professional attitudes can overcome the inevitable wrinkles that will appear and in six months time or earlier if necessary we can have another look.

In the meantime frightening the horses only distracts us from the real challenge.
gaunty is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 00:32
  #210 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
CASA

Don't forget they sacked the CASA board. CASA CEO reports to the Minister, in reality the minders, spin doctors and Sec of DOTRS.

I wonder if the CASA/NASA analysis is available under FOI?

Can not see a confidentiality arguement. Make interesting reading possibly.

For those involved lets request from all directions namely Pilots, ATC,Airports,State governments and local federal representatives.

If you know any of the aviation writers ask them to ask for an FOI on 2b

The FOI request should be for all docs on safety and risk analysis and correspondence to and from CASA, NAS IG, ARG, AA and DOTRS with regards NAS 2b. culminating in the Minister's assurance that due process has been done.

Ask now so if anyone tries to backdate they are breaking the law and the Ministers position would be compromised, please be assured though I am not suggesting such an illegal act would even be contemplated.

I'm sure those who support NAS would also like to see the data analysis and correspondence so they can be assured their faith in NAS IG is not misplaced.

Note Chief Galah's comment YOU ARE TOO LATE TO STOP 2b. Ask for the FOI now or it just roles on to 2c. We have been examining MBZ/CTAF since January, our and others efforts got it out of 2b or it to would also be fait accompi.

Lets look at their "due process" and let it see the light of day.

Happy hunting
WALLEY2 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 01:23
  #211 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Gaunty
Much has been learned by ALL parties about timing and consultation and there is a common determination that there will be a more efficient process using these lessons in going forward from here.
Much was already learned the last time. Part of the Class G demonstration failure was the fact that its implementation was driven by dates and not the other way around. LAMP was a result of the lessons learned. LAMP did not specify a date for implementation of procedures until the consultation was completed, education and training requirements were identified and signed off as part of the safety case. (It also had a design safety case). Why are we "learning" these lessons again?

When the process is driven by implementation dates (like NAS is), education, training, and the procedures themselves are all vulnerable to last minute changes which affect their efficacy. Regardless of whether the new system is safer or not, the need to get the training material out in a reasonable amount of time is crucial to have it introduced safely.

So why don't we all just get on with it and show each other how mutual cooperation, common sense and professional attitudes can overcome the inevitable wrinkles that will appear and in six months time or earlier if necessary we can have another look.
Again, if the process was not so driven by implementation dates, alot of the wrinkles wouldn't even be there. I take wrinkles to mean smalll problems with the system (training, phraseology, airspace design etc), but we all know that small problems can play a major part in the causes of an accident. Why not overcome the wrinkles beforehand if they have already been identified? Why "have another look" later when we can have a look now?

For example, I know of no-one who believes that the removal of frequencies from VNCs and frequency boundaries from ERC Lows will lead to a safer system than we now have. In fact, most would say that it is patently less safe. I listed scenarios in an earlier post which showed how important knowledge of the correct area frequency is. No-one here could demonstrate otherwise. The frequency issue is a known "wrinkle" - why should we wait 6 months for it to be ironed out when it is identifiable now? What is the fatal attraction to getting a procedure in place when problems have been identified with it?

The implementation process is not more important than the safety of the system. There should be no "let's get it in now and fix it later" attitude - there is no place for that in aviation. No professional would ever support an implementation process that put itself above safety.

You can be sure that ATCers and pilots will do their best to work with the new procedures, as they have done so in the past, even if many disagree with them. It is here that you will see the "mutual cooperation, common sense and professional attitudes" that enhances the system we all operate under.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 07:09
  #212 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Willing to learn

Ferris, CG, Shitzu Tonka et al.

I have been flying about 22 years now. In that time the aircraft have stayed the same (except my grumman just gets faster), the country has stayed the same, the weather has stayed the same but the rules have changed 12,345,987 times.

In that time a LABOR Government (Keating, cleverly disguised as a Liberal Prime Minister) introduced 'user pays' (aka handing over cash cow airports to ya mates). CAA stuffed up and got split. AsA decided it was a 'commercial service provider' and introduced big fees to cover 'a return to Government' and so naturally, PPLs and bottom end GA (like Ag, air taxis etc) who in most cases neither cause a service to be needed or need it themselves, opted out.

CASA stuffed up next, but haven't been split again yet

The 'New Liberal' Government got even more carried away, airports were handed over for a song to shopping center developers and hotel chains. GA in Townsville died a slow death. In Canberra activity stalled. Some airport owners, like the Cairns Port Authority, got smart, introduced realistic fees and are reaping the rewards of a massive GA service industry paying rent on the airport.

AAL in Townsville charge huge and spurious fees, but they are lucky to have the Army!!! GA there is all but extinct!!!

And yeah, I'll admit, I have never been taught to orbit after "remain OCTA" in either my PPL, NVFR, PIFR or CPL flying. To me it means 'Remain OCTA' and thats what I do.

But I am willing to learn, do you guys actually have any centers where it is warm I will come and watch for a day if you invite me.

And comrade Ferris, I hope I've laid my cards on the table face up enough for you to see where my politics re user pays sit.

Comrade AK
snarek is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 08:24
  #213 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
snarek

Yes, the phrase "remain OCTA" means exactly that. If you ask for a clearance at say 8,500 and are knocked back, there is nothing wrong with doing as you please OCTA and requesting a clearance at say 4,500. Good airmanship prevails.

On the topic of the varying standards of service at Cairns & Mackay vs Canberra, a few points:
[list=1][*]NAS will do absolutely nothing to address this.[*]Cairns and Mackay are in situ terminal units. Canberra is a remote TCU. Does this have any impact on the differing 'culture' between them? I know from the 'old days' that the service from local, 'outstation' units, both enroute and terminal, was much more personal, involved and knowledgable than todays homogenised 'one size fits all' clearance factories.[/list=1]

On the whole issue of NAS: If the problem identified is one of excessive cost to the industry, then why not fix the cost issue? Why dillute safety when that is not necessary? (Class E for RPT jets is less safe than Class C. The only argument is whether or not the dollars justify the reduction in safety. The minister will -hopefully - never have to justify this decision in a commision of enquiry.)

Please feel free to visit either centre (Melbourne is warm - sometimes - for a few days in January!). The more you know, the better for all of us. Whatever you do, however, don't settle for the "PR" tour - where you are expected to smile and nod at the pretty colours on the screens. Grab a headset, plug in and watch for a few hours or more.
Four Seven Eleven is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 10:37
  #214 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 3,404
Here to Help

I can't and wouldn't attempt to mount an argument to your comments.

I learn't a long time ago to deal with realities.

The Government has decided what and when it will happen, they can not say that the issue has not been vigourously canvassed.

I could give you a list several miles long on "policies and actions made or taken" that neither you nor I voted for or agree with, but that Governments (both of em) have decided "are good for us" against the advice of just about everybody around.

In so far as "wrinkles" are concerned and I know I will get myself into trouble here with the analogy, but here goes.

I am of an age that allows me to remember the introduction of synthetic fibres to our clothing apparel.

I can still remember the first awful wash 'n wear nylon shirts that were the rage and the care needed, when ironing them, to avoid melting iron shaped holes or melting the buttons in them. They were sticky and uncomfortable, did not abosrb sweat and were IMHO an abomination, but they did make mothers life easier.

They were easy wash 'n wear, didn't need the boiling, beating, damping and starching sweat shop in the laundry of the old way.

We have come a long way in fabrics since then, because the long term advantages were understood and by listening to the market and continuously refining the product synthetics and blends are almost exactly like natural ones, are nearly as comfortable and are heaps cheaper.

Whether this is a good thing as far as the social and economic issues that have arisen in the production of the natural product, it is probably so that we could not grow or afford to buy the natural product nowadays to meet the demand.

For whatever reason they are now an integral part of our life notwithstanding my childish stubborness in avoiding the wearing of such to school.

I have a personal idiosyncrasy that still has me prefering pure cotton, wool and linen shirts and other apparel for its comfort, look and so on. For reasons that have ensured a happy 33 year marriage I wear the blends for work wear, but for casual and "sunday best" it's the real thing for me.

I still have to damp down, like gramma, the pure cotton and linen shirts that my wife simply refuses to iron in the presence of the availability of the synthetic and easy care mixes that are now predominant. I will admit that the spray on starches available now have made the "pricklies" from grammas home made stuff obsolete.

What am I getting at? Even such simple change can be uncomfortable and it would be easy to just say NO, but there were other forces around us and mother was only ONE, with which to reckon in this case, but she wasn't the ONLY driver the main ones being availablility, cost and convenience.

The best blends have a high natural fibre content (the experience and lessons of the past) with the best of the synthetics (the new way) in balance.
It took some getting here from there, but we are now pretty much wrinkle free.

If you can afford it and have unlimited labour resources and access to a permanent ironing lady you can stay "natural" all day long.

That has all changed.

May I suggest that we have the same basic scenario going here.

Runs and ducks for cover.
gaunty is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 11:06
  #215 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Yeah I agree, my shirts sometimes itch as well.

Back to reality. NAS is a horses ar$e.
tobzalp is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 12:57
  #216 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
G'day Gaunty

I learn't a long time ago to deal with realities.
Perhaps I'm still so young and idealistic as to think that reality is what we make it to be. I am definitely too young to remember the introduction of synthetic fibres : ), although I do believe I understand your analogy. You are basically stating that, as these NAS changes are introduced, we are gradually working towards a better system, which, although may be uncomfortable in the transition, it will all be worthwhile as we will eventually attain a far better and more refined system in the future.

There are two problems with this analogy. Firstly, the end state NAS is not known. We don't know what we are getting, and unfortunately our industry is not driven to perfection as the development of comfortable clothing is, for the best system to become inevitable. At any point, for reasons political or practical, we may be stuck with a particular stage of transition as the end state. Do we want that as a possibility? Do we want to be permanently itchy? To say that this is all the more reason why we should push on with the changes is to present a circular argument.

Secondly, the "itchiness" we experience now is not just indicative of discomfort, it also signifies a drop in safety. I contend that there is no good reason to decrease safety at any stage, even if the end result may be safer. The removal of frequencies/boundaries from maps is one of these decreases in safety. It is a conscious effort by the ARG and NASIG to change the culture of VFR pilots so that they get out of the habit of using the radio to separate from other traffic or gain SA about the airspace they are in.

Another tactic towards this aim is to get pilots to turn on their landing lights below A100. Another is for the NAS IG to put an ad in Flight Safety magazine telling VFR pilots not to request QNH info from ATC. Yet another is to increase the vagaries of CTAF communication by having only recommended procedures and indeterminate airspace boundaries.

I stand by my previous comment that the implementation process is not more important than the safety of the system. No decrease in safety in a transitional state should be acceptable. If the ones that make the decisions think that it is acceptable, and that it is a vallid tactic to implement a change, then they shouldn't be in the business.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 13:19
  #217 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 74
Posts: 3,404
Here to Help

Again, I accept what you say, except if I had refused point blank to wear the "new" nylon, then I would be in trouble on two fronts, my mum and my bride of 33 years.

Neither does accepting that it may be less safe mean that it is not acceptably safe.

We've been down the gold boiler plate mode road and grounding every thing just in 'CASE doesn't work either.

At the end of the day this is a GOVERNMENT policy decision on behalf of the people, if they have got it wrong, despite the best and professional efforts of ALL of the stakeholders, then it will be the people who will demand an acccounting.

We can be satisfied that we did all and more that was asked in regard to consultation.

You can lead a horse to water but you cant make him enjoy the view
gaunty is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 13:58
  #218 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 8,031
Or,

There are none so blind as those who will not see...
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 14:15
  #219 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837
Gaunty

I have a problem with your analogy.
If, when you ironed one of your new nylon shirts, you did burn it, and SOMEHOW THAT KILLED YOU (and 30 other people), would people still buy them? Would the govt have allowed their sale (or in this case, forced only the sale of nylon shirts)?
There is a difference to being uncomfortable (with a shirt or a process), to being dead (or partly responsible for unnecessary deaths).
At the end of the day this is a GOVERNMENT policy decision on behalf of the people
Really? I thought it was a decision by Dick, forced upon a hamstrung politician using rather nefarious methods.

Snarek
And comrade Ferris, I hope I've laid my cards on the table face up enough for you to see where my politics re user pays sit.
So why aren't you railing against the charging (or defacto-tax collection) system, instead of the airspace? Still haven't got a straight answer there.
ferris is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2003, 14:34
  #220 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
We've been down the gold boiler plate mode road and grounding every thing just in 'CASE doesn't work either.
We have also been down the "let's change the airspace because this is what it should be like and ride roughshod over any dissenters" road before, which also has not worked. This is what is happening with NAS.

Why reduce the safety of a system for no apparent benefit? When is this ever acceptable? Again, my case in point is the frequencies on maps issue.

Arguments have been made on this thread that no cost benefits have been identified with NAS and no end state model has been determined. Are we simply reducing safety for the sake of a directionless change?

If/when the changes come in, then ATC and pilots will do their best to work professionally with what they have to make it as safe as they can, even if they don't "enjoy the view".
Here to Help is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.