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

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Old 4th Oct 2003, 21:42
  #41 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,996

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

How can this statement (if it were true, which it ain't) possibly provide justification for the introduction of AUSNAS?? A nice piece of political mumbo jumbo designed to convince an unsuspecting public. Airservices couldn't give a stuff about anybody below FL200: note the much trumpeting about ADSB "all over the country!" Yahoo!! At FL300!!! Great!

You mention (as I have read in the AOPA rag) that you guys are pushing for ADSB in all GA aircraft: who's going to pay, just so you can fly where you please, when you please and ****** anybody who gets in the way?? The people who contribute to AsA's coffers now, which ain't you!! So you are going to get freeby ADSB (which you'll have to fix, or do you get 20 years/10 million air miles worth of maintenance with on it as well??) paid for by the travelling public/commercial operators/taxpayers, because you've got Dick Smith on your side. Get real: the world has traffic lights now, even though some don't like them; we wear seat belts, even though some don't like them. Get on the radio and stop whinging.

You guys are a joke and a hazard to the fare-paying passenger.

Speaking of facts and fantasies, I noticed Dick's press release on his proposed Broome Tower: "Safety will be lifted 3 levels from G to D!!" Yahoo, except that's nonsense. It's surrounded by Class F, it's an MBZ, and it has a CAGRS. That makes Dick's claim an expensive furphy, just like most of the stuff that comes from AOPA.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2003, 05:54
  #42 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183

Having read a number of posts on this page that are pure rhetoric unbiased by any factual content, I can see why there is trouble introducing the NAS.

Likewise the attack on AOPA. Ah well, when facts are unavailable, go the player and by demeaning him try and win the argument.

Is there any chance of the debate coming back to the pros and cons of the NAS issues - supported by statistics or other forms of logic? I would hate any RPT jockeys to be carrying pax with PIC minds in confusion.

We will probably fly Melb CTAF to Bris GAAP tomorrow in a GA aircraft. Radio calls at CTAF or MBZ enroute. The CTAF we are departing will today have skydiving, joyflights, GA and AUF training, powered hang glider joyflights, visitors flying in to the restaurant. Some no radio. We anticipate a safe CTAF today and a safe journey tomorrow causing problems to no-one, particularly our colleagues who fly at FLs.

This is pre-NAS but continues to work well due to standards of operating. That's what it's all about and - now I think of it - its the RPT guys saving $ by short cut procedures that have caused me most concerns since I started flying in 1979. Only a few but does this imply that part of the NAS resistance is not so much "safety" per se but a desire to operate in a protected environment?

What I saw on TV, including GA and RPT "sharing" airspace below 3000 metres - gee, that's something new and scary - was great spin with no fact. Why allow this thread to diminish to that level.
Brian H
brianh is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2003, 15:05
  #43 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194
Why, Brian? Because it's a rumour network.

The fact is RPT aircraft, light GA (VFR & IFR), ultralights, gliders and even fast military traffic have been mixing it to a greater or lesser degree in non-radar, non-transponder environments in many areas of Australia for years now. At times these have also been effectively non-radio environments when aircraft have been on wrong or adjacent FIA frequencies. E.G. For RPT landing at Dubbo, CURRENTLY go from "C" to "E" at FL 200 (if they get that high), from "E" to "G" at FL125, from "G" to "MBZ" at 5000' - I don't recall hearing any great uproar of gnashing of teeth at this! There are also regular scheduled services to CTAFs surrounded by G.......(*gasp*)

There have been no en-route collisions in these environments that I am aware of. There have been what have been perceived as near misses in the "terminal area" avoided by visual means and, it seems, extremely rarely in the en-route environment. The only mid-airs that I recall have been in GAAP environments, one of which was an MBZ at the time and an other in parallel runway ops. There have also been a couple of cases of aircraft landing on top of another aircraft on the runway - again in GAAP/MBZ environments.

So, class G and CTAFs seem to have demonstrated safe operations IN AUSTRALIA - even with the minimal calls recommended by CASA in recent years. Many of the NAS changes are similar to what goes on now in our airspace in many areas. The question remains as to what level of traffic density can this type of airspace be expanded to with comparable demonstrated levels of safety.

To me this has been the major failing of NASIG - there has been no data comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. If the US has demonstrated enroute and terminal area safety in areas of similar (or heavier) traffic density AND radar coverage, then surely there can be little objection.

Such data has not been forthcoming. Sure, anyone can understand the logic of collision risk decreasing in proportion to the cube of the distance from the aerodrome area, but this doesn't explain enough of the other variables and is almost insultingly facile to use as a sole safety case. Sure, modelling can be done, but it must be cross-checked with real world data - where do we have this?

You're right, Brian, little of the NAS debate has been based on facts, and on both sides of the argument there are opinions aplenty, but so few facts to be had.....

Safe flying

NOtimTAMs is offline  
Old 5th Oct 2003, 21:32
  #44 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156

Everyone needs to take a breath and understand the facts.

There are no CTAF airports in Australia where large RPT aircraft with 100s of fellow Aussies on board mix it with unannounced GA, we do not mix 737-800 with NORAD aircraft.

BASI 1991 Limitation to see and avoid: Explained why (physilogically) at closing speeds of 400kms/hr the human eye could not see small unannounced a/c in time.

BASI recommendation NO RPT a/c into CTAF.

CASA 2002 Risk Analysis MBZ/CTAF mathmatically modelled using traffic survey data found that the risks associated with CTAF was unacceptable at airports with traffic approaching 20,000 movements per annum.

John and Martha King (nice folks) advised no airports in USA has 737 RPT landing at CTAF A/Ps

The unissued report by Australian Delegates to USA for NAS investigation says no Jet RPT into CTAF infact virtually no Jet RPT in class G unless under radar and ATC.

Here I do have a problem if we fund a delegation to the USA then the stakeholders in the industry should be given a copy of that report even if it is detrimental to the NAS IG position.

As I said on another thread:


This same dictum should apply to enroute changes aswell.

I would love to see some debate on the enroute changes clearly laying out the changes advantages and risk analysis.

May I suggest the "bug buster,bus driver,union [email protected]" stuff be left at the door,it contributes nothing to the debate on this important aviation issue.
WALLEY2 is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 06:34
  #45 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
quoting the 'professionals' who think that cos they are 'commercial' they own the sky

The government says that they are going to give a $5000 piece of equipment FREE!!!! to a person who can afford to buy their own plane just to make an usafe system safer (but less safe than 4/10/03)......
I would hope so. because I ain't paying $5K just to make your employer more profitable. It will take about 10% of aircraft unfitted to make ADSB useless!!! Use 'above (say) 8500' will be just as useless, it is in CTAFs that YOU (the professional pilot) need everyone to be ADSB fitted.

Basically, if it ain't free it ain't happening and then you'll be stuck with NAS without ADSB below (say) 10,000'. That would not (in my view) be a good end solution. By free I mean free to all of GA (not just VFR) that means verything from VFR 2 seaters to Twotters and beyond. So, we ain't (as is oft suggested by the more belligerent here) just looking out for number one.

But then you could lobby against it I suppose, short sighted pilots' and ATC unions have stuffed up worse before, so I won't be surpirsed if that's what happens after this

Someone somewhere in an AFAP document mentiond 'commercial airspace' (sort of C special ).

Fine, if it is commercial, you pay for it. But like any other commercial activity on public land (or air, or water) you do not and never will get the right to make others pay as a result of your use. You are getting me (slightly) riled such that I am beginning to think it is not even in our (much maligned VFR owners) interests to have transponders in E!! (which was the original deal, but AOPA has been listening to other arguments). Geez you guys know how to make enemies!!!

I personally doubt this has anything to do with QF, VB or Skimpy. In my 25 years of (obviously unprofessional ) flying I have NEVER had a problem with high end RPT. I have however been exposed to cowboys in Bongos on Cape York doing no radio straight in approaches, Metros in regional Victoria doing straight ins in a full circuit, charter and bank runners doing down wind no radio take offs.

Now these guys are the minority (I hope they are anyway) but no change to airspace is going to control this sort of irresponsible behaviour. I have found the average PPL (unconstrained as s/he is by finances) to be exemplary in nearly all cases. So why pay out on them.

The answer is given in a post below, I believe the anti-NASers want to keep operating as they see fit with a disregard for procedure 'to save a buck' and I believe these cowboys think they will no longer be able to do it safely without directed traffic under NAS. Probably true, so under NAS we need rid of the cowboys!!!!

I figure the best way to deal with this is to start dobbing so we clean these loverly people out of our system and that way get safer skies with NAS and hopefully a full ADSB rollout.

So, I shall start with the next non-compliant opertor I see.

The other whingers, marginal ATCers (and I know these are the minority) who are probably no good at their jobs. That has been my experience with union whingers, the loudest are often the most useless. To the genuine good controllers out there, look at the facts not the rhetoric, there is no job shortage, as GA grows under a better system there will be more jobs. ADSB will help increase safety and increased safety means more flying and thus more jobs.


Last edited by snarek; 6th Oct 2003 at 09:33.
snarek is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 10:29
  #46 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837

Then why isn't ADSB linked to NAS?

ATM, the two are totally seperate issues. I agree that if the two were linked, most of the safety issues would go away. But that isn't the case. Why isn't AOPA lobbying hard to delay NAS until the oz register fit-out is complete? Damned irresponsible if you ask me. Don't tell me you believe "they'll get around to it later" theory, do you? I'd hate to think AOPA was being disengenuous.
ferris is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 10:51
  #47 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
oh yeah :)


A letter, written by me signed by Marjorie Pagani, was sent out this week.

It is not easy to 'link' these things, NASIG have resisted it and the recent bull-merde from the unions shifted the issue to a fantasy plane.

If we all worked together for what would benefit all of us (unlike toxic-blats bleatings) then perhaps we would achieve something solid and positive for all of GA.

AOPA is not solely the representative of the VFR PPL. In fact most of the representation I do is at the IFR charter level. We do listen to our members and have their input, interestingly the two biggest proponents of NAS in AOPA are both ex-Jumbo Captains!!!

Perhaps you could get your side of the NAS argument fired up pro-ADSB. That way we'd at least have something to agree with each other on PPRuNe

snarek is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 11:44
  #48 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Basically, if it ain't free it ain't happening and then you'll be stuck with NAS without ADSB below (say) 10,000'. That would not (in my view) be a good end solution.
Therefore: You now think that NAS is not a good solution.

ADS-B and NAS are not interdependant - the timelines are separate - NAS in a few weeks - ADS-B a few years.

On A a separate line -- How does ADS-B work with overseas based aircraft? Obviously no overseas aircraft is going to have one fitted, therefore SSR still required, so where are the costs savings on Radar?
Shitsu-Tonka is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 11:52
  #49 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

1. We are trying to tie the timelines. help us.

2. My perspective supported by all (reasoned, not you zop-zit) argument on here suggests that NAS is only a problem in E, not C. So my next answer to one of your questions is an out of context phurphy, but here goes.

3. Only the good old US of A has decided to go its own way. Other aircraft should be compliant. Answer to that, tell em to come in they have to be compliant. (a $5K box represents less than .001% of a 747, it represents upwards of 15% of an older PA-28).

4. NAS with ADSB is a good solution, in my view, for the guys in D abnd below. But you ('they') will never manage to mandate Mode S systems below (say) 8500', so to get it for all of us we ALL need to push it.

snarek is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 12:05
  #50 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194

I also don't recall any jets going into CTAFs as RPT (and I also don't recall any 737's carrying hundreds!!).

Logically, theres not a lot of difference between jets and the Dash's, SAAB's (and other turboprop RPT's I'm too lazy to think of) going to CTAFs. The Dash 8 & SAAB carry 30-40 and are as capable of doing the 250KTS limit (in E & G) below 10000' on descent as are the jets. Closing speeds are similar when descending through E & G. If what is being proposed to do at some locations with (say) 737's and CRJ's is unsafe in your view, surely then you would want to call a halt to the current turboprop ops, then?

I'm not saying we should not have a line drawn somewhere, but where do we draw the line, and why? What is the RATIONAL reasoning behind it? Why is it OK for a Turboprop carrying 30-40 and not a jet carrying, say, 50-100?

I agree with you when you say NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF then NO CHANGE, though.

I think many aspects of the NAS have been proven safe by usage in many areas of Australia, but not in some others - that's when we need FACTS and DATA not "logical" arguments of the "if one raincoat keeps you dry is safe then two or three will keep you drier (even when it's not raining!)" variety.....

Neither the opponents nor the proponents of NAS have come up with ANY comparative data on which to base their stances - you can theorise all you like, but if something is well demonstrated by experience/practice, you may as well take the empirical route. If you don't have the data and don't have established criteria from which you are arguing , then it's all so much waffle.


I'd love ADSB too, but I'm sure that the NAS guys don't want this linked to what is likely to be an even more lengthy process!

If we can share the roads, surely we can share the airspace.....


Good point re: foreign craft - wouldn't the bigger boys have Mode S available, though?

Safe flying

NOtimTAMs is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 12:12
  #51 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169

I agree that ADS-B is a great bit of kit. Especially from a cockpit aspect of increased situational awareness and traffic alerting capability. I also believe the attraction to AirServices corporate side (read government) is purley on financial grounds in two aspects - 1. potential reduction in SSR commissioning / maintenance, 2. onselling of technology rights overseas especially to emerging nations ATM systems.

Franky I think that is where it ends for them - who pays for the installation will be another great argument that will end up in political circles, just like the argument over whi pays for the waiving Enroute airways charges for RPT ACFT <15K Tonne MTOW.

Your suggestion of just telling them to be compliant smacks of the kind of dictatorial stance that I thought AOPA were opposed to? And does it make economic sense? It is all very well to say it is just a $5000 bit of kit but the logistics of your suggestion go way beyond that when you sit down and look at it - let me say ADS-B is not my forte, but I can see readiuly that their will be company issues stretching well beyond the solution of whacking it in lighting the fires and blasting off. Radar will be here for quite a while yet, and we havent even mentioned primary radar and the 'saves' it makes each day.

With respect to helping you tie the timelines how do you really expect a simple controller to make ADS-B happen now!? The technology and deployment rollout is still evolving isn't it?

NAS does not depend on ADS-B. All the arguments that have been made on this forum by the supporters of NAS have not been dependant upon the accelerated deployment of a new technology have they?

The issues that make NAS reduce our overall level of safety and efficiency have nothing to do with ADS-B.

I support ADS-B in it's own right - but not as a crutch to hold up a flawed airspace reform.
Shitsu-Tonka is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 13:14
  #52 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

I didn't make the $5K argument, someone else did (see below).

ADSB is stand alone, yes. But if we are to listen to the Anti-NAS arguments presented here, it is the answer to most of them.

I personally don't think ADSB is critical for NAS and I personally do think NAS will work. I was trying to find a compromise position between those that think NAS will create dangers for regionals in D and E. ADSB is that compromise.

An Australian company has designed a Mode-S box with GPS and CDTI. Bought in big enough numbers it could be FITTED for less than $5K per GA aircraft. US and European aircraft may not comply with the Mode-S standard, but it isn't in any AOPA members interest to drag our safety levels down just because they can't comly.

Where the big bucks of open skies is at stake I doubt the likes of BA or Virgin are going to scare off at the cost of a Mode - S. Besides, like i said, they only operate as low as C anyway, NAS isn't an issue there and any attempt to make it so is dishonest.

snarek is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 13:29
  #53 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Snarek - you say:
Where the big bucks of open skies is at stake I doubt the likes of BA or Virgin are going to scare off at the cost of a Mode - S. Besides, like i said, they only operate as low as C anyway, NAS isn't an issue there and any attempt to make it so is dishonest
I disagree - it IS an issue for the heavy metal. In the previous incarnation I gave an example:

That is one of the issues with NAS as I see it - e.g. on desc into say CG from the south thru Class E airspace aircraft are currently positively separated from PJE ACFT and canopies at Ballina. Under NAS that aircraft won't even have to be broadcasting or on a discrete code (.i.e. identified) to the controller descending the 767.
Shitsu-Tonka is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 13:42
  #54 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

How is that different to what we have now?? (genuine question, not being a heavy metal driver).

If there is a difference then it seems RPT (big) need us in GA to have ADSB as well, perhaps they'd like to help our lobbying of Govt

But if they think we are going to pay because they want to fly in E, then I fear a political poo fight about to start.

E belongs Everone. Don't like it, stay in A!!! Ay???

Blastoid, I will reply to you here. yes, there are 2 units, one with one without CDTI. CDTI isn't necessary, but helps situational awareness and means two pilots are looking at traffic. Helps safety I suppose.

But I will continue to suggest that AirServices will pay for Mode-S installs because they have told me that is an option on their agenda. Now given that isn't it in all our interests to be pushing for it.

I disagree with you over the cost of CDTI. As long as we can keep CASA and the 'TSO looneys' out of the loop (don't get me going on TSO!!!), the units will be cheap. I would suggest that the ability to have all aircraft aware of all others presents such a significant safety case we should all be supporting that as well.


Last edited by snarek; 6th Oct 2003 at 13:57.
snarek is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 13:43
  #55 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 107

ADS-B seems to keep coming up in this thread as the solution to all the pitfalls that seem to loom under NAS.

The biggest mistake that everyone is making the assumption that the government is going to pay $5k (or thereabouts - don't know who touted the figure) for a CDTI and Mode-S transponder in the cockpit. Somehow, I don't think so.

There are 2 types of ADS-B "kit" - the "ADS-B out" type which is fitted with the Mode-S transponder but does not give the traffic picture to the pilot in the cockpit (read: it is just another transponder), and the "ADS-B in/out" which has the above feature but also has the CDTI for enhanced cockpit situational awareness. They are much more expensive than the first type.

The government is pressing NAS and the beauty of see and avoid - anyone must be kidding themselves if they think their little single-engined 152 will be fitted with CDTI equipment.

ADS-B will allow controllers to see aircraft and provide traffic information (to those receiving the service), and give the RPTs (and anyone else who can afford the CDTI kit) the enhanced situational awareness in Class E/G/CTAF airspace.

Keep lookin'! (and don't forget to keep your lights on just to help out)
Blastoid is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 14:04
  #56 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169

I think you better have a look at what changes are being proposed a little closer - how you can support this without having a grasp on the airspace changes is beyond me.

But if they think we are going to pay because they want to fly in E, then I fear a political poo fight about to start. E belongs Everone. Don't like it, stay in A!!! Ay???
The whole point is NAS changes the airspace from C TO E in the above example. Currently ATC separate PJE aircraft and canopies positively with other IFR aircraft like B737/B767. Under NAS the jet will be on descent thru the same airspace that the PJE operation is taking place and wont even be on the same frequency. See any differences yet?!
Shitsu-Tonka is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 14:15
  #57 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

Sorry, I make this mistake often. I got me little NAS book in front of me. At the moment I am talking 2b (which is what the CivilAir / AFAP kerfuffle was about recently).

I see in the final stages lots of E and in that context understand where you are coming from.

But I'll say it again (and again) ADSB.

I will also add, AOPA has only given 'reserved' support for whole-NAS and only full support at this stage for 2b.

So when we are talking whole-NAS we will still listen/read intently any reasoned arguments presented here that do not prejudice any of our members. e will not however listen to or change our position based on arguments which suggest 'commercial' operators in some way 'own' airspace.

snarek is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 20:04
  #58 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
snarek, are you the new AOPA President?

Hi Snarek, Is it possible to have the AOPA President & Vice President post on here so we can see their comments, plus see their commitment to Australian Aviation?

It would be nice to see input from the other AOPA board members and their views too.
C182 Drover is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 20:04
  #59 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,837
Does anyone else see where this is going?

I used to think that free maps, free VFR flight-following etc were all really good, too. There has been, how shall I put it, a slight change in philosophy since those days. So if you think the govt. is going to kit out private aircraft with expensive gadgets, you've got another thing coming. They may legislate to make them mandatory, but that will be the end of their 'assistance'.

Now, regards NAS, I am not sure what game AK and AOPA are playing. You seem to be advocating the introduction of a system of airspace you admit is, at the least, less safe than what exists now.
In the next breath it's "it'll all be OK with ADSB, but the govt. has to pay".
If you have been told that by supporting NAS, somebody somewhere will scratch your backs down the road, you have been sold a pup.
If this is an intentional strategy (support NAS part-way, then demand govt funded ADSB), well the less said the better.

What happens in the time gap between the intro of NAS and this ADSB utopia?

What happens when the RPT pilots refuse to fly without DTI?

What happens when their companies ( and their insurers ) can it?

What happens when Dick becomes the minister's scapegoat? How upset will he be?

How long before the deckchairs get shuffled at the Alan Woods Titanic?

Groundhog day.
ferris is offline  
Old 6th Oct 2003, 21:53
  #60 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
AK, I really don't think you have a schmick what you are talking about. You quoted above that ...(words to the effect) you don't like it, stay in A class...

Your obviously limited knowledge of Aviation and the NAS proposal is exposed here.

An aircraft on descent into sydney on the stars from the north has them (jets) hitting Fl110 or so at 45 miles north. From 45 miles north it is E airspace and then into B. How I ask do you stay in A?

You prove time and time again that you are just an amatuer like your mate Dick Branson- Smith (I am sure he will change his name to something similar sometime soon to get some mileage from others hard work) it will get up. Please for the sake of Aviation in this country, sit down and stfu.

I have read through all of your above 'rebuttal' and what it lacks in substance is far outweighed by lack of understanding.

You state that NAS 2b is all A OK and that AOPA support it (I add that support of AOPA is akin to the Trouser Point Thirds Ladies Rugby support of the World Cup). Would you support an increment in an incremental approach to a scheme that made it illegal to fly VFR, ie an end state that was somewhat rediculous? Homey Don't Think So.

P.S. You edited your response on the last page why? Pretty sad display editing comments based on future posts. Nice back flipping. But then again back flipping is just a friend of back scratching........ /me goes to check the declared donations.

edit = spelling and not tune changing...
tobzalp 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.