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

The NAS, facts and fantasies

Old 13th Oct 2003, 14:44
  #141 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
With so many people showing an interest in this topic, perhaps one of them can help me understand the term "commercial airspace?"
Paul Phelan is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2003, 17:22
  #142 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
BIK_116.80

A “frequency boundary” is not something that is relevant to ICAO class G airspace because there is no “correct ATS frequency”.
But we will have Class G with DTI in NAS 2B, and in many instances the area frequency will also be the the Class E frequency, so there is a "correct ATS frequency". Your argument that frequency boundaries can be removed because the airspace is not what you think it should be is frivolous.

Do you think that this is safer? Is anybody saving money with the boundaries removed?

If the area frequency becomes irrelevant in a later stage of NAS, then why not wait until that stage to remove the boundaries?

I am still interested to see what snarek/AOPA think of the frequency boundary issue, since it has safety ramifications when the change is made in November.

On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?
Here to Help is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2003, 19:39
  #143 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 69
Posts: 4,275
Eeeeeeerm doing a low level pass over the parked KC130T.

OK OK just joshing.
Woomera is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2003, 21:45
  #144 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 139
On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?
Cool! Photo caption competitions on PPRuNe! What's the prize?
ugly is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2003, 23:08
  #145 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Seat 0A
Posts: 7,803
So you VFR bugsmasher drivers think IFR pilots don't look out enough. I reckon this accurately sums up a lot of you VFR guys (either looking at the sights on the ground or your GPS).



See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK.

Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 13th Oct 2003 at 23:52.
Capn Bloggs is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 01:30
  #146 (permalink)  
on your FM dial
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Bindook
Posts: 114
G’day snarek,

I don't suppose there are too many a/c with elec systems and no Txps. But there are a few. Probably a few more without Mode C.
Agreed.

So, if you are going to ‘mandate them’ who will pay???
I would expect that for the vast majority of aircraft it is the owner that pays for the supply, installation and maintenance of mandatory avionics equipment.

Then, once it is in it has to be tested every x years.
Aircraft systems require maintenance – that’s no revelation. Refer : AD/RAD/43 and AD/RAD/47. A transponder check every two years – hardly a big deal.

And who/what is this for.
Switching your altitude encoding transponder onto ALT provides a safety benefit to you because nearby TCAS equipped aircraft will be aware of your position. This will help them to avoid running into you, and that’s got to be a good thing. Additionally, the ability for the pilots of TCAS equipped aircraft to be aware of the location of nearby aircraft without the need to rely on an expensive ground-based air traffic control infrastructure has an enormous potential for cost savings.

Ground-based air traffic control systems are an anachronism from a by-gone post-war era when it was impossible to put a reliable, real-time traffic display in an aircraft cockpit.

With TCAS (and perhaps ADSB?) it is now possible to provide traffic data directly to the pilot, rather than needing to have it relayed by a ground-based third party radio operator.

Traditional ground-based air traffic control systems are expensive, labour intensive, and stymied by voluminous regulations, many of which were written decades ago – long before current cockpit traffic awareness technologies were even dreamt of.

With a TCAS traffic display (and perhaps ADSB?) pilots can be aware of the relative position of traffic around them without having to rely on a ground-based third party air traffic control service. It’s more efficient, more effective, more timely, more autonomous.

But TCAS traffic displays only show traffic that is transponding. TCAS traffic displays can be used to their greatest potential when nearby traffic is transponding with altitude data.

As a start, an enormous benefit would be gained if pilots of aircraft that are already transponder equipped would ensure that they turn their transponder on to ALT. This would cost nothing. Perhaps an AOPA pilot education campaign along those lines would be a good start? What do you say? If you’ve got it – switch it on to ALT.

Don't forget BIK. ‘Free in G’
I’m all for free in G. (ICAO class G = no service, no delay, no charge)

G = Good

But just as the government does not subsidise the mandatory brake lights on your car, neither should the government subsidise mandatory avionics – particularly if it’s mandatory avionics that are already fitted to the vast majority of Australian aircraft.

snarek – a question for you.

You obviously have vastly more experience with these ADSB gizmos than I do.

If I understand this ADSB stuff correctly, it seems to serve two functions :

(1) It can provide a TCAS-like cockpit display of traffic for a pilot to look at; and/or,

(2) It can provide a radar-like display of traffic for a ground-based air traffic controller to look at.

Have I got that right? Please correct me if I’ve got the wrong end of the stick.

Anyway, I can see great benefits in (1), but no real point in (2).

It is obvious that you are quite keen on ADSB. But why are you keen on it? Is it because of (1) or because of (2)?

If you are keen on it because of (1) then what can ADSB do for me that TCAS doesn’t already do? Is it that ADSB offers greater functionality, or is it that an ADSB cockpit traffic display is less expensive than a TCAS cockpit traffic display?

In earlier posts you suggested that airborne ADSB traffic displays would be much cheaper if they were not certified. In what circumstances is it permissible to fit non-certified avionics to a flying machine?

If you are keen on it because of (2) then I say thanks, but no thanks. I see no need for an expensive middle-man when the data can be provided directly to the pilots.

I liked FSOs too. I'd like to think that with full ADSB we could perhaps get some back.
I hope not. That would be the worst of both worlds. The expense of ADSB as well as the expense of the FSO. Someone somewhere has to pay – and it aint going to be the nation’s taxpayers! No thanks.

But, who pays. Unions will do what unions do and try to get the biggest buck for their members, that made FSOs unaffordable under a (stupid) user pays government policy. So FSOs disappeared
This has been an ongoing process.
  • Start with a large, inefficient government bureaucracy that over-services the aviation industry and that is funded out of consolidated revenue at an enormous and unsustainable expense to the nation’s taxpayers.
  • Call the large, inefficient government bureaucracy a “government business enterprise”. Everyone knows that in reality it’s just a government department dressed up in drag.
  • Introduce user fees so industry participants can see (and feel) the real cost of the over-servicing.
  • Users realise that the value added by the over-servicing is less than the enormous and unsustainable cost charged for the over-servicing, and determine that at that price they don’t really need the over-servicing after all.
  • Over-servicing stops, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to the nation’s taxpayers, no more enormous and unsustainable cost to industry participants, all is right with the world.

G’day Paul Phelan,

With so many people showing an interest in this topic, perhaps one of them can help me understand the term “commercial airspace?”
To be honest, I somehow doubt it.

In any case, you’re an articulate and grammatically skilful man. Just for fun, see if you can make a sentence that includes these words :
  • public
  • vested
  • scare
  • interests
  • crash
  • airliner
  • burn
  • die
  • horror
  • plummet

G’day again Here to Help,

But we will have Class G with DTI in NAS 2B, and in many instances the area frequency will also be the Class E frequency, so there is a “correct ATS frequency”. Your argument that frequency boundaries can be removed because the airspace is not what you think it should be is frivolous.

Do you think that this is safer? Is anybody saving money with the boundaries removed?

If the area frequency becomes irrelevant in a later stage of NAS, then why not wait until that stage to remove the boundaries?
There is no “correct ATS frequency” for VFR aircraft in class G airspace.

Under current class G arrangements (ICAO class F but with mandatory IFR participation) IFR aircraft are advised when to change frequency and which frequency to change to by ATS. They don’t need lines on a map.

Actually, I can’t get too excited whether you put class G “frequency boundaries” on the charts or not (even though they are not a relevant concept). The issue that interests me is that a small minority of pilots (both VFR and IFR) think that they will instantly be run-down by Concorde (or some other equally threatening aircraft) if they fail to maintain a careful listening watch on an air traffic control radio frequency when they are enroute in class G airspace. This is demonstrably untrue. That some pilots are concerned that the “frequency boundaries” have been taken off the charts only confirms their misguided concern.

In any case, the frequencies are all there on the maps, even if the lines are gone. If it makes you feel more secure to hear the sound of a human voice then listen to whichever frequency takes your fancy.

In relation to a flight that is enroute in class G airspace, why does it matter what frequency the pilot is on? What would it matter if they were not on any air traffic control frequency? What would it matter if they maintained a listening watch on 104.9 MHz or 101.7 MHz?

ICAO Class G = no service, no delay, no charge.

On a completely different note - those who joke that the picture posted here with the Cessna in the windscreen is indicative of IFR pilots not looking out the window and thus causing the situation, what is the Cessna pilot doing?
The Cessna pilot is probably at the pub with his mates having a few beers. The outer two-thirds of each propeller blade is missing. In this condition the aircraft is incapable of sustained flight. The Cessna is clearly parked and on the ground. There is no need for the pilot of a parked aircraft to maintain a lookout.

From the engine instrument indications it is quite clear that the Hercules in the photo is also parked and on the ground.

Since both aircraft are parked and on the ground it is most unlikely that there is a collision risk (although perhaps there is some small residual risk, particularly in light of the BAe 146s that mated in the night at YMEN ).

If both aircraft were enroute in class G airspace then I would expect the Big Sky Theory to keep them apart.

If that didn’t work, then I would expect that a Cessna of that type would be fitted with an altitude encoding transponder. If the Cessna pilot were wise then they would have switched the transponder on to ALT as they entered the runway just prior to take-off. If the military Hercules was instead a civilian Hercules, or an airliner, then it would be required by regulation to be fitted with TCAS II. The crew of a TCAS II equipped aircraft would be given advanced warning of the relative position of a nearby aircraft, giving them ample time to manoeuvre clear of it.

If the Hercules were a civilian aircraft then the crew would have received a TCAS resolution advisory long before it got to the scenario portrayed in the photographic collage.

If both aircraft were in flight in a busy terminal area near an airport then I would expect the pilots of both aircraft to be maintaining a vigilant look out. It is quite clear that the crew of the Hercules are not maintaining a vigilant look out – and I don’t think that’s anything to joke about.

Capn Bloggs,

Many of the “VFR bugsmasher drivers” are instrument rated ATPL holders who fly heavy metal during the week. It’s not that they can’t fly IFR, it’s that they choose not to.

See and Avoid DOES NOT WORK.
In regard to the enroute environment I agree with you.

Thankfully, we don’t have to rely on see and avoid in the enroute environment because the chances are extremely high that the Big Sky Theory will keep the planes apart irrespective of whether the pilots look out the window or not.


Bernie says : Vote [1] Big Sky Theory
BIK_116.80 is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 04:14
  #147 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Please enlighten us BIK

Once all the aircraft know where everyone else is and they can seperate themselves, and reading between the lines, when you see no need for ATC (or "ground based radio operators" as you call us), who decides who changes level, who diverts off their track to let the other guy stay at his preferred level, who volunteers to hold while he waits for the other guys who got there at the same time to make an approach. Even with ATC when you tell two company aircraft that one of them has to change level and ask them to decide who it will be, alot of the time it ends up neither want to change cos they both have good reasons to stay at their preferred level. That is one of many of the reasons why you do need a third party even in Enroute Airspace.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 05:08
  #148 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: oz
Posts: 54
Grrr enough already!!!!!

GEEEZZZ BIK.......

Any chance you could post something that doesn't take an hour to read?????

Your arguements don't really need all that verbiage...surely?
piniped is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 07:30
  #149 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
BIK

Additionally, the ability for the pilots of TCAS equipped aircraft to be aware of the location of nearby aircraft without the need to rely on an expensive ground-based air traffic control infrastructure has an enormous potential for cost savings.
Cost savings to who?? Government, RPT yes, most likely. But to achieve those 'savings' you have to do a cost shift, i.e. mandate equipment.

So, VFR must subsidise RPT/Govt to achieve 'cost savings'. I can feel a howl of protest starting now (with me via the minor parties and the ALP!!!).

ADSB. It is a box that encodes position info in the same way a mode C encodes altitude. The 'bit stream' out of the transponder is called the squitter. Some Txps are Mode S compatible, most aren't and will need replacing.

CDTI is a Mode S receiver working the same way as current TCAS. Wheras TCAS can only give distance (and altitude via Mode C) and an approximate direction, the ADSB CDTI can decode the Mode S and do a comparison. Other traffic can be presented as a list or a pseudo radar screen.

Yes, good for pilots. Especially if all pilots have it, two pairs of eyes and all that.

But why not use it to expand 'radar' coverage??? I can't see the harm in that unless you have something personal against ATC (except plazbot, I'd understand that!!).

Surely more coverage is a good thing??? Surely more coverage will result in cost savings via routing savings and thus, when fully paid for by those who will benefit from it, full ADSB will improve Australian airspace.

Paul.

Commercial Airspace, a term used to indicate ownership and thus the purchase of a ticket prior to entry. In this case it seems the ticket is a $2K transponder and ongoing maintenance.

I can feel a personal 'No E below 8500' position being put to the Board.

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 09:05
  #150 (permalink)  
Keg

Nunc est bibendum
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 5,178
Unhealthy over reliance on TCAS going on here (similar to the unhealthy over reliance on see and avoid!).

TCAS will NOT display ALL of the traffic around you. It selectively picks up and drops off various paints in busy traffic environments. On the 744 into LAX years ago I remember getting a TA on traffic that just 'appeared' as a TA- IE, we couldn't develop the picture before hand because it wasn't being fed to us.

Aviation safety should be about layered defences. TCAS is an error management strategy, not a threat management strategy at the first level. It is the LAST line of defence. Heaven help us when it is the first also!
Keg is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 13:17
  #151 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 58
Posts: 516
Angry noteworthy posts

May be worth reading a couple of posts on another thread here

If this is what the rabid NAS stalwarts want, I'm glad I'm not flying away from the big cities.

BIK, you should pull stumps and retire, you are doing your side of the arguement no service at all...but then you don't want service do you? G = Good???

The rest of you wonder why the professionals don't take anything the "bugsmasher" drivers say seriously?

BTW....I see on a daily basis the fact that see and avoid doesn't work..and we are talking about very large heavy jet traffic coming and going into a war zone.

Scores of the near misses were spotted and avoiding action was instigated by the ATC that just happens to have the God's view of what is happening..ie we can see them on the RADAR.

Some of the nearest goes were E3's (who one would expect to have a bit of SA)..and fighters that generally do look out the window a bit, however, being military, they only look when and where told..not sniping at the Oz mil...just our cousins.

As Keg mentioned, we should have a layered defense...the big sky theory worked in the old days, not with the new squizzy nav kit that will put you both nose cone to nose cone tracking direct from A to B and B to A.

edited to blather on about see and avoid
divingduck is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 22:00
  #152 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: You live where
Posts: 390
Transponders, ELB, ADSB. CDTI and any other "safety" items should be fully tax deductible, purchase, installation and maintenance.
missy is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 22:41
  #153 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
BIK_116.80
There is no “correct ATS frequency” for VFR aircraft in class G airspace.
VFR aircraft wants to listen out for VFR and IFR broadcasts in his area - what frequency does he listen to?

VFR aircraft requires assistance from ATS for an in-flight emergency - what frequency does he transmit on?

VFR wants information (nav, met, PRD) from ATS for whatever reason - what frequency does he transmit on?

ATS wants to broadcast to a radar observed VFR about to enter a restricted area or CTA - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

ATS observes 2 aircraft about to come together in Class G with no avoiding action apparent and broadcasts a traffic alert - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

ATS broadcasts a hazard alert for an aerodrome in her airspace, what frequency should a nearby VFR be on to hear it?

VFR PJE aircraft wants to conduct a drop in Class G, what frequency does he broadcast on?

ATS broadcasts an LJR - what frequency does she hope the VFR is on?

BIK_116.80, if you can demonstrate that it is of no consequence what frequency the VFR is on for each and every one of these scenarios, then you would be right in saying that there is no correct ATS frequency. If you can't, then you are wrong.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 01:00
  #154 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,408
Eeerm

To add what I hope are some facts to the confusion, I believe that one of the mitigators for the transition on this issue, agreed and signed off on by the participants was;

Mitigation Description
37.2 The pilot T&E must include guidance as to alternative sources of frequencies information (e.g. ERSA) 37.3
The 'VFR en-route' advisor must include effective guidance as to operations enroute including specific guidance to use of radio.

37.4 The frequency block on IFR charts should be replicated on VFR charts for a transitional period and then removed.

37.5 FIA boundaries placed on charts for a transitional period and then removed.


There is a bit of sorting out in progress on that particular issue, but I firmly believe an appropriate solution will be forthcoming.

There has been a HUGE amount of work performed by the "experts", airspace and industry and I do not include myself as one of those, on all of the issues surrounding the NAS implementation, to suggest that they ALL got it wrong just doesn't play.

There will be bits around the edges that need adjustment, nothing is ever a perfect fit and as the NASIG has freely admitted the end state is not yet fixed, it would be dangerously irresponsible to do so, hence the staged implementation, but the shape of it is already known from the experience of the USNAS.
It will be approached with the same caution as they have the beginning with the need for a very comprehensive educational programme.

But one thing is certain in my mind, I have complete faith that the people ultimately responsible, will make the go or no go decision, I believe set for the 20/10/2003, based on professional and properly constructed grounds.

They are on a hiding to nothing as they will be pilloried for whatever they do.

This then makes the decision a very simple one.

On the balance of probablilities, what is right.

This is the true test of leadership.
gaunty is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 01:27
  #155 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Gaunty I think this is what people are most worried about. That is, if you can't get a civilised response from John Anderson (speaking of the Big Sky theory, I reckon you could fly quite safely between his ears without much risk of a mid air, cos theres lots of airspace in there!!), why would people think that the "right" decision based ultimately on safety will be made by the powers that be, and not just make the easy decision based on political pressure/ economics.

Here to Help, I agree wholeheartedly, and these are some of the questions that BIK even with his War and Peace posts has been as yet unable to answer. In fact all those posts seem good for is to assist in me getting off to sleep before my Doggos.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 07:16
  #156 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Hi Gaunty,

There has been a HUGE amount of work performed by the "experts", airspace and industry and I do not include myself as one of those, on all of the issues surrounding the NAS implementation, to suggest that they ALL got it wrong just doesn't play.
This reasoning does not, and cannot, be used to justify any argument. It may win over in a debate, it may influence perceptions and sound convincing, but it is not a valid argument to make. Just because alot of work has been performed by many experts to reach a conclusion, it will never follow that it is necessarily right- never. The arguments themselves, not the amount of work involved or the number of "experts" supporting them, should always be the basis on which one makes a judgement.

The mitigators you listed do not help in any of the frequency scenarios I outlined in my last post. In fact, they imply that the frequencies will eventually be removed altogether from VFR charts, and that removal of the boundaries in November is just the first stage in this process.

I have demonstrated a need for the frequency boundaries to be displayed on charts - who will explain to me that their removal is necessary or not less safe come November 27th?

Since AOPA is fully behind NAS2b in November, it must be supporting the removal of frequency boundaries. I have asked BIK_116.80 to show why it doesn't matter what frequency a VFR aircraft is on in each of my scenarios - can someone from AOPA do the same? If not, then why is it supported?
Here to Help is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 07:27
  #157 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Given that I often fly 'on top' and self separate with IFR and RPT I see no reason why FIR boundaries and info can't be on maps.

I also don't see that putting these on VFR maps is such a great impost.

However this is a personal view, I will ask and see what the response is.

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 12:06
  #158 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Devil

Coral

I didn't know Chicken Little had changed his name and got a job at CivilAir.

This is more of the same-old same-old. Gee whizzz, between 4500' and 18,000' eh. Boy, all those Jumbos down at 4500 better watch out, especially just west of Merimbula!!!!

Look mate, I am prepared to consider most things here and listen to reasoned argument. An example is, I've asked questions about freqs on maps, but the sort of twaddle I just read on the CivilAir page doesn't help. In actual fact all it did was motivate me to send an e-mail to Anderson saying just that ... mindless union waffle.... ignore it and move on!

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 13:18
  #159 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Snarek,

Thanks for considering the freq. boundary question - look forward to your reply.

Gee whizzz, between 4500' and 18,000' eh. Boy, all those Jumbos down at 4500 better watch out, especially just west of Merimbula!!!!
No, probably not 4500 west of Merimbula, but definitely below 18,000 approaching 45DME SY or 30DME BN and ML. It's Class C now, but will be Class E next month. A VFR can, without any requirement to advise intentions, operate up to FL180 this close to these cities. They can potentially conflict with descending and climbing jet traffic, as well as regional RPT turbos that commonly operate below these levels on climb and descent.

There are a number of safety issues already identified in previous posts: xponder failure, radio failure, reliance on TCAS and see and avoid. Introducing E airspace in November so close to the major cities will remove some of the safety nets already in place to minimise the risk of collision (Class C airspace, radar identification, 2-way comms). It increases risk, so definitely a less safe airspace design.
Here to Help is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 13:50
  #160 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,839
Perhaps people are confused as to the role of the NASIG. They are not there to 'use their judgement', make decisions "based on professional and properly constructed grounds" etc etc. They are there to drive the change process. Any belief in altruism is laughable.
Why do you think there has been this piecemeal approach to implementation? Educational grounds? Hahaha. The whole idea was to cut it up into small enough pieces that the industry would accept the pain if drip fed it. And the holy grail is cessation of DTI. Because that is truly where any (if) money can be saved.
This whole thing is about money. Private and govt interests come together here. Any service that will be provided in the future will be cost shifted to the airlines directly (see CAGRO as an example). The exception being Air Traffic Control, because that is a de-facto tax that the govt would only give up if it was selling it. (Note to BIK: That doesn't mean ATC is unneccesary, just that the govt uses ATC for profit). PVT will get nothing (or pay thru the nose). The losers will be those most at risk (IMHO), small c commercial operators. The big end of town can afford to provide CAGRO, briefing etc, but the bank-runners/small charter/tourist ops etc are the strugglers, operating fast enough aeroplanes to get into trouble, with the least equipment fit-out. The mid-airs in the future will be between chieftains. They do the most flying in the least serviced (riskiest) airspace, no TCAS, no CAGRO, and soon no radio net. And good luck to the guys in the Dash8s etc who, even with TCAS, might not be able to avoid them.
This is a philosophical thing, this dollar-based decision making. A fundamental shift in thinking is/has taking/taken place. Telstra is slowly but surely removing services to the bush, bringing the true costs of service to country areas etc (it's a business after all
). Air services are just another step along that path (or gangplank, depending on your point of view).

Just wish they would call a spade a spade. Might not go down too well with the public, but if you have the courage of your convictions.............nothing to be ashamed of......... right?
ferris is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

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