The NAS, facts and fantasies
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have to wonder about the following on the NAS web site:
This site is hosted by Australia's Department of Transport and Regional Services.
DISCLAIMER - Material and opinions contained within are solely those of the Australian Airspace Reform and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the position of the Department.
???????????????????????????????????
This site is hosted by Australia's Department of Transport and Regional Services.
DISCLAIMER - Material and opinions contained within are solely those of the Australian Airspace Reform and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the position of the Department.
???????????????????????????????????
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here to Help
my point entirely.
ferris
I thought that is how politics worked.
And we are going round in circles.
There may some interesting developments afoot.
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".
ferris
I thought that is how politics worked.
And we are going round in circles.
There may some interesting developments afoot.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS
HERE TO HELP
Thanks for opening my eyes to something I missed, but is very apparent VFR pilots are systematically being directed to non radio usage, lack of freq on maps ,Landing lights QNH etc.
It explains the incredible resistance to allowing MBZs to remain at the bigger ports. I have sat down with the main players and asked why why why. The analysis shows it is not less safe (apologies Gaunty) but in this case it is unacceptably risky. This follows AA computer modelling and CASA analysis. Ref CASA 2003 MBZ vs CTAF(aus) using acceptable risk criteria for minor and major loss of life.
Now I see the reason for the blanket NO NO NO to MBZ it goes against the no-calls-culture that NAS is nurturing for VFR. So even though safety can be increased to acceptable levels for no cost MBZs are still off the agenda.
Acceptability criteria is not the domain of poticians but scientific risk analysis in this case it is the politics that is distorting the normal process.
Gaunty I like your clothing analogy.Non radio usage in certain circumstances is an unacceptable risk. So to was synthetic clothing. When used for night wear, after a number of horrific deaths and kids and grannies burnt it was banned from these garments.
Similarly you may get away with no radio calls enroute with an associated drop in safety, due to the big sky, but not around busy uncontrolled airports where the action is too hot.
That ichy fabric near the heater became a killer and it was not the designers or manufactures that wore the scars or attended the funerals.
Thanks for opening my eyes to something I missed, but is very apparent VFR pilots are systematically being directed to non radio usage, lack of freq on maps ,Landing lights QNH etc.
It explains the incredible resistance to allowing MBZs to remain at the bigger ports. I have sat down with the main players and asked why why why. The analysis shows it is not less safe (apologies Gaunty) but in this case it is unacceptably risky. This follows AA computer modelling and CASA analysis. Ref CASA 2003 MBZ vs CTAF(aus) using acceptable risk criteria for minor and major loss of life.
Now I see the reason for the blanket NO NO NO to MBZ it goes against the no-calls-culture that NAS is nurturing for VFR. So even though safety can be increased to acceptable levels for no cost MBZs are still off the agenda.
Acceptability criteria is not the domain of poticians but scientific risk analysis in this case it is the politics that is distorting the normal process.
Gaunty I like your clothing analogy.Non radio usage in certain circumstances is an unacceptable risk. So to was synthetic clothing. When used for night wear, after a number of horrific deaths and kids and grannies burnt it was banned from these garments.
Similarly you may get away with no radio calls enroute with an associated drop in safety, due to the big sky, but not around busy uncontrolled airports where the action is too hot.
That ichy fabric near the heater became a killer and it was not the designers or manufactures that wore the scars or attended the funerals.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Riding different horses.
Ferris
Dealing with AOPA issues and dealing with political ideology are two different things.
Most who own aircraft lean towards 'Liberalism', for me to push my politics would be unacceptable unless I declared that was my intent prior to election.
HOWEVER, Jane Errey, my partner and fellow Board member was National Vice President of the Democrats for a year and an exec member for many more. Me, I find the Democrats too right wing and work hard at election time to ensure 'leveraged voting' happens. By leveraged I mean Lefty enough to scare the Liberal's running mates, the ALP, back into the land of realistic alternative.
NAS, I personally am not an airspace expert. I'd say gaunty feels the same. This is why we post here and really do consider your views. However, it is beholden on us to listen to members views more carefully. Now, there ain't many 'involved' members, believe me, if you three 'rational' ATC PPRuNe'rs joined and expreesed you will to the Board followed by a member number, you could make a BIG difference.
PERSONALLY I see no real problem with NAS2b EXCEPT I fail to see how a low time PPL is going to be able to read position from a SCALED VFR chart, then interpolate that to an UNSCALED and VARIABLE ERC with enough accuracy to be on the right freq when the meatbombs drop or the IFR takes off out of Dunk. But like I said that is a PERSONAL opinion that the Board is aware of and which was taken into account when the Board formulated its current Board policy.
AK
Dealing with AOPA issues and dealing with political ideology are two different things.
Most who own aircraft lean towards 'Liberalism', for me to push my politics would be unacceptable unless I declared that was my intent prior to election.
HOWEVER, Jane Errey, my partner and fellow Board member was National Vice President of the Democrats for a year and an exec member for many more. Me, I find the Democrats too right wing and work hard at election time to ensure 'leveraged voting' happens. By leveraged I mean Lefty enough to scare the Liberal's running mates, the ALP, back into the land of realistic alternative.
NAS, I personally am not an airspace expert. I'd say gaunty feels the same. This is why we post here and really do consider your views. However, it is beholden on us to listen to members views more carefully. Now, there ain't many 'involved' members, believe me, if you three 'rational' ATC PPRuNe'rs joined and expreesed you will to the Board followed by a member number, you could make a BIG difference.
PERSONALLY I see no real problem with NAS2b EXCEPT I fail to see how a low time PPL is going to be able to read position from a SCALED VFR chart, then interpolate that to an UNSCALED and VARIABLE ERC with enough accuracy to be on the right freq when the meatbombs drop or the IFR takes off out of Dunk. But like I said that is a PERSONAL opinion that the Board is aware of and which was taken into account when the Board formulated its current Board policy.
AK
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
I personally believe that the NAS 2B debate is becoming too fractured. Much is said about the frequency issue. My personal belief on that is that there is an incremental decrease in safety with absolutely no practical or economic benefit.
My greatest concern is the significant decrease in safety imposed by the replacement of Class C airspace with Class E in areas of high volumes of RPT traffic.
The relative danger of this airspace is readily apparent: International jets, descending into Sydney will no longer receive a separation service from VFR traffic. This occurs during a critical phase of flight, when cockpit workload is likely to be high. Pilots will be involved in working out STAR level and speed requirements, possibly on vectors for sequencing, or under speed control. To remove separation (from VFR) services at this stage of flight will have a significant deleterious effect on the safety of the fare-paying public. I contend that that this will occur with no significant advantage to GA. The ‘BS’ theory is not enough in this relatively busy airspace.
Remember that a mid-air collision did occur in the United States (San Diego????) between a B727 and a C172, even though traffic information had been passed. The B727 crew saw one aircraft, but failed to see the one with which they eventually collided. (Edited to correct aircraft types)
Will charges to the airlines be reduced to compensate for the lower level of service? I fear not. Will the ability for VFR aircraft to climb unrestricted into this airspace lead to a revival of the GA industry? I doubt it.
The entire industry can be damaged by a single serious safety incident. One mid-air collision could easily cost well over a billion dollars in damages claims, and the concomitant damage to the reputation of Australian aviation would be incalculable.
This is why I believe that this aspect of NAS 2 B needs to be looked at and reversed as a matter of urgency.
The CEO of Airservices has said that NAS 2B is safe. Safety is not a yes/no question. What he has not addressed is the question of whether it is more or less safe than the current system. I believe that it is less safe. This reduction in safety needs to be justified. I don't believe it has been or can be.
Like a Volvo, the current system might be "boxy, but safe". Is it worth trading the family Volvo for a Trabant, when the costs are nearly the same?
I personally believe that the NAS 2B debate is becoming too fractured. Much is said about the frequency issue. My personal belief on that is that there is an incremental decrease in safety with absolutely no practical or economic benefit.
My greatest concern is the significant decrease in safety imposed by the replacement of Class C airspace with Class E in areas of high volumes of RPT traffic.
The relative danger of this airspace is readily apparent: International jets, descending into Sydney will no longer receive a separation service from VFR traffic. This occurs during a critical phase of flight, when cockpit workload is likely to be high. Pilots will be involved in working out STAR level and speed requirements, possibly on vectors for sequencing, or under speed control. To remove separation (from VFR) services at this stage of flight will have a significant deleterious effect on the safety of the fare-paying public. I contend that that this will occur with no significant advantage to GA. The ‘BS’ theory is not enough in this relatively busy airspace.
Remember that a mid-air collision did occur in the United States (San Diego????) between a B727 and a C172, even though traffic information had been passed. The B727 crew saw one aircraft, but failed to see the one with which they eventually collided. (Edited to correct aircraft types)
Will charges to the airlines be reduced to compensate for the lower level of service? I fear not. Will the ability for VFR aircraft to climb unrestricted into this airspace lead to a revival of the GA industry? I doubt it.
The entire industry can be damaged by a single serious safety incident. One mid-air collision could easily cost well over a billion dollars in damages claims, and the concomitant damage to the reputation of Australian aviation would be incalculable.
This is why I believe that this aspect of NAS 2 B needs to be looked at and reversed as a matter of urgency.
The CEO of Airservices has said that NAS 2B is safe. Safety is not a yes/no question. What he has not addressed is the question of whether it is more or less safe than the current system. I believe that it is less safe. This reduction in safety needs to be justified. I don't believe it has been or can be.
Like a Volvo, the current system might be "boxy, but safe". Is it worth trading the family Volvo for a Trabant, when the costs are nearly the same?
Last edited by Four Seven Eleven; 27th Oct 2003 at 05:10.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek old fruit
You admit you are not an airspace expert. Your posts indicate an insular view of the total system. With all due respect, if your understanding of how the busy centres function, maybe you would realise NAS 2b creates an increased risk to a majority of users. Many of the users have been questioning the rationale of 2b. These people know what they're talking about. They are the one's whose career's hinge on safety assurance. 2b offers no safety assurance for controllers or pilots.
Aircraft are invisible outside 50nm of the main centres which have primary radar, if transponders are faulty or not switched on. From personal experience, this happens regularly. Remote radars are SSR only, so any enroute transponder problems means invisibilty to ATC and TCAS.
It's too late now, old buddy, to start considering these basic flaws in 2b.
4711 is exactly correct. If you are an enroute controller, I hope AsA is there to back you up when it goes tits up.
Good luck, you're going to need more of it.
CG
Aircraft are invisible outside 50nm of the main centres which have primary radar, if transponders are faulty or not switched on. From personal experience, this happens regularly. Remote radars are SSR only, so any enroute transponder problems means invisibilty to ATC and TCAS.
It's too late now, old buddy, to start considering these basic flaws in 2b.
4711 is exactly correct. If you are an enroute controller, I hope AsA is there to back you up when it goes tits up.
Good luck, you're going to need more of it.
CG
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Smith, from a very credible source.
"NAS 2b represents a reduction in service not a reduction in safety."
Well that says it all; separation is simply a service not required for safety.
Bottle of Rum
"NAS 2b represents a reduction in service not a reduction in safety."
Well that says it all; separation is simply a service not required for safety.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Woomera,
I think this topic has done its dash.
The battle lines are staked out, the minister is an ignorant fool believing his own publicity, and nobody here has bothered to read the last 16 pages because the same diatribe keeps coming up.
Might as well close it and get ready for the 11th hour cancellation ...once again. Millions wasted yet again.
I think this topic has done its dash.
The battle lines are staked out, the minister is an ignorant fool believing his own publicity, and nobody here has bothered to read the last 16 pages because the same diatribe keeps coming up.
Might as well close it and get ready for the 11th hour cancellation ...once again. Millions wasted yet again.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes i was wasn't I. I managed to point out once again that you (AOPA) don't really know about NAS 2b wich you say AOPA support. You posted in that other fr0um that you though a 2 minute broadcast was a good idea 
. We have it now and will have it under 2b as well. Please research further for the good of us all. Think of the children, please think of the children!
. We have it now and will have it under 2b as well. Please research further for the good of us all. Think of the children, please think of the children!
Last edited by tobzalp; 27th Oct 2003 at 13:56.
All,
Have a good look at Australian FLYING magazine for November/December.
There is a whole supplement on the NAS 2b procedures and recommendations for NOV 27 and on, and it all looks pretty simple and straightforward to me. As simple as flying in US.
There has been a lot of angst about timetables for getting Training and Educational packages out, but here is the guts of it, in the magazines.
Flying folks are starting to receive the chart package in the mail now, I'm told there is lots more on the way, but the info. in FLYING Nov/Dec issue really illustrates that there is no great hurdle to jump, to cope with life in the new world order.
I guess that we will all learn to live with the demise of the "fly by mouth" system of aviating, again !! ( in joke only inderstood by geriatric Qf types)
Tootle pip!!
Have a good look at Australian FLYING magazine for November/December.
There is a whole supplement on the NAS 2b procedures and recommendations for NOV 27 and on, and it all looks pretty simple and straightforward to me. As simple as flying in US.
There has been a lot of angst about timetables for getting Training and Educational packages out, but here is the guts of it, in the magazines.
Flying folks are starting to receive the chart package in the mail now, I'm told there is lots more on the way, but the info. in FLYING Nov/Dec issue really illustrates that there is no great hurdle to jump, to cope with life in the new world order.
I guess that we will all learn to live with the demise of the "fly by mouth" system of aviating, again !! ( in joke only inderstood by geriatric Qf types)
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And on that note I think this subject has exhausted itself for the moment.
I expect we will hear what came out of the GAPAN meeting in Brisvegas today.
And then you can have at it all over again, in the meantime lets give Dannys bandwidth a break.
W
I expect we will hear what came out of the GAPAN meeting in Brisvegas today.
And then you can have at it all over again, in the meantime lets give Dannys bandwidth a break.
W
