ATC Exaggerates NAS: AOPA
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Heavies in MBZs??
Ethel,
A 737 is not a heavy, it's a medium.
4 near hits in 12 months
compared to
12 near hits in 2 months (they are not all on the ATSB website yet because it takes time to get them there, but they are on the ESIR database)
Which airspace seems to be safer?
Hmmmmm......
A 737 is not a heavy, it's a medium.
4 near hits in 12 months
compared to
12 near hits in 2 months (they are not all on the ATSB website yet because it takes time to get them there, but they are on the ESIR database)
Which airspace seems to be safer?
Hmmmmm......
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris, Give it Away
Ferris,
Now how did I know you were going to be so offensive again. Probably just your personality.
You've gone from suggesting shooting down 'pesky' light a/c with SAM missiles to casting aspersions on Queenslanders. Stupid comment.
Yes, I am from Queensland (but was born in Victoria) and by your idiotic derogatory comment about Queenslanders you offend a large sector of Australia's aviation community.
I strongly suggest that if you haven't got the mentality to debate the subject with some intellect, give it away.
Finally, if "over there" is Abu Dhabi or any other such place, take my advice and STAY THERE.
P.S. Don't bother replying to this thanks.
Now how did I know you were going to be so offensive again. Probably just your personality.
You've gone from suggesting shooting down 'pesky' light a/c with SAM missiles to casting aspersions on Queenslanders. Stupid comment.
Yes, I am from Queensland (but was born in Victoria) and by your idiotic derogatory comment about Queenslanders you offend a large sector of Australia's aviation community.
I strongly suggest that if you haven't got the mentality to debate the subject with some intellect, give it away.
Finally, if "over there" is Abu Dhabi or any other such place, take my advice and STAY THERE.
P.S. Don't bother replying to this thanks.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Qld
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety these days seems to be about risk management (Swiss cheese model). NAS clearly increases the risk (holes in the cheese) rather than decreases it. ATC are against it, professional pilots are against it.
Why you have 2 aircraft in the same airspace but one (a lightie with a more inexperienced pilot) not under ATC control and on a different frequency (or not supposed to broadcast) is completely beyond me, with the onus on the pilots to avoid each other?? You try spotting a lightie when travelling at 250+kts (usually this is occuring on descent), they are a speck in the sky, thank goodness for TCAS. Of course that scenario increases workload on pilot and ATC, increasing the risk.
The situational awareness of all involved plummets, again increasing the potential risk! What has happened to promoting airmanship?? I thought flying was largely based on situational awareness? Well according to this new system it's no longer required!
Why is AOPA supporting this system? So some weekend warriors can fly into new airspace? I'm not tarring all with the same brush but when the onus is left to a pilot who flies once a month, and has low experience, again the risk increases. Just sit in a busy CTAF, or at a GAAP before the tower opens. Not a pretty picture! From experience I would say 1 in 10 seem to be a problem. Poor procedures (joining cct in wrong direction, not broadcasting when conflicting track/altitude, etc), let alone very poor radio skills, yet this system promotes that exact behaviour! No procedures/radio calls required.
All the professional bodies oppose this system, after all, they're only the ones who use it day after day, not one weekend a month! Of all the facets of our industry, GA (especially the GA pilot) is the one which really needs a highly professional, smart and strong representation. Join the real world AOPA and stop proving yourselves to be a bunch of amateurs!
Why you have 2 aircraft in the same airspace but one (a lightie with a more inexperienced pilot) not under ATC control and on a different frequency (or not supposed to broadcast) is completely beyond me, with the onus on the pilots to avoid each other?? You try spotting a lightie when travelling at 250+kts (usually this is occuring on descent), they are a speck in the sky, thank goodness for TCAS. Of course that scenario increases workload on pilot and ATC, increasing the risk.
The situational awareness of all involved plummets, again increasing the potential risk! What has happened to promoting airmanship?? I thought flying was largely based on situational awareness? Well according to this new system it's no longer required!
Why is AOPA supporting this system? So some weekend warriors can fly into new airspace? I'm not tarring all with the same brush but when the onus is left to a pilot who flies once a month, and has low experience, again the risk increases. Just sit in a busy CTAF, or at a GAAP before the tower opens. Not a pretty picture! From experience I would say 1 in 10 seem to be a problem. Poor procedures (joining cct in wrong direction, not broadcasting when conflicting track/altitude, etc), let alone very poor radio skills, yet this system promotes that exact behaviour! No procedures/radio calls required.
All the professional bodies oppose this system, after all, they're only the ones who use it day after day, not one weekend a month! Of all the facets of our industry, GA (especially the GA pilot) is the one which really needs a highly professional, smart and strong representation. Join the real world AOPA and stop proving yourselves to be a bunch of amateurs!
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hadagutful.
Stupid comment.
Stupid comment. I didn't realise you were the voice of the aviation community. Most people can recognize a joke, so would have to be extremely thin skinned to be offended.
Stupid comment. I thought I had made any number of posts on the pitfalls of NAS, most of which remain unanswered by the pro-NAS intellectual giants such as yourself. Where is all your reasoned debate about the wonders of NAS?
I wouldn't have, until you issued that commandment. Stupid comment.
What I am sick of is AOPA trotting out a new protagonist every 2 weeks, so that we can go over and over the same ground.
ps. Don't bother replying to this thanks. bwahahahahahaha!!!
Probably just your personality.
you offend a large sector of Australia's aviation community.
I strongly suggest that if you haven't got the mentality to debate the subject with some intellect, give it away
P.S. Don't bother replying to this thanks
What I am sick of is AOPA trotting out a new protagonist every 2 weeks, so that we can go over and over the same ground.
ps. Don't bother replying to this thanks. bwahahahahahaha!!!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Think again guys
There would be no aviation industry if we had a major airliner down once every 100 yrs.
That means a midair every 2-3 years around the world.
For catastrophic events in risk analysis we use multiples of 1 in 10,000 years for a particular mode of failure as they add or multiply up. For one particular mode ie: midair to be at 100 per 10,000 years would leave no room for any other mode of major airline failure as this is already bordering on being a unacceptable limit.
Think of it this way if each part in your aircraft had a 1 chance of breaking every hundred years your chances of even making one long flight would be slim. Remember a mid air is random so the gear breakage in your aircraft is random and not dependant on age. You have 10,000 parts? Your aircraft failure rate is Yikes.
Your house should be above the 1 in 100yr flood level and that is just to stop you suing if your carpets got wet. A 1in 100 storm should cause minor damage though not threaten the integrity of a structure eg: bridge, building, house, airport hangar.
With all respect the AOPA President clearly knows abolutely nothing about risk assessment and event statistics. He should take advise before commentig publically on a matter he has not the slightest knowlegde of.
There would be no aviation industry if we had a major airliner down once every 100 yrs.
That means a midair every 2-3 years around the world.
For catastrophic events in risk analysis we use multiples of 1 in 10,000 years for a particular mode of failure as they add or multiply up. For one particular mode ie: midair to be at 100 per 10,000 years would leave no room for any other mode of major airline failure as this is already bordering on being a unacceptable limit.
Think of it this way if each part in your aircraft had a 1 chance of breaking every hundred years your chances of even making one long flight would be slim. Remember a mid air is random so the gear breakage in your aircraft is random and not dependant on age. You have 10,000 parts? Your aircraft failure rate is Yikes.
Your house should be above the 1 in 100yr flood level and that is just to stop you suing if your carpets got wet. A 1in 100 storm should cause minor damage though not threaten the integrity of a structure eg: bridge, building, house, airport hangar.
With all respect the AOPA President clearly knows abolutely nothing about risk assessment and event statistics. He should take advise before commentig publically on a matter he has not the slightest knowlegde of.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 62
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
funny coincidence
Ferris....
I could possibly be wrong, but your comment about the new protaganist every two weeks was interesting.
I've been reading these NAS threads with interest and have noticed from the beginning that the same "style and content" method of posting has been used by a few Pro NAS posters.
To whit....Snarek, ULM, and now Pesawat-terbang.
Funny how that pillar of AOPA Mr. Adam Karens who signs off all his on line correspondence with "AK".
Funny also that AK owns the aircraft VH-ULM (see aircraft register) Amazing coincidence that.
Funny how Pesawat signed off one of his recent pro NAS posts, seemingly pretending to be the village idiot, with "AK".
OVer to you snarek-ulm-peserat for comments.
I could possibly be wrong, but your comment about the new protaganist every two weeks was interesting.
I've been reading these NAS threads with interest and have noticed from the beginning that the same "style and content" method of posting has been used by a few Pro NAS posters.
To whit....Snarek, ULM, and now Pesawat-terbang.
Funny how that pillar of AOPA Mr. Adam Karens who signs off all his on line correspondence with "AK".
Funny also that AK owns the aircraft VH-ULM (see aircraft register) Amazing coincidence that.
Funny how Pesawat signed off one of his recent pro NAS posts, seemingly pretending to be the village idiot, with "AK".
OVer to you snarek-ulm-peserat for comments.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
divingduck,
You forgot to mention the funniest part about that whole unsavoury incident!!! That Mr Kerans was actually giving himself a very public well-done-you-deserve-a-pat-on-the-back when he inadvertently signed off with the AK.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I won't be renewing my AOPA membership until he and all others of his ilk are long gone.
Adamastor
P.S. Geez, that Adamastor's a good bloke isn't he!!! And handsome to boot!!! Tee hee.
You forgot to mention the funniest part about that whole unsavoury incident!!! That Mr Kerans was actually giving himself a very public well-done-you-deserve-a-pat-on-the-back when he inadvertently signed off with the AK.
As I mentioned elsewhere, I won't be renewing my AOPA membership until he and all others of his ilk are long gone.
Adamastor
P.S. Geez, that Adamastor's a good bloke isn't he!!! And handsome to boot!!! Tee hee.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hadagutful the NAS bandwagon is so 2003.
Did not expect fine tuning? This was billed as the US system. Under the premise of this there is absolutely no scope to fine tune as it would then no longer be the US system and proper consultation would have to take place.
And you call others dumb? I extend my usual invitation. Every time you think of posting, pm me what you are thinking about and I will proof it for you to stop situations that make you look so uneducated.
Did not expect fine tuning? This was billed as the US system. Under the premise of this there is absolutely no scope to fine tune as it would then no longer be the US system and proper consultation would have to take place.
And you call others dumb? I extend my usual invitation. Every time you think of posting, pm me what you are thinking about and I will proof it for you to stop situations that make you look so uneducated.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just an opinion
OK Tobzalp et al,
Don't mean to be offensive to anyone re 'dumb' remark, just a bit tongue in cheek actually.
The NAS is probably not the perfect system if there is such a thing anywhere in the aviation world but it is an attempt at reform to enhance cost efficiencies without compromising safety.
If safety becomes an issue then the right thing to do is undertake a review taking into account feedback form the various parties.
Don't mean to be offensive to anyone re 'dumb' remark, just a bit tongue in cheek actually.
The NAS is probably not the perfect system if there is such a thing anywhere in the aviation world but it is an attempt at reform to enhance cost efficiencies without compromising safety.
If safety becomes an issue then the right thing to do is undertake a review taking into account feedback form the various parties.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Had a gut full - so have I.
Hadagutful,
You've done it again.
Industry consultation for airspace reform? You just don't get it do you?
The "refine NAS" is spin doctor speak.
Industry consultation was a major reason for the support for LAMP which Dick Smith scuttled days before it was to be implemented.
Now Dick's NAS is about to be scuttled because there has been NO industry consultation, and Dick has ignored ALL the professional advice about the shortcomings of NAS. Now the industry incident investigator (ATSB) has advised that radical, I say again, radical changes need to be made to NAS.
The AsA Board have been advised that under NAS they will be legally liable for any accident that occurs. The Board know that under NAS there are NO cost efficiencies. In fact it will cost them money. At the current estimate, probably close to 100 million (if you take into account cancellation of LAMP). They are ducking for cover. The airlines should not expect any reduction in avcharges this year.
The whole sorry mess is about to come tumbling down. Hopefully the mess can be sorted out before there is an accident. Remember the NAS airspace exists right now and will take time to rectify.
You've done it again.
Industry consultation for airspace reform? You just don't get it do you?
The "refine NAS" is spin doctor speak.
Industry consultation was a major reason for the support for LAMP which Dick Smith scuttled days before it was to be implemented.
Now Dick's NAS is about to be scuttled because there has been NO industry consultation, and Dick has ignored ALL the professional advice about the shortcomings of NAS. Now the industry incident investigator (ATSB) has advised that radical, I say again, radical changes need to be made to NAS.
The AsA Board have been advised that under NAS they will be legally liable for any accident that occurs. The Board know that under NAS there are NO cost efficiencies. In fact it will cost them money. At the current estimate, probably close to 100 million (if you take into account cancellation of LAMP). They are ducking for cover. The airlines should not expect any reduction in avcharges this year.
The whole sorry mess is about to come tumbling down. Hopefully the mess can be sorted out before there is an accident. Remember the NAS airspace exists right now and will take time to rectify.
This was billed as the US system. Under the premise of this there is absolutely no scope to fine tune as it would then no longer be the US system and proper consultation would have to take place.
This is inherently insulting for two reasons:
1. it prohibits any further form of consultation or refinement - how can you possibly fine tune something which is already "the best" and
2. those who are against it, such as most of us here and with very good reason, are guilty of supporting a lesser system.
I've heard this expression used many times before in many different idioms and each time it related to something that failed or was withdrawn shortly after its implementation which always leaves me wondering just who it is that gets to decide what is "world's best"
Atlas
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A colleague from Darwin tells me that a motion was moved at the last NT RAPAC meeting supporting the change of E airspace outside of radar coverage back to C airspace.
Also received minutes of the meeting between Unions/Staff Associations and CASA held in Sydney in January.
Certainly a lot of evidence of support from professional people for a rollback to at least what we had.
Heads should roll, especially as this is the second cock up with airspace in a short period. Any further airspace reviews should with the professional users of the airspace, not the week end warriors or the adventurers.
One wonders whether Mike Smith will invite the King's back to show how we went wrong??????????
Also received minutes of the meeting between Unions/Staff Associations and CASA held in Sydney in January.
Certainly a lot of evidence of support from professional people for a rollback to at least what we had.
Heads should roll, especially as this is the second cock up with airspace in a short period. Any further airspace reviews should with the professional users of the airspace, not the week end warriors or the adventurers.
One wonders whether Mike Smith will invite the King's back to show how we went wrong??????????
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Golden Road to Samarkand
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hadagutful: "...it is an attempt at reform to enhance cost efficiencies without compromising safety."
ummm... on a daily basis, I'm watching A330's and B737's executing 90 degree right-hand turns at the last minute to avoid a TCAS Resolution Advisory in response to a close proximity C208 VFR parachuting aircraft (VH-OAI), operating in the vicinity of Brooklands dropzone near York on the approaches into Perth.
On each occasion, the aircraft add approximately 20NM to their track miles by the time they've regained track. I'm not a pilot, so, perhaps an A330 rated pilot could tell us all how many tonnes of fuel an A330 burns over 20NM at 300KTS at FL150 during descent to destination with the turn executed at, what was originally, 55 track miles to run...?
Ask QANTAS and Virgin Blue how much they're saving through "cost efficiencies" associated through NAS...
I think the emphasis should be on the word "cost" and not "efficiencies"...
ummm... on a daily basis, I'm watching A330's and B737's executing 90 degree right-hand turns at the last minute to avoid a TCAS Resolution Advisory in response to a close proximity C208 VFR parachuting aircraft (VH-OAI), operating in the vicinity of Brooklands dropzone near York on the approaches into Perth.
On each occasion, the aircraft add approximately 20NM to their track miles by the time they've regained track. I'm not a pilot, so, perhaps an A330 rated pilot could tell us all how many tonnes of fuel an A330 burns over 20NM at 300KTS at FL150 during descent to destination with the turn executed at, what was originally, 55 track miles to run...?
Ask QANTAS and Virgin Blue how much they're saving through "cost efficiencies" associated through NAS...
I think the emphasis should be on the word "cost" and not "efficiencies"...
