Airspace Design - Some Background
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just for the record I've merged the other NAS thread here and closed the Radio Dick thread, for housekeeping purposes only.
Lets keep this one at the high tenor set by the V's of R eh.
W
Lets keep this one at the high tenor set by the V's of R eh.
W
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hot rumour at work is John Forsyth has fallen on his sword over this debacle.
Dick, just look at you, trying to save face...
Call me a cynic; but I believe the ARGs (your) ultimate agenda is to remove ATCs as far as practicable, it always has been. GNAF etc.
It was you that flogged (to death, $50M+) the cost benefits of proceeding with NAS even well after they were disputed by the provider in Senate Estimates; face some facts Dick, one ARG member has quit, it's time for another.
Consultation is required next time; how much Tax payer money have you, directly or indirectly, been responsible for wasting, enough is enough.
Bottle of Rum
Dick, just look at you, trying to save face...
Call me a cynic; but I believe the ARGs (your) ultimate agenda is to remove ATCs as far as practicable, it always has been. GNAF etc.
It was you that flogged (to death, $50M+) the cost benefits of proceeding with NAS even well after they were disputed by the provider in Senate Estimates; face some facts Dick, one ARG member has quit, it's time for another.
Consultation is required next time; how much Tax payer money have you, directly or indirectly, been responsible for wasting, enough is enough.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This from ABC news online:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Update: Thursday, February 12, 2004. 9:00pm (AEDT)
ASA chairman resigns
Air Services Australia (ASA) chairman John Forsyth has resigned.
Mr Forsyth has been in the position for the last eight years and has been in charge of the current review of Australia's air space rules.
Proposed changes to air space regulations are due to be presented to Transport Minister John Anderson within a week.
No explanation has so far been provided for Mr Forsyth's resignation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he jump or was he pushed? And which prominent aviation "expert" (as viewed by Anderson) will replace him? Who's next to go?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Last Update: Thursday, February 12, 2004. 9:00pm (AEDT)
ASA chairman resigns
Air Services Australia (ASA) chairman John Forsyth has resigned.
Mr Forsyth has been in the position for the last eight years and has been in charge of the current review of Australia's air space rules.
Proposed changes to air space regulations are due to be presented to Transport Minister John Anderson within a week.
No explanation has so far been provided for Mr Forsyth's resignation.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did he jump or was he pushed? And which prominent aviation "expert" (as viewed by Anderson) will replace him? Who's next to go?
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith. I find your posts to be quite scary. Your lack of understanding of what acually happens in the daily operations of a professional pilot is obvious. I first experienced your "reforms" back in the Class G debacle. After much frustration and a very near miss under that system, which you backed to the hilt at the time, I find your credability on this issue to be a bit lacking.
Sure posting lots of incidents on another thread shows your involvement but not an understanding.
The NAS has taken Australian airspace backwards 40 years. I know because I operate in it on a daily basis. Like most of my profession, I am left shaking my head at the glaring holes in the NAS.
For example. The see and avoid advice is nice if you are in a light a/c. How ever, jet transports that cruise around 480kts tas, head to head with a lightie that is doing 110kts tas makes for nearly 600kts closure. I would put it to you that by the time you have seen the target at that speed it is probably to late.
The most negligant thing in the NAS, i feel, is encouraging smaller aircraft not to use the radio. The radio is of ut most importance to separation issues and is not just a distraction.
The NAS, unfortunately, is part of our lives at the moment. This will change.
Professional aviators need professional airspace to work in. Its not a request its a requirement.
DM
Sure posting lots of incidents on another thread shows your involvement but not an understanding.
The NAS has taken Australian airspace backwards 40 years. I know because I operate in it on a daily basis. Like most of my profession, I am left shaking my head at the glaring holes in the NAS.
For example. The see and avoid advice is nice if you are in a light a/c. How ever, jet transports that cruise around 480kts tas, head to head with a lightie that is doing 110kts tas makes for nearly 600kts closure. I would put it to you that by the time you have seen the target at that speed it is probably to late.
The most negligant thing in the NAS, i feel, is encouraging smaller aircraft not to use the radio. The radio is of ut most importance to separation issues and is not just a distraction.
The NAS, unfortunately, is part of our lives at the moment. This will change.
Professional aviators need professional airspace to work in. Its not a request its a requirement.
DM
Last edited by Douglas Mcdonnell; 12th Feb 2004 at 20:50.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You still don't get it. Controllers would gladly upgrade the airspace around Ayers Rock, but don't have the authority or power. We're happy to have a tower at Broome, but we have no say in that either.
Just like Ayers Rock, Broome, or NAS, controllers have no say on airspace. We merely advise and when directed, design and operate.
Stop waving the controller saving jobs whodo voodoo doll and start listening to posters like VoR et.al.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
You still don't get it. Controllers would gladly upgrade the airspace around Ayers Rock, but don't have the authority or power. We're happy to have a tower at Broome, but we have no say in that either.
Just like Ayers Rock, Broome, or NAS, controllers have no say on airspace. We merely advise and when directed, design and operate.
Stop waving the controller saving jobs whodo voodoo doll and start listening to posters like VoR et.al.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Thanks for that Woomera, could'nt quite remember all the relevant names of the charts.
But do remember criss crossing the states with one chart in hand, with everything on it!!
All the while with the reassuring chatter from the controller providing VFR flight following!!
"Cessna XXXXX traffic is 1 o'clock and four miles four F-15's" and before I had even looked "traffic no longer a problem".
Ahhh the memories of it all.
Perhaps the other missing link, RADAR!!
Now you, me and so many others can see the problems, why cant those with the power to do something?
Cheers, HH.
But do remember criss crossing the states with one chart in hand, with everything on it!!
All the while with the reassuring chatter from the controller providing VFR flight following!!
"Cessna XXXXX traffic is 1 o'clock and four miles four F-15's" and before I had even looked "traffic no longer a problem".
Ahhh the memories of it all.
Perhaps the other missing link, RADAR!!
Now you, me and so many others can see the problems, why cant those with the power to do something?
Cheers, HH.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It just dosent make sence. I cant actually understand why Mr Smith is involved with all of this.
In what other country is major airspace reform pushed ahead by a biscuit magnate who does a bit of private flying?
What a disgrace.
To keep it interesting, could we run a tab as to when Mr smith starts to distance him self with this project. Id reckon about 8 weeks.
In what other country is major airspace reform pushed ahead by a biscuit magnate who does a bit of private flying?
What a disgrace.
To keep it interesting, could we run a tab as to when Mr smith starts to distance him self with this project. Id reckon about 8 weeks.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tick....tock....tick....tock
Douglas Mcdonnell
He has already started building firewalls around himself, I guess he will be helped/protected by JA and JH otherwise he might just take them down with him. You can bet they are very worried about that!.
Bet they are all praying no one is killed before the "fine tuning" is put into play!
The cleaners are going to have a hell of a time cleaning up the fur when this is all over!
To keep it interesting, could we run a tab as to when Mr smith starts to distance him self with this project. Id reckon about 8 weeks.
Bet they are all praying no one is killed before the "fine tuning" is put into play!
The cleaners are going to have a hell of a time cleaning up the fur when this is all over!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith wrote;
I certaibly have a suggestion. I suggest you ask Airservices how they justify it. perhaps their justification will not stand up to a proper risk/cost benefit analysis and a review might be warranted.
I am staggered that you seem to infer that Airservices bases its decision on airspace classification in accordance with my and my colleagues' personal preferences. Oh, would but it were so.
Did the same person who 'told' you this also tell you that NAS was a safer system? Perhaps you need some new advisers.
Does this mean that you will now support an objective analysis of whether or not NAS is going to be safer than the previous system?
Could you point those out to us please. I think you are wrong.
How can Airservices justify Class D airspace at Albury, with a few turbo-props, but Class G airspace at Ayers Rock, with 16 jet movements per day and loads of VFR traffic? I’ve been told it is because air traffic controllers like to live at Albury, but would not like to live at Ayers Rock. Does anyone have any other suggestions?
I am staggered that you seem to infer that Airservices bases its decision on airspace classification in accordance with my and my colleagues' personal preferences. Oh, would but it were so.
Did the same person who 'told' you this also tell you that NAS was a safer system? Perhaps you need some new advisers.
Professionalism requires objective judgement.
I find that many postings on this thread – which come from air traffic controllers and some pilots – mainly tend towards the status quo.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith continues to miss the point, that being that because there are inadequacies in some areas in service provided, that justifies reducing services in other areas. It has long been known by controllers in and around the Alice Springs/Ayers Rock area that an upgrade in facilities (ie. RADAR!!!) and airspace (ie. Class E if not C further down into Ayers Rock) is desperately needed. So to say that the lack of service around these areas justifies a reduction is service in others is just a nonsense. The fact is a radar head at Alice Springs has been needed for a long long time and there have been a number of feasiblity studies done, but nothing has ever came of it, because of the mighty dollar.
All this is not to say that the service provided by my very talented and motivated ex-colleagues on what used to be known as Sector 1/5 is anything other than top notch, its just that a radar is well overdue, and I'm sure they would welcome it (if only to get that radar rating to go with all those procedural ratings, poor guys!).
All this is not to say that the service provided by my very talented and motivated ex-colleagues on what used to be known as Sector 1/5 is anything other than top notch, its just that a radar is well overdue, and I'm sure they would welcome it (if only to get that radar rating to go with all those procedural ratings, poor guys!).
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The silliest part is, ANSA, that the money senselessly wasted on this debacle could have purchased TEN radar heads, any one of which could have served Alice admirably...(angry sigh!)
Four Seven Eleven, re objective judgement, you asked me:
As I’ve stated consistently for my 15 years of involvement in airspace changes, everything should be based on objective analysis. That is, ICAO airspace classifications should be allocated commensurate with risk. I have never changed my view on this. I am a co-founder of a prestigious organisation called the “Australian Skeptics”, which examines all subjective claims on an objective basis.
There is little doubt in my mind that if Class C airspace is required in the link airspace above Launceston, then Class B airspace would be required where the collision risk is far greater in the area close to the runway.
If you take a close look at the American airspace ICAO classification diagram that I posted on a previous thread, you will see that the airspace consistently moves up, as traffic density and mix changes, in classification from Class G to Class B.
This has been my aim for the last 15 years, and I’m pleased to say that we are gradually moving in this direction. Part of the NAS plan is to put Class E airspace into places like Ayers Rock and Broome, however it was only 5 years ago that I introduced the first Class E into Australia. That was between Canberra and Ballina, Dubbo and Broken Hill, and Mildura and Melbourne. At the time it was resisted in every way possible – I still have my newspaper cuttings. Gradually, Class E airspace is being better understood, and deemed to be more acceptable – even by professional pilots.
Despite some criticism, the reason I support Voices of Reason is because that organisation clearly understands what I understand – airspace should be allocated objectively in relation to risk. I’ve always been consistent on this, and I will always be, as this is the best way of reducing aviation fatalities.
Does this mean that you will now support an objective analysis of whether or not NAS is going to be safer than the previous system?
There is little doubt in my mind that if Class C airspace is required in the link airspace above Launceston, then Class B airspace would be required where the collision risk is far greater in the area close to the runway.
If you take a close look at the American airspace ICAO classification diagram that I posted on a previous thread, you will see that the airspace consistently moves up, as traffic density and mix changes, in classification from Class G to Class B.
This has been my aim for the last 15 years, and I’m pleased to say that we are gradually moving in this direction. Part of the NAS plan is to put Class E airspace into places like Ayers Rock and Broome, however it was only 5 years ago that I introduced the first Class E into Australia. That was between Canberra and Ballina, Dubbo and Broken Hill, and Mildura and Melbourne. At the time it was resisted in every way possible – I still have my newspaper cuttings. Gradually, Class E airspace is being better understood, and deemed to be more acceptable – even by professional pilots.
Despite some criticism, the reason I support Voices of Reason is because that organisation clearly understands what I understand – airspace should be allocated objectively in relation to risk. I’ve always been consistent on this, and I will always be, as this is the best way of reducing aviation fatalities.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
You said,
"
Sorry, mattey, but it has already been shown (by ATSB, CASA et.al) that mixing high performance RPT turbo and jet aircraft with unreported, and uncommunicative VFR aircraft is not safe. Read the report by the ATSB on the Launy incident.
So by your own admission, you would have to agree that class C airspace is required at places where RPT turbo and jet traffic mix with VFR traffic ie. where there is significant risk of fatalities.
I still stand by my statement that you DON'T understand how airspace should be allocated.
You said,
"
Despite some criticism, the reason I support Voices of Reason is because that organisation clearly understands what I understand – airspace should be allocated objectively in relation to risk. I’ve always been consistent on this, and I will always be, as this is the best way of reducing aviation fatalities.
So by your own admission, you would have to agree that class C airspace is required at places where RPT turbo and jet traffic mix with VFR traffic ie. where there is significant risk of fatalities.
I still stand by my statement that you DON'T understand how airspace should be allocated.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Down among the dead men
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grrr... suffering from extreme Dick pain
Dick my benevolent dictator "friend",
Pleased that you managed to tear yourself away from the great Ugg Boot debate long enough to break out the fiddle whilst Rome burns.
Read the Voices of Reason thread in toto rather than cherry pick the bits that distance you from the sh!tfight and try to make it look like everyone else's fault that this is going belly up. Stop throwing non-sequiturs about staffing Uluru tower and play the main game. NAS is dying and you put your personal reputation on the line for this. YOU MUST TAKE SOME OF THE FALL-OUT. You stated categorically that "...we [ATC, professional pilots and operations procedures specialists from the heavy metal customers and Airservices] just don't get it." as early as 30 November last year only days after the 2B debacle rolled-out just as you wanted it.
Dick you've been trying to get your vision across for 15 years and no-one else can see the fairies at the end of the garden despite everyone scrutinising every damn thing with a very big scrute indeed. Given that hundreds of people have been involved in your various iterations of flights of fancy for airspace reform how is it that they still keep falling over? 11/11, Airspace 2000, The "G" trial, LLAMP, and now NAS, there are three common factors in every one of them:
1. You
2. They all seems to cost more than we gain
3. They aren't safer than what we were doing anyway
I'll go further - some of them are demonstrably dangerous (the G trial in Northern NSW springs to mind). You can't explain it all away with conspiracy theories. I've been here for the duration, don't have the benefit of a Citation and millions in personal wealth to allow me to examine the world in detail, but I am a professional, have plenty of experience, read a sh!tload about what's happening OS and keep in contact with the people that are managing these processes out there, and yes, I still want the industry to be efficient. My opinion seems to be worth nothing. A lot of people both sides of the air-ground set-up feel the same.
You are good at business, you've proved that both personally and when you oversaw the painful cuts that yielded one of the most efficient air traffic service providers in the world but this just seems to be out of your reach. This could have worked, had it been approached in the responsible manner that the aviation world has learnt by way of many very hard lessons:
- CONSULT
- DESIGN and test exhaustively
- CONSULT
- INVITE PEER REVIEW
- BE PREPARED TO DEFER IF THINGS LOOK BAD
- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER IF SOMEONE SPOTS A HOLE IN THE PLAN
- KEEP AT IT UNTIL THERE ARE NO HOLES LEFT; THEN
- IMPLEMENT OVER A REALISTIC TIME FRAME
Remember the thing about old and bold pilots? There's a reason why every pilot gets told it. Look through the old crash comics for hundreds of tales about what happens when you press ahead regardless. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes simply isn't appropriate in this day and age.
Even your mate John Howard is going to back away from this one. Given that Voices of Reason and virtually every amateur airspace reformer is spotting the significant flaws in this latest debacle, how about me agreeing not to attack you personally if you stop pushing personal agendas that are unsafe, cost the country a fortune and benefit no-one and nothing except your column inches?
Pleased that you managed to tear yourself away from the great Ugg Boot debate long enough to break out the fiddle whilst Rome burns.
Read the Voices of Reason thread in toto rather than cherry pick the bits that distance you from the sh!tfight and try to make it look like everyone else's fault that this is going belly up. Stop throwing non-sequiturs about staffing Uluru tower and play the main game. NAS is dying and you put your personal reputation on the line for this. YOU MUST TAKE SOME OF THE FALL-OUT. You stated categorically that "...we [ATC, professional pilots and operations procedures specialists from the heavy metal customers and Airservices] just don't get it." as early as 30 November last year only days after the 2B debacle rolled-out just as you wanted it.
Dick you've been trying to get your vision across for 15 years and no-one else can see the fairies at the end of the garden despite everyone scrutinising every damn thing with a very big scrute indeed. Given that hundreds of people have been involved in your various iterations of flights of fancy for airspace reform how is it that they still keep falling over? 11/11, Airspace 2000, The "G" trial, LLAMP, and now NAS, there are three common factors in every one of them:
1. You
2. They all seems to cost more than we gain
3. They aren't safer than what we were doing anyway
I'll go further - some of them are demonstrably dangerous (the G trial in Northern NSW springs to mind). You can't explain it all away with conspiracy theories. I've been here for the duration, don't have the benefit of a Citation and millions in personal wealth to allow me to examine the world in detail, but I am a professional, have plenty of experience, read a sh!tload about what's happening OS and keep in contact with the people that are managing these processes out there, and yes, I still want the industry to be efficient. My opinion seems to be worth nothing. A lot of people both sides of the air-ground set-up feel the same.
You are good at business, you've proved that both personally and when you oversaw the painful cuts that yielded one of the most efficient air traffic service providers in the world but this just seems to be out of your reach. This could have worked, had it been approached in the responsible manner that the aviation world has learnt by way of many very hard lessons:
- CONSULT
- DESIGN and test exhaustively
- CONSULT
- INVITE PEER REVIEW
- BE PREPARED TO DEFER IF THINGS LOOK BAD
- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER IF SOMEONE SPOTS A HOLE IN THE PLAN
- KEEP AT IT UNTIL THERE ARE NO HOLES LEFT; THEN
- IMPLEMENT OVER A REALISTIC TIME FRAME
Remember the thing about old and bold pilots? There's a reason why every pilot gets told it. Look through the old crash comics for hundreds of tales about what happens when you press ahead regardless. Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes simply isn't appropriate in this day and age.
Even your mate John Howard is going to back away from this one. Given that Voices of Reason and virtually every amateur airspace reformer is spotting the significant flaws in this latest debacle, how about me agreeing not to attack you personally if you stop pushing personal agendas that are unsafe, cost the country a fortune and benefit no-one and nothing except your column inches?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voice of Reason:
I do appreciate your comments, and agree with most, however your quote:
Your respondent cites numerous examples where the activation of ACAS systems - whilst preventing a collision - allowed aircraft to operate in dangerous proximity. ACAS systems can and do fail - witness the unfortunate accident at Uberlingen.
raises another issue.
Is this a correct statement? As I understand the issues, it was the failure of one of the pilots to follow the RA that resulted in the collision. This should then raise alarm bells, as to why such a "mitigation" is not INCLUDED in any risk management process, as it is clear that the system design is fallible, and such input could affect any safety assessment outcome.
I do appreciate your comments, and agree with most, however your quote:
Your respondent cites numerous examples where the activation of ACAS systems - whilst preventing a collision - allowed aircraft to operate in dangerous proximity. ACAS systems can and do fail - witness the unfortunate accident at Uberlingen.
raises another issue.
Is this a correct statement? As I understand the issues, it was the failure of one of the pilots to follow the RA that resulted in the collision. This should then raise alarm bells, as to why such a "mitigation" is not INCLUDED in any risk management process, as it is clear that the system design is fallible, and such input could affect any safety assessment outcome.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sterner Stuff,
Good post but I must correct you on one point.
LAMP was nothing to do with Dick Smith...he was the one that shafted it days prior to implementation. In fact LAMP did
- CONSULT
- DESIGN and test exhaustively
- CONSULT
- INVITE PEER REVIEW
- BE PREPARED TO DEFER IF THINGS LOOK BAD
- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER IF SOMEONE SPOTS A HOLE IN THE PLAN
- KEEP AT IT UNTIL THERE ARE NO HOLES LEFT; THEN
- IMPLEMENT OVER A REALISTIC TIME FRAME
Iwent to about a dozen meetings with industry in the 12 months I was associated with the LAMP. And guess what, there were cost savings for the industry. Cancelling LAMP meant that AsA suddenly had a staffing crisis on their hands as they had to begin recruiting for all the ATC staff cutbacks they were going to have by natural attrition (eg. retirements, resignations, etc).
Dick has cost the Australian Aviation industry in money, reputation and consumer confidence. If their is a villian in this sad and sorry tale, its Dick Smith.
Good post but I must correct you on one point.
LAMP was nothing to do with Dick Smith...he was the one that shafted it days prior to implementation. In fact LAMP did
- CONSULT
- DESIGN and test exhaustively
- CONSULT
- INVITE PEER REVIEW
- BE PREPARED TO DEFER IF THINGS LOOK BAD
- DON'T SHOOT THE MESSENGER IF SOMEONE SPOTS A HOLE IN THE PLAN
- KEEP AT IT UNTIL THERE ARE NO HOLES LEFT; THEN
- IMPLEMENT OVER A REALISTIC TIME FRAME
Iwent to about a dozen meetings with industry in the 12 months I was associated with the LAMP. And guess what, there were cost savings for the industry. Cancelling LAMP meant that AsA suddenly had a staffing crisis on their hands as they had to begin recruiting for all the ATC staff cutbacks they were going to have by natural attrition (eg. retirements, resignations, etc).
Dick has cost the Australian Aviation industry in money, reputation and consumer confidence. If their is a villian in this sad and sorry tale, its Dick Smith.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
So, was that a yes or a no?
Many words, but you fail to answer the question which you quoted. I ask again, will you support an objective analysis of whether or not NAS (or any new system) is safer than the system it replaces?
It has been argued on these forums that NAS, whatever its merits, is not as safe as the previous system. It is incumbent therefore on those entrusted with air safety to justify the reduction in safety with tangible benefits. Merely waffling on about how the US has certain traffic levels and is ‘safe’ is not enough. We need to know if we are moving towards a safer or less safe system and understand the reasons why.
Given that the empirical data suggests that the US system is both more expensive and less safe than the pre-NAS2B airspace, why do you continue to evade the basic questions as to relative safety? Is it because you know that the relative safety and cost of NAS is indefensible by facts?
So, was that a yes or a no?
Many words, but you fail to answer the question which you quoted. I ask again, will you support an objective analysis of whether or not NAS (or any new system) is safer than the system it replaces?
It has been argued on these forums that NAS, whatever its merits, is not as safe as the previous system. It is incumbent therefore on those entrusted with air safety to justify the reduction in safety with tangible benefits. Merely waffling on about how the US has certain traffic levels and is ‘safe’ is not enough. We need to know if we are moving towards a safer or less safe system and understand the reasons why.
Given that the empirical data suggests that the US system is both more expensive and less safe than the pre-NAS2B airspace, why do you continue to evade the basic questions as to relative safety? Is it because you know that the relative safety and cost of NAS is indefensible by facts?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why is Anderson backing into a corner?
From yesterdays Hansard
So does this mean nothing will change?
Transport: National Airspace System
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (3.52 p.m.)—I can assure you that no-one owns me; I am not sure about
those on the other side of the House. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the minister stand by his statement in this House of 27 November last that the National Airspace System is a ‘safer, more productive and efficient system’?
Mr ANDERSON—I thank the honourable member for his question and trust that he is feeling better. We are in the process of reforming airspace in Australia.
Opposition members—Ha, ha!
Mr ANDERSON—As a matter of fact, we are. We are on the way to international harmonisation. There are something like 50-odd steps in that process, of which only a limited number have been completed. I stand completely by the view expressed to me by people who are expert in this area—
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Batman has asked a question!
Mr ANDERSON—and I stand by my own conviction—
Ms O’Byrne interjecting—
The SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bass!
Mr ANDERSON—that the National Airspace System will produce better safety outcomes for the traveling public in this country and will allow for a more relevant concentration of finite safety resources in the areas of greatest safety risk. The proposition that, somehow or other, a proven international aviation airspace management system—which is used in a country where there are four times the levels of aviation activity as there are in Australia—
Ms O’Byrne interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Bass will excuse herself from the House! The member for Bass then left the chamber.
Mr ANDERSON—where the weather is less clement than it is in Australia, and where the aviation safety record is outstanding—is somehow not safe or is less safe than what we have now is palpably nonsense. I remain absolutely consistent in my view that moving to NAS is in the interests of the travelling public of Australia.
Mr MARTIN FERGUSON (3.52 p.m.)—I can assure you that no-one owns me; I am not sure about
those on the other side of the House. My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services. Does the minister stand by his statement in this House of 27 November last that the National Airspace System is a ‘safer, more productive and efficient system’?
Mr ANDERSON—I thank the honourable member for his question and trust that he is feeling better. We are in the process of reforming airspace in Australia.
Opposition members—Ha, ha!
Mr ANDERSON—As a matter of fact, we are. We are on the way to international harmonisation. There are something like 50-odd steps in that process, of which only a limited number have been completed. I stand completely by the view expressed to me by people who are expert in this area—
Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Batman has asked a question!
Mr ANDERSON—and I stand by my own conviction—
Ms O’Byrne interjecting—
The SPEAKER—I warn the member for Bass!
Mr ANDERSON—that the National Airspace System will produce better safety outcomes for the traveling public in this country and will allow for a more relevant concentration of finite safety resources in the areas of greatest safety risk. The proposition that, somehow or other, a proven international aviation airspace management system—which is used in a country where there are four times the levels of aviation activity as there are in Australia—
Ms O’Byrne interjecting—
The SPEAKER—The member for Bass will excuse herself from the House! The member for Bass then left the chamber.
Mr ANDERSON—where the weather is less clement than it is in Australia, and where the aviation safety record is outstanding—is somehow not safe or is less safe than what we have now is palpably nonsense. I remain absolutely consistent in my view that moving to NAS is in the interests of the travelling public of Australia.