Airspace Design - Some Background

[Adamastor]

I just wish Chris Manning had been as quiet as the rest of them - reading the transcript of his interview made me physically ill!!!

I wonder whether his self-promoting lies will get him his coveted position outside line management, or perhaps its the political arena he's been promised like Uncle Dick?! How does a person like that make those sort of statements and then sleep soundly at night?! Just disgusting.

[OverRun]

Let me come to the defence of Capt Chris Manning. I am quite outside of Qantas, although I have interviewed Capt Manning in a closed and confidential meeting with respect to safety issues around NAS.

He is sitting in an extraordinarily difficult position and has many stakeholders to satisfy. His job is to be Chief Pilot of Qantas, not to design airspace or work for the Government doing their air safety, or audit a safety case. His words in the interview were chosen, as carefully as ever, to discharge the requirements of his job and that is as much as he can be expected to publicly do.

If you are looking for people to criticise, what about the ones who are being paid to design the airspace, being paid to do the safety cases, and being paid to audit the safety cases? And the people who are being paid to sit above them and manage the process, and the board who sits above them and gets paid to make sure the job is being done properly.

None of those are Qantas or Capt Manning. In fact what I've seen from Qantas and many other airlines is a lot of contribution behind the scenes, to try and help the airspace changes so that they will work. Unpaid, of course.

I suggest that if individuals want to express their concerns about NAS, the door has been opened to all of us with the NPRM on Stage 2c. Please remember that the closing date for submissions is 12th of March. I urge you all to make a submission, however brief. It will help to inform CASA that such a change will benefit very few, but significantly increase the danger to many. The link to the NPRM is http://rrp.casa.gov.au/download/04_nprm.asp

While I'm on my soapbox, I want to draw everyone's attention to the persons who have done more to help us try and tackle this NAS debacle then even the eloquent and valuable contributions of Voices of Reason.

Danny Fyne, Woomera and the rest of the team at PPRUNE. Imagine how far in the dark we'd be without them. Go up D&G to the announcement on 'chat choking' and make a contribution. I have just done so. So can you.

[SM4 Pirate]

Mr Manning can hardly come out and say, "it's not safe, I thought so from the start", can he?

Although he might even think that.

Think of the tickets cancelled and subsequent bankrupt airlines in a very short period of time; not to mention most of us 'professionals' out of work.

Launceston has got the 'portable radar' nod; despite three other locations being preferred by the HATC and other operational types. Go figure, the bureaucrats and contract managers making a face saving decision against (over) operational advice. These clowns should be hanging from the highest rafter.

Anderson you are obviously not going to go (or do the right thing without being pushed into it), please sweep out all the dead wood that might have cost you your seat.

Bottle of Rum

[WALLEY2]

VoR Sir,

Our consultants are finishing "The design Aeronautical Study for Broome International Airport Terminal Airspace"

They have been thorough and because we requested an independent technical audit, it has taken 7 months and $60,000 to complete. It is the only design study carried out on 2c. This we have determined even though AA has rejected our FOI stating "public interest would not be served" we are challenging this decision but it will take months.

I find it amazing that an NPRM on parts of 2c is issued when there has been no baseline data gathering or attempt at analysis or design study for the rule changes. This we know as NASIG CASA and DoTRS say the documentation on 2c is minimal but at least they will release it (some 6-8weeks past the statuary release by date). Is this not putting the cart before the horse?

It has left us with nothing to compare our study with or any chance to compare risk parameters, mitigators, data etc.

My next question to you is that considering the site specific nature of many of the parameters in a terminal airspace study surely this means that if crude modeling (say on a/c movements p.a.) shows you are near the ALARP zone or if you are dealing with catastrophic events (mid air of a medium sized RPT jet) - then you need to do a series of terminal airspace Design Aeronautical Studies?

Now Airservices have undertaken to do the design Studies they neglected to do for 2b, would you consider it necessary that they do Terminal Airspace Design Studies for most of our major regional airports(typically 150,000 pax p/a and 737 ops down to 100,000pax p/a 146 or 717 ops)?


To all pprune users, FYI we don't feel it is in the public interest that the study on BIA be witheld from the public. It will be posted on our or our consultants web site within 1 week of its completion. cheers

[Woomera]

WALLEY2

Thank you.

If you would be so kind we would be delighted to provide a link to your generous offer from here.


W

[Capcom]

A breath of fresh air

Walley2

Bravo!

Transparency and accountability, your leadership by example is to be applauded.

All the Best


Ferris
Damn hard to stay calm given what has happened and why!

The pills seem to be working though ……...... for now! …..

[Dick Smith]

Four Seven Eleven, sorry, I thought I had answered your question in relation to objective analysis. Yes, I will certainly support an objective analysis of whether the NAS changes result in higher safety than the previous system. I have no doubt that they do.

The US FAA air traffic control specialists that were flown out at great expense from the United States both stated that the Australian NAS plan of placing airspace classifications to more effectively reflect the risk at that location was a better and safer way to go. They stated categorically to the Department and the Minister that the changes of 27 November 2003 would increase safety and that the final Australian NAS plan would lead to further safety improvement.

By the way, if you really believed in what you posted on this thread, I believe you would do it under your own name. For what other reason can your anonymity reflect other than a lack of confidence in your beliefs? If you genuinely believe that safety has been reduced with the NAS changes, I suggest you go public under your own name, and use your persuasive powers to convince the Australian people of this. I’m sure you will agree that it is almost impossible to do this when you are anonymous. I’m fascinated that someone could spend as much time as you do on this issue, and not be proud to put your name beside your beliefs.

[Chris Higgins]

As I sit here and eat my vegemite on toast...

Well, here we go...

Let's see Dick, highly paid Americans? Did that guarantee value for money, or just buy another donut franchise?

I went to Sydney Tech in 1986. We spent over a year on the commercial, flight engineer written, seniors..which became ATPL. Did courses on high speed flight, human factors and flight deck management. The exams were scheduled months in advance, many people didn't prepare, and they failed and quit completely.

Some of us missed the odd one,(for me it was Flight Planning at ATPL level using the 727-200 handbook), and we soldiered on.

When I got the States, I sat all exams in five days and passed with a 90 percent or better, no preparation. I was introduced to test prep books that even gave the answers to the exams before we went in. I instructed and flew air-ambulance for three and a half years. I was at first shocked at the low standards of secondary education and even more amazed at the standards promoted by the designated (ATO) examiners in their testing process.

I did a "degree", in fact a Bachelor's Degree in business, which included courses on American Modern History. One girl thought Pearl Harbor was in Florida, another said that she thought there had been, "like...three or four world wars?"

My observation of America is this: anyone can learn to fly and call themselves an expert. Anyone with a taste for caffiene and cigarettes can pretty much become a contoller, then call themselves an expert too!

You do not need to, "Come to America", as Neil Diamond would sing. You should look closer to home to find "experts". Their address is 203 Coward Street Mascot, and they are commonly referred to as "QANTAS Pilots".

Qantas flies into New York and Los Angeles, they don't just fly the oceanic feeds into coastal airports. I have seen them fly beneath me at FL350 through Denver Center Airspace, and they seemed to be going the right way!

Dick, while we're at it. When you analyze the weather of the United States and you look at the amount of flying done VFR by private pilots, it's actually one of the lowest proportions in the world. My money as an instructor was not made teaching primary students, it was made going straight from there into the teaching of instrument ratings, in a city that only gets 60 sunny days a year.

Why aren't I flying for Qantas? I interviewed there three times and somewhere between the fantasy point of flying for Qantas and the thought of sitting still for up to fourteen hours through ten time zones and relocating an American wife with young children to Australia, it didn't work out. I don't have a problem with that at all, in fact I had a wonderful time down in Sydney all three times. I don't see what all the gripes are with Qantas, they seem like a truly world class airline.

I instructed the Boeing 757 and 767 here in the States for a major airline and it was shocking to see the differences in piloting proficiency, self-discipline, mechanical aptitude and educational background. This is not the inconcistency that I ever observed during my short tenure as a commercial pilot in Australia.

My real fear Dick is this:

If I ever go back to Australia to escape this craziness, will it be even worse there than it is here?

Perhaps it's time for a fresh outlook. Perhaps it's time to find Australians that have solutions to the problems that are uniquely Australian. If you need me, send me a private mail. I go back to Australia at least twice a year. I'll do it for bloody free!!

[Paul Considine]

OK Dick, I'll bite!

1. I am posting in my own name because you seem to believe that peoples desire to use a psuedonym makes their point of view irrelevant.

2. feel free to PM me and I'll give you my phone number - you are a millionaire you can run your phone bill up!

3. I have had an absolute gutful of you telling everybody that NAS is SAFER!.

4. explain to us all - without use of the phrase "I believe" where the cost savings are

5. explain to me - a 737 Captain - how my operations in E are safer when you actively discourage VFR pilots from talking unless THEY believe a collision risk exists - and you complicate the issue by removing frequencies off charts, so if they determine a risk exists visually they need to hunt down the appropriate frequency

you have made my job infinetely more difficult, and far more dangerous - thanks heaps!

[Creampuff]

I am disturbed at the way in which you appear to analyse these issues, Dick.

4711 chooses to post anonymously, and that somehow affects the objective risk in Australian airspace, pre- and post-NAS 2b, does it?

The number of people you and he can convince one way or the other as to the objective risk in Australian airspace, pre- and post-NAS 2b, somehow affects that risk, does it?

MARTHA (737 passenger): Look Arthur, there’s a Tobago.

ARTHUR: Don’t worry Martha, a majority of the public including that nice Mr Smith are of the opinion that we’re safer than we would have been last month.

MARTHA: But Arthur, wouldn’t the Tobago have needed an airways clearance last month?

ARTHUR: Don’t worry Martha, a majority of the public including that nice Mr Smith are of the opinion that we’re safer than we would have been last month.

MARTHA: But Arthur, wouldn’t they have kept us a little further apart last month?

ARTHUR Don’t worry Martha, a majority of the public including that nice Mr Smith are of the opinion that we’re safer than we would have been last month.

MARTHA: But Arthur, was it safe to be that close?

ARTHUR: Of course: only people who post anonymously on PPRuNe think it isn’t.

MARTHA: I see ….. I think.

This is madness, Dick.

You support an objective analysis of whether NAS results in a comparatively less safe or more safe system than its predecessor. That’s a relief. If only the analysis had been done before the unwitting public was let loose in it.

You have “no doubt” that post-2b is safer than pre-2b. So what? I know some people who have “no doubt” that the moon missions were a hoax. I also know some people who have “no doubt” that the specific gravity of AVGAS is approximately 0.7 at 15 degrees celsius. Before acting in reliance upon their respective opinions, I ask to see the evidence upon which those opinions are based.

I don’t care what you doubt or don’t doubt Dick. Nor do I care what 4711 doubts or doesn’t doubt. All I want to know is: where is the evidence?

You say some FAA ATC experts were flown out and that:

[Those experts] stated categorically … that the changes of 27 November 2003 would increase safety.

You have got to be joking. No really Dick: you have got to be joking. No competent expert on this planet would be prepared to make a categorical statement like that about any complex system, airspace or otherwise. No competent expert would put their name to an opinion about safety, without setting out the assumptions, limitations and qualifications upon which the opinion was based.

But I’m happy to be convinced otherwise. I’m happy to consider the evidence as to who said what and on what basis. Could you post the experts’ report in its entirety, or a link to a copy, please.

[edited to correct two typos]

[Dick Smith]

Paul Considine, the facts are this. Now that fewer VFR aircraft are making self-announcements on ATC frequencies, Australian airspace will be able to be operated with fewer sectors. Not so long ago on this site, an air traffic controller stated that the only reason an additional low-level sector was turned on – with additional ATC staff – during the day was that VFR aircraft started making self-announcements on the frequency when their flying school operations began for the day.

Pilots who have flown in the system since 27 November will notice that it is considerably quieter. This means fewer sectors and cost savings

Paul, I would have difficulty in convincing you that your operations in Class E are safer, however you have to look at the complete airspace system. If you fly an aircraft from Sydney to Launceston, you no only go through Class E airspace, but you also enter Class D airspace where the collision risk is higher. Before 27 November 2003, the controllers at Launceston were responsible for airspace of very large dimensions. Separating IFR and VFR aircraft in Class C without radar is extremely complicated, and I’m told (by controllers) requires a high workload. This obviously means that the controller could be concentrating on separating IFR and VFR aircraft well away from the field, whilst at the same time the controller has responsibility for the separation of circuit traffic.

I am told that the reason the American system gives such high levels of safety is that they concentrate the ICAO airspace classifications to reflect the degree of risk. They do this in a totally objective way.

The reason the frequency boundaries have been removed from the charts is so that we can copy the international system where small aircraft with less experienced pilots can concentrate monitoring the aerodrome frequency when in the approach and departure airspace.

I’m sure you would agree that when you are flying at FL350, it is not important for a VFR aircraft below you at 5,500’ to be listening to your calls to air traffic control. The problem is that with the previous system, after 2 or 3 hours of listening to these calls (all of which were irrelevant in relation to traffic avoidance to the small aircraft) when then in the approach and departure airspace of an MBZ or a CTAF, quite often the VFR aircraft was either still on the ATC area frequency, or the pilot had simply given up and turned the volume down.

The plan of the ARG is to decrease the number of unalerted see and avoid incidents. An unalerted see and avoid incident is more likely to happen when close to an aerodrome. I understand that already these incidents are reducing.

Chris Higgins, you are correct. Qantas flies passengers across the United States every day – in Class A airspace enroute and approaches through Class E airspace at Los Angeles and JFK. Qantas passengers then move on to other airlines and fly regularly through non-radar Class E airspace into Class D towers. If Qantas for one second thought that the procedures the Americans use in radar airspace, and the procedures the Americans use in non-radar airspace were not safe, they would inform their passengers. Considering the enormous amount of traffic in the USA, it is obvious that their airspace system provides very high levels of safety. This is not a belief of mine, it is a fact supported by 50 years of statistics.

[ferris]

Good to see you are getting to the core issues, Mr. Smith. You are doing a damn fine job convincing the professionals your "beliefs" are the way to go. I mean, it's much more important to try and get an opponent to reveal his identity, than answer any criticisms, or defend the indefensible, right? I'm sure your interest in this person's identity is purely magnanamous- just want to send him a 'good work' note? Who do you think you are kidding?

Yes, I will certainly support an objective analysis of whether the NAS changes result in higher safety than the previous system. I have no doubt that they do

Then why didn't you/ARG commission such an analysis before you began the changes? BTW, I and at least 3 other 'international air traffic control specialists' have flown to Australia 'at great expense', and we agree that AusNAS is not a better and safer way to go. So, I see your two ATC's, and raise you two (do you see how stupid your arguments sound?).

The wings have fallen off (AGAIN), your cohorts are all reaching for the parachutes- are you going to ride with it into the ground? Please do, Australia can ill afford to waste any more money on your 'aviation adventures'. It's high time your reputation got down to where it should be (and not just for those within the industry).


edited to reflect the last post- posted while I was posting mine.

in the USA, it is obvious that their airspace system provides very high levels of safety. This is not a belief of mine, it is a fact supported by 50 years of statistics

You are very careful choosing your words, but you're still not fooling everyone. You see, I happen to think that 'very high' levels of safety may not be good enough, especially when the system YOU changed had EVEN HIGHER LEVELS OF SAFETY- as supported by 50 years of statistics.
Your other points have all been addressed before- frequency combining was a child of 'efficiency', something I thought you would have approved of- in fact, making Aus MORE EFFICIENT in providing ATS than the US. It allowed you to sack all those FSOs- you know the ones they have in the US SYSTEM? (BTW- if a VFR pilot 'gets bored' listening to the radio so turns it off, maybe one should question whether that person is fit to hold a license, not whether the radio should be made silent? What do we do about pilots who get bored looking out of the window for traffic? Put them in charge of airspace reform and see what they 'believe'?). And the furphy about more classC somehow 'distracting' the controller from 'closer to the airport', etc. etc. Done to death, Dick.

Something about a drowning man and straws comes to mind.

[Paul Considine]

Dick,

Thanks for the response.

Firstly can you quantify the savings? I am not convinced that the savings are there - I don't see AsA offering redundancies to controllers as a result of the 2b changes.

You say that I have to look at the whole system - so are you admitting that the E is LESS safe than what was previously in place? This is certainly the implication that can be drawn from your statements.

The shrinking of the D steps into Launceston makes my workload higher and also complicates the life of the controller because he can't assign me descent below 15000 into Launy on the Sydney track until about 30 DME which puts us very high.

This has the effect of transferring our attention from looking out the window to managing the aeroplane. We are also high requiring extra track miles within the D controllers airspace which makes his/her life more complicated.

you and the rest of the ARG are NOT professional AIRLINE pilots and you don't look at the airspace from the perspective of the professional airline pilot - that is - the USERS.

The VFR lobby have too much pull politically in my opinion.

The entire system is less safe as a result of your reforms and you should be ashamed of yourself - your inability to listen - and I mean LISTEN to differing opinions was the cause of your undoing at CAA and CASA and will be the undoing of you here.

[Dehavillanddriver]

amazing how things change!

Airspace changes will be safely, efficiently and professionally introduced on 27 November 2003
Aviation Reform Group (ARG) Chairman and Secretary of the Department of Transport and Regional Services, Ken Matthews, Airservices Australia Chief Executive and Managing Director, Bernie Smith and Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Bruce Gemmell, today jointly announced the next planned changes under the National Airspace System (NAS) reforms, will proceed on 27 November 2003.

The decision follows exhaustive safety analysis of all issues raised, including those made by pilot and air traffic control unions, in relation to the proposed changes.

CASA Acting Director of Aviation Safety, Bruce Gemmell said the Authority has accepted the safety cases prepared by the NAS Implementation Group, which allows the introduction of the new changes.

“ Our acceptance follows the incorporation of changes in updated pilot and air traffic controller training and education material, regarding radio use, operations in non-controlled airspace, and the inclusion of additional safety mitigators,” Mr Gemmell said.

Airservices Australia CEO, Bernie Smith said as a result of the CASA acceptance, the Board of Airservices Australia approved the immediate distribution of pilot documentation including charts to give effect to the airspace reforms.

“ The distribution of pilot documentation including charts and training materials is a key milestone in the safe implementation of the changes which come into force on 27 November 2003.

“ The Airservices Australia Board and Management are satisfied that the safe implementation of the changes can proceed following appropriate safety analysis and final CASA acceptance,” Mr Smith said.

ARG Chairman, Ken Matthews, said that he was satisfied that due process had been followed to achieve the final approvals.

“ The various agencies involved in airspace reform each have certain parts to play in the process and legal obligations to discharge. It is gratifying that Airservices Australia, CASA, Defence, the Department of Transport and Regional Services and the NAS Implementation Group have been able to work together constructively and complete their work on time.”

Contacts
All inquiries of a technical nature should be directed to the NAS IG - the group responsible for implementing the new system.

Colin Blair, NAS IG, 02 6287 6978 / 0416 266 843
Kate Robinson, Department of Transport and Regional Services, 02 6274 8059 / 0438 288 105
Richard Dudley, Airservices Australia, 02 6268 4479 / 0412 146 828
Peter Gibson, Civil Aviation Safety Authority, 02 6217 1015 / 0419 296 446

[ftrplt]

The reason the frequency boundaries have been removed from the charts is so that we can copy the international system where small aircraft with less experienced pilots can concentrate monitoring the aerodrome frequency when in the approach and departure airspace.

OK Dick,

just which 'aerodrome frequency' do these VFR's monitor 45nm west of Sydney, Cairns or 45 north of Brisbane or Melbourne?? Which frequency is appropriate?? Where do they find them??

Do you believe that Class C approach airspace AUTOMATICALLY requires Class B terminal airspace because it is 'much riskier'?

[Four Seven Eleven]

Mr Smith

By the way, if you really believed in what you posted on this thread, I believe you would do it under your own name. For what other reason can your anonymity reflect other than a lack of confidence in your beliefs? If you genuinely believe that safety has been reduced with the NAS changes, I suggest you go public under your own name, and use your persuasive powers to convince the Australian people of this.

Oh, not that tired old saw, again, and again, and again........ When you run out of answers, you drag this one out - every time. Let me repeat for what seems like the thousandth time. The reasons for my anonymity on these forums is covered very adequately on the "Dicksmithflyer" website. If you now believe that what you say on your own website is a lie, I suggest you make a public retraction. If, as you say, you 'believe' I will reveal my name on this forum, then - once again - your 'beliefs' are wrong. Not everything you 'believe' is necessarily true.

I have never said, here or elsewhere, that I do not advocate, under my own name, for air safety in Australia. I do so on a regular basis. In fact, I am paid to do so. That advocacy - or more accurately the advocacy of many professionals including myself - is finally starting to bear fruit. The Airservices board will shortly be considering air safety improvements to counter the effects of NAS2B in particular. Despite your efforts, air safety will hopefully now be subject to stringent analysis before implementation of further changes.

If we can avoid the self-serving political manipulation of the last few years, we might be able to overturn the economic and safety debacle that NAS has caused so far and advance the cause of aviation reform. Personal crusades and sectional intersts have held sway for too long. It should now be the turn of those who have the interests of the aviation industry at heart.

I am glad to hear that you finally support objective safety analysis of NAS and relative safety. I am appalled that it has taken this long for you to do so and at great financial and safety cost. Why did you not support it - in fact insist on it - before the untested system allowed a jet and a Tobago to get so close to each other near Launceston? Not to mention the Darwin, Melbourne and other incidents. How do you justify that increased risk to those passengers -a risk that was not present before 27 November?

Pilots who have flown in the system since 27 November will notice that it is considerably quieter. This means fewer sectors and cost savings

Once again you demonstrate an abject and wilful ignorance of air traffic management. If you believe this to be true, I suggest that you contact Airservices Australia to find out the real costs.

With all due respect, do you not feel that it is either time for you to start educating yourself on air safety and airspace management issues, or allow those who have professional expertise in this field to do their job in the interests of the Australian public?

Separating IFR and VFR aircraft in Class C without radar is extremely complicated, and I’m told (by controllers) requires a high workload. This obviously means that the controller could be concentrating on separating IFR and VFR aircraft well away from the field, whilst at the same time the controller has responsibility for the separation of circuit traffic.

And what happens under NAS? The controller continues to do the job of separating close to the aerodrome, and no-one separates IFR from VFR further afield. In fact no-one provides traffic information. So, by the stroke of a pen, we just tell pilots that they will be 'safer' if they make it to the circuit area.

Forget about what a controller 'could be' doing, Mr Smith. You are paid to determine not what 'could be' happening, but what in fact really happens. Suppositions, "could be's" and your beliefs have no place in being a paid public servant entrusted with the safety of the flying public. If you are unwilling to let objective analysis, rather than supposition and guess work, form the basis for airspace reform, then I suggest that we need someone who will.

[Those experts] stated categorically … that the changes of 27 November 2003 would increase safety.

I suppport Creampuff's request that you provide us the evidence of this statement. Show us that you are telling the truth about this statement.

[Four Seven Eleven]

****su

As to your summary of the cost savings - less sectors because of less radio transmissions - please tell me you have got more than that.

Of course he has. Remember, he got paid to assess "the cost effectiveness of each of the competing proposals" (LLAMP vs NAS). This could not have been done without empirical data. So not only would he have the detailed cost/benefit anlaysis for NAS, but also the same data for LLAMP. The ARG were not paid 'handsomely' to tell us what they 'believed - in their 'heart of hearts - could be' better. They were public servants paid to do a job.

So, Mr Smith, you have the data. Why not release it? It must be contained in the written report that the Minister paid you to produce. Surely the hard facts will prove that NAS is cost effective, rather than relying on some silly 'silence is golden' theory of air traffic management. The figures will no doubt prove that the rumoured extra $53,000,000 that our customers will have to pay for the costs so far will be but a mere bagatelle when the costs benefits come to fruition. Surely, even now, GA and airline operators around the land are wondering what to do with all of the cost savings flowing into their bulging coffers.

So, the evidence you used to do your paid ARG job, and the evidence you mentioned in relation to NAS2B and NAS generally being quantifiably safer than the pre 27 November airspace will go a long way to advancing your cause.

We await the production of these facts with breathless anticipation. It will certainly silence those who have claimed that Australian airspace management is being done in anything other than the finest traditions of professional safety management.

The Virgin passengers who became so unexpectedly familiar with the sleek lines of a Tobago would no doubt feel somewhat reassured to know that you did not abandon their fate to the vagaries of chance, but acquitted your paid responsibilities in a 'professional' manner, with nothing but good solid hard facts to back you up.

Tell us it is so. No, don't tell us.......... show us.

[Chris Higgins]

Ahh, if only it were that simple..

Mr Smith, Qantas does an arrival in New York that descends from Class A airspace over the top of La Guardia and into Class B airspace at JFK. They never fly through Class E Airspace in the Northeast. The arrival is called the "Lindy Five Arrival", you surely have Jepp view?

I was the union safety chairman based in JFK for almost three years. They tried "turbo-prop" routing through Class E airspace with full radar coverage to mitigate arrival delays. Our operations averaged four (4) resolution advisories per week between Allentown Pennsylvania and the Colts Neck VOR. Thank God for TCAS! This was in a full radar environment with a completely overworked approach facility. The only time is was remotely safe was when it was socked in, and preferably in icing conditions.

I spent over 4 1/2 hours of my unions telephone money on conference calls with New York, Washington and Boston Centers and finally came up with Northern routing over more sparsley concentrated traffic and in mostly Class A and B airspace. The result was that the TCAS resolution reports dropped to zero for an almost three month period straight. We ran 125 departures a day.

I was so involved in the problems with the routing that my wife and I were finally burned out on the whole process and that's why I quit and tried the training department at a major airline. I actually needed a break from the airspace. I flew 987 hours out of the JFK hub in 1997. It was absolutely exhausting. To have to continue to cope with Class E airspace with non-reporting VFR traffic would have made it extremely dangerous.

Dick, you are an admirable man who has shown great leadership in Australia. I still have the first Australian Geographic with the finely penned drawing of dingoes on the front and a bunch since then. I have admired your adventures in VH-DIK and watched your North-South circumnavigation of the globe in a Twin Otter. You built an advanced electronics empire from scratch and tried your best to mitigate the waste of government as chairman of the CAA...CASA. You're a smart man!

What you are forgetting though is that we are too!

As an entrepreneur, you have had to stand alone and sometimes take a gamble. That's not appropriate here. I now have fourteen years in the American system. It works here because the yanks have put there own local spin on things, which is what the Australians should be doing too.

I flew a celebrity in from Bermuda the other evening. As we approached New York to land in La Guardia, we were given a VFR arrival, in Class B airspace, that constituted several local landmarks. The co-pilot had never seen it before and I briefed it thoroughly. It was only with his concurrence that I accepted the approach.

He is not "just along for the ride". He is an extremely necessary part of my life.

The Australian Airspace user is a very necessary part of your life too!

You may feel victimized a bit by now, and you have certainly been a victim of some of the "tall poppy syndrome" but this goes beyond this. Every good leader should accept advice from their subordinates. My father fought and died in 1971. I was raised in a democracy by a single mum who fit the best description of the Aussie battler. I think you owe to us all to observe these basic Australian democratic ideals.

Dick, remember the last time everyone agreed? It was Germany in 1931. History shows us that wasn't such a good idea!

[DownDraught]

The methadology they used for safty case was given in the Senate Estamates

Senator O’BRIEN—Can you give me an explanation of how CASA made the assessment that the US FAA NAS system was safer than the existing airspace system and what that was based on?

Mr Gemmell—It is really summarised in appendix 1 to that document that you have where we actually go through—

Senator O’BRIEN—We did receive it quite late. So having a look at it, it is not an easily understood set of explanations, if I can put it that way.

Mr Gemmell—I would have to sympathise and agree. It is not easy to go through, but it is there. It is under the heading ‘Safety Regulations, Existing Australian Practice in the US FAA NAS’.

Senator O’BRIEN—Is it based on accident and incident numbers?

Mr Gemmell—Essentially, it is looking at collision risks compared to traffic densities and saying, ‘What results are you getting in one system versus what results are you getting in another system?’—what you would expect to get.

EVIDENCE???
So I read from that there cannot be any imperical data that dick can produce, or is that wrong dick, or is it a task of "creating a safety formula" to "what you would expect to get", whatever that may be?



And

Senator O’BRIEN—Thanks for that. Just looking at appendix 1 that we were talking about earlier, the conclusion is that the US FAA NAS system is different to Australia. It says— Apparent more en-route risk and less terminal risk. What does ‘terminal risk’ mean?

Mr Byron—‘Terminal’ refers to that airspace surrounding an airport. It is not specifically defined as a standard figure for every airport, but it is where the traffic congregates close to the airport on departure and arrival.

Senator O’BRIEN—So we have a greater risk under the proposed system en route?

Mr Byron—My understanding of the whole concept—and I have operated in the United States—is that there is a large allocation of resources to where there is the concentration of traffic, which is in the terminal area, because statistically that is where the risk is greatest. So the mitigator is to deal with it slightly differently from the way one does on the en-route areas where there is less concentration of traffic and the mitigators are different. So there are differences in the two types of airspace. As a practising pilot operating various types of aircraft for the last 40 years and certainly in Australian airspace at different parts of the country in the last 15 years, I think that is a practical position that I would agree with.

And......................

CHAIR—Thank you very much to Airservices Australia. I understand someone may want to make an opening statement. Is that correct?

Mr Bernie Smith—Yes. I thought that perhaps, given the interest in the NAS and what is going on, it might be worth while making a statement clarifying a few issues to begin with. The committee would be aware from a media statement by Airservices Australia that it has found a problem with the process used to put in place the changes to airspace implemented on 27 November 2003. Airservices wishes to put the following information on the record for this committee in order to clarify issues which we expect are of interest to it. Airservices has a statutory responsibility to consider and approve changes to airspace design and management. In managing change, either on a day-to-day basis or in relation to reforms such as NAS, Airservices is always in a position where risks exist and need to be managed. This is clearly an integral part of the business that we are in. In considering such changes, Airservices takes very seriously its obligation in regard to safety as the primary consideration. Airservices has recently formed the view that its process for considering the changes on 27 November 2003 may not have properly discharged all its responsibilities under the act. The nature of the gap in our process relates, firstly, to the extent to which Airservices may have relied on the work of other parties—the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation Reform Group, the National Air Space Implementation Group as examples—rather than its own comprehensive research and analysis. And Tuesday, 17 February 2004 Senate—Legislation RRA&T 73 secondly, to the way in which we chose to manage an identified risk related to the implementation of class E airspace. The first issue is now being addressed by Airservices commissioning a full and comprehensive review and validation of the safety premises which underpin the NAS reform. This will take the form of a design safety case of the full NAS reform program. The second matter involves undertaking a more extensive risk analysis of the changes implemented last year. This review, which will be undertaken over the next three months, needs to be seen in the context of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations on the Launceston incident. At that point the board will decide the extent and the need for any change to the current E airspace. Despite media speculation, Airservices continues to have insurance policies in place and there are no new operational risks that were not known when the decision to implement the changes was taken. The sorts of enhancements the board will be asked to consider after a full safety assessment involve changing certain portions of E airspace. The calls for reversal of some of the reforms implemented last November must be seen in the context that any change, even going back, carries risks. Airservices must properly assess all of this before making a final decision on the most appropriate way forward. That completes my statement.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I'm actually getting a bit sick of Dick's line of BS.

Please Dick....just go away and let people who actually KNOW of what they speak fix the problems caused by your beliefs.

I do not want to hear anymore of your beliefs or economic rationalism...it sickens me!!!

I've spent 23 years in this industry and, more often than not, it has been a battle against beancounters and self appointed, know all, f*ckwits to try and keep it all as safe as humanly possible.

We have a system groaning from the burden of incompetence.

It is completely obvious to anyone with a brain that this latest airspace/aviation debacle has been driven through without even the SLIGHTEST hint of 'worlds best practice' within the responsible govt departments....hardly surprising!!!

Anyone who has been involved in aviation in Australia, for more than a few years, knows at least one career failure who ended up in CASA. The good ones leave in disgust after a time and the extra cunning dumbarses end up in positions of increased power purely by the wick effect.

I'm sick of it...and I'm sick of listening to what you 'believe'.

Do you really think we give a rat's what 2, yes a whole TWO!!!, alledged US airspace experts think..or 4 or 6?

You expect, it seems, for this earth shattering 'fact' to make us all feel better and finally see the genius of NAS.

Gee, EVERY single professional pilot I know, all their peers and the Professional ATC Association disagrees with your two deadbeats and you still aren't listening to US!!!

No-one thinks 2b is a good idea Dick...well except the weekend warriors, the aviation minister and a bunch of yes men straight out of 'Yes Minister'!!!

Dick it is a constitutional responsibility of govt to provide the infrastructure that allows free enterprise to flourish safely. For f**ks sake Dick...Japanese car manufacturers get more support, from the Australian govt, than the Australian aviation industry!!!!!

The reason US aviation is so healthy has nought to do with it's airspace design and all to do with the fact that it (aviation) is valued. That and the shear economies of scale that the population of North America allow.

When Australia starts putting a value on a healthy aviation industry and we start getting some level of truly competent regulatory oversight there might be a chance...I don't hold my breath waiting...just one reason why my professional life is spent almost exclusively as an expat.

A very small step in the right direction would be for you to just go off and play with your aircraft and leave airspace reform to the professionals....please!!!

Chuck.