John Forsyth resigns, NAS where to from here?
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris and piniped,
Com'on guys, I was talking about the reason given that ATCs wouldn't work remote/outstation towers. Not the fact they are "uneconomical" to operate. Don't muddy the waters.
Ferris, you sure took the option to work at a remote establishment. Give up OZ to work in the middle east. How's the surf?
As for the last communique from Bernie. Well that's as about face as you're likely to get from him.
As for the portable radar. Its not compatible with TAAATS, it can't be used for separation, and the tower controllers aren't rated to use it. Balls on the pope might be more useful.
Com'on guys, I was talking about the reason given that ATCs wouldn't work remote/outstation towers. Not the fact they are "uneconomical" to operate. Don't muddy the waters.
Ferris, you sure took the option to work at a remote establishment. Give up OZ to work in the middle east. How's the surf?
As for the last communique from Bernie. Well that's as about face as you're likely to get from him.
As for the portable radar. Its not compatible with TAAATS, it can't be used for separation, and the tower controllers aren't rated to use it. Balls on the pope might be more useful.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think it fits into the radar tracking tolerances. It was a monitoring for violations of the restricted area tool not a separation tool. None of the control consoles had it defined as a radar for the mosaic (but I could be wrong there) but the 'trafiic manager' console at the end of aisle 1 did.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I here that Ops Managers are being asked to write a business case as to why they should get it for their areas.
Seems that LT and WA Goldfields are current front runners; late submissions from AYE/AS area to apply screws, also AY, MC and TW are getting a mention...
It can be plugged into TAAATS, it needs 6 weeks to commission it at a cost of somewhere near $2M... and then an ongoing $1M in annual maintainance... Don't we all feel warm and fuzzie now... A true bargain this NAS wasn't it.
Seems that the non-TAAATS towers need it most... do you see the problem; can you say $15M to TAAATSify a non-TAAATS tower?
Bottle of Rum
Seems that LT and WA Goldfields are current front runners; late submissions from AYE/AS area to apply screws, also AY, MC and TW are getting a mention...
It can be plugged into TAAATS, it needs 6 weeks to commission it at a cost of somewhere near $2M... and then an ongoing $1M in annual maintainance... Don't we all feel warm and fuzzie now... A true bargain this NAS wasn't it.
Seems that the non-TAAATS towers need it most... do you see the problem; can you say $15M to TAAATSify a non-TAAATS tower?
Bottle of Rum
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can somebody please enlighten me as to the purpose of these mobile radar(s)? I confess complete ignorance of their existence until this week, but in my little corner of the world we have a you-beaut TSAD display receiving the same TAAATS feed as Brisbane.
So what? As DirtyPierre points out, procedural tower controllers are not radar rated so we can't use it for separation anyway, so what possible benefit could a magic mobile radar have?
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here.
So what? As DirtyPierre points out, procedural tower controllers are not radar rated so we can't use it for separation anyway, so what possible benefit could a magic mobile radar have?
Sorry if I'm missing something obvious here.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I bet it will be used as a mitigator for unannounced VFRs. The tower will be allowed to pass traffic from the display but not separate based on the VFR within 40nm a a D tower in E airspace must have a transponder no exceptions rule.
Bottums Up
On PM tonight, Qantas' Chief Pilot, Capt Chris Manning said "we are happy with the current system".
Glad no QF drivers have expressed dissatisfaction with NAS 2b!
Glad no QF drivers have expressed dissatisfaction with NAS 2b!
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Insurance and saving face is all that counts!
Separator
Ain’t the devil always in the detail or lack of it!
Great! But
Anyone want to bet they will avoid location specific Aeronautical Studies?
And
We knew that, so are you saying that you big ol’ management gurus did not? If not why not?
As Pauline H would have said: “Who’s responsible?” and “Please explain?”, especially as that question was asked prior to 27 Nov!
Hmmmm
Wacko, fancy that but? In the NAS 2b meantime…..
Great, so their all (Asa management) insured should you and your pax be killed in E whilst we wait….That’s a relief
. Are the insurance companies watching the ball here…………Hello, Hellooooo anyone asleep at the wheel, helloooooooooooo?
What a difference a public display of the laundry basket can make. Oh well at least the lesson is learned…but 3-6 Months to go back to C (HAZ ID’s are already done)? Apart from Charts, Notams and Briefings for industry ( Up to 3 months according to Byron) I cannot see why returning to the previous arrangement could take so long?, 6 months?, a cynical mind might consider it delaying tactics, maybe there is more to this littl’ jem than at first glance!?
We remain stuck with the “E” debacle for what could be 6 months while they develop the most painless exit strategy which might be anything from what we have now to a full rollback. Perhaps something like this:-
Give the appearance that they are working to undo NAS 2b “Safely”,
meanwhile back at the ranch just north of CB they will be quietly:-
Fast tracking the following:-
- Design and Implementation Safety Cases to Keep E within radar coverage
- Design and Implementation Safety Cases to make what was C over D into D over D
- Frequencies on maps for VFR and;
The whole while resisting any attempts to invoke “Aeronautical studies” of “specific volumes of airspace”! Ya’ll know why he wouldn’t want Aeronautical studies to happen…..!
All to coincide with the “long” time frame nominated to return to the Pre-NAS System. They can then proclaim:-
We do not need to go back to C after all because ‘LOOK’, we have done all this hard work just in time to implement “NAS 2b Enhanced” which will save millions and prove the first implementation in Nov 2003 was not too far off the mark.
- Saves face for the Pukes in CB and President Dick!
- May provide continuity to the subtle fib that NAS is safe (Not as SAFE or SAFER than Pre NAS 2b but SAFE cause Uncle Sam does it, but don’t mention the mid-airs they have)!
- All the Anti-NAS sentiment was just scaremongering!( Cause there is no difference between NO midairs and Some midairs!)
- The wasted money will be paid for by the industry and swept under the carpet! (By then probably over A$100mil)
- JA will enjoy the fruits of his 2001 pre-election shenanigans, Super and the restored Landrover without a passing thought for the damage done
- The industry will be paying even more for even less, AGAIN
And so Aviation in Australia will continue onwards and downwards into the abyss!
Night all, sleep tight, I know I will.
Ain’t the devil always in the detail or lack of it!
Note to all staff from the CEO
National Airspace System (NAS)
In the Media Release I sent to all staff on Monday, the Acting Chairman referred to options to improve airspace which would be tested over the coming months.
In particular, the Board has agreed to specific options (others may emerge
during the process) being tested over the next three months which could further improve the management of Class E airspace (this would be followed by a further three month implementation period of the recommended options). These are:
(a) reclassify portions of Class E airspace around Class C and D towers to ensure the three degree aircraft flight path profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C airspace;
(b) reclassify Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C, in additional to (a) above).
National Airspace System (NAS)
In the Media Release I sent to all staff on Monday, the Acting Chairman referred to options to improve airspace which would be tested over the coming months.
In particular, the Board has agreed to specific options (others may emerge
during the process) being tested over the next three months which could further improve the management of Class E airspace (this would be followed by a further three month implementation period of the recommended options). These are:(a) reclassify portions of Class E airspace around Class C and D towers to ensure the three degree aircraft flight path profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C airspace;
(b) reclassify Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C, in additional to (a) above).
In addition to progressing the above temporary options, work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis. This work will be performed in strict compliance with our Safety Management System, and at this stage we estimate it will take 12 months to complete.
And
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 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.
. Are the insurance companies watching the ball here…………Hello, Hellooooo anyone asleep at the wheel, helloooooooooooo?
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.
We remain stuck with the “E” debacle for what could be 6 months while they develop the most painless exit strategy which might be anything from what we have now to a full rollback. Perhaps something like this:-
Give the appearance that they are working to undo NAS 2b “Safely”,
meanwhile back at the ranch just north of CB they will be quietly:-Fast tracking the following:-
- Design and Implementation Safety Cases to Keep E within radar coverage
- Design and Implementation Safety Cases to make what was C over D into D over D
- Frequencies on maps for VFR and;
The whole while resisting any attempts to invoke “Aeronautical studies” of “specific volumes of airspace”! Ya’ll know why he wouldn’t want Aeronautical studies to happen…..!
All to coincide with the “long” time frame nominated to return to the Pre-NAS System. They can then proclaim:-
We do not need to go back to C after all because ‘LOOK’, we have done all this hard work just in time to implement “NAS 2b Enhanced” which will save millions and prove the first implementation in Nov 2003 was not too far off the mark.
- Saves face for the Pukes in CB and President Dick!
- May provide continuity to the subtle fib that NAS is safe (Not as SAFE or SAFER than Pre NAS 2b but SAFE cause Uncle Sam does it, but don’t mention the mid-airs they have)!
- All the Anti-NAS sentiment was just scaremongering!( Cause there is no difference between NO midairs and Some midairs!)
- The wasted money will be paid for by the industry and swept under the carpet! (By then probably over A$100mil)
- JA will enjoy the fruits of his 2001 pre-election shenanigans, Super and the restored Landrover without a passing thought for the damage done
- The industry will be paying even more for even less, AGAIN
And so Aviation in Australia will continue onwards and downwards into the abyss!
Night all, sleep tight, I know I will.
Last edited by Capcom; 19th Feb 2004 at 20:32.
A river to my people
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No fixed abode, No 29a
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capcom,
Last night I steeled myself and had a look at the Hansard report of Senate Estimates where Bernie, sundry CASA, ATSB and DoTaRS suits were weaving their magic with smoke and mirrors.
Quite a bit of political byplay was going on, especially over the LT incident, with some of the questioning apparently deliberately going well wide of the mark.
I have just seen "Voices of Reason"s view of the transcripts and he/she/they raise some valid points about training.
The URL is below and you need to go to Page 52 to commence, and it goes for about 40 pages from memory.
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S7315.pdf
It seemed to me that there was more ar$e-covering going on than you would find in a bum-kicking contest in a nudist colony.
From what I could make of Bernie's press release the stage is being set to allow the whole thing to slip onto the backburner so as to avoid too much immediate scrutiny and the inevitable "Well we warned you" from all those that the Minister slagged off.
Even the highly esteemed R. Dudley appears to have gone quiet, which is most unusual, considering that he is the one wheeled out to accuse Civilair of everything from square-dancing in a roundhouse to the murder of Rasputin along with being the cause of "The End of Civilisation, As We Know It".
Once again the "Enfant Terrible" DS appears to have urgent business elsewhere. Possibly a charity is to suddenly benefit from his kindness, to be duly noted by an adoring media. Undoubtedly it will be both a magnificent and magnanimous gesture.
I suppose that is the way the biscuit crumbles.
sep
Last night I steeled myself and had a look at the Hansard report of Senate Estimates where Bernie, sundry CASA, ATSB and DoTaRS suits were weaving their magic with smoke and mirrors.
Quite a bit of political byplay was going on, especially over the LT incident, with some of the questioning apparently deliberately going well wide of the mark.
I have just seen "Voices of Reason"s view of the transcripts and he/she/they raise some valid points about training.
The URL is below and you need to go to Page 52 to commence, and it goes for about 40 pages from memory.
http://www.aph.gov.au/hansard/senate/commttee/S7315.pdf
It seemed to me that there was more ar$e-covering going on than you would find in a bum-kicking contest in a nudist colony.
From what I could make of Bernie's press release the stage is being set to allow the whole thing to slip onto the backburner so as to avoid too much immediate scrutiny and the inevitable "Well we warned you" from all those that the Minister slagged off.
Even the highly esteemed R. Dudley appears to have gone quiet, which is most unusual, considering that he is the one wheeled out to accuse Civilair of everything from square-dancing in a roundhouse to the murder of Rasputin along with being the cause of "The End of Civilisation, As We Know It".
Once again the "Enfant Terrible" DS appears to have urgent business elsewhere. Possibly a charity is to suddenly benefit from his kindness, to be duly noted by an adoring media. Undoubtedly it will be both a magnificent and magnanimous gesture.
I suppose that is the way the biscuit crumbles.
sep
Relax – Bill Hamilton, says there’s no demonstrated risk
From the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s AM program of 20 Feb 04, transcript available at: http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2004/s1049399.htm
So there you go: Bill’s got it sorted.
And Bill: congratulations on becoming “the Director” of AOPA.
TONY EASTLEY: The Transport Minister John Anderson may be forced to change a contentious aspect of his air safety regulations.
The Government regulator, Airservices Australia, has recommended a key element of Mr Anderson's airspace reforms be wound back over the next six months.
Under the new plan, light planes would have to obtain air traffic control clearance to enter airspace used by large commercial jets.
Air traffic controllers say it's a significant victory, but aircraft owners are furious. The Opposition meanwhile says the reforms were doomed from the start.
Alison Caldwell reports.
ALISON CALDWELL: It was the most controversial aspect of the Federal Government's airspace reforms and now the Transport Minister John Anderson has little choice but to change it.
Aircraft owners are furious, Bill Hamilton is the Director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
BILL HAMILTON: It is completely unjustified.
ALISON CALDWELL: Why?
BILL HAMILTON: There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done. It will have a very serious impact on the whole of the aviation reform program, of which the airspace reform program is a very significant part.
…
The Government regulator, Airservices Australia, has recommended a key element of Mr Anderson's airspace reforms be wound back over the next six months.
Under the new plan, light planes would have to obtain air traffic control clearance to enter airspace used by large commercial jets.
Air traffic controllers say it's a significant victory, but aircraft owners are furious. The Opposition meanwhile says the reforms were doomed from the start.
Alison Caldwell reports.
ALISON CALDWELL: It was the most controversial aspect of the Federal Government's airspace reforms and now the Transport Minister John Anderson has little choice but to change it.
Aircraft owners are furious, Bill Hamilton is the Director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
BILL HAMILTON: It is completely unjustified.
ALISON CALDWELL: Why?
BILL HAMILTON: There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done. It will have a very serious impact on the whole of the aviation reform program, of which the airspace reform program is a very significant part.
…
And Bill: congratulations on becoming “the Director” of AOPA.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done.
Bill obviously hasn't read the ATSB report re: incident at Launy.
I can't think of anything more "demonstrable".
Bill ... you're an idiot!
18 Feb 2004
Airspace system refinements welcomed by aircraft owners and pilots
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association President, Ron Lawford, today reiterated its continued support for the National Airspace System and welcomes the refinements announced by Airservices Australia earlier this week.
“AOPA will continue to support the NAS architecture and its successful introduction,” Mr Lawford said.
“We welcome the fine-tuning of the NAS and will continue to work with the Government in ensuring the continued implementation of the system.”
Since the introduction of the NAS, AOPA has been campaigning for changes to the recently upgraded charts.
“We expect that these changes will enhance a pilots ability to operate in the new system but we have always believed the new system to be safe.”
-----
Airspace system refinements welcomed by aircraft owners and pilots
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association President, Ron Lawford, today reiterated its continued support for the National Airspace System and welcomes the refinements announced by Airservices Australia earlier this week.
“AOPA will continue to support the NAS architecture and its successful introduction,” Mr Lawford said.
“We welcome the fine-tuning of the NAS and will continue to work with the Government in ensuring the continued implementation of the system.”
Since the introduction of the NAS, AOPA has been campaigning for changes to the recently upgraded charts.
“We expect that these changes will enhance a pilots ability to operate in the new system but we have always believed the new system to be safe.”
-----
Last edited by bonez; 20th Feb 2004 at 12:17.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Edmond Roy reports.
EDMOND ROY: For the few months, air traffic controllers, aircraft owners, pilots, bureaucrats and politicians have been fighting a public battle over changes to Australia's airspace rules.
This morning air traffic controllers believed they had won a significant victory, when it was made clear that under the changed set of rules, light planes would have to obtain air traffic control clearance to enter airspace used by large commercial jets.
Under the national airspace system, introduced by the Federal Government, that requirement was not necessary. To aviation experts, this was one of the most controversial aspects of the Government's airspace reform package, and now it was to be changed.
On AM this morning, Bill Hamilton, the Director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association didn't understand why the Federal Government had to give in.
BILL HAMILTON: It is completely unjustified.
ALISON CALDWELL: Why?
BILL HAMILTON: There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done. It will have a very serious impact on the whole of the aviation reform program, of which the airspace reform program's a very significant part.
EDMOND ROY: By this afternoon, his colleagues at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, had to rein him in.
The association's president is Ron Lawford.
RON LAWFORD: Well, we're taking that up with Mr Hamilton.
EDMOND ROY: So Mr Hamilton made those comments without consulting you?
RON LAWFORD: That is correct.
EDMOND ROY: Has it gone any further than that?
RON LAWFORD: We are discussing the matter with Mr Hamilton today.
EDMOND ROY: What can you do? I mean, it's out there now.
RON LAWFORD: Well, we are making the position of AOPA known through, for example, this discussion I'm having with you, and we'll be putting out a media release pointing out that Mr Hamilton did not speak on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
EDMOND ROY: Have you had any talks with Mr Anderson?
RON LAWFORD: Uh, I haven't directly but I have taken action to ensure that Mr Anderson is aware that Mr Hamilton did not speak for the board of AOPA.
EDMOND ROY: This incident once again, highlights the confusion surrounding the changes to Australia's airspace rules. So for the record, what does the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia want changed?
RON LAWFORD: We would like to see the frequencies on the visual navigation charts, and there are a number of, if you like, peripheral issues which we would like to have implemented.
For example, we would like to see the pilots who fly visually, integrated into the system. And at the moment, the pilots who fly visually are virtually excluded from the communications system and we would like to see that changed back to a system where they can access the system easily and (inaudible).
EDMOND ROY: This whole business could have been avoided, could it not have?
RON LAWFORD: Yes it could have been, had there been adequate training and education, and we consistently call for a much longer period of training and education, and for a much longer period of consultation on the various aspects which we questioned, and that was not done. And to an extent, the problems which have arisen have arisen because they were not implemented as we asked for.
EDMOND ROY: So far the Transport Minister John Anderson has refused to comment on the issue. A fierce defender of the new national airspace system, Mr Anderson has said that it would be introduced in 50 stages. But with the pain of the first stage unbearable for most concerned, the future of the next 49 is unclear.
EDMOND ROY: For the few months, air traffic controllers, aircraft owners, pilots, bureaucrats and politicians have been fighting a public battle over changes to Australia's airspace rules.
This morning air traffic controllers believed they had won a significant victory, when it was made clear that under the changed set of rules, light planes would have to obtain air traffic control clearance to enter airspace used by large commercial jets.
Under the national airspace system, introduced by the Federal Government, that requirement was not necessary. To aviation experts, this was one of the most controversial aspects of the Government's airspace reform package, and now it was to be changed.
On AM this morning, Bill Hamilton, the Director of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association didn't understand why the Federal Government had to give in.
BILL HAMILTON: It is completely unjustified.
ALISON CALDWELL: Why?
BILL HAMILTON: There simply is no demonstrated risk that requires this to be done. It will have a very serious impact on the whole of the aviation reform program, of which the airspace reform program's a very significant part.
EDMOND ROY: By this afternoon, his colleagues at the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, had to rein him in.
The association's president is Ron Lawford.
RON LAWFORD: Well, we're taking that up with Mr Hamilton.
EDMOND ROY: So Mr Hamilton made those comments without consulting you?
RON LAWFORD: That is correct.
EDMOND ROY: Has it gone any further than that?
RON LAWFORD: We are discussing the matter with Mr Hamilton today.
EDMOND ROY: What can you do? I mean, it's out there now.
RON LAWFORD: Well, we are making the position of AOPA known through, for example, this discussion I'm having with you, and we'll be putting out a media release pointing out that Mr Hamilton did not speak on behalf of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
EDMOND ROY: Have you had any talks with Mr Anderson?
RON LAWFORD: Uh, I haven't directly but I have taken action to ensure that Mr Anderson is aware that Mr Hamilton did not speak for the board of AOPA.
EDMOND ROY: This incident once again, highlights the confusion surrounding the changes to Australia's airspace rules. So for the record, what does the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia want changed?
RON LAWFORD: We would like to see the frequencies on the visual navigation charts, and there are a number of, if you like, peripheral issues which we would like to have implemented.
For example, we would like to see the pilots who fly visually, integrated into the system. And at the moment, the pilots who fly visually are virtually excluded from the communications system and we would like to see that changed back to a system where they can access the system easily and (inaudible).
EDMOND ROY: This whole business could have been avoided, could it not have?
RON LAWFORD: Yes it could have been, had there been adequate training and education, and we consistently call for a much longer period of training and education, and for a much longer period of consultation on the various aspects which we questioned, and that was not done. And to an extent, the problems which have arisen have arisen because they were not implemented as we asked for.
EDMOND ROY: So far the Transport Minister John Anderson has refused to comment on the issue. A fierce defender of the new national airspace system, Mr Anderson has said that it would be introduced in 50 stages. But with the pain of the first stage unbearable for most concerned, the future of the next 49 is unclear.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being in oz ATM, I can't say I have the 'feel' for what is going on. I must say, however, that from afar this just keeps getting more incredible and embarrassing ! Can't they say "we made a mistake", consign Dick to his own "Hall Of Doom" and then move on? They'd have a lot more credibility (although that hasn't historically been necessary for a successful career).
That made me laugh! The policies might be in place, but try making a claim! Insurance 101- smile, take the money, and when they try and claim point out why they can't ie. "Did not inform us of change in risk". You can pretend to the public that risk hasn't increased, but insurers are not so gullible.
Good to see AOPA cementing it's correct place in oz aviation.
DirtyPierre.
I wasn't trying to muddy the waters, just pointing out that Dick was right in that AsA doesn't want the outstation towers (uneconomical). They'd have no trouble staffing them (might even lure some of us 'extremely-outstation' workers.) I bet there are dozens of guys in Centres who would give their left knacker to get back out amongst it. But, unlike the US, AsA is a business. Interesting to see the doyens of 'world's best practice' (the yanks) are touring the world as we speak , to see how they can make their ATC more 'cost-driven' (REF. Flight Int.). And yeah, the surf's crap.
As for 'mobile radar'. Makes me wonder if this whole exercise hasn't been orchestrated 'Yes, Minister' style, to get radars into some of those places. More than one way to skin a cat. Oh, and a tower at AYE (just for Dick).
continues to have insurance policies in place
Good to see AOPA cementing it's correct place in oz aviation.
DirtyPierre.
I wasn't trying to muddy the waters, just pointing out that Dick was right in that AsA doesn't want the outstation towers (uneconomical). They'd have no trouble staffing them (might even lure some of us 'extremely-outstation' workers.) I bet there are dozens of guys in Centres who would give their left knacker to get back out amongst it. But, unlike the US, AsA is a business. Interesting to see the doyens of 'world's best practice' (the yanks) are touring the world as we speak , to see how they can make their ATC more 'cost-driven' (REF. Flight Int.). And yeah, the surf's crap.
As for 'mobile radar'. Makes me wonder if this whole exercise hasn't been orchestrated 'Yes, Minister' style, to get radars into some of those places. More than one way to skin a cat. Oh, and a tower at AYE (just for Dick).
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oops Edmond, with the pain of the first 13 stages unbearable for most concerned, the future of the next 37 is unclear.
I think thats the right number, with all the f@rting around with which characteristic is in which stage, the lack of up to date infor on the DOTARS site and my mangled memory...
I think thats the right number, with all the f@rting around with which characteristic is in which stage, the lack of up to date infor on the DOTARS site and my mangled memory...
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh my Giddy Aunt
Fools like Hamilton who continue to scurrilously misrepresent the views of that organisation and its members only add to ongoing damage to AOPA Aus. 
Well done Ron Lawford for correcting the record so quickly. Would not have been an easy thing to do.
The sooner AOPA Aus are rid of the dead wood of Hamilton’s ilk the better for its disenfranchised members and the wider General Aviation fraternity.
I’ll bet Bickieman put him up to that stunt!
Or was it the brains trust over at Air Safety Australia?
(There is an oxymoron if ever I heard one! Air Safety Australia,
)
Staff: Jim Dawson Chief Air Safety Investigator!......
.....................BWAHHHHH…………
……….Oh my ribs
………
…FFFFiiiiiiii.....
……..........................BWAHHH.....
Well done Ron Lawford for correcting the record so quickly. Would not have been an easy thing to do.
The sooner AOPA Aus are rid of the dead wood of Hamilton’s ilk the better for its disenfranchised members and the wider General Aviation fraternity.
I’ll bet Bickieman put him up to that stunt!
Or was it the brains trust over at Air Safety Australia?
(There is an oxymoron if ever I heard one! Air Safety Australia,
) Staff: Jim Dawson Chief Air Safety Investigator!......
.....................BWAHHHHH………………….Oh my ribs
…………FFFFiiiiiiii.....
……..........................BWAHHH.....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ron Lawford, if you're reading this - well done. Bill discredited himself and AOPA again in his usual foot-stomping way, but you and your team made the best of the situation and turned it around.
There are some good aspects to the airspace changes. Hopefully, this "rollback" won't kill the initiative, but once emotions settle down and cataclismic momentum removed, eventually allow a more modest, considerate and planned approach to prevail over the gung-ho attitude and impatient leadership that has brought airspace change to this point.
There are some good aspects to the airspace changes. Hopefully, this "rollback" won't kill the initiative, but once emotions settle down and cataclismic momentum removed, eventually allow a more modest, considerate and planned approach to prevail over the gung-ho attitude and impatient leadership that has brought airspace change to this point.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we would like to see the pilots who fly visually, integrated into the system. And at the moment, the pilots who fly visually are virtually excluded from the communications system and we would like to see that changed back to a system where they can access the system easily and (inaudible).
Agree with Ferris, the surf is non-existent here, but damn the weather is good!!!! And no E airspace or Dick Biscuits over here!!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
E Airspace Integrity
Binos:
In answer to your query re portabale radars.
The Govt is rolling back the E airspace around the major primary airports but doesn't want to be seen to be rolling back ALL the E airspace implemented since 27 Nov last year. So, I think its the Govt's intention to improve the integrity of the E airspace (around the less politically sensitive areas like AS etc) by installing radar so that the controllers can detect, and advise on, potential traffic conflictions which may not be communicating with ATS but still sqwarking. This way they still save some face.
Of course, as we all know, for the radar to be truly effective as a conflict detection tool it would also need to offer primary detection capability to pick up those pilots who do not see the need to switch on their transponders when operating beyond the Blue Ranges.
See ya PMs
In answer to your query re portabale radars.
The Govt is rolling back the E airspace around the major primary airports but doesn't want to be seen to be rolling back ALL the E airspace implemented since 27 Nov last year. So, I think its the Govt's intention to improve the integrity of the E airspace (around the less politically sensitive areas like AS etc) by installing radar so that the controllers can detect, and advise on, potential traffic conflictions which may not be communicating with ATS but still sqwarking. This way they still save some face.
Of course, as we all know, for the radar to be truly effective as a conflict detection tool it would also need to offer primary detection capability to pick up those pilots who do not see the need to switch on their transponders when operating beyond the Blue Ranges.
See ya PMs