John Forsyth resigns, NAS where to from here?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just read ANSA's comment about the radio call upon entering E. Warrants looking into, I think. It flies in the face of the AusNAS no-talking 'culture', and would be treated warily by AsA (duty of care goes up when you can identify the traffic), but maybe it's about time the whole 'culture' became more about safety than arse-covering?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Citizen of the globe
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I understand it there are about 20000 commercial movements a day in the US... in Australia about 1000. How come the NAS system in Australia is so unworkable?
Theres lots of areas in the NW of the US were radar coverage is poor or non existant (Sun Valley Idaho is busier than hell and buried in some very impressive mountains) yet they seem to have no trouble there.
Australia in comparison to the European and North American continents is a pretty benign place to fly, not a lot of big mountains, reasonable weather and low traffic densities...
I've got quite a few thousand hours flying all over and can't fathom the often fanatical abhorrence to the NAS system in OZ.Can someone elighten me?
Theres lots of areas in the NW of the US were radar coverage is poor or non existant (Sun Valley Idaho is busier than hell and buried in some very impressive mountains) yet they seem to have no trouble there.
Australia in comparison to the European and North American continents is a pretty benign place to fly, not a lot of big mountains, reasonable weather and low traffic densities...
I've got quite a few thousand hours flying all over and can't fathom the often fanatical abhorrence to the NAS system in OZ.Can someone elighten me?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Not in Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Someone pointed me to a Hansard extract in which the Airservices CEO was asked when they became aware of the problem with governance and process with regard to the implementation of the NAS. He responded that it was around 11 December.
I understand that the frustrated employee, sometime in September, formally handed his boss a memo in which he stated that he was unable to exercise his delegated power in relation to re-classifying Class C to Class E and still behave in accordance with Section 9 of their Act, that is to retain safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
I understand that the frustrated employee, sometime in September, formally handed his boss a memo in which he stated that he was unable to exercise his delegated power in relation to re-classifying Class C to Class E and still behave in accordance with Section 9 of their Act, that is to retain safety of air navigation as the most important consideration.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok GArry so you don't understand, and I think part of the problem is that niether do we.
Piss poor education and consultation before the changes,
bieng lied to by the NASIG,
1. Cost savings we were told ???
2. Safer, we were told ???
Changes for change sake and no benifit, now you tell me, does that make any sence to you??
I am sure that the ATC guys have some concers with future entitlements and jobs, but they are certinaly also seeing the less safe and cost efectiveness of this system, so do we blame them for pointing that out.??
Now NAS as a system has some good points, but some of the changes made on 27 Nov and some of the proposed 2c changes seem to me and many others to be changes for no benifit with reduced safety, but I am not alone in this, ATSB and AsA also think this is correct.
So why did we have to make all these radical (less safe) changes, the words used by the dicktator is "harmonisation" and that old relibale "worlds best practice". Sorry but that is BS.
The system we had worked and it had a higer level of safety, it did need some refinement and we did need to reduce costs, but we have not got a better system and we have not got less cost with NAS.
So now Garry you tell me, should we just say Hello NAS, because we are told its great and it works in the BIG old US of A, but then keep quiet when we find that it is NOT.
I mean how dare we Australian's think we could be different and have a system that works for us. God forbid.
Piss poor education and consultation before the changes,
bieng lied to by the NASIG,
1. Cost savings we were told ???
2. Safer, we were told ???
Changes for change sake and no benifit, now you tell me, does that make any sence to you??
I am sure that the ATC guys have some concers with future entitlements and jobs, but they are certinaly also seeing the less safe and cost efectiveness of this system, so do we blame them for pointing that out.??
Now NAS as a system has some good points, but some of the changes made on 27 Nov and some of the proposed 2c changes seem to me and many others to be changes for no benifit with reduced safety, but I am not alone in this, ATSB and AsA also think this is correct.
So why did we have to make all these radical (less safe) changes, the words used by the dicktator is "harmonisation" and that old relibale "worlds best practice". Sorry but that is BS.
The system we had worked and it had a higer level of safety, it did need some refinement and we did need to reduce costs, but we have not got a better system and we have not got less cost with NAS.
So now Garry you tell me, should we just say Hello NAS, because we are told its great and it works in the BIG old US of A, but then keep quiet when we find that it is NOT.
I mean how dare we Australian's think we could be different and have a system that works for us. God forbid.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure that the ATC guys have some concers with future entitlements and jobs, but they are certinaly also seeing the less safe and cost efectiveness of this system, so do we blame them for pointing that out.??
The critical error that we have made is that RPT high performance aircraft now have to mix it with unknown elements, on the basis that statistically the chance of hitting an unknown is low; yet those that actually know the airspace system know how the 'unknowns' fly, mostly on GPS now days, thus accurately, which increases the chances of being in the same place as the big boys; and statistically improves significantly the chance of the worst.
TCAS the ultimate mitigator; pity about what VoR said on the other thread. It has worked so far, but the clock is still ticking
NAS was going to solve the VCA problem, because they only occured because of complex airspace design; have the numbers gone down? No, will they, you bet because they won't need them anymore, end state so the problem is solved...
It's a joke. 'Safety is paramount', 'Without exception everyone is responsible for safety', 'sniff out the risks', 'spot the hazard', 'lean towards the safe side'. 'safety is our business'; all fantastic catch phrases that are nothing more than words; ASA Canberra management are a joke... Get real you clowns.
Bottle of Rum
calm blue ocean, calm blue ocean...
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another one.
Garry M.
I thought we were about due for another "what's wrong with NAS" psuedonym to come out of the woodwork. When the search function comes back, look up the 500 or so posts on why oz isn't getting the "US system", the 'motivation' for change, the illegal manner the changes have been rammed home in, the every-second-week new poster "what's wrong, guys, it works in the US" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Are you an AOPA member? Did Bill authorise your post?
I thought we were about due for another "what's wrong with NAS" psuedonym to come out of the woodwork. When the search function comes back, look up the 500 or so posts on why oz isn't getting the "US system", the 'motivation' for change, the illegal manner the changes have been rammed home in, the every-second-week new poster "what's wrong, guys, it works in the US" etc. etc. ad nauseum.
Are you an AOPA member? Did Bill authorise your post?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Citizen of the globe
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris buddy... take a valium!
I'm not tied to AOPA and I have no idea who Bill is. If the current system was so safe one would assume the Australian accident rate must be superior to that of countries running NAS style systems... and that doesn't seem to be the case. While I'm not a fan of change for change sakes I am open to reasonable debate. There are so many interest groups with various agendas involved in this deal now using safety as the key catch phrase, that it seems inevitable that any chance of reasonable debate is now gone.
And with that, I bid this sorry thread farewell.
I'm not tied to AOPA and I have no idea who Bill is. If the current system was so safe one would assume the Australian accident rate must be superior to that of countries running NAS style systems... and that doesn't seem to be the case. While I'm not a fan of change for change sakes I am open to reasonable debate. There are so many interest groups with various agendas involved in this deal now using safety as the key catch phrase, that it seems inevitable that any chance of reasonable debate is now gone.
And with that, I bid this sorry thread farewell.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Garry;
If you genuinely want to know the answer to your questions, go back and read the 500 or so posts on these forums about ozNAS. It's just a bit tiring going over and over the same ground (such as untruths about safety records- compare Australia's mid-air collision rate between RPT's and lighties {it's ZERO BTW} with that of the US. We have the biscuit man telling us that it's now an improvement and 'resource allocation' to remove classC protection).
You are not open to reasonable debate, as you have taken your bat and ball and gone home.
As for agendas- well, ask for a reason for the NAS debacle.
If you genuinely want to know the answer to your questions, go back and read the 500 or so posts on these forums about ozNAS. It's just a bit tiring going over and over the same ground (such as untruths about safety records- compare Australia's mid-air collision rate between RPT's and lighties {it's ZERO BTW} with that of the US. We have the biscuit man telling us that it's now an improvement and 'resource allocation' to remove classC protection).
You are not open to reasonable debate, as you have taken your bat and ball and gone home.
As for agendas- well, ask for a reason for the NAS debacle.
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
Bernie saves the day
Latest Press Release from Bernie "Where did it all go wrong?" Smith. From memory this portable unit is SSR only and not TAAATS compatible so I would expect that it would probably be more trouble that it was worth.
"Deployment of transportable radar
No. 07/04
Airservices Australia will install, on a temporary basis, a transportable radar unit near Launceston in April, the Corporation’s Chief Executive, Bernie Smith said today.
Mr Smith said the unit will assist air traffic controllers, based at Melbourne airport, to increase aircraft surveillance and situational awareness to pilots over Tasmania.
“The system involved is used to back-up the Airservices Australia radar network and is available to replace a sensor when required. It is normally stored in Melbourne but will now be kept operational at Launceston, “he said.
“However, it will still be used in other locations if required.”
Mr Smith said Airservices experts had assessed as to where best to place the mobile radar unit to achieve optimal results.
The analysis has taken in airports in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania, he said.
“Launceston airport was chosen because of the type and volume of commercial and general aviation traffic and as the site best suited to operation of the radar system.”
For further information contact: David Gray 0418 487 794"
sep
"Deployment of transportable radar
No. 07/04
Airservices Australia will install, on a temporary basis, a transportable radar unit near Launceston in April, the Corporation’s Chief Executive, Bernie Smith said today.
Mr Smith said the unit will assist air traffic controllers, based at Melbourne airport, to increase aircraft surveillance and situational awareness to pilots over Tasmania.
“The system involved is used to back-up the Airservices Australia radar network and is available to replace a sensor when required. It is normally stored in Melbourne but will now be kept operational at Launceston, “he said.
“However, it will still be used in other locations if required.”
Mr Smith said Airservices experts had assessed as to where best to place the mobile radar unit to achieve optimal results.
The analysis has taken in airports in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania, he said.
“Launceston airport was chosen because of the type and volume of commercial and general aviation traffic and as the site best suited to operation of the radar system.”
For further information contact: David Gray 0418 487 794"
sep
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sun Valley Idaho and other distractions...
Yes here we go again...the American example of how everything should work in OZ.
It doesn't quite work that way folks...yet again!
Sun Valley Idaho, where I fly into reguarly, is very heavily controlled by a Charted Visual Approach Procedure. The airport is for all intents and purposes a one way strip, blessed with mountains both sides of the approach path.
The procedure calls for pilots who are inbound to stay right (East) and for pilots that are outbound to stay right (West). There is a road that delineates the centre of the valley.
Your field of view for traffic scanning is very protected by the absence of any possibility of a plane appearing form out of a mountain, although you should be careful not to hit the hills all the same.
Not to make anyone else upset, but the belief that Sun Valley is not covered by radar or places like Steamboat Springs, Colorado or Butte, Montana, is pretty much rubbish. We do "hold for release", but before the after take-off checklist can be completed we are told that we are in radar contact.
Yes Dick! It's Class E airspace...I know! I know! The difference is that everyone has working transponders and that the culture dictates that they are talking to an approach or center facility.
Just one final note. There is only one type of "commercial" pilot in the United States, that is one that has an instrument rating. If you don't have an instrument rating they only allow you to fly 25 miles from your departure airport (scenic flights). I wonder why that is? Maybe, the Americans realise that you can't fly around in ignorant bliss and call yourself a professional either!
Like most Australians.
It doesn't quite work that way folks...yet again!
Sun Valley Idaho, where I fly into reguarly, is very heavily controlled by a Charted Visual Approach Procedure. The airport is for all intents and purposes a one way strip, blessed with mountains both sides of the approach path.
The procedure calls for pilots who are inbound to stay right (East) and for pilots that are outbound to stay right (West). There is a road that delineates the centre of the valley.
Your field of view for traffic scanning is very protected by the absence of any possibility of a plane appearing form out of a mountain, although you should be careful not to hit the hills all the same.
Not to make anyone else upset, but the belief that Sun Valley is not covered by radar or places like Steamboat Springs, Colorado or Butte, Montana, is pretty much rubbish. We do "hold for release", but before the after take-off checklist can be completed we are told that we are in radar contact.
Yes Dick! It's Class E airspace...I know! I know! The difference is that everyone has working transponders and that the culture dictates that they are talking to an approach or center facility.
Just one final note. There is only one type of "commercial" pilot in the United States, that is one that has an instrument rating. If you don't have an instrument rating they only allow you to fly 25 miles from your departure airport (scenic flights). I wonder why that is? Maybe, the Americans realise that you can't fly around in ignorant bliss and call yourself a professional either!
Like most Australians.
“The system involved is used to back-up the Airservices Australia radar network and is available to replace a sensor when required. It is normally stored in Melbourne but will now be kept operational at Launceston, “he said.
Mr Smith said Airservices experts had assessed as to where best to place the mobile radar unit to achieve optimal results.
The analysis has taken in airports in Western Australia, the Northern Territory and Tasmania
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just one final note. There is only one type of "commercial" pilot in the United States, that is one that has an instrument rating. If you don't have an instrument rating they only allow you to fly 25 miles from your departure airport (scenic flights). I wonder why that is? Maybe, the Americans realise that you can't fly around in ignorant bliss and call yourself a professional either!
Dick I believe you CERTAINLY DON'T have a full understanding of the US System!!!
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DownDraught, he does seem to have a good understanding even if over-simplified. The problem lies in that he has been cherry picking the parts he wants and telling everyone it is the all encompassing "proven North American system", which obviously it isn't even close.
Australian airspace does need to change. The commercial interests are diverging from the interests of private flyers. If the past system is/was allowed to continue, the logical conclusion is/was an airspace system with all the prime, sanitised, completely undemocratic real estate for the IFR jet jockeys and a separate airspace with limited interest for the bugsmashers. While it has its own set of problems, the US system has a good mix and I think that is the part that Dick was trying to emulate.
Australian airspace does need to change. The commercial interests are diverging from the interests of private flyers. If the past system is/was allowed to continue, the logical conclusion is/was an airspace system with all the prime, sanitised, completely undemocratic real estate for the IFR jet jockeys and a separate airspace with limited interest for the bugsmashers. While it has its own set of problems, the US system has a good mix and I think that is the part that Dick was trying to emulate.
Last edited by Lodown; 3rd Mar 2004 at 23:48.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most (aviation) people are aware of the cherry picking, but it goes deeper..
Why? IMHO there was nothing wrong with the airspace . You have to look at the whole US system , where govt. funds FAA, and charges industry very differently to oz. Dick tilting at airspace windmills can't disguise the fact that we have the 'user pays' philosophy that he believes in, and that the US is striving for in aviation, as we speak. He just shrugs this off (as do his supporters- "it's outside his remit" {as was 'airspace reform' a very short time ago!}).
If only he had used his powers for good (fixing the charging system, instead of the airspace)- everyone would've been giving him the kudos he craves by now.
Australian airspace does need to change
If only he had used his powers for good (fixing the charging system, instead of the airspace)- everyone would've been giving him the kudos he craves by now.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why does it need to be changed indeed, or more to the point, why does it need a complete overhaul!!!
I agree that the systems in place need adjustment, where adjustment is needed, but why fix it if it isn't broke. Any new change has to be at least as safe, not less safe as in the case of nas2b en route, which all where aware of!!
I agree that the systems in place need adjustment, where adjustment is needed, but why fix it if it isn't broke. Any new change has to be at least as safe, not less safe as in the case of nas2b en route, which all where aware of!!
