View Poll Results: Disregarding the NAS effort, is/was airspace reform a national aviation priority.
YES, it was an operational safety imperative only?
2
1.75%
YES, it was an economic consideration only, there were demonstrable cost savings.
1
0.88%
YES, it was a combination of both.
14
12.28%
YES, it was necessary to import, ad hoc, another countries system.
2
1.75%
NO, Our local system was appropriate to our environment with some refinements.
95
83.33%
Voters: 114. This poll is closed
POLL. The NAS from your perspective
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
POLL. The NAS from your perspective
We do not present ourselves as experts in this polling business, but we値l have a go.
It is your Forum and if you think we need some guidance you know how to PM us, we guarantee we値l listen, but we will retain the prerogative to make our own judgments on what is appropriate, you値l just have to trust us.
There are only 5 options available per polling session so we may have to run more than one for such a controversial issue, so we値l start from the beginning and go from there.
We do not expect to produce a definitive answer beyond a general consensus and we are certain that both sides will draw whatever conclusions from the results that suit their personal agenda痴.
Sobeit, we are not here to push one side or the other, we are, as ever, merely a blackboard upon which you may scratch your thoughts and feelings.
The programme, being truly democratic will allow you to vote once only, multiple registrations attempting to influence the vote will be viewed with extreme displeasure.
Be patient, RTFQ, think carefully about each question and your answer and poll away.
It is your Forum and if you think we need some guidance you know how to PM us, we guarantee we値l listen, but we will retain the prerogative to make our own judgments on what is appropriate, you値l just have to trust us.
There are only 5 options available per polling session so we may have to run more than one for such a controversial issue, so we値l start from the beginning and go from there.
We do not expect to produce a definitive answer beyond a general consensus and we are certain that both sides will draw whatever conclusions from the results that suit their personal agenda痴.
Sobeit, we are not here to push one side or the other, we are, as ever, merely a blackboard upon which you may scratch your thoughts and feelings.
The programme, being truly democratic will allow you to vote once only, multiple registrations attempting to influence the vote will be viewed with extreme displeasure.
Be patient, RTFQ, think carefully about each question and your answer and poll away.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
None of the above.
Change 'airspace' for 'Aviation' so as to look at funding and costs.
add option
Yes. Aviation reform is required to fully assess the costs associated with the provision of certain services and the benefit of funding/assistance with new technologies.
Change 'airspace' for 'Aviation' so as to look at funding and costs.
add option
Yes. Aviation reform is required to fully assess the costs associated with the provision of certain services and the benefit of funding/assistance with new technologies.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voted NO with my heart, and then thought!
If we're looking at the post-Nov 2003 stuff, the answer's NO. If you go back to AMATS, the YES/Combination middle answer is correct.
Maybe a wasted vote, but this has been going on so long, you almost need a history degree to achieve balanced opinion!!
G'day
If we're looking at the post-Nov 2003 stuff, the answer's NO. If you go back to AMATS, the YES/Combination middle answer is correct.
Maybe a wasted vote, but this has been going on so long, you almost need a history degree to achieve balanced opinion!!
G'day
Grandpa Aerotart
Voted no!!!
I don't believe the system that existed before Nov 2003 needed anything other than tweaking. Some of the 'participants' needed educating in the reasons and methods for participating too.
How much simpler would it have been to put out an education package to industry and individuals about a system that was well understood by most already?
Chuck.
I don't believe the system that existed before Nov 2003 needed anything other than tweaking. Some of the 'participants' needed educating in the reasons and methods for participating too.
How much simpler would it have been to put out an education package to industry and individuals about a system that was well understood by most already?
Chuck.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"A paradox a paradox a most ingenious paradox" thanks to
Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan.
To view and monitor the poll results without having voted requires an extra click, which gets repetitious given our moderating activity.
To avoid this it is necessary for us to vote.
We do try not to take sides on any issue here or seek in any way to influence the vote.
So we will, at an appropriate time be selecting a vote in a way that will have the least effect on the result, but we will not however reveal where, it will just appear just like everybody elses anonymously.
And for the conspiracy theorists amongst us we do not have any, A N Y control over the results of the poll or access to the pollers.
tobzalp
maybe but as I said this may be the first of a number of polls to required to cover the ground and the proponents have suggetsed that airspace reform is an economic answer to our woes .
Feather#3 ahh them were the days :envy: true, but I've only got 5 options per question 
Messrs Gilbert and Sullivan.
To view and monitor the poll results without having voted requires an extra click, which gets repetitious given our moderating activity.
To avoid this it is necessary for us to vote.
We do try not to take sides on any issue here or seek in any way to influence the vote.
So we will, at an appropriate time be selecting a vote in a way that will have the least effect on the result, but we will not however reveal where, it will just appear just like everybody elses anonymously.
And for the conspiracy theorists amongst us we do not have any, A N Y control over the results of the poll or access to the pollers.
tobzalp
maybe but as I said this may be the first of a number of polls to required to cover the ground and the proponents have suggetsed that airspace reform is an economic answer to our woes .
Feather#3 ahh them were the days :envy:
true, but I've only got 5 options per question
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Somewhere Hot n Sandy
Posts: 123
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Changes should be made for the greater good, not for the benefit of a Minority.
The difference between a Democratic and Autocratic government perhaps ?
Coming from both sides of the ATC / Pilot fence i'd say yes to some tweaking for our international brothers/sisters so that they receive a familiar service when they arrive Down Under ?
The last changes have been ill thought out, poorly educated, implemented in an amateruish fashion. The additional cost to our company has been $$$ already for NO MEASURED IMPROVEMENT IN SAFETY...
_______
Fizzy
The difference between a Democratic and Autocratic government perhaps ?
Coming from both sides of the ATC / Pilot fence i'd say yes to some tweaking for our international brothers/sisters so that they receive a familiar service when they arrive Down Under ?
The last changes have been ill thought out, poorly educated, implemented in an amateruish fashion. The additional cost to our company has been $$$ already for NO MEASURED IMPROVEMENT IN SAFETY...
_______
Fizzy
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No he hasn't Chuck, one of those was Woomera.
In all fairness, it's hardly a scientific poll as W has admitted, and will ultimately prove nothing, a point already graciously made by GT-R. My original suggestion for a poll was suggested rather tongue in cheek to mock Dick's hypothesis that a lot of ATC's support NAS, a proposition so completely removed from reality as to be laughable, but we're becoming used to that sort of unrealistic rhetoric from him.
I know my poll was completely unenforceable and therefore meaningless, but I don't see that making up a poll to reflect what has been quite obviously the massive majority opinion on this forum is going to achieve much either.
I do notice that none of the pro-NAS advocates have been willing to hang their shingle on either a safety or an economic benefit, all choosing a combination of the two. I find this fascinating, implying as it does they genuinely believe there was a net safety benefit behind the reforms, a difficult tenet to propose for anybody except Dick, plus a significant net economic benefit, a suggestion which has been completely discredited by the people appointed to investigate it.
Funny how easily dogma can overcome reason.
In all fairness, it's hardly a scientific poll as W has admitted, and will ultimately prove nothing, a point already graciously made by GT-R.
My original suggestion for a poll was suggested rather tongue in cheek to mock Dick's hypothesis that a lot of ATC's support NAS, a proposition so completely removed from reality as to be laughable, but we're becoming used to that sort of unrealistic rhetoric from him. I know my poll was completely unenforceable and therefore meaningless, but I don't see that making up a poll to reflect what has been quite obviously the massive majority opinion on this forum is going to achieve much either.
I do notice that none of the pro-NAS advocates have been willing to hang their shingle on either a safety or an economic benefit, all choosing a combination of the two. I find this fascinating, implying as it does they genuinely believe there was a net safety benefit behind the reforms, a difficult tenet to propose for anybody except Dick, plus a significant net economic benefit, a suggestion which has been completely discredited by the people appointed to investigate it.
Funny how easily dogma can overcome reason.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've thought for a while about this, and have decided I want the US system, with refinements. NAS tried to deliver a system that gave Dick Smith what he wanted (fly anywhere, listen to cd's and fack everybody else). It is just dumb to have ATC sitting at ATC consoles giving the same service Flight Service did 30 years ago.
Look after the big boys with positive separation. Bug-smashers let into the holes between them.
Full ATC service for IFR everywhere else, with the IFR able to opt out of separation when conditions are suitable.
Full advisory service available for VFR, on going, on request.
No idea how to do it.
Look after the big boys with positive separation. Bug-smashers let into the holes between them.
Full ATC service for IFR everywhere else, with the IFR able to opt out of separation when conditions are suitable.
Full advisory service available for VFR, on going, on request.
No idea how to do it.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karrank,
I tend to agree in some areas.
If we were to adopt the US system completely, I can see that we would need a fair increase in the number of Air Traffic Controllers however.
Why? Well Sectors size would have to reduce to be able to adequately acquit the Class B, C and E traffic passing responsibilties as per the US system. (Remember target resolution or 2.5nm dependant on the class). These time/frequency available critical, as well as display resolution critical actions / scanning requirements make the full adoption of the US system in many ways impractical. It would cost more - not just the airlines, all users.
Dick Smith goes on quite a lot about Australia having less traffic than the US - well he doesnt seem to focus much on the corresponding truth from that perspective - there is a lot less GAand VFR traffic as well. So the adoptionof the US system to fulfill this small requirement is not cost effective - as we have seen in the last year.
The Australian system evolved from putting resources where they are most needed. While there are some improvements that can be made they do not in my view involve adoopting a system that doesnt suit.
The money that has been wasted in the political exercise to date could have in fact solved most of the issues. NAS in that regard has set us back.
You know who to thank.
Remember not that long ago, The Minister, AirServices PR, DOTARS, NASIG etc. were calling the Controllers and the Airline Pilots scaremongerers. Now,they are not saying that. They are saying that the system has failed - not very loudly , but nonetheless those who said it would not work or save money have been vindicated.
There is only one person left still shouting scaremongerer, and blaming the growing list of organisations that will no longer support him in his political quest.
Wouldn't it be nice to know just how much all this has really cost? And exactly how it has been funded?
I tend to agree in some areas.
If we were to adopt the US system completely, I can see that we would need a fair increase in the number of Air Traffic Controllers however.
Why? Well Sectors size would have to reduce to be able to adequately acquit the Class B, C and E traffic passing responsibilties as per the US system. (Remember target resolution or 2.5nm dependant on the class). These time/frequency available critical, as well as display resolution critical actions / scanning requirements make the full adoption of the US system in many ways impractical. It would cost more - not just the airlines, all users.
Dick Smith goes on quite a lot about Australia having less traffic than the US - well he doesnt seem to focus much on the corresponding truth from that perspective - there is a lot less GAand VFR traffic as well. So the adoptionof the US system to fulfill this small requirement is not cost effective - as we have seen in the last year.
The Australian system evolved from putting resources where they are most needed. While there are some improvements that can be made they do not in my view involve adoopting a system that doesnt suit.
The money that has been wasted in the political exercise to date could have in fact solved most of the issues. NAS in that regard has set us back.
You know who to thank.
Remember not that long ago, The Minister, AirServices PR, DOTARS, NASIG etc. were calling the Controllers and the Airline Pilots scaremongerers. Now,they are not saying that. They are saying that the system has failed - not very loudly , but nonetheless those who said it would not work or save money have been vindicated.
There is only one person left still shouting scaremongerer, and blaming the growing list of organisations that will no longer support him in his political quest.
Wouldn't it be nice to know just how much all this has really cost? And exactly how it has been funded?
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Just a quick question a little off topic.
Bino's said:
My question is does each individual Woomerai get a vote or is it just one collective vote?
Cheers, HH.
Bino's said:
No he hasn't Chuck, one of those was Woomera.
Cheers, HH.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howard Hughes
We might be many, but we only get one vote and we only voted to save us the trouble of clicking "View Results" each time we wanted to have a look.
As we said the poll system only allows one vote per user name and we voted in a way that we thought would have the least effect on the results. The "polling" part of the programme is incorruptible (insofar as any computer programme can be) and we cannot influence the results or access the pollers information even if we were interested in doing so.
We might be many, but we only get one vote and we only voted to save us the trouble of clicking "View Results" each time we wanted to have a look.
As we said the poll system only allows one vote per user name and we voted in a way that we thought would have the least effect on the results. The "polling" part of the programme is incorruptible (insofar as any computer programme can be) and we cannot influence the results or access the pollers information even if we were interested in doing so.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brighton-le-Sands
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What a joke.
Call this a fair survey?
Look at the post's on this site over the last year - 96% anti-Smith, 4% pro-Smith.
And lo and behold - survey result - 96% anti NAS, 4% pro-NAS.
What a crock.
Call this a fair survey?
Look at the post's on this site over the last year - 96% anti-Smith, 4% pro-Smith.
And lo and behold - survey result - 96% anti NAS, 4% pro-NAS.
What a crock.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 67
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You have got to love this thread our national airspace reform process has been formed and rejected based on the dislike of one man now there is real intelligence at work. I suppose people will vote yes or no based on their expert opinion and be backed with statistical analysis of traffic movements or is it perhaps gut feelings what a way to run airspace. Its all a croc the latest news that Qantas are happy to fly through class G into Avalon and mix with GA traffic proves money is the real reason for the rollback.
Bottums Up
poison_dwarf
You said,
I don't think it has been rejected by most professionals in aviation because Dick is associated with it. It seems to me that Dick is still peddaling the same sort of airspace that has been found wanting over the last 10 or so years.
If Kingsford-Smith, Reg, or some other respected aviaton professional had suggested NAS2b, I'm confident that the rejection of it would be much as it is.
You said,
our national airspace reform process has been formed and rejected based on the dislike of one man
If Kingsford-Smith, Reg, or some other respected aviaton professional had suggested NAS2b, I'm confident that the rejection of it would be much as it is.
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,980
Received 108 Likes
on
61 Posts
No!! And others have said why in a far better and more eloquent manner that I ever could!
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you gentlemen and ladies, I'll close this one.
I'll leave you to interpret the results as you wish.
There is another forum whose very existence relies on plagiarising PPRuNe, that suggests, despite there being 4 yes v 1 no, the questions were biased against the NAS.
So to keep it really simple for them
, let's try a much more fundamental poll that simply requires an "unqualified" yes or no.
Click!
I'll leave you to interpret the results as you wish.
There is another forum whose very existence relies on plagiarising PPRuNe, that suggests, despite there being 4 yes v 1 no, the questions were biased against the NAS.
So to keep it really simple for them
, let's try a much more fundamental poll that simply requires an "unqualified" yes or no. Click!
