Bumpy ride for airspace reform
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bumpy ride for airspace reform
Fri "The Australian"
Bumpy ride for airspace reform
By Steve Creedy
August 27, 2004
AIRSERVICES Australia's board meets today under strong pressure from lobby groups to abandon, or delay, its preferred option for fixing the botched introduction of airspace reforms last November.
Private and sports pilots have been lobbying intensely to torpedo an Airservices study backing an option to roll back some of the airspace reforms.
They have written to board members to press their case that the complex mathematical model underpinning the Airservices study is flawed and not validated by real-world data.
The situation is expected to further muddy today when a report by an Australian National University professor engaged by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority raises doubts about Airservices' conclusions.
Air traffic controllers and commercial pilots now worry that the private pilots may snatch an 11th-hour victory.
The Australian and International Pilots Association, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and Civil Air yesterday jointly called for the board to reverse the reform.
The union has again said that the NAS 2b reforms increased the risk of a mid-air collision by boosting reliance on "see and avoid" to separate aircraft.
AIPA spokesman Richard Woodward said: "We call on the board of Airservices Australia to ... put the safety of Australia's travelling public first."
The Airservices board is under no obligation to act on the CASA report and can still proceed with the reversals, known as Option 3.
Airservices commissioned in-depth studies of the National Airspace System after admitting last November's NAS 2b reforms had been introduced without an adequate safety case.
The reforms widened the use of Class E airspace, in which instrument-flight rules aircraft are separated from each other but not from smaller, visual-flight rules planes.
The study found the introduction of en route E airspace did not significantly increase risk.
But it rang alarm bells about the use of Class E over airports, particularly where it had replaced the more restricted C-class space over regional aerodromes with towers.
A study of four airports picked as representative of these kinds of aerodromes found instances where the risks exceeded tolerable limits.
It showed that the risk of collision in C-class airspace in place before last November's changes was 78-81 per cent lower over three of the airports than it was under the reforms.
For example, Option 3 returns Class E airspace over those regional airports to Class C and extends Class C "steps" over bigger aerodromes so descending commercial aircraft need not pass through E airspace.
Airservices says the seven-month study was externally checked by Risk and Reliability Associates.
It also called on Access Economics to do a cost-benefit analysis before concluding the increase in risk did not outweigh the benefits.
Nonetheless, its conclusions have been under sustained attack by airspace reformer Dick Smith, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation and Recreational Aviation Australia.
They say the analysis is "dangerously flawed", exaggerates risk, maligns the skills of small pilots and fails to establish that the NAS reforms are unsafe.
They argue the model does not consider an increase in tower controller workload caused by the return to Class C airspace over regional towers, or a requirement that all aircraft flying in Class E airspace carry transponders that can be seen by airliner traffic collision avoidance systems.
"Much is made of the radar coverage in the US," their analysis says. "However, these comments ignore the fact that traffic densities in Australia are, very conservatively, less that one-quarter those in similar airspace in the US."
A US safety consultant and former high-ranking Federal Aviation Administration official brought in by the groups also raises doubts about the report's validity.
Anthony Broderick was particularly troubled by the lack of validation using available mid-air collision data and said the model's use of expert safety panels cast doubts on the results and their lack of bias.
"It is not beyond reasonable belief that these inaccuracies and bias, combined with the lack of consideration of TCAS, can lead the model to predict results that are, in fact, opposite of what is real," he said.
At least one airline, Virgin Blue, has backed the Airservices approach, and Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon last week urged the parties to find a solution.
Mr Dixon said: "A lot of people are taking very, very strong positions on this, there's a lot of politics behind it and I think it would be nice if we could sit down and get it done properly."
==========================================
Bumpy ride for airspace reform
By Steve Creedy
August 27, 2004
AIRSERVICES Australia's board meets today under strong pressure from lobby groups to abandon, or delay, its preferred option for fixing the botched introduction of airspace reforms last November.
Private and sports pilots have been lobbying intensely to torpedo an Airservices study backing an option to roll back some of the airspace reforms.
They have written to board members to press their case that the complex mathematical model underpinning the Airservices study is flawed and not validated by real-world data.
The situation is expected to further muddy today when a report by an Australian National University professor engaged by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority raises doubts about Airservices' conclusions.
Air traffic controllers and commercial pilots now worry that the private pilots may snatch an 11th-hour victory.
The Australian and International Pilots Association, the Australian Federation of Air Pilots and Civil Air yesterday jointly called for the board to reverse the reform.
The union has again said that the NAS 2b reforms increased the risk of a mid-air collision by boosting reliance on "see and avoid" to separate aircraft.
AIPA spokesman Richard Woodward said: "We call on the board of Airservices Australia to ... put the safety of Australia's travelling public first."
The Airservices board is under no obligation to act on the CASA report and can still proceed with the reversals, known as Option 3.
Airservices commissioned in-depth studies of the National Airspace System after admitting last November's NAS 2b reforms had been introduced without an adequate safety case.
The reforms widened the use of Class E airspace, in which instrument-flight rules aircraft are separated from each other but not from smaller, visual-flight rules planes.
The study found the introduction of en route E airspace did not significantly increase risk.
But it rang alarm bells about the use of Class E over airports, particularly where it had replaced the more restricted C-class space over regional aerodromes with towers.
A study of four airports picked as representative of these kinds of aerodromes found instances where the risks exceeded tolerable limits.
It showed that the risk of collision in C-class airspace in place before last November's changes was 78-81 per cent lower over three of the airports than it was under the reforms.
For example, Option 3 returns Class E airspace over those regional airports to Class C and extends Class C "steps" over bigger aerodromes so descending commercial aircraft need not pass through E airspace.
Airservices says the seven-month study was externally checked by Risk and Reliability Associates.
It also called on Access Economics to do a cost-benefit analysis before concluding the increase in risk did not outweigh the benefits.
Nonetheless, its conclusions have been under sustained attack by airspace reformer Dick Smith, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association, the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation and Recreational Aviation Australia.
They say the analysis is "dangerously flawed", exaggerates risk, maligns the skills of small pilots and fails to establish that the NAS reforms are unsafe.
They argue the model does not consider an increase in tower controller workload caused by the return to Class C airspace over regional towers, or a requirement that all aircraft flying in Class E airspace carry transponders that can be seen by airliner traffic collision avoidance systems.
"Much is made of the radar coverage in the US," their analysis says. "However, these comments ignore the fact that traffic densities in Australia are, very conservatively, less that one-quarter those in similar airspace in the US."
A US safety consultant and former high-ranking Federal Aviation Administration official brought in by the groups also raises doubts about the report's validity.
Anthony Broderick was particularly troubled by the lack of validation using available mid-air collision data and said the model's use of expert safety panels cast doubts on the results and their lack of bias.
"It is not beyond reasonable belief that these inaccuracies and bias, combined with the lack of consideration of TCAS, can lead the model to predict results that are, in fact, opposite of what is real," he said.
At least one airline, Virgin Blue, has backed the Airservices approach, and Qantas chief executive Geoff Dixon last week urged the parties to find a solution.
Mr Dixon said: "A lot of people are taking very, very strong positions on this, there's a lot of politics behind it and I think it would be nice if we could sit down and get it done properly."
==========================================
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If they reverse again, the only call left will be for all of them to resign.
Then I wonder 'who' will be lobbying for a position on the new board!
What a scary armageddon scenario for Australian Aviation that would be.
Then I wonder 'who' will be lobbying for a position on the new board!
What a scary armageddon scenario for Australian Aviation that would be.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If past history is anything to go by, the Airservices' board will find the easiest decision to make is one that does not make a decision. I don't hold out much hope for any rollback, but who knows...I could be surprised.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmmm,
Here's what google turns up.
Anthony J. Broderick is an independent aviation safety consultant who works with international airlines, aerospace firms, a major aircraft manufacturer, and governments. Before retiring from his post as Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification in the FAA, Broderick served for 11 years as the senior career aviation safety official in the U.S. Government. Broderick led the FAA’s development of the International Aviation Safety Assessment program. He was also instrumental in leading international efforts to establish certification and operational standards for safety. Prior to this appointment Broderick spent 14 years in FAA and the U.S. Department of Transportation, and seven years in private industry. His portfolio also includes a background in civil aviation security, aviation environmental issues, and management of the FAA evaluation, currency, and transportation flying programs, and oversight of the FAA flight inspection program. He has received many awards and recognition for his work in the aeronautics industry.
A fine resume from another "consultant", who say's
What the?? Where are the VOR when you need them?? 
Here's what google turns up.
Anthony J. Broderick is an independent aviation safety consultant who works with international airlines, aerospace firms, a major aircraft manufacturer, and governments. Before retiring from his post as Associate Administrator for Regulation and Certification in the FAA, Broderick served for 11 years as the senior career aviation safety official in the U.S. Government. Broderick led the FAA’s development of the International Aviation Safety Assessment program. He was also instrumental in leading international efforts to establish certification and operational standards for safety. Prior to this appointment Broderick spent 14 years in FAA and the U.S. Department of Transportation, and seven years in private industry. His portfolio also includes a background in civil aviation security, aviation environmental issues, and management of the FAA evaluation, currency, and transportation flying programs, and oversight of the FAA flight inspection program. He has received many awards and recognition for his work in the aeronautics industry.
A fine resume from another "consultant", who say's
A US safety consultant and former high-ranking Federal Aviation Administration official brought in by the groups also raises doubts about the report's validity.
Anthony Broderick was particularly troubled by the lack of validation using available mid-air collision data and said the model's use of expert safety panels cast doubts on the results and their lack of bias.
"It is not beyond reasonable belief that these inaccuracies and bias, combined with the lack of consideration of TCAS, can lead the model to predict results that are, in fact, opposite of what is real," he said.
.
Anthony Broderick was particularly troubled by the lack of validation using available mid-air collision data and said the model's use of expert safety panels cast doubts on the results and their lack of bias.
"It is not beyond reasonable belief that these inaccuracies and bias, combined with the lack of consideration of TCAS, can lead the model to predict results that are, in fact, opposite of what is real," he said.
.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,
We have been watching this development.
For a more detailed resume on Mr Broderick, please refer to Mr Dick Smith's website - www.dicksmithflyer.com.au
There you will find the reports by Dr Hall, Mr Mills and Mr Broderick.
We have provided a short critique on a parallel thread, and are considering a more detailed response.
We have been watching this development.
For a more detailed resume on Mr Broderick, please refer to Mr Dick Smith's website - www.dicksmithflyer.com.au
There you will find the reports by Dr Hall, Mr Mills and Mr Broderick.
We have provided a short critique on a parallel thread, and are considering a more detailed response.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 39
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The precautionary approach
A logical way ahead out of the present debacle of 'expert' versus 'expert' is for AirServices Australia to take the precautionary approach and return to pre-Novemeber 2003 when I felt reasonably safe flying to Launceston. Then all the 'experts' can argue for as long as they want and a proper professional approach to proving the airspace reforms are 'safer' can be undertaken without continuing to endanger me and my family. Then it can be implemented if it has been proven that safety can be maintained or improved. While there is doubt about safety, the precautionary approach says - don't do it!
Particularly when there appears to be no public benefit whatsoever of retaining the airspace changes.
Particularly when there appears to be no public benefit whatsoever of retaining the airspace changes.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No doubt the "200,000 aviators" who are represented by AOPA et al are noisy on the subject - but where in the heck does this number come from? There are only 20,000 odd licenced and student private pilots in the country and another 10, 000 commercial pilots. It must be like all figures associated with NAS - you multiply bt ten! Perhaps the 33,000,000 "aviators" who sit in the back of the commercial jets every year should get some say on the subject.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Where is the government's voice?
Notice how John Anderson is strangely quiet about all this.
The big rumour is that John Howard is very, very confident of winning the next election. So confident, this airspace "stuff" will be dealt with after he wins the election.
Uh oh!
The big rumour is that John Howard is very, very confident of winning the next election. So confident, this airspace "stuff" will be dealt with after he wins the election.
Uh oh!
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe I'm missing something or forgot to take my Lithium but does Mr Brodericks statement support the pro NASers view of the world, my reading suggests the opposite or is he being quoted out of context.???
