Airspace Reform – Quiet Reflection
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, that should provoke silence for a while, Sunfish.
That is rather the equivalent of a political studio discussion which has brought together plausible sounding experts from everywhere to plug their own agenda, when from somewhere down the back a truck driver's wife yells "how the bloody hell are our kids ever going to afford to better themselves by education?"
Lots of rustling and uncomfortable silence ensues before the inevitable obfuscation starts again and the "rowdy" interjector is shown quietly to the door.
Well done!
I will answer briefly from the point of view of one of the anti-Nas brigade. MY objection was simply that we were being asked to swallow a less safe system with no demonstrable gain. E is not as safe as C, no matter how Dick raves about the U.S. Had the implementation of E over D somehow managed to save millions of dollars, then in our pragmatic world it would have to have been scrutinised closely.
It didn't. Simple as that. It never would have, and all the bleating about fundamentalists etc can't disguise the fact that it was never designed to do any more than make things easier for VFR pilots, who don't pay enroute charges anyway. Make no mistake that this is an ideological argument.
Other aspects of airspace reform should be looked at closely with an eye to a possible benefit for all without a reduction in safety, but it should be fairly obvious to even the dimmest that the presence of Mr Smith is so irredeemably divisive as to prevent any chance of meaningful discussion. For whatever reason, he appears to have the Minister by the short and curlies, and the result is an abysmal and embarrassing abuse of the Westminster system.
Until the unholy duumvirate, the puppet and the puppetmaster, are disposed of no meaningful change can occur.
I will just add here that Smith's latest stunt, telling his puppet to sign an order for full class C radar implementation at outstation towers, is such an outrageous dummy spit as to take the breath away. I could have sworn that outstation towers used to run the equivalent of Class C airspace long before the concept of Class E airspace was ever brought up. And we did it without radar, Dick.
Unless the omniscient dick can explain to my satisfaction what it was I was doing in Mackay tower if it wasn't procedural approach in class C airspace, he will remain beneath contempt for me.
I will tell you, Sunfish,since you profess a desire to learn, that in those days Coolangatta and Cairns operated the same procedural approach system, and had movement figures around the same as Brisbane's. This was before dick even thought about using his money and public image to bitch about not being able to land his helicopter at his luxury Point Piper home, leading him to be placed in charge of the lunatic asylum which was the CAA.
I can't remember exact dates now, but a little research should show you that it took a midair collision at Coolangatta and the career of a bloody good controller to prompt the hierarchy that procedural approach was not designed to handle 8000 movements a month, and Cairns and Coolangatta became full blown TCU's.
To suggest that any other outstation towers now demand full TCU radar airspace is a leap of such Machiavellian content that it has taken me a while to understand just what this madman is attempting to do.
It boils down to this.
"OK, I've been telling you all that Class E is all we need, and all you fundamentalists won't listen to me, you just keep putting up your miserable objections. And now you've succeeded, you've got your poxy Class C airspace where VFR pilots actually have to tell you where they are at all times.
So cop this. I f you think Class C is so fandangled important, we're going to call your bluff! Oh yes indeedie we are, don't you think you can put one over on Richard Smith! Do you know who I am??? I'm going to put one more squeeze on the left testicle of my very good friend the minister and I'm going to insist we spend upwards of $150 million to instal desperately needed class C airspace, because you fundamentalists and union cronies insist that only Class C is safe.
As we all know this involves full radar approach services, so you rabid unionists and anti-GA fundamentalists (have I said that before?) can't whinge about the $150 million it will cost. And when the cost inevitably flows through to the customers, I'll be able to say hahahahaha, told you so! Nyah nah nah nah nah!!!
I'm sorry to appear so cynical, Sunfish. Somebody who has been around in various forms in the industry for 30 years should have something useful to add, but this is the effect the bickie man has had on the industry. Ask the GA people out there what the industry was like in the 70's and 80's before Dick and his cost cutters came on the scene. His hypocrisy simply takes my breath away.
That is rather the equivalent of a political studio discussion which has brought together plausible sounding experts from everywhere to plug their own agenda, when from somewhere down the back a truck driver's wife yells "how the bloody hell are our kids ever going to afford to better themselves by education?"
Lots of rustling and uncomfortable silence ensues before the inevitable obfuscation starts again and the "rowdy" interjector is shown quietly to the door.
Well done!
I will answer briefly from the point of view of one of the anti-Nas brigade. MY objection was simply that we were being asked to swallow a less safe system with no demonstrable gain. E is not as safe as C, no matter how Dick raves about the U.S. Had the implementation of E over D somehow managed to save millions of dollars, then in our pragmatic world it would have to have been scrutinised closely.
It didn't. Simple as that. It never would have, and all the bleating about fundamentalists etc can't disguise the fact that it was never designed to do any more than make things easier for VFR pilots, who don't pay enroute charges anyway. Make no mistake that this is an ideological argument.
Other aspects of airspace reform should be looked at closely with an eye to a possible benefit for all without a reduction in safety, but it should be fairly obvious to even the dimmest that the presence of Mr Smith is so irredeemably divisive as to prevent any chance of meaningful discussion. For whatever reason, he appears to have the Minister by the short and curlies, and the result is an abysmal and embarrassing abuse of the Westminster system.
Until the unholy duumvirate, the puppet and the puppetmaster, are disposed of no meaningful change can occur.
I will just add here that Smith's latest stunt, telling his puppet to sign an order for full class C radar implementation at outstation towers, is such an outrageous dummy spit as to take the breath away. I could have sworn that outstation towers used to run the equivalent of Class C airspace long before the concept of Class E airspace was ever brought up. And we did it without radar, Dick.
Unless the omniscient dick can explain to my satisfaction what it was I was doing in Mackay tower if it wasn't procedural approach in class C airspace, he will remain beneath contempt for me.
I will tell you, Sunfish,since you profess a desire to learn, that in those days Coolangatta and Cairns operated the same procedural approach system, and had movement figures around the same as Brisbane's. This was before dick even thought about using his money and public image to bitch about not being able to land his helicopter at his luxury Point Piper home, leading him to be placed in charge of the lunatic asylum which was the CAA.
I can't remember exact dates now, but a little research should show you that it took a midair collision at Coolangatta and the career of a bloody good controller to prompt the hierarchy that procedural approach was not designed to handle 8000 movements a month, and Cairns and Coolangatta became full blown TCU's.
To suggest that any other outstation towers now demand full TCU radar airspace is a leap of such Machiavellian content that it has taken me a while to understand just what this madman is attempting to do.
It boils down to this.
"OK, I've been telling you all that Class E is all we need, and all you fundamentalists won't listen to me, you just keep putting up your miserable objections. And now you've succeeded, you've got your poxy Class C airspace where VFR pilots actually have to tell you where they are at all times.
So cop this. I f you think Class C is so fandangled important, we're going to call your bluff! Oh yes indeedie we are, don't you think you can put one over on Richard Smith! Do you know who I am??? I'm going to put one more squeeze on the left testicle of my very good friend the minister and I'm going to insist we spend upwards of $150 million to instal desperately needed class C airspace, because you fundamentalists and union cronies insist that only Class C is safe.
As we all know this involves full radar approach services, so you rabid unionists and anti-GA fundamentalists (have I said that before?) can't whinge about the $150 million it will cost. And when the cost inevitably flows through to the customers, I'll be able to say hahahahaha, told you so! Nyah nah nah nah nah!!!
I'm sorry to appear so cynical, Sunfish. Somebody who has been around in various forms in the industry for 30 years should have something useful to add, but this is the effect the bickie man has had on the industry. Ask the GA people out there what the industry was like in the 70's and 80's before Dick and his cost cutters came on the scene. His hypocrisy simply takes my breath away.
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
Binos,
As someone who was working in Cairns at the time of the changeover from Procedural Approach to Radar Approach (actually the last person to be rated on Proc.), I can vouch for your summary of the situation at the time.
The introduction of radar to CG and CS was based on the amount of traffic, not the nature of the airspace nor the relative positions of the sun and the moon. RHS himself seemed to have no apparent difficulties operating in Procedural 'C', from what I observed.
sep
Check your PMs.
As someone who was working in Cairns at the time of the changeover from Procedural Approach to Radar Approach (actually the last person to be rated on Proc.), I can vouch for your summary of the situation at the time.
The introduction of radar to CG and CS was based on the amount of traffic, not the nature of the airspace nor the relative positions of the sun and the moon. RHS himself seemed to have no apparent difficulties operating in Procedural 'C', from what I observed.
sep
Check your PMs.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binos well put my man. 
Sultanas and Gin
And your point is??
May I suggest a course in remedial english with the accent on comprehension.
Now, tell me again it was just words. I would say the Airservices decision, and they didn’t need my help to make it, and the Ministers or rather the other ministers subsequent reaction would suggest otherwise.
I am still clinging desperately to the notion that the Minister is the honorable and straightforward person that I judge him to be, it is the quality, or lack of the advice he is given that seems to be the problem. That “directive” is one of the more cynically obscene pieces of “advice” I have seen for a bit and he didn’t think it up all by himself.
And if you were talking about the last AGM I suspect it could have been held in a telephone box and how many went to the AGM dinner? It was held in Sydney too.
Sunfish
You can safely ignore the petty BS that you see being touted around here; you see it is much easier to take the man down, than it is to rebut the argument intelligently.
One wonders why those who think so little about and spend so much time trying to belittle anyone that they find it so important that they should do so.
I can only offer that you and I are equally entitled to a view on any matter we choose and that the intelligent amongst us will have the wit and wisdom to work out the merit of it.
If you have to resort to slander, deceit, sleight of hand and all manner of smoke and mirrors to win the day, the “anything it takes” attitude and “anyway what would you know”, then it is hard to give whatever you are proposing any credence.
yes it is and they did, very well too, until the "we are here to save you brigade" came along. AOPA under Peter Patroni was a well respected and vital part of the aviation infrastructure. Almost all of the people that made it so and about 6,000 ex members have given up in disgust and walked away.
Simply NO, well amongst those that are left in any event.
There are however, a large group of disenfranchised aviation professionals including, it now seems, an entire regulatory organisation (both judged to be "world class" by their international peers), who have been sidelined and marginalised for a personal and political agenda disguised in the bankrupt clothes of "cost savings" recently estimated to be around negative$250,000,000 (means "cost" not "savings") because "they" are too stupid
to be able to see "the light".
Yes and yes. As I understand it, Airservices were determined, in accordance with their duty of care and governance requirements and as a matter of professional responsibility, to use an internationally accepted DNV metric to ensure that ANY changes had the metric ruler over them before implementation, of any stage of NAS.
DNV metric??
There are a number of international agencies the like of Lloyds, DNV, ABS, RINA and many others who offer independent risk and process analysis and certification. If you board a ship for example, that has been built, certified and maintained to their standards you are as safe as it is possible to be for that standard.
Go Here for Det Norske Veritas
That is until CASA, told Airservices they did not need one as they had satisfied themselves so. Fair enough you say and from another regulator yet. But I suspect against their better judgment, and as it since been seen to be so.
On what basis and under what pressure that assurance was accepted remains to be seen. I'd be fascinated to hear what their insurers feel about it.
The only independent study that has surfaced through all of this, the Broome DAS, commissioned by the owners of Broome Airport and audited by CSIRO, exposed a huge liability for the Government and Airservices in certain aspects of the NAS and provided the only scientifically researched and intellectually rigorous risk analysis to that time, beyond the serial “I believes” and “it works fine there”.
The only responsible and legally defensible response to this should have been for the Government to have a similarly rigorous study conducted by an internationally recognized and accepted agency such as described above, to either confirm, refine or refute the data. It was however only days before an “expert” was wheeled out armed with a hatchet to question the academic bona fides.
It’s called consultant shopping, you just keep turning them over until you find the one who suits your agenda.
Rigorous it is not.
Now we have an assortment of psychologists, chemists, ballroom dancers, true believers, my viewers, self proclaimed legends, Uncle Tom Cobbleys' and all, having a bit of a go, arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, not one of whom has the credibility of the above agencies. I do not intend this as a criticism of any individual, it is simply that Australia deserves and we cannot afford to otherwise, an internationally recognised and respected circuit breaker to resolve the sorry mess created in the last 20 years of crusading.
Sunfish, I believe that we as a nation are supposed to be protected by our Public Service and Regulators by the execution and the professional and skilled implementation by them of Government policy.
We elect Government on their policies, not any individuals personal agenda.
That's the basis on which they are selected, that is what we pay them for and they are entitled to absolute support from the Government of the day on the careful execution of the detail.
They are entitled to protection from harassment, second guessing and inappropriate influence in return for which we expect sound and balanced results.
Dead set right! And every day spent by our servants, preparing ministerials, repairing staff morale, responding to endless criticism, endlessly justifying decisions and rebutting unjustifiable “advice”, endlessly second guessing the second guessers and when you get to the third time around it means that you do have to take a stand eventually.
Australia is overrepresented worldwide in the scientific, academic, athletic, musical and just about any other pursuit you could imagine. We are esteemed in every one of them, including the quality of our public servants and their work.
Why do we then abdicate our aviation agenda to a couple of well meaning enthusiasts, is this the only place in the real world it happens ?
There is some hope that DOTARS have, or are taking back that ground and we can look forward to the return of the manner of professional public service that has separated Australia from the likes of The Grand Duchy of Fenwick for the last hundred years or so.
Lets hope so.
Sultanas and Gin
And your point is??
May I suggest a course in remedial english with the accent on comprehension.
Now, tell me again it was just words. I would say the Airservices decision, and they didn’t need my help to make it, and the Ministers or rather the other ministers subsequent reaction would suggest otherwise.
I am still clinging desperately to the notion that the Minister is the honorable and straightforward person that I judge him to be, it is the quality, or lack of the advice he is given that seems to be the problem. That “directive” is one of the more cynically obscene pieces of “advice” I have seen for a bit and he didn’t think it up all by himself.
And if you were talking about the last AGM I suspect it could have been held in a telephone box and how many went to the AGM dinner? It was held in Sydney too.
Sunfish
You can safely ignore the petty BS that you see being touted around here; you see it is much easier to take the man down, than it is to rebut the argument intelligently.
One wonders why those who think so little about and spend so much time trying to belittle anyone that they find it so important that they should do so.
I can only offer that you and I are equally entitled to a view on any matter we choose and that the intelligent amongst us will have the wit and wisdom to work out the merit of it.
If you have to resort to slander, deceit, sleight of hand and all manner of smoke and mirrors to win the day, the “anything it takes” attitude and “anyway what would you know”, then it is hard to give whatever you are proposing any credence.
Is it possible for GA and RPT to co exist?
Is there any large group of sacred cows who are going to lose their jobs if the system is changed or is there some group who feel that there entitlements are challenged?
There are however, a large group of disenfranchised aviation professionals including, it now seems, an entire regulatory organisation (both judged to be "world class" by their international peers), who have been sidelined and marginalised for a personal and political agenda disguised in the bankrupt clothes of "cost savings" recently estimated to be around negative$250,000,000 (means "cost" not "savings") because "they" are too stupid
to be able to see "the light".
Is there some universally agreed independent provider of technical risk management advice? If so do we have their advice?
DNV metric??
There are a number of international agencies the like of Lloyds, DNV, ABS, RINA and many others who offer independent risk and process analysis and certification. If you board a ship for example, that has been built, certified and maintained to their standards you are as safe as it is possible to be for that standard.
Go Here for Det Norske Veritas
That is until CASA, told Airservices they did not need one as they had satisfied themselves so. Fair enough you say and from another regulator yet. But I suspect against their better judgment, and as it since been seen to be so.
On what basis and under what pressure that assurance was accepted remains to be seen. I'd be fascinated to hear what their insurers feel about it.
The only independent study that has surfaced through all of this, the Broome DAS, commissioned by the owners of Broome Airport and audited by CSIRO, exposed a huge liability for the Government and Airservices in certain aspects of the NAS and provided the only scientifically researched and intellectually rigorous risk analysis to that time, beyond the serial “I believes” and “it works fine there”.
The only responsible and legally defensible response to this should have been for the Government to have a similarly rigorous study conducted by an internationally recognized and accepted agency such as described above, to either confirm, refine or refute the data. It was however only days before an “expert” was wheeled out armed with a hatchet to question the academic bona fides.
It’s called consultant shopping, you just keep turning them over until you find the one who suits your agenda.
Rigorous it is not.
Now we have an assortment of psychologists, chemists, ballroom dancers, true believers, my viewers, self proclaimed legends, Uncle Tom Cobbleys' and all, having a bit of a go, arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, not one of whom has the credibility of the above agencies. I do not intend this as a criticism of any individual, it is simply that Australia deserves and we cannot afford to otherwise, an internationally recognised and respected circuit breaker to resolve the sorry mess created in the last 20 years of crusading.
Sunfish, I believe that we as a nation are supposed to be protected by our Public Service and Regulators by the execution and the professional and skilled implementation by them of Government policy.
We elect Government on their policies, not any individuals personal agenda.
That's the basis on which they are selected, that is what we pay them for and they are entitled to absolute support from the Government of the day on the careful execution of the detail.
They are entitled to protection from harassment, second guessing and inappropriate influence in return for which we expect sound and balanced results.
However taking positions and fighting is not going to do anyone any good.
Australia is overrepresented worldwide in the scientific, academic, athletic, musical and just about any other pursuit you could imagine. We are esteemed in every one of them, including the quality of our public servants and their work.
Why do we then abdicate our aviation agenda to a couple of well meaning enthusiasts, is this the only place in the real world it happens ?
There is some hope that DOTARS have, or are taking back that ground and we can look forward to the return of the manner of professional public service that has separated Australia from the likes of The Grand Duchy of Fenwick for the last hundred years or so.
Lets hope so.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binos,
I could not agree more with your deductions on Dicks latest stunt.
He is not prepared to admit that Australia did it better, cheaper, with less resources than the US (Procedural Approach / Towers).
It is simply a collossal dummy spit - but the $$$ impost on industry is (once again) all due to Dick - not those who tried to tell him.
I could not agree more with your deductions on Dicks latest stunt.
He is not prepared to admit that Australia did it better, cheaper, with less resources than the US (Procedural Approach / Towers).
It is simply a collossal dummy spit - but the $$$ impost on industry is (once again) all due to Dick - not those who tried to tell him.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton Vic
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
what a pity
It is a great pity the owners of this website have allowed an important issue to be swamped by the out of control egos of a few OLD boys.
On the right (against NAS) we have the worst offender, Mr Gary Gaunt. From my time flying clapped out Cessnas around Kalbari I know Gary hasn't flown in this decade or the last. So I ask what does he know.
On the left, pro-NAS we have the other offender Dick Smith. Seems a nice guy but fond of his own opinion.
Each side has their faithful mignions tagging along like little running dogs.
The debate is fired up by union greed and the GA demand for simplicity and no fees.
But, these ###### aside. There IS a problem. Even the somewhat biased BSB poll shows there are some sane people reading these posts.
It seems obvious that:
1. Airspace needs fixing.
2. ATC services exist where they aren't needed.
3. GA is pi$$ed at paying for these.
4. Regionals still want it (and I do believe their safety arguments).
So, to start with lest forget the Liberals and their economic rationalism. We can do that on 9 October.
What if airspace was seen as a national asset and safety and security as a Government responsibility. I think it is!!!
So, exempt anything below 2000 kg from any Airservices fees!!!
Put towers wherever they are deemed to be needed.
Build the ADSB network.
Do away with RPT priority at all but Syd and Melb (US Class B).
That will give us the safety of radar separation and keep GA happy. We can all be freinds again and Gaunt and Smith can fight greenies instead.
How to fund it??? I don't care, the b@stards already get .48c of my every dollar, but if they have to, put up a NETWORK ticket tax.
Oh, and sack 50% of CASA!!!!
FC
On the right (against NAS) we have the worst offender, Mr Gary Gaunt. From my time flying clapped out Cessnas around Kalbari I know Gary hasn't flown in this decade or the last. So I ask what does he know.
On the left, pro-NAS we have the other offender Dick Smith. Seems a nice guy but fond of his own opinion.
Each side has their faithful mignions tagging along like little running dogs.
The debate is fired up by union greed and the GA demand for simplicity and no fees.
But, these ###### aside. There IS a problem. Even the somewhat biased BSB poll shows there are some sane people reading these posts.
It seems obvious that:
1. Airspace needs fixing.
2. ATC services exist where they aren't needed.
3. GA is pi$$ed at paying for these.
4. Regionals still want it (and I do believe their safety arguments).
So, to start with lest forget the Liberals and their economic rationalism. We can do that on 9 October.
What if airspace was seen as a national asset and safety and security as a Government responsibility. I think it is!!!
So, exempt anything below 2000 kg from any Airservices fees!!!
Put towers wherever they are deemed to be needed.
Build the ADSB network.
Do away with RPT priority at all but Syd and Melb (US Class B).
That will give us the safety of radar separation and keep GA happy. We can all be freinds again and Gaunt and Smith can fight greenies instead.
How to fund it??? I don't care, the b@stards already get .48c of my every dollar, but if they have to, put up a NETWORK ticket tax.
Oh, and sack 50% of CASA!!!!
FC
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flichik
You are just another agent provocateur.
If not answer or consider the following:
You say -
The Airspace needs fixing - the airpspace was just fine until someone insisted on meddling with it. The charging system was what needed fixing.
You say -
ATC services exst where they aren't needed - Where? Why is Dick and his Pocket Minister insisting on more?
You say -
GA is pissed off at paying for these - And so they should be, including the $120M spent and $150M proposed due to the misadventures of a grand misadventurer.
You say -
The debate is fired by union greed - Either qualify or prove what you mean. I can tell you there is nothing in this for the ATC's. They are already understaffed, have no ability to train a whole new wave of people and get nothing out of this exercise except the same frustrations as the pilots with all the changes, and a whole lot if unwanted overtime that everyone is too bloody tired to do. It is a well worn out furphy. So on that one put up of shut up. (or are you one of the faithful mignons tagging along with AOPA and Dick?)
You say - exempt everything below 2000kg and get rid of Capital City priorities - two points. You NEVER paid for Air Traffic services BEFORE this debacle and you sill don't (not directly at least - you can blame Dick for all the costs onflow). Or don't you even realise?!
And the airports are all privately owned - if you are paying them nothing why would they as a business want to give you equal priority? Tell me - I am dying to know. And lets be honest about this - how often do you really get delayed anyway? Despite all the blustering about it daily on PPrune, nobody has provided any conclusive evidence it happens that much! Even if they werent privately owned, why do you deserve to delay 300+ people? That is a significant economic penalty.
You say - put the towers where they are needed. - They are already there.
You are just another agent provocateur.
If not answer or consider the following:
You say -
The Airspace needs fixing - the airpspace was just fine until someone insisted on meddling with it. The charging system was what needed fixing.
You say -
ATC services exst where they aren't needed - Where? Why is Dick and his Pocket Minister insisting on more?
You say -
GA is pissed off at paying for these - And so they should be, including the $120M spent and $150M proposed due to the misadventures of a grand misadventurer.
You say -
The debate is fired by union greed - Either qualify or prove what you mean. I can tell you there is nothing in this for the ATC's. They are already understaffed, have no ability to train a whole new wave of people and get nothing out of this exercise except the same frustrations as the pilots with all the changes, and a whole lot if unwanted overtime that everyone is too bloody tired to do. It is a well worn out furphy. So on that one put up of shut up. (or are you one of the faithful mignons tagging along with AOPA and Dick?)
You say - exempt everything below 2000kg and get rid of Capital City priorities - two points. You NEVER paid for Air Traffic services BEFORE this debacle and you sill don't (not directly at least - you can blame Dick for all the costs onflow). Or don't you even realise?!
And the airports are all privately owned - if you are paying them nothing why would they as a business want to give you equal priority? Tell me - I am dying to know. And lets be honest about this - how often do you really get delayed anyway? Despite all the blustering about it daily on PPrune, nobody has provided any conclusive evidence it happens that much! Even if they werent privately owned, why do you deserve to delay 300+ people? That is a significant economic penalty.
You say - put the towers where they are needed. - They are already there.
Thank you all for the explanations. I got the airservices brochure today and the manual stuff that I have yet to even understand.
However, from what I think I can understand, I cannot see the problems with either what was there before or what is now proposed. I am trying to become a VFR pilot for the fun of it. I am not going for an IFR or twin rating ever, as far as I am concerned, so flying in anything but class G airspace is not an issue.
As far as my limited understanding is concerned, I cannot imagine why I would NOT want to talk to ATC or obtain a clearance if there was even the remotest probability of encountering an RTP flight. Same goes with filing flight plans, SARtimes and so on.
Even though I cannot imagine why I would want to or need to fly in controlled airspace anyway. In the few times I've heard people asking for clearances, they have always been given, even if there is a few minutes delay.
In other words, and with the greatest of respect to all concerned, this debate seems to be about giving priviledges to VFR aircraft that they don't really need. I guess if I was planning to drive a pressurised aircraft VFR around Sydney these priviledges might matter, but Sydney is not Australia.
However, from what I think I can understand, I cannot see the problems with either what was there before or what is now proposed. I am trying to become a VFR pilot for the fun of it. I am not going for an IFR or twin rating ever, as far as I am concerned, so flying in anything but class G airspace is not an issue.
As far as my limited understanding is concerned, I cannot imagine why I would NOT want to talk to ATC or obtain a clearance if there was even the remotest probability of encountering an RTP flight. Same goes with filing flight plans, SARtimes and so on.
Even though I cannot imagine why I would want to or need to fly in controlled airspace anyway. In the few times I've heard people asking for clearances, they have always been given, even if there is a few minutes delay.
In other words, and with the greatest of respect to all concerned, this debate seems to be about giving priviledges to VFR aircraft that they don't really need. I guess if I was planning to drive a pressurised aircraft VFR around Sydney these priviledges might matter, but Sydney is not Australia.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sunfish
I hope you have already had your aviation medical as there is a section in there somewhere that checks for sanity except it works a bit like Yossarians medico in Catch 22, if you want a medical discharge on the grounds of insanity "he was going crazy because the Germans were trying to kill him" he was, ergo, sane. 
Your;
, is the MOST sane observation I have seen on this topic, including any of mine.
flichik
You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with;
and that is where we were actually headed.
But your logic falls short on the union greed amongst other things.
In so far as what you imagine my qualifications may or may not be, you are showing your AOPA nickers there, as that is the only place that imagines that the contents of your logbook define your worth and the validity of your argument and they fondly hold that view . Were that so, there is not one of them on the board entitled to make that judgement without revealing theirs for scrutiny.
FYI but I'm sure you already know, they were toying with the idea of denying anybody who didn't hold a valid BFR from holding office and that's from the mob that changed the rules (now repealed but too late to stop the irreparable damage) to allow a single specifically named individual to hold an office denied to ordinary members.
And I say it with the greatest respect to Sunfish but he makes more sense
than the whole lot of them put together.
You would think they would be spending their efforts and resources rebuilding GA in a productive manner than the serial puffery and grandstanding seen hitherto, unless you can explain to me what benefit suing AOPA US at a cost of around $250,000 and pulping $30,000 worth of an aviation expo brochures that never got distributed because the director responsible for the expenditure never got around to organising anyone to be there at the stand provided.
You see its more important for them to chase idiots like me who dare to ask embarassing question around, than actually do anything. And they are still there "understanding" like mad. 
I have said it before and I will say it again in caser you missed the last time, you stand and fall here on the merit of your argument and conduct and as Sunfish has just ably demonstrated to you, common sense has, and in some cases it is well fortunate, nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are a QF Capt or a student pilot.
So, your point is?
I hope you have already had your aviation medical as there is a section in there somewhere that checks for sanity
except it works a bit like Yossarians medico in Catch 22, if you want a medical discharge on the grounds of insanity "he was going crazy because the Germans were trying to kill him" he was, ergo, sane. Your;
In other words, and with the greatest of respect to all concerned, this debate seems to be about giving priviledges to VFR aircraft that they don't really need.
flichik
You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with;
What if airspace was seen as a national asset and safety and security as a Government responsibility. I think it is!!!
So, exempt anything below 2000 kg from any Airservices fees!!!
Put towers wherever they are deemed to be needed.
Build the ADSB network.
Do away with RPT priority at all but Syd and Melb (US Class B).
That will give us the safety of radar separation and keep GA happy.
So, exempt anything below 2000 kg from any Airservices fees!!!
Put towers wherever they are deemed to be needed.
Build the ADSB network.
Do away with RPT priority at all but Syd and Melb (US Class B).
That will give us the safety of radar separation and keep GA happy.
But your logic falls short on the union greed amongst other things.
In so far as what you imagine my qualifications may or may not be, you are showing your AOPA nickers there, as that is the only place that imagines that the contents of your logbook define your worth and the validity of your argument and they fondly hold that view . Were that so, there is not one of them on the board entitled to make that judgement without revealing theirs for scrutiny.
FYI but I'm sure you already know, they were toying with the idea of denying anybody who didn't hold a valid BFR from holding office and that's from the mob that changed the rules (now repealed but too late to stop the irreparable damage) to allow a single specifically named individual to hold an office denied to ordinary members.
And I say it with the greatest respect to Sunfish but he makes more sense
I am trying to become a VFR pilot for the fun of it.
You would think they would be spending their efforts and resources rebuilding GA in a productive manner than the serial puffery and grandstanding seen hitherto, unless you can explain to me what benefit suing AOPA US at a cost of around $250,000 and pulping $30,000 worth of an aviation expo brochures that never got distributed because the director responsible for the expenditure never got around to organising anyone to be there at the stand provided.
You see its more important for them to chase idiots like me who dare to ask embarassing question around, than actually do anything. And they are still there "understanding" like mad.
I have said it before and I will say it again in caser you missed the last time, you stand and fall here on the merit of your argument and conduct and as Sunfish has just ably demonstrated to you, common sense has, and in some cases it is well fortunate, nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are a QF Capt or a student pilot.
So, your point is?
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What waffle you spruik gaunty. I was at Murray Bridge as part of "that mob" (you know , the members), that voted for a change to allow Ms Pagani to become president. It never changed anything because what I saw was she took over in the job before the vote took place. The present "mob" didn't do anything it was an AGM agenda item. You were one pushing for the change and we agreed with you. We voted you in remember.
The idea that someone can be thrown out for not being current is nonesense and you know it. It's called "the AIRCRAFT- OWNERS-and PILOTS association. Read the constitution.
And what has something that allegedly happened before you were elected, (but were going to make it all become right) got to do with anything regarding NAS today. You had your chance and blew it. Your continual harping about AOPA makes me sick. Get over it.
As for you being a non flyer, just because you like cats doesn't make you qualified to be a lion tamer. Have a go if you think you're up to the task. Your credibility would be more intact if you were a little humble in your assertions. Instead you are a bombastic bully with a nasty agenda.
The idea that someone can be thrown out for not being current is nonesense and you know it. It's called "the AIRCRAFT- OWNERS-and PILOTS association. Read the constitution.
And what has something that allegedly happened before you were elected, (but were going to make it all become right) got to do with anything regarding NAS today. You had your chance and blew it. Your continual harping about AOPA makes me sick. Get over it.
As for you being a non flyer, just because you like cats doesn't make you qualified to be a lion tamer. Have a go if you think you're up to the task. Your credibility would be more intact if you were a little humble in your assertions. Instead you are a bombastic bully with a nasty agenda.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton Vic
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mt Gaunt
I am not even a member. But I am impressed with the new Board, so I may consider it. At least if they do disagree, we, and more importantly the regulator, don't know about it.
Can't say that about your two terms I'm afraid.
I don't agree that Board membership should be limited to a valid BFR. But then again this is the first I have heard of it. Are you sure or is that another convinient off issue snipe???
I can say though, after over 10 years on the ground I would have thought you'd have better things to do than fight with Dick Smith.
But, back to sunfish, yes, flying was fun once. Then we had to fill out a flight plan before almost any flight and report every 30 minutes. But landings at Parafield were free as they were everywhere else (I think???) and if you wanted a VTC you just asked for one, same with the other maps.
But sadly, subsequent Governments have destroyed the concept that taxes are for the benefit of the whole society. Even AOPA under Smith and Munro (the last time I was a member!!!) fought for 'user pays'.
It is that we should be fighting, not each other!!!!
FC
I am not even a member. But I am impressed with the new Board, so I may consider it. At least if they do disagree, we, and more importantly the regulator, don't know about it.
Can't say that about your two terms I'm afraid.
I don't agree that Board membership should be limited to a valid BFR. But then again this is the first I have heard of it. Are you sure or is that another convinient off issue snipe???
I can say though, after over 10 years on the ground I would have thought you'd have better things to do than fight with Dick Smith.
But, back to sunfish, yes, flying was fun once. Then we had to fill out a flight plan before almost any flight and report every 30 minutes. But landings at Parafield were free as they were everywhere else (I think???) and if you wanted a VTC you just asked for one, same with the other maps.
But sadly, subsequent Governments have destroyed the concept that taxes are for the benefit of the whole society. Even AOPA under Smith and Munro (the last time I was a member!!!) fought for 'user pays'.
It is that we should be fighting, not each other!!!!
FC
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If that's the best you can do or can offer as constructive input, and I'm not sure which of the AOPA Board members you are, but I can guess, then I say good luck to AOPA, they are going to need it. It's as good a demonstration as any as to why nobody can any longer be bothered.
Your ministrations have been soooooooooo good for them so far, 280,000 reasons NOT at the last count, 6,000 ex members and who is seriously listening?
Oh and the BFR, medical and currency business, yup it's absolutely dead set true. Don't forget folks, these are the same guys who prepared and passed a resolution to allow a single named individual serious rights not available to normal member. Me, couldn't then and can't get for the moment a medical, strange coincidence NO.
It died a death as it should have, but I wonder who else on the board might have had similar problems? You're right who cares and why should it be an issue.
You say 10 years on the ground as if it is a fact, I say tell it to the marines, you may well ask Dick Smith the same question.
Problem is I have been here/there since the beginning and I don't intend to see the lifes work of many many dedicated professional and respected aviators, regulators and businessmen who put this industry on the map in a way not seen elswhere and admired in the world, trashed because of the personal agenda of a few johnnies come lately.
If you voted for me then, why didn't you support me. My position before during and after was hardly a secret and never changed on anything.
Any way you lot go for it and if you need any more effigies to burn at the stake to validate yourselves, let me know and I'll send some more. It's quite fun watching really.
And whilst I'm on the subject, this is from Hamilton in an "open letter".
This from the single most destructive member of that board; publicly advising a potential member to sign up to the AUF (a fine organisation) as a more relevant organisation for the future of GA than AOPA (and he might be right, he, after all claims responsibility for their formation whilst an office holder of AOPA) cuckooo?, handing out promotional material for a Munro organisation at an AOPA sponsored NAS function, "appearing" unauthourised and unininvited, claiming to represent AOPA at an ATC invitation only event to their understandable disgust and hijacking the press conference, appearing at all manner of industry consultative committees and groups as a "representative" of other organisations whilst a Director of AOPA and whilst the authorised AOPA Director was present, that he personally deemed as having the same agenda (without the authority of the AOPA Board.) in fact for any organisation he could round up to be heard. Are the authorities confused. Nope 
Like his mate, he suffers what has been identified here as, "Limelight Deprivation Syndrome"
Smith/Munro "user pays" ask your average punter out there how he feels about that nowadays. hey. We've now got user pays coming out our ears.
Be careful what you wish for you might just get it.
And they still fly over the nest you know
Your ministrations have been soooooooooo good for them so far, 280,000 reasons NOT at the last count, 6,000 ex members and who is seriously listening?
Oh and the BFR, medical and currency business, yup it's absolutely dead set true. Don't forget folks, these are the same guys who prepared and passed a resolution to allow a single named individual serious rights not available to normal member. Me, couldn't then and can't get for the moment a medical, strange coincidence NO.
It died a death as it should have, but I wonder who else on the board might have had similar problems? You're right who cares and why should it be an issue.
You say 10 years on the ground as if it is a fact, I say tell it to the marines, you may well ask Dick Smith the same question.
Problem is I have been here/there since the beginning and I don't intend to see the lifes work of many many dedicated professional and respected aviators, regulators and businessmen who put this industry on the map in a way not seen elswhere and admired in the world, trashed because of the personal agenda of a few johnnies come lately.
If you voted for me then, why didn't you support me. My position before during and after was hardly a secret and never changed on anything.
Any way you lot go for it and if you need any more effigies to burn at the stake to validate yourselves, let me know and I'll send some more. It's quite fun watching really.
And whilst I'm on the subject, this is from Hamilton in an "open letter".
" In my opinion Lawford could not accept that AOPA ( along with AUF,RFACA,ASAC, Qantas senior management, Dixon, Borghetti and Manning, Virgin senior management, the Minister, DOTARS and ATSB, and a majority of the Airservices Board) supports NAS, period. His statement since his resignation confirms this opposition to NAS. In my opinion, he and Gaunt were alone on the AOPA Board on this issue. (He and I do not resile for one nansecond for our efforts in demanding the detail of the 2b implementation before signing AOPA up to it, which as we suspected was fatally flawed in its execution despite our best efforts.)
Indeed, on one occasion in a meeting of the AOPA Board with senior CASA management, he and Gaunt supported a position going back pre AMATS, Nov.1991. ( (We actually and simply passed on some member and board concerns in the manner of "how do we confirm the operation of transponders on aircraft that spend their lives operating outside radar coverage, beyond their mandatory 2 year operational check, if they are being used as a primary 'TCAS' separator ") yup turn im on, if you remember, light goes on, but how do you know it's actually working?, until you get hit))
It is increasingly obvious that NAS 2b is a resounding success, as everybody learns how to exploit the new freedoms safely. ( There's that 'ol parallel universe again) Indeed the acceptance in WA has been such that one "rollback" proposal envisaged no change in the west, only in the J-Curve, because of the complaints of a small number of domestic airline pilots, with their proposals for "commercial" airspace, with quite severe restrictions on people like yourself entering "commercial" airspace, a quite outlandish proposal. my bolding.
There are some excellent candidates for the 04/05 Board, in my opinion not including any of those recently resigned, I hope and trust that once again AOPA will have a united and effective Board, as I enjoyed in the time I was AOPA President.
Indeed, on one occasion in a meeting of the AOPA Board with senior CASA management, he and Gaunt supported a position going back pre AMATS, Nov.1991. ( (We actually and simply passed on some member and board concerns in the manner of "how do we confirm the operation of transponders on aircraft that spend their lives operating outside radar coverage, beyond their mandatory 2 year operational check, if they are being used as a primary 'TCAS' separator ") yup turn im on, if you remember, light goes on, but how do you know it's actually working?, until you get hit))
It is increasingly obvious that NAS 2b is a resounding success, as everybody learns how to exploit the new freedoms safely. ( There's that 'ol parallel universe again) Indeed the acceptance in WA has been such that one "rollback" proposal envisaged no change in the west, only in the J-Curve, because of the complaints of a small number of domestic airline pilots, with their proposals for "commercial" airspace, with quite severe restrictions on people like yourself entering "commercial" airspace, a quite outlandish proposal. my bolding.
There are some excellent candidates for the 04/05 Board, in my opinion not including any of those recently resigned, I hope and trust that once again AOPA will have a united and effective Board, as I enjoyed in the time I was AOPA President.
This from the single most destructive member of that board; publicly advising a potential member to sign up to the AUF (a fine organisation) as a more relevant organisation for the future of GA than AOPA (and he might be right, he, after all claims responsibility for their formation whilst an office holder of AOPA) cuckooo
?, handing out promotional material for a Munro organisation at an AOPA sponsored NAS function, "appearing" unauthourised and unininvited, claiming to represent AOPA at an ATC invitation only event to their understandable disgust and hijacking the press conference, appearing at all manner of industry consultative committees and groups as a "representative" of other organisations whilst a Director of AOPA and whilst the authorised AOPA Director was present, that he personally deemed as having the same agenda (without the authority of the AOPA Board.) in fact for any organisation he could round up to be heard. Are the authorities confused. Nope Like his mate, he suffers what has been identified here as, "Limelight Deprivation Syndrome"
Smith/Munro "user pays"
ask your average punter out there how he feels about that nowadays. hey. We've now got user pays coming out our ears. Be careful what you wish for you might just get it.
And they still fly over the nest you know
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Oz
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunt;
I'm not on the board and your assertions that I am reinforces my opinion of you, and a lot who post here, that the "for me or agin me" syndrome is alive and flourishing. If someone doesn't agree with you and agrees with someone else, then that poster must be a Smith or AOPA stooge or someone with a mental disorder.
It's getting tiresome, "everyone is mad except me". Run a poll for the converted and prove me wrong.
Give a person some credit for some independant thinking.
It would appear from your rantings that it is you that was the single most destructive person on the board and (if I guess correctly) not Bill Hamilton. AOPA appears to be in good hands now as evidenced by the lack of infighting that went on when you were there.
Perhaps give me credit also for thinking that such a person, Senior Qantas Captain, came up through the ranks of GA, past President and Warbirds owner who is current would have a better capacity to comment on an airspace design than you, who doesn't appear to to deny the allegations that you last flew when the "quadrantal rule" and "full reporting" was the fashion.
Now you come out with a "temporary" lack of a medical. Give me a break, when did you fly last? put it to rest once and for all. What do you do for a living? You admit not ATC.
What gives you the right to claim status in this "elite" group of "professionals" that apparantly "rule ALL the skies" from a console. Last I heard the pilot was in command of the aircraft.
This aspect worries a lot of people about "mandatory" implementatiuon of ADSB. I heard at one meeting parachutists were considered as needy as all of a transponder. Do you have an opinion on this?
I'm sorry if I offend you, but you have no qualms about doing the reciprocal. Whoever you think I am, I'm not. Go back to a past thread on aircrew notices (which I do know something about and was around then), and it may give you some idea that your suspicions are conveniently wrong and vexatious.
What are you on about, 280,000 reasons???????
I'm not on the board and your assertions that I am reinforces my opinion of you, and a lot who post here, that the "for me or agin me" syndrome is alive and flourishing. If someone doesn't agree with you and agrees with someone else, then that poster must be a Smith or AOPA stooge or someone with a mental disorder.
It's getting tiresome, "everyone is mad except me". Run a poll for the converted and prove me wrong.
Give a person some credit for some independant thinking.
It would appear from your rantings that it is you that was the single most destructive person on the board and (if I guess correctly) not Bill Hamilton. AOPA appears to be in good hands now as evidenced by the lack of infighting that went on when you were there.
Perhaps give me credit also for thinking that such a person, Senior Qantas Captain, came up through the ranks of GA, past President and Warbirds owner who is current would have a better capacity to comment on an airspace design than you, who doesn't appear to to deny the allegations that you last flew when the "quadrantal rule" and "full reporting" was the fashion.
Now you come out with a "temporary" lack of a medical. Give me a break, when did you fly last? put it to rest once and for all. What do you do for a living? You admit not ATC.
What gives you the right to claim status in this "elite" group of "professionals" that apparantly "rule ALL the skies" from a console. Last I heard the pilot was in command of the aircraft.
This aspect worries a lot of people about "mandatory" implementatiuon of ADSB. I heard at one meeting parachutists were considered as needy as all of a transponder. Do you have an opinion on this?
I'm sorry if I offend you, but you have no qualms about doing the reciprocal. Whoever you think I am, I'm not. Go back to a past thread on aircrew notices (which I do know something about and was around then), and it may give you some idea that your suspicions are conveniently wrong and vexatious.
What are you on about, 280,000 reasons???????
I never cease to be amazed by the "you haven't flown for x years so what would you know" brigade.
They seem oblivious to the fact that they, too, will inevitably reach a point at which they won't be able to fly, after which (presumably from their own twisted logic) their previous experience and hard-earned wisdom will be rendered irrelevant.
I assume this brigade tells folks like Nancy Bird "Shut up, what could you possible contribute, you haven't flown as PIC for x years."
And remind again of how extensive and recent the logbook entries of the Chairman and CEO of QANTAS are. What's that? They've never been pilots? That can't be right. How could QANTAS possibly survive when it's not being run by pilots? Surely it is and will continue to teeter on the edge of disaster, unless and until it is run by current pilots, like that financial basket case, AOPA Australia.
Carthage must be destroyed, and Gaunty is the cause of all aviation evils!
They seem oblivious to the fact that they, too, will inevitably reach a point at which they won't be able to fly, after which (presumably from their own twisted logic) their previous experience and hard-earned wisdom will be rendered irrelevant.
I assume this brigade tells folks like Nancy Bird "Shut up, what could you possible contribute, you haven't flown as PIC for x years."
And remind again of how extensive and recent the logbook entries of the Chairman and CEO of QANTAS are. What's that? They've never been pilots? That can't be right. How could QANTAS possibly survive when it's not being run by pilots? Surely it is and will continue to teeter on the edge of disaster, unless and until it is run by current pilots, like that financial basket case, AOPA Australia.
Carthage must be destroyed, and Gaunty is the cause of all aviation evils!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton Vic
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nancy Bird-Walton doesn't pretend to be an instant expert on everything aviation and constrains herself to areas where her comment and experiences are valid and valued.
So that comparison is way off.
Bit like a clapped out ex-CASA lawyer commenting on how regulation should have been because "In my day ... blah blah blah"
I think one of the main problems about being on the Board of a lobby group or association when you no longer have a direct involvement with the core area is that decisions you make cannot weigh upon you and so therefore you could be free to be swayed by whoever likes you the most, makes you feel the most important or offers the potential of a job.
Associations have members to represent, not act as a retirement home for ex Drover pilots....the airlines don't do it, CivilAir don't do it so why should GA cop the "Dinosaur Expert"
FC
So that comparison is way off.
Bit like a clapped out ex-CASA lawyer commenting on how regulation should have been because "In my day ... blah blah blah"
I think one of the main problems about being on the Board of a lobby group or association when you no longer have a direct involvement with the core area is that decisions you make cannot weigh upon you and so therefore you could be free to be swayed by whoever likes you the most, makes you feel the most important or offers the potential of a job.
Associations have members to represent, not act as a retirement home for ex Drover pilots....the airlines don't do it, CivilAir don't do it so why should GA cop the "Dinosaur Expert"
FC
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton Vic
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MEDIA RELEASE
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
09 September 2004
For immediate release
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association calls on pilots to SAFELY join Aviation Day of Action
AOPA President Ron Bertram today called on all pilots to join in the Aviation day of Action on November 27, but to do it safely. “We encourage all pilots to show that they are angry at the Government and Oppositions lack of credible aviation policy, to show that we have had enough of ad-hoc regulation and a discriminatory airspace system, we encourage them to fly on November 27.”
“We don’t support flying illegally,” said Mr Bertram “Nor do we support any calls to be rude or contemptuous to Air Traffic Controllers. These people are doing an excellent and professional job, we may disagree on aspects of airspace, but this should not result in personal attacks”
“What we are calling for is for all pilots to get an aeroplane and go flying on November 27. When they do we call on them to fly showing the utmost professionalism and fully within the law and regulations.
“We also ask them to make sure they file flight plans and where possible, to check the correct operation of their transponders with air traffic control.”
Transponders are devices which show air traffic control where an aircraft is, airline aircraft can also receive transponder signals to better enable them to see and avoid other aircraft.
Mr Bertram also condemned the lack of credible policy direction of both Government and Opposition and pointed out that this day of action would serve to show that Australia’s pilots were not impressed.
“It is time Government realise that General Aviation is a vibrant industry and needs proper support from Government, not the haphazard and untenable mish-mash of policy and regulation we see at the moment.”
For more information
Ron Bertram
President
0407 367 203
Andrew Kerans
Vice President
0439 209 343
AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA
09 September 2004
For immediate release
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association calls on pilots to SAFELY join Aviation Day of Action
AOPA President Ron Bertram today called on all pilots to join in the Aviation day of Action on November 27, but to do it safely. “We encourage all pilots to show that they are angry at the Government and Oppositions lack of credible aviation policy, to show that we have had enough of ad-hoc regulation and a discriminatory airspace system, we encourage them to fly on November 27.”
“We don’t support flying illegally,” said Mr Bertram “Nor do we support any calls to be rude or contemptuous to Air Traffic Controllers. These people are doing an excellent and professional job, we may disagree on aspects of airspace, but this should not result in personal attacks”
“What we are calling for is for all pilots to get an aeroplane and go flying on November 27. When they do we call on them to fly showing the utmost professionalism and fully within the law and regulations.
“We also ask them to make sure they file flight plans and where possible, to check the correct operation of their transponders with air traffic control.”
Transponders are devices which show air traffic control where an aircraft is, airline aircraft can also receive transponder signals to better enable them to see and avoid other aircraft.
Mr Bertram also condemned the lack of credible policy direction of both Government and Opposition and pointed out that this day of action would serve to show that Australia’s pilots were not impressed.
“It is time Government realise that General Aviation is a vibrant industry and needs proper support from Government, not the haphazard and untenable mish-mash of policy and regulation we see at the moment.”
For more information
Ron Bertram
President
0407 367 203
Andrew Kerans
Vice President
0439 209 343
Big mistake, AOPA. You should have completely distanced yourselves from this "protest", and had no part in it.
The general public already think that the NAS airspace is "dangerous because it allows those nuisance light planes to get in the way of the big jets ...." and you've just reinforced their view.
The general public already think that the NAS airspace is "dangerous because it allows those nuisance light planes to get in the way of the big jets ...." and you've just reinforced their view.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CaptainMidnight
It took some doing but they might, only might mind you, be "getting it".
There are some encouraging signs that at least one Board member is returning to his former good sense.
It took some doing but they might, only might mind you, be "getting it".
There are some encouraging signs that at least one Board member is returning to his former good sense.
