"A Current Affair" TV Segment
YCKT
It won't contribute to saving $70M/year, which was the main factor Smith used to justify NAS.
You will find (verified by a recent poll I think) that 98% of us here believe airspace reform is a good thing - provided
.... and more controllers. So where's the problem with that ...
You will find (verified by a recent poll I think) that 98% of us here believe airspace reform is a good thing - provided
- it has demonstratable safety & cost benefits AND
- is supported by the industry
- is subject to thorough safety analysis AND
- has widespread industry support, not one individual or group attempting to steamroll their wishes on others and exercising influence on the government to get their way.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dog1
He isn't my idol, but D-C-A airspace seems upside down to me.
I have flown extensively in the US where the pilots and controllers are just as professional as here, they don't have a problem with NAS-like airspace, why do you?
As for 'professional' I have in 25 years of aviation come accross thoroughly professional PPLs and absolutely unprofessional ATPLs and even Senior Captains (one of whom thought Sydney-Cairns was a 'six pack trip').
That statement itself questions your ability to rationalise without emotional clap trap.
He isn't my idol, but D-C-A airspace seems upside down to me.
I have flown extensively in the US where the pilots and controllers are just as professional as here, they don't have a problem with NAS-like airspace, why do you?
As for 'professional' I have in 25 years of aviation come accross thoroughly professional PPLs and absolutely unprofessional ATPLs and even Senior Captains (one of whom thought Sydney-Cairns was a 'six pack trip').
That statement itself questions your ability to rationalise without emotional clap trap.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This argument has gone a full 180. The NAS brigade were all for less controllers and more freedoms. With the actual end state of NAS there will be more E therefore more controllers and on the way more Radar for the user to pay for. These idiots get all they deserve. I thank Dick Smith and the supporters of NAS for strengthening the security of my job as an Air Traffic Controller.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT
So, you don't even understand the end-state of the model you are happy with? Sums up your, and many other, pro-NAS people's position.
Suggest you do some reading.
Characteristic...
6. Encouragement of US-Style Unicoms.
30. Removal of en-route Directed Traffic Information.
Read Dick's own words on this forum, over and over (do a search).
He believes that Unicoms (we call them CAGROs in oz) are
free , because regional airlines (who are their main users) will have to provide them as part of their operating responsibility. Dick, after having flown in the US, thinks they are a great idea. Trouble is, he doesn't realise there is a slight difference in the volumes of regional traffic to support such infrastructure. In the same way that he thinks Flight Following is a great idea in the US. Just doesn't understand that they have a lot more infrastructure over there (radar, small sector sizes, many more controllers per square mile etc.) to support such things.
Then go and read the Willoughby report. It describes how the 'savings' from intrducing NAS come from such things as not providing any services to low-level aircraft, removing the HF system etc. etc.
How does a VFR aircraft receive any service in non-radar E? After all, the great majority of the E will be non-radar. How does an IFR receive any valuable service after it leaves the E? Or after it commences an approach? CAGROs (sorry, unicoms) in West Woop Woop don't have too many radars.
Perhaps if you removed your Dick-colored glasses and simply trawled thru the masses of NAS threads on here, then made a decision based on facts instead of Dick's fantasies, contradictions and 'spin', you might save a few of us repeating ourselves over and over, and understand the anti-Dick sentiment. Is it just possible, even remotely, that he tells whoever he is talking at (including yourself), exactly what they want to hear?
He has, after all, on this forum and in the media, called for
-less controllers
-more controllers
-less control exercised by controllers
-more responsibility to be exercised by controllers
-more safety
-more affordable safety
-more flexibility at the expense of safety
-more safety dollars spent in certain areas, but less overall safety dollars
-larger areas of controlled airspace
-less control in controlled airspace
-less waste in air traffic management
-more money spent on radars in regional areas and other things previously not needed
-less control towers
-more control towers (including radar approach units)
-privatisation of air traffic services
-air traffic services act less like businesses
-air traffic managers cease being paid like managers in private enterprise
-controllers should become privateers (business owners)
-removal of monetary incentives for air traffic service providers
-NAS will save $70 million dollars
-NAS has cost an extra $100 million dollars plus (Dick's own words)
and many other contradictions.
The final chestnut
Re-read the NAS threads (as, clearly, you haven't) by doing a search. Come back in a few weeks, and see if you still need to ask that question.
Where is CAGRO end state NAS. That statement is unfounded
Suggest you do some reading.
Characteristic...
6. Encouragement of US-Style Unicoms.
30. Removal of en-route Directed Traffic Information.
Read Dick's own words on this forum, over and over (do a search).
He believes that Unicoms (we call them CAGROs in oz) are
free , because regional airlines (who are their main users) will have to provide them as part of their operating responsibility. Dick, after having flown in the US, thinks they are a great idea. Trouble is, he doesn't realise there is a slight difference in the volumes of regional traffic to support such infrastructure. In the same way that he thinks Flight Following is a great idea in the US. Just doesn't understand that they have a lot more infrastructure over there (radar, small sector sizes, many more controllers per square mile etc.) to support such things.
Then go and read the Willoughby report. It describes how the 'savings' from intrducing NAS come from such things as not providing any services to low-level aircraft, removing the HF system etc. etc.
How does a VFR aircraft receive any service in non-radar E? After all, the great majority of the E will be non-radar. How does an IFR receive any valuable service after it leaves the E? Or after it commences an approach? CAGROs (sorry, unicoms) in West Woop Woop don't have too many radars.
Perhaps if you removed your Dick-colored glasses and simply trawled thru the masses of NAS threads on here, then made a decision based on facts instead of Dick's fantasies, contradictions and 'spin', you might save a few of us repeating ourselves over and over, and understand the anti-Dick sentiment. Is it just possible, even remotely, that he tells whoever he is talking at (including yourself), exactly what they want to hear?
He has, after all, on this forum and in the media, called for
-less controllers
-more controllers
-less control exercised by controllers
-more responsibility to be exercised by controllers
-more safety
-more affordable safety
-more flexibility at the expense of safety
-more safety dollars spent in certain areas, but less overall safety dollars
-larger areas of controlled airspace
-less control in controlled airspace
-less waste in air traffic management
-more money spent on radars in regional areas and other things previously not needed
-less control towers
-more control towers (including radar approach units)
-privatisation of air traffic services
-air traffic services act less like businesses
-air traffic managers cease being paid like managers in private enterprise
-controllers should become privateers (business owners)
-removal of monetary incentives for air traffic service providers
-NAS will save $70 million dollars
-NAS has cost an extra $100 million dollars plus (Dick's own words)
and many other contradictions.
The final chestnut
I have flown extensively in the US where the pilots and controllers are just as professional as here, they don't have a problem with NAS-like airspace, why do you?
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dickcheese I thought CPL was possible for the colour blind after the work done by Arthur Pape in this area?
http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/to...lourvision.pdf
http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/to...lourvision.pdf
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
post removal
In response to comments from our esteemed moderator to which I agree 
, I have removed my previous post that made reference to individuals suffering from colour blindness being unable to obtain a CPL. I found the article of Dr Pape's very informative.
, I have removed my previous post that made reference to individuals suffering from colour blindness being unable to obtain a CPL. I found the article of Dr Pape's very informative.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you sir.
As an aside;
A good friend of mine went all the way through the Navy to earn a Brass Hat, Watchkeeping and Navigators ticket and all including his own ship, now retired, having not found out that he was color blind until he applied and was refused a Student Pilots License on that basis.
They never found out and he never got close to hitting anything either.
As an aside;
A good friend of mine went all the way through the Navy to earn a Brass Hat, Watchkeeping and Navigators ticket and all including his own ship, now retired, having not found out that he was color blind until he applied and was refused a Student Pilots License on that basis.
They never found out and he never got close to hitting anything either.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, there is a need for airspace reform - I think most of us agree on that one.
However no matter how good the US-NAS might be you just can't import it across the Pacific and expect it to work.... UNLESS you also import the culture that goes with it.
The only way that there is any chance of importing that culture is to drown the industry in education and training, big time. And that project will take at least five years given previous attempts to process change in Oz.
None of the government agencies in this deal have shown any understanding on the amount of education needed, most likely due to the view that "it's not in my budget".
Airspace changes are like any other change management program and must be managed like one. To date, it has not!
However no matter how good the US-NAS might be you just can't import it across the Pacific and expect it to work.... UNLESS you also import the culture that goes with it.
The only way that there is any chance of importing that culture is to drown the industry in education and training, big time. And that project will take at least five years given previous attempts to process change in Oz.
None of the government agencies in this deal have shown any understanding on the amount of education needed, most likely due to the view that "it's not in my budget".
Airspace changes are like any other change management program and must be managed like one. To date, it has not!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Calcutta
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Triadic,
Absolutely spot on, not in my budget and poorly managed change processes.
We need a long term plan and then work out how you achieve it with the minimum amount of steps, but steps that do not degrade the current saftey environment; NAS2b took much more away than it gave, that's why it failed.
Dickcheese, heard same rumour, but now there are ways around that little problem. Some controllers lost their Class 3 when the lantern test was replaced by the isihara... But are still working on the basis that they passed the lantern test; then a series of others...
Absolutely spot on, not in my budget and poorly managed change processes.
We need a long term plan and then work out how you achieve it with the minimum amount of steps, but steps that do not degrade the current saftey environment; NAS2b took much more away than it gave, that's why it failed.
Dickcheese, heard same rumour, but now there are ways around that little problem. Some controllers lost their Class 3 when the lantern test was replaced by the isihara... But are still working on the basis that they passed the lantern test; then a series of others...
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the nature of the problem, CASA was doing X, ASA doing Y, NASIG doing Z... Pitty that ASA thought CASA was doing Y and CASA thought NASIG was doing X and NASIG was doing nothing... Did Z get done? Who paid for the training, the analysis, the changes? Not from my bucket philosophy... It all comes back to the ministers office... They gave too much of the reigns to the wrong group...
Where is one dollar in savings from NAS? Identify one ATC job better assigned to areas where risk determines that greatest need (or made redundant)?
Where is one dollar in savings from NAS? Identify one ATC job better assigned to areas where risk determines that greatest need (or made redundant)?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT
Sorry for the delay in replying to your post, my laptop died whilst away from home.
Why do I have a problem with NAS type airspace changes, simple, the introduction into Australia was flawed from day one.
After 45 years of operating in all types of airspace in Australia, NAS to me was simply bloody dangerous. Sorry for the emotion, but I really think that to have E outside of radar coverage with heavy RPT aircraft expected to look out for light aircraft at a critical phase of flight was plain stupid. Why should I have to expose passengers to such a danger. It was interesting that Airservices quickly moved to put some radar into LT after the Virgin air miss.
In my opinion passengers were safer in land transport than air transport. Australia has a much respected safety record, so why should we ape the US system and reduce our safety margins for no real gains in cost savings.
Do you really believe that E outside of radar is a safe operating environment for RPT aircraft?
Sorry for the delay in replying to your post, my laptop died whilst away from home.
Why do I have a problem with NAS type airspace changes, simple, the introduction into Australia was flawed from day one.
After 45 years of operating in all types of airspace in Australia, NAS to me was simply bloody dangerous. Sorry for the emotion, but I really think that to have E outside of radar coverage with heavy RPT aircraft expected to look out for light aircraft at a critical phase of flight was plain stupid. Why should I have to expose passengers to such a danger. It was interesting that Airservices quickly moved to put some radar into LT after the Virgin air miss.
In my opinion passengers were safer in land transport than air transport. Australia has a much respected safety record, so why should we ape the US system and reduce our safety margins for no real gains in cost savings.
Do you really believe that E outside of radar is a safe operating environment for RPT aircraft?
Last edited by Dog One; 20th Oct 2004 at 21:50.
