NAS CTAF's : Rollback

[Uncommon Sense]

Actually it can't be a rollback if it hasn't happened yet I suppose.

More another 11th hour change of heart - and millions well invested.

Is the rumour true that an announcement inthis regard is pending - very soon?

[Frank_Sources]

That seems to gel with something strange I heard yesterday.

I wonder if anyone has kept a running tab on the costs of Dick's Excellent Adventure?

Are we not past the AIRAC cycle cut off though? Don't tell me another express print run of maps? Never mind. The costs will be 'recovered'.

[NAMPS]

Not everything in the material produced will be a waste, I use the NAS 2003 DVD I got with the 'NAS pack' as a coaster.

Look forward to hearing confirmation of the "rollback" so I can add another airservices DVD to the collection in my bar!

[Blockla]

another airservices DVD

NAMPS if true, this time it's not the fault of ASA, or even an ASA production.

[OzExpat]

Are you telling me that the big, glossy and expensive looking package I recently received from DOTARS is ready for the chop? Probably just as well, if I've correctly understood what was being attempted. I thought that it missed a salient point about the need to overfly the aerodrome to check the windsock... you know, for things like wind direction, glider ops, aerodrome unserviceability...

[CaptainMidnight]

OK spell it out, someone.

I gather

• the deletion of MBZs and replacement with CTAF(R)s scheduled for 24 NOV is not going ahead
• so the amendments to AIP, charts, ERSA etc. etc. have to be pulled, and the docs. redone to reflect the current environment?

If so, this close to 24 NOV expect a delayed chart release date of mid-December or next January. And I was once told that in this sort of scenario Airservices may get hit with a substantial penalty payment by the printers for not meeting a scheduled committment, and expecting work to be done out of schedule.

[Arm out the window]

It's getting to the stage that when a new and 'wonderful' change to current procedures is flagged, I can't be stuffed getting hold of the material and pre-briefing myself about it, because this farcical kind of retraction and backflipping seems to happen every bloody time.

If true, this is frightening. Propose a rule, sell it as if it's law, then back off when what everyone has predicted about its uselessness comes true....sake!

[topdrop]

Apparently to cater for all (most??) eventualities, Airservices has printed 3 versions of the charts for November - wonder how much that costs.

[Frank_Sources]

Never underestimate the power of one...

























.. d i c k h e a d .

[gaunty]

Eeeerm chaps if the "safety case" they have finally published after some considerable pressure from a few areas is any measure I'd say it's only a matter of time.

See the CTAF sticky

[VVS Laxman]

…if the "safety case" they have finally published…

The point is, this is an "extract" of the safety case; why are parts of a "public document" being hidden from the public? What’s in it that is worth hiding? The model has changed heaps in 12 months; yet the original ‘safety’ document is the primary (joke) reference.

If this document supported anti-NAS sentiments (such as the previous rollback) the terry towelled hat wearing folk would be shouting from the roof tops about being accountable; shouting down statistics and assumption, constructing various documentation, authored by various experts, quoting flaws in stats and assumptions.

This is why those on the pro-NAS side of the argument fall down; sh!t can everything that doesn’t go their way, then say nothing when they have an opportunity to slip something through.

My information is the minister is going to make the call on whether it will go ahead; there are two charting options printed…