Class C radar direction
Thread Starter
****su_Tonka, I have just had this brilliant idea after reading your John Anderson media releases. Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems? Remember what Voices of Reason said?
Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices? Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels, surely we could learn from this. It is just an idea. What do you think?
Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices? Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels, surely we could learn from this. It is just an idea. What do you think?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Higgins is absolutely right.
Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. Shame on all of you! As with Chris Higgins, I have experienced airspace and controllers on 4 continents including in the US for 7 years. I am not an airspace administrator, designer, statistician, or any other professional that considers and designs airspace but I am the consumer of these services and as such I have considerable experience as a consumer of the Australian product over several others. As a user of Australian airspace and ATC services, it does not come close to the system in place in the US. Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere, its just that they are using an antiquated and busted system with band aids stuck all over it from years on neglect.
****su-Tonka.
If you doubt my experience at busy uncontrolled airports or with any aspect of operating in NAS then I am sorry, you will have to live with it. I can tell you that I have flown, many hundreds of times at an uncontrolled airport that had daily aircraft movements right on the trigger point of class D (FAA trigger point, not Aus) using the mandatory and recommended radio procedures. That airport just recieved its tower last year! You seem convinced that pilots cannot use common sense in a CTAF.
Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages and into the 21st century. Shame on all of you! As with Chris Higgins, I have experienced airspace and controllers on 4 continents including in the US for 7 years. I am not an airspace administrator, designer, statistician, or any other professional that considers and designs airspace but I am the consumer of these services and as such I have considerable experience as a consumer of the Australian product over several others. As a user of Australian airspace and ATC services, it does not come close to the system in place in the US. Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere, its just that they are using an antiquated and busted system with band aids stuck all over it from years on neglect.
****su-Tonka.
If you doubt my experience at busy uncontrolled airports or with any aspect of operating in NAS then I am sorry, you will have to live with it. I can tell you that I have flown, many hundreds of times at an uncontrolled airport that had daily aircraft movements right on the trigger point of class D (FAA trigger point, not Aus) using the mandatory and recommended radio procedures. That airport just recieved its tower last year! You seem convinced that pilots cannot use common sense in a CTAF.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Bleak City
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As an ATC who flys privately and commercially I feel I can add a little perspective.
Class E WILL NOT work a) without appropriate radar coverage b) VFR aircrafts transponders (and radios) being calibrated to an IFR standard and c) VFR aircraft using the correct radio procedures and STAYING AWAY from IFR routes rather than navigating on them with their GPS.
I work sectors in the J curve that have rather serious holes in radar coverage and I see EVERY DAY, VFR transponders without mode C or serious mode C errors. Attempts to call them prove fruitless. I'm not there to dob you in, just let you know that your transponder is not working.
I and many other ATC's donot want to attend coronial inquests when this turns pear shaped, simple as that!
Class E WILL NOT work a) without appropriate radar coverage b) VFR aircrafts transponders (and radios) being calibrated to an IFR standard and c) VFR aircraft using the correct radio procedures and STAYING AWAY from IFR routes rather than navigating on them with their GPS.
I work sectors in the J curve that have rather serious holes in radar coverage and I see EVERY DAY, VFR transponders without mode C or serious mode C errors. Attempts to call them prove fruitless. I'm not there to dob you in, just let you know that your transponder is not working.
I and many other ATC's donot want to attend coronial inquests when this turns pear shaped, simple as that!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su_Tonka, I have just had this brilliant idea after reading your John Anderson media releases. Why don’t we get some US controllers out to Australia to show how Class E above Class D can be operated without any problems? Remember what Voices of Reason said?
Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices? Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels, surely we could learn from this. It is just an idea. What do you think?
Or better still, why don’t we send some Aussie Class D controllers over to the US Class D towers which are operated by Airservices? Surely that will solve the problem. If the United States can run Class E over Class D (sometimes with radar and sometimes without) with incredibly high safety levels, surely we could learn from this. It is just an idea. What do you think?
What a brillaint idea! Never happen though, overseas trips are the reserve of management.
I do believe that our airspace system can be made more efficient. Personally I don't care what our airspace is classified, so long as I am trained properly to provide the services required I will be happy. If industry want E over D, or C over D, or B everywhere, so be it.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith
Hmm - maybe from reading all your comments at face value Dick?
Agreed - an excellent idea. You just need to find someone who can communicate this to management. The Air Traffic Controllers would be all for it. They like providing the service.
Mjbow,
Hey, no offence taken buddy! Just let me know when you are going to next wrap a compliment in a chocolate coated fist.
On the CTAF's - it still sounds like you haven't flown in an Australia CTAF since the new rules came in last year - am I correct?
That is, those pilots perceive that there will be a problem if they try to get a clearance through your Class D airspace (or presumably Class C if they are flying a bit higher).
Why do pilots have that perception?
Why do pilots have that perception?
Anyway, why don’t you get Airservices to communicate to pilots (the ones that are skirting around the airspace) that if they call up they will get a friendly direct clearance? That would be a move in the right direction.
Mjbow,
Once again, we see a group of controllers hi-jacking the most genuine attempt to drag our Airspace out of the dark ages..
Once again, CONTROLLERS are rubbishing the system and dreaming up every conceivable reason not to improve to a better system...
Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere
Once again, CONTROLLERS are rubbishing the system and dreaming up every conceivable reason not to improve to a better system...
Don’t take this in any way to be an attack on our controllers. I agree with Dick here that we have among the most professional and skilled controllers anywhere
On the CTAF's - it still sounds like you haven't flown in an Australia CTAF since the new rules came in last year - am I correct?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Melbourne, China
Posts: 324
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australia has moved away from the American system:
- traffic information provided in G
- flightwatch to be provided by ATC
- limited radar coverage
It's long past the time where it could be an apples and apples comparison.
Wherever we go now, it will have to be an Australian specific solution.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chris Higgins
Somebody from Cathay did - or tried to. He was seen off.
Anyway, what makes you think a retired airline pilot is going to be the person to do it?
What do they know about ATM apart from having tooled along in it? It would be like making an experienced Air traffic controller an airline Fleet Management Captain. No disrespect to airline pilots, but they are used to thinking one airplane at a time in terms of efficiency - normally their one! ATC/ATM need to think in hundreds at a time strategically, and a dozen at a time tactically. It's just a different outlook - even if you have 23 years experience and have a shiny NetJet Citation X.
One of Dick Smiths biggest criticisms on his website is that the whole system is geared towards the big end of town - the airlines. Isn't putting an airline man at the top of the system like putting the fox in the henhouse with respect to Mr Smiths view?
How will this help the GA and private operators, who cause Mr Smith claims to champion?
I can't believe that somebody who has retired from QF or CX, (who has some street credibility and knows what s/he is talking about), hasn't taken the reigns and fixed it once and for all.
Anyway, what makes you think a retired airline pilot is going to be the person to do it?
What do they know about ATM apart from having tooled along in it? It would be like making an experienced Air traffic controller an airline Fleet Management Captain. No disrespect to airline pilots, but they are used to thinking one airplane at a time in terms of efficiency - normally their one! ATC/ATM need to think in hundreds at a time strategically, and a dozen at a time tactically. It's just a different outlook - even if you have 23 years experience and have a shiny NetJet Citation X.
One of Dick Smiths biggest criticisms on his website is that the whole system is geared towards the big end of town - the airlines. Isn't putting an airline man at the top of the system like putting the fox in the henhouse with respect to Mr Smiths view?
How will this help the GA and private operators, who cause Mr Smith claims to champion?
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su-Tonka
I am sorry if you think I am anything but sincere in my compliment of Australian controllers.
With regards to Australian CTAFs. You are completely incorrect!
MJ
With regards to Australian CTAFs. You are completely incorrect!
MJ
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK mjbow, I will take your word for it. In which case I fail to see how you think the new radio calls are anything but a schmozzle at a busy non-controlled aerodrome - especially where 2-3 aerodromes are in close proximity. Even with the most professional, succint and disciplined RT (which not everyone has, especially when pilots are at early stages of learning), it is impossible to make all the required calls for all aircraft.
The RAPAC minutes from all around the country seem to concur.
Another great NAS victory over commonsense in my view.
The RAPAC minutes from all around the country seem to concur.
Another great NAS victory over commonsense in my view.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su-Tonka
In which case I fail to see how you think the new radio calls are anything but a schmozzle at a busy non-controlled aerodrome
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****su Tonka,
The next time I am in a restaurant and the waiter comes to me if my meal is okay, shall I tell him to ask the cook, because as the end user of the product...I have no idea?
The Australian Airspace System has always frowned upon the grass-roots employers, enthusiasts and small capacity RPT. Unfortunately with the geography of Australia and the sparse population, the very agency that is set up in the name of public service-has not done any public service.
G/A is dead, the system you support is management top-heavy, you don't have a clear line of communication within your own industry and training has suffered from all of the changes and the ensuing confusion.
Whether I fly around Port Macquarie in a Cessna 152 or into MIlan Italy in a Citation X, a cursory observation tells me that things are not right back at home.
Dick Smith may not have all of the answers..so what are your answers?
I am going to Washington DC tomorrow to take my kids to the Air and Space Museum and then get the two youngest ones their Australian Passports. I won't be able to answer anything you might have in reply for about a week.
Respectfully,
Chris
The next time I am in a restaurant and the waiter comes to me if my meal is okay, shall I tell him to ask the cook, because as the end user of the product...I have no idea?
The Australian Airspace System has always frowned upon the grass-roots employers, enthusiasts and small capacity RPT. Unfortunately with the geography of Australia and the sparse population, the very agency that is set up in the name of public service-has not done any public service.
G/A is dead, the system you support is management top-heavy, you don't have a clear line of communication within your own industry and training has suffered from all of the changes and the ensuing confusion.
Whether I fly around Port Macquarie in a Cessna 152 or into MIlan Italy in a Citation X, a cursory observation tells me that things are not right back at home.
Dick Smith may not have all of the answers..so what are your answers?
I am going to Washington DC tomorrow to take my kids to the Air and Space Museum and then get the two youngest ones their Australian Passports. I won't be able to answer anything you might have in reply for about a week.
Respectfully,
Chris
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mjbow
We already have those US CTAFS here - they are not working (from a pilots perspective). Why is that? Are you saying Australian pilots are dumber than Americans?
Chris
In this curious analogy, the cook is not the airspace manager - the cook is the air traffic controller. The owner of the restaurant is the airspace manager - and he has to keep ALL of his patrons happy over the course of running that business - not neccessarily just one diner who didn't like his meal.
Besides, you know that I am not saying pilots should have no say in the system. I am saying that their day to day job is not to consider the entire system and how it has to be managed for all - their day to day job is to consider how it should work for their particular operation - it is a much narrower perspective.
Please don't blame the ANSP in Australia for the farce that has occured over the last few years - they have had little say in it. It has been a game of politics, and you know it. And you know very well who the players have been.
---------------
Dick Smith does make some very interesting observations / claims in his letter to The Australian Financial Review:
We already have those US CTAFS here - they are not working (from a pilots perspective). Why is that? Are you saying Australian pilots are dumber than Americans?
Chris
The next time I am in a restaurant and the waiter comes to me if my meal is okay, shall I tell him to ask the cook, because as the end user of the product...I have no idea?
Besides, you know that I am not saying pilots should have no say in the system. I am saying that their day to day job is not to consider the entire system and how it has to be managed for all - their day to day job is to consider how it should work for their particular operation - it is a much narrower perspective.
Please don't blame the ANSP in Australia for the farce that has occured over the last few years - they have had little say in it. It has been a game of politics, and you know it. And you know very well who the players have been.
---------------
Dick Smith does make some very interesting observations / claims in his letter to The Australian Financial Review:
Even when as minister John Anderson was right, he was too weak to deliver his policy outcomes. Government policy was to adopt world’s best practice where high density airspace (known as Class C) is used and install an approach radar facility, because without one, it is impossible to know with certainty the position of all aircraft in the vicinity.
Last edited by Shitsu_Tonka; 9th Nov 2006 at 04:41.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CTAFS and Frequencies
Sometimes it is good to know the correct frequency.... even in those mighty worlds best practice US CTAFS:
(From todays Avweb Flash)
(From todays Avweb Flash)
Two Bonanzas Land On Same Runway, At Same Time
On Monday afternoon, pilot Robert Johnson had just touched down in his Bonanza at the Los Alamos County Airport in New Mexico when his passenger noticed an ominous-looking shadow just ahead. Another Bonanza, on short final, was trying to land on the same runway, and crashed into the top of Johnson's airplane. Unhurt, Johnson struggled to maintain control as the two entangled aircraft rolled down the runway and coasted to a stop. The pilot of the second airplane, who also was uninjured, said he'd mistakenly been tuned to the wrong radio frequency, and the first Bonanza was not visible to him as he flew the approach. Johnson and his passenger were unable to open the doors or windows and had to be extricated from the cockpit by rescue workers. A similar accident occurred in Florida in December 1999. A Piper Cadet and a Cessna 152 collided on final and landed while stuck together. Nobody was hurt, and damage to both aircraft was minimal. The airplanes were separated and the Piper flew home the next day. Both the Piper pilot and the 152 pilot spoke with AVweb's Joe Godfrey to describe their experiences.
On Monday afternoon, pilot Robert Johnson had just touched down in his Bonanza at the Los Alamos County Airport in New Mexico when his passenger noticed an ominous-looking shadow just ahead. Another Bonanza, on short final, was trying to land on the same runway, and crashed into the top of Johnson's airplane. Unhurt, Johnson struggled to maintain control as the two entangled aircraft rolled down the runway and coasted to a stop. The pilot of the second airplane, who also was uninjured, said he'd mistakenly been tuned to the wrong radio frequency, and the first Bonanza was not visible to him as he flew the approach. Johnson and his passenger were unable to open the doors or windows and had to be extricated from the cockpit by rescue workers. A similar accident occurred in Florida in December 1999. A Piper Cadet and a Cessna 152 collided on final and landed while stuck together. Nobody was hurt, and damage to both aircraft was minimal. The airplanes were separated and the Piper flew home the next day. Both the Piper pilot and the 152 pilot spoke with AVweb's Joe Godfrey to describe their experiences.
mjbow You believe it is ATCs "hijacking" & "rubbishing" NAS implemetation & airspace reform.
Wrong.
Industry reps - your fellow aviators - have repeatedly voiced their concerns as the following extract from a forum's minutes indicates:
Chris Higgins You say the airspace system is "bastardised" and difficult to understand. Given the above from people who fly & work in the system here every day, - respectfully - would you not think they are more qualified than you to comment and provide input on reforms? Many did during the LLAMP project which had widespread industry representation, but when it was heading in a direction a certain individual didn't agree with it was overturned, and industry has been p
ed ever since. And perhaps the reason it is currently confusing is directly a result of the botched reform attempts including NAS over the last 6 years or so??
Any attempt at reform must have the agreement and support of industry - surely you agree with that? And the above indicates NAS does not have widespread support.
It is also interesting to note that while attempting to copy & paste the "proven" U.S. system, a widespread airspace reform program has commenced due to ".... The U. S. airspace has remained largely unchanged for decades ....".
Wrong.
Industry reps - your fellow aviators - have repeatedly voiced their concerns as the following extract from a forum's minutes indicates:
5.4. NAS
A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.
• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.
• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.
• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.
• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.
• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.
• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.
• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.
• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.
• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.
• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.
A representative from the NASIG was not present at the meeting. However, members gave the following comments on the NAS model.
• It appears to be the national opinion that the NAS model was “steam rolled” by the Minister contrary to concerns from many operators.
• The model has been implemented to suit small aircraft operators, not medium or heavy aircraft operators.
• TCAS is being used as a primary tool for controlling aircraft.
• Operator concerns have been highlighted in various forums around the country, but to no avail.
• The education package should have been delivered 3 months prior to the changes becoming effective to ensure pilot education was thorough and complete. The package was delivered only in the last couple of weeks. Some pilots are yet to receive the information.
• NAS’s further proposal of removing MBZ’s in the next stages is of serious concern and is objected to strongly by industry.
• Further changes to the airspace should not proceed until ADS-B has been implemented.
• Industry refutes the quoted 70million dollar saving NAS will provide. They believe the savings do not exist and industry has been mislead by the Minister and NASIG.
• NASIG have promoted that the RAPAC forum has been used for consultation with industry. In truth members believe this has not occurred as proper consultation was not administered.
• Pilot knowledge of NAS is minimal. This in itself highlights a problem with the implementation process of the new system.
ed ever since. And perhaps the reason it is currently confusing is directly a result of the botched reform attempts including NAS over the last 6 years or so??Any attempt at reform must have the agreement and support of industry - surely you agree with that? And the above indicates NAS does not have widespread support.
It is also interesting to note that while attempting to copy & paste the "proven" U.S. system, a widespread airspace reform program has commenced due to ".... The U. S. airspace has remained largely unchanged for decades ....".
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Dog House
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hopefully the end is near
CaptainMidnight, Bravo Bravo
To mjbow, chris and dick, what is your vision now?
If you love the US system so much, then fly there and leave us alone
To mjbow, chris and dick, what is your vision now?
If you love the US system so much, then fly there and leave us alone
Grandpa Aerotart
Interesting innit?
Mr Smith views 'road bock' airspace, and it's attendant HUGE financial burden, as a major factor in the need to have his airspace model but no one ever seems to have suffered the delays which he insists are real and a major impediment to a viable GA.
Virtually no one in the industry believes the changes we have seen so far to CTAF procedures etc are an improvement over what we had...that is because they are demonstrably not an improvement. They may on a VERY good day be no worse but they sure as hell are not better....therefore they were a waste of time and money.
Nobody, including the Americans, view the US system as the best system..except Mr Smith. To the Americans it is simply the system they have been saddled with for many and varied historical reasons...and a system which is groaning under maladministration.
The one part of the US system which is worlds best practice...the charging system...is not being considered. In fact even the US industry is fighting to keep that 'proven system' against the efforts of the (mostly bankrupt) airlines efforts to shift costs away from them and onto anyone else they can think of.
Mr Smith, and others, whether you like it or not the ATC system exists for the benefit of the big end of town not everyone else. To prove that theory, as i have said many times before, think of the system requirements if all of the airlines ceased to exist.
The whole ATC system would be redundant.
If all of 'GA' ceased to exist tomorrow the system would remain in place largely unchanged.
The system exists to safegaurd passengers...they are the major beneficiary...get them to pay for it via ticket taxes as per the US model.
The system exists for the airlines...get them to collect the ticket taxes therefore requiring very little Govt infrastructure to collect said taxes.
The system is then funded by the Govt from user pays fees.
CASA. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority would be similarly funded by the users that require it's existance...the airlines and the GOVT!
Anyone want to postulate what CASA might look like the day after GA died...and the day after the airlines ceased to exist?
The GST we pay on every liter of fuel, minute of labour and $1 of spare parts covers many times over any 'burden' we put on the system by our private participation.
And don't give me that **** about GST being a state tax and not a federal one...the Federal Govt may remit the vast majority of GST to the states but that is money gained by additional taxation that replaces the taxation that used to go to the states before GST. No matter which way you cut it the federal govt benefits from GST.
Dick if you want to put your stamp on Australian aviation and be remembered as a great Australian by everyone instead of only everyone not connected with aviation why not use your considerable public persona to effect change where it is really needed...and fight to introduce the US charging system as opposed to their airspace system?
The biggest impediment to 'GA' is user pays...because as 'users' we are being asked to pay several times over...and what really hurts is as our costs go up we are being delivered less for our money.
Fight to remove the real burden on aviation....that is not the airspace system.
Mr Smith views 'road bock' airspace, and it's attendant HUGE financial burden, as a major factor in the need to have his airspace model but no one ever seems to have suffered the delays which he insists are real and a major impediment to a viable GA.
Virtually no one in the industry believes the changes we have seen so far to CTAF procedures etc are an improvement over what we had...that is because they are demonstrably not an improvement. They may on a VERY good day be no worse but they sure as hell are not better....therefore they were a waste of time and money.
Nobody, including the Americans, view the US system as the best system..except Mr Smith. To the Americans it is simply the system they have been saddled with for many and varied historical reasons...and a system which is groaning under maladministration.
The one part of the US system which is worlds best practice...the charging system...is not being considered. In fact even the US industry is fighting to keep that 'proven system' against the efforts of the (mostly bankrupt) airlines efforts to shift costs away from them and onto anyone else they can think of.
Mr Smith, and others, whether you like it or not the ATC system exists for the benefit of the big end of town not everyone else. To prove that theory, as i have said many times before, think of the system requirements if all of the airlines ceased to exist.
The whole ATC system would be redundant.
If all of 'GA' ceased to exist tomorrow the system would remain in place largely unchanged.
The system exists to safegaurd passengers...they are the major beneficiary...get them to pay for it via ticket taxes as per the US model.
The system exists for the airlines...get them to collect the ticket taxes therefore requiring very little Govt infrastructure to collect said taxes.
The system is then funded by the Govt from user pays fees.
CASA. The Civil Aviation Safety Authority would be similarly funded by the users that require it's existance...the airlines and the GOVT!
Anyone want to postulate what CASA might look like the day after GA died...and the day after the airlines ceased to exist?
The GST we pay on every liter of fuel, minute of labour and $1 of spare parts covers many times over any 'burden' we put on the system by our private participation.
And don't give me that **** about GST being a state tax and not a federal one...the Federal Govt may remit the vast majority of GST to the states but that is money gained by additional taxation that replaces the taxation that used to go to the states before GST. No matter which way you cut it the federal govt benefits from GST.
Dick if you want to put your stamp on Australian aviation and be remembered as a great Australian by everyone instead of only everyone not connected with aviation why not use your considerable public persona to effect change where it is really needed...and fight to introduce the US charging system as opposed to their airspace system?
The biggest impediment to 'GA' is user pays...because as 'users' we are being asked to pay several times over...and what really hurts is as our costs go up we are being delivered less for our money.
Fight to remove the real burden on aviation....that is not the airspace system.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 9th Nov 2006 at 11:13.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera
I shall presume it was you who edited my post without even the common courtesy of informing me or any of the readers of your censorship!
Why on earth can't I challenge any contributors motives on here. Let the arguments stand or fall on their merits. I seem to remember reading that statement somewhere.
Dick Smith offerd a contributor to call him and discuss their differences. He/she refused claiming it was pointless talking to him. Fine, but as a reader of his continuous attacks on Smith on these pages the poster concerned obviously doesn't really believe his own words. If he did he would not engage Smith here!
Posters like this have lost all credibility. As do you when you blindly censor these pages.
Why on earth can't I challenge any contributors motives on here. Let the arguments stand or fall on their merits. I seem to remember reading that statement somewhere.
Dick Smith offerd a contributor to call him and discuss their differences. He/she refused claiming it was pointless talking to him. Fine, but as a reader of his continuous attacks on Smith on these pages the poster concerned obviously doesn't really believe his own words. If he did he would not engage Smith here!
Posters like this have lost all credibility. As do you when you blindly censor these pages.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stop feeding the trolls!
C'mon guys, stop feeding the trolls.
If we say nothing and just go about our day to day business, then Dick, mjbow, and Chris Higgins, can talk amongst themselves in their own little self appreciation society and let the aviation professionals get on without this distraction.
As far as I'm aware, NAS is well and truly still running. The process has been slowed up because of the debacle of the NAS 2b experience. More checks and balances.
Radar hasn't yet been installed because of the long lead time to plan the radar installation, invite tenders for the project, implement the project, conduct post implementation review, etc, etc.
AsA is currently working on a radar replacement project right now. This relatively simple project of replacing existing radar heads will take years to complete. These things don't happen quickly.
At the same time, AsA is involved as a world leader in developing new technologies and procedures for air traffic management. ADS-B is but one of these developments. So your notion, Dick, of radar being the end game for ATC, is 1980s thinking. Move into the 21st century and have a look at what we're using now.
And I'll say this one last time (I've said it before),
AUSTRALIAN CONTROLLERS WANT AIRSPACE REFORM!
but as professionals, we cannot let a mismanaged, unsafe, and illogical system of air traffic management become the norm for Oz.
If we say nothing and just go about our day to day business, then Dick, mjbow, and Chris Higgins, can talk amongst themselves in their own little self appreciation society and let the aviation professionals get on without this distraction.
As far as I'm aware, NAS is well and truly still running. The process has been slowed up because of the debacle of the NAS 2b experience. More checks and balances.
Radar hasn't yet been installed because of the long lead time to plan the radar installation, invite tenders for the project, implement the project, conduct post implementation review, etc, etc.
AsA is currently working on a radar replacement project right now. This relatively simple project of replacing existing radar heads will take years to complete. These things don't happen quickly.
At the same time, AsA is involved as a world leader in developing new technologies and procedures for air traffic management. ADS-B is but one of these developments. So your notion, Dick, of radar being the end game for ATC, is 1980s thinking. Move into the 21st century and have a look at what we're using now.
And I'll say this one last time (I've said it before),
AUSTRALIAN CONTROLLERS WANT AIRSPACE REFORM!
but as professionals, we cannot let a mismanaged, unsafe, and illogical system of air traffic management become the norm for Oz.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck - That has to be one of the most coherent posts I have ever read on PPrune.
Now if only this outbreak of uncontrolled common sense in the last batch of posts could carry through to the political level.
Now if only this outbreak of uncontrolled common sense in the last batch of posts could carry through to the political level.