Class C radar direction
Thread Starter
Class C radar direction
Rumour has it that at a meeting on 14 September 2006 in Parliament House, Warren Truss told the industry that he had been approached by the Airservices Board to remove the Class C radar direction. This direction was given by Minister John Anderson on 31 August 2004 to ensure that Airservices complied with the Government’s NAS policy (see here).
The NAS policy requires terminal radar for Class C airspace. This is for obvious safety and cost reasons. Yes, you can operate Class C terminal airspace without radar, but you can only do this by often delaying, and therefore adding to costs for VFR aircraft. Imagine a scenario of an IFR aircraft (whether it is a Dash 8 or a Cessna 172) coming in from the south into Albury in VMC conditions whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east. What normally happens is that the VFR aircraft is extensively diverted or told to “remain OCTA.” Of course, once the tower goes home, or at places such as Ballina, Ayers Rock and Broome, there is no similar “road block” – so it is obvious that it is not required for safety reasons.
Most pilots I know flight plan around this Class C non-radar “road block” airspace and take the extra costs (which sometimes can be the “straw that breaks the Camel’s back” to make their business unviable) rather than end up holding or diverting. No wonder GA is going broke.
Of course, there are those who believe there is no need for Class C and terminal radar, as Class E airspace is suitable in link airspace above Class D. Have a look at this to see the Voices of Reason support for Class E airspace in these situations and the “dangerously naïve” statements made in Australia.
Remember, our Class E airspace is even safer because we have a unique mandatory transponder requirement for all VFR aircraft – there is no similar requirement in North America.
The NAS policy requires terminal radar for Class C airspace. This is for obvious safety and cost reasons. Yes, you can operate Class C terminal airspace without radar, but you can only do this by often delaying, and therefore adding to costs for VFR aircraft. Imagine a scenario of an IFR aircraft (whether it is a Dash 8 or a Cessna 172) coming in from the south into Albury in VMC conditions whilst a VFR aircraft wants to fly across the approach airspace at 7,500 feet from west to east. What normally happens is that the VFR aircraft is extensively diverted or told to “remain OCTA.” Of course, once the tower goes home, or at places such as Ballina, Ayers Rock and Broome, there is no similar “road block” – so it is obvious that it is not required for safety reasons.
Most pilots I know flight plan around this Class C non-radar “road block” airspace and take the extra costs (which sometimes can be the “straw that breaks the Camel’s back” to make their business unviable) rather than end up holding or diverting. No wonder GA is going broke.
Of course, there are those who believe there is no need for Class C and terminal radar, as Class E airspace is suitable in link airspace above Class D. Have a look at this to see the Voices of Reason support for Class E airspace in these situations and the “dangerously naïve” statements made in Australia.
Remember, our Class E airspace is even safer because we have a unique mandatory transponder requirement for all VFR aircraft – there is no similar requirement in North America.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the policy has simply been changed Dick?
Governments have been known to do that from time to time. (After all - they have had three separate ministers of late.)
Could it be that they simply do not agree with your assertions?
The actual coal face air traffic controllers will probably just do the most efficient job they can with whatever they are given - as usual - in their normal professional no fuss way.
The 'strategic' to and from about allocation of hardware resource allocation will be played out at a level way beyond the day to day operational level - as your rumour suggests, possibly even ministerial level.
Governments have been known to do that from time to time. (After all - they have had three separate ministers of late.)
Could it be that they simply do not agree with your assertions?
The actual coal face air traffic controllers will probably just do the most efficient job they can with whatever they are given - as usual - in their normal professional no fuss way.
The 'strategic' to and from about allocation of hardware resource allocation will be played out at a level way beyond the day to day operational level - as your rumour suggests, possibly even ministerial level.
Thread Starter
****su_Tonka, you state:
That is the whole point I am making - the policy hasn’t been changed. In fact, it is far more than policy, it is a legal direction given by the Minister in writing to Airservices.
I understand that they haven’t even ordered the required radars. Note that the directive says the radar should be put in place “At the earliest time it can be supplied and installed.”
Perhaps Creampuff can comment on the risk to the Airservices Board members from not complying with this legal direction for over two years?
Perhaps the policy has simply been changed Dick?
I understand that they haven’t even ordered the required radars. Note that the directive says the radar should be put in place “At the earliest time it can be supplied and installed.”
Perhaps Creampuff can comment on the risk to the Airservices Board members from not complying with this legal direction for over two years?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the direction has been rescinded Dick?
Would it be neccessary to make it public?
Could it be that former Minister Anderson made a direction that was more related to the politics of the day than the operational realities and priorities required?
Would it be neccessary to make it public?
Could it be that former Minister Anderson made a direction that was more related to the politics of the day than the operational realities and priorities required?
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: nowhere
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class C
I have personally experienced the Class C "road block" airspace about which he speaks many times and it can be a frustrating and expensive exercise. For those who haven't, I would suggest that you get out of your glass cockpits now and then and try flying a VFR transit exercise in C over D when there is an RPT in the area. Of course, had government policy on NAS and a directive on class C radar been implemented by Airservices, and had they been pulled into line when it wasn't, Australian airspace design could have progressed towards worlds best practise. What we have now is a return to the dark ages in terms of expense, efficiency and safety.
Be nice, people!
Be nice, people!
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think there are a number of other costs out there that are sending GA broke, most would rate well ahead of Class C airspace.
Exactly what is your vision? Class E everywhere? Radar everywhere? Non Radar everywhere? I find it hard to follow sometimes, if you were to articulate exactly what it is you are trying to achieve, you may even garner some support.
From where I sit, it seems you gather random snippets of information to support a vision which you fail to outline.
Cheers, HH.
PS: It's good to see you back, D&G has been quiet without you...
Grandpa Aerotart
Most pilots I know flight plan around this Class C non-radar “road block” airspace and take the extra costs (which sometimes can be the “straw that breaks the Camel’s back” to make their business unviable) rather than end up holding or diverting. No wonder GA is going broke.
Of course, once the tower goes home, or at places such as Ballina, Ayers Rock and Broome, there is no similar “road block” – so it is obvious that it is not required for safety reasons.
I have never been able to get my head around why non radar Class C is dangerous when Class E is not. At least in Class C everyone requires a clearance and is therefore known..unlike Class E which is class C for IFR and class G+ for VFR traffic.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
it is YOU who instigated the drive for change in our airspace management.
It is YOU who has presided over flawed and thankfully FAILED attempts at Class E space introduction. There is a sometimes naive attitude that private enterprise can do things better and more efficiently than government. In many instances this is true. HOWEVER, the proper provision of basic infrastructure such as water, power, hospitals, defence, education and AIRSPACE should not use cost as the primary concern.
Rule one in government is to never make change unless you are certain of the outcomes. YOU have fFAILED this country as YOU were the one who fired the initial salvos from the "loose cannon of airspace reform" without having proper regard of the outcomes.
it is YOU who instigated the drive for change in our airspace management.
It is YOU who has presided over flawed and thankfully FAILED attempts at Class E space introduction. There is a sometimes naive attitude that private enterprise can do things better and more efficiently than government. In many instances this is true. HOWEVER, the proper provision of basic infrastructure such as water, power, hospitals, defence, education and AIRSPACE should not use cost as the primary concern.
Rule one in government is to never make change unless you are certain of the outcomes. YOU have fFAILED this country as YOU were the one who fired the initial salvos from the "loose cannon of airspace reform" without having proper regard of the outcomes.
Thread Starter
****su_Tonka, you state:
Surely you are joking? No, the direction has not been rescinded. In fact, the Government has recently confirmed NAS policy.
Yes, it would be necessary to make it public! That is required by legislation – surely you know this. John Anderson made the direction because it was stated Government policy. That is, Class C airspace requires terminal radar.
Howard Hughes, you don’t seem to understand how our airspace charging system works. There is no charge for VFR aircraft to transit through Class C airspace.
The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile.
Imagine the difference! 30 miles separation compared to 1 mile.
I agree that there are some circumstances where the separation in procedural non-radar Class C can be reduced, but often this does not happen.
The reason that many pilots I know flight plan around the airspace is that it can save time – rather than being held or diverted at right angles to where you want to go. It has often happened to me. I suggest you look at the scenario I explained in the original posting and advise what would happen to the VFR aircraft in that case.
I agree that the cost of diverting around Class C airspace for VFR aircraft is not great. However, as a businessman I can assure you that it is all the small costs that add together which send a business into bankruptcy.
My vision follows the NAS policy.
Perhaps the direction has been rescinded Dick?
Would it be necessary to make it public?
Would it be necessary to make it public?
Yes, it would be necessary to make it public! That is required by legislation – surely you know this. John Anderson made the direction because it was stated Government policy. That is, Class C airspace requires terminal radar.
Howard Hughes, you don’t seem to understand how our airspace charging system works. There is no charge for VFR aircraft to transit through Class C airspace.
The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile.
Imagine the difference! 30 miles separation compared to 1 mile.
I agree that there are some circumstances where the separation in procedural non-radar Class C can be reduced, but often this does not happen.
The reason that many pilots I know flight plan around the airspace is that it can save time – rather than being held or diverted at right angles to where you want to go. It has often happened to me. I suggest you look at the scenario I explained in the original posting and advise what would happen to the VFR aircraft in that case.
I agree that the cost of diverting around Class C airspace for VFR aircraft is not great. However, as a businessman I can assure you that it is all the small costs that add together which send a business into bankruptcy.
My vision follows the NAS policy.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, in that case I don't the answer to your rumour - perhaps the rumour is untrue?
Maybe the 'earliest' possbile time is still yet to come?
Considering the extent to which these delays are apparently occurring, is the cost of installation of these radars at places like Albury warranted?
If so, who should pay for it? If it is to be those who want to utilise it to transit VFR without these apparent delays who end up paying for it by some means of cost recovery (users pays), wouldn't the cost to be borne for the radar send their GA business to the wall as well?
Maybe the 'earliest' possbile time is still yet to come?
Considering the extent to which these delays are apparently occurring, is the cost of installation of these radars at places like Albury warranted?
If so, who should pay for it? If it is to be those who want to utilise it to transit VFR without these apparent delays who end up paying for it by some means of cost recovery (users pays), wouldn't the cost to be borne for the radar send their GA business to the wall as well?
Thread Starter
Chimbu chuckles, if you have never been delayed or re-routed when transiting non-radar Class C, you have been extremely lucky. However that is not the main issue at stake here.
You state:
What you fail to mention is that our non-radar Class C is operated by the Class D controller in the airspace below. This takes the attention of the controller away from runway activities. I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.
You don’t seem to understand that the chance of two planes colliding on a runway, on final, or in the circuit area is many times greater than two planes colliding above 4,500 feet. That is indeed why we have an airspace system with different classifications providing different services as the potential risk increases.
Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive.
Alidad, yes I did instigate drive for airspace management change because I didn’t consider it sensible that I would have to fly my aircraft in the uncontrolled airspace – in full radar coverage – but not be allowed to talk to a radar controller.
At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.
I have never said that private enterprise can do things better when it comes to airspace design. I have similar views to you. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with copying the best from around the world.
I also point out that the stated reasons for the NAS reversal by Airservices Australia was because they did not follow the correct procedures in introducing the airspace. It had nothing to do with me. I suggest you talk to the people at Airservices.
The only time I have had legislative responsibility for airspace changes was when I was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I was responsible for the introduction of the AMATS changes, which were competently introduced and were probably the most substantial changes that have ever taken place. Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position” and fly at IFR levels at a cost of about $100 million per year. Since then, about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out by the industry and safety has continued to improve.
By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts? Could it be that you have a vested interest in the status quo?
In relation to you personally attacking me because of my age, at 62 I still have plenty of energy. After all, Nelson Mandela got out of prison and became the President of South Africa in his 70s.
Also, why is it that no one comes on from Airservices in an official capacity to explain their view on NAS? Is it because most controllers would prefer to go to the professional NAS system? It is far more an ATC orientated system – whereas our present system is still “flight service procedure” based in the lower levels. NAS is a disciplined system which provides very clear responsibilities for air traffic controllers. That is why it is so professional and why it is Government policy.
You state:
I have never been able to get my head around why non radar Class C is dangerous when Class E is not.
You don’t seem to understand that the chance of two planes colliding on a runway, on final, or in the circuit area is many times greater than two planes colliding above 4,500 feet. That is indeed why we have an airspace system with different classifications providing different services as the potential risk increases.
Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive.
Alidad, yes I did instigate drive for airspace management change because I didn’t consider it sensible that I would have to fly my aircraft in the uncontrolled airspace – in full radar coverage – but not be allowed to talk to a radar controller.
At the present time I don’t consider it sensible when I descend into a mountainous area (such as Proserpine) and be forced to change off the radar frequency when I most need it – that is, doing an approach close to mountains.
I have never said that private enterprise can do things better when it comes to airspace design. I have similar views to you. Having said that, there is nothing wrong with copying the best from around the world.
I also point out that the stated reasons for the NAS reversal by Airservices Australia was because they did not follow the correct procedures in introducing the airspace. It had nothing to do with me. I suggest you talk to the people at Airservices.
The only time I have had legislative responsibility for airspace changes was when I was Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority. I was responsible for the introduction of the AMATS changes, which were competently introduced and were probably the most substantial changes that have ever taken place. Remember, before then VFR aircraft would have to operate “full position” and fly at IFR levels at a cost of about $100 million per year. Since then, about $1.4 billion has not had to be paid out by the industry and safety has continued to improve.
By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts? Could it be that you have a vested interest in the status quo?
In relation to you personally attacking me because of my age, at 62 I still have plenty of energy. After all, Nelson Mandela got out of prison and became the President of South Africa in his 70s.
Also, why is it that no one comes on from Airservices in an official capacity to explain their view on NAS? Is it because most controllers would prefer to go to the professional NAS system? It is far more an ATC orientated system – whereas our present system is still “flight service procedure” based in the lower levels. NAS is a disciplined system which provides very clear responsibilities for air traffic controllers. That is why it is so professional and why it is Government policy.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 6th Nov 2006 at 21:30.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Howard Hughes, you don’t seem to understand how our airspace charging system works. There is no charge for VFR aircraft to transit through Class C airspace.
The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile.
The problem is that the procedural separation standard can be 10 minutes – i.e. 30 nautical miles for a 180 knot aircraft. With terminal radar the separation standard used under NAS in the USA is typically “target resolution” – mostly less than one mile.
Separation is not only measured in distance, try this one....
VH-HHH " HHH Request clearance @ 3000"
ATC "Clearance not available due traffic ahead"
VH-HHH "Request descent to 2500"
ATC "HHH track direct to the field @ 2500"
Now if your smart enough, or have better performance, you can even get ahead and be number one!!
You should try it sometime.
PS: I may not know what it costs to fly in our system, but I do understand how it works...
Thread Starter
****su_Tonka, I find it difficult to answer your last post. You seem to have a “fundamentalist” view that the only answer to the airspace above Albury is Class C with terminal radar.
The directive from John Anderson said nothing about putting Class C airspace above Albury and other Class D airports. The directive simply said that where Class C was required that a terminal radar facility would also have to be installed. It is quite clear that the Minister wanted Airservices to really examine if Class C airspace was required at such locations. After all, Government NAS policy approved by Cabinet clearly showed that Class E would be allocated at such locations.
Could I ask you to think laterally and examine whether Class E airspace could be used? After all, Airservices are operating Class D towers with Class E airspace above in the USA now. They are doing it with very high levels of safety – in fact, higher levels than we would get with our Class D here, because in the USA the Class D is of smaller dimensions so air traffic controllers can concentrate on aircraft close to (and on) the runway.
By the way, why is no one answering the original post? That is, how would an air traffic controller handle a VFR aircraft at Albury in the circumstances quoted?
The directive from John Anderson said nothing about putting Class C airspace above Albury and other Class D airports. The directive simply said that where Class C was required that a terminal radar facility would also have to be installed. It is quite clear that the Minister wanted Airservices to really examine if Class C airspace was required at such locations. After all, Government NAS policy approved by Cabinet clearly showed that Class E would be allocated at such locations.
Could I ask you to think laterally and examine whether Class E airspace could be used? After all, Airservices are operating Class D towers with Class E airspace above in the USA now. They are doing it with very high levels of safety – in fact, higher levels than we would get with our Class D here, because in the USA the Class D is of smaller dimensions so air traffic controllers can concentrate on aircraft close to (and on) the runway.
By the way, why is no one answering the original post? That is, how would an air traffic controller handle a VFR aircraft at Albury in the circumstances quoted?
Thread Starter
Howard Hughes, you state:
By the sound of it you mean Class C with a terminal radar facility. Well yes, I agree, there wouldn’t be great delays.
But why not answer the scenario I have given on the first post in relation to Albury? Or perhaps we should go up together this weekend and do a test flight. It's not called "road block" airspace for nothing. Would you come?
this included a 2 year period where I operated exclusively out of Class C.
But why not answer the scenario I have given on the first post in relation to Albury? Or perhaps we should go up together this weekend and do a test flight. It's not called "road block" airspace for nothing. Would you come?
EDIT- FOR PROPRIETY
There is a very good reason why there is a change to the directive. Because of pressure applied about low level ADS-B The directive has been de-railed to install radar or RADAR-LIKE equipment in ten key airports. The only way there was ever going to be radar facilities at these sites for a million a pop was to have an ADS-B receiver at each site AND fitment to ALL (or enough to reach critical mass) aircraft of ADS-B out as minimum equipage. This was a very important roll-out and has set back the industry untold years. Mis-information about security and spoofing signals has cost this industry millions to repair and refurb of old world radar heads for enroute airspace. There will never be an economic outcome to install a radar installation at the designated sites and remain under the stipulated cost. For all of the perceived concerns with ADS-B the benefits far outweigh them. This system that would have been the single greatest leap in avionics since the fitment of radio.
There is a very good reason why there is a change to the directive. Because of pressure applied about low level ADS-B The directive has been de-railed to install radar or RADAR-LIKE equipment in ten key airports. The only way there was ever going to be radar facilities at these sites for a million a pop was to have an ADS-B receiver at each site AND fitment to ALL (or enough to reach critical mass) aircraft of ADS-B out as minimum equipage. This was a very important roll-out and has set back the industry untold years. Mis-information about security and spoofing signals has cost this industry millions to repair and refurb of old world radar heads for enroute airspace. There will never be an economic outcome to install a radar installation at the designated sites and remain under the stipulated cost. For all of the perceived concerns with ADS-B the benefits far outweigh them. This system that would have been the single greatest leap in avionics since the fitment of radio.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 6th Nov 2006 at 06:10.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Down a dark hole
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I seem to recall that I did agree with Dick Smith on something recently - but I'll be damned if I can recall what it was.
As for the current thread - Maybe I gotta get out more!
I been boring holes in the airspace below 10,000 ft for quite a few years, mostly IFR in the Bo lately and I never flight plan around noth'in (except maybe known active restricted areas where FA18's may take exception to my presence). I pay my money like the next guy, so I am coming through in as straight a line from A to B as I can get.
Can't remember the last time I was "held" and don't think I have ever been diverted at right angles (Oh there was that time when I was instructed by a trainee controller to "turn right heading 270, and I replied "you (a general "you") mean into the side of that hill there" - but that's a whole other story!
Been into Proserpine lots. Can't really see that the issue at YBPN is any different to YLHR (go in there regularly too). If we (?) fly the approach as she is writ we (?) will live to fly another day.
I was a bit surprised the day I found myself in the YBMA circuit with a Virgin 737 but I soon got over that (let them go #1 even though I was there first).
I will give Dick Smith the benefit of the doubt that he has a point - but man I just can't see it.
R
Last edited by Ratshit; 6th Nov 2006 at 07:36. Reason: Complying with decree from moderator
- Airservices have asked the question
- Government will consider it
- Goverment will give decision
End of story
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Straya
Posts: 537
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Everybody,
There is little to be gained from name calling Dick Smith - playing the man does no justice to any side of the argument. The facts, and the strength of the arguments alone should be all that is neccessary. I would expect Dick, or any other poster for that matter, would then feel equally compelled to comply with the same standards. Most debates previously played out in this place have stood on the merits of the arguments - not the personal insults.
Dick, a few of your points:
An ATC is not always looking at the Runway (after all, when would they drink their coffee?) - there are a myriad of other tasks that need to be completed. It's a bit like saying that because the frequency is not busy, an Air Traffic Controller is not busy. As well all know that is often not the truth. The ability to complete all these tasks with constant diversion and interruption is of course one of the vital skills that an ATC must posess from the outset.
Where neccessary and workload is even higher, there will be more than one person in the tower observing the Runway environment.
Dick - you are 100% correct on this one, and it is great to see you supporting the case for more controllers. Civil Air have been arguing this point for some time now with respect to staffing levels. With the devolution of more and more duties from Flight Service to the sector controllers, as well as the immense growth in Aviation in Australia, there is an ever increasing need for adequate staffing levels.
What does it matter Dick - if the argument itself is sound?
For example you said you heard a rumour in Canberra - but you don't give the name of the person, and nor would we expect you to - because you are protecting the privacy of your source.
If every source got named in public, you would not get information on what is 'really going on', right? Hence, I doubt anyone would get much information out of PPrune either. Only the sanitised, PR spun Media Releases which are carefully crafted to sound positive and say nothing. Don't you agree that PPrune would be so sterilised as to be pointless? After all, don't you post here becasue you can get an honest response?
There is little to be gained from name calling Dick Smith - playing the man does no justice to any side of the argument. The facts, and the strength of the arguments alone should be all that is neccessary. I would expect Dick, or any other poster for that matter, would then feel equally compelled to comply with the same standards. Most debates previously played out in this place have stood on the merits of the arguments - not the personal insults.
Dick, a few of your points:
I thought most people knew that one of the most common types of fatal accidents now is an accident on the runway – quite often where an air traffic controller’s attention has been diverted.
Where neccessary and workload is even higher, there will be more than one person in the tower observing the Runway environment.
Yes, put in Class C with additional controllers so that controller workload in the Class D below is not affected, and I agree with you. It will be safer but it will also be more expensive.
By the way, why is it that you, and others, who are doing everything you can to undermine the Government’s NAS policy, never use your own names? Why is it that you attack me personally rather than debate the facts?
For example you said you heard a rumour in Canberra - but you don't give the name of the person, and nor would we expect you to - because you are protecting the privacy of your source.
If every source got named in public, you would not get information on what is 'really going on', right? Hence, I doubt anyone would get much information out of PPrune either. Only the sanitised, PR spun Media Releases which are carefully crafted to sound positive and say nothing. Don't you agree that PPrune would be so sterilised as to be pointless? After all, don't you post here becasue you can get an honest response?
Dick
What a Minister doeth, a Minister may undoeth.
It’s pretty clear that John Anderson’s decision to give the direction to AA, on the eve of the issuing of the writs for the last election, was intended to keep you on side for the duration of the election. It worked a treat.
As to AA’s potential problems in having not yet implemented the direction, did the direction specify a period in which it was to be implemented? If the direction is now revoked or amended, it's all academic really.
What a Minister doeth, a Minister may undoeth.
It’s pretty clear that John Anderson’s decision to give the direction to AA, on the eve of the issuing of the writs for the last election, was intended to keep you on side for the duration of the election. It worked a treat.
As to AA’s potential problems in having not yet implemented the direction, did the direction specify a period in which it was to be implemented? If the direction is now revoked or amended, it's all academic really.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Howard Hughes, you state:
By the sound of it you mean Class C with a terminal radar facility. Well yes, I agree, there wouldn’t be great delays.
But why not answer the scenario I have given on the first post in relation to Albury? Or perhaps we should go up together this weekend and do a test flight. It's not called "road block" airspace for nothing. Would you come?
By the sound of it you mean Class C with a terminal radar facility. Well yes, I agree, there wouldn’t be great delays.
But why not answer the scenario I have given on the first post in relation to Albury? Or perhaps we should go up together this weekend and do a test flight. It's not called "road block" airspace for nothing. Would you come?
Cheers, HH.