NAS rears its head again
Owen
It’s not so much about credibility. It’s about the obvious issue - if you constantly post without using your real name about such relatively mundane issues as airspace, then eventually you’ll have no influence.
Look at what’s happening. I totally support the fact that people can post on PPRuNe anonymously – an absolute necessity when whistle-blowing becomes unavoidable and at other important times. However, when discussing an issue of where to allocate airspace categories – which should be totally science-based – I cannot see the need to hide behind anonymity.
Also, I point out – and it’s obvious – that the “powers that be” who make the decisions in the Government will simply take no notice of people constantly ranting whilst hiding behind anonymity instead of putting their own name to their beliefs.
So I will say it again …
I have always supported that there are times when posting anonymously is necessary. However nowhere in the PPRuNe rules does it say that people can’t post under their own name if they so wish.
All pretty simple as far as I’m concerned.
It’s not so much about credibility. It’s about the obvious issue - if you constantly post without using your real name about such relatively mundane issues as airspace, then eventually you’ll have no influence.
Look at what’s happening. I totally support the fact that people can post on PPRuNe anonymously – an absolute necessity when whistle-blowing becomes unavoidable and at other important times. However, when discussing an issue of where to allocate airspace categories – which should be totally science-based – I cannot see the need to hide behind anonymity.
Also, I point out – and it’s obvious – that the “powers that be” who make the decisions in the Government will simply take no notice of people constantly ranting whilst hiding behind anonymity instead of putting their own name to their beliefs.
So I will say it again …
I have always supported that there are times when posting anonymously is necessary. However nowhere in the PPRuNe rules does it say that people can’t post under their own name if they so wish.
All pretty simple as far as I’m concerned.
Dick ... first let me bang my head against a brick wall .. 
Agh, that feels better.
Now, your are absolutely right. CASA/OAR/ASA/ATSB/DOT/BLF/etc are not going to change policy because of what an annonymous poster says on PPRUNE.
In fact, they probably won't change based on a non-anonymous posting either. Hell, I don't even know if your ARE the real Dick Smith ... but I suspect so!
What "rational" argument on PPRUNE does provide is food for thought for those who formally petition government through their Associations, Unions, Employers etc.
These people will read posts and decide, on their individual merits, whether the opinion is worth considering or not. That's the way I do it. I don't particularly consider the name of the poster ... but what, and how, they present a case. ALL these opinions help me form my position.
Agh, that feels better.Now, your are absolutely right. CASA/OAR/ASA/ATSB/DOT/BLF/etc are not going to change policy because of what an annonymous poster says on PPRUNE.
In fact, they probably won't change based on a non-anonymous posting either. Hell, I don't even know if your ARE the real Dick Smith ... but I suspect so!
What "rational" argument on PPRUNE does provide is food for thought for those who formally petition government through their Associations, Unions, Employers etc.
These people will read posts and decide, on their individual merits, whether the opinion is worth considering or not. That's the way I do it. I don't particularly consider the name of the poster ... but what, and how, they present a case. ALL these opinions help me form my position.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DNS,
Beeeaudiful!! A picture's worth a thousand words - or in this case a few million. One cartoon sums up the crap with which we have had to deal for years. No reason, just blatant, fundamentalist ideology IMHO.
In short, what is the problem that the fundamentalists are trying to solve?
Also, where are the 'dozens and dozens?' If they have any credibility, regardless of the threat to their jobs, then they'd identify themselves, tell the 'truth' and just go out and get another job, wouldn't they? I am sure you will agree.
Finally, Much Ado added some much needed levity:
Nice to see a sailor as a MOD - or maybe he just reads a lot of Patrick O'Brian. 'In irons' ain't exactly an oft used expression these days. Notwithstanding, MA, nice injection of humour. We get too serious sometimes - but probably won't change!
Beeeaudiful!! A picture's worth a thousand words - or in this case a few million. One cartoon sums up the crap with which we have had to deal for years. No reason, just blatant, fundamentalist ideology IMHO.
In short, what is the problem that the fundamentalists are trying to solve?
Also, where are the 'dozens and dozens?' If they have any credibility, regardless of the threat to their jobs, then they'd identify themselves, tell the 'truth' and just go out and get another job, wouldn't they? I am sure you will agree.
Finally, Much Ado added some much needed levity:
No, Dick is sailing close hauled but hasn't gone into irons yet. My finger hovers, quivering in anticipation.
We Mods watch the contorted gyrations with a certain sense of perverse enjoyment.
We Mods watch the contorted gyrations with a certain sense of perverse enjoyment.
By Dick Smith:
Comparing dead Australians and anonymous posters on Prune. Disgusting. He should be banned.
many Australians went to war and even lost their lives so we could keep certain freedoms.
Yet it is confirmed here that actually telling the truth about air safety and linking a name to that truth would threaten job prospects - so the truth is not stated. Wimps in my opinion!
Yet it is confirmed here that actually telling the truth about air safety and linking a name to that truth would threaten job prospects - so the truth is not stated. Wimps in my opinion!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bloggs, I agree wholeheartedly. However, as intimated by the Mod, Much Ado, the credibility level is zip. I think continued exposure is preferable to banning.
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former. ~Albert Einstein
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Civilair - the Opinion of about 900 OZ ATCs
Dick,
You will not find one Austalian ATC in support of Class E airspace over a Class D tower. You don't have to look far to find the Australian ATCs who want Class C airspace over a Class D tower. - Civilair!
Civilair - represents approximately 900 Australian ATCs. There is no other union for ATCs in Australia. Consequently, when Civilair release an opinion about an issue - like Airspace Classification over Regional Towers, then you can be sure that this is the opinion of approximately 900 Australian ATCs.
The Australian ATCs have already "outed" themselves on this issue.
No need for the ATCs to publicly name themselves on some industry forum. The ATCs have sent their opinion to those that matter.
DP
You will not find one Austalian ATC in support of Class E airspace over a Class D tower. You don't have to look far to find the Australian ATCs who want Class C airspace over a Class D tower. - Civilair!
Civilair - represents approximately 900 Australian ATCs. There is no other union for ATCs in Australia. Consequently, when Civilair release an opinion about an issue - like Airspace Classification over Regional Towers, then you can be sure that this is the opinion of approximately 900 Australian ATCs.
The Australian ATCs have already "outed" themselves on this issue.
No need for the ATCs to publicly name themselves on some industry forum. The ATCs have sent their opinion to those that matter.
DP
To back up DP-
(My italics and bolds)
So says Robert Mason, pres of CivilAir.
Now, should the OAR take the advice of Dick and his Lead Balloon... or the advice of the guys whose job it is to make it happen in the real world?
Just like last time, when this gets canned and we get C over D, there will be a blast on the talkback radio saying how these guys are neanderthals and resistant to change....I keep thinking of Scoobie Do..."I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky kids!" episode after episode
Ideology ahead of Safety....now, who would want that?
Class E above D - General Comments
Civil Air has concerns regarding the use of Class E airspace above Class D. The premise of E above D at Broome and Karratha is predicated upon an improvement in service level over existing Class G. Whilst demonstrably an improvement, it ignores practicalities of actual airspace management and, in our view, ignores the “As Low As Reasonably Practical” (ALARP) principle of risk management applied almost universally in aviation studies nationally.
In terms of airspace management, the modelling of C over D, as currently provided at all regional towers, offers improved separation integrity and virtually no additional operational costs to either the services provider or airspace users. Under ALARP it is impossible to justify E over D on either cost or safety basis when measured against the current C over D. It would be an untenable position for the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) to mandate a lower level of airspace, when a higher level of airspace is available for no additional cost. OAR would then risk being accused of putting ideology ahead of safety.
E over D introduces a new airspace model not in use elsewhere in Australia. This departure from accepted practice introduces a variation upon the standard operating procedures at all regional towers across Australia. It is also contrary to the provision of services under US NAS (Part 139 Class 1 Airports licensed for Scheduled Air Carrier with >30 pax seat capacity) in respect of airspace modelling. In most scenarios these operations are conducted under a C over D model.
VFR aircraft operating in Class E airspace will be unknown to both the controllers in the local tower, and Enroute centres in Brisbane and Melbourne. Separation between VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace and IFR aircraft arriving and departing from these locations will rely upon "Unalerted See and Avoid" procedures, which greatly increases collision risk, particularly considering the different operating speeds of typical VFR aircraft and the jet or high capacity/performance RPT turbo-prop aircraft which typically operate into Broome and Karratha. Whilst ACAS will provide some defence it is Civil Air’s view that ACAS should not be considered a mitigator in airspace design as it is intended as a last line of defence.
Alerted “See and Avoid” is predicated upon surveillance availability. In the case of Broome and Karratha the only prospect of surveillance is that of ADS-B and unfortunately penetration of ADS-B Out fitment in the GA fleet is limited at best.
Civil Air has concerns regarding the use of Class E airspace above Class D. The premise of E above D at Broome and Karratha is predicated upon an improvement in service level over existing Class G. Whilst demonstrably an improvement, it ignores practicalities of actual airspace management and, in our view, ignores the “As Low As Reasonably Practical” (ALARP) principle of risk management applied almost universally in aviation studies nationally.
In terms of airspace management, the modelling of C over D, as currently provided at all regional towers, offers improved separation integrity and virtually no additional operational costs to either the services provider or airspace users. Under ALARP it is impossible to justify E over D on either cost or safety basis when measured against the current C over D. It would be an untenable position for the Office of Airspace Regulation (OAR) to mandate a lower level of airspace, when a higher level of airspace is available for no additional cost. OAR would then risk being accused of putting ideology ahead of safety.
E over D introduces a new airspace model not in use elsewhere in Australia. This departure from accepted practice introduces a variation upon the standard operating procedures at all regional towers across Australia. It is also contrary to the provision of services under US NAS (Part 139 Class 1 Airports licensed for Scheduled Air Carrier with >30 pax seat capacity) in respect of airspace modelling. In most scenarios these operations are conducted under a C over D model.
VFR aircraft operating in Class E airspace will be unknown to both the controllers in the local tower, and Enroute centres in Brisbane and Melbourne. Separation between VFR aircraft in the Class E airspace and IFR aircraft arriving and departing from these locations will rely upon "Unalerted See and Avoid" procedures, which greatly increases collision risk, particularly considering the different operating speeds of typical VFR aircraft and the jet or high capacity/performance RPT turbo-prop aircraft which typically operate into Broome and Karratha. Whilst ACAS will provide some defence it is Civil Air’s view that ACAS should not be considered a mitigator in airspace design as it is intended as a last line of defence.
Alerted “See and Avoid” is predicated upon surveillance availability. In the case of Broome and Karratha the only prospect of surveillance is that of ADS-B and unfortunately penetration of ADS-B Out fitment in the GA fleet is limited at best.
So says Robert Mason, pres of CivilAir.
Now, should the OAR take the advice of Dick and his Lead Balloon... or the advice of the guys whose job it is to make it happen in the real world?
Just like last time, when this gets canned and we get C over D, there will be a blast on the talkback radio saying how these guys are neanderthals and resistant to change....I keep thinking of Scoobie Do..."I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you pesky kids!" episode after episode
Ideology ahead of Safety....now, who would want that?
Everyone seems to love posting copies of postings that have been made previously. In that spirit, I thought I should add this one by VOR – a highly esteemed expert on international airspace.
For those not familiar with the 7,468 times you posted it previously, I thought I should add a little something too, unfortunately from one not so esteemed..........enjoy:
Oh, and just so you know....my real name is Art Vandelay
One NAS-related change that is being implemented with seemingly little consultation is from November this year the base of Class E across the country will be lowered from FL180 to FL145.
I'm told CASA OAR's statement re consultation conducted/completed was simply that the change was included in the Minister's airspace policy statement in 2007 .......
I'm told CASA OAR's statement re consultation conducted/completed was simply that the change was included in the Minister's airspace policy statement in 2007 .......
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Planet Earth
Posts: 218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank Arouet has been given a week off for attempting to 'out' a fellow ppruner.
If Ppruners wish to post under their own names or to post in such a manner as to make it abundantly clear who they are that is their right but for one Ppruner to attempt to out another because they don't agree with their point of view and think they can silence them or put them under pressure from their employer is utterly unacceptable.
I have had a gut full of individuals making an issue of the anonymity of posters on this website - anonymity, up to a point, is a fundamental fact of life on this site and the very next person who even MENTIONS the word in ANY context will also get a week off.
Am I making myself fairly clear?
If Ppruners wish to post under their own names or to post in such a manner as to make it abundantly clear who they are that is their right but for one Ppruner to attempt to out another because they don't agree with their point of view and think they can silence them or put them under pressure from their employer is utterly unacceptable.
I have had a gut full of individuals making an issue of the anonymity of posters on this website - anonymity, up to a point, is a fundamental fact of life on this site and the very next person who even MENTIONS the word in ANY context will also get a week off.
Am I making myself fairly clear?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More on USA Comparisons
EASA/FAA Annual Conference, St Petersburg, Florida, 4th June 2008
Association of European Airlines
http://files.aea.be/Speeches/Operators_Harmo.pdf
Slide bottom of page 3
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=WPR10LA134&rpt=p
One FA received a broken shoulder.
What FAA classification of airspace? Anyone?
SkyVector.com - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning
- 6,000ft
- Radar
- Approach [small range scale] controllers
Anyone not getting the idea yet?
Association of European Airlines
http://files.aea.be/Speeches/Operators_Harmo.pdf
Slide bottom of page 3
US ATM system faces safety issues
TCAS RA’s
- AEA members flying to the USA have analyzed TCAS RA’s on approach comparing major US airports with European major airports
- The rate at some US airports (Newark, LAX, Denver, Philadelphia, SFO) is 100 times the rate at major European airports (LHR, CDG, SPL, FRA etc)
Compliance with ICAO
- Various serious safety incidents linked to the US ATM environment with loss of separation or near collision. In light of the Ueberlingen accident, all TCAS RA’s have to be complied with (ICAO), a modus operandi which is not fully understood in the USA
US ATM safety issues need to be tackled with urgency
TCAS RA’s
- AEA members flying to the USA have analyzed TCAS RA’s on approach comparing major US airports with European major airports
- The rate at some US airports (Newark, LAX, Denver, Philadelphia, SFO) is 100 times the rate at major European airports (LHR, CDG, SPL, FRA etc)
Compliance with ICAO
- Various serious safety incidents linked to the US ATM environment with loss of separation or near collision. In light of the Ueberlingen accident, all TCAS RA’s have to be complied with (ICAO), a modus operandi which is not fully understood in the USA
US ATM safety issues need to be tackled with urgency
On February 13, 2010, about 1246 Pacific standard time, Southwest Airlines Boeing 737-7H4, N221WN, operating as flight #2534, abruptly maneuvered during radar vectors for initial approach to the Bob Hope Airport, Burbank, California. At the time, the airplane was over Santa Clarita, California, about 20 miles northwest of Burbank. The 2 pilots, 80 passengers and 1 of the 3 flight attendants (FAs) were not injured. The remaining 2 FAs sustained a minor and a serious injury, respectively. The airplane was not damaged. The accident occurred during an instrument flight that was, at the time, operating in visual meteorological conditions. The scheduled domestic passenger flight was performed under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121, and it originated from Las Vegas, Nevada, at 1145.
According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Southwest Airlines operations personnel, the captain was advised of approaching traffic during communications with the air traffic controller. Initially, the flight crew did not observe the traffic. Subsequently, as the descending airplane was approaching 6,000 feet mean sea level, the crew received a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) resolution advisory (RA). The captain responded to the RA by initiating an estimated 1,500- to 2,000-foot-per-minute rate of descent. Thereafter, the crew initiated a similar rate of climb.
At the time, all of the passengers were seat belted in place. The three FAs were standing in the aft galley preparing for landing.
Updated on Feb 23 2010 5:22PM
According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and Southwest Airlines operations personnel, the captain was advised of approaching traffic during communications with the air traffic controller. Initially, the flight crew did not observe the traffic. Subsequently, as the descending airplane was approaching 6,000 feet mean sea level, the crew received a traffic collision avoidance system (TCAS) resolution advisory (RA). The captain responded to the RA by initiating an estimated 1,500- to 2,000-foot-per-minute rate of descent. Thereafter, the crew initiated a similar rate of climb.
At the time, all of the passengers were seat belted in place. The three FAs were standing in the aft galley preparing for landing.
Updated on Feb 23 2010 5:22PM
What FAA classification of airspace? Anyone?
SkyVector.com - Aeronautical Charts - Flight Planning
- 6,000ft
- Radar
- Approach [small range scale] controllers
Anyone not getting the idea yet?
I always suspected that you worked in a latex factory
Vandelay Industries - Purveyors of Fine Latex Products, no less!
We're currently testing the prototype for a big rubber dildo with NAS on it!
Happy trails!
Just to show what we're up against, this gem from one of Ledsled's mates on the SFO near-miss thread:
Cowboy yanks who don't know their stuff but who are the noisiest about how good their system is. Their system is what we get when we have amateurs doing the lobbying. 
RAs always have a green arc so sometimes a small adjustment makes it happy again. If you can figure out how to lower the nose a tad with automation or manually will usually do that.