NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's Get Some Facts Straight!
Lead,
In my opinion, you are dead-set wrong and I suspect you know it. From where I stand you are perpetuating myth old chap; but nice try at obfuscation when there's no supporting facts. You state as follows:
The Airspace Act 2007 states the following:
My underlining.
The Act has absolutely no reference to US NAS; nothing, nada, zip!
Let's look at the Airspace Regulations 2007:
Not a single reference to US NAS. Jeez, this is getting really frustrating; I was sure I'd have found a reference by now, going on your post.
On to the Airspace Policy Statement. There's this little gem:
And, finally, it does actually include a reference to US NAS as follows:
Is this all you are hanging your hat on Lead? Say it isn't so Joe (for baseball fans). 'Considered and implemented if appropriate!'
Furthermore, I refer you to the line 'Such as the..' What does that entail? How does that compel us to slavishly introduce US airspace?
If you follow the thrust of the full statement, the US NAS is being used as an example, not the epitomy of 'international best practice.' Indeed, the way this singular reference to NAS is phrased, the Outer Mongolian system could be implemented if it constituted 'best practice;' or, possibly, the superior Lapland system; hell, even that employed in Borat's home country could be considered. You could insert any system, any country, in those brackets and it would not mean a thing as regards government direction - other than the OAR considering the merits of other international systems.
Lead, are you seriously telling me that this is all you've got to go on? That the identified sections of the Act, Regulations and Policy Statement seriously and unequivocally mandate US NAS airspace?
In short buddy (US terminology) there is absolutely nothing that supports your contention that either Act, Regulation or Policy Statement give credence to your argument. In particular, your claim that:
Lead, assertions, particularly assertions that have the potential to affect the safety of 'passenger transport services,' which remain the 'government priority,' cannot be based on such thin (non-existent) justification.
In short, there is nothing in the Act, Regulations or Policy Statement that supports your contention that US NAS must be the Australian end-state.
Nice try though; but you get an F.
In the interests of even-handedness, I'd be happy to hear your response.
In my opinion, you are dead-set wrong and I suspect you know it. From where I stand you are perpetuating myth old chap; but nice try at obfuscation when there's no supporting facts. You state as follows:
Howabout,
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.
The Minister must make a statement (the Australian Airspace
Policy Statement).
Note: Generally, CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions
in a manner consistent with the statement: see section 11A of the Civil
Aviation Act 1988.
Policy Statement).
Note: Generally, CASA must exercise its powers and perform its functions
in a manner consistent with the statement: see section 11A of the Civil
Aviation Act 1988.
The Act has absolutely no reference to US NAS; nothing, nada, zip!
Let's look at the Airspace Regulations 2007:
Not a single reference to US NAS. Jeez, this is getting really frustrating; I was sure I'd have found a reference by now, going on your post.
On to the Airspace Policy Statement. There's this little gem:
The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration and CASA should respond quickly to emerging changes in risk levels for passenger transport operations.
The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government's airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
Furthermore, I refer you to the line 'Such as the..' What does that entail? How does that compel us to slavishly introduce US airspace?
If you follow the thrust of the full statement, the US NAS is being used as an example, not the epitomy of 'international best practice.' Indeed, the way this singular reference to NAS is phrased, the Outer Mongolian system could be implemented if it constituted 'best practice;' or, possibly, the superior Lapland system; hell, even that employed in Borat's home country could be considered. You could insert any system, any country, in those brackets and it would not mean a thing as regards government direction - other than the OAR considering the merits of other international systems.
Lead, are you seriously telling me that this is all you've got to go on? That the identified sections of the Act, Regulations and Policy Statement seriously and unequivocally mandate US NAS airspace?
In short buddy (US terminology) there is absolutely nothing that supports your contention that either Act, Regulation or Policy Statement give credence to your argument. In particular, your claim that:
It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model
In short, there is nothing in the Act, Regulations or Policy Statement that supports your contention that US NAS must be the Australian end-state.
Nice try though; but you get an F.
In the interests of even-handedness, I'd be happy to hear your response.
Last edited by Howabout; 13th Apr 2010 at 07:20.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LeadSled
Mischievous at best! 
The summary [on page 10] at the below link, sums up the Legislation, process and expectations.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post5589697
The US NAS is not ’the model’
If the processes are not deficient or absent, where is the ‘publically’ available safety work for the information and consultation with industry stakeholders? I challenge you to post anything remotely resembling these ‘required’ documents. An ACP for Broome and Karratha at 1 minute to midnight [so to speak] is not proper process, particularly when the ACP clearly ignores the YBRM, YPKA, and all other 'like type' Airspace studies, and the mitigations explicit in the Instruments.
Further, the CASA instruments [date 13 Nov 2009] for both Broome and Karratha make no mention of Class E, only Class D
Broome
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...casaoar192.pdf
and;
Karratha
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...casaoar193.pdf
Both instruments go on to say:-
And;
Thus the ACP recently closed.
Asked over and over again [not only on PPRuNE], where is the CBA and Risk analysis for E over D verses C or D over D? Particularly, if the final determination needs to be made and locked in by June 2010.
You seem to be the only ones that cannot or will not acknowledge this glaring omission.
3 Quotable quotes in 3 days. Not a bad effort from you three! 
Howabout
Apologies for doubling up
... quite funny really 
It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model
The summary [on page 10] at the below link, sums up the Legislation, process and expectations.
http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-reporting...ml#post5589697
The US NAS is not ’the model’
As to appropriate "processes" to justify any particular airspace design, again refer to ICAO compliant methods of justification, I don't really think there has been any lack of "process" in the OAR, just because the answer doesn't come out as a few of you believe it should, does not mean the processes are deficient or absent.
Further, the CASA instruments [date 13 Nov 2009] for both Broome and Karratha make no mention of Class E, only Class D
Broome
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...casaoar192.pdf
Subsequent determination foreshadowed
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
Karratha
http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...casaoar193.pdf
Subsequent determination foreshadowed
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
Subsequent phases will include designing and finalising the classification, in consultation with AA, of relevant airspace and control zones, and the preparation of a Determination of airspace and controlled aerodromes etc to be issued on 18 November 2010 embodying the full details of the new arrangements.
Logistical requirements for publication and data distribution mean that airspace design and development work must be completed by June 2010
Consultation
Consultation under section 17 of the LIA has been undertaken with AA. Before the arrangements for Broome [and separately] Karratha are finalised, relevant airspace users will be notified of the proposals and consulted about them. Any representations made by the users about the proposals will then be taken into account by CASA.
Consultation under section 17 of the LIA has been undertaken with AA. Before the arrangements for Broome [and separately] Karratha are finalised, relevant airspace users will be notified of the proposals and consulted about them. Any representations made by the users about the proposals will then be taken into account by CASA.
Asked over and over again [not only on PPRuNE], where is the CBA and Risk analysis for E over D verses C or D over D? Particularly, if the final determination needs to be made and locked in by June 2010.
You seem to be the only ones that cannot or will not acknowledge this glaring omission.
Obviously I, for one, hope the OAR stick to their guns, and the intent of their enabling Act --- and not once again give in to possibly well intentioned but ill-informed sectional pressure groups.
Howabout
Apologies for doubling up
... quite funny really
Last edited by ARFOR; 13th Apr 2010 at 07:12. Reason: Typo
The previous Airspace Policy Statement (2007?) did make some reference to adopting the U.S. NAS, but that was amended in the current one to state this below. For good obvious reasons.
And that airspace changes must follow due process:
I suspect that if the FAA had a blank sheet of paper, they wouldn't adopt E airspace in many current locations. Now that it is there it would be difficult to change without major objections from various parties.
The Government expects CASA to adopt international best practice in airspace administration. This includes adopting proven international systems that meet our airspace requirements. The Government's airspace strategy recognises that international airspace systems (such as the National Airspace System of the United States of America) include a range of characteristics that should be considered, and implemented as appropriate, by CASA.
37 The Government‟s airspace strategy, to be implemented by CASA, involves the adoption of a risk-based approach to determining Australia‟s future airspace needs.
38 The implementation of this strategy requires the identification of risks to aviation safety using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and ultimately the safety judgment of CASA as the airspace regulator.
41 The airspace strategy requires transparency so that the aviation industry has clear insight into the way in which airspace administrative decisions will be developed, taken and implemented including industry and agency consultation. The strategy does however recognise there will be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative.
43 The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives.
38 The implementation of this strategy requires the identification of risks to aviation safety using both quantitative and qualitative analysis, and ultimately the safety judgment of CASA as the airspace regulator.
41 The airspace strategy requires transparency so that the aviation industry has clear insight into the way in which airspace administrative decisions will be developed, taken and implemented including industry and agency consultation. The strategy does however recognise there will be times when urgent decisions are required to meet a safety imperative.
43 The strategy does not pre-determine the adoption of a particular class of airspace before airspace risk reviews are completed, but rather requires that the determination of the class of airspace reflects the most appropriate safety outcome as determined by CASA after completion of these reviews and consistent with the Government‟s policy objectives.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Europe
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Damn 2 weeks on an island in the Med and this is still going on!
None so deaf as those who refuse to listen.
Class C - procedural or radar - is able to be done for the same cost as E.
Ideology has no place in aviaiton safety. :-)
None so deaf as those who refuse to listen.
Class C - procedural or radar - is able to be done for the same cost as E.
Ideology has no place in aviaiton safety. :-)
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After a weeks holiday to reflect on my ignorance, (my apologies for anybody named Darwin or whatever the name and his/her awards but I won't mention it again despite now knowing what the bloke's first name is).
The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss just as in the low level ADSB debates.
They would really hate class G airspace.
The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss just as in the low level ADSB debates.
they do not want to ever fly in E and dont as it is dangerous for them!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lead,
Regardless of our differences in this debate, and I want to keep it civil, can I please have a response? A response based on fact in reference to your assertion that:
I believe that I asked asked a reasonable question, regarding the Act, Regulation and Statement, in response to what was a reasonably strident assertion on your part. Once again, see post #427.
PS Frank, my computer does not have a Braille translator
Regardless of our differences in this debate, and I want to keep it civil, can I please have a response? A response based on fact in reference to your assertion that:
Howabout,
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.
A wider agenda? It's called the Airspace Act 2007 and Airspace Regulation, carefully hidden in full sight, with a core intent of having ICAO compliant airspace management, with the US NAS for the model.
PS Frank, my computer does not have a Braille translator
Frank,
The thread, I think, has been quite well behaved (maybe it's just you who stirs us up
). What has been made abundantly clear is that, apart from Leadsled's safety studies (which he refuses to either provide or give us a link to, rather childish IMO), there is NO justification for E over D, and the reducing attempts to justify US NAS for us have been comprehensively beaten down by ARFOR. The lingering question, that of cost benefit, has not been addressed by either yourself or the other Nastronauts.
The only sane and logical conclusion is that E over D is indeed unjustified.
As to your comment
Of course they would. But equally, I sincerely hope that you are not implying that such as situation applies here in Oz. If you are, you have no idea about the characteristics of airspace we have. Label it what you like, our "class G" is nothing of the ICAO sort. I have maintained for years it is Class F, and all you Nastronauts can trot out in defiance is "Class F is a transient airspace to a higher class"; clutching at straws....
The weeks readings thereafter affirm the noisest have resorted to the usual vitriol to deflect their inevitable loss
). What has been made abundantly clear is that, apart from Leadsled's safety studies (which he refuses to either provide or give us a link to, rather childish IMO), there is NO justification for E over D, and the reducing attempts to justify US NAS for us have been comprehensively beaten down by ARFOR. The lingering question, that of cost benefit, has not been addressed by either yourself or the other Nastronauts.The only sane and logical conclusion is that E over D is indeed unjustified.
As to your comment
They would really hate class G airspace.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank,
I don't know whether it's true or not, but a religious person once told me that 'Struth' (corrupted into 'strewth') is slang for 'God's truth.'
So what passes the 'Struth' test in this debate? Facts-based argument, or opinion-based emotion?
I don't know whether it's true or not, but a religious person once told me that 'Struth' (corrupted into 'strewth') is slang for 'God's truth.'
So what passes the 'Struth' test in this debate? Facts-based argument, or opinion-based emotion?
Bloggs,
How droll, a bit like your mate Owen.
Obviously the CASA CEO and the head of OAR haven't read you chaps forensic dissection of the legislation, and are still working under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.
Who knows??, we will see the final outcome soon enough, who knows, with all your so clearly illustrated shortcomings of the US system, with bodies raining from the sky on a regular basis, maybe they will give you A over B for Broome and Karratha.
Surely, nothing but "the safest" is good enough.
Tootle pip!!
How droll, a bit like your mate Owen.
Obviously the CASA CEO and the head of OAR haven't read you chaps forensic dissection of the legislation, and are still working under the misapprehension that the US NAS is the primary model.
Who knows??, we will see the final outcome soon enough, who knows, with all your so clearly illustrated shortcomings of the US system, with bodies raining from the sky on a regular basis, maybe they will give you A over B for Broome and Karratha.
Surely, nothing but "the safest" is good enough.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Howabout
Why not A? Why not B? We could cover the entire continent with class B because it is 'safer' than E. Sounds ridiculous doesn't it? We simply don't do this because it costs too much.
Better still. Lets make it illegal for any aircraft to take off. This is the only way of guaranteeing no aircraft will ever collide with other traffic or the terrain.
Apparently Owen Stanley thinks this is the best idea because it's clearly the safest by far.
Some controllers here have been arguing that the US cannot provide class C in the enroute environment because the level of VFR traffic is far too great. The system would grind to a halt. Of course they are right, it would grind to a halt and it would cost billions more to staff the extra ATC sectors to cope with the extra responsibilities were they to use enroute Class C.
You controllers have two irreconcilable positions on Class E. That is, we should use enroute Class C, because we can but only until traffic levels reach that of the United States, then we should downgrade it to Class E so we don't run into grid lock. Extraordinary!
I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable.
Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.
If Civil Air were right then the FAA could divide up their enroute Class E into tiny sectors, reclassify it Class C and employ thousands more controllers at no extra cost to handle the 5000-7000 VFR aircraft pottering around US skies each day. Wow! Which voodoo mathematician worked that one out?
The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D Howabout is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?
I could vaguely understand using Class C at the airport, class D in the 'link' airspace and class E at say 20nm or 30nm. At least that model follows some kind of logic.
Why should we accept E, when positive, guaranteed, separation can be provided with C? It's just not logical.
Better still. Lets make it illegal for any aircraft to take off. This is the only way of guaranteeing no aircraft will ever collide with other traffic or the terrain.
Apparently Owen Stanley thinks this is the best idea because it's clearly the safest by far.
Some controllers here have been arguing that the US cannot provide class C in the enroute environment because the level of VFR traffic is far too great. The system would grind to a halt. Of course they are right, it would grind to a halt and it would cost billions more to staff the extra ATC sectors to cope with the extra responsibilities were they to use enroute Class C.
You controllers have two irreconcilable positions on Class E. That is, we should use enroute Class C, because we can but only until traffic levels reach that of the United States, then we should downgrade it to Class E so we don't run into grid lock. Extraordinary!
I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable.
Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.
If Civil Air were right then the FAA could divide up their enroute Class E into tiny sectors, reclassify it Class C and employ thousands more controllers at no extra cost to handle the 5000-7000 VFR aircraft pottering around US skies each day. Wow! Which voodoo mathematician worked that one out?
The biggest issue I have with enroute Class C over D Howabout is that if the risk of collision at Broome is such that Class D is justified, how can a higher classification of risk mitigation (Class C) be justified in the areas further away from the airport where the risk of collision actually drops significantly?
I could vaguely understand using Class C at the airport, class D in the 'link' airspace and class E at say 20nm or 30nm. At least that model follows some kind of logic.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: OZ
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJBOW2
This is simply because you have no idea what ATC do and what services they provide. 
I simply cannot accept Civil Air's position that Class C costs no more to staff and run than Class E. This is the most preposterous claim imaginable
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat Mcgroin
Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.
Pat, do you disagree with this statement?
Surely you can see that if we put 10 VFR flights a day into the airspace surrounding an airport we might be able to do it for the same cost. But when we put 100 or 1000 into the same space the work load and cost will inevitably increase.
Pat, do you disagree with this statement?