NAS rears its head again
Folks,
Most (all??) of you seem to have forgotten all the risk analysis carried out by the NAS Implementation Team, a joint DoT/Military group. The NAS ITeam co-opted subject matter experts as required, and many, many simulations were done by Airservices, and the ASA ARM model got a serious workout.
None, repeat none of the decisions were plucked out of the air (or anywhere else). For everything which was a variation to the US NAS, just about every technique available for quantitive and qualitive risk assessment was employed.
If you understand the ICAO risk assessment methods, you will understand why the basic US NAS did not have to be justified in risk management terms.
Along the way, the NAS team had the benefit of assistance and advice from both UK NATS and FAA.
The real fundamentalists here are the group of pilots who want no change, and want to "fundamentally" keep Australia mired in Australian unique standards.
Anybody who thinks that Australia has "special" problems that require "fundamentally different" solutions to the rest of the aviation universe is kidding themselves.
Just like our aviation safety regulation in general, the airspace management rules are quite unnecessarily complex, convoluted and contradictory ---- particularly contradictory is the "demand" for CNS/ATM services that are inverse to the risk ---- ie: as the risk decreases, the CNS/ATM resources increases.
In a sane (ICAO) world, the CNS/ATM resources are proportional to the traffic levels.
Or maybe I imagined all those day I spent, along with other industry/military representatives, working our way through volumes of delineated and documented hazards, the available mitigators, the mitigators to be applied, and the assessment and disposition of the final quantitative and qualitative risks ---- in each and every individual case.
Tootle pip!!
Most (all??) of you seem to have forgotten all the risk analysis carried out by the NAS Implementation Team, a joint DoT/Military group. The NAS ITeam co-opted subject matter experts as required, and many, many simulations were done by Airservices, and the ASA ARM model got a serious workout.
None, repeat none of the decisions were plucked out of the air (or anywhere else). For everything which was a variation to the US NAS, just about every technique available for quantitive and qualitive risk assessment was employed.
If you understand the ICAO risk assessment methods, you will understand why the basic US NAS did not have to be justified in risk management terms.
Along the way, the NAS team had the benefit of assistance and advice from both UK NATS and FAA.
The real fundamentalists here are the group of pilots who want no change, and want to "fundamentally" keep Australia mired in Australian unique standards.
Anybody who thinks that Australia has "special" problems that require "fundamentally different" solutions to the rest of the aviation universe is kidding themselves.
Just like our aviation safety regulation in general, the airspace management rules are quite unnecessarily complex, convoluted and contradictory ---- particularly contradictory is the "demand" for CNS/ATM services that are inverse to the risk ---- ie: as the risk decreases, the CNS/ATM resources increases.
In a sane (ICAO) world, the CNS/ATM resources are proportional to the traffic levels.
Or maybe I imagined all those day I spent, along with other industry/military representatives, working our way through volumes of delineated and documented hazards, the available mitigators, the mitigators to be applied, and the assessment and disposition of the final quantitative and qualitative risks ---- in each and every individual case.
Tootle pip!!
Or even a 'HF' system that works like it 'used to'.................
There's LOTS of places and spaces in WA, for example, where HF is ALL we got.....when one can actually get a response......
There's LOTS of places and spaces in WA, for example, where HF is ALL we got.....when one can actually get a response......
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody who thinks that Australia has "special" problems that require "fundamentally different" solutions to the rest of the aviation universe is kidding themselves.
Right back at you. Anyone who thinks that oz is the same as the US with its traffic density, available services (such as, oh, I don't know...radar coverage...flight service.. minor stuff like that) is kidding themselves.
Please, continue to ignore the important questions put to you on this thread, Leadsled. As uncomfortable as they may be. Inconvenient truths?
Right back at you. Anyone who thinks that oz is the same as the US with its traffic density, available services (such as, oh, I don't know...radar coverage...flight service.. minor stuff like that) is kidding themselves.
Please, continue to ignore the important questions put to you on this thread, Leadsled. As uncomfortable as they may be. Inconvenient truths?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Leadsled
Nice to see one of you admit that NAS2b was not the US NAS 
Lets see these assessments! From my recollection, the only substantive assessment made was for return to ALARP airspace
This is the fundamental/ist issue. The 'basic' NAS as you call it, was/is not US practice transplanted in to like type environments. The same is occuring now!
A deflated inner tube by itself does not make a racing bike
or a wheelchair 
None, repeat none of the decisions were plucked out of the air (or anywhere else). For everything which was a variation to the US NAS,
just about every technique available for quantitive and qualitive risk assessment was employed.
If you understand the ICAO risk assessment methods, you will understand why the basic US NAS did not have to be justified in risk management terms.
A deflated inner tube by itself does not make a racing bike
or a wheelchair
NAS Implementation Team
The real fundamentalists here are the group of pilots who want no change, and want to "fundamentally" keep Australia mired in Australian unique standards.
working our way through volumes of delineated and documented hazards, the available mitigators, the mitigators to be applied, and the assessment and disposition of the final quantitative and qualitative risks
I also assume you did a cost-benefit analysis on C verse E. Please post the results or provide a link.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a dead-set shame. Leady and I may have fundamental differences but he, at least, does not descend to personal vilification. He argues from personal conviction and I respect that.
However, I never saw any quantitative study that justified the reclassification of airspace. I remember lots of claims that because we were replicating the 'US system' a 'system' safety case was not required, only an 'implementation' safety case.
So, from my perspective, my two fundamental questions remain unanswered - where's the study that justified Class C being reclassified as Class E based on traffic volumes, and what is the rationale for using TCAS as a mitigator at YMAV when such a course is clearly at variance with ICAO principles.
You see Leady, on the one hand you state that we should not have anything unique, and that we should be 'ICAO compliant' in regard to airspace allocation. However, you do not seem to be equally concerned that TCAS is being used as partial justification for changing C to E at Avalon. With all due respect (and I do respect your firmly held beliefs), you can't have it both ways.
One of the fundamental problems with NAS, IMHO, is that the things that suited a particular agenda were cherry-picked. 'We like that, but we don't want that.'
Ultimately, and this is my real concern, the arguments with respect to risk management seem to be pre-empting a defence in the case of a MAC in reclassified Class E. In short, 'we did everything reasonable Your Honour.' It just worries me Lead that everything 'reasonable' is not being done.
However, I never saw any quantitative study that justified the reclassification of airspace. I remember lots of claims that because we were replicating the 'US system' a 'system' safety case was not required, only an 'implementation' safety case.
So, from my perspective, my two fundamental questions remain unanswered - where's the study that justified Class C being reclassified as Class E based on traffic volumes, and what is the rationale for using TCAS as a mitigator at YMAV when such a course is clearly at variance with ICAO principles.
You see Leady, on the one hand you state that we should not have anything unique, and that we should be 'ICAO compliant' in regard to airspace allocation. However, you do not seem to be equally concerned that TCAS is being used as partial justification for changing C to E at Avalon. With all due respect (and I do respect your firmly held beliefs), you can't have it both ways.
One of the fundamental problems with NAS, IMHO, is that the things that suited a particular agenda were cherry-picked. 'We like that, but we don't want that.'
Ultimately, and this is my real concern, the arguments with respect to risk management seem to be pre-empting a defence in the case of a MAC in reclassified Class E. In short, 'we did everything reasonable Your Honour.' It just worries me Lead that everything 'reasonable' is not being done.
I vaguely recall a cost-benefit (cum safety?) analysis being carried out a few years ago in Tasmania in relation to non-radar Class E, my recollection is that it used the methodology of a Tobago getting a rather close look at a burner.
Mitigators? - I think there were a couple of (subsequent) mitigators. One could have been E airspace being mitigated back to Class C, and the other was a strangely coincident mitigation of a "relocatable" radar down to Tasland. Scuttlebut had it the latter was the fastest go-to-whoa radar commissioning in the history of Australian ATS.
In that individual case.
Avalon - won`t go there, but I suspect because the location is notionally in a "surveillance" environment, etc, etc...don`t forget TCAS...
Broome and Karratha - probably will get away with E over D without too many near-heart attacks. There is (was?) a suggestion for the E steps to remain active outside TWR hours, not exactly sure as to the rationale there - a convoluted perception of CTA "protection" through E steps for IFR is the only inane thing I can remotely think of.
Just for the hell of it - Alice - E over D - not going there at all
2c inserted
Mitigators? - I think there were a couple of (subsequent) mitigators. One could have been E airspace being mitigated back to Class C, and the other was a strangely coincident mitigation of a "relocatable" radar down to Tasland. Scuttlebut had it the latter was the fastest go-to-whoa radar commissioning in the history of Australian ATS.
In that individual case.
Avalon - won`t go there, but I suspect because the location is notionally in a "surveillance" environment, etc, etc...don`t forget TCAS...
Broome and Karratha - probably will get away with E over D without too many near-heart attacks. There is (was?) a suggestion for the E steps to remain active outside TWR hours, not exactly sure as to the rationale there - a convoluted perception of CTA "protection" through E steps for IFR is the only inane thing I can remotely think of.
Just for the hell of it - Alice - E over D - not going there at all
2c inserted
Fortunately I didn't hold my breath.
Surely that's quite a simple question. Why doesn't someone dare answer it - even if it is under their cowardly pseudonym.
The CASA Launy study is clearly claptrap
I bet no individual put a name to it.
If class C can be operated at the same cost as E every country would replace E with C !
Why not! Please give a reason here and put your real name on such a basic issue.
I won't hold my breath.
I bet no individual put a name to it.
If class C can be operated at the same cost as E every country would replace E with C !
Why not! Please give a reason here and put your real name on such a basic issue.
I won't hold my breath.
Dick,why are you assuming it's all about cost? Surely as has been so clearly demonstrated here, politics & vocal individuals have far more influence.
A bum in a seat to provide a service costs the same whether it's E or C. VFR are effectively invisible to me in E from a service perspective. If I don't want a VFR in C, "clearance not available". Again, nothing there other than IFR & I have to provide the same service. Assuming IFRs will use VFR procedures in E doesn't cut it from a workload assessment perspective.
Now tell me where the cost savings are to be had. Your turn to answer a question.
A bum in a seat to provide a service costs the same whether it's E or C. VFR are effectively invisible to me in E from a service perspective. If I don't want a VFR in C, "clearance not available". Again, nothing there other than IFR & I have to provide the same service. Assuming IFRs will use VFR procedures in E doesn't cut it from a workload assessment perspective.
Now tell me where the cost savings are to be had. Your turn to answer a question.
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
If I don't want a VFR in C, "clearance not available".
More powers to the workers!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, Dick, I'll answer under my 'cowardly pseudonym' - I am so ashamed. This is, in my view, the personal vilification bit that Leady doesn't stoop to.
I'll take the lead from professional controllers Dick. You're not one and, personally, I have a bit of a laugh when you are rolled out as Australia's resident expert on aviation matters by a callow and pimply bunch of journalists.
The consensus on this forum from professional controllers is that they can provide a C service with no more cost than E, given the traffic levels, equipment and surveillance (or lack thereof). I'll take their word over yours any day. Mate, from my perspective, your legacy has been nothing more than a trail of destruction and division.
As to your assertion that
, Why??
You cannot make unsubstantiated assertions and expect to get away with it. You need to justify those assertions. It's a credibility issue!
Furthermore, professional RPT pilots don't want a bar of your vision. And, surprise, surprise, you're not one of those either.
So what's your claim to 'expertise' other than being a good (and where credit is due, a pretty accomplished) media performer?
Now, to disregard the inevitable insults, I asked you some pretty simple stuff. I challenged you to respond to my original questions and, in my opinion, you failed to do so in any credible manner.
Let's keep it civil. Talk to Lead. He knows how to conduct an argument.
I'll take the lead from professional controllers Dick. You're not one and, personally, I have a bit of a laugh when you are rolled out as Australia's resident expert on aviation matters by a callow and pimply bunch of journalists.
The consensus on this forum from professional controllers is that they can provide a C service with no more cost than E, given the traffic levels, equipment and surveillance (or lack thereof). I'll take their word over yours any day. Mate, from my perspective, your legacy has been nothing more than a trail of destruction and division.
As to your assertion that
The CASA Launy study is clearly claptrap
You cannot make unsubstantiated assertions and expect to get away with it. You need to justify those assertions. It's a credibility issue!
Furthermore, professional RPT pilots don't want a bar of your vision. And, surprise, surprise, you're not one of those either.
So what's your claim to 'expertise' other than being a good (and where credit is due, a pretty accomplished) media performer?
Now, to disregard the inevitable insults, I asked you some pretty simple stuff. I challenged you to respond to my original questions and, in my opinion, you failed to do so in any credible manner.
Let's keep it civil. Talk to Lead. He knows how to conduct an argument.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith
Many contributors have answered your question, both before your post, and since, myself included.
You apparently support the US NAS, and strongly support its injection into Australia. You would also therefore support the airspace arrangements at the following:-
- Georgia Columbus Metro [KCSG] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 2,458 Total 35,381
- North Carolina Fayetteville Reg/Grannis Fl [KFAY] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 969 Total 51,814
- West Virginia Yeager Charleston [KCRW] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 113 Total 70,307
- Illinois Abraham Lincoln Mem Springfield [KSPI] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 46 Total 36,898
To name but a few. How do you reconcile the movement rates, ATS infrustructure, and cost of provision?
I'll help you:-
1. The movement rates listed above are below most Australian ICAO D and D/C tower/approach locations
2. The four examples above are Class C airspace
3. The US do not charge via 'user pays' fee's [you championed the introduction of 'User Pays' for General Aviation in Australia]!
The US NAS is constantly 'evolving'. Are you aware of Class D TRSA? No problem if you are not, they are being reclassified Class C or B
Do you really support the US NAS being adopted in Australia Mr Smith? Or is the US NAS 'Claptrap'
Frank Arouet re-read le Pingouin's post!
Many contributors have answered your question, both before your post, and since, myself included.
In answer to your question, traffic densities and mix
- Georgia Columbus Metro [KCSG] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 2,458 Total 35,381
- North Carolina Fayetteville Reg/Grannis Fl [KFAY] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 969 Total 51,814
- West Virginia Yeager Charleston [KCRW] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 113 Total 70,307
- Illinois Abraham Lincoln Mem Springfield [KSPI] Part 139 Class I
2008 IFR Air Carrier 46 Total 36,898
To name but a few. How do you reconcile the movement rates, ATS infrustructure, and cost of provision?
I'll help you:-
1. The movement rates listed above are below most Australian ICAO D and D/C tower/approach locations
2. The four examples above are Class C airspace
3. The US do not charge via 'user pays' fee's [you championed the introduction of 'User Pays' for General Aviation in Australia]!
The US NAS is constantly 'evolving'. Are you aware of Class D TRSA? No problem if you are not, they are being reclassified Class C or B
Do you really support the US NAS being adopted in Australia Mr Smith? Or is the US NAS 'Claptrap'
Frank Arouet re-read le Pingouin's post!
Last edited by ARFOR; 17th Mar 2010 at 09:29. Reason: Addition
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ARFOR,
Once again, an excellent, factual post. Of course, you are nothing more than a 'ground based radio operator,' so what would you know? Your contribution is, therefore, disregarded because:
1) You hide behind that cowardly anonymous guise.
2) You don't have the courage to post under your real name.
3) I can't find any counter argument, but see 1 and 2 above.
4) I still can't find any credible argument but it's all just rubbish and see 1, 2 and 3 above.
5) So, after all that logical argument, it's obvious that you are a subversive.
In short ARFOR you have absolutely no credibility because..because..
Sorry, had a flashback....and it's Dorothy and Toto.. "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
Once again, an excellent, factual post. Of course, you are nothing more than a 'ground based radio operator,' so what would you know? Your contribution is, therefore, disregarded because:
1) You hide behind that cowardly anonymous guise.
2) You don't have the courage to post under your real name.
3) I can't find any counter argument, but see 1 and 2 above.
4) I still can't find any credible argument but it's all just rubbish and see 1, 2 and 3 above.
5) So, after all that logical argument, it's obvious that you are a subversive.
In short ARFOR you have absolutely no credibility because..because..
Sorry, had a flashback....and it's Dorothy and Toto.. "Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."
Last edited by Howabout; 17th Mar 2010 at 12:47. Reason: Quotes must be accurate
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who said I am a 'ground based radio operator' 
As Mr Smith once said in the midst of a 'turn', I be a 'traitor' 
Only in 'blinkered' eyes Speaking of which:-
Here are some comparators to the previous figures:-
- Queensland Rockhampton Int'l [YBRK] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 16,604 Total 39,906
- Tasmania Hobart Int'l [YMHB] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 14,880 Total 45,414
- Queensland Mackay Int'l [YBMK] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 14,006 Total 49,732
- Tasmania Launceston Int'l [YMLT] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 11,416 Total 20,972
- Queensland Sunshine Coast Regional Maroochydore [YBMC] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 9,532 Total 89,748
- Northern Territory Alice Springs Int'l [YBAS] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 9,204 Total 26,188
- Victoria Avalon Int'l [YMAV] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 7,768 Total 9,192
Should they be Class C [as per US NAS] Mr Smith?
As Mr Smith once said in the midst of a 'turn'
, I be a 'traitor' Only in 'blinkered' eyes
Speaking of which:-Here are some comparators to the previous figures:-
- Queensland Rockhampton Int'l [YBRK] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 16,604 Total 39,906
- Tasmania Hobart Int'l [YMHB] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 14,880 Total 45,414
- Queensland Mackay Int'l [YBMK] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 14,006 Total 49,732
- Tasmania Launceston Int'l [YMLT] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 11,416 Total 20,972
- Queensland Sunshine Coast Regional Maroochydore [YBMC] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 9,532 Total 89,748
- Northern Territory Alice Springs Int'l [YBAS] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 9,204 Total 26,188
- Victoria Avalon Int'l [YMAV] Equivalent to US Part139 Class 1
2008 IFR>7t 7,768 Total 9,192
Should they be Class C [as per US NAS] Mr Smith?
Last edited by ARFOR; 17th Mar 2010 at 11:05. Reason: addition
And that just about sums it all up.
More powers to the workers!
More powers to the workers!
In C a VFR may get knocked back occasionally or have to do something other than planned, but the contra is you are positively separated from IFR. Many would see that as a reasonable exchange.
Most of the time you'll get a reasonable facsimile what you want and be separated.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be thorough, lets include the NW coast of Australia!
From the Alice Springs [YBAS] Airspace review report http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...ings_study.pdf [page 34]:-
- Karratha Western Australia [YPKA] Equivalent to US Part 139 Class 1
12 months to June 09' Air Transport 10,928 Total 29,901
- Broome Western Australia [YBRM] Equivalent to US Part 139 Class 1
12 months to June 09' Air Transport 13,300 Total 36,800
The data capture is slightly different to the previous figures, notwithstanding, note the 'rankings' on page 34 of the 'Alice' report, and extrapolate for a relative comparison!
US NAS, Class C is it Mr Smith???
From the Alice Springs [YBAS] Airspace review report http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_asset...ings_study.pdf [page 34]:-
- Karratha Western Australia [YPKA] Equivalent to US Part 139 Class 1
12 months to June 09' Air Transport 10,928 Total 29,901
- Broome Western Australia [YBRM] Equivalent to US Part 139 Class 1
12 months to June 09' Air Transport 13,300 Total 36,800
The data capture is slightly different to the previous figures, notwithstanding, note the 'rankings' on page 34 of the 'Alice' report, and extrapolate for a relative comparison!
US NAS, Class C is it Mr Smith???
Last edited by ARFOR; 17th Mar 2010 at 12:10. Reason: Add Link
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahahahaha!!!
You can just picture Dick and Leadsled screaming "f*ck f*ck f*ck" at their computers, foaming at the mouth and shaking their fists at the ANONYMOUS Arfor etc.
It must be so galling to have such facts, such inconvenient truths, presented to dispel "the vision".
Ahahahaha!
You can just picture Dick and Leadsled screaming "f*ck f*ck f*ck" at their computers, foaming at the mouth and shaking their fists at the ANONYMOUS Arfor etc.
It must be so galling to have such facts, such inconvenient truths, presented to dispel "the vision".
Ahahahaha!