NAS rears its head again
.not qualified to comment.
I would be fascinated to know why you believe said alleged former colleague, if he or she exists, is him or herself qualified to comment or determine my qualification.
My qualifications are formal, what are his or hers? If anybody has a good enough memory, they will recall the work I did for the AFAP and later AIPA ---- and that has little to do with the last 15 or so years, where my involvement continues for other parties. Strange as it may seem to some of you, that includes for several different airlines.
I have had some "interesting" discussions, over the years, with my peers, all too often the "other" point of view is entirely without any acquaintance with the ICAO source documents -----(Ozbusdriver --- Classes of airspace outside Australia come to mind, as Chimbu understands. You sound like you are relatively new to the business) ----- never let the facts spoil a good argument. I have never had a problem confronting the "conventional wisdom" in aviation, when said conventional wisdom is untroubled by the facts---- which has often puts me in a minority.
As I have said, many times, aviation safety is not a democracy. As we have seen time and again (all to often after a fatal accident) the "conventional wisdom" was wrong, but people had to die for the majority to be proven wrong. Sadly, in all to many examples, the minority had pointed out why the conventional wisdom was wrong, only for the inevitable to prove the minority correct.
The oft voiced idea here, that two RAs invalidated the NAS 2b design, but multiple RAs in C in the same period can be disregarded as a symptom of anything, is an amazing example of the illogic of the defenders of the status quo.
I will back my list of formal publication, many on matters of airspace management, against any of my peers, whose average equivalent no. of papers would be so close to nil as to be vanishingly small --- including, to a 3Sigma probability, your "informant".
There is nothing wrong with that, it is not a necessity for the job of being a pilot (or ATC staff - being a controller does not make one an expert on airspace design, just a controller), and as we consistently see here, profound ignorance is no barrier to having strongly voiced opinions.
Am I going to list my publications all here --- no way I am going to put what would effectively be CV on pprune ---- which should be a good starting point for a whole new round of silly comments from the peanut gallery ---- whether I did or not.
However, the great majority are public documents ---- if you want to go look for them ---- very, very few would require a FOI application. Some will only become available under the 30 year rule. Some substantive papers will be found in Hansard, in the proceeding of several Senate or House Standing Committees. Have fun!!
Likewise, I am not aware that any more than one of my pilot peers has done an ICAO PANS/OPS course in procedure design, and that one is long since out of it. Even that course does not go into the detailed basis for the determination of the current procedure design standards, the risk management basis. As a matter of interest IFALPA was represented on the mid-80s ICAO Obstacle Clearance Panel that gave rise, in part, to the present Doc.8168 procedures, he was an Australian ( not me, just so there is no misunderstanding).
Fortunately, thanks to the "computer age", procedure design standards have been reduced to (now) reasonably simple procedures (for the practitioner) and I am please to say that most NAAs in our part of the world (except AU) have adopted an Australian developed CAD design package for production or verification of proposed procedures, including GNSS approaches. The same organization provides NAAs, airlines and individuals with various training packages on the subject, if any of you are interested.
Bloggs,
A Hi-Cap Captain!! Wow, I am impressed, terrific, wonderful!!
EEEeeeRRrrrr? by the way, in AU, where does Hi-Cap start, maybe you could remind us? Just so we don't get too carried away about you "obvious" encyclopedic knowledge of aviation matters well beyond those that are (hopefully) defined by your pilot qualifications.
Bearing in mind that operating within the system doesn't make for any necessary qualifications in the design of the system ---- any more than flying a FAR/JAR 25 certified aircraft makes you an expert on design and certification of said aircraft.
Tootle pip!!
Folks,
In Rotorblades ( and Dick's) defense of what happens in the UK, it is a mismash, but it works, and nobody gives much of a thought to the class of airspace ---- as long as it's not EGLL.
I know of the matter of Heathrow that Dick alludes to ---- No, the aircraft did not have a SVFR clearance ---- maybe the rules said it should ----- but it didn't happen ----- and (unlike here) nobody got their knickers in a twist about it.
A long time ago now, but my favorite clearance ( in B707) going from EGKK ( Gatport Airwick to the great unwashed) to Lasham, was "Maintain 1500, Clear for T/O, call clear of the zone". Being a weekend, no LARS, no Farnborough Radar, just turn left at the M3, down to Camberly, turn right and look for a strip on top of a hill. If it's got helo's all over it, wrong hill. You need the one with the gliders all over it!!
Tootle pip!!
In Rotorblades ( and Dick's) defense of what happens in the UK, it is a mismash, but it works, and nobody gives much of a thought to the class of airspace ---- as long as it's not EGLL.
I know of the matter of Heathrow that Dick alludes to ---- No, the aircraft did not have a SVFR clearance ---- maybe the rules said it should ----- but it didn't happen ----- and (unlike here) nobody got their knickers in a twist about it.
A long time ago now, but my favorite clearance ( in B707) going from EGKK ( Gatport Airwick to the great unwashed) to Lasham, was "Maintain 1500, Clear for T/O, call clear of the zone". Being a weekend, no LARS, no Farnborough Radar, just turn left at the M3, down to Camberly, turn right and look for a strip on top of a hill. If it's got helo's all over it, wrong hill. You need the one with the gliders all over it!!
Tootle pip!!
Heathrow is supposed to be class A however you can fly VFR in the airspace.
Yes, those in charge are incompetent.
Yes, those in charge are incompetent.
They just go on calling it G. You don't get that type of incompetence in the USA.
Now Dick, can you answer my question above...
Why does E have to be run by centre but C run by the single tower controller?
Leadsled,
Look, I think we can all agree that your dick is bigger than our dicks.
Now, that's settled.
However, in the words of that great philosopher, Tom Cruise, I would once again encourage you to "Put your manners back in "
Back to the fray ...
You say:
That's what we are trying to tell you. We believe the conventioanl wisdom is wrong, and we don't want to be proven right with a prang.
We have (or at least I have) conceeded that your figures are probably technically correct and E is "safe " ... however, we want to build in a bit of "tolerance", if you like, by using Class C ... so no one is tragically embarrassed.
Is that not a reasonable request and expectation?
Look, I think we can all agree that your dick is bigger than our dicks.
Now, that's settled.
However, in the words of that great philosopher, Tom Cruise, I would once again encourage you to "Put your manners back in "
Back to the fray ...
You say:
As we have seen time and again (all to often after a fatal accident) the "conventional wisdom" was wrong, but people had to die for the majority to be proven wrong. Sadly, in all to many examples, the minority had pointed out why the conventional wisdom was wrong, only for the inevitable to prove the minority correct
We have (or at least I have) conceeded that your figures are probably technically correct and E is "safe " ... however, we want to build in a bit of "tolerance", if you like, by using Class C ... so no one is tragically embarrassed.
Is that not a reasonable request and expectation?
Under ICAO VFR do not require radio in E, F and G airspace. That's why I correctly state they are not part of the system.
If safety requires a traffic information service on VFR there is a perfectly satisfactory ICAO airspace classification for this - it is class D.
If safety requires a traffic information service on VFR there is a perfectly satisfactory ICAO airspace classification for this - it is class D.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smtih
ICAO says 'an air traffic control service' to IFR and VFR in Class D as a service 'minimum'. In principle I agree with your view on Class D. 
Now we just need to ascertain:-
How might we do that? 
If safety requires a traffic information service on VFR there is a perfectly satisfactory ICAO airspace classification for this - it is class D.
Now we just need to ascertain:-
If safety requires
Last edited by ARFOR; 26th Apr 2010 at 10:58. Reason: clarity
Leadsled, please. No need for a clearance in Oceanic airspace ABV FL290???
Mr Smith,
The mind Boggles, if this is what you believed to get VFR out of the system, you are sorely misguided...If this is what you think of GA VFR then how can you expect GA VFR to interact in Class E "Controlled" airspace if you cannot even expect GA VFR to be on the correct frequency. Maybe someone should ensure the correct frequency is on the appropriate map.
No one has even mentioned calling in the blind..the only need ever for calling in the blind was either MBZ, CTAF(R) and now CTAF..I do not know if there ever was a need to call in the blind by a GA VFR in any airspace controlled or un-controlled
Mr Smith,
if a system relies on VFR calling in the blind, accidents will result because there is no proof that the radio is actually working, let alone on the correct frequency!
No one has even mentioned calling in the blind..the only need ever for calling in the blind was either MBZ, CTAF(R) and now CTAF..I do not know if there ever was a need to call in the blind by a GA VFR in any airspace controlled or un-controlled
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The simple solution - change the rules so that in E airspace outside of radar coverage, all aircraft require a airways clearance. I am sure that the VFR pilots are competent enough to be able to use their radio.
Without going to the power of what ever, if everyone has a clearance, safety has to be very much improved.
Without going to the power of what ever, if everyone has a clearance, safety has to be very much improved.
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
Leadsled, please. No need for a clearance in Oceanic airspace ABV FL290???
Mr Smith, Quote:
if a system relies on VFR calling in the blind, accidents will result because there is no proof that the radio is actually working, let alone on the correct frequency!
The mind Boggles, if this is what you believed to get VFR out of the system, you are sorely misguided...If this is what you think of GA VFR then how can you expect GA VFR to interact in Class E "Controlled" airspace if you cannot even expect GA VFR to be on the correct frequency. Maybe someone should ensure the correct frequency is on the appropriate map.
No one has even mentioned calling in the blind..the only need ever for calling in the blind was either MBZ, CTAF(R) and now CTAF..I do not know if there ever was a need to call in the blind by a GA VFR in any airspace controlled or un-controlled
Mr Smith, Quote:
if a system relies on VFR calling in the blind, accidents will result because there is no proof that the radio is actually working, let alone on the correct frequency!
The mind Boggles, if this is what you believed to get VFR out of the system, you are sorely misguided...If this is what you think of GA VFR then how can you expect GA VFR to interact in Class E "Controlled" airspace if you cannot even expect GA VFR to be on the correct frequency. Maybe someone should ensure the correct frequency is on the appropriate map.
No one has even mentioned calling in the blind..the only need ever for calling in the blind was either MBZ, CTAF(R) and now CTAF..I do not know if there ever was a need to call in the blind by a GA VFR in any airspace controlled or un-controlled
When, OZBUSDRIVER, did you ever reach the lofty heights of the flight levels? How are you qualified to offer any advice on a subject, where that example, to all intent apppears illegal for VFR?
And what is the statistical evidence that VFR are a threat at those lofty heights or in class E airspace where transponders are mandated, of which you are a vocal and irritating critic.
As for whether a radio/ transponder is working or not, it should manifest itself on the M/R. Shouldn't it?
Alterrnatively you, (from what I understand), a private day VFR pilot who hires aircraft, the question is are you qualified to even give an opinion on the subject and of more importance, do you write up owners MR's to reflect some U/S avionics that may contribute to the masses of idiots trangressing sacred airspace where only RPT eagles dare to tread?
Or do you just listen to disgraced dysfunctionaries of a world gone by?
Also, what gives the "looney left" like you the audacity to question experts in one field and obviously support the rank and file experts in another.
Of course we should exclude the "clear air" exponents of the AFAP RPT as convenient bedpartners.
I am sure that the VFR pilots are competent enough to be able to use their radio.
God save us all, for they know not what they do, (despite paying thousands for the privelege of being trained to do so).
God save Australian aviation because these Crown Princes of airspace invested sancity are out to kill GA as we know it.
As for whether a radio/ transponder is working or not, it should manifest itself on the M/R. Shouldn't it?
How does the pilot, owner or operator know that the Mode C is in error by 1800 feet when they operate out of say, Broome or Karratha where there is no radar and therefore no mechanism to check it?
Do YOU KNOW when a serviceability check is required for a transponder. on what schedule?
Gosh.....maybe I will take my bat and ball and retire to a more friendlier sandpit....NOT 
LIKELY...
Where do you guys get off? So now its play the man time...you have lost your argument so badly...to a lowly PPL that you must play the man????
If there is any one else (ATPL/ATC/PPL/RAAus or whatever) out there who wishes to say my small contribution is wrong either factually or whatever, say so and I will retire.
I can see where class E is heading, it didn't work Nov03 and will not work now. Until surveillance is put into place ala the US then class E linked to the tower or controlled by centre is..as others and myself have said..will fail- UNSAFE. Every study of ANY tower airspace with C over D do NOT recommend a change to E...why is that?
Francis, you know me VERY WELL. I study hard and I do not offer opinion lightly. Just because I have used a few pages of one logbook means nothing in this argument. If the case is flawed, it's FLAWED. No amount of cross-argument on what other countries do with their airspace matters to anything.
The movement figures are available..Broome needs a tower according to the formula..what the likes of Broome does not need is a class E experiment.
No E without Surveillance!
I am a simple man. Show me a reference that says it is safe to have uncontrolled VFR mixing with IFR in controlled airspace.
LIKELY...Where do you guys get off? So now its play the man time...you have lost your argument so badly...to a lowly PPL that you must play the man????
If there is any one else (ATPL/ATC/PPL/RAAus or whatever) out there who wishes to say my small contribution is wrong either factually or whatever, say so and I will retire.
I can see where class E is heading, it didn't work Nov03 and will not work now. Until surveillance is put into place ala the US then class E linked to the tower or controlled by centre is..as others and myself have said..will fail- UNSAFE. Every study of ANY tower airspace with C over D do NOT recommend a change to E...why is that?
Francis, you know me VERY WELL. I study hard and I do not offer opinion lightly. Just because I have used a few pages of one logbook means nothing in this argument. If the case is flawed, it's FLAWED. No amount of cross-argument on what other countries do with their airspace matters to anything.
The movement figures are available..Broome needs a tower according to the formula..what the likes of Broome does not need is a class E experiment.
No E without Surveillance!
I am a simple man. Show me a reference that says it is safe to have uncontrolled VFR mixing with IFR in controlled airspace.
Frank,
Ozbusdriver was not implying VFR flight at 290.
Ask the two 737 crews during NAS 2b what statistical evidence there is now about VFR in E.
Yes it will. But the whole point of E airspace is you don't need a radio, and given the continued opinings of Dick Smith over the years, the first opportunity to not use it will be grasped. Also, an aircraft could be flying around for months outside radar coverage with a dud transponder and nobody would be any the wiser.
Amply demonstrated by the pilot in the Tobago. I don't criticise him for that; after all, he was just doing what he was told by the NAS Implementation team - "shut up unless you're about to get creamed". I think it is unreasonable to have the outcome of a confliction assessed only by one side of the conflict pair, the VFR. If I know about him then I too can check that what he is doing is not actually going to threaten me. Do you believe that in the Tobago incident things would have got to the point they did if the 737 crew had been aware earlier of where the Tobago was?
It takes two to have a midair. To have one of the two in the dark as to the whereabouts of the other, when one is RPT, is not acceptable.
The other issue is that in E, I very much doubt the ability of most VFR pilots to accurately work out what is going on simply from the transmissions between ATC and the IFR. Once again, that's not their fault: they are not given enough info to work out what is going on.
All these problems are created by the system. Now Captain Courageous, the mighty 7oh Sled, might say that the designers reckon "she'll be right" and the Big Sky theory will keep us apart, but that's not good enough for me, or my 115 punters, especially when there is no skin off the VFR's nose for being in the system.
Ozbusdriver was not implying VFR flight at 290.
And what is the statistical evidence that VFR are a threat at those lofty heights or in class E airspace where transponders are mandated, of which you are a vocal and irritating critic.
As for whether a radio/ transponder is working or not, it should manifest itself on the M/R. Shouldn't it?
let alone comprehend what is being said or reply with any coherent advice as to their ability to know where they are in relation to a spinning planet.
It takes two to have a midair. To have one of the two in the dark as to the whereabouts of the other, when one is RPT, is not acceptable.
The other issue is that in E, I very much doubt the ability of most VFR pilots to accurately work out what is going on simply from the transmissions between ATC and the IFR. Once again, that's not their fault: they are not given enough info to work out what is going on.
All these problems are created by the system. Now Captain Courageous, the mighty 7oh Sled, might say that the designers reckon "she'll be right" and the Big Sky theory will keep us apart, but that's not good enough for me, or my 115 punters, especially when there is no skin off the VFR's nose for being in the system.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D.N.S
Quite so. The standard play when all is not going well for the NAStronauts at 'The Cape' point of view. Witness the dross above your post.
Mr Arouet
Has anyone suggested:-
1. VFR Above FL290? The reference made was to Oceanic rules, and in that context 'a clearance' at Flight Levels
2. Statistical evidence of Class E 'problems' has been provided in this and the Broome Karratha thread. That you choose to ignore it is up to you
3. TXPDR's and radios do fail, and more relevantly are at times mismanipulated. Thats the point being made
4. The fact is that VFR pilots are more than capable of using a radio and TXPDR, and operating in CTA/R. The point of difference [which you seem incapable of discerning] is that having to initiate comms [clearance in C or D] confirms its correct selection and servicability for use before entering the area of conflict. In Class E there is no such 'check'. In CTA/R C or D, if you are on the wrong frequency, you won't get the clearance response. If surveillance exists, you will be notifed if your TXPDR is not outputting or is in error. If surveillance does not exist, in C or D you are being provided with an air traffic control service, so you won't hit anything anyway. Clear??
As for the rest of your personal invective towards other individuals and groups with a different view. Keep it up, it adds a nice level of insight.
Quite so. The standard play when all is not going well for the NAStronauts at 'The Cape' point of view. Witness the dross above your post.
Mr Arouet
Has anyone suggested:-
1. VFR Above FL290? The reference made was to Oceanic rules, and in that context 'a clearance' at Flight Levels
2. Statistical evidence of Class E 'problems' has been provided in this and the Broome Karratha thread. That you choose to ignore it is up to you
3. TXPDR's and radios do fail, and more relevantly are at times mismanipulated. Thats the point being made
4. The fact is that VFR pilots are more than capable of using a radio and TXPDR, and operating in CTA/R. The point of difference [which you seem incapable of discerning] is that having to initiate comms [clearance in C or D] confirms its correct selection and servicability for use before entering the area of conflict. In Class E there is no such 'check'. In CTA/R C or D, if you are on the wrong frequency, you won't get the clearance response. If surveillance exists, you will be notifed if your TXPDR is not outputting or is in error. If surveillance does not exist, in C or D you are being provided with an air traffic control service, so you won't hit anything anyway. Clear??
As for the rest of your personal invective towards other individuals and groups with a different view. Keep it up, it adds a nice level of insight.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
For those that don't believe that statistical analysis is has any place airspace design, do you believe its use is appropriate for determining airworthiness (ie fatigue analysis, time lifed components etc)?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
werbil
The only team that does not seem to want Open, Transparent, and Publically Available statisitcal analysis [Volume Specific Risk assessments and Cost/Benefit analysis] is the Class E brigade!
The only team that does not seem to want Open, Transparent, and Publically Available statisitcal analysis [Volume Specific Risk assessments and Cost/Benefit analysis] is the Class E brigade!
ARFOR
Sensible post from you #702. You ask how we need to ascertain if safety requires Class D.
I would use the US FAA establishment and disestablishment formula for Class D the same as I would use the US FAA formula for the establishment of Class C. We know that in the USA, with something like fifteen times the amount of traffic in a similar land mass, that the rate of accidents is acceptable by US citizens and also Australians – we are not warned as Australians not to go flying in the USA.
The formula works and results in a very high level of safety in the USA - with fifteen times the amount of traffic it’s reasonable to think that the formula would work here.
When I ask the FAA why they did not have a mandatory transponder requirement in non-radar E above the D towers – approximately 175 of them – they said there was no transponder requirement because they were not getting accidents in that class of airspace in those locations.
I always believed we need an objective and scientific formula for allocating ICAO airspace classifications, and that C over D clearly shows that the airspace is reversed, ie. the high risk airspace close to the runway should not be a lower category than the low risk link airspace above.
If an airspace is correctly designed in relation to risk, the categories will reflect the obvious risk levels. By looking at the FAA allocation of airspace, it’s obvious that this is done using a proper objective criteria.
By looking at the Australian airspace or the UK airspace, it’s obvious that a proper objective and scientific risk study has not been completed. It’s obvious that airspace is allocated on perception and “not wanting to change what we’ve done in the past”.
Sensible post from you #702. You ask how we need to ascertain if safety requires Class D.
I would use the US FAA establishment and disestablishment formula for Class D the same as I would use the US FAA formula for the establishment of Class C. We know that in the USA, with something like fifteen times the amount of traffic in a similar land mass, that the rate of accidents is acceptable by US citizens and also Australians – we are not warned as Australians not to go flying in the USA.
The formula works and results in a very high level of safety in the USA - with fifteen times the amount of traffic it’s reasonable to think that the formula would work here.
When I ask the FAA why they did not have a mandatory transponder requirement in non-radar E above the D towers – approximately 175 of them – they said there was no transponder requirement because they were not getting accidents in that class of airspace in those locations.
I always believed we need an objective and scientific formula for allocating ICAO airspace classifications, and that C over D clearly shows that the airspace is reversed, ie. the high risk airspace close to the runway should not be a lower category than the low risk link airspace above.
If an airspace is correctly designed in relation to risk, the categories will reflect the obvious risk levels. By looking at the FAA allocation of airspace, it’s obvious that this is done using a proper objective criteria.
By looking at the Australian airspace or the UK airspace, it’s obvious that a proper objective and scientific risk study has not been completed. It’s obvious that airspace is allocated on perception and “not wanting to change what we’ve done in the past”.
Dick,
This is nonsense and you know it, as you have been told before. Even a most cursory glance at the activity levels in the US show that it is spread right across the states. Ours on the other hand is crammed into a very small percentage of our landmass, with 90% of it not even seeing a person, let alone an aeroplane. The "rate" of 15x (it used to be 20x a few years ago - that was BS, was it?) is therefore a furphy.
How much radar-controlled E above D in the US has primary radar, making transponders less necessary?
The difference in "effort" or "workload" for controllers and pilots alike does not equate to a "lower category" of airspace. A boffin at a desk studying the ICAO table might come to that conclusion, but practically speaking, while C "controls" VFR as opposed to D which theoretically "advises" VFR, there isn't much difference. It would be entirely logical to have D going right up to the base of high-level C, providing the best of both worlds: VFR are known-about but able to do their own thing. With transponders (already) being required above 10k in any airspace and multilateration, the system would rock.
How about you support it?
with something like fifteen times the amount of traffic in a similar land mass
they said there was no transponder requirement because they were not getting accidents in that class of airspace in those locations.
that C over D clearly shows that the airspace is reversed, ie. the high risk airspace close to the runway should not be a lower category than the low risk link airspace above.
How about you support it?
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 27th Apr 2010 at 00:54. Reason: correcting grammar failure and map added
That's a worthy compromise .... "D up to C"... for Broome!
Afterall, the result we are looking for is a means to make VFRs "visible" . It doesn't have to be C link airspace.
Afterall, the result we are looking for is a means to make VFRs "visible" . It doesn't have to be C link airspace.
Owen Stanley
What I’m stating is totally consistent.
It was the GA representative body (AOPA) that agreed to the unique mandatory transponder requirement that I brokered. They did not introduce the requirement because they were not part of the regulatory system. I as Chairman did a deal with the Minister that we would introduce the mandatory transponder requirement in E without a regulatory impact statement because it would improve safety, and the GA organisations (not just AOPA) agreed that there would be advantages for their members.
I’ll say it again.
Just because the GA representative body “agreed” to a unique mandatory transponder requirement it doesn’t mean that they actually introduced the requirement. It doesn’t work like that.
To others, I would support D over D if a scientific and objective safety study showed that was the best way to spend our finite safety dollars. Seeing no other country has such a thing, I have a feeling that the science would not support the idea.
Airspace must be allocated using an objective criteria and science- not by some type of barter system based on ignorance!
What I’m stating is totally consistent.
It was the GA representative body (AOPA) that agreed to the unique mandatory transponder requirement that I brokered. They did not introduce the requirement because they were not part of the regulatory system. I as Chairman did a deal with the Minister that we would introduce the mandatory transponder requirement in E without a regulatory impact statement because it would improve safety, and the GA organisations (not just AOPA) agreed that there would be advantages for their members.
I’ll say it again.
Just because the GA representative body “agreed” to a unique mandatory transponder requirement it doesn’t mean that they actually introduced the requirement. It doesn’t work like that.
To others, I would support D over D if a scientific and objective safety study showed that was the best way to spend our finite safety dollars. Seeing no other country has such a thing, I have a feeling that the science would not support the idea.
Airspace must be allocated using an objective criteria and science- not by some type of barter system based on ignorance!
that the rate of accidents is acceptable by US citizens and also Australians
I am also very sure that even the common folk that fly on our LCCs would also express the view that an acccident in class E between a non controlled VFR and an IFR RPT, an accident that could have easily been prevented by a higher class of airspace, is also unacceptable.
Dick, do you forget how easily you can sway the media with ANY aviation safety issue? How much impact do you think a statement like "Government approves an experiment in airspace control that will bring un-controlled general aviation aircraft into close proximity with controlled regulated public transport airliners without air traffic control radar" would have. Add a few lines about what happened in Brisbane, Melbourne and Launceston for colour and editors of the major mastheads have a pretty graby headline to sell. "Airliners head to head with uncontrolled light aircraft in controlled airspace" or "Airliner near miss imminent!" will look pretty nasty for ANY Transport Minister, Don't you think?