NAS rears its head again
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Coral
Is this out of YBAF? Or are you talking about YMAV where the E over D has started?
I do not imagine YBSU....hard to get used to that....is all that much different, or is it?
Is this out of YBAF? Or are you talking about YMAV where the E over D has started?
I do not imagine YBSU....hard to get used to that....is all that much different, or is it?
Australian Airspace Policy Statement 2010
Interesting reading.
http://http://www.infrastructure.gov...APS_081209.pdf
p3. The airspace classification system to be used in Australia ...
p5. The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration
http://http://www.infrastructure.gov...APS_081209.pdf
p3. The airspace classification system to be used in Australia ...
p5. The Government considers the safety of passenger transport services as the first priority in airspace administration
Missy, not sure that your link is working. And I think you are pointing at this section, is that correct?
The airspace classification system to be used in Australia is specified below:
Class A: IFR (instrument flight rules) flights only are permitted. All flights are provided with an Air Traffic Control (ATC) service and are separated from each other.
Class B: IFR and VFR (visual flight rules) flights are permitted; all flights are provided with ATC service and are separated from each other. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace.
Class C: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are provided with an ATC service and are separated from both IFR and VFR flights. VFR flights are provided with an ATC service for separation from IFR flights and traffic information on other VFR flights.
Class D: IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided with an ATC service. IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and are provided with traffic information on all VFR flights. VFR flights are provided with traffic information on all other flights. All flights are separated during take-off and landing.
Class E: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are provided with an ATC service and are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information on VFR flights as far as is practicable. VFR flights are provided with a flight information service, which includes traffic information, as far as is practicable.
Class F: IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive a flight information service if requested. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace.
Class G: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR and VFR flights receive a flight information service which includes directed traffic information to IFR flights on other IFR flights and known VFR flights.
The airspace classification system to be used in Australia is specified below:
Class A: IFR (instrument flight rules) flights only are permitted. All flights are provided with an Air Traffic Control (ATC) service and are separated from each other.
Class B: IFR and VFR (visual flight rules) flights are permitted; all flights are provided with ATC service and are separated from each other. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace.
Class C: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are provided with an ATC service and are separated from both IFR and VFR flights. VFR flights are provided with an ATC service for separation from IFR flights and traffic information on other VFR flights.
Class D: IFR and VFR flights are permitted and all flights are provided with an ATC service. IFR flights are separated from other IFR flights and are provided with traffic information on all VFR flights. VFR flights are provided with traffic information on all other flights. All flights are separated during take-off and landing.
Class E: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are provided with an ATC service and are separated from other IFR flights and receive traffic information on VFR flights as far as is practicable. VFR flights are provided with a flight information service, which includes traffic information, as far as is practicable.
Class F: IFR and VFR flights are permitted, all participating IFR flights receive an air traffic advisory service and all flights receive a flight information service if requested. This class is not used at present in Australian-administered airspace.
Class G: IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR and VFR flights receive a flight information service which includes directed traffic information to IFR flights on other IFR flights and known VFR flights.
Mr Peuce has got it right .....
" ....and VFRs are unknown (and therefore "not there" ).....
The original concept of the NAS was to delete services to VFRs as they contribute nothing to the ASA Income generation of $$'s.
Way back prior to the changes of 12.12.91, much 'discussion' was had by the proponents of the changes that even IFR acft, operating OCTA, when flying in VMC, would no longer be classed as IFR, in that they were operating in IFR category/VFR procedures - so, OCTA, they would be regarded as VFR.
When flying OCTA, there were NIL Air Nav Charges that could be levied - so services were to be 'deleted'.
However, due to Industry pressure, services to IFR acft by Flight Service were retained.
This was the 'first cut' of the 12.12.91 changes - NIL services to VFR's.
Flight Service no longer held strips on VFR acft - even SARTIMES were held by BN SAR office - or whatever it was called at the time.
Weather info etc was 'on request', 'one time' at that time.
Fast forward....
Class 'E' is the logical extension of this concept.
VFRs are 'INVISIBLE' - therefore NO services to be provided from Centre ATC - except 'as workload permits' - i.e. when the ATCer is NOT earning by providing the CORE BUSINESS Services to IFR acft.
'Beancounter thinking concept'....which is what we've got!
The original concept behind the TAAATS was to develop for use in Aust CTA, and also to EXPORT the computerised Airspace Management to IFR in CTA only ( think 'Heavies' at so many$'s / Tonne / N.Mile ) - to our Pacific near neighbours, and thus generate huge income streams for ASA, the Govt. - AND the managers bonuses!
This was the 'main business plan' - Income generation from IFR in CTA only!
The 3 'Stakeholders' - being The Govt., ATC, and The Industry were supposed to 'share' the income, and eventually, as the income stream rose, the charges to the Industry would be lowered accordingly.
"It will cost you less"......
What came after was an 'inconvenience'.....IFR Regionals etc going into OCTA destinations simply had to be serviced.
So came the destination 'D' with 'Location Specific Pricing'......
Fast forward again -
Now we are talking about 'E' over busy locations like BME KTA etc - Politically, I am told, 'location specific pricing' has been 'put aside' as in these locations it would probably send the local operators seeking an income elsewhere - IMHO.
Well, I hear that's the current policy for the construction costs of the towers etc at least.....and BME gets a new Fire'es stn as well.
But....the VFR's are still an issue - hence the 'Broadcast / call the Tower' (Which is it??) requirement.....but still - NO services provided to the VFR from the Centre ATC....Not their job. = No $$'s in it for ASA.
That's how I remember it, the 'guts' of it anyway.
But then 20 years is a fair while.......and I may have got some of it 'out of context'......But I don't really think so.....
'E' = ENJOY.......(The Challenge..)
Question - Are the ongoing 'operating costs' of the respective Towers etc going to be passed on to the Industry..local operators..? (Staffing, accomodation, etc ), in addition to the Airport Operator's Landing Fees?
" ....and VFRs are unknown (and therefore "not there" ).....
The original concept of the NAS was to delete services to VFRs as they contribute nothing to the ASA Income generation of $$'s.
Way back prior to the changes of 12.12.91, much 'discussion' was had by the proponents of the changes that even IFR acft, operating OCTA, when flying in VMC, would no longer be classed as IFR, in that they were operating in IFR category/VFR procedures - so, OCTA, they would be regarded as VFR.
When flying OCTA, there were NIL Air Nav Charges that could be levied - so services were to be 'deleted'.
However, due to Industry pressure, services to IFR acft by Flight Service were retained.
This was the 'first cut' of the 12.12.91 changes - NIL services to VFR's.
Flight Service no longer held strips on VFR acft - even SARTIMES were held by BN SAR office - or whatever it was called at the time.
Weather info etc was 'on request', 'one time' at that time.
Fast forward....
Class 'E' is the logical extension of this concept.
VFRs are 'INVISIBLE' - therefore NO services to be provided from Centre ATC - except 'as workload permits' - i.e. when the ATCer is NOT earning by providing the CORE BUSINESS Services to IFR acft.
'Beancounter thinking concept'....which is what we've got!
The original concept behind the TAAATS was to develop for use in Aust CTA, and also to EXPORT the computerised Airspace Management to IFR in CTA only ( think 'Heavies' at so many$'s / Tonne / N.Mile ) - to our Pacific near neighbours, and thus generate huge income streams for ASA, the Govt. - AND the managers bonuses!
This was the 'main business plan' - Income generation from IFR in CTA only!
The 3 'Stakeholders' - being The Govt., ATC, and The Industry were supposed to 'share' the income, and eventually, as the income stream rose, the charges to the Industry would be lowered accordingly.
"It will cost you less"......
What came after was an 'inconvenience'.....IFR Regionals etc going into OCTA destinations simply had to be serviced.
So came the destination 'D' with 'Location Specific Pricing'......
Fast forward again -
Now we are talking about 'E' over busy locations like BME KTA etc - Politically, I am told, 'location specific pricing' has been 'put aside' as in these locations it would probably send the local operators seeking an income elsewhere - IMHO.
Well, I hear that's the current policy for the construction costs of the towers etc at least.....and BME gets a new Fire'es stn as well.
But....the VFR's are still an issue - hence the 'Broadcast / call the Tower' (Which is it??) requirement.....but still - NO services provided to the VFR from the Centre ATC....Not their job. = No $$'s in it for ASA.
That's how I remember it, the 'guts' of it anyway.
But then 20 years is a fair while.......and I may have got some of it 'out of context'......But I don't really think so.....
'E' = ENJOY.......(The Challenge..)
Question - Are the ongoing 'operating costs' of the respective Towers etc going to be passed on to the Industry..local operators..? (Staffing, accomodation, etc ), in addition to the Airport Operator's Landing Fees?
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 10th Jun 2010 at 16:08.
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
OZBUSDRIVER;
Why?
I have previously stated, and you have responded to the fact, that I am a private VFR Day pilot who hasn't flown instruments for over 20 years. I am not qualified to talk on this subject and only enter debate if I see something that could effect my flying, which is 99.9% in class G airspace.
Unlike your consummatory behaviour which you assume allows your similarly gifted qualifications to be on a higher plane of intelligence and grants you special privelege to personally attack those who have either achieved something in their lives or are qualified in some way to make a comment by either having flown all over the world in all airspace or having a professional background as a pilot or risk mitagator.
I've followed your Socialist antics on several forums and your repetative attacks on Dick Smith as one example, lead me to believe you have a personal grudge against any achiever.
Are you a Troll?
On the matter of this subject, have you taken it up with your pilot organisation who look after "your" interests? Why haven't they posted here on the subject? Have they said anything in their magazine or received any feedback to support or reject your asertions? Have they made any public announcements regarding policy on the matter? Have they said anything to garner support from their "thousands" of members, and why haven't the general public heard this roar of apathy?
I think you doth protest too much!
Francis...that is what we call you-
Quote:
"the" NASTRONAUT
Quote:
"the" NASTRONAUT
I have previously stated, and you have responded to the fact, that I am a private VFR Day pilot who hasn't flown instruments for over 20 years. I am not qualified to talk on this subject and only enter debate if I see something that could effect my flying, which is 99.9% in class G airspace.
Unlike your consummatory behaviour which you assume allows your similarly gifted qualifications to be on a higher plane of intelligence and grants you special privelege to personally attack those who have either achieved something in their lives or are qualified in some way to make a comment by either having flown all over the world in all airspace or having a professional background as a pilot or risk mitagator.
I've followed your Socialist antics on several forums and your repetative attacks on Dick Smith as one example, lead me to believe you have a personal grudge against any achiever.
Are you a Troll?
On the matter of this subject, have you taken it up with your pilot organisation who look after "your" interests? Why haven't they posted here on the subject? Have they said anything in their magazine or received any feedback to support or reject your asertions? Have they made any public announcements regarding policy on the matter? Have they said anything to garner support from their "thousands" of members, and why haven't the general public heard this roar of apathy?
I think you doth protest too much!
Frank,
In part of your post, you make a fair comment.
I, myself, will not be directly affected by changes at BRM/KTA in the near forseeable future and neither am I an RPT Jet Captain.
However, I do reserve the right to express my opinion on issues that may have a broader impact on the Industry that I love.
I also acknowledge that my opinions are just that ... and that they will be accepted or rejected based on the rationality of my arguments.
I also believe that PPRUNE is probably not the place for Organisational involvement ... they have other more formal forums available to them.
However, my hope is that the people who make, or mould, decisions will read some of the thoughts on here and maybe take a second look at their own beliefs.... just as others most certainly hope that I will change my tune.
I also believe that making personal attacks on here only dilute one's position and I try not to be involved ... although I'm only human and I daresay I have been guilty to some extent. I guess all these issues are dear to each of our hearts and we tend to get a bit heated.
In the end, the law makers have to sift through all the conflicting positions and make a command decision.
In part of your post, you make a fair comment.
I, myself, will not be directly affected by changes at BRM/KTA in the near forseeable future and neither am I an RPT Jet Captain.
However, I do reserve the right to express my opinion on issues that may have a broader impact on the Industry that I love.
I also acknowledge that my opinions are just that ... and that they will be accepted or rejected based on the rationality of my arguments.
I also believe that PPRUNE is probably not the place for Organisational involvement ... they have other more formal forums available to them.
However, my hope is that the people who make, or mould, decisions will read some of the thoughts on here and maybe take a second look at their own beliefs.... just as others most certainly hope that I will change my tune.
I also believe that making personal attacks on here only dilute one's position and I try not to be involved ... although I'm only human and I daresay I have been guilty to some extent. I guess all these issues are dear to each of our hearts and we tend to get a bit heated.
In the end, the law makers have to sift through all the conflicting positions and make a command decision.
Well...A socialist....now that is one name I have never been called
Attack? Smith? He is the one doing the attacking..if anything, I am defending a position.
Like Peuce, what happens in WA does not affect me one single iota. However, what happens at AV DOES! I have implimented my workround for AV...I treat it like going into EN without the code. Call the TWR wait for a reply and REQUEST entry. If they get upset then so be it. I would rather this procedure than be caught in conflict with an RPT because I assumed something.
I see this adaptation of class E as very dangerous. I can see this version of class E aligning modes of failure that can be catastrophic. I, for one, do not want to be the victim of such an event. Because ,surely, a VFR cannot be at fault if they are minding their own business and monitoring the radio.
Francis, ask yourself who allies with you in arguing for the NAS on this thread. An amateur, an amateur's pilot, yourself(I hope you still do not carry a grudge), a retired skygod, and a telecom entrepeneur of questionable character. Not one single professional pilot or ATC has come on this site and "believed" that NAS is a good idea. The only people who come on here and say they "believe" are, essentaially private VFR types like ourselves..because they can see something for nothing and that is not how the system remains safe for all users now, if that means being a socialist...then maybe, in some twisted way..I am (A Socialist? I bet Michael would like to hear that one...)
Attack? Smith? He is the one doing the attacking..if anything, I am defending a position.
Like Peuce, what happens in WA does not affect me one single iota. However, what happens at AV DOES! I have implimented my workround for AV...I treat it like going into EN without the code. Call the TWR wait for a reply and REQUEST entry. If they get upset then so be it. I would rather this procedure than be caught in conflict with an RPT because I assumed something.
I see this adaptation of class E as very dangerous. I can see this version of class E aligning modes of failure that can be catastrophic. I, for one, do not want to be the victim of such an event. Because ,surely, a VFR cannot be at fault if they are minding their own business and monitoring the radio.
Francis, ask yourself who allies with you in arguing for the NAS on this thread. An amateur, an amateur's pilot, yourself(I hope you still do not carry a grudge), a retired skygod, and a telecom entrepeneur of questionable character. Not one single professional pilot or ATC has come on this site and "believed" that NAS is a good idea. The only people who come on here and say they "believe" are, essentaially private VFR types like ourselves..because they can see something for nothing and that is not how the system remains safe for all users now, if that means being a socialist...then maybe, in some twisted way..I am (A Socialist? I bet Michael would like to hear that one...)
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
peuce;
I have it on fairly good authority that "the decision makers" do read PPRune and use this forum as an indicator of "industry" comment. I also believe it is a fair and reasonable forum to express opinion.
To that extent I leave it to the experts to debate the various merits or otherwise. Note. I am not an expert, but believe as a "player" in the big scheme of things, my opinions or input should not be ridiculed, vilified or howled down by those with more "expert" qualifications whether real or imaginary.
I have it on fairly good authority that "the decision makers" do read PPRune and use this forum as an indicator of "industry" comment. I also believe it is a fair and reasonable forum to express opinion.
To that extent I leave it to the experts to debate the various merits or otherwise. Note. I am not an expert, but believe as a "player" in the big scheme of things, my opinions or input should not be ridiculed, vilified or howled down by those with more "expert" qualifications whether real or imaginary.
Mr Griffo...another piece to the puzzle..the story is fast becoming one very, very long game of chess.
The genesis? The players? The goal? All for a higher return into consolidated revenue? Mercenary..and socialist?
The crash/crash through policy. The airspace experiment that lasts two decades. The decimation of services. The change in attitude wrt aviation. I hope I am not too cynical...The train driver really did win.
The genesis? The players? The goal? All for a higher return into consolidated revenue? Mercenary..and socialist?
The crash/crash through policy. The airspace experiment that lasts two decades. The decimation of services. The change in attitude wrt aviation. I hope I am not too cynical...The train driver really did win.
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
OZBUSDRIVER;
Socialist sounds better than rabblerouser.
There are two other forums to which you contribute but Dick Smith does not that I can put up to refute your "defending a position".
I take your point on Avalon, but like your take on WA, I don't care, because I don't fly there.
I see the whole matter as a "dog's breakfast" that many don't understand and have given up on the assumption that the matter will sort itself out after "industry" input irons out the bumps. Personally I wouldn't fly in any airspace I didn't understand, but then again, I'm not a professional pilot and I don't need to fly there.
Get it through your head, I am not arguing "for" the NAS that has evolved and is the subject of this thread. I agree, I was once part of an organisation that supported by policy, the NAS in it's then form. Your organisation from memory.
1) An amateur.
2) An amateur's pilot.
3) Myself.
4) Retired skygod.
5) telecom entrepreneur of questionable character.
Not one single professional pilot.
OK sunshine, if I have a take on who you are "fingering".
An amateur who has flown around the world several times in both fixed and rotary wing, has thousands of hours on turbines, an IFR pilot multi engined, studied airspace in various countries, done more to encourage aviation in this country and held senior positions on regulatory and industry boards, a very honoured philanthropist and successful businessman. (As opposed to our encumbant government who has nobody with any qualifications to run anything), but still run a country (poorly).
An amateur's pilot. Well I don't know, but you could be "outing" someone here if you think you know who you are talking about.
Myself. Yes, what about me? A deadbeat with 45 years flying experience and still alive somehow, an owner of 5 previous aircraft and a current owner, now retired and fed up with users, liers, betrayers, con-men, quasi experts, bureaucrats, (I think I just said that), and red tape.
Retired skygod. Would that be an ex Qantas International senior pilot with thousands of hours, owner of many GA aircraft and donor of many unpaid hours to various organisations, chairman of several boards, someone succonded to many regulatory review committees, because of an encyclopedic mind, and industry recognised risk manager ? Man's obviously an idiot and has no qualifuications.
Telecom entrepreneur. That could be a bloke who owns at last count 3 or 4 high and low performance aircraft, an IFR business jet pilot, does his IF renewals at Flight Safety in the US, a business leader who is also multi board chairman and seconded to Federal government industry consultative committees, but of questionable character?? I would question where you arrived at that conclusion, but I probably already know. The same mob who can't post here because they were caught in criminal activities involving identity theft, misleading and deceptive conduct in a public company, lies and bush lawyerism.
Not one single professional pilot.
But people should listen to you.....why?
Socialist sounds better than rabblerouser.
There are two other forums to which you contribute but Dick Smith does not that I can put up to refute your "defending a position".
I take your point on Avalon, but like your take on WA, I don't care, because I don't fly there.
I see the whole matter as a "dog's breakfast" that many don't understand and have given up on the assumption that the matter will sort itself out after "industry" input irons out the bumps. Personally I wouldn't fly in any airspace I didn't understand, but then again, I'm not a professional pilot and I don't need to fly there.
ask yourself who allies with you in arguing for the NAS on this thread. An amateur, an amateur's pilot, yourself(I hope you still do not carry a grudge), a retired skygod, and a telecom entrepeneur of questionable character. Not one single professional pilot
1) An amateur.
2) An amateur's pilot.
3) Myself.
4) Retired skygod.
5) telecom entrepreneur of questionable character.
Not one single professional pilot.
OK sunshine, if I have a take on who you are "fingering".
An amateur who has flown around the world several times in both fixed and rotary wing, has thousands of hours on turbines, an IFR pilot multi engined, studied airspace in various countries, done more to encourage aviation in this country and held senior positions on regulatory and industry boards, a very honoured philanthropist and successful businessman. (As opposed to our encumbant government who has nobody with any qualifications to run anything), but still run a country (poorly).
An amateur's pilot. Well I don't know, but you could be "outing" someone here if you think you know who you are talking about.
Myself. Yes, what about me? A deadbeat with 45 years flying experience and still alive somehow, an owner of 5 previous aircraft and a current owner, now retired and fed up with users, liers, betrayers, con-men, quasi experts, bureaucrats, (I think I just said that), and red tape.
Retired skygod. Would that be an ex Qantas International senior pilot with thousands of hours, owner of many GA aircraft and donor of many unpaid hours to various organisations, chairman of several boards, someone succonded to many regulatory review committees, because of an encyclopedic mind, and industry recognised risk manager ? Man's obviously an idiot and has no qualifuications.
Telecom entrepreneur. That could be a bloke who owns at last count 3 or 4 high and low performance aircraft, an IFR business jet pilot, does his IF renewals at Flight Safety in the US, a business leader who is also multi board chairman and seconded to Federal government industry consultative committees, but of questionable character?? I would question where you arrived at that conclusion, but I probably already know. The same mob who can't post here because they were caught in criminal activities involving identity theft, misleading and deceptive conduct in a public company, lies and bush lawyerism.
Not one single professional pilot.
But people should listen to you.....why?
Like you, my friend..like you.
A wise ex-ALP politician who didn't have the ticker for the job once said...never discount the views of a farmer just because he is a farmer.
May I come out and say that you are the only one drawing parrallels with persons on these threads. Maybe it is you that is outing certain persons. I only drew reference to yourself
A wise ex-ALP politician who didn't have the ticker for the job once said...never discount the views of a farmer just because he is a farmer.
May I come out and say that you are the only one drawing parrallels with persons on these threads. Maybe it is you that is outing certain persons. I only drew reference to yourself
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am affected by the changes at KA/BRM. I firmly believe that the application of E airspace is flawed. It is becoming complicated (refer AV), where E is becoming defacto C in that location, and probably at KA/BRM. I really believe that the 180 passengers I fly into these ports are going to be put at more risk if the AV experiment is put into place. We now have the unknown traffic, confused traffic, and the unsure traffic all trying to get into a 8nm diameter control zone.
When the near miss (Launceston type) or worse occurs, who will stand up and say, sorry we were wrong, the theory didn't work in practice.
When the near miss (Launceston type) or worse occurs, who will stand up and say, sorry we were wrong, the theory didn't work in practice.
When the near miss (Launceston type) or worse occurs, who will stand up and say, sorry we were wrong, the theory didn't work in practice.
* The pilots did not do what they should have done. They do not know how to use the airspace as designed.
* The airspace is not to blame, it works fine in the US with ten times the volume of traffic.
* ATCO s are recalcitrant and caused/almost caused, contributed to the airprox/disaster.
* OAR/CASA/ATSB will launch a full investigation. Contributions from those that are the architects of the mess.
Come on Dick, you have gone VERY quiet of late...what do you make of the "broadcast area" requirement?
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: various areas
Posts: 225
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is quite easy for most readers to discern which inputs to this discussion are from pilots of various qualification, experience and recency. It is also very easy to discern inputs from those who hold or have held licences and endorsements for the provision of related air traffic control and flight information services. Each have a point of view, few are qualified to comment beyond testing the strength of a fact, statistic or point of view, even fewer understand the full implications [operational and legal] for pilots and air traffic services staff.
As for the 'whose appendage is bigger' attacks that relate in no way to the subject matter, take them to jet blast please, as I am sure the moderators are a wake up to the attempt to have this thread closed or deleted by [those who would like it to disappear from public view] introducing spurious 'industrial', 'conspiratorial' [or any other fleeting flaming] ideas to achieve that end goal through intentional use of bad behaviour.
Dog One
From afar, it seems the old game of point and shoot after the fact is being relied on. Obviously the courts will have to determine whose fireproofing was the most ineffective. I know who I would not be standing next to, that is of course anyone in Canberra on a government payroll who is involved in these 'unfunny' processes, decisions and implimentations
As for the 'whose appendage is bigger' attacks that relate in no way to the subject matter, take them to jet blast please, as I am sure the moderators are a wake up to the attempt to have this thread closed or deleted by [those who would like it to disappear from public view] introducing spurious 'industrial', 'conspiratorial' [or any other fleeting flaming] ideas to achieve that end goal through intentional use of bad behaviour.
Dog One
From afar, it seems the old game of point and shoot after the fact is being relied on. Obviously the courts will have to determine whose fireproofing was the most ineffective. I know who I would not be standing next to,
that is of course anyone in Canberra on a government payroll who is involved in these 'unfunny' processes, decisions and implimentations
Out of 1264 posts There have been 71 posters in the negative and 6 in the affirmative with 14 an undetermined vote...the motion is carried in the negative.
Class E over D is defeated!
I just wish it was that easy to kill this STUPID experiment
Class E over D is defeated!
I just wish it was that easy to kill this STUPID experiment
OR with a sample of 91 respondents.
78% opposed
6.5% agree
15.5% undetermined.
To the people of OAR...this is one poll that costs you nothing. The people who must use this airspace overwhelmingly disapprove of the experiment!
78% opposed
6.5% agree
15.5% undetermined.
To the people of OAR...this is one poll that costs you nothing. The people who must use this airspace overwhelmingly disapprove of the experiment!
Dog One brought up an interesting point:
What is proposed is a theory, is a trial, is an experiment ...
Whereas, if we were to introduce a regulation that had been proven to be safe in the U.S, CASA would not be required to do a full safety assessment or safety case or whatever...
As E+ is not done anywhere else (that I know of) it is an experiment ... we are the guinea pigs ... and I believe more thorough Safety and Design Cases need to be completed and found to be reasonable.
Have they been done? Is there one for Avalon?
Hand up everyone who wants to be a guinea pig? And don't forget to put your hand up , on behalf of your passengers also!!!
When the near miss (Launceston type) or worse occurs, who will stand up and say, sorry we were wrong, the theory didn't work in practice.
Whereas, if we were to introduce a regulation that had been proven to be safe in the U.S, CASA would not be required to do a full safety assessment or safety case or whatever...
As E+ is not done anywhere else (that I know of) it is an experiment ... we are the guinea pigs ... and I believe more thorough Safety and Design Cases need to be completed and found to be reasonable.
Have they been done? Is there one for Avalon?
Hand up everyone who wants to be a guinea pig? And don't forget to put your hand up , on behalf of your passengers also!!!