NAS Website
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS Website
The NAS Implementation Group has launched the NAS Website at http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/index.htm . The site contains basic information about the NAS and will be expanded as work progresses towards implementation.
Mike
Mike
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm going to "sticky" this for a while.
Please dont start any new threads on this matter and confine you comments to this one, to make my life a little easier.
Please dont start any new threads on this matter and confine you comments to this one, to make my life a little easier.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airspace Nirvana
Terms of Reference
1. The ARG will make, no later than 25 March 2002, a recommendation to the Deputy Prime Minister on the preferred plan for future low level airspace reform, to be based on an assessment of each of:
(i) the Airspace Working Group's Low Level Airspace Reform Plan (LAMP); and
(ii) Mr Dick Smith's proposed National Airspace System (NAS).
2. The assessment of the two proposals will take into account:
(i) the cost effectiveness of each of the competing proposals;
(ii) the degree of industry support for each proposal and the comments of the industry stakeholders on the merits of LAMP and NAS;
(iii) the ability to implement each proposal within a reasonable timeframe;
(iv) the degree to which each proposal is in accordance with ICAO airspace classifications;
(v) which proposal is more closely harmonised with international best practice; and
(vi) other substantive issues that the ARG considers relevant to an informed recommendation.
3. The Group will provide a written report to the Deputy Prime Minister recommending its preferred proposal by 25 March 2002:
(i) the report to include a detailed assessment of any further work required before an implementation safety case can be provided for endorsement by CASA;
(ii) a proposed schedule of implementation, including training, education and TAAATS system change requirements; and
(iii) a timeframe specifying the required period to achieve full implementation.
4. In preparing its advice to the Deputy Prime Minister the ARG may draw upon, but is not bound by, advice from appropriate sources.
1. The ARG will make, no later than 25 March 2002, a recommendation to the Deputy Prime Minister on the preferred plan for future low level airspace reform, to be based on an assessment of each of:
(i) the Airspace Working Group's Low Level Airspace Reform Plan (LAMP); and
(ii) Mr Dick Smith's proposed National Airspace System (NAS).
2. The assessment of the two proposals will take into account:
(i) the cost effectiveness of each of the competing proposals;
(ii) the degree of industry support for each proposal and the comments of the industry stakeholders on the merits of LAMP and NAS;
(iii) the ability to implement each proposal within a reasonable timeframe;
(iv) the degree to which each proposal is in accordance with ICAO airspace classifications;
(v) which proposal is more closely harmonised with international best practice; and
(vi) other substantive issues that the ARG considers relevant to an informed recommendation.
3. The Group will provide a written report to the Deputy Prime Minister recommending its preferred proposal by 25 March 2002:
(i) the report to include a detailed assessment of any further work required before an implementation safety case can be provided for endorsement by CASA;
(ii) a proposed schedule of implementation, including training, education and TAAATS system change requirements; and
(iii) a timeframe specifying the required period to achieve full implementation.
4. In preparing its advice to the Deputy Prime Minister the ARG may draw upon, but is not bound by, advice from appropriate sources.
In the interests of getting on board as Ken suggests:-
While reform to Australia's airspace has been challenging to date, it is fundamental that we learn from our experiences.
I encourage the aviation industry to embrace airspace reform and to work with each other to improve the current airspace system.
Yours in anticipation
Kart be-fore-Horse
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike,
I appreciate the attempt however there is little more on here than was already in the NAS document dated 14 December 2001.
It does not answer any of the fundamental questions which have arisen in this and other forums.
Oh, and by the way the information is already wrong. The June 2002 changes did not take place.....or did they?
I appreciate the attempt however there is little more on here than was already in the NAS document dated 14 December 2001.
It does not answer any of the fundamental questions which have arisen in this and other forums.
Oh, and by the way the information is already wrong. The June 2002 changes did not take place.....or did they?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good work Mike
It is pleasing to see things going ahead so quickly.
In particular:
It's hard to believe that an implementation safety case has been able to be prepared and endorsed in the short time available so far. This must have taken an enormous amount of work to allow for the first stage of the implementation to go ahead in December.
After all, as the Minister himself said:
and
http://www.dotars.gov.au/media/ander...2/a54_2002.htm
Given that stage 1 is such a short time away, would it be possible to publish the implementation safety case material on the website?
While we’re on the subject of safety cases:
This seems at odds with: (from the FAQ section)
Does this mean that the advice from CASA is no longer valid? After all water is considered safe. So is dry ice. Ever tried a ”hybrid”?
Which one?
In particular:
4. The role of the IG is to:
.......
(f) develop an implementation safety case including, but not limited to, details of the requirements and timelines for any regulatory changes, charts and other operational material, air traffic controller and pilot educational material and training and facilities implementation; and
(g) facilitate, in conjunction with Airservices, the passage of the airspace reform process until such time as it is fully implemented, conditional on CASA's endorsement of the implementation safety case.
.......
(f) develop an implementation safety case including, but not limited to, details of the requirements and timelines for any regulatory changes, charts and other operational material, air traffic controller and pilot educational material and training and facilities implementation; and
(g) facilitate, in conjunction with Airservices, the passage of the airspace reform process until such time as it is fully implemented, conditional on CASA's endorsement of the implementation safety case.
STAGE 1 December 2002
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
Multicom for non-allocated CTAFs.
VFR climb in Class E.
Revised altimetry procedures.
After all, as the Minister himself said:
"This model is based on the airspace model used in the world's leading aviation nation, the United States. A safety case will be required to be developed for NAS, and the existing processes will continue to be followed in finalising the safety case.
It is vital that the mistakes of the past airspace reform attempts are not repeated. In particular, the aviation industry must be kept informed and involved with appropriate education programmes developed regarding the implementation of the system.
Given that stage 1 is such a short time away, would it be possible to publish the implementation safety case material on the website?
While we’re on the subject of safety cases:
The role of the IG is to:
…….
(d) develop a design safety case if required, noting the advice of CASA that it would not require a design safety case if NAS remains compliant with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) model;
…….
(d) develop a design safety case if required, noting the advice of CASA that it would not require a design safety case if NAS remains compliant with the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) model;
Why are you just blindly following the US system?
The first part of this answer is that the NAS in fact is a hybrid North American model, which takes features of both the US and Canadian systems. Both systems are recognised by each other's safety regulator as being safe.
The first part of this answer is that the NAS in fact is a hybrid North American model, which takes features of both the US and Canadian systems. Both systems are recognised by each other's safety regulator as being safe.
The NAS is based on a safe, efficient and proven airspace architecture.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IG Composition
1. The IG will consist of:
(a) a team leader, who will report regularly to the ARG and manage the overall tasks of the IG; and
(b) staff seconded from Airservices, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), Defence, DOTARS and other appropriate organisations.
2. The IG will be supplemented as required by an invited representative from the United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and other experts.
And what:
other appropriate organisations
Not much content after 9 months
:o
SAFETY ANALYSIS
3.1 Methodology
ICAO provides two methodologies for "determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.
Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe. Provided that the proposed system can be demonstrated to be the same or better than the reference system in all safety aspects, then it may be assumed also to be safe…"19
As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.
3.1 Methodology
ICAO provides two methodologies for "determining whether the system is acceptably safe:
a. comparison to a reference system, and
b. evaluation of system risks against a threshold.
Comparison with a reference system is a relative method, i.e. all the relative characteristics of the proposed system are compared with the corresponding characteristics of a reference system which has been judged to be safe. Provided that the proposed system can be demonstrated to be the same or better than the reference system in all safety aspects, then it may be assumed also to be safe…"19
As the NAS draws on international best practice and the proven ATM system of North America, process a. above is the appropriate methodology.
I can still find no detail on any of the pages.
As for
3.2 Application
Too Much Information.
As for
What happened to LAMP?
The AWG developed what became the LAMP proposal. In January 2001 it appeared the AWG had been able to reach a position of industry agreement on a preferred model, however, subsequent developments made to the LAMP model resulted in statements from both AOPA and the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation (ASAC) that they no longer supported the LAMP proposal because of its inherent radio requirements and the proposed increase in the number and size of mandatory broadcast zones (MBZs).
The AWG developed what became the LAMP proposal. In January 2001 it appeared the AWG had been able to reach a position of industry agreement on a preferred model, however, subsequent developments made to the LAMP model resulted in statements from both AOPA and the Australian Sports Aviation Confederation (ASAC) that they no longer supported the LAMP proposal because of its inherent radio requirements and the proposed increase in the number and size of mandatory broadcast zones (MBZs).
This really gives me the SH%^S
One more
What are the main differences between NAS and LAMP?
Three key differences between LAMP and NAS are:
1 remove MBZs and replace them with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) procedures or Unicoms, third party provided traffic information procedures;
2 continued use of 'see and avoid' where radio use remains optional; and
3 expanded implementation of Class E airspace corridors.
Three key differences between LAMP and NAS are:
1 remove MBZs and replace them with Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) procedures or Unicoms, third party provided traffic information procedures;
2 continued use of 'see and avoid' where radio use remains optional; and
3 expanded implementation of Class E airspace corridors.
ALL THIS BECAUSE AOPA AND SPORT AVIATION WILL NOT USE A RADIO
If this airspace system is impimented, unfortunately we will not have the safety record we now enjoy, all because some person will not use a radio.
God help us.
Here Here to the above.
Additionally, if NAS persists with this VFR Climb nonsense (Non-ICAO, I might add: ICAO only allows it up to A100), then I DEMAND that we be allowed the same procedure in Class C Airspace.
It is preposterous that, on the one hand, we are subjected to 20nm separation, no night visual passings etc and then 1 minute later be thrown to the dogs (oops, I mean No-radio VFR), as we plunge, with our 80 pax, into CTAFs, Multicoms, E Corridors etc all on the pretext that it'll be alright because I've got my eyeballs looking out!
I reckon this whole thing stinks, and I haven't even started yet...
Additionally, if NAS persists with this VFR Climb nonsense (Non-ICAO, I might add: ICAO only allows it up to A100), then I DEMAND that we be allowed the same procedure in Class C Airspace.
It is preposterous that, on the one hand, we are subjected to 20nm separation, no night visual passings etc and then 1 minute later be thrown to the dogs (oops, I mean No-radio VFR), as we plunge, with our 80 pax, into CTAFs, Multicoms, E Corridors etc all on the pretext that it'll be alright because I've got my eyeballs looking out!
I reckon this whole thing stinks, and I haven't even started yet...
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
2-Dogs.
I simply don't got a radio in my 1944 ex-Mil bugsmasher (got no power either). What do you suggest I do??? This is an honest question.
Bloggs, yeah right, probably a straight in approach into a crowded circuit eyes firmy glued to the GPS. The most unsafe things I have ever seen is Metros and Bandits doing just that, radio or no radio!!! Closest I ever came to a mid air is when some Richard Head did just that at Mildura on the day of the airshow
No sympathy for your post mate.
I simply don't got a radio in my 1944 ex-Mil bugsmasher (got no power either). What do you suggest I do??? This is an honest question.
Bloggs, yeah right, probably a straight in approach into a crowded circuit eyes firmy glued to the GPS. The most unsafe things I have ever seen is Metros and Bandits doing just that, radio or no radio!!! Closest I ever came to a mid air is when some Richard Head did just that at Mildura on the day of the airshow
No sympathy for your post mate.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tealady,
Right now, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is conducting an investigation into the accident you refer to and it would be quite improper for anyone to pre-empt their work. I am certain that the professionalism of all participants in this forum means that you will not get us to speculate on what might or might not have contributed to this tragic event.
Mike
Right now, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau is conducting an investigation into the accident you refer to and it would be quite improper for anyone to pre-empt their work. I am certain that the professionalism of all participants in this forum means that you will not get us to speculate on what might or might not have contributed to this tragic event.
Mike
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Open Mic,
The website and the information it contains is interesting, but...
1. What is the "North American" model anyway? Is NAS based on the US model, or the Canadian model? What gives? A mix of the two is not "the proven model" that has been so passionately espoused.
2. "Australia currently has similar continental airspace to that of the USA but only 5% of the traffic." So the question is: Why are we overservicing our industry? What would happen if Melbourne built a new freeway with the capacity to handle (100/5 = 2000%) 2000% more traffic than the current freeway?
3. "Airmanship
As part of the pilot education programme, pilots of VFR aircraft will be encouraged where practical to:
- avoid routes likely to be used by IFR aircraft."
Where does the Australian VFR pilot find these routes on the charts he/she is required to carry?
"- when not approaching or departing a CTAF, remain clear of arriving and departing traffic"
You're spending money on something they already have to do.
- remain clear of the circuit area of an airport unless departing or approaching the airport."
More money spent on something pilots already do.
This isn't telling anyone anything.
The website and the information it contains is interesting, but...
1. What is the "North American" model anyway? Is NAS based on the US model, or the Canadian model? What gives? A mix of the two is not "the proven model" that has been so passionately espoused.
2. "Australia currently has similar continental airspace to that of the USA but only 5% of the traffic." So the question is: Why are we overservicing our industry? What would happen if Melbourne built a new freeway with the capacity to handle (100/5 = 2000%) 2000% more traffic than the current freeway?
3. "Airmanship
As part of the pilot education programme, pilots of VFR aircraft will be encouraged where practical to:
- avoid routes likely to be used by IFR aircraft."
Where does the Australian VFR pilot find these routes on the charts he/she is required to carry?
"- when not approaching or departing a CTAF, remain clear of arriving and departing traffic"
You're spending money on something they already have to do.
- remain clear of the circuit area of an airport unless departing or approaching the airport."
More money spent on something pilots already do.
This isn't telling anyone anything.
Last edited by Lodown; 23rd Aug 2002 at 22:18.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mike Smith
I note that your website contradicts Mr (Dick) Smith’s version of events in relation to the ‘downfall’ of LAMP. It would be prudent to get the facts straight on this issue – to avoid upsetting the wrong people.
To have gone from “did not accept the safety case” to “feedback… that it was not prepared to sign off on the …..design case in its current form” is a seriously different version of events.
If the author is asserting that CASA did not in fact reject a safety case, then I am sure that Mr (Dick) Smith would be extremely upset that his reputation for honesty has been so sullied.
PS Your “Frequently Asked Questions” page appears to be missing some!
I note that your website contradicts Mr (Dick) Smith’s version of events in relation to the ‘downfall’ of LAMP. It would be prudent to get the facts straight on this issue – to avoid upsetting the wrong people.
LAMP downfall?
This change to MBZs was the LAMP downfall. CASA refused to allow MBZs to be changed to even larger DAFs and did not accept the safety case that was prepared.
Dick Smith's website
This change to MBZs was the LAMP downfall. CASA refused to allow MBZs to be changed to even larger DAFs and did not accept the safety case that was prepared.
Dick Smith's website
In a subsequent development, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority provided feedback to Airservices that it was not prepared to sign off on the LAMP design case in its current form, particularly in relation to the proposed increase in size of MBZs.
Airspace Reform Site
Airspace Reform Site
If the author is asserting that CASA did not in fact reject a safety case, then I am sure that Mr (Dick) Smith would be extremely upset that his reputation for honesty has been so sullied.
PS Your “Frequently Asked Questions” page appears to be missing some!
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 153
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My favourite part of the whole website is http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspaceref..._education.htm
Does that mean we are to just find out about it by ourselves?
What concerns me is that AsA is going to have to carry than cost of developing yet another doomed airspace reform and that it will cost us our paltry productivity payrises. Is DOTARS going to carry the cost of development?
Does that mean we are to just find out about it by ourselves?
What concerns me is that AsA is going to have to carry than cost of developing yet another doomed airspace reform and that it will cost us our paltry productivity payrises. Is DOTARS going to carry the cost of development?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No MBZ's + no safety
How could anyone in thier right mind dismiss the fact that MBZ"S are safer than CTAF's.
Having spent some time in Broome and seeing the traffic that can be generated just in a small place like that, I think it is imperative that the law buliders of this this country reconsider thier decision.
On any given day you could have 3 plus 210's , metro, bandits and a 146 in the circuit at the same time.See and Avoid ???????
how?????????
Get with the programme boys, You're Nuts.
oh I'm sorry in the name of safety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Having spent some time in Broome and seeing the traffic that can be generated just in a small place like that, I think it is imperative that the law buliders of this this country reconsider thier decision.
On any given day you could have 3 plus 210's , metro, bandits and a 146 in the circuit at the same time.See and Avoid ???????
how?????????
Get with the programme boys, You're Nuts.
oh I'm sorry in the name of safety!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
How the hell are VFR flights supposed to avoid IFR, routes. PPLs wothout an IR won't know where thet are anyway, or much less care. You take a plane to go a direct route, not wander around the countryside just to stay outside the IFR corridors. Besides many charters, or bank runners fo VFR if possible, flying the same route(especially with GPS). How would that work.
Its seems some people who think up this airspace don;t actuallyget their butts in a aeroplane. Go out and have a look how it operates for real.
Its seems some people who think up this airspace don;t actuallyget their butts in a aeroplane. Go out and have a look how it operates for real.
Ulm,
I can assure you, my son, that there are far more VFR pilots heads down looking at their GPS than a commercial crew (that probably knows how to actually use the thing!). And I can assure you that I have seen more VFR smasher drivers who have NO IDEA about what is going on, the radio being the only saving grace. Have you done SI Approaches as two-crew often? I can assure you they are far safer than doing a circuit when it come to looking out. Most of the in-cockpit duties are done BY 5nm, not on mid-downwind just where all the bugsmashers might be!
No comment about the Non-ICAO VFR climb, eh?
I will say again that the only danger to aviation in the regions is VFR larrikins who refuse to talk. We have beepbacks to solve the "off freq" problem, and we (currently) have DTI (or full [over]control with E in LLAMP), and a mandatory radio environment for most "big" operations. I haven't heard these rednecks who want CTAFs also say that they want traffic lights or seatbelts banned??!! Get with it: it's the 2002s, there are big, fast aircraft that cannot be turned quickly enough even if I do see Dick Smith before he fills my windscreen! Get a radio and use it.
Re the "no CASA personnel" on the NAS team (SYD RAPAC post), I assume that Mike Smith has quit CASA then, has he? I will, of course, stand corrected if the Mike Smith doing all the talking for NAS and DS is NOT the Mike Smith from CASA!
I can assure you, my son, that there are far more VFR pilots heads down looking at their GPS than a commercial crew (that probably knows how to actually use the thing!). And I can assure you that I have seen more VFR smasher drivers who have NO IDEA about what is going on, the radio being the only saving grace. Have you done SI Approaches as two-crew often? I can assure you they are far safer than doing a circuit when it come to looking out. Most of the in-cockpit duties are done BY 5nm, not on mid-downwind just where all the bugsmashers might be!
No comment about the Non-ICAO VFR climb, eh?
I will say again that the only danger to aviation in the regions is VFR larrikins who refuse to talk. We have beepbacks to solve the "off freq" problem, and we (currently) have DTI (or full [over]control with E in LLAMP), and a mandatory radio environment for most "big" operations. I haven't heard these rednecks who want CTAFs also say that they want traffic lights or seatbelts banned??!! Get with it: it's the 2002s, there are big, fast aircraft that cannot be turned quickly enough even if I do see Dick Smith before he fills my windscreen! Get a radio and use it.
Re the "no CASA personnel" on the NAS team (SYD RAPAC post), I assume that Mike Smith has quit CASA then, has he? I will, of course, stand corrected if the Mike Smith doing all the talking for NAS and DS is NOT the Mike Smith from CASA!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes Captain Bloggs,
I am the same Mike Smith from CASA and you are correct, I have left CASA and I am currently employed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Mike
I am the same Mike Smith from CASA and you are correct, I have left CASA and I am currently employed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
Mike
Questions for Mike.
Mike
Since there is nothing (yet) on the education and training page of the website, how do you hope to bring in albeit minor changes by December?
I made the point elsewhere that the next ERSA edition is due out in a few weeks, charts changes seem to take around six months to implement!
I am at the coal face of training and it seems to me that if this first change is rushed or not widely promulgated early enough it will be a disaster.
Second point, tell me again why we need to reform our airspace?
A final point, it is great to see those that make these decisions engaging on this forum.
Since there is nothing (yet) on the education and training page of the website, how do you hope to bring in albeit minor changes by December?
I made the point elsewhere that the next ERSA edition is due out in a few weeks, charts changes seem to take around six months to implement!
I am at the coal face of training and it seems to me that if this first change is rushed or not widely promulgated early enough it will be a disaster.
Second point, tell me again why we need to reform our airspace?
A final point, it is great to see those that make these decisions engaging on this forum.
Reform - gotta love it
Icarus
Re: your question about reform.
Reform is a word the Government use when they are actually implementing distasteful changes.
Remember Tax Reform. A cleverly disguised spin doctoring of a new tax. The collective Government (Fed + State) actually have a bigger tax take now than they used too, funny how these things work.
"Reform" is a buzz word that the media love, and that the punters can't argue against. I mean if it needed "reforming" it must have been bad right?
Re: your question about reform.
Reform is a word the Government use when they are actually implementing distasteful changes.
Remember Tax Reform. A cleverly disguised spin doctoring of a new tax. The collective Government (Fed + State) actually have a bigger tax take now than they used too, funny how these things work.
"Reform" is a buzz word that the media love, and that the punters can't argue against. I mean if it needed "reforming" it must have been bad right?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having read all of the website, I would serious urge any professional aviator to not become involved in this "Reform" is any way, shape or form. All anyone has to say, is the same as QF, we will fly with whatever CASA approves.
The NAS as presented is the "Class G Trial" by another name.
As this whole thing is politically driven, when it falls over (hopefully, not in an accident), Anderson will be looking for the inevitable scape goat.
If the electronic person, AOPA, and sport aviation are the only contibuters, the blame cannot be laid elsewhere.
If you participate, you will be the person responsible, because the electronic person will do his usual and tell all and sundry that it was not what HE wanted.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
The NAS as presented is the "Class G Trial" by another name.
As this whole thing is politically driven, when it falls over (hopefully, not in an accident), Anderson will be looking for the inevitable scape goat.
If the electronic person, AOPA, and sport aviation are the only contibuters, the blame cannot be laid elsewhere.
If you participate, you will be the person responsible, because the electronic person will do his usual and tell all and sundry that it was not what HE wanted.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED
Last edited by twodogsflying; 23rd Aug 2002 at 09:45.
Open Mic
In your post of 0207180705UTC in “The NAS – without the personalities” thread you stated among other things that:
[my bolding]
In your post above you state among other things that:
[my bolding]
A subtle but important difference in language.
Straight answer to a simple question, please: have you or have you not terminated your employment relationship with CASA?
In your post of 0207180705UTC in “The NAS – without the personalities” thread you stated among other things that:
I am also not currently working for CASA, I have taken leave from CASA to work on this task and I am currently employed by DOTARS.
In your post above you state among other things that:
I have left CASA and I am currently employed by the Department of Transport and Regional Services.
A subtle but important difference in language.
Straight answer to a simple question, please: have you or have you not terminated your employment relationship with CASA?