NAS Website Part 11
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the regulators forgot about the effect of Avdata on the use of radio. In one fell swoop, Avdata, the parasitic monitors of 126.7, have been given a vastly increased source of revenue due to the vastly increased number of airports they can now go and canvas to collect fees on their behalf.
Human nature suggests that there will be a LOT of radio silence until such times as Spectrum Australia ( or whoever is currently involved ) outlaws the illegal recording of radio transmissions by Avdata for commercial purposes.
( The Telecommunications Act specifically makes it an offence, unless parties are made aware that the conversation is to be recorded, and then they have the right to decline having their phone calls or radio calls recorded)
When will ASA, CASA and other bodies understand this very simple issue? Avdata's recording of transmissions for revenue purposes creates a potential safety hazard.
The regulators won't ever understand until they are charged between $20 and $50 dollars for every town they pass through on a trip in their own car, using roads and bridges paid for already by various state and federal taxes.
This is what Avdata is doing to safety, they cause radio silence to occur, particularly amongst private owners and some VFR charter operators, as these groups seek to avoid the exhorbitant charges that are recommended by Avdata to Aerodrome operators. It is quite possible for these groups to rack up a bill of hundreds of dollars per day if they make radio calls.
Stealth mode is alive and well out there, thanks to Avdata.
Human nature suggests that there will be a LOT of radio silence until such times as Spectrum Australia ( or whoever is currently involved ) outlaws the illegal recording of radio transmissions by Avdata for commercial purposes.
( The Telecommunications Act specifically makes it an offence, unless parties are made aware that the conversation is to be recorded, and then they have the right to decline having their phone calls or radio calls recorded)
When will ASA, CASA and other bodies understand this very simple issue? Avdata's recording of transmissions for revenue purposes creates a potential safety hazard.
The regulators won't ever understand until they are charged between $20 and $50 dollars for every town they pass through on a trip in their own car, using roads and bridges paid for already by various state and federal taxes.
This is what Avdata is doing to safety, they cause radio silence to occur, particularly amongst private owners and some VFR charter operators, as these groups seek to avoid the exhorbitant charges that are recommended by Avdata to Aerodrome operators. It is quite possible for these groups to rack up a bill of hundreds of dollars per day if they make radio calls.
Stealth mode is alive and well out there, thanks to Avdata.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe, I think you'll find that AsA and CASA are not the ones driving the changes. They have been directed by the Minister to give their support to the implementation.
And as for a safety case...no need for that...or so the NAS team says, because we are getting "the proven North American model".
The US airspace is a good, practical system, but there are a number of outstanding issues, like the one you raise, that just seem to be getting swept under the carpet in the rush to implementation. Will it work as well in Australia? Maybe. I'm not against the concept, but like you, I would like to know as best I can that there aren't any crocodiles in the water before I go in swimming. Unfortunately, the information is just not forthcoming out of the NAS implementation group.
And as for a safety case...no need for that...or so the NAS team says, because we are getting "the proven North American model".
The US airspace is a good, practical system, but there are a number of outstanding issues, like the one you raise, that just seem to be getting swept under the carpet in the rush to implementation. Will it work as well in Australia? Maybe. I'm not against the concept, but like you, I would like to know as best I can that there aren't any crocodiles in the water before I go in swimming. Unfortunately, the information is just not forthcoming out of the NAS implementation group.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Telecommunications Interception Act only applies to conversations made over telecommunications networks. Use of aviation frequencies by aircraft does not normally involve use of a telecommunications network.
AK
AK
like just about everything in Aviation comms nowadays??.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty
Yes that occurred to me. But AsA use a VPN (virtual private network) and as such it isn't really a telecommunications network.
I'm looking into it, would love to put an end to AV-Ripoff, I am sick to death of getting billed for landings at Cooma when I go to Bunyan, or getting a bill for both Moruya and Carnarvon on the same day for a Grumman (must be a mach 2 grumman).
AK
Yes that occurred to me. But AsA use a VPN (virtual private network) and as such it isn't really a telecommunications network.
I'm looking into it, would love to put an end to AV-Ripoff, I am sick to death of getting billed for landings at Cooma when I go to Bunyan, or getting a bill for both Moruya and Carnarvon on the same day for a Grumman (must be a mach 2 grumman).
AK
Grandpa Aerotart
Snarek if they want to implement the 'North American System' in it's entirety...and I mean everyfecking part of it...then we will all applaud...they don't!!!
They are christmas treeing the cheap/free bits and handing the Australian industry a snow job.
If they had the strength of their convictions they would be able to debate and answer questions...THEY DON'T!!!
Chuck.
They are christmas treeing the cheap/free bits and handing the Australian industry a snow job.
If they had the strength of their convictions they would be able to debate and answer questions...THEY DON'T!!!
Chuck.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't really care if they do want to pick what it is they want out of the US model.
But don't:
1) Tell us that your not doing that; and
2) Make sure that you are taking the same procedures to support the elements you're taking; half cocked ideas will go off half-cocked.
It worries me that (and yes I've seen the latest draft AIP SUP; and it sucks; we'll at least the explanation does, really Mr Smith you should be ashamed of yourself) we seem to be making it all up. A couple of people (you all know who I mean) went to the US and did some flying there, didn't follow the procedures correctly (on advice from operational staff) and formed the view that it is so simple in the US.
Get some experts from the US, controllers, RPT pilots, Charter Pilots etc. Bring them up to speed with what we do and then try to come up with an integrated package not just a chuck-it-together idea.
In the interests of achievement; rushed changes will cause no-end of bitter taste for the remainder of the project. Phase 1A (not phase 1B or TWO) is due on 20 March 2003 and they are still talking about how it will work and what the words mean.
Come on people; open up the details, let’s debate them honestly and then lets implement after thorough training, a change for the better. Not on the hope that it will reduce ATC jobs, but for the purpose of improving safety, increase flexibility and possibly improving cost bases.
I can’t believe you’ve got the date effectively in concrete yet still don’t know how much training, or the impact the changes will have, or what distribution of information is required.
You can't just focus on the costs, it only one part of it.
As for the 25 consoles mentioned earlier that they are trying to reduce in Melbourne... The movie 'The Castle' comes to mind, I’m off to buy the trading post.
Bottle of Rum
But don't:
1) Tell us that your not doing that; and
2) Make sure that you are taking the same procedures to support the elements you're taking; half cocked ideas will go off half-cocked.
It worries me that (and yes I've seen the latest draft AIP SUP; and it sucks; we'll at least the explanation does, really Mr Smith you should be ashamed of yourself) we seem to be making it all up. A couple of people (you all know who I mean) went to the US and did some flying there, didn't follow the procedures correctly (on advice from operational staff) and formed the view that it is so simple in the US.
Get some experts from the US, controllers, RPT pilots, Charter Pilots etc. Bring them up to speed with what we do and then try to come up with an integrated package not just a chuck-it-together idea.
In the interests of achievement; rushed changes will cause no-end of bitter taste for the remainder of the project. Phase 1A (not phase 1B or TWO) is due on 20 March 2003 and they are still talking about how it will work and what the words mean.
Come on people; open up the details, let’s debate them honestly and then lets implement after thorough training, a change for the better. Not on the hope that it will reduce ATC jobs, but for the purpose of improving safety, increase flexibility and possibly improving cost bases.
I can’t believe you’ve got the date effectively in concrete yet still don’t know how much training, or the impact the changes will have, or what distribution of information is required.
You can't just focus on the costs, it only one part of it.
As for the 25 consoles mentioned earlier that they are trying to reduce in Melbourne... The movie 'The Castle' comes to mind, I’m off to buy the trading post.
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guys, why don't you get yrselves a current US sectional... LA will do, figure out how to take your 210, ummm, ummm, lets see, Northrop-Hawthorne - Santa Barbara - Palmdale - Edwards - Cal.City - Reno, fr'instance, and see the future as it is now...
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Closed Part 1 due to thread length and split last posts into this new one.
I've left both stickied and twisting in the breeze, until such time as we get a response from those who are responsible.
I've left both stickied and twisting in the breeze, until such time as we get a response from those who are responsible.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
User pays
Can anyone enlighten me as to how charges are levied under the US model?
A thread in the ATC forum, started by yanks, lamenting imminent privatisation and a move to a USER PAYS SYSTEM, has me intrigued. If the US is moving to user pays, how can the US system be used as the safety case for NAS? We already have user pays here . Surely the way you pay for services will have a large effect on how you use those services?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=75143
A thread in the ATC forum, started by yanks, lamenting imminent privatisation and a move to a USER PAYS SYSTEM, has me intrigued. If the US is moving to user pays, how can the US system be used as the safety case for NAS? We already have user pays here . Surely the way you pay for services will have a large effect on how you use those services?
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...threadid=75143
