|
Snarek,
Airservices Australia whose responsibility it will become is recognised world wide as a benchmark leader in the provision of Air Services. They are a valuable export commodity for Australia. How can this statement (if it were true, which it ain't) possibly provide justification for the introduction of AUSNAS?? A nice piece of political mumbo jumbo designed to convince an unsuspecting public. Airservices couldn't give a stuff about anybody below FL200: note the much trumpeting about ADSB "all over the country!" Yahoo!! At FL300!!! Great! You mention (as I have read in the AOPA rag) that you guys are pushing for ADSB in all GA aircraft: who's going to pay, just so you can fly where you please, when you please and ****** anybody who gets in the way?? The people who contribute to AsA's coffers now, which ain't you!! So you are going to get freeby ADSB (which you'll have to fix, or do you get 20 years/10 million air miles worth of maintenance with on it as well??) paid for by the travelling public/commercial operators/taxpayers, because you've got Dick Smith on your side. Get real: the world has traffic lights now, even though some don't like them; we wear seat belts, even though some don't like them. Get on the radio and stop whinging. You guys are a joke and a hazard to the fare-paying passenger. Speaking of facts and fantasies, I noticed Dick's press release on his proposed Broome Tower: "Safety will be lifted 3 levels from G to D!!" Yahoo, except that's nonsense. It's surrounded by Class F, it's an MBZ, and it has a CAGRS. That makes Dick's claim an expensive furphy, just like most of the stuff that comes from AOPA. |
HOPE SOME POSTERS NOT PIC
Having read a number of posts on this page that are pure rhetoric unbiased by any factual content, I can see why there is trouble introducing the NAS.
Likewise the attack on AOPA. Ah well, when facts are unavailable, go the player and by demeaning him try and win the argument. Is there any chance of the debate coming back to the pros and cons of the NAS issues - supported by statistics or other forms of logic? I would hate any RPT jockeys to be carrying pax with PIC minds in confusion. We will probably fly Melb CTAF to Bris GAAP tomorrow in a GA aircraft. Radio calls at CTAF or MBZ enroute. The CTAF we are departing will today have skydiving, joyflights, GA and AUF training, powered hang glider joyflights, visitors flying in to the restaurant. Some no radio. We anticipate a safe CTAF today and a safe journey tomorrow causing problems to no-one, particularly our colleagues who fly at FLs. This is pre-NAS but continues to work well due to standards of operating. That's what it's all about and - now I think of it - its the RPT guys saving $ by short cut procedures that have caused me most concerns since I started flying in 1979. Only a few but does this imply that part of the NAS resistance is not so much "safety" per se but a desire to operate in a protected environment? What I saw on TV, including GA and RPT "sharing" airspace below 3000 metres - gee, that's something new and scary - was great spin with no fact. Why allow this thread to diminish to that level. Cheers Brian H |
Why, Brian? Because it's a rumour network. := ;)
The fact is RPT aircraft, light GA (VFR & IFR), ultralights, gliders and even fast military traffic have been mixing it to a greater or lesser degree in non-radar, non-transponder environments in many areas of Australia for years now. At times these have also been effectively non-radio environments when aircraft have been on wrong or adjacent FIA frequencies. E.G. For RPT landing at Dubbo, CURRENTLY go from "C" to "E" at FL 200 (if they get that high), from "E" to "G" at FL125, from "G" to "MBZ" at 5000' - I don't recall hearing any great uproar of gnashing of teeth at this! There are also regular scheduled services to CTAFs surrounded by G.......(*gasp*) There have been no en-route collisions in these environments that I am aware of. There have been what have been perceived as near misses in the "terminal area" avoided by visual means and, it seems, extremely rarely in the en-route environment. The only mid-airs that I recall have been in GAAP environments, one of which was an MBZ at the time and an other in parallel runway ops. There have also been a couple of cases of aircraft landing on top of another aircraft on the runway - again in GAAP/MBZ environments. So, class G and CTAFs seem to have demonstrated safe operations IN AUSTRALIA - even with the minimal calls recommended by CASA in recent years. Many of the NAS changes are similar to what goes on now in our airspace in many areas. The question remains as to what level of traffic density can this type of airspace be expanded to with comparable demonstrated levels of safety. To me this has been the major failing of NASIG - there has been no data comparing apples with apples and oranges with oranges. If the US has demonstrated enroute and terminal area safety in areas of similar (or heavier) traffic density AND radar coverage, then surely there can be little objection. Such data has not been forthcoming. Sure, anyone can understand the logic of collision risk decreasing in proportion to the cube of the distance from the aerodrome area, but this doesn't explain enough of the other variables and is almost insultingly facile to use as a sole safety case. Sure, modelling can be done, but it must be cross-checked with real world data - where do we have this? You're right, Brian, little of the NAS debate has been based on facts, and on both sides of the argument there are opinions aplenty, but so few facts to be had..... Safe flying :ok: NOtimTAMs |
RPT into CTAF
Everyone needs to take a breath and understand the facts.
There are no CTAF airports in Australia where large RPT aircraft with 100s of fellow Aussies on board mix it with unannounced GA, we do not mix 737-800 with NORAD aircraft. BASI 1991 Limitation to see and avoid: Explained why (physilogically) at closing speeds of 400kms/hr the human eye could not see small unannounced a/c in time. BASI recommendation NO RPT a/c into CTAF. CASA 2002 Risk Analysis MBZ/CTAF mathmatically modelled using traffic survey data found that the risks associated with CTAF was unacceptable at airports with traffic approaching 20,000 movements per annum. John and Martha King (nice folks) advised no airports in USA has 737 RPT landing at CTAF A/Ps The unissued report by Australian Delegates to USA for NAS investigation says no Jet RPT into CTAF infact virtually no Jet RPT in class G unless under radar and ATC. Here I do have a problem if we fund a delegation to the USA then the stakeholders in the industry should be given a copy of that report even if it is detrimental to the NAS IG position. As I said on another thread: NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF then NO CHANGE. This same dictum should apply to enroute changes aswell. I would love to see some debate on the enroute changes clearly laying out the changes advantages and risk analysis. May I suggest the "bug buster,bus driver,union w@nker" stuff be left at the door,it contributes nothing to the debate on this important aviation issue. |
quoting the 'professionals' who think that cos they are 'commercial' they own the sky
The government says that they are going to give a $5000 piece of equipment FREE!!!! to a person who can afford to buy their own plane just to make an usafe system safer (but less safe than 4/10/03)...... Basically, if it ain't free it ain't happening and then you'll be stuck with NAS without ADSB below (say) 10,000'. That would not (in my view) be a good end solution. By free I mean free to all of GA (not just VFR) that means verything from VFR 2 seaters to Twotters and beyond. So, we ain't (as is oft suggested by the more belligerent here) just looking out for number one. But then you could lobby against it I suppose, short sighted pilots' and ATC unions have stuffed up worse before, so I won't be surpirsed if that's what happens after this :( Someone somewhere in an AFAP document mentiond 'commercial airspace' (sort of C special :) ). Fine, if it is commercial, you pay for it. But like any other commercial activity on public land (or air, or water) you do not and never will get the right to make others pay as a result of your use. You are getting me (slightly) riled such that I am beginning to think it is not even in our (much maligned VFR owners) interests to have transponders in E!! (which was the original deal, but AOPA has been listening to other arguments). Geez you guys know how to make enemies!!! I personally doubt this has anything to do with QF, VB or Skimpy. In my 25 years of (obviously unprofessional :E) flying I have NEVER had a problem with high end RPT. I have however been exposed to cowboys in Bongos on Cape York doing no radio straight in approaches, Metros in regional Victoria doing straight ins in a full circuit, charter and bank runners doing down wind no radio take offs. Now these guys are the minority (I hope they are anyway) but no change to airspace is going to control this sort of irresponsible behaviour. I have found the average PPL (unconstrained as s/he is by finances) to be exemplary in nearly all cases. So why pay out on them. The answer is given in a post below, I believe the anti-NASers want to keep operating as they see fit with a disregard for procedure 'to save a buck' and I believe these cowboys think they will no longer be able to do it safely without directed traffic under NAS. Probably true, so under NAS we need rid of the cowboys!!!! I figure the best way to deal with this is to start dobbing so we clean these loverly people out of our system and that way get safer skies with NAS and hopefully a full ADSB rollout. So, I shall start with the next non-compliant opertor I see. :E The other whingers, marginal ATCers (and I know these are the minority) who are probably no good at their jobs. That has been my experience with union whingers, the loudest are often the most useless. To the genuine good controllers out there, look at the facts not the rhetoric, there is no job shortage, as GA grows under a better system there will be more jobs. ADSB will help increase safety and increased safety means more flying and thus more jobs. AK |
AK
Then why isn't ADSB linked to NAS?
ATM, the two are totally seperate issues. I agree that if the two were linked, most of the safety issues would go away. But that isn't the case. Why isn't AOPA lobbying hard to delay NAS until the oz register fit-out is complete? Damned irresponsible if you ask me. Don't tell me you believe "they'll get around to it later" theory, do you? I'd hate to think AOPA was being disengenuous. |
oh yeah :)
ferris
A letter, written by me signed by Marjorie Pagani, was sent out this week. It is not easy to 'link' these things, NASIG have resisted it and the recent bull-merde from the unions shifted the issue to a fantasy plane. If we all worked together for what would benefit all of us (unlike toxic-blats bleatings) then perhaps we would achieve something solid and positive for all of GA. AOPA is not solely the representative of the VFR PPL. In fact most of the representation I do is at the IFR charter level. We do listen to our members and have their input, interestingly the two biggest proponents of NAS in AOPA are both ex-Jumbo Captains!!! Perhaps you could get your side of the NAS argument fired up pro-ADSB. That way we'd at least have something to agree with each other on PPRuNe :) AK |
Basically, if it ain't free it ain't happening and then you'll be stuck with NAS without ADSB below (say) 10,000'. That would not (in my view) be a good end solution. ADS-B and NAS are not interdependant - the timelines are separate - NAS in a few weeks - ADS-B a few years. On A a separate line -- How does ADS-B work with overseas based aircraft? Obviously no overseas aircraft is going to have one fitted, therefore SSR still required, so where are the costs savings on Radar? |
S-T
1. We are trying to tie the timelines. help us. 2. My perspective supported by all (reasoned, not you zop-zit) argument on here suggests that NAS is only a problem in E, not C. So my next answer to one of your questions is an out of context phurphy, but here goes. 3. Only the good old US of A has decided to go its own way. Other aircraft should be compliant. Answer to that, tell em to come in they have to be compliant. (a $5K box represents less than .001% of a 747, it represents upwards of 15% of an older PA-28). 4. NAS with ADSB is a good solution, in my view, for the guys in D abnd below. But you ('they') will never manage to mandate Mode S systems below (say) 8500', so to get it for all of us we ALL need to push it. AK |
Wally2
I also don't recall any jets going into CTAFs as RPT (and I also don't recall any 737's carrying hundreds!!). ;) Logically, theres not a lot of difference between jets and the Dash's, SAAB's (and other turboprop RPT's I'm too lazy to think of) going to CTAFs. The Dash 8 & SAAB carry 30-40 and are as capable of doing the 250KTS limit (in E & G) below 10000' on descent as are the jets. Closing speeds are similar when descending through E & G. If what is being proposed to do at some locations with (say) 737's and CRJ's is unsafe in your view, surely then you would want to call a halt to the current turboprop ops, then? I'm not saying we should not have a line drawn somewhere, but where do we draw the line, and why? What is the RATIONAL reasoning behind it? Why is it OK for a Turboprop carrying 30-40 and not a jet carrying, say, 50-100? I agree with you when you say NO DATA, NO ANALYSIS, NO PROOF then NO CHANGE, though. I think many aspects of the NAS have been proven safe by usage in many areas of Australia, but not in some others - that's when we need FACTS and DATA not "logical" arguments of the "if one raincoat keeps you dry is safe then two or three will keep you drier (even when it's not raining!)" variety..... Neither the opponents nor the proponents of NAS have come up with ANY comparative data on which to base their stances - you can theorise all you like, but if something is well demonstrated by experience/practice, you may as well take the empirical route. If you don't have the data and don't have established criteria from which you are arguing , then it's all so much waffle. SNAREK I'd love ADSB too, but I'm sure that the NAS guys don't want this linked to what is likely to be an even more lengthy process! If we can share the roads, surely we can share the airspace..... ****suT Good point re: foreign craft - wouldn't the bigger boys have Mode S available, though? Safe flying:ok: NOtimTAMs |
Snarek,
I agree that ADS-B is a great bit of kit. Especially from a cockpit aspect of increased situational awareness and traffic alerting capability. I also believe the attraction to AirServices corporate side (read government) is purley on financial grounds in two aspects - 1. potential reduction in SSR commissioning / maintenance, 2. onselling of technology rights overseas especially to emerging nations ATM systems. Franky I think that is where it ends for them - who pays for the installation will be another great argument that will end up in political circles, just like the argument over whi pays for the waiving Enroute airways charges for RPT ACFT <15K Tonne MTOW. Your suggestion of just telling them to be compliant smacks of the kind of dictatorial stance that I thought AOPA were opposed to? And does it make economic sense? It is all very well to say it is just a $5000 bit of kit but the logistics of your suggestion go way beyond that when you sit down and look at it - let me say ADS-B is not my forte, but I can see readiuly that their will be company issues stretching well beyond the solution of whacking it in lighting the fires and blasting off. Radar will be here for quite a while yet, and we havent even mentioned primary radar and the 'saves' it makes each day. With respect to helping you tie the timelines how do you really expect a simple controller to make ADS-B happen now!? The technology and deployment rollout is still evolving isn't it? NAS does not depend on ADS-B. All the arguments that have been made on this forum by the supporters of NAS have not been dependant upon the accelerated deployment of a new technology have they? The issues that make NAS reduce our overall level of safety and efficiency have nothing to do with ADS-B. I support ADS-B in it's own right - but not as a crutch to hold up a flawed airspace reform. |
S-T
I didn't make the $5K argument, someone else did (see below). ADSB is stand alone, yes. But if we are to listen to the Anti-NAS arguments presented here, it is the answer to most of them. I personally don't think ADSB is critical for NAS and I personally do think NAS will work. I was trying to find a compromise position between those that think NAS will create dangers for regionals in D and E. ADSB is that compromise. An Australian company has designed a Mode-S box with GPS and CDTI. Bought in big enough numbers it could be FITTED for less than $5K per GA aircraft. US and European aircraft may not comply with the Mode-S standard, but it isn't in any AOPA members interest to drag our safety levels down just because they can't comly. Where the big bucks of open skies is at stake I doubt the likes of BA or Virgin are going to scare off at the cost of a Mode - S. Besides, like i said, they only operate as low as C anyway, NAS isn't an issue there and any attempt to make it so is dishonest. AK |
Snarek - you say:
Where the big bucks of open skies is at stake I doubt the likes of BA or Virgin are going to scare off at the cost of a Mode - S. Besides, like i said, they only operate as low as C anyway, NAS isn't an issue there and any attempt to make it so is dishonest That is one of the issues with NAS as I see it - e.g. on desc into say CG from the south thru Class E airspace aircraft are currently positively separated from PJE ACFT and canopies at Ballina. Under NAS that aircraft won't even have to be broadcasting or on a discrete code (.i.e. identified) to the controller descending the 767. |
S-T
How is that different to what we have now?? (genuine question, not being a heavy metal driver). If there is a difference then it seems RPT (big) need us in GA to have ADSB as well, perhaps they'd like to help our lobbying of Govt :) But if they think we are going to pay because they want to fly in E, then I fear a political poo fight about to start. E belongs Everone. Don't like it, stay in A!!! Ay??? :E Blastoid, I will reply to you here. yes, there are 2 units, one with one without CDTI. CDTI isn't necessary, but helps situational awareness and means two pilots are looking at traffic. Helps safety I suppose. But I will continue to suggest that AirServices will pay for Mode-S installs because they have told me that is an option on their agenda. Now given that isn't it in all our interests to be pushing for it. I disagree with you over the cost of CDTI. As long as we can keep CASA and the 'TSO looneys' out of the loop (don't get me going on TSO!!!), the units will be cheap. I would suggest that the ability to have all aircraft aware of all others presents such a significant safety case we should all be supporting that as well. AK |
ADS-B and NAS
ADS-B seems to keep coming up in this thread as the solution to all the pitfalls that seem to loom under NAS.
The biggest mistake that everyone is making the assumption that the government is going to pay $5k (or thereabouts - don't know who touted the figure) for a CDTI and Mode-S transponder in the cockpit. Somehow, I don't think so. There are 2 types of ADS-B "kit" - the "ADS-B out" type which is fitted with the Mode-S transponder but does not give the traffic picture to the pilot in the cockpit (read: it is just another transponder), and the "ADS-B in/out" which has the above feature but also has the CDTI for enhanced cockpit situational awareness. They are much more expensive than the first type. The government is pressing NAS and the beauty of see and avoid - anyone must be kidding themselves if they think their little single-engined 152 will be fitted with CDTI equipment. ADS-B will allow controllers to see aircraft and provide traffic information (to those receiving the service), and give the RPTs (and anyone else who can afford the CDTI kit) the enhanced situational awareness in Class E/G/CTAF airspace. Keep lookin'! (and don't forget to keep your lights on just to help out) :ok: |
Snarek,
I think you better have a look at what changes are being proposed a little closer - how you can support this without having a grasp on the airspace changes is beyond me. But if they think we are going to pay because they want to fly in E, then I fear a political poo fight about to start. E belongs Everone. Don't like it, stay in A!!! Ay??? |
S-T
Sorry, I make this mistake often. I got me little NAS book in front of me. At the moment I am talking 2b (which is what the CivilAir / AFAP kerfuffle was about recently). I see in the final stages lots of E and in that context understand where you are coming from. But I'll say it again (and again) ADSB. I will also add, AOPA has only given 'reserved' support for whole-NAS and only full support at this stage for 2b. So when we are talking whole-NAS we will still listen/read intently any reasoned arguments presented here that do not prejudice any of our members. e will not however listen to or change our position based on arguments which suggest 'commercial' operators in some way 'own' airspace. AK |
snarek, are you the new AOPA President?
Hi Snarek, Is it possible to have the AOPA President & Vice President post on here so we can see their comments, plus see their commitment to Australian Aviation?
It would be nice to see input from the other AOPA board members and their views too. |
Does anyone else see where this is going?
I used to think that free maps, free VFR flight-following etc were all really good, too. There has been, how shall I put it, a slight change in philosophy since those days. So if you think the govt. is going to kit out private aircraft with expensive gadgets, you've got another thing coming. They may legislate to make them mandatory, but that will be the end of their 'assistance'.
Now, regards NAS, I am not sure what game AK and AOPA are playing. You seem to be advocating the introduction of a system of airspace you admit is, at the least, less safe than what exists now. In the next breath it's "it'll all be OK with ADSB, but the govt. has to pay". If you have been told that by supporting NAS, somebody somewhere will scratch your backs down the road, you have been sold a pup. If this is an intentional strategy (support NAS part-way, then demand govt funded ADSB), well the less said the better. What happens in the time gap between the intro of NAS and this ADSB utopia? What happens when the RPT pilots refuse to fly without DTI? What happens when their companies ( and their insurers ) can it? What happens when Dick becomes the minister's scapegoat? How upset will he be? How long before the deckchairs get shuffled at the Alan Woods Titanic? Groundhog day. |
AK, I really don't think you have a schmick what you are talking about. You quoted above that ...(words to the effect) you don't like it, stay in A class...
Your obviously limited knowledge of Aviation and the NAS proposal is exposed here. An aircraft on descent into sydney on the stars from the north has them (jets) hitting Fl110 or so at 45 miles north. From 45 miles north it is E airspace and then into B. How I ask do you stay in A? You prove time and time again that you are just an amatuer like your mate Dick Branson- Smith (I am sure he will change his name to something similar sometime soon to get some mileage from others hard work) it will get up. Please for the sake of Aviation in this country, sit down and stfu. I have read through all of your above 'rebuttal' and what it lacks in substance is far outweighed by lack of understanding. You state that NAS 2b is all A OK and that AOPA support it (I add that support of AOPA is akin to the Trouser Point Thirds Ladies Rugby support of the World Cup). Would you support an increment in an incremental approach to a scheme that made it illegal to fly VFR, ie an end state that was somewhat rediculous? Homey Don't Think So. P.S. You edited your response on the last page why? Pretty sad display editing comments based on future posts. Nice back flipping. But then again back flipping is just a friend of back scratching........ /me goes to check the declared donations. :zzz: edit = spelling and not tune changing... |
C182 Drover
snarek is doing just fine thank you. :p And how, pray tell, are we to demonstrate our commitment to aviation to your satisfaction?:confused: ferris and plazbot Eeerm we are not into playing games and we are certainly not country boys. Neither are we into slagging off other professionals or making loud noises to frighten the horses and scare little children and old ladies half to death. May I confuse the issue with some facts to add to the fantasies peddled around here. NAS 2b implementation as I understand it from them. The Changes. Class A The new National Airspace system will result in MORE Class A airspace, recognizing a need to build capacity to handle increased high altitude traffic while maintaining high levels of safety The Base of Class A will move down from FL285 to FL180 in radar coverage and down from FL285 to FL245 outside radar coverage. The upper limit of Class A will rise to FL 600 ( to catch the Citation X :) ) within the existing lateral boundaries of Class A in the Australian FIR. Between ML-LT-HB Class A airspace will be established above FL180. Existing Class G airspace south of 45 degrees latitude will remain. Class B No Class B will be introduced at this stage of the reform process. Class B is used in airports with very high traffic levels like LAX. The reform process is examining whether some Class C airports could be reclassified Class B in the future. Class C Enroute Class C will generally change to enroute Class E, providing separation services for IFR flights, but allowing improved access for VFR flights, which must carry a transponder in Class E. Oceanic Class C will be replaced by Class A. Between ML-LT-HB Class E will replace the enroute Class C between FL 145 and FL180. Class C airspace below FL145 between ML-LT-HB will be replaced by Class G airspace. In radar environments, Class E airspace will replace the existing Class C steps between 40-90nm above 8500ft with an upper limit of FL180. Class C airspace outside a 90 nm radius of Perth, Alice Springs, Adelaide and Darwin will be replaced by Class A airspace above FL245 and by enroute Class E between FL180 and FL245. Class E steps will replace existing Class C steps above Class D Towers airspace. Class D Existing Class D control, area dimensions will generally remain unchanged. Class C steps above Class D airspace will be replaced by Class E airspace. Class E Over 400,000 additional square kilometers of Class E will replace Class G providing separation services for IFR flights where none existed before. Enroute Class C airspace below FL200 along the eastern seaboard of the “J curve” will be replaced by Class E above 8500ft with an upper limit of FL180. Class E will be established outside the existing enroute radar Class C lateral boundaries within continental Australia above FL180 with an upper limit of FL245. The exception will be between ML-LT-HB where Class E will be established above FL145 with a limit of FL180 within the existing Class C lateral boundaries. Class E airspace in radar environments will replace existing Class C steps between 40-90nm above 8,500ft with an upper limit of FL180. Class C airspace outside a 90 nm radius of Perth, Alice Springs, Adelaide and Darwin will be replaced by Class A airspace above FL245 and by enroute Class E between FL180 and FL245. Existing Class E corridors will be removed. Class F Class F airspace is not used in the United Sates, so Class F will not be introduced. Class G Large areas of Class G airspace will be replaced by Class E airspace .Directed traffic information will remain in Class G. Between ML-LT-HB Class G will replace existing Class C airspace within the existing Class C lateral boundaries between FL125 and FL145. Class G corridors will replace Class E corridors below FL180. If I have missed something or screwed it up I'm sure someone will correct me, but it looks pretty fine to me. |
ferris
I never said it was less safe, I don't believe that. The Govt will never get 'mandated' ADSB without subsidies. There will be a political backlash led by AOPA, (because that is what we are there for) and I have no doubt involving AirSafety Australia, as we at least are on the same side. 20,000 private pilots, GA pilots and owners faxing the Minister. Like fixed ELTs, it just won't happen. So I think it best everyone push for a funded ADSB fit, otherwise your (not my) problems with NAS will go unsolved. I personally could care less if RPT are 'comfortable' descending from A through E to C. I like the freedom it gives me and the pilots I represent and I don't believe for one minute the CivilAir case is anything more than a reaction to less C and thus a panic at possibly fewer jobs. AK |
snarek
You really dont see the problem do you poor boy!! ADSB is years away from implementation NAS 2b is imminent and is flawed Another point perhaps lost on you. At any given time, of the people travelling in aircraft in this country by far the greatest number of people would be mums, dads and Joe public travelling on RPT services not VFR GA operations. They dont understand anything about NAS but when its explained to them they feel their safety when flying will be compromised just so a few rich kids can have their jollies |
Oh I see the problem allright.
A few incompetent ATC think their jobs will be on the line (makes sense, less airspace so can the union whingers) and a few regional jocks think they will actually have to fly a proper pattern. Solution, tell all the mums and dads that their kids will be killed in a jumbo as it hits a PA28 on short finals to KSI. Other than that obvious scaremongering, I see no problem at all with NAS 2B and am beginning to think the whole thing is just fine and dandy too. Lucky there are a few in your midst prepred to tackle the issues not the people otherwise everyone would stop litening to your side of the argument. AK |
Gaunty:
You said: Enroute Class C will generally change to enroute Class E, providing separation services for IFR flights, but allowing improved access for VFR flights, which must carry a transponder in Class E. Snarek: A few incompetent ATC think their jobs will be on the line (makes sense, less airspace so can the union whingers) and a few regional jocks think they will actually have to fly a proper pattern. You would be better providing evidence that you have a grasp of all the issues and effects rather than playing the man. |
The way I see this is, NAS is good for VFR aircraft, makes airspace easier to use and that must equate to safety. The system works in the US and the differences are not that great.
A few regional pilots and the ATC union don't like it. Makes the regional pilots jobs a little harder (well, means they will need to adapt to a little change) and means possibly less 'C' controllers so CivilAir scream the sky is falling. What emotive rubbish! If NAS saves the industry money it is a good thing. If NAS even starts Australia down the road to a healthier GA it is a great thing. RPT have it all their own way in Aust, they have got used to it and believe it is their right. Well it isn't. Airspace is a national asset, it isn't just there for RPT. Priority is just one way RPT have convinced government they are somehow 'special'. I'd like to see this concept dissapear with NAS!!! AOPA is representing its members so one or two ATC get abusive. Then they have the gall to suggest someone else is playing the man. What a joke. Well guys, grow up a tad. Your union (dishonestly I think) represented your position. To expect AOPA to do other than represent its members is niave. For those that think AOPA can't influence NAS, you obviously have missed much radio, TV and newspapers lately. I have seen three different AOPA people doing a d@mn good job dispelling the CivilAir rubbish we saw last week. For those of you who think AOPA can't influence Government, ask CASA what Part 47 is (was!!!!). The pilot / political staffer who had that disallowed in the Senate is now on the AOPA Committee :) So I'd suggest that those of you who are prepared to put up a rational argument make contact with the AOPA people who post here and put your case. Chuck |
ULM: Diatribe.
There are NO ATC Jobs at stake! CivilAir are not challenging this on IR grounds! Has it not been spelled out enough for you to comprehend? YOU are hijacking the debate into something it is not! This nonsense will CREATE more ATC jobs. And it WILL NOT save money. The objections are on professional and safety grounds full stop. I have seen no answers here to my questions on hwy this is better for AOPA members and the like. I have seen no answers to the safety issues I raised on heavy metal climbing and descendiong through E airspace - and it nothing to do with them being 'commercial operators' - it is the sheer size and speed of the aircraft. Please grind your axe elsewhere and stick to the facts - not your fantasies. |
S-T
You seem to be getting a little paranoid, I don't see anywhere in the post below where it says "ATC jobs will be lost" it says 'Less C controllers' I agree, with more 'E' and eventually ADSB there will be more ATC jobs. Hopefully Toxblat isn't one of them!!! :E So how about you calm a bit. :D You state 'it will not save money' that is an opinion, not a fact. Again, another axe to grind, but a valid opinion nonetheless. It only become fact however, when you prove it. :rolleyes: I understand your 'sheer size and speed' argument, go look at your PM Box. :cool: The rest of ULM's post is fact. AOPA is doing well representing our members' interests. We have been on TV, radio and in print saying the CivilAir press release was emotional waffle, because that is what we believe it to be. We will do what we believe is best for our members and we will counter when the safety argument is recklessly abused. :ok: Now 2b is in. Forget it. Now, you want to talk 'final-NAS' or just stomp around in a huff??? :{ AK |
Dear oh dear oh dear.
When it all gets a bit hard, play the incompetent ATC card. Snarek, just where the hell do you get off with such utter bollix?? Ulm, I have come to expect this kind of thing from you, so I shall not bother responding to your post. I had actually thought that you had gone off to uni (having finished school) and were too busy to post such rubbish. Just where is your proof of this allegation? Do you have actual facts? Or is this the ranting of someone that can’t win an argument with professionals? The RPT pilots have been making a bit of noise too, does that make them incompetent also? Could it possibly be that the ATC and RPT pilots of the country actually have a grasp of the significance of all the changes and you are only aware of what affects you? Hmmm? Several of you AOPA guys have said that you don’t care how hard it is for the RPT/ATC folk to do their jobs…I put it to you that we actually care whether the traveling public is put at risk, whereas you and your aero club mates do not. From the ATC perspective, if I stuff up you die…if you stuff up you die…so, we try to lessen the amounts of stuff ups. I thought the issue had also been put to bed, that this alphabet airspace would mean more ATC jobs. Doesn’t that small fact mean anything to you….or are you still in denial? Personally I work with A C and F class airspace, anything else is too bl**dy hard to remember who gets what and why. Now I’m tired of all this NAS stuff so….. Hey all, question without notice, does anyone remember Dick Smith being bitten by a funnel web spider or something similar back in the mid 80’s? Apparently his wife got on the HF (they were having a picnic somewhere) and raised the alarm. If this story is true and not some urban myth, he would have been saved by the crowd that he then got rid of, the Flight Service Officers…ahh those were the days. Did anyone actually do a comparison of costs involved in flying in the old days as to today? Just wondering. |
duck
The incompetent ATCs seem to be identifyable by the tone of their posts. I certainly do not put all ATC in that barrell and am interested in the opinions of those that can give it without the rhetoric or emotional drivell I associate with CivilAir. Several of you AOPA guys have said that you don’t care how hard it is for the RPT/ATC folk to do their jobs…I put it to you that we actually care whether the traveling public is put at risk, whereas you and your aero club mates do not. 1. Support for 2B 2. Reserved support for all of NAS. Because AOPA represents GA industry as well as the PPL. We continue to work towards our final position based on opinions from members and from valid comments made by people like ****zu-Tonka, Chief-Galah, triadic, ferris etc etc. That is why we are here on PPRuNe. I am well used to this forum and the attacks one cops when daring to not accept all the force fed wisdom delivered. Plazbot jumps to mind. However ignoring his abusive waffle, posts from those I have listed above do give us all food for thought and we do go away and consider them. So how about you become one of the former rather than joining the latter and help us understand why you feel the way you do, what can/should be done to allay your fears and how this solution will not disadvantage our members?? AK |
Lets keep this on thread please
W |
ah now i know.
Well well well axiom, couldn't resist hey :)
Y'know, I have worked out who you are, met you under many guises in the past. But rather than outing you on here (you are soooo sensitive about that as you do it to others) we should just use yer first name. Jack. :E Oh, and if you don't like the elected Board members representing you, quit, or get creatively involved for a change. AK |
Hi all
I will summarise this thread. - NAS 2b is less safe than what we have now. - Affirmed - The flying jacket Crowd think they matter - Dispelled Love An incompetent ATC. |
Hang on a minute....
Axiom, why am I listed there - I have never made any posts supporting NAS or snarek, ulm et al. In fact the only post I have made regarding NAS was a bit anti with regards to high speed traffic in CTAFs
In fact snarek I have to say the tone of your posts stand out above the others on this thread as overly abrasive and abusive. "incompetent ATCs" - how would you know whether they are incompetent or not? :confused: If you want to refute the safety claims made by ATC orgs and Pilots it would be wise to play the ball - not the man(or woman). You don't seem to be providing any answers to the questions posed by other posters. ps I have to say I do not think AOPA represents GA industry in any meaningful way! Its focus is and has always been representing recreational aviation (in all its differnet forms) |
Well done, Great Woomera, Great aviation "Oricle". Stifle my post which was relevant and let snarek loose.
May one remind you that Pprune stands for, PROFESSIONAL PILOTS rumour network, and not "AMATEUR" private pilot's rumour network, which YOU removed from the GA section and placed on the "reporting points" forum. (more for the professionals methinks). Perhaps something that may liven the debate, a telephone call this day to Martin Ferguson's office stated that "NAS is not a done deal" and needs some more rational debate. The word is "rational" and does not impinge on my having made a statement to the effect that snarek and the AOPA Board do not represent ME with their irrational and villifying diatribe let alone 20,000 other PPL's storming Parliament house with what they claim is representative of AOPA. Axiom is a supporter of NAS and ADSB but the way this thread is heading (for a Union confrontation) is not in the interests nor the "terms of reference" of AOPA. I again remind you of the FACT that it was Chris McKeown that was instrumental in getting AOPA, NAS and ADSB on the same page and not the present loud incumbants, for whatever that is worth to your debate. Seeing as how I can't get your mob to respond, perhaps Bill Hamilton (who was doing a fair enough job and is still, I believe on the Board), could respond? Or has he been sent to Coventry. axiom you just dont get it. a previous warning from Woomera; Axiom et al Use of the word "AOPA" in a post is not reason to close or moderate a thread. I have no association with AOPA, but am getting tired of attempts to subvert PPRuNe into an "unofficial AOPA web site for the disenchanted" and the time taken to read (and moderate) uninteristing, repetitious ramblings, which rightfully belong within the AOPA organisation. Or anywhere, except PPRuNe! I give you fair warning: AOPA topics of general aviation interest are welcome on PPRuNe. However should the thread degenerate into repetitious, rambling, slanderous direct or indirect attacks on anyone (AOPA Director, Member or any other person), the threads will be removed and posters banned - without fear or favour! If you don't like the Rules to play with Danny's toys, go get your own toys. Woomera You're banned until further notice |
In this debate the use of the phrase "radar coverage or similar" is often used. It may be useful to remember that radar may be primary or secondary or both. In the US there is a lot more primary available, perhaps the US system is different?
|
Radar Coverage
Not being in the ASA loop anymore (thank god!) I was wondering what is considered airspace in Radar Coverage and whats in Non-radar Coverage. My humble opinion is Jets mixing it with Bugsmashers flying VFR in non/marginal radar E airspace is a scary propostion and as such believe, marginal radar coverage areas with the chance of high performance aircaraft ops should be C airpace where everyone needs a clearance. Really, VFR ease of access to airspace has to be secondary to the chance that a high performance aircraft (prop or jet) will gain access through the VFR fellas windscreen.
Notice guys no abuse of anyone else on here, just putting my concern with the system out there, and seeing whether anyone agrees or disagrees. Oh and 4 greens, you are right, the US is different, it has alot more primary and secondary radar coverage, and that is my problem with NAS. E airspace is sort of ok within radar coverage cos you can utilise a major component of its design, that is passing radar observed traffic to the IFR's on those VFR's you don't know about. Outside radar coverage what can you do for the IFR guys, 3/8ths of f**k all. |
Yeah ANSA and with the end state, there will be E down to 2000 feet and below in parts where the IFR gets separated all the way down to the Circling Minimas. This is where IFR pickup is required. The Americans have the coverage, we do not. 2b is the tip of the iceberg.
|
Well, and this is a genuine question.
Riddle me this. In Class E, if the 'big uns' have or are required to have TCAS and it is mandatory for everyone to have a transponder and turned on, then how can not the "big kids" [b]"see"]/b] the bugsmasher, even before they cross that dreaded divide.?? AND if its VFR traffic it must be VMC, SVFR not permitted ? VMC, to me anyway, means visual. So here we are on a gin clear Sunday morning enroute LAX O'Hare in a United DC10 in cruise overtaking preceding company traffic at the same level, permision requested and granted routinely for a visual passing. "Oh and report past" How hard is that. |
And while I'm at it with banning and stuff, I moved this thread to Reporting Points and merged it with another to keep this most interesting exchange together and in the hope that there would be a professional exchange between professionals.:rolleyes:
The level of exchange so far, suggests it might be be better off in Wannabes, so gentlemen, why dont we cut out this sniping and get down to it. Stay on thread or it gets closed. :ok: |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:40. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.