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:

Precisely my point. On desc thru Class E until 9000 or 30NM to Arr AD at 320 KIAS 'see and avoid' with unknown traffic on another frequency - who hopefully remembered to turn the TXPDR on. Why has it been left to the professional bodies to bring this to media attention? You are going to tell me this is NOT a degradation in the hazard ID of the airspace? seriously? Arent airlines talking to their insurance companies?

Snarek:



I thought maybe you had got over this. You will not get support that way. It has been clearly shown that this will increase the required ATC numbers (re-read all the threads).

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.

Who??? This is pure rubbish. I have never heard any current AOPA Board member say anything like this!!! You may be interested to know that while AOPA policy is

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: