|
NAS - US air controllers join dispute over airspace
http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/na...sep2003-24.htm
The world's largest organisation representing air traffic controllers has intervened in the dispute over Australia's proposed airspace system, labelling it "high risk". The National Air Traffic Controllers Association in the US, which represents 15,000 members, says it is annoyed and disappointed at being used as a "selling tool" to justify changes in the Australian system. The association says it wants to make it clear to the Australian Government that the proposed system does not parallel the US model. Under the proposed Australian Model light aircraft would be able to use commercial airspace without notifying air traffic control. Vice president of the US controllers, Ruth Marlin, says they are concerned it will reduce air safety. "The plan to change airspace from class 'C' to class 'E' is a degradation of the system," Ms Marlin said. "What we are all working for ... world-wide is to improve the airspace, to build it up, not to eliminate safety systems that we've put in place and that are well tried and tested." In Australia, the air traffic controllers union, Civil Air, has welcomed the call by their counterparts in the US for the Australian Government to scrap the proposed National Airspace System. Civil Air's president, Ted Lang, says he is meeting commercial pilots in Sydney today to discuss the next moves in their campaign. "From the pilots and the controllers view point we feel that this is just reducing travel in Australia to a hit and miss affair," Mr Lang said. "We've got the safest aviation airways in the world why do we need to mess with it?" |
LATER THAT DAY...................
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s953597.htm
Air traffic control defends new system Air Services Australia has rejected criticisms of the new National Airspace System by the 15,000 strong air traffic controllers union in the United States. The US air controllers say the new system appears "high risk" because it will allow light planes to fly unannounced into the flight paths of commercial traffic. Their union also says it is wrong to use the US model as a justification for the Australian system, because they will not operate with the same radar coverage. Air Services Australia's chief executive Bernie Smith says the US model has a good safety record, despite high traffic density and worse weather, and is a legitimate model for Australia. Mr Smith has denied safety will be compromised, saying the Australian system is subject to rigorous assessment of its suitability for Australian conditions. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/s953597.htm Air traffic control defends new system Air Services Australia has rejected criticisms of the new National Airspace System by the 15,000 strong air traffic controllers union in the United States. The US air controllers say the new system appears "high risk" because it will allow light planes to fly unannounced into the flight paths of commercial traffic. Their union also says it is wrong to use the US model as a justification for the Australian system, because they will not operate with the same radar coverage. Air Services Australia's chief executi |
Jet-A (Jedi? )
you cut yourself off there - the full is Air Services Australia has rejected criticisms of the new National Airspace System by the 15,000 strong air traffic controllers union in the United States. The US air controllers say the new system appears "high risk" because it will allow light planes to fly unannounced into the flight paths of commercial traffic. Their union also says it is wrong to use the US model as a justification for the Australian system, because they will not operate with the same radar coverage. Air Services Australia's chief executive Bernie Smith says the US model has a good safety record, despite high traffic density and worse weather, and is a legitimate model for Australia. Mr Smith has denied safety will be compromised, saying the Australian system is subject to rigorous assessment of its suitability for Australian conditions. |
So lets gets this straight. John and martha said it was different, The Americans who were consulted (apparently) in the first place ie the ATCs say it is different but Bernie is still trumpeting the 'It is the same so it is Safe!' argument. You just don't get it do you Bernie.:mad:
|
bleh
Ooooh look.
More union motivated expensive job creation hype. the sky is falling! the sky is falling! AK |
snerak
You have a surprisingly poor grasp of the issues.
CG |
While full of cheap red wine tonight I opined the following:
Immediately prior to me becoming involved in aviation 20 years ago VFR got the option of not being involved in the system OCTA. There were cries of "people are goina die!" Nobody did. Then traffic was no longer passed on VFR OCTA, around 1991, and there were cries of "people are goina die!" Nobody has. E airspace arrived about 8 years ago, and there were cries of "people are goina die!" Nobody has. Now general E airspace, and the non-participation of VFR in controlled airspace, are a-comin' and people (that I respect) are saying "people are goina die!" I don't think I'll sell my Coles-Myer and get into Consolidated Tombstone just yet.:\ |
karrank,
I take your point; but were the Hazards identified and then correctly mitigated? This process has avoided identifying hazards unless there is a difference in the detail of each procedure. The problem with NAS so far, is that most of the 'same procedures' are introduced into a different environment, (which is a difference) then they're not assessed because they are the same; each change should be assessed and mitigated correctly. Bottle of Rum |
Oh??
Chief gallah
And I suppose that for you consider my grasp of the issues 'adequate' I must go back and pay homage to any union initiated drivell. Pleaseeee!!!! Gimme a break. I don't see a problem. I see the beginning of a lot of solutions to over-regulated expensive airspace and confusing ever changing rules. I think we need that. Show me a problem not tarnished with IFR 'dominance' and union interference and I'll listen. But here (and everwhere else) I see only the poorly presented bleating of about 10 individuals. Consultation me old mate is about meeting on common ground, not moving to yours!!! AK |
GO THE NAS
And we also had to have MBZ for safety. What a joke. What has self-announcement at 15 Nm achieved for safety?
I like the Kings comment that the safety problem diminishes with the square of the distance from the aerodrome. Couldn't agree more. The CTAF rules have moved to next year as the NAS is white anted. Here we go again. Actually, to save time this time around, how about everyone starts submitting the near miss reports even before the next NAS stage starts - it won't make them any more factual but it will allow a little more time for the creative writing process and save the ATSB from a workload peak - oh, Class E here we go again. We should never have taken VFR off 2 minute reporting, nor removed the man with the red flag from in front of the horseless carriage - please don't anyone mention that fearful word "change". karrank, More red wine. Yours rates as the most commonsense posting this month! cheers Brian H |
MON NIGHT TV NEWS
I take back everything I said, well, almost.
Tonight's TV News has me staggered at the new risks airline passengers are going to experience under the NAS. Light aircraft will be sharing the same space below 3000 metres and may not use their radios. Shudder, horror, fear. Almost sounds like we are going to get some Class G in Oz - hey, hang on, I heard a rumour we may have some already. Or perhaps the odd CTAF with Saab 340's and non-radio aircraft - hey, must drop into Latrobe Valley one day and watch the planes crashing. Fantastic work by the flat earth society. I'm impressed. Brian H |
Brian
AOPA has written to the Minister outlining our reserved support for NAS. That should go some way to aleviating the ignorance spread by the 'flat earth society'. While there are some legitimate concerns re NAS, most of what we see on these pages appears to me at least to be little more than job protection/creation from CivilAir and turf war from AFAP. It will not win the day. "Pilots" (as claimed on TV) are NOT concerned at NAS. Rather a small group of arrogant 'bus drivers' are pretending to represent all pilots in order they don't have to meet change. That, in my view, sums it up. The AOPA board is in general agreement that we support NAS with some reservations. Individually opinion is mixed from full support to cynicism. That is fair and healthy. The people who present reasoned argument will be listened to, we will suggest that those responsible for scaremongering should be ignored. My opinion is that NAS and ADSB are intertwined and that the two, together, will be a great leap forward in airspace and safety. I also think ADSB will mean MORE jobs for CivilAir (because more money will be available and more info will be presentable and a far greater degree of safety for RPT in CTAFs. We will be coutering last night's nonesense. Andrew Kerans |
"The AOPA board is in general agreement"
That must be pleasant change for all concerned. Prospector |
Maybe AOPA should be hitting the airwaves and newspapers showing that we agree with the NAS system otherwise it looks like the airline pilots are speaking on our behalf, because we have no voice.
AOPA is the voice of GA pilots and operators here in Australia and we should be on the front foot with issues like this, so let’s hear it on the news and media. :ok: |
It ain't perfect and I doubt it ever will be. But I am enjoying myself and for the first time in 3 years on the Board I am actually feeling like we are really achieving stuff.
The Board all work well together and the depth and bredth of experience is invaluable. There are a few whingers left out there, but they have their own forum, so on this one we can get on with the debate :) Drover, a letter has already gone to the Minister and a press release has been sent out. We are on it!! :ok: AK |
NAS - US air controllers join dispute over airspace My bet is that they are searching the world for allies and think they’ve found one in Civil Air. |
UNITED WE STAND
I'm right behind Andrew K on this.
Keep up the good work Andrew. Brian H You will get the message eventually W |
Media Release 30 September 2003
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association of Australia PO Box 26 Georges Hall, NSW, 2198 Phone: (02) 9791 9099 Fax: (02) 9791 9355 National Airspace System AOPA Australia, who currently represents over 4000 pilots and aircraft owners, would like to respond to the comments made by Civil Air yesterday. Whilst we have high regard for the professionalism and skills of the Air Traffic Control members of Civil Air and the airline pilots, we are concerned that these bodies appear to be engaging in an unnecessary scare campaign on the traveling public over the implementation of the National Airspace System. There are some isolated issues in the change from “C” Class to “E” Class Airspace that have already been identified by the regulatory authorities, but we are confident they will be properly dealt with, as have been many other issues, in the normal course of implementation. AOPA, as Australia’s largest pilot representative body, supports the implementation of the NAS is closely monitoring the implementation and is confident that the safety case analysis applied by BOTH Airservices and CASA before its implementation will ensure that the systems are safe, simple to use and based on world’s best practice. AOPA is working closely with and supports NASIG in the preparation of educational material and the process, crucial to its success. 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. AOPA’s President, Marjorie Pagani, is available for a response on the comments made yesterday and she would like to express her support for the NAS. Marjorie is available on 0407 267 203 between 1:15 pm & 2:15pm and after 5:00 pm today. OR Vice President Ron Lawford on 0407 267 209 all day OR Vice President Gary Gaunt on 0407 267 200 all day |
Snarek
Your words The people who present reasoned argument will be listened to, we will suggest that those responsible for scaremongering should be ignored. Then you sink to mud slinging. Your words "Pilots" (as claimed on TV) are NOT concerned at NAS. Rather a small group of arrogant 'bus drivers' are pretending to represent all pilots in order they don't have to meet change. That does not present itself as reasoned argument, rather biased comment. If you want to represent people and get your case up (you even admit your organisation has some reservations and offer 'reserved' support for NAS, does this make you an arrogant bus driver?), mud slinging will only serve to give the organisation that you represent a reputation that will be unhelpful. |
Point taken
Me over reacting to
A great post from another dumb VFR bugsmasher pilot who has no grasp of the big picture. What it does do though is stop me listening to them, and I one of the ones pushing the Government with the weight of a bigger organisation that their's behind me. So it ain't smart politics on their part. Mind you, could be a NAS supporter in drag trying to achieve just that, ain't you is it Open Mike??? ;) AK |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 00:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.