NAS - US air controllers join dispute over airspace
 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/justin/na...sep2003-24.htm

comments?

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

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

The only issue that the US controllers are interested in is the imminent ATC privatisation in the USA.

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

and other such drivel from q1w2e3 on reporting points.

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

SNAREK

One guess where the Flat Earth Society Headquarters is?......

The Alan Woods Building, Canberra.


Keep up the good work Andrew.

TBT

I've got the message, just had a number of key players including an aviation mag editor wanting to understand its meaning B

Snarek , once again I find myself in agreement with you, my goodness, what is happening to me.

Keep up the good work. :ok:

Bart

snarek for next AOPA President
 

Keep up the good work there................... :ok:

No way!!!

I ain't smart enuf.

Besides, we got a bl@@dy good team now.

AK

SM4 Pirate
 

Well I think you did say in the posts re-Dick Smith that you have had some input to NAS if you were at the workshop? then you know what you are saying is not entirely true. Every step of the implementation was looked at by a wide range of representatives and Hazards were identified and in some cases mitigated correctly to ALARP ie the risk was as low as reasonably possible.
where this was not the case implementation has been delayed for example the new CTAF procedures and the removal of MBZ,s
Personally I feel the process is being handled very well particularly when Dick is not present.

The last workshop was a workshop to examine all the parts that were non compliant with the US system which would make your comments correct but not the first 4 days of part 2b. I kind of think we probably are on the same side here I support NAS 100% but will continue to examine the fine details of each stage raise appropriate hazard concerns and help if possible mitigate them. I do accept some industry concerns but believe they are in most cases not valid and more a case of reluctance to change. As for the scare munger tactics on the Australian public I find it truly hard to believe that they would stoop so low to lie to the Australian public what a sad day for aviation it makes me wonder why I love aviation at times, I think they have forgotten what flying realy is and its not about being a bus driver they are a minority but have such a large voice how sad!. They are using the end state example from the hand out to pilots to scare the public, that picture is an example only and has never been discussed as a final model and never will be untill suitable technology such as ADSB has been put in place. :ok:

AOPA AND AGAF IN TEAM MODE
 

Nice to see that Andrew K has also posted on agaf and enlisting further support via that group.
Andrew's balanced approach makes such things possible and I commend him for his people skills in enlarging the debating team.

I was interested to debate the NAS with a flying instructor yesterday and I concluded that those who don't know much about it accept the scaremongering of the media driven by those with vested interests, yet those who do know something about it are - like 2B1 - prepared to work their way through accepting and fine tuning the NAS. So far the NAS education has been mainly within aviation, perhaps there is a need for a media strategy from the NAS people to get the facts to the journos and passenger public.
Brian H

The NAS, facts and fantasies
 

Have at it here guys.

Woomeri

Who the hell is AOPA?

more to the point is who cares :ok:

Snarek,

All of the domestic RPT guys that i have spoken to on this topic are in total agreement - NAS is going to produce problems.

The removal of DTI causes us much concern as does the frequency separation of IFR and VFR in E airspace.

To be honest I am not sure of what is going on anymore because the plot has changed so many times and the consultation/education process is abysmal.

I have been to many meetings where AsA said you can have anything you want as long as you are prepared to pay for it.

We say great we want DTI, and they say you can't have DTI, BUT you can have anything you want if you are prepared to pay for it!

It is a circular arguement - we want what they don't want to give and it stops there.

The first time that one of your AOPA guys frightens themselves stupid with a windscreen full of 737 or Dash-8 or SAAB - the AOPA position will change and it will be too late.

What we have currently works - there is not going to be any demonstrable cost benefit from NAS so WHY CHANGE??????

Change for change sake is hardly a smart way to go....

By the way I do agree that ADS-B will be of great benefit, but to get it into the heavy end of town is going to be very expensive and there needs to be a cost benefit - which will not be easy to prove.

New NAS catch phrases
 

IFR pilot

"But I didn't know it was E airspace....!"

VFR pilot

"But I thought it was E airspace....!"

CG

Dehav

AOPA (and I am speaking for the organisation now) believes the key is education, lots more of it than we are getting now. AOPA is lobbying NASIG re education and will be actively involved to make the flow of our 'bugsmaher' members and the Regionals smoother.

We also believe that ADSB will knock the rough edges off a lot of your concerns and we are interested in listening to any genuine concerns that do not run off the backs of scaremongering unions.

The Board have debated a lot of pertinent facts presented by the more sane posters here (like Chief Galah) and Board member Ron Bertram is very active at the workshops.

It is sad when we turn against each other, but in my view it is CivilAir and AFAP that must shoulder a lot of responsibility for that! Their recent actions personally disgusted me!!!

AOPA is lobbying hard for ADSB with CDTI for the whole GA fleet. When we have that we will have a world class airspace system where (almost) everyone knows where the other is. ADSB will eventually, I hope, expand Class A to cover most of the country making transitions in lower D and E even safer for everyone.

There will be little side issues (like non-radio aircraft and ultralights ... and I own one of the former), these again will be education issues between our members, CASA and the AUF. I for instance have never had an issue or problem with any RPT, I carry a handheld, I listen and I get out of the circuit and out of the way when I hear them approaching. Common sense really.

Together (and I mean that) we can make this work.

Andrew Kerans

2b1
 

Never been to a workshop, but there are many ways to in the weeds of this project.
This is why I have problems, many characteristics which are not compliant with the US model, (7 out of 10); 5 that matter have Hazards that are not mitigated to ALARP. The possibility is still low that the ultimate consequence will occur, but it is a greater probability than what we have today; I say why, it doesn’t save money, it does increase risk – that’s my point; nobody is addressing my point… This is not the USA model because of the differences 5 of 10 changes for this next stage are not compliant to a point where it matters.
The MBZ issue will probably be a show stopper, that’s why it got pushed back; two things will happen, it will get pushed back again or stage 2b will be the final model; yuk! I agree keep Dick out of it.
The reluctance is due to there being no clearly identified benefit. No benefit, don’t do it. If my mechanic suggested I get Michelin tyres because he doesn’t like Dunlop’s I don’t by them unless there is a reason, not because he doesn’t like them; where is the cost benefit. If however he proves extra safety I will consider changing; if he proves that low safety exists I'll definitely buy new tyres.
They have a large voice because the consequence of one of their airframes being lost is massive
2B1, if you really believe that then you and I are talking on the same side of the argument; there is nothing in any documentation linking further rollouts to new technology.

ADSB is not going to be ‘operational’ until 2008 (or there abouts). We were supposed to have completed training in December 2002; it’s still not able to go onto the TAAATS platform. Then when it does, it will give some low level coverage, but the sites are chosen to give ‘complete’ coverage above FL350 over continental Australia. ADSB will not provide ‘radar’ like coverage at low levels unless it gets a commitment from the government (probably) to do so; massive expense, even though it is cheaper than radar. Cost is still the problem; $300K per site (initially 20 sites, full coverage 55 sites comes to mind); $5K or more per aircraft, who funds it.

ADSB is the ‘great white hope’; Larry Holmes almost killed him… remember that.

My issue is mostly about trying to get the message about NAS is not the US model; stop saying it is.

Stop rejecting logical well thought out alternatives on the basis that they also are not compliant; safer options, no extra costs, bring them on.

Bottle of Rum

snarek

Firstly AOPA is a big aero club

Secondly a lot of its members are also members of the AIPA and the AFAP. People who like flying and aeroplanes. People who have a respect for the fragility of safety. Its a very fine line between a good days flying and an absolutely disastrous day

The AFAP has participated in one joint press release yet you focuss in on the AFAP, whats your beef

snarek, get a life

Beauty Bonzer mate.

is a good way to demean and alienate a good proportion of the punters to your argument.

The AFAP and to a much lesser extent the AIPA have now almost totally marginalised themselves by their joining with Civil Airs unprofessional and totally irresponsible scaremongering.

I am proud to number more than a few ATCOs and Airline Pilots amongst my friends, they are consumate professionals and are a little bewildered by the actions of their representatives. They may have some reservations about this 'n that, but "scaring the horses" just to make a point is not in their repertoire.

There has been much made about the "spin" alleged against NASIG.
The "spin" allowed by Civil Air et al recently borders on french farce.
How professional are they when they have the "public" jamming switchboards around the country and provoking declaiming from idiot shock jocks, asking Air Services, CASA et al, whether it is still safe for granny to fly to see her grandys, based on mischievous disinformation. It is the height of irresponsibility.
And this from most responsible professions.

I'm confused.:ouch:

I continue to be stunned by some of the responses here.

Civil Air has grabbed some media attention. This NAS juggernaut may now face some opposition, or at least cause those that make decisions to pause and think. We've had 12 months or more of Dick's lies (and he is a master of the media grab), backed up by the professional liers in Canberra, yet there are howls of (adopting plummy accent) "it's just not cricket, Civil Air".

Please, continue to occupy that high moral ground. Naivety at it's best.

Snarek - the title of this thread is Facts and fantasies.Which aspect are you coming from with your comments in repsect of what ADS-B is going to do - especially relating to your comments on Class A airspace?

This by the way has nothing to do with the aspects of NAS that are being challenged by those who work with and in our airspace every day - 24/7.

In the previous incarnation of this thread I posed the question of how NAS was going to allow you to do things that you can't do now - i.e. where exactly are there efficiencies and expediencies to be gained - especially in view of the AirServices CEO dismissing the Willoughby reports projections of saving $70M outright. Bottom line - what operational or safety outcome makes this change imperative and worth the cost?

I , like the AFAP/CivilAir etc. are waiting for a coherent answer on this from anyone competent to answer - the silence is eery.

(edited for spelling and a big red wine spill)

I wonder if the NAS in places like BUD might actually change the balance of power a bit. When (say) you are coming up from the south to overfly and join crosswind for 32 but some super professional expert is doing a downwind takeoff to save their esteemed employer a couple of dollars. You are requested (read told) to remain to west until they finish their interesting little circuit busting manouver. When they things like this, it must be really reassurring to know that they have TCAS and everyone is obliged to use their radio. Now, wouldn't that mess up things if there could be someone around in that G airspace, joining at 45 degrees on downwind for 32, without a radio or a transponder. But then again, that could be happening already..... Might be worth at least considering going round the same way as everybody else then.

Gaunty and the rest of the misguided. The Civil Air line is base 100% on the NAS. Not 2b but the NAS end state.

Hopefully you realise also that AK's ramblings about the superdoopper airborne radar run from the phone network (ADSB)installed in every plane at tax payers expense is just never EVER GUNNA HAPPEN!!!!


Lets think of this reasonably.

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)......


Ahahahahahahah


Hohohohohohohoho


We have people PEOPLE WHO VOTE IN GREATER NUMBERS THAN THE AOPA FLYING CLUB OF POCKET PROTECTORS AND COMB OVERS 4000 odd membership that have jack shiat. No car, rent assistance and no bulk billing. Your little gang is not quite the force that you think. A private aircraft is not a necessity. Health care is. Tax cuts are. Do you really think that after 1 report on A Current Affair ( a program that has been well and truely against your pin up boy) and a 15 second snipit on the news intro that the battlers that both sides of the fence want to see have a better standard of living will side with you? Pffft, sif.

Now is the time for you to stop trying to stop trying to get involved with things that you are not qualified to have input into. Please, the adults are talking, go back to the other room.


Delude your self some more AK, you will get the machinery, for free, and I hand you the flat earth society tag.....

rookie.