Nas End State!!!end It Now!!
 

This is what you are going to end up with at the end of all of this. End this cr@p before the 27th.

http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspaceref...ryone/long.gif

Remember IFR are separated from IFR in E (ummmm what radar?) and VFR do as they please!

Not to mention that "VFR flights in Class E may be monitoring a different frequency"

Actually, the more you read the education material, the more you realise how dodgy the new system really is. I keep picking up holes in it each few pages.

No wonder the detailed info came out so late - it makes the cessation of this nonsense more time critical.

A gem is in the 'Merging Target Procedure' where:

- ATC may provide mutual traffic informaytion where radar returns merge with minimum vertical separation

-This is a courtesy to pilots





:ouch:

Well Done Tobzalp. The grapical demonstration only makes this system look more bizare and dangerous. An interesting asside, a mate of mine talked to the kings on the side at one of the CASA conferences. They expressed concern that while similar to the american system, the lack of radar voided a lot of the " benifits".

A dangerous degradation of the system indeed.

DM

J-A-K

Quote

"VFR flights in Class E may be monitoring a different frequency"

So? That happens now, especially where several boundaries merge. And at least after 27/11 they're supposed to have transponders (for those lucky enough to have TCAS).

I've been rather fond of keeping a lookout in E even before NAS rears its head.

Safe Flying:ok:

NOtimTAMs

(PS - not picking on you, just that two recent posts caught my attention on the same day!):O

It may happen now in some circumstances NTT but it will soon be happening to heavy metal on descent at speeds of about 300-400 knots TAS. :eek:

THAT increases the risk factor substantially. TCAS is a LAST line of defence, not the first line!

Well all I can say is the cart before the horse! (or is it the other way around?)

Just look at it... The model is based on the US system apparently. When I sat for a PPL I had to do years ago, (another story), over there I seem to remember that rader went down to about 800 ft everywhere and they were more densely populated with a hell of a lot more flight service and control towers (don't even get me started on how an aircraft halfway across the continent can be on the same frequency in Australia!) Now what % of AUS does radar cover to that low level? Buggar all!

The system may perhaps work if they introduce the ADS-B (think that's what it's called) first. It's not radar but it's bloody close from what I hear it's suppose to do. Get the aircraft fitted with it, come up with units that will be affordable and easily fitted to all VH registered aircraft. And put in the 200 base stations, not the token 20 that will only give proper coverage to aircraft above FL300 who are in class A up there anyway!

Put the frequency boundaries back in, I mean not having them is just plain moronic to say the least.

See and be seen? I've had a A330 on TCAS and was looking in the area of sky to pick it up (1000ft above) and it wasn't until it filled our windscreen that I saw it (coming in from my 1-2 o'clock closing at over 500kts) Even with ATC giving info on it didn't pick it up until the last minute, so heaven help seeing something smaller! My point is that there are various reasons that sometimes you just can't pick up an aircraft visually (lighting, angle of closure, background behind the target, the sun, the bugs on the windscreen - whatever, even with TCAS to help and 2 pairs of eyes!) I agree Keg TCAS should be the last line but the way things go on out there especially OCTA, I know I'm glad I've got the extra support from it!

Just plain stupid!

And what ever happened to the customer always being right!

let's just put it off and say as is (even though that has some serious room for improvement!), until the datalink is FULLY in place then impliment the airspace to compliment it. What's the rush?

My 2 cents

SP

What is so different here in Australia? It works okay elsewhere. Come on NAS. :ok:

C182,

Where exactly?

C182,

And what exatly works elsewhere? We have alphabet airspace now so, all November 27 will bring is a half baked trial. It is a trial because NO-ONE is doing what we are proposing. We sadly go where NO-ONE has gone before. Why do I say that, because the infrastruture is different, the culture is different, the pilot training is different, nothing is EXACTLY the same.

Can someone explain to me why they're 'fixing' a system which was never broken?

100% NT see sm4 pirates post in the other NAS thread. Backscratching.

tobzalp,
Query on your airspace chart. There is an extensive use of E class. I thought for the time being we were getting heaps of G class with IFR-IFR seperation provided?

Looking for the savings often quoted, I then supposed that rather than drastically rolling out E class the Implimentation Group would do some G to E then quote ICAO and stop seperation service for G Class and retrench ATC staff.

I further noted the compusary use of transponders in E class in Aus where it is not required in USA. Made me wonder if we may go for IFR-IFR notification not seperation and achieve more redundancies. ( pure speculation )

Surely the only serious savings can come by this means?


Not trying to be smart just an honest Question.

:hmm:

G Separation?
 

Walley2,

G Separation IFR - IFR - don't think so. At the moment we're providing IFR - IFR traffic advice but the ultimate end state is no services in G, which is in accordance with ICAO lettered airspace.

We are required to separate IFR from IFR in E and provide traffic advice on "known" VFR.

It's quite simple, we're improving the service by providing less for more money.

DB

What is all the fuss with NAS we are not living back in the dark ages? :)

Piper Arrow - you have hit the nail on the head. I will say, in fairness, when I first started operating into LAX I found the airspace "setup" a little disconcerting. That's because I was comparing it to Australian airspace & separation requirements.

Now, thirteen (13) years later, I can only put my original concern down to two things - different & new. NOT unsafe & dangerous.

AS I have stated on another thread, all will go ahead on the 27th and on the 28th, the sun will rise again.

I think some would have us go back to full reporting. They can't acknowledge that the US system, which has been working for years, has a better safety record than Australia with our unique system.:mad:

Yeah thats right Bart. In Australia we have Jets get hit by light aircraft stooging around as they see fit so much more than the US. Glad we are going to get less now!

Take 1998 for example!

United States

January 9 - The crew of a Southwest Airlines 737 took evasive action after a TCAS warning advised an imminent collision with two smaller commuter-class planes over Los Angeles. Air traffic controllers reportedly observed all three targets merge at one point. All three aircraft landed safely. FAA officials are investigating.

January 24 - Two American Airlines flights reportedly came in close proximity with two smaller aircraft operating as skydiving taxis in the same airspace near Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport. One airliner received an onboard collision avoidance alert and took evasive action; the other airliner reportedly passed directly over one of the planes. FAA officials are investigating.

February 11 - A National Guard Chinook helicopter collided with a single-engine plane near Morgan Hill, California, killing the pilot of the plane. The Chinook was able to land safely, and no injuries were reported aboard the aircraft. The helicopter was flying in formation with another Chinook at the time of the collision, which occurred at the crest of a hill.

February 22 - Two single-engine planes collided over DeKalb, Illinois, killing both pilots aboard both aircraft. Weather was reported as clear at the time of the crash.

March 20 - All three aboard two light planes were killed after colliding over Corona, California. Wreckage from the aircraft fell on a condominium complex, which along with another residential building was consumed by flames. No injuries were reported on the ground. The collision reportedly occurred as one aircraft circled the Corona Municipal Airport in anticipation of the completion of runway repairs.

April 5 - A Cessna Citation and Cessna 172 collided over Roswell, Georgia, killing all five aboard both aircraft. Preliminary National Transportation Safety Board investigation indicates that the smaller plane did not have its transponder activated before the collision.

April 12 - A Delta Airlines flight came within close proximity of an unidentified aircraft near Reagan Washington National Airport. Both an air traffic controller and the aircraft’s onboard traffic collision avoidance system warned of an imminent collision, and the crew was able to initiate a steep climb. Officials were trying to identify the other aircraft.

May 18 - An unidentified aircraft reportedly nearly collided with a Northwest Airlines DC-9 as the Northwest flight departed Detroit Metropolitan Airport. FAA officials are investigating.

May 30 - A Cessna 172 seaplane collided with a sightseeing helicopter off Juneau, Alaska, killing both aboard the seaplane. The lightly damaged helicopter made a safe landing; five of the six aboard received minor injuries.

August 9 - A twin-engine Cessna and a Delta Airlines flight reportedly passed within 200 feet of each other northeast of Detroit. The Cessna reportedly was not operating with a working transponder, and was not in communication with air traffic controllers. The FAA is investigating the incident.

August 31 - A single-engine and twin-engine Cessna collided over Eau Claire, Wisconsin, killing two. The collision reportedly occurred in clear weather near the Chippewa Valley Regional Airport.

August 31 - A Delta Airlines L-1011 reportedly came within 8 seconds of a collision with an Alaska Airlines MD-80 at 25,000 feet over San Diego. An air traffic controller turned the flights at the last moment. A controller at the Palmdale facility controlling the planes reportedly called supervisors in to help with a staff shortage prior to the incident.

September 18 - A chartered WinAir 727 carrying members of the Brigham Young University football team took evasive action after its onboard collision avoidance system warned of impending collision with another aircraft while on approach to Boise, Idaho. Passengers reportedly saw the shadow of what was believed to be an A-10 Warthog operating out of the Mountain Home Air Force Base as the aircraft made its avoidance dive.

October 5 - Two helicopters operated by Petroleum Helicopters Inc. and Texas Air collided over the Gulf of Mexico off New Orleans, killing one and injuring one. No other details were available.

October 22 - The pilot of a U.S. Air Force F-16 ejected safely before his aircraft crashed northwest of Phoenix. The aircraft reportedly collided with another F-16 before the crash; the second plane reportedly made a safe landing at Luke Air Force Base.

November 12 - Two single-engine planes collided over Yerington, Nevada, killing all three aboard both planes. One plane crashed into the garage of a house, setting the house on fire. No injuries were reported on the ground.

November 21 - Two single-engine planes collided over a golf course in Phoenix, killing both pilots and seriously injuring a passenger. Preliminary investigation suggested a nose-to-tail collision.

December 1 - A Northwest Airlines jet and an Air Ontario flight reportedly passed in close proximity south of Albany, New York. Air traffic controllers saw both radar images merge and warned both flights of impending collision. Officials are investigating the possibility that the aircraft received TCAS instructions which put them into conflict.

December 6 - A British Caledonian L-1011 and a Delta Airlines 767 reportedly nearly collided off Long Island at 33,000 feet. Both flights took evasive action based on Traffic Collision Avoidance alerts. Air traffic controllers attributed the incident to a computer failure at Boston Center.

December 27 - A single-engine plane reportedly came within 30 seconds of colliding with a Continental Airlines jet near the fully-occupied Giants Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey. The pilot of the single-engine plane was reportedly disoriented and flying in restricted airspace before recognizing the impending collision and taking evasive action. Air traffic controllers instructed the Continental flight to stop its descent at that time.

(from here http://www.aero-farm.com/asi/98coll.htm)



Australia


?

Bart, The ATSB reports as on the other thread @ http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/occu...ail.cfm?ID=490 tells it all about public transport and this under the present system. (It is presently unsafe).

Check out the other reports on the site it is an eye opener.

Come on NAS, we cannot wait for safer skys. :ok:

Ok then Piper Arrow explain to me exactly how NAS 2b and its following Implementations are safer.

Piper Arrow
Are you trying to wind us up? If not, what are you smoking, please share it around! “See and avoid” does not work with large aircraft. Imagine the following scenario: A 737 arriving into Hobart with a Piper Arrow on a recripical track in Class E airspace. The Piper Arrow is maintaining his required 1500M from cloud. With a combined closure speed of roughly 8NM per minute, you do the Maths! 1500M is roughly one mile, so the crew has 7 sec to see the Piper Arrow and take avoiding action. “But TCAS will save you”, I here you say. CRAP! TCAS is a last line of defence. How will the Piper Arrow know if his transponder is working? There is no radar in Tassie below flight levels, consequently no way of verifying the accuracy or operation of the Arrow’s transponder, apart from routine ground maintenance servicings. The aircraft I currently fly does not have TCAS, so I am completely rabbit fu#cked. The “big sky theory” does not work when aircraft are all using the same GPS solution for tracking.
:mad:

Anti-NAS is a Union Beat Up!
 

The whole anti-NAS proparganda thing is just one big UNION BEAT UP. "End of Storey"

Lets get on with NAS..................... :ok:

Out Back Pilot
Obviously you have never had a near miss. An accident will happen, and when it does the "affordable safety" will be very expensive!

tobzalp, I'm trying to see things from your point of view but I can't get my head up my a@#e far enough. The US just happens to have a couple more aircraft than Australia. :mad: :mad: :mad:

Thats right Bart. They do. Around 10 times. And 10 times the controllers and around 550% more radar coverage. Lets run with those figures then. That would give us 2 mid airs a year. That is 2 more than we should have just because of a political deal done by a bunch of no idea idiots and the most unoriginal person on earth.


I find yoga helps your flexibility. Pity I can't think of an exercise to help your intelligence.

Bart, C182 , Piper arrow and 2b1ask1

Your posts demonstrate a frightening level of ignorance. No wonder the Proffessional pilot community is concerned about these changes if they will be forced to rely on the diligence of pilots like you people to keep them safe.

For goodness sake do some research and at least try to gain an understanding of the issues.

Start by asking yourselves why the vast majority of Aviation Proffessionals are against these changes. These changes were conceived by an amateur and are supported almost exclusively by amateurs.

The tired old "union beat up" line is hardly relevant when directed against AFAP and AIPA, what possible industrial concerns for pilots could there be in this???

I think it would be best if you toddled back to the AOPA forums from whence you came, this is grown up business.

The only RPT people who are against the move to NAS live on pprune. The couple I have spoken to over the last few weeks, are all for it or maybe they just do not believe that their union is telling the whole truth to the travelling public.

Bring on the NAS.... :ok:

WWT There were those that were against the introduction of GPS, there are also those that oppose change because thy can't handle it. Perhaps you would be better off joining the Flat Earth Society.

NAS
 

WHATWASTHAT

Draw your pension and take up golf the only level of ignorance I see is yours or perhaps we should call it arrogance?.:ok:

ffs...............who cares, just let em crash

Hey Hempy, I have to agree. Only problem is these ignorant f.u.c.k.s will take some other poor bastard with them.

They come on here and blurt out "Bring On Nas....YEH!!" like some Bruce Willis action hero, but don't take the time to read the concerns raised throughout all the threads and answer them. So for their benefit ( yes I know I am wasting my time) here we go again,

-The US is not the same as Australia, predominantly because they have more controllers per aircraft movement than we do, and vastly more radar coverage to work with. Compare apples with apples Australia does not have the infrastructure that the US has.
-The US has never discouraged VFR aircraft from broadcasting on Control frequencys, and certainly have not made the frequencys dissapear off the charts to "encourage" mute VFR pilots.
-TCAS cannot be relied upon because there is no requirement for the Mode C of the VFR to be checked and verified as being correct on a regular basis, and if flying in non radar airspace the Mode C could be wildly out (seen often) and cause an accident with an RPT responding to a TCAS RA not save one.
-How is this a union beatup when with all this E airspace there will be more controllers not less and there will still be the same number of RPT pilots. If it was all about vested interests, CivilAir (the controllers union for the ignorant) would be screaming from the rooftops that NAS was wonderful, as it will bring them more members paying there $1200 a year in subscriptions.
The rest you can find on all the other threads. I know you'll all drag your hairy knuckles across your keyboards and type the usual "Once upon a time in a pub far far away I spoke to two imaginary friends of mine who both were RPT pilots and they both loved NAS very very much, cos they love coming out of cloud and having Bitching Betty telling them to "Climb Climb Now" " Yep thats the way to run an Aviation industry.

What the???
 

Bart, C182, Piper Arrow, 2B1ASK1,

I am in the RAAF and fly PC9s. I have no union affiliation whatsoever. I have had two extremely near misses, in my time at Pearce. With one we missed by about 30 feet with absolutely no time to react by either aircraft. Closure speed was about 400kts.
Both aircraft were VMC, operating VFR and the PC9 allows for excellent unrestricted vision.
SEE AND AVOID SIMPLY DOES NOT WORK! Pilots DO have to contend with higher workloads at times, which WILL degrade lookout. TWO WAY COMMUNICATION CAN HELP ORGANISATION OF SEPARATION, but by all accounts VFR traffic are being discouraged from using the radio. I have genuine concerns about NAS, stemming from what I perceive to be a reduction in services in order to reduce ATC costs by the government and to justify expenditure on TAATS. Make no bones about it - NAS = greater flexibility for VFR pilots, but GREATER DANGER TO IFR OPERATORS.

My $0.02 worth.

A couple fo points we seem to be missing.

(And I am ignoring the frequency issue because when I'm not p!ssed off at plazbot i am arguing to put them back).

1. ATC must give IFR - IFR and KNOWN VFR.
2. Transponders become mandatory in E.

So, if you are letting down over Dunk Island, Merimbula, Moruya, Dubbo etc etc, where there is NO RADAR, won't the fact that the a/c in E have transponders INCREASE the safety levels???

The arguments that you are going so fast you are gonna hit em means that you will hit em in the CTAF because the ones in the CTAF won't be listening to you on the area even if it is printed on the maps. Remedy, faster planes make further out calls.

So, that seems safer to me.

Where there is RADAR, but no C or D won't the fact that the a/c will now be in E WITH transponders make it more likely the traffic will be KNOWN and thus passed to the IFR???

Or is there a cultural problem I am overlooking here???

AK

Tell if we do see something coming towards the windscreen, how do I talk to them when in the publications they say that the aircraft might not be on the same frequency? great, yep just great. (helps without the boundaries to the frequencies!)

And if aircraft have to have transponders on in E why the hell not in G to vainly try to enhance safety?

P.S some of you might wnat to see how alot of professional organisations are telling their troops not to use the IFR pickup rubbish and the like...?

Agreed 8kcab, see and be seen - right! Bit too late when your windscreen if full of flying metal, so much for a mental situational big picture of the airspace around you when it's all too late!

8kcab

Concur with your 0.02c worth. Mid-air collision has been the greatest perceived risk in that airspace since Pontius I think. And that's with radar, a gazillion procedures and highly vigilant pilots.... What hope for NAS?

CS

Transponders…

How does the average VFR pilot know their transponder is serviceable? I know for a fact that not all pilots turn them on… how often have you been given traffic on a VFR flight and then spoken to the aircraft and asked “have you got your transponder on?” then suddenly someone pops up on TCAS.. Now you will not know they are there, not be able to speak to them if they are not on the same frequency and what’s more even if they are listening out the decision made to reply to an all stations call are put in the hands of the least experienced…

As for see and avoid even given TCAS and directed traffic and being in contact with other traffic it is some times difficult to acquire a conflicting aircraft until after you have passed, at least now you are able to arrange your own separation OCTA with other aircraft because they are on the same frequency.

It’s a wonder air services haven’t suggested the fitting of car horns to aircraft to supplement the use of headlights I mean landing lights…

:rolleyes:

8kcab

Just wondering if the other traffic was military or civilian.

(not a wind up - just curiuous)

Spinout,

your argument can just as easily apply to those who dont turn on the radio, tune the correct frequency or dont know what to listen for or say at the appropriate times.

Stick Pusher, just because some organisations ban a procedure does not make it unsafe. My organisation bans us from accepting VFR, doesnt mean VFR is unsafe.

I have used IFR poickup, VFR on top in the US and it works fine; (was nice to have an Air to Air radar though) always had flight following though in radar coverage.

Snarek,

Please stop pushing the XYZ of NAS, the X is OK, The Y is dodgy, the Z is unacceptable. Then you don't want the X, transponders in E do you? But you're prepared to hang onto that for your argument.

Many elements of the changes are acceptable, but the things that are not:

Class E above Class D towers;
Airspace design that doesn't capture IFR instrument procedural approaches;
Steps to steep, which force IFRs into G;
No identifiable safety 'benefit';
No identifiable cost savings to justify reducing safety;
Removal of frequency boundaries.

What is known VFR, radar observed or VFR in receipt of a service; and it will be passed 'workload permitting'.

The problem with E airspace is this.

Outside radar coverage, TCAS and See and avoid are your only tools. BE20 RFDS aircraft (for example) without TCAS will not have a chance, high speed single pilot ops; lets hope their mark one eyeballs are freshly calibrated.

Inside radar coverage, the controller must spot the 'black track' (we've been trained to ignore them) assess it as a collision hazard and pass traffic to the IFR; this amost always will mean more ATCs looking at each screen, = increased costs.
The USA has two or three controllers per radar sector, why? unknown elements... Will we double our controller staff at radar sectors? This is why it will cost more.

If you make the assessment as the VFR is not a collsion risk, then get on with your other tasks, the VFR turns around, because it can (or just turns 30 degrees or so), and now is a collision risk, I have to spot it, stop doing the other tasks and ensure 'relative' safety, by issuing traffic.

If the radar controller does everything right, there still is a collision risk, (that just sucks).

With Class C airspace a pilot and/or a controller must make a mistake for a collision risk to exist.

With Class E airspace the risk of collision exists when nobody has made a mistake. TCAS is not fail safe.

This is similar to the USA model, but not the same...

Much less radar sites, less controllers per aircraft movement; these are undeniable facts. Much less traffic here, but the ratio of traffic to infrastructure and controllers is more in oz than in the US.

Bottle of Rum

ftrplt:
Is IFR pickup in the USA applied to VFR or IFRs? Do the controllers worry about you or treat you differently to other VFRs?

My undertsanding is VFRs get an IFR pickup, which simply means please activate my IFR plan and give me a clearance.

We are doing it wrong, it's not a procedure that enables an IFR to switch to a super VFR category (VFR with SAR, FIS and DTI) and get into E without a clearance.

Are pilots being taught not to use VFR on TOP outside radar coverage? How can you issue VFR traffic outside radar coverage?

Bottle of Rum

I heard Mr John Anderson in Parliament yesterday mention the fact that the current airspace design was based on design originating from the 1950's and 60's.

That may be true. But doesn't he and all the other champions of NAS realise that the concept of 'See and avoid" originated before WW1. How's that for archaic practice!!

May I suggest that there is some compulory reading out there. Pick up a copy of AIR DISASTER Volume 2 by Macarthur Job (ISBN 1 875671 19 6) (An australian publication). Turn to page 23. Read the tragic story and see those horrific diagrams and pictures of the PSA B727 colliding with a Cessna 172 in the circuit area at San Diego.

The intro reads:

"Are we clear of that Cessna?" - B727 F/O to Capt.

"Faultless inflight visibility, a primary airport control zone, state-of-the-art ATC radar equipment, a computer controlled conflict alert warning system, and experienced crews in both aircraft, all failed to prevent a horrific midair collision that took the lives of 144 people."

This tragic story does not support the view that positive atc control is ineffective as might be suggested from this intro. Rather, it demonstrates the pathetic inadequecy of pilot to pilot visual traffic separation.

These pilots were told many many times that they were in potential conflict. The B727 crew sighted the Cessna when joining the downwind leg, got busy with puting the gear down and other pre-landing procedures, looked out again and could no longer see the Cessna. They were descending at 400 ft/min and had slowed down to 154 kts. The Cessna was climbing at about 65 kts.

The Cessna was moving from right to left but when at the 12 O'Clock position, turned right 20 degrees and was then directly in the path of the B727.

I implore those so confident of their ability to "see and avoid" to pick up a book on Aviation Medicine and Human Factors and learn about the limitations of human eye sight, then read the account of this tragic accident. Then you might express a more educated and reasoned opinion on this forum.

NAS
 

I have been in this industry for 24 years now, maybe not as long as some. What I can say is that having seen and at times been part of airspace changes in a few countries in the world. I hear the very same arguments over and over again, remember when mandatory position reporting was stopped, professional pilots had there arms in the air quoting mid air accidents would happen all over Australia it did not happen we accepted then that there would be an increased risk.

There are many examples of this worldwide and overall I hear stories all the time about America having greater radar coverage than us. Tell that to the pilots that fly over there in areas with no coverage and 6 to 7 times the amount of traffic, does that mean they are better? Do you think they wanted the change? Well I can say the answer to both is no, but they have now moved on and get on with it so should we.

I have an extract of an sop from a well known flying school re: NAS it clearly states as policy and teaching practice the following appropriate frequencies to monitor would be the same that are used today, we will now operate lights on always and transponder is switched to alt during run ups and will be amended on the check lists. Now is that not reasonable? The fact that most PPL pilots out there realise that large aircraft travel faster can have a heavier workload and find it harder to see escapes most of your pea brains.

You did not invent the wheel most PPL pilots do have a brain and some have more flying experience than check and training captains that I know. Last night I listened to Robin Brevill Anderson actually say what happens when a light aircraft descends through a small hole in the cloud at the same time as us and we collide (don’t quote me for exact words). Is he real? I now instruct and do BFR's etc the fact that most VFR pilots do not like to fly above cloud let alone descent through a small hole.

Remember the outcry again from you guy's when they introduced the PIFR how there would be an increase in midair collisions, well where were they? Give some credit to the GA industry in fact whether you like to admit it or not they are the ones that are at greater risk. We are a belt and braces country sometimes we only need a belt.

When passenger aircraft were first manufactured they had a built in safety fact of between 1.6 and 2. Today’s modern fleet has factors between 1.2 and 1.4 on average does that mean they are less safe? Sure, but that has now been accepted as being as safe as it needs to be and I don’t see that many aircraft falling out of the sky do you?

Most of you think I am a pro NAS supporter, I see good and I see bad but I am prepared to work with it and help adjust and try and make it work and be safe, not the view I see on this forum.

Take a pill or take up golf if you really cant see ways to make this work then I am afraid aviation perhaps is not your field. :ok: