Can anyone spell ROLLBACK?
 

Big rumour doing the rounds, NAS2B Part B is on the cards, which includes removing most if not all E airspace and replacing it with C...

Draft MAPS have be sighted; I understand that a big meeting has been called in Sydney tomorrow, about 20 people from ML and BN attending with 15 hours notice...

Seems like the legal eagles might have caught up with all this; insurance issues...

CEO's and GM's looking shakey, someone has to take the fall for John Anderson...

Ex HATCs must be feeling a little better right about now, I suspect.

Bottle of Rum

Where are you now Dick ???????????:hmm:

Please put the frequency boundaries back on the charts!! Then at least we can listen on the right frequency

How many took Jeppesons advice to hang on to the old charts?
Seemed a reasonable precaution at the time.

I don't think it has to much to do with insurance but everything to do with politics. IMHO I think the (insert word here) transport minister has realised(?) that its easier to deal with one person no matter how famous and how often he threatens to stand against him in an election than a 737 with a Cessna embedded in it.
As for the charts and airspace that should be easy, dig out the old ones that everyone saved because we could see this happening.
Still to early to say we told you so but maybe a new dawn of common sense will occur....hmmm no I don't think i can back that up.

If this is indeed more than a rumour I for one am thankful.

Well if it is a rumour, I like it!:D

They will most likely roll back the E with C bits that are the biggest safety concerns, but implement some other OCTA changes that would otherwise have got a huge outcry.

"Why are you complaining when we listened to you?"

A small concession to get the other bit in.

:}

Yes, Transport Minister.

Yes bring back the frequency boundaries. And if the issue is clutter on the radio due to chatter, why not have two frequencies for each sector; one for below 11K and the other for flight levels?

I saw a piece of paper that said frequencies were being put back on, design was to change and new eduaction material was coming out. Of course just rumour.:ok:

We live in hope
 

But you have to ask yourself, what would have happend if we didn't have the Launceston "serious incident". Sometimes a tragedy has to occur before people admit they were wrong. There is no room for this in Aviation.

I hope once the airspace is cleaned up, our politicians learn a big lesson, don't trust any tom DICK or harry with airspace reform :ooh:

Quote from "The Australian"

"............However, private pilots support the changes and are likely to be incensed by any attempt to roll them back......."

Can someone please explain to me why the media insist on making statements based upon an assumption that I, as a private pilot, support NAS and will resist any attempt to roll it back?

I am a private pilot who does not support NAS for a number of reasons many of which have been discussed in other threads and I for one, will be more "incensed" if they do not roll it back.

Bottom line - take airspace which is controlled and remove that control either in part or wholly, and it becomes less safe. This is a plain and emotionless fact and the same whichever way you look at it or whichever way you want to twist or distort it. End of story.

I do not support such system and how dare those :mad: 's in the media assume that I do?

Atlas
(That feels much better!)

Quote The Australian: "And it wants new charts to include radio frequencies at airspace boundaries.

So common sense is prevailing...!

Good to see things being done about the whole debarcle.

From a flying instructor's viewpoint though....what do we say to students? Hey sonny, remember what I taught you a while back, well forget it all cause it's gone back to the way it was! :oh:

NAS 2c is even worse than 2b - we need to roll it back before implementation

You must feel sorry for reporters -they just don't research their subject. My experience of what PPL's know and feel about NAS is just the opposite.

The PPL's that I contact in WA don't want to change anything as per NAS 2b or 2c. They have enough problems staying current, and are fearful that these dictated changes will be difficult to learn, and inherently less safe.

There is no way that 2c will improve safety. With radio, perhaps, but without - you're joking.

If you can't afford a radio in your bugsmasher - then you shouldn't be flying. We can't register a car without turn indicators to give prior warning, ( = situational awareness), to our fellow drivers. We have had 60 years experience with radios in aircraft, and they are cheap. A lot cheaper than human life - which is what we need to equate them to.

An ag aircraft in the USA may well be able to operate noradio - but most don't - because they understand the basics of 'situational awareness'. But, if they want a government or local government contract - they must have (1) a turbine - for noise abatement, and (2) DGPS - for accuracy and accountability.
In other words, technology has been written into everyday business arrangements.

Yet here we are in OZ, arguing about whether it's important to allow for freedom of expression via not mandating carriage of VHF radio! Radio is part and parcel of becoming situationally aware = safety. So too is GPS.

How indeed can we explain this deliberate 'ignoring' of technology to the general public, and not feel somewhat backward?

NAS 2c ignores technological progress. It's a step backwards for all aviation.

happy days

Is it just me or has everyone else noticed the almost complete lack of pro nas posters of late....you know all those tossers who were so dismissive of informed, concerned anti nas opinion?

The obvious exception being Big Dick...I truly cannot say want I would like to about this individual on this BB.

:mad:

Chuck.

Alot of those tossers were actually all the one guy so it turns out (Hi Andrew).:8 := :cool:

Private Pilot View
 

Whilst not trying to defend Steve Creedy at the Australian, I suspect that reading between the lines he was refering to AOPA; who purport to represent all private pilots. We all know this isn't the case, but it's just easier to do it the way he did it.

The editor prabably cut 7 or so key words...

The hazard workshop on Wednesday came up with the 'final' best option to achieve ALARP.

There are many others working on alternates to the alternate.

Seems the clowns (ASA Board) want resolution within days, but we all know that is extremely unlikely.

Watch out for the NOTAM reclassifying Class E to Class C... The risk of someone undertaking a VCA is the same as the current situation so no more risky. Assumption is that most will get it right; result increased safety levels for all.

Big meetings between all key players this week, decision by the end of next week; after all the hazards have been identified... hmmm.

Bottle of Rum

PS NAS is Dead, long live, what is it?

It'd be interesting to know exactly HOW and WHERE the majors are suddenly applying this pressure. To date, they have steadfastly, publicly, supported NAS and Anderson. They have been afraid to get on the wrong side of the man for all sorts of strategic reasons. I've heard this first-hand.... Frankly, to have left it for the employees/unions to fight the battle is pretty disgraceful. The same can be said about Airservices management. It also puts the management chains in very uncomfortable positions in the event of an incident or worse.... i.e. if you know something is wrong then you have a DUTY OF CARE to speak up or you could be considered to be partly responsible.

Now the "airlines" (ie management) are sensing it's politically savvy to apply the screws to NAS? Sheesh.... thanks for your timely support! :(

Quote: Bottle of Rum

PS NAS is Dead, long live, what is it?

Just some thoughts on what we could refer to the system in use prior to NAS...

PAS - Previous Airspace System?
OAS - Old Airspace System
BAS- Better Airspace System
LAS - Logical Airspace System

Any further suggestions?