|
When can we expect the ROLLBACK(Enhancements)
This is to roll several threds into one, with the obvious question.
WHEN ? I have seen posts proporting the full reversal, back to pre 27 Nov and some by ****su (and others) with the be carefull, lets wait until its all over. Am I reading something into your posts ****su. Personaly I am no NAS fan, but did see some uses for the VFR climb and descent procedure, which should be retained for certian areas or locations. So the big question is WHEN will the Rollback or enhancements occur. and What will GO and what will STAY. I suppose there is one more obvious question, but which is niether operationaly or safety based, but what the heck. WHAT WILL DICK THINK ABOUT ALL THIS. or has he been playing us all along. |
First casualty of NAS?
Could this be the first of many? Nothing on the AsA website.
"Air Services Australia (ASA) chairman John Forsyth has resigned. Mr Forsyth has been in the position for the last eight years and has been in charge of the current review of Australia's air space rules. Proposed changes to air space regulations are due to be presented to Transport Minister John Anderson within a week. No explanation has so far been provided for Mr Forsyth's resignation." abc.net.au/news |
First casualty of NAS?
Believe whatever suits your purpose, but after 8 years with that mob I'd have just about had enough as well.
ding:ok: |
Helloooooooo
Anybody, somebody come on give me a clue, a hint. Someone must have an Idea about when this is to occur. ????????????????????????????????????????? |
John Forsyth resigns, NAS where to from here?
Just so we can keep it together please post your NAS political comments here and use the V of R Thread for technical issues.
At least give it a try. W |
Smart move leaving the sinking ship early. Hopefully he will be able to "SEE AND AVOID" all the prickly questions!!
Looks like the NAS will go the way of Tricky Dickys Class G debacle. When will these jokers ever learn. Professional pilots need profesional airspace! |
Fri "The Australian"
Air traffic chief quits after reform bungle By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer February 13, 2004 AIRSERVICES Australia chairman John Forsyth has fallen on his sword in the wake of the air traffic control organisation's bungling of airspace reforms. Transport Minister John Anderson announced the long-serving Airservices chairman's resignation yesterday after a week of controversy sparked by a proposal to wind back the reforms. Mr Forsyth will be replaced by his deputy, Air Marshal Les Fisher, as the board meets today to decide whether to significantly reverse the airspace changes or make less dramatic modifications. The resignation comes after a fiery meeting on Monday between Mr Anderson and the Airspace Reform Group charged with guiding the airspace changes. Mr Anderson has personally backed the reforms and is angry public confidence has been undermined by controversy about the proposal to reverse the changes. Airservices admitted this week that it had botched the introduction of the airspace reforms by failing to meet "certain governance obligations". It is understood Mr Anderson did not ask for Mr Forsyth's resignation. "Given Mr Forysth's decision to resign, Mr Anderson felt it was appropriate that he accept that," a spokesman for the minister said. "The board and the (NAS) process needed immediate certainty and strong leadership which we believe Air Marshal Fisher will most certainly provide." Mr Forsyth had been chairman since 1996 and presided over significant advances at Airservices. "Airservices is vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," Mr Anderson said yesterday. "The organisation is held in high regard both in Australia and internationally." Airservices has refused to elaborate on the nature of its bungle but The Australian understands it relates to requirements that a decrease in safety standards be offset by a corresponding benefit. Industry sources believe the oversight left Airservices exposed legally. The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes. Unions say the changes increase the risk of a mid-air collision but Airservices maintains the reforms are safe and says the recent problems have not changed that assessment. At a hazard identification meeting last week, however, Airservices stunned industry representatives with a proposal to change significant sections of the new E-class airspace back to C-class. That proposal remains the only one taken to industry, although Airservices earlier this week said it was still reviewing other options. Canberra sources believe today's decision will involve some winding back of the November changes but not necessarily the dramatic reversal suggested to industry. ============================================ Fri "Melbourne Age" Air space chief quits after review By Mark Russell February 13, 2004 The head of Airservices Australia has quit only two days after the organisation admitted to failings in its introduction of controversial new rules governing air safety. The resignation of Airservices chairman John Forsyth was announced by Federal Transport Minister John Anderson. No reason was given. On Tuesday, Airservices Australia chief executive Bernie Smith admitted that "certain governance obligations may not have been met" in moving over to the new system. The new airspace rules, which allow light planes into areas used by commercial airliners largely based on "see and avoid" principles, have been widely criticised by pilots and the air traffic controllers' union, Civil Air. The Federal Government ordered a review of the new system after the findings of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into a near miss between an airliner and a light plane over Launceston airport on Christmas Eve. The bureau found the near miss occurred because of the new air space rules. The Airservices Australia board is due to report back to Mr Anderson next Thursday on its review of the air space system. A spokesman for Mr Anderson said the Government did not demand Mr Forsyth's resignation. "John felt he should accept it because the board (of Airservices Australia) needs certainty and they're working through this process and they need strong leadership," the spokesman said. Airservices deputy chairman, retired air marshal Les Fisher, will be acting chairman until a permanent replacement is named. Federal Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said a full explanation was needed about the reasons behind Mr Forsyth's resignation. "There are significant concerns about the new air space system that the minister must address immediately," Mr Ferguson said. "If Mr Forsyth's resignation is anything to do with the air space system, then those reasons need to be made public sooner rather than later." Captain Richard Woodward, Australian International Pilots Association's technical and safety director, said he had heard rumours that heads were going to roll over the air space system and Mr Forsyth appeared to be the first victim. "I suspect a few more heads will roll," Captain Woodward said. Civil Air president Ted Lang said there was a lot of speculation over Mr Forsyth's resignation but he was reluctant to comment. "You're probably able to put two and two together but it's not for me to comment on that," he said. Mr Anderson, in a statement last night, praised Mr Forsyth's contribution since he began the job in 1996. "Airservices Australia is a vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," he said. ======================================= |
I think that John Forsyth will be the first of many scapegoats, although John was part of the ARG.
John Forsyth was after all doing the minister's bidding like a good dog, and now because it is all coming unstuck the dog gets a kick in the behind. Well looks like this dog decided to find a new master, one that didn't blame it for its master's mistakes. I wonder how the CEO will fare. |
The official Media Release from ASA.
Perhaps more significant for what it doesn't say, than for what it does. sep No. 4/04 CHAIRMAN LEAVES STRONG LEGACY The outgoing Chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth, has overseen a period of major change and exceptional growth, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Bernie Smith said tonight. “John Forsyth has been totally dedicated to the task of advancing the interests of the aviation industry in Australia since he took up the top position in July 1996, “ Mr Smith said. “He will be a big loss to the organisation because of his unswerving dedication to safety, his business acumen and leadership and his drive and commitment to airspace reform.” Mr Forsyth has been a tireless advocate of the importance of the primacy of safety to the organisation, Mr Smith said. “He was instrumental in several major initiatives in the industry including the implementation of the world’s most advanced air traffic control system - the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS), pricing reform and the attainment of the high international reputation enjoyed by the corporation today,” he said. “Under his stewardship, the corporation reduced its operating costs by over $140 million a year through real price reductions of over 25 percent, making the organisation more commercial and highly competitive against international air navigation service providers.” “In addition, during his tenure, Airservices customers have harvested fuel savings from enhanced operational traffic flow procedures in excess of $80 million a year. This reduced fuel burn also has eliminated 890,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually”, Mr Smith said. “The corporation and the aviation industry as a whole is greatly indebted for the reforms he has overseen.” Mr Smith said Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret), who had been deputy chairman to John Forsyth for nearly three years and had joined the board in July 1999, will provide continuity for the organisation until a permanent replacement is appointed. 12 February 2004 |
Agree with Dirty Pierre 100% here. It appears Anderson has moved the "Buck Stops Here" sign and put it on Forsyth's desk. A fine example of Ministerial accountability by this weasel.
I fail to see why the CEO should be under threat at all. He was instructed to implement policy formulated by the Board and did so. The credibility of AirServices as an organisation has taken yet another hit, and the job of airspace reform has become more difficult after yet another cockup, but perhaps one benefit will come out of this in the long term. Surely, SURELY, the lesson has finally been learned now that Dick Smith must play no part in aviation reform in this country ever again? |
I fail to see why the CEO should be under threat at all. He was instructed to implement policy formulated by the Board and did so. Bernie has continually abused his staff, their union and backed the safety credentials of the NAS, despite having clear advice that it was less safe and more costly. Bernie must go, he has no credibility; he should have said no, he didn't because he might be sacked, now he'll be sacked (or resign) anyway. Was it just me that saw Bernie getting his contract extension done whilst this project was at the pressure point; one wonders if he did a secret deal? Bottle of Rum |
Richo. G'Day big fella!
Politically, NAS change can occur only two ways: 1. "Fine Tuning" will be an acronym for a major re vamp – akin to changing a Ferguson tractor into an Aston Martin – if the politicians can get away with it. 2. “Public Service Suicide” will be if NAS is scrapped and replaced with yet another system and involve senior bureaucrats committing Hare Kari in order to preserve the politicians purity. It seems number 2 above may have commenced! Woomera |
Binos
It's hard to believe that Dick was given another chance (the current one) to stuff our airspace system. I fear that we can't presume that he won't be given another! :sad:
The greatest threat to aviation safety known to mankind, IMHO and when I read Two Years in The Aviation Hall of Doom, I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air! :\ |
IMHO I can't see a rollback to the good ole days.
Anderson has put his neck out a little too far in support of NAS and a total back flip will damage him politically (as we have seen, his lap dogs are bearing the brunt of this debacle). I reckon 'fine tuning' (read major changes) will be the order of the day. |
NAMPS
If Little Johnny can do a back flip over super, perhaps big John can do one over NAS?:}
|
We live in interesting times
The stories have been around the ATC centres since mid-last week when the Haz Id process was conducted for possible "fine tuning" of the airspace.
What is clear is that Airservices feels it is exposed legally, the "NAS naysayers" of a fortnight ago are happily saying "I told you so" now and the Pro-NAS lobby voices seem to have all found a common lull in the conversational process (and haven't anything to fill it with - where's BIK 118.6 when you want him for 2000 quick words on this topic?) The model that's being touted at the moment not only rolls back the NAS carpet but appears to give us MORE class C than we had before. Given the amount the process has cost to get to this stage (bean-counters are already rattling abacus late into the night and keep coming up with figures in excess of A$50 000 000) it would appear that if a significant number of people don't fall on swords then the night of the long knives is not far off. Leaving aside the airspace arrangements such that they might be, where to from here? The Minister has been a bit quietish, what with his super to think about and all, he probably isn't giving this too much thought. He was, you will recall, very vocal that NAS was the right way to go and the RA type incidents were simply the airspace working the way it should. Has anyone else seen Minister Anderson standing in front of mirrors practicing cryptic phrases such as "simply another example of flexible government responding to the needs of the industry" while John Howard smiles fixedly in the background and edges quietly backwards? What ever happened to that "Disgruntled employee" that said this was a joke and was effectively driven out of the position of Head Air Traffic Controller by a CEO and executive only too happy to throw him to the wolves for expressing his genuine concerns? Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma? |
If the costs of this bull$hit 'process' are anything NEAR rumoured costs, there should be a royal comission into the whole thing, and the blame should go right to the top.
A bloody disgrace:mad: |
Oh the horror....
Has anyone else seen Minister Anderson standing in front of mirrors practicing cryptic phrases such as "simply another example of flexible government responding to the needs of the industry" while John Howard smiles fixedly in the background and edges quietly backwards? What ever happened to that "Disgruntled employee" that said this was a joke and was effectively driven out of the position of Head Air Traffic Controller by a CEO and executive only too happy to throw him to the wolves for expressing his genuine concerns? Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma? I guess P F might make himself available when the time comes, I dare say those responsible for this mess will be praying he stays OS?!:hmm: Come home mate and set the record straight, make these bastards accountable!:ok: Report goes to Anderson on the 19th (Last sitting day). They (House of Reps) do not sit again until the 1st March. (Saucer of milk JA?):hmm: Keep you eye on parliament first 2 weeks of March!;) |
Keep you eye on parliament first 2 weeks of March! |
NAS: What went wrong?
As NAS ‘enhancements’ are imminent and the various personalities involved scuttle about trying to make the best of a bad situation, it may be time to quietly reflect on why this attempt at aviation reform went so badly wrong. These are my views.
Firstly, aviation reform was propounded by an individual (Dick Smith) with no clearly defined goal or any cogent reasons offered for the change. The claims of costs as a reason for change were soundly refuted on two fronts. Firstly, the industry did not see cost as a major issue. In fact, an independent Eurocontrol study found that Australia’s costs weer already lower than both Europe and the US. Secondly, the claimed cost savings put forward were found (by the Airservices CEO in evidence to the Senate) to be based upon an erroneous analysis of the financial data provided by Airservices in the first place. Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, NAS went wrong because of the manner in which the reform was attempted. A telling analogy is the case of the Ansett B743 nose-wheel up landing at Sydney some years ago. This could have been Australia’s first wide-body hull loss. So, what led to the Ansett incident? Why, when the Boeing 747 has successfully been introduced into airline fleets around the world, did Ansett have an accident on their first revenue flight? The “can do” culture According to Ansett’s own analysis, the failure was in part due to the way in which the change (introduction of a new and very different type) was attempted. Captain Trevor Jensen attributed the failure in part to a “can do” culture within the Ansett group. Most airlines attempting the introduction of a Boeing 747 into a fleet like Ansett’s at the time would take approximately 12 months to complete the transition. Because of commercial pressures, Ansett attempted the change in the space of approximately 4 months. This led to serious deficiencies in the change management process, pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc. Experience Ansett found that the experience level of the crew in VH-ING was deficient, particularly in terms of the gradient of experience between the captain, FO and SO. The captain was very experienced on type, but not with Ansett, the FO (or SO) was on his first revenue flight for Ansett and also on type. The CRM aspects of such a steep experience and skills gradient became obvious when a relatively simple engine shut-down led to an approach that was too fast, without the correct flap setting and no nose-wheel. Despite all of this, the approach and landing was continued. The similarities between this and NAS are startling. It is argued by some proponents that NAS works ‘safely’ in the United States, and they see no difficulty in introducing it into Australia. Leaving aside the issue of ‘how safe is safe?’, let us examine the parallels between the introduction of a new system (NAS) and the introduction of the 747 in Ansett. ”Can do” airspace reform Airspace reform in the United States has taken many years. The culture and the system have developed in response to many competing pressures, including safety, commercial considerations, effective use of taxpayer funding and the influence of lobby groups such as AOPA (US). In Australia, the attempted introduction NAS in a short space of time was akin to Ansett’s attempt to introduce a new type in about a third of the average time. This led to deficiencies in pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc. Exactly the things that led to a near disaster at Sydney, led to a near disaster at Launceston and Melbourne. Experience Like the Ansett flight deck, Australian pilots and controllers have little experience of NAS. Where this situation occurs and cannot be avoided, it can be mitigated by a slow, careful and considered introduction of change. NAS is/was being introduced in stages, but it readily became apparent that the changes were not being absorbed in terms of experience and culture. So, why did we rush into this? According to Dick Smith, the Minister was frustrated that no reform had occurred over the preceding two years and wanted something done quickly. Mr Smith has previously shown his feeling about safety cases/analyses, when he said:” Is it because you believe safety cases are to be used to stop reform, not support reform. What other reason could there be for your inconsistency? ie, if you or your colleagues personally want the reform there is no need for a safety case, but if you do not want the reform there is the need for such an involved and detailed safety case that it will never be completed.” What we are left with is a situation where: 1. Public confidence in aviation has been eroded. This cannot have any positive affects on the financial viability of airline and other operators. How many more operators going bankrupt will it take before aviation reform is done properly, by the professionals and with broad consultation and agreement? 2. Further confusion will arise from any ‘rollback’ of NAS, leading to the possibility of further incidents. 3. The chairman of the Airservices’ board has resigned. His talents will no longer be available to benefit aviation reform and aviation safety in Australia. 4. An enormous amount of money has been wasted on now-defunct training, documentation, etc. A further amount of money will be expended undoing the mess. The costs of NAS, in terms of economic loss, loss of reputation and time are considerable. The people who made these decisions should be held to account. It is incumbent upon all of us who have been affected to support attempts to determine the truth of how NAS was allowed to proceed in the way it did. |
A bouqet
Nice read 4,7,11. I haven't had time to really think the issues through but on first glance you have a decent synopsis of what has occurred and why.
Interesting times! And now for the brickbats.... |
Anderson is an amateur in the role of transport minister and has proven such on a number of occasions…….perhaps one occasion too many.
I flew Mark Vaille around a couple of times and can say he impressed with his knowledge and answers to off the cuff questions that I posed to him. Perhaps he may have a new portfolio come the next sitting of parliament. |
What the wise men promised has not occurred,
What the damned fools said has come to pass... Regardless of 4711's excellent analysis, I think the main reason we have come to this is the structure of NAS S2B. It took away more than it gave. If they had left the C airspace exactly where it was and just plastered around a bit more E I don't think there would have been the fuss there is. Regardless of the biscuit purveyor's fetishes the C was not the problem. It is only manic near-religious fervour that could rationally propose E as safer than C, mainly on the grounds that providing a C service to aircraft was distracting tower controllers from looking at the runway... But such attitudes deemed any ARG whim away from the US model as unchallengably safe, yet anybody elses opinions (whether whims or reasoned approaches) as "non-compliant". Well done Dick, your crash through or crash attitude appears to have crashed again. At great cost to the industry and the political will of the idiots who tell the minister what to say. You have no credibility left. |
Credibility in airspace reform:
Well done Dick, your crash through or crash attitude appears to have crashed again. At great cost to the industry and the political will of the idiots who tell the minister what to say. You have no credibility left. Bottle of Rum |
Latest Airservices media release
Airspace Review Continues The Airservices Australia Board has considered the status of the National Airspace System implementation and the Corporation’s review of E class airspace in light of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) report on a recent aircraft separation incident in Launceston, the Corporation’s Acting Chairman, Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret) said today. Air Marshal Fisher said the ATSB had identified areas where improvements should be considered by Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA). “Airservices experts have undertaken a review which has identified a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation,“ he said. “This includes deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies.” Air Marshal Fisher said the Board had also agreed to options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace. “This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal Corporation practice,” he said. “I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms”. Monday 16 February 2004. Contact: David Gray Tel: 0418 487794. Question: Why did it take a near miss and the risking of hundreds of lives to ‘realise’ this, when Airservices and the government were told all of this, in advance, by their own air traffic controllers and the professional pilots concerned? Why was all of this expert advice ignored? Whose head should roll next? |
But what does it mean? The second press release in a row that says nothing...
All of a sudden the transportable radar gets a gig... We've been asking for that for years... lousy sitting in the back buildings, where it occassioanlly turns in the breeze. Bottle of Rum |
Tues "The Australian"
Rush to restore faith in airspace By Steve Creedy February 17, 2004 AIRSERVICES Australia said last night it would immediately implement "safety enhancements" to restore public confidence in botched airspace reforms, amid indications the wrangle could stretch out for months. The air traffic control corporation said last night its experts had identified "a number of safety enhancements for immediate implementation". It said the fixes included deployment of transportable radar to extend surveillance in some areas and the distribution of new charts indicating air traffic control frequencies. But Air Marshal Les Fisher, installed last week as acting chairman after the sudden resignation of predecessor John Forsyth, said the board also had agreed to "options to be tested over coming months, to further improve airspace". It was not clear whether these options referred to the drastic rollback of the reforms explored by Airservices staff at a meeting with industry almost two weeks ago. "This will involve working with industry and other stakeholders to provide input into our safety analysis consistent with normal corporation practice," Air Marshal Fisher said. "I am satisfied that these initiatives give safety top priority and they mean the public can continue to have confidence in the system and the program of aviation airspace reforms." The vague nature of the statement, on the eve of a Senate estimates committee expected to grill Airservices officials over their handling of the reforms, brought renewed criticism. The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes. Australian and International Pilots Association spokesman Richard Woodward warned that pilots would proceed with moves to slow down aircraft and activate seatbelt signs earlier unless Airservices met demands for a significant rollback of the reforms. Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson accused the Government of failing to come clean on problems with the reforms. "This is not about the minister being decisive and making decisions, this is about dribbling out a process of change to protect his backside," Mr Ferguson said. But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms. ASFA president Hank Meertens said the confederation had made an enormous effort educating members and implementing the changes, and believed they could not be reversed without a similar process. =========================================== |
But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms. Maybe the Australian tax payer can take legal action against ASFA to recover some of the public money wasted because of the introduction if this whole ill-conceived NAS BS that they and other like minded amateur organizations and individuals fooled the government into implementing. :yuk: :mad: :* |
Re The Australian article posted by Wirraway 16/02 et al
The anti NAS side are still not getting their message across correctly in my view. The oft repeated line "class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft" gives an incorrect understated value. We all know that Class C separates all traffic, hence its far higher level of safety.
By constantly referring to Class C separating light aircraft from commercial aircraft, I believe the impression formed by most of the non aviation savy, is that it's the big boys wanting more airspace for themselves at the expense of the poor little 'uns. Had the true picture been painted, perhaps there would have been more public interest in the issue from the start. |
But the Australian Sport Aviation Confederation, representing about 300,000 members, warned it would take legal action if Airservices attempted to summarily wind back the reforms. Atlas |
Profile: captain marvellous
Interests: saving the world Occupation: super hero Yup. That sounds about right! :yuk: |
Call me old fashioned...
Does anyone else see the real irony here? No-one in places of power seems to actually give a rat's @rse that the NAS arrangements were causing Virgin sphincters to pucker every time they set off into the wild blue yonder wondering when the near miss was going to become "well - they nearly missed". The philosophical problem I have is that the roll-back isn't happening for the right reasons. This is all about @rse-covering on a scale not seen since - since - well last week when Johnny back-flipped on Super for pollies. The Chairman of the Board of Airservices has resigned without a word from anyone as to why whilst the industry is in turmoil trying to avoid a mid-air and guessing what the spin-doctors are going to put up next week. Call me old-fashioned but was he getting out of the way and taking his golden handshake before the sh!t hits the fan?
The "enhancement" of the airspace that everyone's so glibly throwing about IS about rolling back. The result will probably be NAS dead in the water. I'm not personally upset at that prospect but am compis mentis enough to realise that a lot of people have invested a $hitload of dollars in trying to make it work and are going to be angry to have to spend more to get out of it. Meanwhile deafening silence from Dick Smith other than to lob a quick "the only reason we don't have a tower at Uluru is that controllers don't want to work there". X-file-o-philes are no doubt beside themselves in orgiastic rapture at the benevolent "Voices of Reason" clearing things up for the rest of us but when is someone going to cop it on the chin for this god-almighty F@^%-up? Over 50 million AU$ before we start winding back. Although, on Dick's calculations it was going to save 70 mil so we're 20 mil in front. One third goes to the industry as discounts, one third to the government as dividend and the remainder to Airservices staff as a productivity bonus. Carry the 6 and divide by Dick's undy size, that means I've got $5714.28 (ish) before tax coming my way...:ok: |
Some excerpts from a magazine called "Aero Australia" It arrived on my desk the other day with the editoral page highlighted. The editor by name of Stewart Wilson has some nasty comments about the resistance of certian sections of the industry against the airspace changes.
Under the head-line "Crying Wolf" we read "Australias new airspace rules came into effect on 27 November, the occasion preceded and followed by an unprecendented campaign against them by certain sections of the aviation community, notably some airline pilots' and air traffic controllers unions." Other comments include "those involved have been waging basically a scare campaign designed to alarm the general public........... started talking about how NASIG and others associated with the changes "will have blood on their hands", and similar opinions........................ creating the very definite impression that RPT aircraft had some kind of divine right to use Australia's airspace and that general aviation was a second class citizen and nuisance that gets in the way of the Mighty RPT. " I wonder now after the event if his mouth is big enough to put his foot in. Funny how the ATSB found the same faults that the nasty scaremongering unions kept terrorising the general public with!!!!!!!!!! |
Just like to point out to those who reckon the reason there is no tower at Uluru is that ATCs wont go there is...a load of old ****e.
Controllers in Australia love working outstations. Its "real" aviation work, where you get to see the aircraft and crew you work with on a day to day basis. The big centres are cold and remote working environments. They are pleasent working places, but you are remote from the aviation world. Aircraft are symbols on a screen, and you only communicate by voice on radio or by datalink. There is no problem staffing outstation towers in Oz. |
DP- yeah there is! The problem is that they are uneconomical, hence AsA, as a business, doesn't want to staff them. The whole idea of the CAGRO trial at AYE was to save money. All part of 'user-pays'.
I'm sure there would be no shortage of guys wanting to go. |
Staffing outstations
Ferris, you beat me to it!!
I seem to remember the pratt that just claimed that places were not staffed as the controllers didn't want to go there, was the same one that oversaw the closure of just about all the Flight Service and outstation towers? I may be wrong and I'll happily apologise if proved incorrect. Not about calling him a pratt though...certain things are self evident. |
Can someone please let us all know what the Airservices plan actually is?
The press talk about portable radars and frequencies on charts. Are they going to reclassify the E airspace into the major and regional airports into C airspace? If they won't they will not be achieving a re-alignment of the risk, and the major risk factor will still be there. If another incident occurs - or god forbid an accident occurs, AVM Fisher, Bernie Smith, the other two Smiths and Anderson should be held accountable. Interesting that the common surname around this whole debacle is SMITH....maybe SMITH should be a synonym for stuffups - "oh look - the tyre has picked up a nail and is SMITHED" -" **** - I smithed that landing" If AIPA and the AFAP want to gain some respect from the coal face troops, they should seriously investigate the possibility of taking legal action against the main protaganists in this debacle.... I certainly would be much happier to see the squillion of dollars I spend on union subs put to some decent use. |
DHD, that's "portable radar". No "s", because from what I hear there's only one portable radar. Where would you like it?
Frequencies on charts? How would you like them? There's nothing produced that accurately depicts frequency boundaries. It could be a bigger safety issue to print the frequencies on the charts now. Plan? What plan? The plan has just been shot to pieces and the head instigators are waving feathers from behind bunkers trying to convince us the thing will still fly. Plan? They're scrambling trying to put one together now. It took us more than three years to get to this point. It might take us close to that time again to sort it out. As for accountability, I have a feeling that "accountability" is behind the rapid backpeddling that is going on now. |
Yeah! We could put the radar in Tassie one week, Uluru the next...
We could even have 'radar specials' for the customers - "Get extra safety this week on trips to Hobart", perhaps with a little extra something added to the airways charges. Or maybe we could auction off radar coverage to the highest bidder. Now there's 'growing the business' for you! D'oh! That won't work - it takes at least a month to move it! Oh well, back to the drawing board. |
The latest from Bernie Smith, ASA CEO. I find the bit "The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis" interesting.
sep Note to all staff from the CEO National Airspace System (NAS) In the Media Release I sent to all staff on Monday, the Acting Chairman referred to options to improve airspace which would be tested over the coming months. In particular, the Board has agreed to specific options (others may emerge during the process) being tested over the next three months which could further improve the management of Class E airspace (this would be followed by a further three month implementation period of the recommended options). These are: (a) reclassify portions of Class E airspace around Class C and D towers to ensure the three degree aircraft flight path profile for approach to these aerodromes is captured as Class C airspace; (b) reclassify Class E airspace above flight level 125 to Class C, in additional to (a) above). In addition to progressing the above temporary options, work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. The model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis. This work will be performed in strict compliance with our Safety Management System, and at this stage we estimate it will take 12 months to complete. Further face to face briefings will be provided by senior management and me over the next week. I also appeared before the Senate Legislative Committee on Tuesday night and my opening comments to the committee read as follows: “The committee would be aware from a media statement by Airservices Australia that it has found a problem with the process used to put in place the changes to airspace implemented on 27 November 2003. Airservices wishes to put the following information on the record for this committee in order to clarify issues which we expect are of interest to it. Airservices has a statutory responsibility to consider and approve changes to airspace design and management. In managing change, either on a day-to-day basis or in relation to reforms such as NAS, Airservices is always in a position where risks exist and need to be managed. This is clearly an integral part of the business that we are in. In considering such changes, Airservices takes very seriously its obligation in regard to safety as the primary consideration. Airservices has recently formed the view that its process for considering the changes on 27 November 2003 may not have properly discharged all its responsibilities under the act. The nature of the gap in our process relates, firstly, to the extent to which Airservices may have relied on the work of other parties—the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the Aviation Reform Group, the National Air Space Implementation Group as examples—rather than its own comprehensive research and analysis. And secondly, to the way in which we chose to manage an identified risk related to the implementation of class E airspace. The first issue is now being addressed by Airservices commissioning a full and comprehensive review and validation of the safety premises which underpin the NAS reform. This will take the form of a design safety case of the full NAS reform program. The second matter involves undertaking a more extensive risk analysis of the changes implemented last year. This review, which will be undertaken over the next three months, needs to be seen in the context of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations on the Launceston incident. At that point the board will decide the extent and the need for any change to the current E airspace. Despite media speculation, Airservices continues to have insurance policies in place and there are no new operational risks that were not known when the decision to implement the changes was taken. The sorts of enhancements the board will be asked to consider after a full safety assessment involve changing certain portions of E airspace. The calls for reversal of some of the reforms implemented last November must be seen in the context that any change, even going back, carries risks. Airservices must properly assess all of this before making a final decision on the most appropriate way forward. “ |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:12. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.