Dick,
Branson had 30% of the Australian market GIVEN to him. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be in business. Sorry, you're 60 and retired, right?
What ARE you smoking again??!! Perhaps you could give us the jobs lost by Ansett's collapse verses the jobs created by Branson's good fortune? I do understand that you, being a typical "boss", think "reform" is defined as half the number of people, working for 1/2 the pay, doing twice the work. That's not reform, that's capitalism. Don't try to use one to justify the other.
You know very well nobody flies there because there are huge MOUNTAINS in that G airspace. Tell the WHOLE story, for god's sake man.

Dick, please read this post carefully.

This forum is populated by (mostly) industry professionals. You can go on TV and 'spin', half-truth, waffle etc as much as you like. The public might buy it. The professionals might, by providing factual balance, get the public to see the truth.

BUT YOU CANNOT TELL PORKIES HERE. You will have the facts presented against you every time (as has happened time and again). PLEASE STOP.

Even I can see, from afar, that the tide has turned against you (again). Have the decency to clean up your own mess. If you are incapable of any humility, bow out and let someone else do the job.

mmmmm let me see, how does it go...

You can fool all of the pilots some of the time and you can fool some of the pilots all of the time but you cannot fool all of the pilots all of the time.

I came to NAS like most, with an open mind. Two points still have to be addressed:

1. What are the benefits?

In answer to this we get motherhood statements such as " it is a safer system" I even endured Mr & Mrs King telling me that NAS would stimulate GA in Australia. For goodness sake how? It does not remove any costs and even if it did ATC costs are a very small portion of aircraft operating costs so the actual total costs would vary little.

2. Why has there been so little input allowed from the professional aviation sectors, ATC, GA, Airlines etc and so much said by Dick and yet so little from Mike Smith and John Anderson?

The education material has been too little too late and then for AsA to send out yet another chart to put the frequency boundaries was laughable. Not because it was not needed but because someone :rolleyes: thought that it wasn't. The costs to add these back to the next issue of the charts must be high. At least I hope they are added back to the VNC and VTC again, otherwise once again we will have pilots drawing lines in pencil on their charts transposed from a chart of a different scale!

Dick I agree that sometimes "the people" do not know what is good for them and have to be pushed. eg seat belts in cars, motorcycle helmets etc. However, people also know when they see a lemon. You have tried to cherry pick the US system for whatever reason. Will we get their flight service and briefing offices? Can we go to FL140 without oxygen? Will we get a pro rata amount of radar in Oz?

Please stop this nonsense and find some other issue to put your resources behind. How about streamlining CASA services to reduce costs for a start.

Dick, Where do you get them from?

These comments are simply wrong.

Did your expert read this report in full ?

The comment on p42 "only considered the risk of the mid-air collision" refers to the paper Fulton and Westcott (2001).The Broome DAS most certainly includes ground based risks!! Infact if as Topzalp said " your Tarrot card reader" had looked at the Table "REAL and SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS AT BROOME" p59 out of the 14 hazards listed
H2 COLLISION RISK VEHICLE-AIRCRAFT
H3 COLLISION RISK RUNWAY INCURSION AIRCRAFT-AIRCRAFT
H7 RUNWAY HUMP(line of site on ground problem)
H8 APRON CONGESTION

THERE ARE MORE IDENTIFIED GROUND HAZARDS THAN AIRSPACE HAZARDS. I KNOW YOU MAY HAVE TROUBLE READING BUT SURELY AS THIS GUY HAS A Ph.D he can read!!

Ground hazards are even included in the tables he quotes as being handled statistically incorrectly.

Those tables are on page 64 & 65 If he had bothered to turn the page to 66 he would have read

"No formal mechanism exists to aggregate the rankings of Table 14 and Table 15 and they are simply summed."

THAT SHOULD BE CLEAR EVEN TO YOU LET ALONE YOUR Ph.D GUY

Also for the record I do not know Dr fulton except by reading some of his many published papers. The DAS contributers are well published in scientific journals and conferences, could not find any papers by your guy, what is his Ph .D in? and which country does he publish in? Give Kim or me a ring or email us as this is a personal matter to him and I do not want to embarrass him in the public domain

With the exception of Dr Emery I do not know any other of the 9 or so contributers to the DAS.

Now a fair warning if you publish this report on your web site and it contains errors like those I have just advise you of, I will fund any recourse (academic or legal) any of the scientist, mathematicians, engineers,pilots, psychologists or ATC experts wish to take against this Dr .

I helped to put them in the position to be exposed to your "play the man tactics" so I am obliged and will gladly finance their defence of their credentials and work.

In 15 minutes I have shown that this Guys major tenet of suposed error is manifestly wrong. I will not pass this on to the DAS Panel or comment publically on this forum about this again. You love controversy and I will not feed it to you when other innocent persons end up getting hurt.

Beside numerous praise by professionals within Australia and CASA's decision on MBZs, as an Australian you will be pleased to know that the DAS has been nominated for an international award.

Walley2, I'm enjoying reading your posts. Sounds like both Dicarus and Micarus are flying a little too close to the sun yet again.

Umm Dick...where exactly along the BK Lane of Entry do light aircraft transiting it come within '300 meters' of RPT Jets inbound to YSSY?:confused:

I have only used it, the BK LOE, a few times in the last 20+ years since learning to fly at BK but I think you'll find that at Horsnby the jets are in the vicinity of 4000'+ while those in the lane are at 1500'. And that's just verticle seperation...there would be a mile or so lateral as well.

Chuck.

Capn Bloggs....

How many of these airports in WY, UT, AZ, CO, ID, MO, NM have you actually
flown into on a regular basis either on regional airline operations or as a GA pilot?
I would suggest approximately none! If you had, you would have a much more accurate idea of how many GA and RPT aircraft occupy the said airspace. That low traffic density class G airspace in the US is busier than most class E I have experienced in Australia.

Dick,

I wonder if the nice "Dr. Skeptic" would mind running his investigative eye over a couple of balloon and helicopter "record" flights while he is working in the aviation arena.

I also know a guy who is related to the Boulia airport mower driver (therefore an expert on aviation) who can prove that it is physically impossible for aeroplanes to fly.....if that helps with your safety case!

AND, by the way Dick, I'm still waiting for an answer from you on my "5%" question??

Chimbu, to take the Devil's advocate role... (and sorry to be so boring for the rest of the country)

VFR aircarft tracking up the BK LOE currently frequently get within 500FT vertical and zero lateral of IFRs in the radar circuit for 16R. Class C LL is A025. Considering we may let the 1200's Mode C get up to A027 before reacting, there is a 300FT safety margin. That's ... what ... under 100 metres?

If the track from Parramatta to Pennant Hills then Hornsby is missed by 1 NM in error to the east, the 700FT step gets infringed and should there be traffic on final nearby (this is the 16R IAF) we'll get a BOS incident and potential TCAS RA (assuming transponder operating).

Dick, just some of the rather expensive and political hurdles to jump before getting a VFR lane overhead YSSY: LTOP mode flexibility; putting the lane out to sea at least 3NM clear of 16L circuit (LA VFR lane is 90 degrees to the circuit, not 30 degrees as SY would be); Holsworthy demolition/live firing; Lucas Heights; Airline-preferred STARS connected to runways for fuel savings no longer possible; getting departures from BK up to 7500/8500 before crossing the SY circuit (... where?). It's ridiculous to suggest this would work at SY. And even if you could manage it, at what cost to the industry for what benefit (oh, sounds like NAS all over again!)?

mjbow2,
That'd be the "ICAO" Class G airspace where ALL IFR get a clearance, would it, because that's the way the yanks do business? Bit of a shame THAT part of the US NAS is not being implemented here...
You're defending the indefensible.

But look...."Dr Sceptic" is a JP too!!

Surely the sign of a man desperate to collect letters after his name. :yuk:

Capn Bloggs

I wasnt defending anything. You made a very misleading statement. Argue your point all you want but I think the readers are entitled to accuracy where it can be provided. Sorry but your statement was quite wrong.

If you would take the time to search the FAA database on aircraft owned in the said states I would put even money on there being more privately owned aircraft (not counting the dozens of operators) flying around the class G of the Rocky mountain area than are on the entire Australian civil register.

As far as the other waffle about IFR clearance through class G, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you take off from a class G airport and fly through class G with a 'clearance'. your clearance gives you seperation for the controlled airspace....not class G. The clearance is always for that portion of the flight which is in controlled airspace.

I find it hard to beleive that you have ANY experience in the US airspace system that you seem to want to pass comment on.

I think the readers are entitled to know your credentials when making these staements to support your arguement. If you do have any at all then you are grossly misrepresentling the truth to support your argument. Exactly how much time have you spent flying in the US?

WALLEY2, Mike, no I’m not concerned about your threats. The Roberts report is now on my website as well as a fantastic report by Bob Hall of the Gliding Federation making similar comments.

I happen to believe that there should be no secrets when it comes to aviation safety. I don’t object to you in any way publishing your report. I believe it is healthy to also obtain other views.

If anyone wants to read either the Roberts or the Hall report go to www.dicksmithflyer.com.au

self advertising/promotion and multi spamming of own site. Edit and delete and ban thx Woomera if you want to remain consistent.

You know it would be interesting to see Dr Roberts opinion of the report recommending NAS in the first place. Can you imagine what he would make of all the "I believes".

Plazbot, kindly be specific, rather than cryptic about your request. What are you talking about? This is my first post on this thread.

Amos, (I believe) that was long-time member Hugh Jarse.

Dick smith is pimping his site. I have no probelm with linking directly to the document that he refers to but posting his personal web site url and direct us to go and look for it is not on. People will read a thread and if there is a document to do with that they can see by clicking a link but having to read tons of propaganda along the way that is completely unrelated is and has never been accepted here.

Even though it is my side of the fence as an example ****su Tonka links directly to the documents that he/she feels are related to a thread and does not ram the rest of the Civil Air site down peoples throats. The Broome study was exactly the same. Other posters have had their posts edited in the past. Why is this little man any different?

All he needs to do is this

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=267

That is the study.

I assume you will replace his with this.

I assume as you introduce him as Bob Hall of the Gliding Federation he lacks any more compelling/pertinate qualifications?

Chuck:ugh:

I thought it was time I visited the NAS website again which was a complete waste of time as it is so far out of date. However I did find this gem at the foot of the page...

What a joke. The Minister for Transport is supposed to run DOTARS and therefore NAS so why would the NAS site disagree with DOTARS policy? Oh I know...:rolleyes:

So where do we go for up to date information?