The NAS Debate: Other Opinions
 

Voices of Reason has challenged Dick Smith to debate NAS issues .

1. The thread The NAS debate: Voices of Reason & Dick Smith is solely for posts by VoR and Dick.

2. This thread is for questions and comments by all users other than VoR or Dick. Please ensure questions are clear, concise and to the point.

3. All posts in both threads must be in accordance with PPRuNe Rules.

4. Posts by other users in the primary debate thread will be moved to this alternate and parallel thread.

5. If you wish to post a comment or question for either Voices of Reason or Dick Smith, please post in this parallel thread. VoR and Dick will post a reply or debate your question in the primary debate thread. I would not expect either to respond to questions in this parallel thread.

Let the NAS debate begin.

Woomera

Good idea Woomera...
 

Okay Dick & VoR, let us return to first principles.

1. What is the problem that requires "fixing' by the introduction of NAS?

2. How exactly will NAS fix this perceived problem?

No motherhood statements, no sweeping generalisations, no claim to seek world's best practice (which some claim we already have) just a plain language explanantion of why and how.

Q for Dick Smith.

The NAS is allegedly for greater flexibility of airspace use for Airspace users. In actual cubic Nautical Miles, what is the difference between today and pre NAS 2a of airspace where a VFR can operate with regard to airspace class and areas to be avoided as per the NAS training material.

Q for John Williamson

In Australia as a part of NAS we have VFR on top, VFR climb and descent and IFR pickup. Are the available areas for use, procedures for establishment and phraseolgies exactly the same here as they are in the USA (the exact system we allegedly have) and Europe which is according to Dick the same system as well?

Questions for Dick
 

Q1. Exactly how much money has been spent so far on introducing NAS 2b & and the attempted 2c.

Q2. Show us exactly and precisely how the claimed savings of $75,000,000 will be acheived.

Once again, no bulldust and feel-good statements. JUST THE FACTS!!!!!

Dick

Just who declared the american system "worlds best practice"?

From the comments of others, VOR among them, it would appear that the rest of the world thought that what you took away from us was in fact "worlds best practice"

edited to add ---

It's just occoured to me that we are expecting Dick to debate NAS here for nothing when, by his own admission, he didn't even do that when he was paid to. He considered himself appointed to push NAS through.

Q for Dick:

Why is there a greater weighting toward the use of 'see & avoid' in the NAS, despite the recommendation in the 1990 BASI report of the Limitations of The See & Avoid Principle, and that it's reliance upon should not be increased in future (post 1990) airspace design?

How do you reconcile this recommendation with its (see & avoid) increase usage??

Q for Dick;
As it is your stated goal by the introduction of NAS to 'create jobs in GA' and 'revitalise GA', why have you spent so much time, money and effort on changing airpsace? It is obvious to anyone in the industry (and most out of it) that the US charging system (including airways, landing, fuel, tax, support etc) is very different to Australia's, and as COST is the greatest impediment to any industry, why haven't you focussed your efforts there?

Q for VoR.
Do you think that ausNAS is the 'US system'? Is there any evidence in the States that suggests that GA flourishes better in areas where airspace use is less restricted, or where doing business costs less? Is the use of 'E' airspace around busy areas in the US a result of good design, or lack of resources to provide a higher level of service, or an inability to physically provide higher grade services to that volume of users?

Questions re VoR and Dick
 

Q1. The only DAS on a characteristic of NAS is the BME DAS. Are the persons who wrote the report appropriately qualified- are the conclusions, based on the data available, valid?

Q2 The preliminary report was audited by Dr Fulton and Dr Westcott. Do you think it is appropriate that Dick Smith writes to the chairman of the CSIRO seeking action against these CSIRO scientist for their work on this report. Would you consider this as undue influence and very poor behavoir of a person who then claims he has no authority?



DICK: I JUST FOUND OUT ABOUT THIS AND AM BLOODY ANNOYED AT THIS MOST UNAUSTRALIAN AND OFFENSIVE ACTION. ARE YOU BEREFT OF ANY ACCADEMIC DECENCY ON THIS SUBJECT?

YOU HAVE GOT TO LEARN NOT PLAY THE MAN.

WE ARE DEALING WITH SCIENTIFIC EVALUATION OF AIRSPACE. BULLY TACTICS AND SPITEFUL BEHAVIOUR ARE NOT PART OF THE ANALYTICAL PROCESS.

IN YOUR POSTS ON PPRUNE YOU OFTEN STATE 'WHY DON'T YOU RING ME? WHY REMAIN ANONYMOUS?"

NO F@@@@@@ WONDER PEOPLE WILL NOT RING YOU OR WANT TO REMAIN ANONYMOUS.

IT WAS ME WHO ASKED FOR AN AUDIT OF THE PRELIMINARY REPORT, AFTER I WAS ADVISED THERE WAS NO NASIG STUDY THE STUDY TEAM COULD REFER AND COMPARE THE PRELIMIARY RESULTS WITH.

I WAS DELIGHTED WHEN ADVISED THE CSIRO SCIENTISTS WERE GOING TO DO THE AUDIT, NOW I AM ASHAMED I GOT THEM INVOLVED WITH THE LIKES OF YOU AND YOUR DR SEPTIC FELLOWS.

DON'T RING ME FOR 48 HOURS, SO I CAN CALM DOWN AND DONT BERATE MY STAFF FOR NOT GIVING YOU MY MOBILE NUMBER, IT IS RESTRICTED TO FRIENDS AND VIPs. AT THE MOMENT YOU ARE NEITHER

Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group

Once more for the record
 

Questions for Mr Williamson:-

- Do you think American pilots have a clear view of exactly what class (ICAO Alphabet) of airspace they are in at any given position from the sectional charts?
- Do American Air Traffic Controllers carry legal responsibility for initiating ‘collision avoidance’ between IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR in classes E, F and G airspace’s?
- Do you consider that the processes for change management used by the FAA are similarly aligned with those change management practices recommended by ICAO?
- Do the US have recorded Mid-air collisions that involve RPT aircraft in Class E surrounding and overlying terminal areas?

Questions for Mr Smith:-

- Does AusNAS save money for our Aviation Industry?
- Do VFR pay less now than prior to Nov27 2003?
- Do VFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003?
- Do IFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003?
- On what criteria did you decide that AusNAS was superior to the LLAMP?
- Did you set out the reasons for your decision to progress your AusNAS to Minister Anderson?
- During face to face discussions (Jan 2004 YSTW tower) with controllers in the tower cab, and after explanation of the airspace specifics by those controllers did you agree that the terminal airspace above TW that was “C” should at the very least be class “D” below A065 (Outside RADAR coverage)?
- Did you during that discussion sign a statement that said “RPT aircraft should have alerted see-and-avoid”?, if so do you stand by that statement?
- Do you believe Air traffic controllers can separate/segregate/ initiate collision avoidance between 2 aircraft when one or both may not be subject to clearance and therefore not under ‘control’ rules?
- Are you aware that ICAO provide for ATS ‘collision avoidance advice’ in classes C (VFR/VFR) and D (IFR/VFR) only?
- Do you expect Air Traffic Controllers to accept responsibility for ‘collision avoidance’ between IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR in classes E and G?
- Do you support the latest ‘VRA’ proposition in E areas above terminal areas?

I look forward to your responses

Question

What safety case, or what data was used to determine the level of safety for the use of E airspace outside radar coverage.

Question

Why the need for "E" airspace in lieu of "C" above "D"? Is there a cost saving to the industry, as it appears that whether C or E, that a controller is still involved.

Very simple question!
 

Why am I now seeing so many more very small, sharp primary returns on my weather radar when I have to stooge around in this mess?
Please dont refer me to the FBI or the Roswell files.
Please dont tell me that its not possible to paint other aircraft on a weather radar.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I always thought a debate invole discussion between at least 2 parties. The lack of response from Dick is exactly what we have come to expect.

Don't hold your breath waiting for a proper, reasoned response, if any ever is made.

The usual story...so far out of his depth the waters turning black.

The only positive is we are seeing the beginning the end of Dick's airspace meddling...it only remains to see what damage is done in the interim.

VoR's opening statement confirms what a lot of us, who fly internationally, have believed for a long time. Australia had best practice prior to Nov 2003.

Chuck:mad: :mad: :mad:

Ladies and Gentlemen,

First - thank you for your comments and questions.

Woomera has contacted Voices of Reason and Dick Smith separately to advise us of the process that has been established.

Mindful of Mr Smith's other business interests, we think that it is reasonable to provide a little more time for a response.

Many of the questions and comments that you have all made have of course been made before - both on PPRuNe and through other media.

On advise from Woomera, Voices of Reason will not make responses directly to the questions on this thread, lest Mr Smith think that we are in any way partisan on this issue. The same advice has, we hope, been provided to Mr Smith. Be assured, however, that where it is practical in the debate, we will try to answer all of your points.

We would like to reiterate to Mr Smith that any discussion and debate between Mr Smith and Voices of Reason will be based on factual information only. Mr Williamson is well qualified to lead the debate.

Like wtf? So this thread is for what then?

Tobzalp and others,

We undertook not to answer your questions on this particular thread - i.e., The NAS Debate - Other Opinions. We did in our last post commit to answer them as far as is practicable in the context of any exchange with Mr Smith in the debate thread.

No disrespect,

But we have already heard how long it took Dick to register on this site. How long will it take him to get one of his "experts" to write his response for him?

I accept that VOR is a multiple entity but come on Dick, how long does it take to get the PR department's ar$e into gear?

Gunner B12, you have asked who has declared the American system as world’s best practice. It wasn’t me but anyone who has had experience in flying in many airspace systems around the world would agree that it is a very good one. Why wouldn’t it be? It has evolved over 100 years with large amounts of money available (America is the wealthiest country on earth) and it is a very litigious society so pressure is brought to bear to have the best balance of safety, freedom and cost. So whilst it may not be the best one in the world in every situation, it is certainly an excellent system.

Jet_A_Knight, in relation to see and avoid everything I have done has been to reduce the amount of unalerted see and avoid. I understand I am the only person who has consistently asked BASI/ATSB for a print out of CTAF/MBZ incidents. They show that we have a high number of unalerted see and avoid incidents close to the airport. These are the incidents that are most likely to turn into a mid-air collision. That is why I have worked tirelessly to have UNICOMs at airports. Once, as Chairman of CASA, I brought in legislation that made a UNICOM compulsory under certain circumstances. This was rolled by pressure from the airlines and Cheryl Kernot.

You make out as if the present system before 27 November 2003 complied with the BASI recommendation in relation to no unalerted see and avoid for airline aircraft. The December 2003 ATSB report “Airspace related occurrences involving Regular Public transport and Charter Aircraft within Mandatory Broadcast Zones” shows that there are a rising number of incidents in MBZs of unalerted see and avoid. This is not such a problem in the USA because non-tower airports that have airline traffic virtually always have a UNICOM operator which means that there is a third party present to confirm that the radio is on frequency and operating. That is commonsense.

As you would know, the airlines have constantly fought me and outmanoeuvred everything I have done so they do not have to have the small cost of a UNICOM at the non-tower airports to which they operate. Don’t worry, one day I’ll win this one. (Just as I’ll get a tower at Broome!) I’m hoping it is before there is an unnecessary accident.

To all the pilots who support our unique “calling in the blind” mandatory rules, I ask you to think again. There is no reason why we cannot have UNICOMS as the United States has. There is no measurable cost, and even though it may seem strange that non-ATC trained people can give a very useful service at an airport, it is so. Go flying in the USA and you will very quickly see how fantastic their UNICOMS are.

WALLEY2, don’t get your toga in such a knot. I have as much right as anyone to write a letter to the CSIRO and ask them about the CSIRO’s involvement in your report. In fact, the letter was simply a follow-up to a previous letter I had sent in relation to Neale Fulton’s claim that the hemispherical rule that I introduced was dangerous, and that Australia must return to the quadrantal rule and full position reporting for VFR. I’ve always taken this CSIRO claim seriously, as if it is factual it must be complied with. So far, the CSIRO has not confirmed that the organisation supports Neale Fulton’s quite extraordinary claims. Can you imagine? What Dr Fulton is actually saying is that the ICAO rule that allows VFR aircraft to fly at 500’ intervals (and therefore different levels to IFR) is not safe and must be reversed. I think most would agree that would bring the American and European system to a halt – i.e. all of the VFR aircraft would be flying at the same level as IFR and be back in the system as they were before 1991 in Australia.

Capcom, I will endeavour to answer some of the questions.

· Does AusNAS save money for our Aviation Industry?
Most certainly. Already aircraft are not having to divert many extra miles in Class C airspace above Class D. I’m getting reports all the time of the quite substantial savings being made by aircraft. For example, the pilot of the VFR aircraft involved in the Launceston incident says that before the 27 November 2003 changes, on up to 50% of occasions when he overflew Launceston he would be diverted up to 15 miles off track in CAVOK conditions if there was an IFR aircraft – even a Navajo – present in the controlled airspace. This was because there was no radar at Launceston and so procedural separation of 10 minutes had to be given quite often if aircraft passed through the same levels. 10 minutes at 180 knots is 30 miles. That is a lot of extra flying and a lot of extra cost.

· Do VFR pay less now than prior to Nov27 2003?
Most certainly they do because in many cases they are not forced to file an IFR flight plan (and pay enroute charges) to be guaranteed a prompt clearance through what was Class C airspace.

· Do VFR receive the same level of safety in Class E that was Class C prior to Nov 27 2003?
Probably a higher level now as they can track direct and they are not forced over tiger country in single engine aircraft – which often happened. I was recently speaking to a pilot of an aircraft who on numerous times overflying Hamilton Island was kept holding at the control zone boundary over water in a single engine aircraft. Now that aircraft can fly in Class E airspace at a higher level of safety.

· On what criteria did you decide that AusNAS was superior to the LLAMP?
LLAMP completely removed any directed traffic service for IFR airline aircraft at non-tower airports. This was outrageous. It was the same error of the infamous 11/11 Buck Brooksbank proposal. In becoming obsessed with VFR radio arranged separation, the LLAMP group were forced to delete a directed traffic information service for IFR. No country in the world has such a system. Every proposal I have ever been involved in has either a traffic information service in the terminal area for IFR, or a Class E traffic separation service. The other major problem with LLAMP was that CTAFs were to be removed and new areas called DAFs (Designated Area Frequency) established, which had up to 32 aerodromes on the one frequency. By law all VFR aircraft transiting the DAF enroute had to monitor this circuit traffic with mandatory reporting requirements. Nothing like this had ever been attempted in the world before. It basically would have destroyed GA as we know it today in Australia – and it is already half destroyed. Also, most importantly, LLAMP was a unique invention. I have only ever supported proven systems. I am very conservative when it comes to air safety. I like copying the success of others in everything in life.

· Did you set out the reason for your decision to progress your AusNAS to Minister Anderson?
First of all, it wasn’t just my decision, it was the unanimous decision of the Aviation Reform Group, who are all people of independent minds, views and expertise. People like Ted Anson (the Chairman of CASA at the time), who whilst not an aviator took extensive advice from people at CASA. The reasons were obvious. The LAMP system was invented and would have resulted in a system that was like nothing ever used anywhere else in the world before – even Australia. Whereas the NAS system was highly proven. Remember, the NAS plan was (and still is) to follow the US procedures that they use in radar airspace, and to follow the US procedures that they use in non-radar airspace.

· During face to face discussions (Jan 2004 YSTW tower) with controllers in the tower cab, and after explanation of the airspace specifics by those controllers did you agree that the terminal airspace above TW that was “C” should at the very least be class “D” below A065 (Outside RADAR coverage)?
No I did not.

· Did you during that discussions sign a statement that said “RPT aircraft should have alerted see-and-avoid”? If so do you stand by that statement?
Yes, I certainly did sign that statement and that has always been a view of mine. Where I am different is that I am convinced from the evidence that our system did not provide an alerted see and avoid situation because a calling in the blind procedure resulted in many errors being made and therefore many unalerted see and avoid incidents. That is why I have worked constantly to have third party operators at non-tower airports.

· Do you believe Air traffic controllers can separate/segregate/initiate collision avoidance between 2 aircraft when only one or both may not be subject to clearance and therefore not under ‘control’ rules?
Yes, I believe an excellent safe service can be provided as this is what happens 365 days a year with 20 times the density of traffic in the USA.

· Are you aware that ICAO provide for ATS ‘collision avoidance advice’ in classes C (VFR/VFR) and D (IFR/VFR) only?
This could well be so, but I’m not sure what it has to do with anything. I have found that ICAO is simply an organisation which takes most of its airspace advice from air traffic controllers who have a vested interest in the outcome of the regulation. ICAO also has some very strange rules in relation to airworthiness requirements and I have been told these are mainly in place for poor third world countries!

· Do you expect Air Traffic Controllers to accept responsibility for ‘collision avoidance’ between IFR/VFR and VFR/VFR in classes E and G?
I believe it is a shared responsibility. I would be quite happy to follow the responsibility requirements that exist in the USA. After all, I’ve never yet heard from an American controller that their airspace gives unfair responsibility.

· Do you support the latest ‘VRA’ proposition in E areas above terminal areas?
No, I have no idea what it is.

Mr Smith,

You crave a tower at Broome, and are pushing for Unicom operators at other airports to improve traffic awareness while allowing greater freedoms for GA traffic...

And on the other hand propose 'see-and-avoid' as the primary collision avoidance measure in class E airspace between VFR/IFR traffic.

You claim that the tower/Unicoms would improve saftey, and on the other hand propose that implementing 'see-and-avoid' as the sole, real measure doesn't reduce it. Aren't these two philosophies in direct conflict with each other?

Dick, another contradiction?
 

Quote: "in relation to see and avoid everything I have done has been to reduce the amount of unalerted see and avoid. I understand I am the only person who has consistently asked BASI/ATSB for a print out of CTAF/MBZ incidents. They show that we have a high number of unalerted see and avoid incidents close to the airport".

Dick, is that the reason why you have tried to introduce NO MANDATORY CARRIAGE OF RADIO in the soon to be created CTAF's as part of NAS 2C?

Once again I ask you:

Q1. Exactly how much money has been spent so far on introducing NAS 2b & and the attempted 2c.

Q2. Show us exactly and precisely how the claimed savings of $75,000,000 will be acheived.