Airspace Reform – Quiet Reflection
 

AIRSPACE REFORM – QUIET REFLECTION

It was predictable, though by no means certain, that the current planned airspace reform program would stall at this point, because of serious flaws in process and planning. It should not, however, be seen as a “right or wrong” situation – merely one where decisions were (finally) taken on the ultimate aviation fallback – SAFETY.

We are sure that there was inordinate pressure being brought to bear on the decision makers. Common sense has prevailed.

We have observed two things in this debate. The first is a dramatic polarization of views in Australian aviation, with a hard “in favour of NAS” faction, and a hard “against NAS” faction, and very little observable middle ground.

The more important observation, though, has been the tremendous, albeit last minute, focus on risk assessment and cost benefit analysis. These were the tools missing at the start of this reform effort, and if nothing else positive has come of the exercise, it is the presence of a range of tools and expertise with which to attack any future reform efforts.

It is impossible that a sensible debate could be had now, or in the very near future. But rather than engage in a drawn out blame shift or legal battle, Mr Smith could and should add significantly to airspace management be asking his experts to cooperate and collaborate with Airservices Australia and other industry partners to develop a common and agreed risk modeling process, that is acceptable to all parties. This would include the work done by other stakeholders, including Broome airport.

One thing that is patently clear is the contribution to the recent chaos caused by the failure of your regulator to make a decision and publish a risk reference standard for Australia. The only material in the public domain is outdated guidance material, which causes more harm that good.

One of the first objectives of your regulator must be to “bite the bullet” and declare what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable risk in Australian aviation. At the very least, it will give you a start point from which to argue safety and risk in the public domain.

Once more we have to say that the proposed changes under NAS were not necessarily unsafe – but the manner in which they were being introduced, and the total lack of transparent process, made the transition risk unacceptable. If further reform is to be achieved, not only must the risk associated with the changes be examined, but those associated with implementing the changes must be examined and carefully managed.

The nature of airspace, and the evolution of aircraft and supporting infrastructure, is such that airspace review and reform must be a constant process. Airspace is a national commodity, which must be used in the national interest, and not unnecessarily restricted for the benefit of one part of the aviation industry. This must be achieved within an agreed safety and risk management framework.

Spot on, VoR, and thank you for your efforts.

I believe it was only through your well-reasoned, and timely, intervention that the airspace decision makers in Oz finally started to seriously question the bases for planning underpinning NAS and the potential downstream consequences of the path that we were going down. Their task was made so much easier when DS self-destructed on 4BC.

As a PPL who uses the system regularly, thanks for restoring common sense into the debate and for ensuring the ongoing integrity of Australia's national airspace system.

As you say, every system needs to continually evolve and improve, and I believe Australia's system can be improved, but let's do it in a manner that reflects world's best practice in planning methods and also maintains the confidence of ALL airspace users.

Agreed!
 

VoR,

Wholeheartedly agree.

There is a need for reform in Australian Aviation. It's not just airspace and airspace procedures, however, that needs reform.

Any aviation reform in Australia needs to take a holistic approach. An approach where all the factors that affect a viable Australian aviation industry are taken into consideration. A process that involves all stakeholders, and has safety as a priority. A process where consultation with experts and interested parties has occurred. But most importantly, a reform process that has clear milestones with viable and adequate education in place for all airspace users and administrators.

Aviation management is a team game for team players. It is not the place for mavericks or those with a crusade complex.

Facts and data tend to be at a premium in the debate about airspace
 

Let's try to collect some facts and data. (VoR and Woomera: I hope you don't mind me hijacking this sticky for a good cause.)

Dear PPRuNers

1. On the occasions on which you fly VFR, how often have you have had to wait outside controlled airspace while waiting for an airways clearance to enter that airspace?

2. On the occasions on which you have been flying VFR and have had to wait outside controlled airspace while waiting for an airways clearance, how close (in terms of time) were you to the airspace boundary before you provided details to ATC?

3. How often have you wanted to fly, but have been prevented from flying where you wanted to go or at all, because the aircraft had no transponder or the transponder fitted to the aircraft was unserviceable?

VoR

Nice summary. I've not agreed with all of the VoR posts, as some have varied greatly in objectivity, but this one is certainly on the money.

It has been very difficult for anyone on this forum to post anything but complete agreement with one end or other of the debate without beeing "shouted down" by those who obviously have more time to spend in front of a computer terminal to defend their position/s. And it does seem that apart from RHS, the "antiNAS" folks have most of the time or the inclination.....

At times I have played a very minor (I have a life away from the PC) devil's advocate role in pointing out that the very things that make some folks apopleptic seem to be OK in some areas but not in others ( e.g. IFR RPT crossing VFR GA in "E" over "D" near YSCH is BAD but then accepting jet RPT descending into G then MBZ as in Ballina/Byron).....all questions regarding what is the objective standard that separates these circumstances are ignored or returned with a vitriol that is underserved (how ya goin' Binos?).

A declaration of "what constitutes acceptable or unacceptable risk in Australian aviation" would be most welcome. The Medical section of CASA have been basing their risk assessments on a 1:1000000 risk of pilot incapacitation for example.

Creamie

1. VFR private flying - ~1:5 delays in/near terminal airspace; up to 20 minutes of orbits traversing YBCG airspace on a CAVOK day. IFR private flying - no delays. Other IFR flying - no delays. It's OK if you pay.....except private IFR ex:Bankstown - expect to be d*cked around extensively most times unless you want to stay =<8000 via RIC.

2. *Always* flight planned with >> 1 hour notification and if VFR, call >10 minutes before boundary, with ATIS. IFR, never any delay, just the occasional vector. It's OK if you pay....

3. There are ACFT without TXP??!! ;)

BTW - why would a lawyer be interested in FACTS and DATA?? ;)

Cheerio chaps

Creampuff

Q1. Haven't flown VFR for many years but in the days I did, was never denied a clearance and never flew outside the training area without a flight plan.

Q2. Never had to remain OCTA as always flight planned when outside training area.

Q3. NEVER.

Capt Claret
But 'back in the day' you had to flightplan everything, didn't you?

Well before my time, but my mate's old man had a PPL back in the 70s, and he tells me his dad had to lodge a flightplan to ferry planes from Schoies back to Bankstown every weekend. His old man has past away so I couldn't ask him, but a flightplan for such a short flight seems overkill these days.

On the otherhand, GA was more vibrant then than now... who knows? :confused:

NOtimTAMs

If you’re delayed 1 in 5 flights, having submitted a flight plan or details well in advance, that’s unacceptable. Either there are insufficient air traffic service resources in the areas in which you fly, or the air traffic service providers in those areas are not competent, or you’re not working the flightplan or the system properly.

I have to say, yours is the only first hand report of delays of that kind that I’ve ever heard. Do you have any colleagues who suffer the same delay rate?

As to your rhetorical question re transponders: indeed. All this outrage about transponder requirements, but nobody’s stopped to find out how often (if ever) someone is prevented from flying somewhere, or at all, because of transponder requirements.

And to answer your question about facts and data: you’d be surprised how often facts and data get in the way of ostensibly compelling arguments, legal or otherwise!

Obiwan

The simple answer is no. As best I can remember the choices for a VFR pilot in those days were:

• Flight plan with Full Position Reporting (much like today's IFR, posn reports + 2 minutes.
• Flight Plan & nominate a SARTime,
• No SAR No Details - couldn't just pop up at the CTR/CTA boundary and request a clearance.

I think there was a 50 nm limit from departure point to legally operate No SAR-No Details, in the example you site, I suspect that BK as a Secondary CTZ (in those days) wouldn't allow inbound without a flight plan.

Speaking for myself, I never found it onerous to file a flight plan, back then we even had nice Flight Service officers who would accept a reverse charges phone call, read out the Wx & notams and take the flight plan details!

It's interesting that when CFI at a regional Aero Club, there was a level of tension between myself and some of the committee. Said committee members were of the opinion that one should just be able to jump in and fire off to where ever without following the rules of the day. They used to do things like call the AFIZ on taxi, advising of a NoSar NoDetails flight to a point just outside the AFIZ boundary, and then fly all the way from QLD to Mildura and the like, without talking to a soul.

One of these guys once told a student studying for his then Unrestricted PPL, not to worry about studying the WX/Notams and working out headings & GS, just look out the window and if you get into trouble, "you've always got a radio". This person's son was killed years later flying a metro into a large rock at night, below the DME steps. I often wonder if dad's cavalier attitude my have contributed to the son's well intentioned but fatal decision to ignore DME limits in a locale he was not familiar with.

My perception is that Dick et al want the privilege of flying where they want, when they want, without any of the responsibility that comes with defying nature in a heavier-than-air machine. I believe that they work on the big sky theory as I don't believe that they have any better sight than the average CPL/ATPL holder, and it scares me how many aircraft I've passed and not been able to see. Thus far the big sky theory has been a signifficant factor in the lack of mid-airs in Australia. I just don't want to rely on it!

typo

VOR,

Your contributions to the debate on airspace have been appreciated and valued.

It is indeed a matter of regret that your topical reflection will fall on barren ground.

Your expression of hope concerning Mr Smith will remain, as Dr Johnson said, a reflection of the triumph of hope over experience.

This is not a slight on you but a recognition that the experience of Australian aviators, policy makers and politicians is that Mr Smith is incapable of co-operating or working with anyone or any organisation that does not accept, unquestioningly, his view of the world.

Few people respond to shouting, bluster, threats, personal attacks, the selective use of information and the arrant deduction so evident in Mr Smith's replies to the various forums on airspace reform that have appeared over the past few months.

Further, your expressed hope that the regulator will publish a risk reference standard will also sadly fall on barren ground.

The regulator simply won't bite the bullet because the only politically acceptable solution that will receive support is zero risk.

The industry knows and understands this to be patently ridiculous and impractical but to an Australian travelling public that has never suffered a jet hull loss and for whom the last major hull loss of any significance was in 1968 (Viscount crash near Port Hedland, WA), to suggest that an acceptable risk, however remote, includes the possibility that they might be killed in an air crash just, to use a very bad pun, won't fly.

Our gutless politicans who, to quote Sir Humphrey, may occasionally take a controversial decision but never a courageous one (the latter being one likely to cost them their place in Parliament), will simply not permit anything else.

What then follows is obvious. The airlines will, quite properly, tell the public how much such a safety regime will cost, and the consequent massive increase in air fares, and remind the politicians of the level of likely job losses in marginal seats in the major cities and the same gutless wonders will quickly avoid making any decision at all.

The result will sadly be more of the same with vast amounts of money wasted, enormous frustration for the industry and decisions about airspace taken without reference to cost benefits, proven risk models and demonstrably scientific data and the operational and commercial requirements of the users.

my bolding

Game set and match I'd say :{

Christmas Scene Jar
 

I think it is a recently published theory that if you took all the airplanes in Australia and shoved them in a jar the size of australian lower level airspace and shook it around it would take 300 years for two to collide. This doesn't take into consideration the fact that airplanes tend to congregate of course. I'm with Gaunty though; it would be just my sort of luck to beat the odds and find one.

Creampuff, in my very limited experience, an Oz pilot can't just say "flying vfr in Oz you'll be denied an airways clearance 1 in 5 times". I'm probably wrong, but in my experience it just depends on the airport you're heading into, the time and day (read traffic flow) and the alignment of the solar system (read controllers mood). I've never been knocked back coming into Canberra VFR, yet have had to orbit outside ML for a half hour on a quiet night. Yet the other day outside Melbourne just listening, I heard ATC absolutely bend over backwards with an Indian phrasebook to try and help out a guy who just wanted a clearance to clip the edge of class C to save himself about 1 minute. There is no hard a fast rule. Same as UK.

I don't have an instrument rating, but one thing I was wondering was what would ATC say if they denied an already airbourne inbound IFR flight anyway? Once airbourne, say from a CTAF or MBZ, aren't you already sort of accepted into the system anyway? Would ATC tell you to "remain OCTA"? How would they seperate you from other IFR traffic without putting you into some sort of pattern? I guess what I'm thinking is perhaps getting an IFR AC to hold outside OCTA with no holding pattern (as is often the case) AND providing seperation is harder than just accepting the aircraft. VFR AC however they can just say "remain OCTA" and absolve themselves of responsibility temporarily.

I realise I'm asking questions in the big peoples area here. I've got a load off my chest though..

"Clearance not available" and they are supposed to stay out or use a 'flaky VFR procedure' to enter without a clearance. If they tell me what they're doing I'll include it in traffic information but (separation wise) nobody exists until they have a clearance (or it becomes apparant they've penetrated).

But we only do it if there's SOMEBODY IN THE WAY!

150Aerobat,

Your question is a good one and the answer is something that those who have latched on to the pro-NAS at any cost bandwagon dont want you to hear (you see, NAS is nothing to do with making it easier for pilots or even anything to do with Aviation - it is 100% politics and bullshiit from dick smith and his pied-piper ignoramii).

Thing is.... IFR aircraft can and do get told remain OCTA. If they are transitting from G Airpsace they do not have an automatic clearance. In fact (they wont tell you this at AOPA school) they have no more priority at most controlled airports than VFR traffic - in fact, a VFR pop-up at most controlled airports has equal priority to a 747 from LAX or Hong Kong. Don't believe me? Check your AIP! Do you know why most people don;t know this? (apart from propoganda and disinformation campaigns being run by the loony fringe).......

It's because, it is very rarely needed to delay an aircraft for clearance - for VFR or for IFR!

The phrase 'remain OCTA' does not equate to 'Clearnace not Available'. It just means that the controller is finding your flight plan details (or entering them into a data hungry network system if you havent flight planned : hint-hint--> put a bloody flight plan in people!), or has not yet identified you (radar). Once you are sorted, you wil only ever be delayed if a separation standard can not be applied immediately to other traffic in CTA, or you have a lower priority according to AIP. (i.e. Sydney Airport / Medical traffic etc.)

There is no black magic or how a controller feels about it.

Dick Smith doesnt say this in his rants - frankly I wonder if he even knows it.

passenger class action
 

VoR

I wonder if you have any plaintiff lawyer colleagues?

It has crossed several passenger's minds (and crew) that the recent near misses arising out of the implementation of NAS2B may be amenable to a class action 'remedy' against a certain entrepreneur or a larger entity.

Curious to know whether a 'near miss' could be construed as damages suffered and an action taken in the Federal Court by a representative of the several hundered passengers negligently exposed to the increased risk of mid air collision.

Only theoretically speaking mind you!

Seems there is now a lot of evidence out in the public domain.

Any views?

A Restraining Order on behalf of the injured party (the aviation industry) would be nice.

From AOPA website 6SEP04
 

Comment from the President, Ron Bertram:

AOPA Australia does not blindly support Dick Smith or any other aviation group, AOPA policies on airspace management have been long standing and consistent.

Airservices Australia have made it obvious that they are only interested in the needs of major carriers, those who provide their major revenue, and the narrow vested interests of the several unions involved. None of them give a hoot for the needs of General Aviation, the tens of thousands employed in General Aviation, the thousands of general aviation business, or the essential services that only GA can provide.

AOPA has not changed its position on NAS, AOPA policy has been unwavering.

AOPA supported the Cabinet decision to model the NAS on the very safe and successful US system, after all it is the model for the system adopted by ICAO. NAS is really no different to Airspace 2000, or LLAMPS at their inception, nor is the hijacking of NAS much different to what lead to the abandonment of Airspace 2000 and LLAMPS. ---- Except for one little thing, NAS 2b is in place and successful, and we are seeing a determined rearguard action by "all the usual suspects" to unwind it.

AOPA accepts genuine, arms length professional quantitative analysis, AOPA does not accept the Airservices so called Risk Analysis as meeting any acceptable standard for such an exercise. Every external examination of the Risk Assessment E over D report has raised serious and fundamental objections to every aspect of the methodology. If you all want to put you head in the sand, and say that O'Neil, Broderick, Mills, even R2A et al are all wrong, so be it, fundamentalist believers are seldom swayed by science.

Some feel that AOPA policy merely follows Dick Smith. If you want to believe that, there is little AOPA can do the sway your view, anybody who doubts AOPA policies in the area only has to look at back copies of the magazine. All you will find is a pragmatic policy of demanding that the imposition of any restrictions and requirements (except for mandatory transponder in E) be by a properly conducted costs and benefits justified risk assessment. That goes for all matters of regulation, not just airspace management.

If genuine, honest and professional analysis of any risk really indicates the need for C to be established, AOPA will accept that, but it must conform to the NAS/FAA standard, there must be primary and secondary radar.

That is what we have now, radar C, why would AOPA accept a degraded standard, compared to the present national standard. Non radar C is an endangered species, it's already very rare.

Of course AOPA is concerned about safety in Australia, no AOPA member has a death wish,but the recent Risk Assessment E over D is so fundamentally flawed that it cannot be relied upon. It does not prove that E is unsafe, it does not prove that C over D is the only answer, in fact it proves nothing in providing Australia with efficient and cost effective air traffic management.

As for what is now proposed for November, the package goes far beyond just rolling back NAS 2b, and introduces a whole raft of new requirements, without consultation and without the justifications required by Airservices own Act. In effect, it seeks to roll back much of AMATS, the long held desire of a small bunch of aviation flat earthers, whose hearts desire is to see Australia remain an aviation Galapagos, a quaint little backwater.

Anyway, it is now generally accepted that the Airservices board did not make their recent famous decision based on E being "unsafe", but on more general fears of personal liability for making any decision that did other than increase restrictions and extend the reach of ATC. It's no "leak", in our opinion, the Acting Chairman of Airservices has semi-publicly said as much.

As to any potential judicial proceedings, AOPA will be in lockstep with ASAC, RFACA and the RAA, AOPA will not be acting alone. We will be in excellent company, it is many years since the backbone organizations of the "little end of town" have been so united

Wak-a-Yak52

The above is 100% genuine, mint condition, Hamilton, with a large ladle of warmed over Smith under Bertams name :rolleyes:. The usual vintage discursive polemic.

Apart from that;

Horse feathers :rolleyes:

A little correction there it did actually , until the bad guys, guess who, were literally run out of town by the good guys.

First I must say what reasonable person could not support soundly based reform.

However the "bad guys" under considerable and unrelenting fire had it changed from "unequivocal whatever Dick says" and all the claptrap above, to "we support the NAS, but will be closely monitoring it's implementation".

An entirely more responsible and reasonable position for the AOPA membership at large, considering that at the time the "implementation" process was still "unknown".

How can you "unequivocally agree" with something about which there was yet no detail.

It is unfortunate that the view and "recieved wisdon" of Hamilton and his cohort is conflated with and represented as those of the "membership", there has to my knowledge never been a "poll" of the membership on this or any other issue, unless you call the elections such. In which case, my case rests.
The evidence suggest that since Smith and his cohort started "their" reform AOPA has almost disappeared.

And yes, in accordance with that policy of closely monitoring we signed on to an T & E implementation package on the condition, that the frequencies and boundaries on the charts "in transition" were retained mitigators agreed by the NASIG, NAPAC and all of industry including QF.
These, by the deceit and sleight of hand to which we have become inured, were removed in a way that made it effectively too late for any action. It seems we were right about that and the misgivings we "the bad guys" i.e. held about 2c in the then proposed form.

The sheer duplicity of those involved was breathtaking and they are now back in control.

I challenge Mr Smith, right here, to tell us unequivocally, how and on what certified risk management basis, and to whom of the "stakeholders" was it communicated, when the decision was made to ignore or dismiss those mitigators and that it was not negotiable identified and agreed by the 2b Hazard ID workshop "stakeholders" held with ALL industry in Sydney 2003.

I and the VP responsible for this matter will swear an affidavit that the first we heard about it, was the Tues before the following Mondays 2b 20th Oct go/no go date and then only second hand, via QF and that there was also a meeting scheduled with AOPA, QF and NASIG on that Friday in Sydney to "tidy up".?

I suspect but cannot prove that the T&E material had already been signed off and was already at the printers at that time.


I'd like to see some comnfirmation of that, the good guys in AOPA tried very very hard to put the RFACA out of business, the wounds go very deep and they wouldn't go near ASAC.

Strangebedfellows.

Legal action, yup against the authors of this truly unbelievebale fiasco, trouble is they'd wind up on the wrong side of the court.

Ah well better go get the nomex on again.:p

Touchie, touchie, Garry.
But you do seem to have selective memory, I'm an AOPA member, and I remember the survey that came around in the magazine, at the AGM it was said that the response was quite good in terms of members responding, and the result was strongly in favor of NAS. Your just playing with words, to suggest that "monitoring the implementation" somehow means a big policy shift. Then again, words are all you are good at, words are cheap, words don't substitute for action.
As for Hamilton, you did your best to unseat him, you failed, despite all the vilifying claims you were making.There wasn't the groundswell against him that you claimed.
You got tossed of the Executive at the AGM and it doesn't matter how many voted, you came last.

And you were a one term wonder, a legend in your own play lunchtime. Things change with the guard, ask around and you may find many more support AOPA since your departure.

As a mug beginner I don't even understand the point of what is going on. I have no interest in what has happened in the past.

As a non flying person until a few months ago, my sole concern about airspace reform was to minimise the risk of being in an airliner getting hit by a Cessna. I was aware that there was cost cutting, outsourcing and "user pays" going on in CASA and that the former CAA was now a basket case with all sorts of infighting going on. Australia has had a reputation as a "safe" place to fly. I was not in favor of airspace reform if it meant that our safety record was somehow being compromised. I thought what we were seeing was mere cost cutting.

I have a few simple questions to ask.

Is it possible for GA and RPT to co exist? I respectfully suggest that an "us" vs. "them" mentality is a recipe for eventual disaster both physically, politically and economically - for both GA and RPT.


Is there any large group of sacred cows who are going to lose their jobs if the system is changed or is there some group who feel that there entitlements are challenged? If so this must be acknowledged and dealt with.

Is there some universally agreed independent provider of technical risk management advice? If so do we have their advice?


My sole concern is not to run into another aircraft. I am aware that technology exists that in theory can reduce the risk of midair collisions. I am also aware that the introduction of advanced technology in other settings has provoked a violent response from those whose livelihoods are affected, such as to sabotage the potential gains from the technology.

Is there anything that can be agreed on? Personally I don't care what system is in place as long as it is safe, since I have zero experience of any system and consequently no opinion. However taking positions and fighting is not going to do anyone any good.

Well, that should provoke silence for a while, Sunfish.

That is rather the equivalent of a political studio discussion which has brought together plausible sounding experts from everywhere to plug their own agenda, when from somewhere down the back a truck driver's wife yells "how the bloody hell are our kids ever going to afford to better themselves by education?"

Lots of rustling and uncomfortable silence ensues before the inevitable obfuscation starts again and the "rowdy" interjector is shown quietly to the door.

Well done!

I will answer briefly from the point of view of one of the anti-Nas brigade. MY objection was simply that we were being asked to swallow a less safe system with no demonstrable gain. E is not as safe as C, no matter how Dick raves about the U.S. Had the implementation of E over D somehow managed to save millions of dollars, then in our pragmatic world it would have to have been scrutinised closely.

It didn't. Simple as that. It never would have, and all the bleating about fundamentalists etc can't disguise the fact that it was never designed to do any more than make things easier for VFR pilots, who don't pay enroute charges anyway. Make no mistake that this is an ideological argument.

Other aspects of airspace reform should be looked at closely with an eye to a possible benefit for all without a reduction in safety, but it should be fairly obvious to even the dimmest that the presence of Mr Smith is so irredeemably divisive as to prevent any chance of meaningful discussion. For whatever reason, he appears to have the Minister by the short and curlies, and the result is an abysmal and embarrassing abuse of the Westminster system.

Until the unholy duumvirate, the puppet and the puppetmaster, are disposed of no meaningful change can occur.

I will just add here that Smith's latest stunt, telling his puppet to sign an order for full class C radar implementation at outstation towers, is such an outrageous dummy spit as to take the breath away. I could have sworn that outstation towers used to run the equivalent of Class C airspace long before the concept of Class E airspace was ever brought up. And we did it without radar, Dick.

Unless the omniscient dick can explain to my satisfaction what it was I was doing in Mackay tower if it wasn't procedural approach in class C airspace, he will remain beneath contempt for me.

I will tell you, Sunfish,since you profess a desire to learn, that in those days Coolangatta and Cairns operated the same procedural approach system, and had movement figures around the same as Brisbane's. This was before dick even thought about using his money and public image to bitch about not being able to land his helicopter at his luxury Point Piper home, leading him to be placed in charge of the lunatic asylum which was the CAA.

I can't remember exact dates now, but a little research should show you that it took a midair collision at Coolangatta and the career of a bloody good controller to prompt the hierarchy that procedural approach was not designed to handle 8000 movements a month, and Cairns and Coolangatta became full blown TCU's.

To suggest that any other outstation towers now demand full TCU radar airspace is a leap of such Machiavellian content that it has taken me a while to understand just what this madman is attempting to do.

It boils down to this.

"OK, I've been telling you all that Class E is all we need, and all you fundamentalists won't listen to me, you just keep putting up your miserable objections. And now you've succeeded, you've got your poxy Class C airspace where VFR pilots actually have to tell you where they are at all times.

So cop this. I f you think Class C is so fandangled important, we're going to call your bluff! Oh yes indeedie we are, don't you think you can put one over on Richard Smith! Do you know who I am??? I'm going to put one more squeeze on the left testicle of my very good friend the minister and I'm going to insist we spend upwards of $150 million to instal desperately needed class C airspace, because you fundamentalists and union cronies insist that only Class C is safe.

As we all know this involves full radar approach services, so you rabid unionists and anti-GA fundamentalists (have I said that before?) can't whinge about the $150 million it will cost. And when the cost inevitably flows through to the customers, I'll be able to say hahahahaha, told you so! Nyah nah nah nah nah!!!


I'm sorry to appear so cynical, Sunfish. Somebody who has been around in various forms in the industry for 30 years should have something useful to add, but this is the effect the bickie man has had on the industry. Ask the GA people out there what the industry was like in the 70's and 80's before Dick and his cost cutters came on the scene. His hypocrisy simply takes my breath away.

Binos,

As someone who was working in Cairns at the time of the changeover from Procedural Approach to Radar Approach (actually the last person to be rated on Proc.), I can vouch for your summary of the situation at the time.

The introduction of radar to CG and CS was based on the amount of traffic, not the nature of the airspace nor the relative positions of the sun and the moon. RHS himself seemed to have no apparent difficulties operating in Procedural 'C', from what I observed.

sep

Check your PMs.

Binos well put my man. :)


Sultanas and Gin

And your point is??

May I suggest a course in remedial english with the accent on comprehension.

Now, tell me again it was just words. I would say the Airservices decision, and they didn’t need my help to make it, and the Ministers or rather the other ministers subsequent reaction would suggest otherwise.

I am still clinging desperately to the notion that the Minister is the honorable and straightforward person that I judge him to be, it is the quality, or lack of the advice he is given that seems to be the problem. That “directive” is one of the more cynically obscene pieces of “advice” I have seen for a bit and he didn’t think it up all by himself.

And if you were talking about the last AGM I suspect it could have been held in a telephone box and how many went to the AGM dinner? It was held in Sydney too. :{

Sunfish

You can safely ignore the petty BS that you see being touted around here; you see it is much easier to take the man down, than it is to rebut the argument intelligently.
One wonders why those who think so little about and spend so much time trying to belittle anyone that they find it so important that they should do so.
I can only offer that you and I are equally entitled to a view on any matter we choose and that the intelligent amongst us will have the wit and wisdom to work out the merit of it.
If you have to resort to slander, deceit, sleight of hand and all manner of smoke and mirrors to win the day, the “anything it takes” attitude and “anyway what would you know”, then it is hard to give whatever you are proposing any credence.

yes it is and they did, very well too, until the "we are here to save you brigade" came along. AOPA under Peter Patroni was a well respected and vital part of the aviation infrastructure. Almost all of the people that made it so and about 6,000 ex members have given up in disgust and walked away.

Simply NO, well amongst those that are left in any event.

There are however, a large group of disenfranchised aviation professionals including, it now seems, an entire regulatory organisation (both judged to be "world class" by their international peers), who have been sidelined and marginalised for a personal and political agenda disguised in the bankrupt clothes of "cost savings" recently estimated to be around negative$250,000,000 (means "cost" not "savings") because "they" are too stupid :rolleyes: to be able to see "the light".

Yes and yes. As I understand it, Airservices were determined, in accordance with their duty of care and governance requirements and as a matter of professional responsibility, to use an internationally accepted DNV metric to ensure that ANY changes had the metric ruler over them before implementation, of any stage of NAS.

DNV metric??
There are a number of international agencies the like of Lloyds, DNV, ABS, RINA and many others who offer independent risk and process analysis and certification. If you board a ship for example, that has been built, certified and maintained to their standards you are as safe as it is possible to be for that standard.

Go Here for Det Norske Veritas

That is until CASA, told Airservices they did not need one as they had satisfied themselves so. Fair enough you say and from another regulator yet. But I suspect against their better judgment, and as it since been seen to be so.

On what basis and under what pressure that assurance was accepted remains to be seen. I'd be fascinated to hear what their insurers feel about it.

The only independent study that has surfaced through all of this, the Broome DAS, commissioned by the owners of Broome Airport and audited by CSIRO, exposed a huge liability for the Government and Airservices in certain aspects of the NAS and provided the only scientifically researched and intellectually rigorous risk analysis to that time, beyond the serial “I believes” and “it works fine there”.

The only responsible and legally defensible response to this should have been for the Government to have a similarly rigorous study conducted by an internationally recognized and accepted agency such as described above, to either confirm, refine or refute the data. It was however only days before an “expert” was wheeled out armed with a hatchet to question the academic bona fides.
It’s called consultant shopping, you just keep turning them over until you find the one who suits your agenda.
Rigorous it is not.
Now we have an assortment of psychologists, chemists, ballroom dancers, true believers, my viewers, self proclaimed legends, Uncle Tom Cobbleys' and all, having a bit of a go, arguing about the number of angels who can dance on the head of a pin, not one of whom has the credibility of the above agencies. I do not intend this as a criticism of any individual, it is simply that Australia deserves and we cannot afford to otherwise, an internationally recognised and respected circuit breaker to resolve the sorry mess created in the last 20 years of crusading.


Sunfish, I believe that we as a nation are supposed to be protected by our Public Service and Regulators by the execution and the professional and skilled implementation by them of Government policy.
We elect Government on their policies, not any individuals personal agenda.
That's the basis on which they are selected, that is what we pay them for and they are entitled to absolute support from the Government of the day on the careful execution of the detail.
They are entitled to protection from harassment, second guessing and inappropriate influence in return for which we expect sound and balanced results.

Dead set right! And every day spent by our servants, preparing ministerials, repairing staff morale, responding to endless criticism, endlessly justifying decisions and rebutting unjustifiable “advice”, endlessly second guessing the second guessers and when you get to the third time around it means that you do have to take a stand eventually.

Australia is overrepresented worldwide in the scientific, academic, athletic, musical and just about any other pursuit you could imagine. We are esteemed in every one of them, including the quality of our public servants and their work.

Why do we then abdicate our aviation agenda to a couple of well meaning enthusiasts, is this the only place in the real world it happens ?

There is some hope that DOTARS have, or are taking back that ground and we can look forward to the return of the manner of professional public service that has separated Australia from the likes of The Grand Duchy of Fenwick for the last hundred years or so.

Lets hope so.

Binos,

I could not agree more with your deductions on Dicks latest stunt.

He is not prepared to admit that Australia did it better, cheaper, with less resources than the US (Procedural Approach / Towers).

It is simply a collossal dummy spit - but the $$$ impost on industry is (once again) all due to Dick - not those who tried to tell him.

what a pity
 

It is a great pity the owners of this website have allowed an important issue to be swamped by the out of control egos of a few OLD boys.

On the right (against NAS) we have the worst offender, Mr Gary Gaunt. From my time flying clapped out Cessnas around Kalbari I know Gary hasn't flown in this decade or the last. So I ask what does he know.

On the left, pro-NAS we have the other offender Dick Smith. Seems a nice guy but fond of his own opinion.

Each side has their faithful mignions tagging along like little running dogs.

The debate is fired up by union greed and the GA demand for simplicity and no fees.

But, these ###### aside. There IS a problem. Even the somewhat biased BSB poll shows there are some sane people reading these posts.

It seems obvious that:

1. Airspace needs fixing.
2. ATC services exist where they aren't needed.
3. GA is pi$$ed at paying for these.
4. Regionals still want it (and I do believe their safety arguments).

So, to start with lest forget the Liberals and their economic rationalism. We can do that on 9 October.

What if airspace was seen as a national asset and safety and security as a Government responsibility. I think it is!!!

So, exempt anything below 2000 kg from any Airservices fees!!!
Put towers wherever they are deemed to be needed.
Build the ADSB network.
Do away with RPT priority at all but Syd and Melb (US Class B).

That will give us the safety of radar separation and keep GA happy. We can all be freinds again and Gaunt and Smith can fight greenies instead.

How to fund it??? I don't care, the b@stards already get .48c of my every dollar, but if they have to, put up a NETWORK ticket tax.

Oh, and sack 50% of CASA!!!!

FC

Flichik

You are just another agent provocateur.

If not answer or consider the following:

You say -

The Airspace needs fixing - the airpspace was just fine until someone insisted on meddling with it. The charging system was what needed fixing.

You say -

ATC services exst where they aren't needed - Where? Why is Dick and his Pocket Minister insisting on more?

You say -

GA is pissed off at paying for these - And so they should be, including the $120M spent and $150M proposed due to the misadventures of a grand misadventurer.

You say -

The debate is fired by union greed - Either qualify or prove what you mean. I can tell you there is nothing in this for the ATC's. They are already understaffed, have no ability to train a whole new wave of people and get nothing out of this exercise except the same frustrations as the pilots with all the changes, and a whole lot if unwanted overtime that everyone is too bloody tired to do. It is a well worn out furphy. So on that one put up of shut up. (or are you one of the faithful mignons tagging along with AOPA and Dick?)

You say - exempt everything below 2000kg and get rid of Capital City priorities - two points. You NEVER paid for Air Traffic services BEFORE this debacle and you sill don't (not directly at least - you can blame Dick for all the costs onflow). Or don't you even realise?!
And the airports are all privately owned - if you are paying them nothing why would they as a business want to give you equal priority? Tell me - I am dying to know. And lets be honest about this - how often do you really get delayed anyway? Despite all the blustering about it daily on PPrune, nobody has provided any conclusive evidence it happens that much! Even if they werent privately owned, why do you deserve to delay 300+ people? That is a significant economic penalty.

You say - put the towers where they are needed. - They are already there.

Thank you all for the explanations. I got the airservices brochure today and the manual stuff that I have yet to even understand.

However, from what I think I can understand, I cannot see the problems with either what was there before or what is now proposed. I am trying to become a VFR pilot for the fun of it. I am not going for an IFR or twin rating ever, as far as I am concerned, so flying in anything but class G airspace is not an issue.

As far as my limited understanding is concerned, I cannot imagine why I would NOT want to talk to ATC or obtain a clearance if there was even the remotest probability of encountering an RTP flight. Same goes with filing flight plans, SARtimes and so on.

Even though I cannot imagine why I would want to or need to fly in controlled airspace anyway. In the few times I've heard people asking for clearances, they have always been given, even if there is a few minutes delay.

In other words, and with the greatest of respect to all concerned, this debate seems to be about giving priviledges to VFR aircraft that they don't really need. I guess if I was planning to drive a pressurised aircraft VFR around Sydney these priviledges might matter, but Sydney is not Australia.

Sunfish

I hope you have already had your aviation medical as there is a section in there somewhere that checks for sanity :) except it works a bit like Yossarians medico in Catch 22, if you want a medical discharge on the grounds of insanity "he was going crazy because the Germans were trying to kill him" he was, ergo, sane. :rolleyes: :cool:

Your;
, is the MOST sane observation I have seen on this topic, including any of mine.

flichik

You may be surprised to learn that I actually agree with;

and that is where we were actually headed.

But your logic falls short on the union greed amongst other things.

In so far as what you imagine my qualifications may or may not be, you are showing your AOPA nickers there, as that is the only place that imagines that the contents of your logbook define your worth and the validity of your argument and they fondly hold that view . Were that so, there is not one of them on the board entitled to make that judgement without revealing theirs for scrutiny.

FYI but I'm sure you already know, they were toying with the idea of denying anybody who didn't hold a valid BFR from holding office and that's from the mob that changed the rules (now repealed but too late to stop the irreparable damage) to allow a single specifically named individual to hold an office denied to ordinary members.

And I say it with the greatest respect to Sunfish but he makes more sense than the whole lot of them put together.

You would think they would be spending their efforts and resources rebuilding GA in a productive manner than the serial puffery and grandstanding seen hitherto, unless you can explain to me what benefit suing AOPA US at a cost of around $250,000 and pulping $30,000 worth of an aviation expo brochures that never got distributed because the director responsible for the expenditure never got around to organising anyone to be there at the stand provided.

You see its more important for them to chase idiots like me who dare to ask embarassing question around, than actually do anything. And they are still there "understanding" like mad. :rolleyes: :mad:

I have said it before and I will say it again in caser you missed the last time, you stand and fall here on the merit of your argument and conduct and as Sunfish has just ably demonstrated to you, common sense has, and in some cases it is well fortunate, nothing whatsoever to do with whether you are a QF Capt or a student pilot.

So, your point is?

What waffle you spruik gaunty. I was at Murray Bridge as part of "that mob" (you know , the members), that voted for a change to allow Ms Pagani to become president. It never changed anything because what I saw was she took over in the job before the vote took place. The present "mob" didn't do anything it was an AGM agenda item. You were one pushing for the change and we agreed with you. We voted you in remember.

The idea that someone can be thrown out for not being current is nonesense and you know it. It's called "the AIRCRAFT- OWNERS-and PILOTS association. Read the constitution.

And what has something that allegedly happened before you were elected, (but were going to make it all become right) got to do with anything regarding NAS today. You had your chance and blew it. Your continual harping about AOPA makes me sick. Get over it.

As for you being a non flyer, just because you like cats doesn't make you qualified to be a lion tamer. Have a go if you think you're up to the task. Your credibility would be more intact if you were a little humble in your assertions. Instead you are a bombastic bully with a nasty agenda.

Mt Gaunt

I am not even a member. But I am impressed with the new Board, so I may consider it. At least if they do disagree, we, and more importantly the regulator, don't know about it.

Can't say that about your two terms I'm afraid.

I don't agree that Board membership should be limited to a valid BFR. But then again this is the first I have heard of it. Are you sure or is that another convinient off issue snipe???

I can say though, after over 10 years on the ground I would have thought you'd have better things to do than fight with Dick Smith.

But, back to sunfish, yes, flying was fun once. Then we had to fill out a flight plan before almost any flight and report every 30 minutes. But landings at Parafield were free as they were everywhere else (I think???) and if you wanted a VTC you just asked for one, same with the other maps.

But sadly, subsequent Governments have destroyed the concept that taxes are for the benefit of the whole society. Even AOPA under Smith and Munro (the last time I was a member!!!) fought for 'user pays'.

It is that we should be fighting, not each other!!!!

FC

If that's the best you can do or can offer as constructive input, and I'm not sure which of the AOPA Board members you are, but I can guess, then I say good luck to AOPA, they are going to need it. It's as good a demonstration as any as to why nobody can any longer be bothered.
Your ministrations have been soooooooooo good for them so far, 280,000 reasons NOT at the last count, 6,000 ex members and who is seriously listening?

Oh and the BFR, medical and currency business, yup it's absolutely dead set true. Don't forget folks, these are the same guys who prepared and passed a resolution to allow a single named individual serious rights not available to normal member. Me, couldn't then and can't get for the moment a medical, strange coincidence NO.
It died a death as it should have, but I wonder who else on the board might have had similar problems? You're right who cares and why should it be an issue.:rolleyes:

You say 10 years on the ground as if it is a fact, I say tell it to the marines, you may well ask Dick Smith the same question.

Problem is I have been here/there since the beginning and I don't intend to see the lifes work of many many dedicated professional and respected aviators, regulators and businessmen who put this industry on the map in a way not seen elswhere and admired in the world, trashed because of the personal agenda of a few johnnies come lately.

If you voted for me then, why didn't you support me. My position before during and after was hardly a secret and never changed on anything.

Any way you lot go for it and if you need any more effigies to burn at the stake to validate yourselves, let me know and I'll send some more. It's quite fun watching really. :p

And whilst I'm on the subject, this is from Hamilton in an "open letter".

:rolleyes:

This from the single most destructive member of that board; publicly advising a potential member to sign up to the AUF (a fine organisation) as a more relevant organisation for the future of GA than AOPA (and he might be right, he, after all claims responsibility for their formation whilst an office holder of AOPA) cuckooo :rolleyes:?, handing out promotional material for a Munro organisation at an AOPA sponsored NAS function, "appearing" unauthourised and unininvited, claiming to represent AOPA at an ATC invitation only event to their understandable disgust and hijacking the press conference, appearing at all manner of industry consultative committees and groups as a "representative" of other organisations whilst a Director of AOPA and whilst the authorised AOPA Director was present, that he personally deemed as having the same agenda (without the authority of the AOPA Board.) in fact for any organisation he could round up to be heard. Are the authorities confused. Nope :O
Like his mate, he suffers what has been identified here as, "Limelight Deprivation Syndrome"

Smith/Munro "user pays" :rolleyes: ask your average punter out there how he feels about that nowadays. hey. We've now got user pays coming out our ears.:sad:

Be careful what you wish for you might just get it.

And they still fly over the nest you know

Gaunt;

I'm not on the board and your assertions that I am reinforces my opinion of you, and a lot who post here, that the "for me or agin me" syndrome is alive and flourishing. If someone doesn't agree with you and agrees with someone else, then that poster must be a Smith or AOPA stooge or someone with a mental disorder.

It's getting tiresome, "everyone is mad except me". Run a poll for the converted and prove me wrong.

Give a person some credit for some independant thinking.

It would appear from your rantings that it is you that was the single most destructive person on the board and (if I guess correctly) not Bill Hamilton. AOPA appears to be in good hands now as evidenced by the lack of infighting that went on when you were there.

Perhaps give me credit also for thinking that such a person, Senior Qantas Captain, came up through the ranks of GA, past President and Warbirds owner who is current would have a better capacity to comment on an airspace design than you, who doesn't appear to to deny the allegations that you last flew when the "quadrantal rule" and "full reporting" was the fashion.

Now you come out with a "temporary" lack of a medical. Give me a break, when did you fly last? put it to rest once and for all. What do you do for a living? You admit not ATC.

What gives you the right to claim status in this "elite" group of "professionals" that apparantly "rule ALL the skies" from a console. Last I heard the pilot was in command of the aircraft.

This aspect worries a lot of people about "mandatory" implementatiuon of ADSB. I heard at one meeting parachutists were considered as needy as all of a transponder. Do you have an opinion on this?

I'm sorry if I offend you, but you have no qualms about doing the reciprocal. Whoever you think I am, I'm not. Go back to a past thread on aircrew notices (which I do know something about and was around then), and it may give you some idea that your suspicions are conveniently wrong and vexatious.

What are you on about, 280,000 reasons???????

I never cease to be amazed by the "you haven't flown for x years so what would you know" brigade.

They seem oblivious to the fact that they, too, will inevitably reach a point at which they won't be able to fly, after which (presumably from their own twisted logic) their previous experience and hard-earned wisdom will be rendered irrelevant.

I assume this brigade tells folks like Nancy Bird "Shut up, what could you possible contribute, you haven't flown as PIC for x years."

And remind again of how extensive and recent the logbook entries of the Chairman and CEO of QANTAS are. What's that? They've never been pilots? That can't be right. How could QANTAS possibly survive when it's not being run by pilots? Surely it is and will continue to teeter on the edge of disaster, unless and until it is run by current pilots, like that financial basket case, AOPA Australia.

Carthage must be destroyed, and Gaunty is the cause of all aviation evils!

Nancy Bird-Walton doesn't pretend to be an instant expert on everything aviation and constrains herself to areas where her comment and experiences are valid and valued.

So that comparison is way off.

Bit like a clapped out ex-CASA lawyer commenting on how regulation should have been because "In my day ... blah blah blah"

I think one of the main problems about being on the Board of a lobby group or association when you no longer have a direct involvement with the core area is that decisions you make cannot weigh upon you and so therefore you could be free to be swayed by whoever likes you the most, makes you feel the most important or offers the potential of a job.

Associations have members to represent, not act as a retirement home for ex Drover pilots....the airlines don't do it, CivilAir don't do it so why should GA cop the "Dinosaur Expert"

FC

MEDIA RELEASE

AIRCRAFT OWNERS AND PILOTS ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIA



09 September 2004

For immediate release

Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association calls on pilots to SAFELY join Aviation Day of Action



AOPA President Ron Bertram today called on all pilots to join in the Aviation day of Action on November 27, but to do it safely. “We encourage all pilots to show that they are angry at the Government and Oppositions lack of credible aviation policy, to show that we have had enough of ad-hoc regulation and a discriminatory airspace system, we encourage them to fly on November 27.”



“We don’t support flying illegally,” said Mr Bertram “Nor do we support any calls to be rude or contemptuous to Air Traffic Controllers. These people are doing an excellent and professional job, we may disagree on aspects of airspace, but this should not result in personal attacks”



“What we are calling for is for all pilots to get an aeroplane and go flying on November 27. When they do we call on them to fly showing the utmost professionalism and fully within the law and regulations.



“We also ask them to make sure they file flight plans and where possible, to check the correct operation of their transponders with air traffic control.”



Transponders are devices which show air traffic control where an aircraft is, airline aircraft can also receive transponder signals to better enable them to see and avoid other aircraft.



Mr Bertram also condemned the lack of credible policy direction of both Government and Opposition and pointed out that this day of action would serve to show that Australia’s pilots were not impressed.



“It is time Government realise that General Aviation is a vibrant industry and needs proper support from Government, not the haphazard and untenable mish-mash of policy and regulation we see at the moment.”



For more information

Ron Bertram

President

0407 367 203



Andrew Kerans

Vice President

0439 209 343

Big mistake, AOPA. You should have completely distanced yourselves from this "protest", and had no part in it.

The general public already think that the NAS airspace is "dangerous because it allows those nuisance light planes to get in the way of the big jets ...." and you've just reinforced their view.

CaptainMidnight

It took some doing but they might, only might mind you, be "getting it".

There are some encouraging signs that at least one Board member is returning to his former good sense.