Dick,
The same ASA guy who was looking after NAS, is the proponent of SDE. In fact I am at a loss to think of one project that this individual has been involved in that has actually come to fruition, or he has stuck out to the end. A nice suit and the ability to talk w@nk words will take you far in ASA, coupled with an inherent 'radar' that tells you when to desert a sinking project.

On the Benalla post you were pushing that it would be a 'simple' matter to enable The Lowest Safe Altitude (LSALT) alarms across radar airspace and controllers would have the responsibility to monitor IFR approaches OCTA and alert the pilot/s if they went offtrack (Route Adherence Monitoring) or below the LSALT. At present, we do not have the people or the technology to do this.

Please re-read the posts, as was said, we are not against change. However you need to resource it properly and the things that you believe are simple or easy to do, tend not to be.

Max I agree with you in relation to adequate resources.

First however you have to get a small core of people to agree that the change is possible and an advantage.

This I am pleased to say is gradually happening. That's why I am happy to communicate on this site.

Dick, seriously champ you have to exorcise this "ATCs are resistant to change" mentality, it colours your judgment and reduces your credibility. ATCs are NOT resistant to change, if they were the system would still be using shrimp-boats on a bright screen display. The fact of the matter is that ATC is a constantly changing environment, if you are not ammenable to the change you wont have a job. Add this to the fact that once a mandated change has been "ordered" it's the ATC's who actually implement it, including all the studies and training material required. Just because ATC's are resistant to your ideas doesnt mean they are resistant to all ideas. Stop being such a victim and suck it in.

First however you have to get a small core of people to agree that the change is poss
 

This first step is true and also Hempy and Max 1 are correct. The second step is using tried and proven processes.Without the second step any project not following tried and proven process is very likely to fail (how many have!) Processes that will ensure that we are not faced with yet another crazy pipe dream that stuffs up the whole system and wastes everyones time and money trying to tidy up, hide, or deal with the debris afterwards.

Process ensures lots of things such as actual (situational) risk is assessed and controlled where necessary, stakeholders are consulted and on board with advice and assistance (listen and incorporate) and that short and long term cost benefit and viability is determined. Process will provide optimised (best compromise) outcome and best time for implementation. Do it properly first and a lot of effort, cost and heartache will be avoided. When proper (NOT DODGY BROTHERS) Risk and Project Management principles are not followed is often the cause of aborted or wasteful projects. No reasonable person will deny a good idea tied to a proper process. This is why NAS was such a dogs breakfast - proper process was never followed. Part of the reason for this is that the implementation team were not skilled in Project and Risk Management at all, or to the level required for such a project. To some this stuff I'm talking about is just beyond the egotistical parallel universe to conceptualise never mind understand or believe. Too much this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/badteeth.gif this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/eek.gif thishttp://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/bah.gif this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/pukey.gif and this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/confused.gif and not enough this http://static.pprune.org/images/smilies/thumbs.gif.
Get the skilled PM and RM people to run serious projects and do them with integrity and after about 200 years the trust in management may return. Easy to lose but sooooo dificult to get back.

Dick, Australia is a democratic country ( last time I looked).

Every four years we elect a Government. About half of us are happy with the results and about half of us aren''t.

However, we all agree to get on with it, deal with the situation and operate under the new Government's laws.

Imagine if Malcolm Turnbull stood up and said ... "You've all made a big mistake voting Kevin07 in (and possibly we did), so I think you should ignore the new Government and abide by my set of laws. Even the most rabid Liberal supporter would tell him to pull his head in.

I know it's a pretty long bow to draw in this situation, however, we (the Industry) rightly or wrongly, have decided on a system of airspace management. I personally have problems with a lot of it, and it certainly gets tweeked along the way, as Kevin's does, but if you think we should totally change the system because a very few vocal oponents say we should .... you're dreaming!

You want to make drastic changes ... run for Parliament or get yourself into CASA.

You have detailed your concerns. We, in turn, have listened to them and considered their value. We have decided, rightly or wrongly, that we don't agree. It's time to move on. The tribe has spoken.

Dick, I showed your response to my colleague. He just laughed. There is no point in debating with someone who doesn't listen.

He speculated that the reason you are having another tilt at ramming ausNAS down the industry's throat is; "you know the FAA is moving towards a different model- 'in or out'? It sounds like your guy there has realised that pretty soon he wont have an argument because the US model will have changed." Have I called your bluff?

Hey Dick,

Have a look at this thread in the ATC forum. Looks like the British are being resistant to change as well eh? Hang on, they DO want to change something? I wonder why?

Dick,
Ultimately change that you are referring to comes to us from the Minister and Management. If it comes, we do it! Plain and simple. We might dissent but we cannot stop it! What we do as professional ATC's is do everything we can to make it work and protect our own bacon at the same time!
Controllers have been subject to so much change that they are genuinely becoming fatigued. That in itself would not limit such a change going ahead but sheer lack of numbers and ability to develop and execute the training would!
It is simply too late in the game to do what you are suggesting. If negotiations for the ATC EBA continues to be drawn out more will give up and leave.
Then we will really be in a pickle!

If it is not broken - dont fix it .... or attempt to fix it