CASA Boss Confirms Support for NAS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CASA Boss Confirms Support for NAS
John McCormick made an unambiguous surprise affirmation of his suppport for the NAS at yesterdays SCC meeting. Dr Hawke, the new CASA Chairman of the Board, concurred, and in what appeared to be a re alignment of it's previous policy, the new Chairman of AOPA, Phillip Reiss confirmed that organisation's support.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Botswana
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, let me see.
The United States of America, from whence the NAS model is derived, out of more than 190 sovereign countries around the world, is the sole model of world's best practice. And as the ardent follower of world's best practice that Australia is, it would be remiss of Australia not to embrace wholeheartedly the NAS model and become only the second or more than 190 sovereign countries around the world to follow the NAS model, never mind the fact that it is not compliant with international policy derived by ICAO, and enshrined in the law of each of those 190 or more sovereign countries, the United Sates of America and Australia included.
This is not the first time Australia has sided unilaterally with the United States of America in attempting to arbitrate world's best practice. Most recently, from an international array of more than 200 sovereign countries, the United States of America and Australia stood alone in opposing the Kyoto Protocol.
Of course the United States of America claimed it was the arbiter or world's best practice, and that despite the science, everyone else was plain wrong. Of course Australia followed, being of course obsessed with following the lead of the arbiter of world's best practice, the United States of America.
How embarrassing that the United States of America has now embraced the science and has joined the rest of the world in climate science. How long until the United States of America accepts that maybe - just maybe - the reason they do what they do in airspace management is more about the cost of change, rather than the science of change. In fact, if you were to read the background material for all of the research and development programs in airspace management in the United States of America, you would see that they are being undertaken because NAS just won't continue to work as air traffic increases. It has long since reached its use by date.
My point? NAS is what the United States of America has always done, and changing it would be prohibitively expensive. That doesn't make it world's best practice - it just makes it United States of America best practice. If the United States of America could change their airspace model they surely would. Should Australia change to the 1/190 model, or move to the 188/190 model. The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it.
The United States of America, from whence the NAS model is derived, out of more than 190 sovereign countries around the world, is the sole model of world's best practice. And as the ardent follower of world's best practice that Australia is, it would be remiss of Australia not to embrace wholeheartedly the NAS model and become only the second or more than 190 sovereign countries around the world to follow the NAS model, never mind the fact that it is not compliant with international policy derived by ICAO, and enshrined in the law of each of those 190 or more sovereign countries, the United Sates of America and Australia included.
This is not the first time Australia has sided unilaterally with the United States of America in attempting to arbitrate world's best practice. Most recently, from an international array of more than 200 sovereign countries, the United States of America and Australia stood alone in opposing the Kyoto Protocol.
Of course the United States of America claimed it was the arbiter or world's best practice, and that despite the science, everyone else was plain wrong. Of course Australia followed, being of course obsessed with following the lead of the arbiter of world's best practice, the United States of America.
How embarrassing that the United States of America has now embraced the science and has joined the rest of the world in climate science. How long until the United States of America accepts that maybe - just maybe - the reason they do what they do in airspace management is more about the cost of change, rather than the science of change. In fact, if you were to read the background material for all of the research and development programs in airspace management in the United States of America, you would see that they are being undertaken because NAS just won't continue to work as air traffic increases. It has long since reached its use by date.
My point? NAS is what the United States of America has always done, and changing it would be prohibitively expensive. That doesn't make it world's best practice - it just makes it United States of America best practice. If the United States of America could change their airspace model they surely would. Should Australia change to the 1/190 model, or move to the 188/190 model. The answer is pretty obvious, isn't it.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At last some sense comes into the NAS issue, now we have a leader for CASA and a Chairman with impeccable qualifications we can expect to see more rational decisions come forth.
Great to see leadership at last.
Great to see leadership at last.
AIP,
If you choose ( as I do) to use air safety outcomes/accident rates (using ICAO criteria --- not the "tailored" definitions occasionally used elsewhere) whatever US is doing (FAA + US AOPA + NBAA + NTSB + all the other contributors to air safety), US IS world's best practice.
If you doubt this, all the statistics are available from the most significant of the relevant published material, that most advanced aviation nations make available. Without any preconceived outcome in mind, go have an unbiased look, you might be very surprised. Make certain you compare like with like.
There is only one area where we beat the US, and that is gliding
Within US, huge volumes of movements are accommodated, the MAC rate is so much less than Australia, that the difference cannot be written of as "sampling error", by whatever name. The rates quoted by the CASA DAS/CEO will surprise many, he is correct. Why wouldn't he be correct, he is only quoting publicly available data.
Being largely concerned with international transport, much of the ICAO docs. have little to do with GA. Indeed, the Chicago Convention of 1944, at the height of WWII, did not have GA as a high priority, at least in part because GA as we know it didn't even exist in 1944.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that ICAO D is in any way optimum for a GA (or any) aerodrome, nor is there anything improper in filing differences to meet national objectives.
GAAP is FAA D, with minor variations, the movement rate caps are not intended to be permanent, once mitigations for the problems detailed in the Ambidjii report are put in place, I am certain there will be changes to the movement caps.
I feel very sorry for those who are disadvantaged by the caps, let's hope everybody smartly gets together to get the mitigation in place. A few CFIs understanding the GAAP "rules" would be a start --- see the Ambidjii report.
Tootle pip!!
If you choose ( as I do) to use air safety outcomes/accident rates (using ICAO criteria --- not the "tailored" definitions occasionally used elsewhere) whatever US is doing (FAA + US AOPA + NBAA + NTSB + all the other contributors to air safety), US IS world's best practice.
If you doubt this, all the statistics are available from the most significant of the relevant published material, that most advanced aviation nations make available. Without any preconceived outcome in mind, go have an unbiased look, you might be very surprised. Make certain you compare like with like.
There is only one area where we beat the US, and that is gliding
Within US, huge volumes of movements are accommodated, the MAC rate is so much less than Australia, that the difference cannot be written of as "sampling error", by whatever name. The rates quoted by the CASA DAS/CEO will surprise many, he is correct. Why wouldn't he be correct, he is only quoting publicly available data.
Being largely concerned with international transport, much of the ICAO docs. have little to do with GA. Indeed, the Chicago Convention of 1944, at the height of WWII, did not have GA as a high priority, at least in part because GA as we know it didn't even exist in 1944.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest that ICAO D is in any way optimum for a GA (or any) aerodrome, nor is there anything improper in filing differences to meet national objectives.
GAAP is FAA D, with minor variations, the movement rate caps are not intended to be permanent, once mitigations for the problems detailed in the Ambidjii report are put in place, I am certain there will be changes to the movement caps.
I feel very sorry for those who are disadvantaged by the caps, let's hope everybody smartly gets together to get the mitigation in place. A few CFIs understanding the GAAP "rules" would be a start --- see the Ambidjii report.
Tootle pip!!
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: australia
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Blue Loo the USA does not have nationwide RADAR coverage, large tracts of the Mid West are just like the Australian GAFA as is Northern Arizona which is why Steve Fossett took so long to find.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Perspective joker...Perspective.
I do not have data on this to back it up, but I am sure leadie can dig it up, I would bet a round of beers that the area that is covered, covers a far greater percentage of flights than the percentage of Australian flights in radar coverage.
Must be sure we are comparing apples with apples I think.
J
I do not have data on this to back it up, but I am sure leadie can dig it up, I would bet a round of beers that the area that is covered, covers a far greater percentage of flights than the percentage of Australian flights in radar coverage.
Must be sure we are comparing apples with apples I think.
J
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I won't get into an argument about statistics, but don't the powers that be have any understanding of 'change fatigue?' We are still suffering from the last round of zealotry and now we have the new boy, who wasn't around last time, telling us (allegedly) that he supports NAS.
If the report maintains that something needs to be done at GAAPs (it does; I've read it too), then fine. However, the (alleged) blanket statement about NAS is going to cause more angst and division than this guy appreciates. We already know about the huge divide on CTAF and CTAF(R). Now, do we go back to the stoush about E over D?
In one fell swoop, if these NAS features are on his agenda, this guy is potentially alienating the entire regional and domestic fraternity. I have my own opinion on the CTAF question, and it does not align with the regional's position - but I'll put it aside if it means not revisiting the last disaster. And, on the E over D question, let's just get radar, qualify the controllers to use it, and make it all C.
Probably be cheaper that another round of John and Martha road-shows, glossy brochures and CD-ROMS.
If the report maintains that something needs to be done at GAAPs (it does; I've read it too), then fine. However, the (alleged) blanket statement about NAS is going to cause more angst and division than this guy appreciates. We already know about the huge divide on CTAF and CTAF(R). Now, do we go back to the stoush about E over D?
In one fell swoop, if these NAS features are on his agenda, this guy is potentially alienating the entire regional and domestic fraternity. I have my own opinion on the CTAF question, and it does not align with the regional's position - but I'll put it aside if it means not revisiting the last disaster. And, on the E over D question, let's just get radar, qualify the controllers to use it, and make it all C.
Probably be cheaper that another round of John and Martha road-shows, glossy brochures and CD-ROMS.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CG, admittedly I glossed over the practicalities. My point is that going back to NAS is going to involve inordinate expense, division, no practical gain and a fatigued and divided industry.
Do we want to go there again?
Do we want to go there again?
BluLoo,
Perhaps the difference in low level radar coverage is offset by the fact that there is sod all aviation in Australia, a sad fact.
Even if the "forecast" expansion claimed by the JCP out to 2025 was achieved ( a most improbable circumstance), the 2025 traffic levels would only be somewhere between one tenth and one fifth of present US "lower 48" traffic.
As to matters CTAF v. CTAF(R) ---- sounds like an announcement is imminent, and I believe it will surprise a few, but a very sound decision. A few will be profoundly unhappy, facts having trumped beliefs. Pilots will have no problem dealing with the decision.
Mr. McCormick is very strong on facts.
We all know that there will be expanded ADS-B use, mostly high level, because some airlines want it and are prepared to pay AA (even though nobody has demonstrated actual savings, given Australia's minuscule traffic levels --- the only physical ongoing cause of airborne delays in Australia, ultimately, is lack of runway real estate, not airspace saturation) but it sure sounds like there has been an outbreak if virulent common sense on the matter of any "mandate" of ADS-B at low levels.
Bad news for the enthusiasts for "managed airspace", and the peddlers of vapourware.
Tootle pip!!
Perhaps the difference in low level radar coverage is offset by the fact that there is sod all aviation in Australia, a sad fact.
Even if the "forecast" expansion claimed by the JCP out to 2025 was achieved ( a most improbable circumstance), the 2025 traffic levels would only be somewhere between one tenth and one fifth of present US "lower 48" traffic.
As to matters CTAF v. CTAF(R) ---- sounds like an announcement is imminent, and I believe it will surprise a few, but a very sound decision. A few will be profoundly unhappy, facts having trumped beliefs. Pilots will have no problem dealing with the decision.
Mr. McCormick is very strong on facts.
We all know that there will be expanded ADS-B use, mostly high level, because some airlines want it and are prepared to pay AA (even though nobody has demonstrated actual savings, given Australia's minuscule traffic levels --- the only physical ongoing cause of airborne delays in Australia, ultimately, is lack of runway real estate, not airspace saturation) but it sure sounds like there has been an outbreak if virulent common sense on the matter of any "mandate" of ADS-B at low levels.
Bad news for the enthusiasts for "managed airspace", and the peddlers of vapourware.
Tootle pip!!
Howabout,
Nothing to do with John McCormick, but it looks like once place will solve the "E or C" over D debate, by closing the particular tower (with the support of the dominant Regional --- saves money), and it all reverts to G.
How's that grabya as a solution.
Then, if NAS is progressed, in this area it will all become E (down to 1200/750agl) under A.
As for "change fatigue", how about the real problem is "almost changed but didn't quite finish the job fatigue". Don't forget the ATSB figures for NAS 2B, there were none, zero, zilch serious (whatever ATSB classification that is) incidents caused by NAS 2B, over an almost twelve month period.
Now let's watch all the naysayers roar into action. Then go have a look at the ATSB records.
Tootle pip!!
Nothing to do with John McCormick, but it looks like once place will solve the "E or C" over D debate, by closing the particular tower (with the support of the dominant Regional --- saves money), and it all reverts to G.
How's that grabya as a solution.
Then, if NAS is progressed, in this area it will all become E (down to 1200/750agl) under A.
As for "change fatigue", how about the real problem is "almost changed but didn't quite finish the job fatigue". Don't forget the ATSB figures for NAS 2B, there were none, zero, zilch serious (whatever ATSB classification that is) incidents caused by NAS 2B, over an almost twelve month period.
Now let's watch all the naysayers roar into action. Then go have a look at the ATSB records.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: NT
Posts: 710
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Lead, I appreciate your views, but seem to remember a couple of incidents in E that weren't judged to be incidents because E was 'see-and-avoid' regarding IFR to VFR separation. Hence, under the regime at the time (E airspace), they were not, technicaly, incidents.
If the airspace was C, they would have been serious NMACs.
So, with all due respect, I think you are being a bit cute.
Over.
If the airspace was C, they would have been serious NMACs.
So, with all due respect, I think you are being a bit cute.
Over.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: NSW- 3rd world state
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great, new brooms = sweeping changes.
The big old wheel keeps on turning. Here we go again, more changes, probably back to what we did 10 yrs ago, (MBZ anyone) more letters than the greek alphabet to remember.
Anyone running the show ever heard of the KISS principle !!
Time to get off this merry-go-round called aviation.
The big old wheel keeps on turning. Here we go again, more changes, probably back to what we did 10 yrs ago, (MBZ anyone) more letters than the greek alphabet to remember.
Anyone running the show ever heard of the KISS principle !!
Time to get off this merry-go-round called aviation.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In Frozen Chunks (Cloud Cuckoo Land)
Age: 17
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can accept that Australia will not have full radar coverage in the near and not foreseeable future.
There should however be radar coverage (and controlling) anywhere RPT jets of a certain capacity (and I don't know what arbitrary figure one would use - but say SAAB / Dash 8 size give or take) operate a scheduled service.
ADS-B can take up the rest of the slack.
There should however be radar coverage (and controlling) anywhere RPT jets of a certain capacity (and I don't know what arbitrary figure one would use - but say SAAB / Dash 8 size give or take) operate a scheduled service.
ADS-B can take up the rest of the slack.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
ADS-B can take up the rest of the slack.
Stay tuned............... but do not hold they breath!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From that Ambidji report...
Ambidji was unable to find any evidence whereby international administrations had either conducted a risk study or even took into account societal risk considerations. Consequently, it may be likely that many of the international airspace structures that Ambidji undertook comparative analyses on may be at the same, or higher, risk profile as the GAAP aerodromes in Australia. This factor could explain why a Class D control tower in the United States of America (USA) can handle over 300,000 movements annually but an Australian equivalent may not. It is possible that the USA aerodrome is currently operating with a higher level of risk.
now we have a leader for CASA and a Chairman with impeccable qualifications we can expect to see more rational decisions come forth.
As for the Chairman:
Name: Dr Allan Douglas Hawke
Residence: ACT
Present position: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board
Educational and professional qualifications: Bachelor of Science (Hons), Australian National University, 1970
Doctor of Philosophy, Australian National University, 1976
Fellow, Australian Institute of Public Administration, 1998
Fellow, Australian Institute of Management, 1999
Fellow, Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2001
Relevant experience: 2003-2006: High Commissioner to New Zealand
1999-2002: Secretary, Department of Defence
1996-1999: Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services
1994-1996: Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
Current Board Memberships: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board
Director, Datacom
Chairman of the DSTO Advisory Board
Chairman of the Canberra Raiders Board
Former Board Memberships: Administrative Review Council
Australian Strategic Policy Institute Council
President, ACT Branch, Institute of Public Administration Australia
Director, Canberra Girls Grammar School Board
Member, Foreign Affairs Council
Member, Defence and National Security Advisory Council
Chancellor, Australian National University
Residence: ACT
Present position: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board
Educational and professional qualifications: Bachelor of Science (Hons), Australian National University, 1970
Doctor of Philosophy, Australian National University, 1976
Fellow, Australian Institute of Public Administration, 1998
Fellow, Australian Institute of Management, 1999
Fellow, Australian Institute of Company Directors, 2001
Relevant experience: 2003-2006: High Commissioner to New Zealand
1999-2002: Secretary, Department of Defence
1996-1999: Secretary, Department of Transport and Regional Services
1994-1996: Secretary, Department of Veterans Affairs
Current Board Memberships: Chairman, MTAA Superannuation Fund Trustee Board
Director, Datacom
Chairman of the DSTO Advisory Board
Chairman of the Canberra Raiders Board
Former Board Memberships: Administrative Review Council
Australian Strategic Policy Institute Council
President, ACT Branch, Institute of Public Administration Australia
Director, Canberra Girls Grammar School Board
Member, Foreign Affairs Council
Member, Defence and National Security Advisory Council
Chancellor, Australian National University
If they allow no-radio lighties to mix it with HiCap RPT jets, either in the CTAF circuit or overhead a non-radar tower, just to placate a few self-centred non-conformists, or indeed gridlock some non-radar airspace with swathes of non-radar E, I will be very disappointed.
Last edited by Capn Bloggs; 31st Jul 2009 at 06:33. Reason: change "non-self-centred conformists" to "self-centred non-conformists"