New Airspace proposal
Gentlepersons: . .Thank you for your kudos - that makes the hour or so struggle with a slow PC & IE etc. worth it <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Woomera: . .I saw the URLs before - and full marks to 89 steps to heaven - but I made the comment because I know a number of people & organisations reluctant to use a document from an anon. site. The fact that it does not seem to be available in electronic form "officially", and seems to have had limited paper distribution makes us suspicious that something funny is going on, particularly when we are now told comments need to be in by the end of this month! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
FishHead:. .I concur with your opinions of MOAs. They, along with so-called "Warning" and "Alert" areas are as far as I'm aware not compliant with ICAO standards and possibly purely a US thing. I doubt that DoD would agree to them for good reason.
Woomera: . .I saw the URLs before - and full marks to 89 steps to heaven - but I made the comment because I know a number of people & organisations reluctant to use a document from an anon. site. The fact that it does not seem to be available in electronic form "officially", and seems to have had limited paper distribution makes us suspicious that something funny is going on, particularly when we are now told comments need to be in by the end of this month! <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
FishHead:. .I concur with your opinions of MOAs. They, along with so-called "Warning" and "Alert" areas are as far as I'm aware not compliant with ICAO standards and possibly purely a US thing. I doubt that DoD would agree to them for good reason.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Captain Midnight,
The information provided to Woomera came direct from the Ministers office and was posted to ensure there was a healthy debate prior to the Ministers short cutoff time. We were unable to host it on the pprune site due to the size bogging the system down. It should be regarded as credible. Hard copy has also been supplied to the NSW RAPAC meeting today by ASA, again from the same source.
. .SYD
The information provided to Woomera came direct from the Ministers office and was posted to ensure there was a healthy debate prior to the Ministers short cutoff time. We were unable to host it on the pprune site due to the size bogging the system down. It should be regarded as credible. Hard copy has also been supplied to the NSW RAPAC meeting today by ASA, again from the same source.
. .SYD
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fishhead .. with regard to VHF freq's .. personally I found that the re-transmit function was both a blessing and a nuisance -dependant upon the circumstances.
There was a situation with Port Hedland and another (I think from memory Newman) VHF that if two acft taxi'd at the same time at each location, and both transmitted at the same time and the VHF was NOT on re-transmit, the officer responsible for everything associated with BOTH those acft would NOT receive a transmission from either acft. (ie both would cut each other out) ... a couple of jets on climb on converging tracks not knowing about each other did get a bit too close for comfort.
The operator who was switched on would leave re-transmit off until that pair of acft had done their thing and did it safely. I know it used to really P**s the drivers off .. but some times you just had to do it ffor safety sake.
Of course, controllers do have the choice of selecting that the ATC person can be heard on all freq's without the pilot chat ... or did they take that away to?
There was a situation with Port Hedland and another (I think from memory Newman) VHF that if two acft taxi'd at the same time at each location, and both transmitted at the same time and the VHF was NOT on re-transmit, the officer responsible for everything associated with BOTH those acft would NOT receive a transmission from either acft. (ie both would cut each other out) ... a couple of jets on climb on converging tracks not knowing about each other did get a bit too close for comfort.
The operator who was switched on would leave re-transmit off until that pair of acft had done their thing and did it safely. I know it used to really P**s the drivers off .. but some times you just had to do it ffor safety sake.
Of course, controllers do have the choice of selecting that the ATC person can be heard on all freq's without the pilot chat ... or did they take that away to?
Thanks for the additional information, syd_rapac.
I don't think anyone expected it to be posted to this site, but rather either the Minister's site, DoTRS or even "Dick Smith Flyer". The feedback I've had is that commercial organisations and others are not comfortable that the only source of an electronic copy is at an anon. URL.
Anyway, I've said enough on that issue. If others feel strongly about it they can direct their comments to the Minister.
I don't think anyone expected it to be posted to this site, but rather either the Minister's site, DoTRS or even "Dick Smith Flyer". The feedback I've had is that commercial organisations and others are not comfortable that the only source of an electronic copy is at an anon. URL.
Anyway, I've said enough on that issue. If others feel strongly about it they can direct their comments to the Minister.
Dear Neddy,
Thanks for the lesson on risk assessment, believe it or not I think you have just made my case for me.. . . .As I understand it, (and I understand it pretty well) the various steps of the safety case in LLAMPS went well, and a believable outcome was the result. Individuals may well take issue with parts of the safety case outcome, but most agreed it was a good effort.
In my opinion, the analytical tools used, refined and developed during this exercise will stand up to any reasoned and logical scrutiny.
Unfortunately, it's outcomes did NOT support the long held beliefs of the "true believers", and the subsequent "additions and enhancements" to LLAMPS had precious little to do with satisfying shortcomings revealed by the safety case. In fact, nothing to do with the final LLAMPS outcome, and everything to do with "bringing VFR back into the system", and completely restricting large chunks of sports aviation, particularly gliding, whatever that is supposed to achieve in safety terms.
It is the latter that has brought about the downfall of the "final" version of LLAMPS.
By the look of many of these posts, those who think they "know" the FAA system and why is won't work here are sadly astray. I will bring up just one point. Low level en route, the % of the US with low level radar coverage is almost the same as Australia . .( source: ASA)
Something to chew on: The FAA system, which really does work so well for so many, is the ultimate user pays system. The system is largely for the benefit of the airline travelling public, and they very largely pay for it, via a ticket tax.
Two Dogs, . .Again you have made my case for me. There is a rather large gulf between LLAMPS "asking sports aviation to use their radios, generate NOTAMs etc.," and a safety case that supports the need for those radio's to be used / WAFTAMs to be generated, as the solution to a quantified safety problem.
Where was the (as established by formal analysis) problem, to which LLAMPS in its final form was the answer. Where is the evidence that gliding, in particular, is such a danger now, that all the additional requirements were needed. Here were requirements that are not even contempalted in the confines of western Europe, with far less airspace, and many, many more gliders.
Where is the evidence that the gigantic MBZ was an answer to a problem.
In the case of CTAF/MBZ size,even current ATSB thoughts suggest otherwise than that proposed in LLAMP.
Tootle pip!!
Thanks for the lesson on risk assessment, believe it or not I think you have just made my case for me.. . . .As I understand it, (and I understand it pretty well) the various steps of the safety case in LLAMPS went well, and a believable outcome was the result. Individuals may well take issue with parts of the safety case outcome, but most agreed it was a good effort.
In my opinion, the analytical tools used, refined and developed during this exercise will stand up to any reasoned and logical scrutiny.
Unfortunately, it's outcomes did NOT support the long held beliefs of the "true believers", and the subsequent "additions and enhancements" to LLAMPS had precious little to do with satisfying shortcomings revealed by the safety case. In fact, nothing to do with the final LLAMPS outcome, and everything to do with "bringing VFR back into the system", and completely restricting large chunks of sports aviation, particularly gliding, whatever that is supposed to achieve in safety terms.
It is the latter that has brought about the downfall of the "final" version of LLAMPS.
By the look of many of these posts, those who think they "know" the FAA system and why is won't work here are sadly astray. I will bring up just one point. Low level en route, the % of the US with low level radar coverage is almost the same as Australia . .( source: ASA)
Something to chew on: The FAA system, which really does work so well for so many, is the ultimate user pays system. The system is largely for the benefit of the airline travelling public, and they very largely pay for it, via a ticket tax.
Two Dogs, . .Again you have made my case for me. There is a rather large gulf between LLAMPS "asking sports aviation to use their radios, generate NOTAMs etc.," and a safety case that supports the need for those radio's to be used / WAFTAMs to be generated, as the solution to a quantified safety problem.
Where was the (as established by formal analysis) problem, to which LLAMPS in its final form was the answer. Where is the evidence that gliding, in particular, is such a danger now, that all the additional requirements were needed. Here were requirements that are not even contempalted in the confines of western Europe, with far less airspace, and many, many more gliders.
Where is the evidence that the gigantic MBZ was an answer to a problem.
In the case of CTAF/MBZ size,even current ATSB thoughts suggest otherwise than that proposed in LLAMP.
Tootle pip!!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Needle Nardle Noo LS,
As I understand it (and I too understand it pretty well)you are indeed correct that the safety case (although not perfect) will stand up to any "reasoned and logical" scrutiny.
Therein lies the perenial problem in relation to the "alternative proposal" and it's founder, Indiana. Reasoned and logical has, to date, been profoundly absent from any argument put forward by him and his coat-tailers.
"Emotive", certainly! "Well intentioned", possibly! But reasoned and logical?
Whether or not the problem of VFR and gliders interacting with IFR is a real or perceived problem is fundamentally irrelevant. The safety case, ATSB (and I believe any clear thinking pilot) supports the premise that alerted "see and avoid" is safer than unalerted. Given that there is no discernable cost (ie aircraft are already radio equipped) associated with the requirement to routinely broadcast your, Indiana's and AOPA's protestations cannot be supported in any cost benefit analysis. ie big benefit, no cost!
I suspect many of those objecting to the LAMP proposal on the basis that it somehow interferes with some bestowed right would be the first to hire a high priced "suite" to screw Airservices, CASA, the Government and any other bystander for failing to implement a demonstrably "safer" system at no extra cost.. . . .Is LAMP perfect, No! It is still subject to negotiation in part. What it is (which is more than the NAS) is a model based on consultation, industry (including you LS)input and more consultation.
[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: Neddy ]</p>
As I understand it (and I too understand it pretty well)you are indeed correct that the safety case (although not perfect) will stand up to any "reasoned and logical" scrutiny.
Therein lies the perenial problem in relation to the "alternative proposal" and it's founder, Indiana. Reasoned and logical has, to date, been profoundly absent from any argument put forward by him and his coat-tailers.
"Emotive", certainly! "Well intentioned", possibly! But reasoned and logical?
Whether or not the problem of VFR and gliders interacting with IFR is a real or perceived problem is fundamentally irrelevant. The safety case, ATSB (and I believe any clear thinking pilot) supports the premise that alerted "see and avoid" is safer than unalerted. Given that there is no discernable cost (ie aircraft are already radio equipped) associated with the requirement to routinely broadcast your, Indiana's and AOPA's protestations cannot be supported in any cost benefit analysis. ie big benefit, no cost!
I suspect many of those objecting to the LAMP proposal on the basis that it somehow interferes with some bestowed right would be the first to hire a high priced "suite" to screw Airservices, CASA, the Government and any other bystander for failing to implement a demonstrably "safer" system at no extra cost.. . . .Is LAMP perfect, No! It is still subject to negotiation in part. What it is (which is more than the NAS) is a model based on consultation, industry (including you LS)input and more consultation.
[ 30 January 2002: Message edited by: Neddy ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are in fact THREE proposals on the table:
1. The status-quo,
2. LLAMP,
3. NAS
. .If the existing culture remains and you can see plenty of it on this thread, then my money would be on the status-quo, much to airservices dismay! It is the same folk in airservices that trashed FS that want to trash DTI and wont be happy till any fragments of FS are gone. Look what they have already done to briefing!
The Minister is clearly keen to get it out of his pending tray where it has been in the "I don't want to know about" envelope for some years.
There is still no evidence whatsoever that any costings on any of the proposals is accurate. Certainly none provided by airservices can be considered due to bias. NAS may even cost more? And after all it is cost efficiencies that are behind most of this.
Dont give me that "worlds best practice" crap... there are many cases where we in little old Oz already have it, but some refuse to acknowledge this.
We could certainly evolve an airspace model that is basically ICAO compliant out of any of the above. The answer will be the most politically correct model, not the safest or most efficient.
It just depends if the Minister has the guts to seek the best advice.
Of course the implementation plan and the safety case/s are as important in every way. If not undertaken correctly any major change is doomed to failure and or rejection.
. .
1. The status-quo,
2. LLAMP,
3. NAS
. .If the existing culture remains and you can see plenty of it on this thread, then my money would be on the status-quo, much to airservices dismay! It is the same folk in airservices that trashed FS that want to trash DTI and wont be happy till any fragments of FS are gone. Look what they have already done to briefing!
The Minister is clearly keen to get it out of his pending tray where it has been in the "I don't want to know about" envelope for some years.
There is still no evidence whatsoever that any costings on any of the proposals is accurate. Certainly none provided by airservices can be considered due to bias. NAS may even cost more? And after all it is cost efficiencies that are behind most of this.
Dont give me that "worlds best practice" crap... there are many cases where we in little old Oz already have it, but some refuse to acknowledge this.
We could certainly evolve an airspace model that is basically ICAO compliant out of any of the above. The answer will be the most politically correct model, not the safest or most efficient.
It just depends if the Minister has the guts to seek the best advice.
Of course the implementation plan and the safety case/s are as important in every way. If not undertaken correctly any major change is doomed to failure and or rejection.
. .
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For information, this is AOPA's submission to the Minister re NAS:
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association . .PO Box 26, . .GEORGES HALL NSW 2198 . .29th January, 2002
The Hon John Anderson MP. .Deputy Prime Minister,. .Parliament House,. .CANBERRA ACT 2500
Dear Minister,
Thank you for your letter of 24th December, 2001, regarding the National Airspace System proposal.
You have asked us to comment on both LLAMPS and NAS. At the outset, NAS is a proven American airspace model and is our preference.
Airservices Australia, went to great trouble to consult with the industry, and I congratulate them for that. Nevertheless, if we are to pay more than lip service to the phrase “world’s best practice”, it could be that the architects of this program should have been given more opportunity to experience overseas practices. International experience suggests that VFR aircraft should not be subject to the proposed LLAMPS radio calls. If general aviation was to be kept at its present low level of operation, it might work. Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Los Angeles basin was on the radio to the proposed LLAMPS extent. Radio alerted see and avoid is a valuable tool in context, however non radio aircraft can also safely be a part of the scene, (as they are in the U.S.). Non radio aircraft should not be effectively exterminated on unsubstantiated claims of “safety”.. . . .Our regional pilots are mostly a very experienced and professional group. However, it appears that a form of “group think” has appeared in their ranks and it is of the view that a light aircraft is invisible if it’s pilot is not chattering on the radio. That view is not reflected in overseas practice. Also, having worked with their representatives, I am of the opinion that their views are not necessarily representative of the more moderate views of the silent rank and file.. . . .Mandatory Broadcast Zones, as originally proposed, permitted access, at low level, to aircraft without radio. Unfortunately, this reasonable (if “uniquely Australian” <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> concept was hijacked initially, and now in LLAMPS we now have a proposal wherein, for example, a non-radio aircraft has no access to a country airport, simply because a medium capacity RPT aircraft is due there tomorrow!
Were the current LLAMPS proposal to be implemented in Australia, I think we would soon be the laughing stock of the world. This home grown untested LLAMPS product will have to undergo many changes in service while we work towards achieving what the U.S. already has. . ... .We maintain that any service not required by general aviation, but demanded by the airlines, should be paid for by the airlines. While supporting the NAS in preference to the LLAMPS, the question of charges is not fully addressed in the NAS proposal and requires further clarification and industry input.
Thank you for your invitation to submit our views.
Yours faithfully,
(Capt.) F.W. (Bill) Pike. .President AOPA
Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association . .PO Box 26, . .GEORGES HALL NSW 2198 . .29th January, 2002
The Hon John Anderson MP. .Deputy Prime Minister,. .Parliament House,. .CANBERRA ACT 2500
Dear Minister,
Thank you for your letter of 24th December, 2001, regarding the National Airspace System proposal.
You have asked us to comment on both LLAMPS and NAS. At the outset, NAS is a proven American airspace model and is our preference.
Airservices Australia, went to great trouble to consult with the industry, and I congratulate them for that. Nevertheless, if we are to pay more than lip service to the phrase “world’s best practice”, it could be that the architects of this program should have been given more opportunity to experience overseas practices. International experience suggests that VFR aircraft should not be subject to the proposed LLAMPS radio calls. If general aviation was to be kept at its present low level of operation, it might work. Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Los Angeles basin was on the radio to the proposed LLAMPS extent. Radio alerted see and avoid is a valuable tool in context, however non radio aircraft can also safely be a part of the scene, (as they are in the U.S.). Non radio aircraft should not be effectively exterminated on unsubstantiated claims of “safety”.. . . .Our regional pilots are mostly a very experienced and professional group. However, it appears that a form of “group think” has appeared in their ranks and it is of the view that a light aircraft is invisible if it’s pilot is not chattering on the radio. That view is not reflected in overseas practice. Also, having worked with their representatives, I am of the opinion that their views are not necessarily representative of the more moderate views of the silent rank and file.. . . .Mandatory Broadcast Zones, as originally proposed, permitted access, at low level, to aircraft without radio. Unfortunately, this reasonable (if “uniquely Australian” <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> concept was hijacked initially, and now in LLAMPS we now have a proposal wherein, for example, a non-radio aircraft has no access to a country airport, simply because a medium capacity RPT aircraft is due there tomorrow!
Were the current LLAMPS proposal to be implemented in Australia, I think we would soon be the laughing stock of the world. This home grown untested LLAMPS product will have to undergo many changes in service while we work towards achieving what the U.S. already has. . ... .We maintain that any service not required by general aviation, but demanded by the airlines, should be paid for by the airlines. While supporting the NAS in preference to the LLAMPS, the question of charges is not fully addressed in the NAS proposal and requires further clarification and industry input.
Thank you for your invitation to submit our views.
Yours faithfully,
(Capt.) F.W. (Bill) Pike. .President AOPA
Dear AOPA
Bless your cotton socks, you've muffed a few things again by not doing your research. I wonder if you even took the time to read the LAMP (notice it is LAMP not "LLAMPS") concept of operations and safety case documents?
[quote]Airservices Australia, went to great trouble to consult with the industry <hr></blockquote>
See my earlier post - the LAMP proposal was developed by an airspace working group comprising some 14 representatives of industry organisations - it was not developed by Airservices. One of the reps. was AOPA, so I would have thought you would know that?
[quote]International experience suggests that VFR aircraft should not be subject to the proposed LLAMPS radio calls.<hr></blockquote>
Could you enlighten us with evidence of this? And what is much different from now?
[quote]Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Los Angeles basin was on the radio to the proposed LLAMPS extent. <hr></blockquote>
You don't seem to have grasped the DAF operation.
<ul type="square">[*]ATC will not be operating on these frequencies, they will be strictly for pilot to pilot use[*]the DAFs will be as large or as small as necessary, size to be dictated as to minimise freq. congestion. .[/list]
They will largely operate as FIAs used to before the consolidation of Flight Service (which resulted in frequency congestion due to retransmissions and led to the need to create CTAF/MTAF), except that with LAMP ATC will not be heard on them at all. (correct me if I'm wrong, somebody).
[quote]Radio alerted see and avoid is a valuable tool in context, however non radio aircraft can also safely be a part of the scene, (as they are in the U.S.).<hr></blockquote>
I think you will find that the non-radio aircraft in the U.S. you are referring to are within radar coverage, hence they are "safely (be) part of the scene".. . . . [quote]Our regional pilots are mostly a very experienced and professional group. However, it appears that a form of “group think” has appeared in their ranks <hr></blockquote>
The AWG comprised a few more reps than just "regional" pilots -
[quote]and it is of the view that a light aircraft is invisible if it's pilot is not chattering on the radio.<hr></blockquote>
Have ever been up the front of a high performance aircraft on descent to a busy non-controlled AD, straining your bo-peeps to spot something akin to a fly dropping on your windscreen? The well known 1991 BASI report into visual scanning and detection said that unalerted see and avoid was unsafe, and that alerted (ie by broadcast) see and avoid was a significant improvement. Sir, you should know yourself (if you fly more than an armchair) that if you hear an all stations broadcast from another aircraft in your vicinity that you naturally look in the appropriate direction to spot and assess the threat, and thus such broadcasts (with the basic information) greatly assist you to spot what you may have missed relying purely on scanning. In fact, you yourself say "Radio alerted see and avoid is a valuable tool in context".
[quote]Also, having worked with their representatives, I am of the opinion that their views are not necessarily representative of the more moderate views of the silent rank and file.<hr></blockquote>
The old chestnut - "the silent rank and file". If they are silent, no-one knows what their views are ...
[quote]Mandatory Broadcast Zones, <snip> and now in LLAMPS we now have a proposal wherein, for example, a non-radio aircraft has no access to a country airport, simply because a medium capacity RPT aircraft is due there tomorrow!<hr></blockquote>
<ul type="square">[*]No-radio aircraft have not been permitted in MBZs since they came in years ago, so with LAMP nothing has changed[*]the only ones who seem to react loudly to this are those who don't want to use a radio (bit like those motorcycle riders who object to being forced to wear a helmet) - dare I suggest everyone else doesn't have a problem with it as they see carriage and use of radio a safety issue?[*]the issue of activating and deactivating MBZs for the periods not required is one that CASA have been mulling over for some time - and I don't know if they came up with a solution.[/list]
[quote]Were the current LLAMPS proposal to be implemented in Australia, I think we would soon be the laughing stock of the world.<hr></blockquote>
I think the country would be a laughing stock if it permitted an organisation whose members largely contribute nothing ($) to the airways system to hijack any airspace proposal developed by a widely representative group of industry experts ....
[quote]This home grown untested LLAMPS product will have to undergo many changes in service while we work towards achieving what the U.S. already has.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know that it could be described as "untested", given that it is either based on existing operations here and/or subject to safety cases. However it needs to accommodate all operations, and if aspects of it require a re-think then so be it - contribute to the AWG via your rep, rather than criticise! With the amount of work gone into LAMP over the last 3 years I don't know that it is sensible to throw the baby out with the bath water.
[quote]We maintain that any service not required by general aviation, but demanded by the airlines, should be paid for by the airlines.<hr></blockquote>
I don't think they or anyone else disagrees with that. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Woomera - sorry if all the above has upped the bandwidth <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 31 January 2002: Message edited by: CaptainMidnight ]
[ 31 January 2002: Message edited by: CaptainMidnight ]</p>
Bless your cotton socks, you've muffed a few things again by not doing your research. I wonder if you even took the time to read the LAMP (notice it is LAMP not "LLAMPS") concept of operations and safety case documents?
[quote]Airservices Australia, went to great trouble to consult with the industry <hr></blockquote>
See my earlier post - the LAMP proposal was developed by an airspace working group comprising some 14 representatives of industry organisations - it was not developed by Airservices. One of the reps. was AOPA, so I would have thought you would know that?
[quote]International experience suggests that VFR aircraft should not be subject to the proposed LLAMPS radio calls.<hr></blockquote>
Could you enlighten us with evidence of this? And what is much different from now?
[quote]Imagine the cacophony if every aircraft in the Los Angeles basin was on the radio to the proposed LLAMPS extent. <hr></blockquote>
You don't seem to have grasped the DAF operation.
<ul type="square">[*]ATC will not be operating on these frequencies, they will be strictly for pilot to pilot use[*]the DAFs will be as large or as small as necessary, size to be dictated as to minimise freq. congestion. .[/list]
They will largely operate as FIAs used to before the consolidation of Flight Service (which resulted in frequency congestion due to retransmissions and led to the need to create CTAF/MTAF), except that with LAMP ATC will not be heard on them at all. (correct me if I'm wrong, somebody).
[quote]Radio alerted see and avoid is a valuable tool in context, however non radio aircraft can also safely be a part of the scene, (as they are in the U.S.).<hr></blockquote>
I think you will find that the non-radio aircraft in the U.S. you are referring to are within radar coverage, hence they are "safely (be) part of the scene".. . . . [quote]Our regional pilots are mostly a very experienced and professional group. However, it appears that a form of “group think” has appeared in their ranks <hr></blockquote>
The AWG comprised a few more reps than just "regional" pilots -
[quote]and it is of the view that a light aircraft is invisible if it's pilot is not chattering on the radio.<hr></blockquote>
Have ever been up the front of a high performance aircraft on descent to a busy non-controlled AD, straining your bo-peeps to spot something akin to a fly dropping on your windscreen? The well known 1991 BASI report into visual scanning and detection said that unalerted see and avoid was unsafe, and that alerted (ie by broadcast) see and avoid was a significant improvement. Sir, you should know yourself (if you fly more than an armchair) that if you hear an all stations broadcast from another aircraft in your vicinity that you naturally look in the appropriate direction to spot and assess the threat, and thus such broadcasts (with the basic information) greatly assist you to spot what you may have missed relying purely on scanning. In fact, you yourself say "Radio alerted see and avoid is a valuable tool in context".
[quote]Also, having worked with their representatives, I am of the opinion that their views are not necessarily representative of the more moderate views of the silent rank and file.<hr></blockquote>
The old chestnut - "the silent rank and file". If they are silent, no-one knows what their views are ...
[quote]Mandatory Broadcast Zones, <snip> and now in LLAMPS we now have a proposal wherein, for example, a non-radio aircraft has no access to a country airport, simply because a medium capacity RPT aircraft is due there tomorrow!<hr></blockquote>
<ul type="square">[*]No-radio aircraft have not been permitted in MBZs since they came in years ago, so with LAMP nothing has changed[*]the only ones who seem to react loudly to this are those who don't want to use a radio (bit like those motorcycle riders who object to being forced to wear a helmet) - dare I suggest everyone else doesn't have a problem with it as they see carriage and use of radio a safety issue?[*]the issue of activating and deactivating MBZs for the periods not required is one that CASA have been mulling over for some time - and I don't know if they came up with a solution.[/list]
[quote]Were the current LLAMPS proposal to be implemented in Australia, I think we would soon be the laughing stock of the world.<hr></blockquote>
I think the country would be a laughing stock if it permitted an organisation whose members largely contribute nothing ($) to the airways system to hijack any airspace proposal developed by a widely representative group of industry experts ....
[quote]This home grown untested LLAMPS product will have to undergo many changes in service while we work towards achieving what the U.S. already has.<hr></blockquote>
I don't know that it could be described as "untested", given that it is either based on existing operations here and/or subject to safety cases. However it needs to accommodate all operations, and if aspects of it require a re-think then so be it - contribute to the AWG via your rep, rather than criticise! With the amount of work gone into LAMP over the last 3 years I don't know that it is sensible to throw the baby out with the bath water.
[quote]We maintain that any service not required by general aviation, but demanded by the airlines, should be paid for by the airlines.<hr></blockquote>
I don't think they or anyone else disagrees with that. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Woomera - sorry if all the above has upped the bandwidth <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
[ 31 January 2002: Message edited by: CaptainMidnight ]
[ 31 January 2002: Message edited by: CaptainMidnight ]</p>
Cap'n Midnight,
Methinks I prefer LLAMP, Low Level Airspace Management blah blah, but I guess this is just getting picky.
As I understand it (and I understand it pretty well) the late editions to LLAMP of a plethora of VFR radio calls virtually take us back before AMATS in 1991, and have little or nothing to do with EFFECTIVE "see and avoid". Haven't we learnt anything in the last ten years. Where is the adverse record that demands turning the clock back.
Can you tell me where the LLAMP Safety Case demonstrated the need for all these calls?? I can't find it.
Nobody in their right mind argues against the value of "appropriate" alerted see and avoid, but the key is "appropriate".
Perhaps you should give ATSB a call (as I did) to verify that they have had a significant change of heart on matters of "see and avoid".
It would seem that CASA and ATSB have settled their differences on an old BASI demand that all RPT be provided with radio arranged separation. In fact, it would seem that ATSB now concur with the latest CASA view (and FAA and NASA) that the larger the "radio alerted see and avoid area", the less likely that any procedure is going to have any useful outcome, other than a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Were such VFR calls part of the original LLAMP, ?? Seems not. As far as I can see, most GA pilots have and use radios, therefor a handful that don't cannot constitute a significant risk.
Otherwise has NEVER been objectively demonstrated, in anything I can find.
My greatest concern with LLAMP is the very real effect on Sporting Aviation, and gliding in particular. The demands of the Regionals will have a severe effect on gliding and unless you know how gliders operate, you obviously don't understand that the demands of the Regional's cannot be satisfied.
Again, as I understand it, the Regional's have not demonstrated or quantified a risk presented by the gliders, because objectively it does not exist. But that doesn't stop the demand.
In a previous post on this thread, I mentioned gliders in Europe, nobody seems to want to take this on, in terms of the proposed LLAMP requirements, far more restrictive than any European country that I have experienced.
AOPA and ASAC were on the panel, but did they agree with the final outcome. Ask them.
Finally " have ever been up front of a high performance aircraft", you obviously don't know one F.W.Pike, ex RAAF, C-130 etc, ex Regional CP, lots of time on turbine thingies with somewhat higher performance than such "high speed" missiles as the Irish Concorde, that meandering early sixties device the Tankstream, and various other aeronautical means of conveyance which seldom see 250 knots, hardly "high performance".
After all, if you think the speed you are travelling is too fast, slow down, it only costs time and money, and what is money where air safety is concerned ??
Front and centre, that's where. Just maybe, what we have here is a commercial problem, cost, not a safety problem at all. Think about it.
Last I heard, F William had come back from QF B747-400 to B767, but he would have more than the odd exposure to the world's airways system in his first 60 years.
Tootle pip !!
Methinks I prefer LLAMP, Low Level Airspace Management blah blah, but I guess this is just getting picky.
As I understand it (and I understand it pretty well) the late editions to LLAMP of a plethora of VFR radio calls virtually take us back before AMATS in 1991, and have little or nothing to do with EFFECTIVE "see and avoid". Haven't we learnt anything in the last ten years. Where is the adverse record that demands turning the clock back.
Can you tell me where the LLAMP Safety Case demonstrated the need for all these calls?? I can't find it.
Nobody in their right mind argues against the value of "appropriate" alerted see and avoid, but the key is "appropriate".
Perhaps you should give ATSB a call (as I did) to verify that they have had a significant change of heart on matters of "see and avoid".
It would seem that CASA and ATSB have settled their differences on an old BASI demand that all RPT be provided with radio arranged separation. In fact, it would seem that ATSB now concur with the latest CASA view (and FAA and NASA) that the larger the "radio alerted see and avoid area", the less likely that any procedure is going to have any useful outcome, other than a warm and fuzzy feeling.
Were such VFR calls part of the original LLAMP, ?? Seems not. As far as I can see, most GA pilots have and use radios, therefor a handful that don't cannot constitute a significant risk.
Otherwise has NEVER been objectively demonstrated, in anything I can find.
My greatest concern with LLAMP is the very real effect on Sporting Aviation, and gliding in particular. The demands of the Regionals will have a severe effect on gliding and unless you know how gliders operate, you obviously don't understand that the demands of the Regional's cannot be satisfied.
Again, as I understand it, the Regional's have not demonstrated or quantified a risk presented by the gliders, because objectively it does not exist. But that doesn't stop the demand.
In a previous post on this thread, I mentioned gliders in Europe, nobody seems to want to take this on, in terms of the proposed LLAMP requirements, far more restrictive than any European country that I have experienced.
AOPA and ASAC were on the panel, but did they agree with the final outcome. Ask them.
Finally " have ever been up front of a high performance aircraft", you obviously don't know one F.W.Pike, ex RAAF, C-130 etc, ex Regional CP, lots of time on turbine thingies with somewhat higher performance than such "high speed" missiles as the Irish Concorde, that meandering early sixties device the Tankstream, and various other aeronautical means of conveyance which seldom see 250 knots, hardly "high performance".
After all, if you think the speed you are travelling is too fast, slow down, it only costs time and money, and what is money where air safety is concerned ??
Front and centre, that's where. Just maybe, what we have here is a commercial problem, cost, not a safety problem at all. Think about it.
Last I heard, F William had come back from QF B747-400 to B767, but he would have more than the odd exposure to the world's airways system in his first 60 years.
Tootle pip !!
Neddy,. .Boy!, am I on a roll now. Maybe you drive an imitation leather omnibus.. .Tootle pip !! comes from one of the characters in my favourite Jules ( is that right) Verne novel, but this isn't a science fiction site, or is it??. .Tootle pip, old bean !!
Dear Capt 2400
You are obviously a supporter of LLAMP but you and Capt Bill don't seem to realise that whatever model is put in place it has to be used to be beneficial to ALL. Certainly LLAMP or NAS will not work in their existing form, so the model you see now will more than likely be somewhat different at the end of the day. The safety case for LLAMP provided by airservices is a sham and will not progress through CASA without additional work. Basing the NAS safety case on the American model is clever, but again any change will enforce a revisit to the safety case which will of course be then required. AOPA and the Regionals seem only to see their own patch and not the big picture. Any constructive comment should look at all the factors, even the ones that don't directly concern you. You are correct that Pike does not seem to see the nuts and bolts of the big picture in his letter. Perhaps his advice is bias?. Their representative at the AWG I think you will find ran his own agenda and the sooner AOPA realizes that and put him out to pasture the better off they will be. It is also very clear that RHS is behind the AOPA position, as they continue to tread the line in supporting NAS without any apparent constructive thought or comment. It is also clear that they don't seem to consider the cost of such a model as a significant factor (in the letter anyway). There is a very real chance that NAS might be more expensive to provide. If that is the case, please tell me who is going to pay for it? Triadic is right in that following blindly the illusion of worlds best practice may well see us with a significantly worse airspace model. Like it or not, we have to consider all users and some it seems don't wish to acknowledge that we are now in the 21st century. Especially the sports and gliders. Hopefully CASA will have the guts to drag them over the line in the name of safety and pure old common sense.
You are obviously a supporter of LLAMP but you and Capt Bill don't seem to realise that whatever model is put in place it has to be used to be beneficial to ALL. Certainly LLAMP or NAS will not work in their existing form, so the model you see now will more than likely be somewhat different at the end of the day. The safety case for LLAMP provided by airservices is a sham and will not progress through CASA without additional work. Basing the NAS safety case on the American model is clever, but again any change will enforce a revisit to the safety case which will of course be then required. AOPA and the Regionals seem only to see their own patch and not the big picture. Any constructive comment should look at all the factors, even the ones that don't directly concern you. You are correct that Pike does not seem to see the nuts and bolts of the big picture in his letter. Perhaps his advice is bias?. Their representative at the AWG I think you will find ran his own agenda and the sooner AOPA realizes that and put him out to pasture the better off they will be. It is also very clear that RHS is behind the AOPA position, as they continue to tread the line in supporting NAS without any apparent constructive thought or comment. It is also clear that they don't seem to consider the cost of such a model as a significant factor (in the letter anyway). There is a very real chance that NAS might be more expensive to provide. If that is the case, please tell me who is going to pay for it? Triadic is right in that following blindly the illusion of worlds best practice may well see us with a significantly worse airspace model. Like it or not, we have to consider all users and some it seems don't wish to acknowledge that we are now in the 21st century. Especially the sports and gliders. Hopefully CASA will have the guts to drag them over the line in the name of safety and pure old common sense.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Somewhere on earth
Posts: 61
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Bill (not you Hamo... Pikey!),
Having just read your @#$%^ on page 4 of December AOPA, and therefore given that your understanding of, and therefore credibility to comment on, See and Avoid, is obviously zip, I suggest you put on your motorcycle helmet and make some broadcasts before you start overtaking people on the Pacific Highway! I heard it's a pretty dangerous thing to do, overtaking on a blind corner without telling anybody you're coming!!
(At last, some sucker who actually equates Unalerted Aee and Avoid with overtaking! And a QF Captain to boot!!).
Now, I wonder how many lives would be saved if we had a DTI service for the moronic idiots who DO overtake unafely, hoping that they will see and avoid the oncoming car?
Press Release from the Minister for Transport:
"Due to cost cutting and complaints from the vocal lobby group The Road Owners and Drivers Associaton, all double lines will be removed from the roads of Auatralia. The RODA stongly believes that drivers are quite capable of deciding when it is safe to overtake, and besides, there are no lines on the roads in the Democratic Republic of Congo."
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Captain Custard ]</p>
Having just read your @#$%^ on page 4 of December AOPA, and therefore given that your understanding of, and therefore credibility to comment on, See and Avoid, is obviously zip, I suggest you put on your motorcycle helmet and make some broadcasts before you start overtaking people on the Pacific Highway! I heard it's a pretty dangerous thing to do, overtaking on a blind corner without telling anybody you're coming!!
(At last, some sucker who actually equates Unalerted Aee and Avoid with overtaking! And a QF Captain to boot!!).
Now, I wonder how many lives would be saved if we had a DTI service for the moronic idiots who DO overtake unafely, hoping that they will see and avoid the oncoming car?
Press Release from the Minister for Transport:
"Due to cost cutting and complaints from the vocal lobby group The Road Owners and Drivers Associaton, all double lines will be removed from the roads of Auatralia. The RODA stongly believes that drivers are quite capable of deciding when it is safe to overtake, and besides, there are no lines on the roads in the Democratic Republic of Congo."
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: Captain Custard ]</p>
LeadSled
Totally agree with the use of “appropriate” alerted see and avoid – a short succinct broadcast to me is better than none at all. Also agree that the larger the “radio alerted see and avoid area” the less the usefulness, if that means that a number of busy areas are on the one frequency, thus you either can’t get a word in or it is information overload. I thought this problem was addressed under LAMP by the varying size of the DAFs ie. dictated by traffic workload or other considerations, and I believe workshops were held around the country to design these to suit local conditions.
Gliding – yes, did some of that many moons ago. My understanding is that gliding ops. in MBZs were to be individually addressed – see the COP page M: 24 of 27 para 2.2.5 Local cooperation and agreement here is the key - no-one “owns” the airspace. Alice Springs seems to be a good example of something that works – CTA with jets and gliders sharing not only the airspace but the AD as well I understand - anyone have experience there?
AOPA on the panel? Well, I had heard that the rep agreed with the proposal up to quite a late stage but the plug was pulled by the hierarchy, but that information could be wrong.
You’ve got me with the “Irish Concorde”??? A Shorts 330 or 360 perhaps? <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Yes, the “armchair” bit etc. were unnecessary barbs given his background (some of which I was aware of), and I feel guilty now. <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> FW, I apologise – it was the end of a long day (which is no excuse), and the cat (TCAS equipped maybe – or was it see and avoid?) evaded me when I got home.
Bones
I’m not a supporter of LAMP per se, though you can be forgiven for thinking so. I am a supporter of any proposal that is well researched and thought out, one that works for all airspace users. The NAS a.k.a. “Dickspace” does nothing for me. LAMP has some work to be done on it now to address the concerns of those who haven’t agreed with it – as I indicated earlier, with so much work gone into it (and $M) I don’t believe that it should be trashed and we start all over again.
I don’t know that the regionals can be singled out as the sole recalcitrants as there were other representatives on the panel. However I agree that AOPA must come on board with them and the rest and work out a solution that benefits all and sensibly minimises the inconvenience to any particular operation. Easier said than done, of course.
Or as Triadic indicated, the other proposal is the status quo. Whichever, something must be developed that is beneficial to all.
Totally agree with the use of “appropriate” alerted see and avoid – a short succinct broadcast to me is better than none at all. Also agree that the larger the “radio alerted see and avoid area” the less the usefulness, if that means that a number of busy areas are on the one frequency, thus you either can’t get a word in or it is information overload. I thought this problem was addressed under LAMP by the varying size of the DAFs ie. dictated by traffic workload or other considerations, and I believe workshops were held around the country to design these to suit local conditions.
Gliding – yes, did some of that many moons ago. My understanding is that gliding ops. in MBZs were to be individually addressed – see the COP page M: 24 of 27 para 2.2.5 Local cooperation and agreement here is the key - no-one “owns” the airspace. Alice Springs seems to be a good example of something that works – CTA with jets and gliders sharing not only the airspace but the AD as well I understand - anyone have experience there?
AOPA on the panel? Well, I had heard that the rep agreed with the proposal up to quite a late stage but the plug was pulled by the hierarchy, but that information could be wrong.
You’ve got me with the “Irish Concorde”??? A Shorts 330 or 360 perhaps? <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> Yes, the “armchair” bit etc. were unnecessary barbs given his background (some of which I was aware of), and I feel guilty now. <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> FW, I apologise – it was the end of a long day (which is no excuse), and the cat (TCAS equipped maybe – or was it see and avoid?) evaded me when I got home.
Bones
I’m not a supporter of LAMP per se, though you can be forgiven for thinking so. I am a supporter of any proposal that is well researched and thought out, one that works for all airspace users. The NAS a.k.a. “Dickspace” does nothing for me. LAMP has some work to be done on it now to address the concerns of those who haven’t agreed with it – as I indicated earlier, with so much work gone into it (and $M) I don’t believe that it should be trashed and we start all over again.
I don’t know that the regionals can be singled out as the sole recalcitrants as there were other representatives on the panel. However I agree that AOPA must come on board with them and the rest and work out a solution that benefits all and sensibly minimises the inconvenience to any particular operation. Easier said than done, of course.
Or as Triadic indicated, the other proposal is the status quo. Whichever, something must be developed that is beneficial to all.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well someone does read my editorials, that is rewarding. (My personal view point on motor cycle helmets, since someone raised the subject(?) is as it always was. "Let those who ride decide." Not sure what it has to do with looking out the window though.) The old furphy that the United States has radar everywhere is alive and well I see. Wasn't so last July when I flew from Nashville Tennessee to Biggin Hill in a Navajo, but maybe things have changed since then. Please understand my relative silence in this debate, we have published the AOPA position, but personally I'm not exactly comfortable in a site where "men" insult people while hiding behind nom de plumes. Not my style.. .Rgds. .Bill Pike
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: In the J curve
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bill & DS
You must have known there would be some negative comment about your post. I agree about the use of non-de-plumes but that is life here, and we all have to live with it to get to the real issues.
It is good to see the likes of yourself and DS posting and I encourage you to do so. Either in defence/rebuttal or explanation of your ideas. I understand that the AOPA organisation has its own plans but don't let that stop you from bieng involved. I do like to see both sides of the arguments, but I also make up my own mind.
For the record I don't support NAS and am more inclined to suport LAMPS if asked to do chose one.
I personaly don't like the pig headed and arogant stance of AOPA on this and many other issues. I wish you the best in turing around the organisation to make it as good as it was in the distant past (god bless Pete).
I further am very biased toward DS, I see way too many adgendas and personal platitudes for the wrong reasons. He does very little to promote his ideas in a positive and helpfull manner, he just gets arogant and rude (I know I have seen it).
Having said that you and he, have someing to add to this Discussion/Debate and maybe you both have something to learn as well.
You must have known there would be some negative comment about your post. I agree about the use of non-de-plumes but that is life here, and we all have to live with it to get to the real issues.
It is good to see the likes of yourself and DS posting and I encourage you to do so. Either in defence/rebuttal or explanation of your ideas. I understand that the AOPA organisation has its own plans but don't let that stop you from bieng involved. I do like to see both sides of the arguments, but I also make up my own mind.
For the record I don't support NAS and am more inclined to suport LAMPS if asked to do chose one.
I personaly don't like the pig headed and arogant stance of AOPA on this and many other issues. I wish you the best in turing around the organisation to make it as good as it was in the distant past (god bless Pete).
I further am very biased toward DS, I see way too many adgendas and personal platitudes for the wrong reasons. He does very little to promote his ideas in a positive and helpfull manner, he just gets arogant and rude (I know I have seen it).
Having said that you and he, have someing to add to this Discussion/Debate and maybe you both have something to learn as well.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think anyone can see from the above why I decline debate on this forum. I am no stranger to criticism, but I don't mix with gutless cowards.. .(The last time I was called "arogant" it had two "rr"s)
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: AOPA Aust ]</p>
[ 01 February 2002: Message edited by: AOPA Aust ]</p>
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LS,
Anyone who appreciates the humour of the Goons can't be all bad. So maybe you're just a little misguided. Unfortunately I think that your organisation and LAMP are not that far adrift, just a few hotheads became involved to gain some political mileage before some issues could be resolved. I don't hear a lot of objection to the substantive elements of the plan!
Bonez,
I think calling the safety case a sham is a little harsh, even Leadsled recognises what I too believe was a genuine effort. I understand it does need some refinement as there appear to be a few anomolies but sham implies some intention to deceive and I don't see that. Unfortunately risk analysis/safety cases are the realm of the mathematical boffins and a bit like black magic to us simple pilots. By the way what makes you think CASA has any better idea of analysing the risk? It was essentially their system that was used.
Pikey,
That endorsement on the 767 that LS aluded to isn't being done to circumvent a law relating to retirement age for airline pilots is it? Now would that be an Ozzie law or a "worlds best practice" law from the good ol' US of A?
Thank God for our antiquated system eh!
"Mental note...remind Dick to remove that one too"
Anyone who appreciates the humour of the Goons can't be all bad. So maybe you're just a little misguided. Unfortunately I think that your organisation and LAMP are not that far adrift, just a few hotheads became involved to gain some political mileage before some issues could be resolved. I don't hear a lot of objection to the substantive elements of the plan!
Bonez,
I think calling the safety case a sham is a little harsh, even Leadsled recognises what I too believe was a genuine effort. I understand it does need some refinement as there appear to be a few anomolies but sham implies some intention to deceive and I don't see that. Unfortunately risk analysis/safety cases are the realm of the mathematical boffins and a bit like black magic to us simple pilots. By the way what makes you think CASA has any better idea of analysing the risk? It was essentially their system that was used.
Pikey,
That endorsement on the 767 that LS aluded to isn't being done to circumvent a law relating to retirement age for airline pilots is it? Now would that be an Ozzie law or a "worlds best practice" law from the good ol' US of A?
Thank God for our antiquated system eh!
"Mental note...remind Dick to remove that one too"
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Pike.
You seem to have got off on the wrong foot here, may I offer you some advice that might help you to regain some ground.
You would do well to modify your attitude around here if you wish to be taken seriously.
It would also be a serious mistake for you to assume that you mix with "gutless cowards" because the bulk of us post anonymously.
You do not know who you may meet here, or indeed who YOU insult with the arrogant attitude displayed by the above pejorative.
You were aware no doubt that the bulk of us post anonymously, with some of us fairly easily identifiable, if you care to take the time, so why feign shock horror when someone suggests that your or AOPA's position might not be taken as Gods gift to us all.
The anonymity some choose provides the means to report or comment on matters of real importance without fear of retribution from their employer or others who may be able to cause them harm. . .This does not mean that it is possible to get away with improper conduct as there are too many PPRuNers who know the real facts who will defrock mischievous behaviour. Again this is usually done with respect if it is appropriate.
As you are a relative newcomer, I am prepared to accept that you may not have yet seen the evidence of some of the many positive and pivotal changes that us "gutless cowards" have brought to pass by virtue of our anonymity. Just one example, but a powerful one, is the influencing of a thorough review of deadhead transport practices by British and European Airlines, at great expense to them too, but with a definably safer outcome for tech crew, as a result of a thread started by, yes, a PPRuNer from D & G. The gutless coward didn't even have the courage to identify him/herself. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> How stupid is that. I could go on about revealing dodgy operators, dodgy agenda and plain old fashioned lies and deceit disguised as Government, Organisation or Company speak.
It might be safe to assume that you posted your letter here to inform us of the positiom AOPA takes in relation to the various Airspace models being touted. . .We sincerely welcome that as a contribution to the debate.. .However it is not safe to assume that it will be accepted, out of hand here, just because it came from AOPA, without rigorous debate.. .It is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to impose a view on the professionals that haunt these halls and not expect to get some flak.. .Discuss and debate and we all learn something from each other. OK.
Further, it may or may not surprise you that as a result of the actions of certain recently retired AOPA senior executives, hat AOPA is not held in very high or any esteem by many here. . .So far you have not demonstrated to us that much has changed.. .It would also be a mistake for you to console yourself by attributing irrelevancy to this Forum.
Mr Smith posted some of his views re the NAS and got hit for six out of the grounds, we keenly await his rebuttal.
Like us or hate us you cannot make us go away.
So how about taking the line of least resistance and attempting to persuade us to your point of view.
You may well change ours, but be also prepared for us to change yours.
It's called respect for each other and it is earned not taken.
You seem to have got off on the wrong foot here, may I offer you some advice that might help you to regain some ground.
You would do well to modify your attitude around here if you wish to be taken seriously.
It would also be a serious mistake for you to assume that you mix with "gutless cowards" because the bulk of us post anonymously.
You do not know who you may meet here, or indeed who YOU insult with the arrogant attitude displayed by the above pejorative.
You were aware no doubt that the bulk of us post anonymously, with some of us fairly easily identifiable, if you care to take the time, so why feign shock horror when someone suggests that your or AOPA's position might not be taken as Gods gift to us all.
The anonymity some choose provides the means to report or comment on matters of real importance without fear of retribution from their employer or others who may be able to cause them harm. . .This does not mean that it is possible to get away with improper conduct as there are too many PPRuNers who know the real facts who will defrock mischievous behaviour. Again this is usually done with respect if it is appropriate.
As you are a relative newcomer, I am prepared to accept that you may not have yet seen the evidence of some of the many positive and pivotal changes that us "gutless cowards" have brought to pass by virtue of our anonymity. Just one example, but a powerful one, is the influencing of a thorough review of deadhead transport practices by British and European Airlines, at great expense to them too, but with a definably safer outcome for tech crew, as a result of a thread started by, yes, a PPRuNer from D & G. The gutless coward didn't even have the courage to identify him/herself. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> How stupid is that. I could go on about revealing dodgy operators, dodgy agenda and plain old fashioned lies and deceit disguised as Government, Organisation or Company speak.
It might be safe to assume that you posted your letter here to inform us of the positiom AOPA takes in relation to the various Airspace models being touted. . .We sincerely welcome that as a contribution to the debate.. .However it is not safe to assume that it will be accepted, out of hand here, just because it came from AOPA, without rigorous debate.. .It is arrogant in the extreme to attempt to impose a view on the professionals that haunt these halls and not expect to get some flak.. .Discuss and debate and we all learn something from each other. OK.
Further, it may or may not surprise you that as a result of the actions of certain recently retired AOPA senior executives, hat AOPA is not held in very high or any esteem by many here. . .So far you have not demonstrated to us that much has changed.. .It would also be a mistake for you to console yourself by attributing irrelevancy to this Forum.
Mr Smith posted some of his views re the NAS and got hit for six out of the grounds, we keenly await his rebuttal.
Like us or hate us you cannot make us go away.
So how about taking the line of least resistance and attempting to persuade us to your point of view.
You may well change ours, but be also prepared for us to change yours.
It's called respect for each other and it is earned not taken.