New Airspace proposal
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New Airspace proposal
Throwing a line out here to see what it brings in....
I've seen a hard copy of a proposed 'National Airspace System' put out on 13 December 2001... don't know if it was a draft or not, and maybe I'm letting a cat out of the bag here, but I'm wondering if anyone else has seen it and has any comments.
I was trying to find an e-copy to link to, but had no luck (apparently it was being put out by the Dept of Transport for industry comment - but nothing on their site). Can one of the RAPAC guys help out here?
It's probably an over-simplification to say it's a re-hash of Mr Smith's proposals back in '91... then again... maybe not...
I've seen a hard copy of a proposed 'National Airspace System' put out on 13 December 2001... don't know if it was a draft or not, and maybe I'm letting a cat out of the bag here, but I'm wondering if anyone else has seen it and has any comments.
I was trying to find an e-copy to link to, but had no luck (apparently it was being put out by the Dept of Transport for industry comment - but nothing on their site). Can one of the RAPAC guys help out here?
It's probably an over-simplification to say it's a re-hash of Mr Smith's proposals back in '91... then again... maybe not...
This is not exactly what you wanted but it may be useful background:
<a href="http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/projects/LAMP/LAMP.htm" target="_blank">http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/projects/LAMP/LAMP.htm</a>
<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
<a href="http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/projects/LAMP/LAMP.htm" target="_blank">http://www.airservices.gov.au/pilotcentre/projects/LAMP/LAMP.htm</a>
<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: A pothole on the information superhighway
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To explain the situation.
Over the last couple of years an airspace working group representing a number of industry organisations (according to the AA website it includes the RAAA RAPAC AOPA QF AN Eastern Air North Skywest Kendell DoD & Sunstate) have worked to develop a proposal for low level airspace (existing class G & E) as part of the LAMP (Low level Airspace Management Plan) project. What they have come up with has gone through fairly extensive consultation and significant change over that time, and as I understand it was ready for CASA safety analysis and approval. It is that proposal that is on the Airservices website.
Dick is not happy with the proposal, which apparently differs significantly from his own, and evidently expressed his feelings to the Minister, PM, the CEO of Airservices and others. Following a meeting with the Minister and some of these parties a couple of days prior to Christmas, the announcement was made that a low level airspace review committee would be set up to look at both proposals, and come up with a decision on the "final" model. I understand that the DoTRS will facilitate this committee, and it will be chaired by Dick and include as members the CEOs of CASA and Airservices and possibly others eg QF.
I have not seen Dick's proposal and am not aware of any public site where it is available. I have been told that the LAMP airspace working group considered his proposal fairly early in the piece and found it basically unworkable, though whether that version is the same now I don't know.
Over the last couple of years an airspace working group representing a number of industry organisations (according to the AA website it includes the RAAA RAPAC AOPA QF AN Eastern Air North Skywest Kendell DoD & Sunstate) have worked to develop a proposal for low level airspace (existing class G & E) as part of the LAMP (Low level Airspace Management Plan) project. What they have come up with has gone through fairly extensive consultation and significant change over that time, and as I understand it was ready for CASA safety analysis and approval. It is that proposal that is on the Airservices website.
Dick is not happy with the proposal, which apparently differs significantly from his own, and evidently expressed his feelings to the Minister, PM, the CEO of Airservices and others. Following a meeting with the Minister and some of these parties a couple of days prior to Christmas, the announcement was made that a low level airspace review committee would be set up to look at both proposals, and come up with a decision on the "final" model. I understand that the DoTRS will facilitate this committee, and it will be chaired by Dick and include as members the CEOs of CASA and Airservices and possibly others eg QF.
I have not seen Dick's proposal and am not aware of any public site where it is available. I have been told that the LAMP airspace working group considered his proposal fairly early in the piece and found it basically unworkable, though whether that version is the same now I don't know.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very good Piston_Broke! Take a cigar from the top shelf for the background provided.
You are correct in that RHS is not happy with the LAMP proposal particularly aspects relating to requiring VFR to actively participate in the system by utilising the radio which has been fitted at great expense to their aircraft.Apparently there is some other use, other than for communication between aircraft/ATC, for this piece of equipment that the rest of us are too dim to appreciate.
His philosphy appears to be that it is more distracting to use the radio when attempting to look outside. Understandable in his case as I doubt he is able to chew gum and walk at the same time so looking outside and listening would be just plain impossible.
On a serious note anybody who has been around to see the enormous confusion and millions of dollars wasted as a result of Airspace 2000 (MK1 and 2), the Class G demo and the other iterations of Dickspace needs to get involved as there is a definite adgenda being played out. RHS and his boys club on various boards (and AOPA according to their latest mag) are gearing up for another tilt at the airspace windmill. Don't complain later if you don't complain now.
You are correct in that RHS is not happy with the LAMP proposal particularly aspects relating to requiring VFR to actively participate in the system by utilising the radio which has been fitted at great expense to their aircraft.Apparently there is some other use, other than for communication between aircraft/ATC, for this piece of equipment that the rest of us are too dim to appreciate.
His philosphy appears to be that it is more distracting to use the radio when attempting to look outside. Understandable in his case as I doubt he is able to chew gum and walk at the same time so looking outside and listening would be just plain impossible.
On a serious note anybody who has been around to see the enormous confusion and millions of dollars wasted as a result of Airspace 2000 (MK1 and 2), the Class G demo and the other iterations of Dickspace needs to get involved as there is a definite adgenda being played out. RHS and his boys club on various boards (and AOPA according to their latest mag) are gearing up for another tilt at the airspace windmill. Don't complain later if you don't complain now.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neddy,
I have been following the airspace debate (debacle?) for some time from an amateur's point of view, but you appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject. I can't work it out. One minute You-Know-Who gets changes canned because Class E is too low. Now it is too high. MBZs were the way to go. Now they're not. It appears that Airservices has the consultation done, and in fact, goes to the extreme to make sure the industry has been consulted. But then the proposal is shot down in flames again.
I have my thoughts about it that don't necessarily agree with the final model, but I am satisfied that through the RAPACs and other forums, the industry has been well represented. What gives?
I have been following the airspace debate (debacle?) for some time from an amateur's point of view, but you appear to be very knowledgeable on the subject. I can't work it out. One minute You-Know-Who gets changes canned because Class E is too low. Now it is too high. MBZs were the way to go. Now they're not. It appears that Airservices has the consultation done, and in fact, goes to the extreme to make sure the industry has been consulted. But then the proposal is shot down in flames again.
I have my thoughts about it that don't necessarily agree with the final model, but I am satisfied that through the RAPACs and other forums, the industry has been well represented. What gives?
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Melbourne - Australia
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pistons reply is quite telling:
"...according to the AA website it includes the RAAA RAPAC AOPA QF AN Eastern Air North Skywest Kendell DoD & Sunstate..."
"Dick is not happy with the proposal, which apparently differs significantly from his own, and evidently expressed his feelings to the Minister, PM, the CEO of Airservices and others."
I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to voice their opinions but surely this is an absurd situation where one person really truly believes that they are the only one on the ball and that everyone else with equivalent (or greater!!!) industry knowledge has no idea!!! What other country would this sort of nonsense happen in?
"...according to the AA website it includes the RAAA RAPAC AOPA QF AN Eastern Air North Skywest Kendell DoD & Sunstate..."
"Dick is not happy with the proposal, which apparently differs significantly from his own, and evidently expressed his feelings to the Minister, PM, the CEO of Airservices and others."
I'm not saying that people aren't allowed to voice their opinions but surely this is an absurd situation where one person really truly believes that they are the only one on the ball and that everyone else with equivalent (or greater!!!) industry knowledge has no idea!!! What other country would this sort of nonsense happen in?
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Posts: 58
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
See the thread "another Dick Whinge" on DG. Thye man certainly has strongly held views and, for better or worse, seems intent on trying to force everyone to comply with his view on this issue.
I think Neddy is correct. If you don't like what is proposed by Dick or the Advisory Board, it might be more constructive to express your view now as to complain later will be pointless. Whilst PPRuNe has its place, I don't think merely posting a comment on this site is enough. I have a (very vague) recollection that when Dick's position on the board was announced John Anderson made it very clear that the Board was advisory only and the final decision would be his (ie John, not Dick) - perhaps that is something to work on.
I think Neddy is correct. If you don't like what is proposed by Dick or the Advisory Board, it might be more constructive to express your view now as to complain later will be pointless. Whilst PPRuNe has its place, I don't think merely posting a comment on this site is enough. I have a (very vague) recollection that when Dick's position on the board was announced John Anderson made it very clear that the Board was advisory only and the final decision would be his (ie John, not Dick) - perhaps that is something to work on.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sydney
Age: 54
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm... so from what I can gather then, no-one has seen this proposal (which I believe came from Mr Smith's area).
If it's out for industry comment, then exactly what industry is commenting on it???
The due date for comment was the end of January....
So what gives?
Just so there is no confusion - this is a different doc from the info on the Airservices site at the LAMP pages. Whilst the doc I have does not name Mr Smith as an author, I believe it does have a link to him.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
If it's out for industry comment, then exactly what industry is commenting on it???
The due date for comment was the end of January....
So what gives?
Just so there is no confusion - this is a different doc from the info on the Airservices site at the LAMP pages. Whilst the doc I have does not name Mr Smith as an author, I believe it does have a link to him.
<img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Correct Fishhead. Not directly named, but has his smell about it.
And my understanding is that this proposal superceeds the LAMP proposal, so I'm interested to see that those chaps considered this type of thing and passed on it.
The copy I have came from Doug Stott, who passed it to Jim Duff and the RAPAC Convenor's for comment.
And my understanding is that this proposal superceeds the LAMP proposal, so I'm interested to see that those chaps considered this type of thing and passed on it.
The copy I have came from Doug Stott, who passed it to Jim Duff and the RAPAC Convenor's for comment.
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NAS is a document produce for Dick that covers the ideas of Dick.
Basically in this model there will be no MBZ at all, VFR and sport aviation has the "Right" to do what ever it wants and only participate if it wants to. "E" corridors to specified airports at the cost of whoever wants them, (this was regected by the Lamp commitee as far too complex). Directed traffic at specified airports to 700' agl, VFR can become "Known traffic" and be supplied a service at will for "VFR on top" operations and be charged appropriatetely and NO SAFETY CASE to justify the new airspace!!! (Class G demonstration).
This airspace will be very complex, costly and a nightmare for ASA to administer. It also has the complete backing of CASA because Tooler stated before Xmas that he does not understand why a VFR aircraft has to be on the same frequency as IFR!!
We live in interesting times.
PS Dicks start date in March 2002. This give the necessary consultation process and training plenty of time to be achieved, according to Dick.
Basically in this model there will be no MBZ at all, VFR and sport aviation has the "Right" to do what ever it wants and only participate if it wants to. "E" corridors to specified airports at the cost of whoever wants them, (this was regected by the Lamp commitee as far too complex). Directed traffic at specified airports to 700' agl, VFR can become "Known traffic" and be supplied a service at will for "VFR on top" operations and be charged appropriatetely and NO SAFETY CASE to justify the new airspace!!! (Class G demonstration).
This airspace will be very complex, costly and a nightmare for ASA to administer. It also has the complete backing of CASA because Tooler stated before Xmas that he does not understand why a VFR aircraft has to be on the same frequency as IFR!!
We live in interesting times.
PS Dicks start date in March 2002. This give the necessary consultation process and training plenty of time to be achieved, according to Dick.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have had the unenviable pleasure of coming into contact with the document. A few facts.
It is definitely not an Airservices proposal. LAMP is an entirely different model with widespread consultation and support , except (I am told) for a few areas still to be negotiated. Yes, I understand considerable resources (and finances)have been invested to date. Unfortunately that is the cost of consultation and development of procedures and safety cases (as should occur for such a significant change).
NAS is a RHS proposal which was written under his guidance by another. Fairly obvious when you read it as although disjointed and vague on facts it is far too cogent and literate to be Dick's words.
It is exceedingly vague on how it will work (usual modus operandi). Generally at some later date it will be claimed that we all misinterpreted it and don't understand.
No, the document is not available (as far as I can tell) electronically at the moment or for widespread assessment. I think you can all guess why.
Just to keep your interest these are some, but not all, of the highlights as best I can discern them.
Class E across the top of Class C terminal areas (should be interesting as VFR can operate no radio, no xpndr and no clearance).
E corridors down to 1200'(700' in terminal areas) where there is an IAL (procedural separation should make for creative scheduling in IMC). Also interesting as it was he who prevented E being deployed in lower levels when it was first introduced.
Abolition of MBZs(free) for user pays Unicoms. Selective memory is a great thing as it allows him to forget who introduced MBZs in the first place.
A "claytons" DTI in G ie. put in a plan and you will get DTI (and pay for it). Traffic will be limited to radar observed (if in coverage) and anyone else who bothered to plan and pay.
As I say no wonder it has not been released widely otherwise all the stand up comedy venues would go out of business.
It is definitely not an Airservices proposal. LAMP is an entirely different model with widespread consultation and support , except (I am told) for a few areas still to be negotiated. Yes, I understand considerable resources (and finances)have been invested to date. Unfortunately that is the cost of consultation and development of procedures and safety cases (as should occur for such a significant change).
NAS is a RHS proposal which was written under his guidance by another. Fairly obvious when you read it as although disjointed and vague on facts it is far too cogent and literate to be Dick's words.
It is exceedingly vague on how it will work (usual modus operandi). Generally at some later date it will be claimed that we all misinterpreted it and don't understand.
No, the document is not available (as far as I can tell) electronically at the moment or for widespread assessment. I think you can all guess why.
Just to keep your interest these are some, but not all, of the highlights as best I can discern them.
Class E across the top of Class C terminal areas (should be interesting as VFR can operate no radio, no xpndr and no clearance).
E corridors down to 1200'(700' in terminal areas) where there is an IAL (procedural separation should make for creative scheduling in IMC). Also interesting as it was he who prevented E being deployed in lower levels when it was first introduced.
Abolition of MBZs(free) for user pays Unicoms. Selective memory is a great thing as it allows him to forget who introduced MBZs in the first place.
A "claytons" DTI in G ie. put in a plan and you will get DTI (and pay for it). Traffic will be limited to radar observed (if in coverage) and anyone else who bothered to plan and pay.
As I say no wonder it has not been released widely otherwise all the stand up comedy venues would go out of business.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets see if I've got this right.
[quote] airspace working group representing a number of industry organisations (according to the AA website it includes the RAAA RAPAC AOPA QF AN Eastern Air North Skywest Kendell DoD & Sunstate) have worked to develop a proposal for low level airspace (existing class G & E) as part of the LAMP (Low level Airspace Management Plan) project. What they have come up with has gone through fairly extensive consultation and significant change over that time, and as I understand it was ready for CASA safety analysis and approval. <hr></blockquote>
From what I've seen it is logical and with some goodwill from the particiapnts will work fine.
Indiana Jones decides that nobody is taking any notice of him, (is he really that prat doing the amateur radio thing in "the lane"?) does a bit of talking at the Minister and presents HIS plan. Good boy scout stuff this, glad to see ordinary folk taking an interest, Baden Powell would have been proud of the civic mindedness.
Implement my plan (coz you're all know nothing cretins) or I will spit my woggle fall on my back, kick my heels and hold my breath until I turn blue. Well nearly blue anyway.
The Minister, who is not getting paid nearly enough to cop all this BS, remembers why he is in politics and flicks the problem by making him Chairman of the group in the hope that he will learn something from those who know or crash, finally. Educating Richard. I seem to remember a fantastic movie in that vein.
Somehow I don't think so. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> But then what would I know?
[quote] airspace working group representing a number of industry organisations (according to the AA website it includes the RAAA RAPAC AOPA QF AN Eastern Air North Skywest Kendell DoD & Sunstate) have worked to develop a proposal for low level airspace (existing class G & E) as part of the LAMP (Low level Airspace Management Plan) project. What they have come up with has gone through fairly extensive consultation and significant change over that time, and as I understand it was ready for CASA safety analysis and approval. <hr></blockquote>
From what I've seen it is logical and with some goodwill from the particiapnts will work fine.
Indiana Jones decides that nobody is taking any notice of him, (is he really that prat doing the amateur radio thing in "the lane"?) does a bit of talking at the Minister and presents HIS plan. Good boy scout stuff this, glad to see ordinary folk taking an interest, Baden Powell would have been proud of the civic mindedness.
Implement my plan (coz you're all know nothing cretins) or I will spit my woggle fall on my back, kick my heels and hold my breath until I turn blue. Well nearly blue anyway.
The Minister, who is not getting paid nearly enough to cop all this BS, remembers why he is in politics and flicks the problem by making him Chairman of the group in the hope that he will learn something from those who know or crash, finally. Educating Richard. I seem to remember a fantastic movie in that vein.
Somehow I don't think so. <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> But then what would I know?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like Dick is trying to get some hybrid US Class E and G system up and running, otherwise he is just trying to destroy LAMP; perhaps both.
The US airspace is wonderful, but it works in the context of other US airspace (A, B, C, D), US rules, charts, ATC procedures, etc. Why introduce a select and modified little bit to Australia? Let's go the whole hog Dick and change capital city Class C airspace to Class B with mandatory transponder fitment and use within 30nm, GAAP to Class C or D, remove the MBZs and replace the busier ones with Class D.
Gaunty, I like your choice of tag lines. The previous one from 2001 was good but getting a little out of date. Lord of the Rings is more flavour of the month.
The US airspace is wonderful, but it works in the context of other US airspace (A, B, C, D), US rules, charts, ATC procedures, etc. Why introduce a select and modified little bit to Australia? Let's go the whole hog Dick and change capital city Class C airspace to Class B with mandatory transponder fitment and use within 30nm, GAAP to Class C or D, remove the MBZs and replace the busier ones with Class D.
Gaunty, I like your choice of tag lines. The previous one from 2001 was good but getting a little out of date. Lord of the Rings is more flavour of the month.
Guest
Posts: n/a
How much of this airspace management stuff is for real?
I crossed oz last year twice vfr, no sar no details etc etc and listening to the radio all the way across it seemed to me that it was all just a window dressing exercise so that everyone felt happy about ASA managing huge areas of the country with just 1 operator.
I can see the need to ensure RPT safety but god heavens the rest of it is just so much guff.
Is the airspace model intended for the current workloads (next to nothing) or for some conceptual level of flight activity?
I crossed oz last year twice vfr, no sar no details etc etc and listening to the radio all the way across it seemed to me that it was all just a window dressing exercise so that everyone felt happy about ASA managing huge areas of the country with just 1 operator.
I can see the need to ensure RPT safety but god heavens the rest of it is just so much guff.
Is the airspace model intended for the current workloads (next to nothing) or for some conceptual level of flight activity?
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Caloundra, QLD, Australia
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Amateurbuilt:
Or as we used to say in the good old days, "NoSAR, no details.....no brains!
No flight note? No ELT?
Of course you would expect SAR authorities to go and look for you if something went wrong, wouldn't you? And of course they would know where to start looking, wouldn't they? And they would know how many people to look for and the aircraft type, wouldn't they? <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Ah, well, I suppose this is a forum for PROFESSIONALS!
Or as we used to say in the good old days, "NoSAR, no details.....no brains!
No flight note? No ELT?
Of course you would expect SAR authorities to go and look for you if something went wrong, wouldn't you? And of course they would know where to start looking, wouldn't they? And they would know how many people to look for and the aircraft type, wouldn't they? <img src="mad.gif" border="0">
Ah, well, I suppose this is a forum for PROFESSIONALS!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Actually Guanty you raise an interesting point which is not peculiar to aviation but certainly more prevalent. That is the inablity of representative groups (Government bodies included) to compromise and adhere to agreed processes.
Why is it that these forums are often populated by individuals who somehow see it as threatening there very masculinity to give some ground and compromise in order to obtain a reasonable, if not optimum, outcome. I understand that they are there to achieve the best possible result for their respective members but at what cost to the industry as a whole? I hope that some now regret not having been a little more conciliatory in the consultation process as what they may now get I don't believe will be in anyones best interest.
Why is it that these forums are often populated by individuals who somehow see it as threatening there very masculinity to give some ground and compromise in order to obtain a reasonable, if not optimum, outcome. I understand that they are there to achieve the best possible result for their respective members but at what cost to the industry as a whole? I hope that some now regret not having been a little more conciliatory in the consultation process as what they may now get I don't believe will be in anyones best interest.
It seems to me that the LLAMPS Program started out with the best of intentions, went along well for quite a while, but finally floundered on two issues.
Firstly, the long time problem in any Australian attempt at airspace ( or any other aviation related) reform, directing the available and finite resources at the areas of actual risk.
Actual assessed risk, that is,(not as perceived risk), based on reality.We have a great record not moving from doing things the way we have always done them, regardless of the demonstrated shortcomings.
Every risk assessment I have seen done for Australian airspace has illustrated a misallocation of resources, with actual areas of unacceptable risk ignored.
In brief, the whole concept of risk management is rejected by many Australian "professional pilots", when its applied results do not coincide with "perceived risk" ( read imagined risk, as a result of long time "training" and indoctrination).
To suggest that UK NATS, FAA etc have it all wrong, in their conclusions about Australian airspace management, is too silly for words, but that is what has happened over the years.
In its final form, LLAMPS went off the rails, with a result that very, very seriously impacted the operation of virtually ALL sports aviation, but particularly gliding, all without any demonstrable risk addressed by the "new procedures".
It had a significant impact on GA operations, despite the fact that the "new requirements" demanded by some organised groups did not address measured or demonstrated risks, only perceived risks.
Another case of "don't confuse me with facts, my prejudices are made up" ???
I personally do not find it at all surprising that the whole of the Sports Aviation fraternity made their views known at the highest levels, and in the strongest possible terms.
And finally, it looks like QANTAS woke up to the fact that the "potential" savings were unlikely to be achieved in the real world.Who can afford about$4.60 per ton landed at Yulara for a Unicom, just to provide rather up market part time employment for a handful of ATC/FS retirees.
Tootle Pip!!
Firstly, the long time problem in any Australian attempt at airspace ( or any other aviation related) reform, directing the available and finite resources at the areas of actual risk.
Actual assessed risk, that is,(not as perceived risk), based on reality.We have a great record not moving from doing things the way we have always done them, regardless of the demonstrated shortcomings.
Every risk assessment I have seen done for Australian airspace has illustrated a misallocation of resources, with actual areas of unacceptable risk ignored.
In brief, the whole concept of risk management is rejected by many Australian "professional pilots", when its applied results do not coincide with "perceived risk" ( read imagined risk, as a result of long time "training" and indoctrination).
To suggest that UK NATS, FAA etc have it all wrong, in their conclusions about Australian airspace management, is too silly for words, but that is what has happened over the years.
In its final form, LLAMPS went off the rails, with a result that very, very seriously impacted the operation of virtually ALL sports aviation, but particularly gliding, all without any demonstrable risk addressed by the "new procedures".
It had a significant impact on GA operations, despite the fact that the "new requirements" demanded by some organised groups did not address measured or demonstrated risks, only perceived risks.
Another case of "don't confuse me with facts, my prejudices are made up" ???
I personally do not find it at all surprising that the whole of the Sports Aviation fraternity made their views known at the highest levels, and in the strongest possible terms.
And finally, it looks like QANTAS woke up to the fact that the "potential" savings were unlikely to be achieved in the real world.Who can afford about$4.60 per ton landed at Yulara for a Unicom, just to provide rather up market part time employment for a handful of ATC/FS retirees.
Tootle Pip!!