NAS vs LLAMP Continued
Bonez: I thought the content of my post was fairly self-explantory.
Thanks for the summary of my position, LeadSled. It was fairly accurate as far as it went. However, I wouldn't attribute responsibility for the quaqmire entirely to pilots; nor do I say that the process has nothingto do with safety. My position in general terms is that aviation reform - any kind of aviation reform - in Australia is more to do about politics than it is about safety. It's generally politics dressed up as safety.
As to the mil romeos, I think that you'll find that just because old declarations by defense might not validly apply outside the limit to which you referred, it does not mean the Commonwealth does not have power to pass valid laws restricting aircraft operations there.
Thanks for the summary of my position, LeadSled. It was fairly accurate as far as it went. However, I wouldn't attribute responsibility for the quaqmire entirely to pilots; nor do I say that the process has nothingto do with safety. My position in general terms is that aviation reform - any kind of aviation reform - in Australia is more to do about politics than it is about safety. It's generally politics dressed up as safety.
As to the mil romeos, I think that you'll find that just because old declarations by defense might not validly apply outside the limit to which you referred, it does not mean the Commonwealth does not have power to pass valid laws restricting aircraft operations there.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ref the Military areas etc.
A few years back a group of people got together under the name of the PRD working group. They deliberated for some time and completed a report that addressed the many issues of Special Use Airspace. There were 20+ recommendations and I don't think to date many if any of them have been introduced. It is my understanding that many of the recommendations did not sit comfortably with Defence.
Such things as criteria, numbering, Warning areas, MOA's and off shore Restricted areas were addressed. Many of the recommendations when implemented would have certainly improved the use and understanding of such areas.
In relation to off shore Restricted areas. Outside of 12nm Australia has no authority to control foreign state aircraft and the restriction may only be applied to Australian aircraft.
I think it all got bogged down in the legal department/s of defence/airservices/casa and of course nothing has changed.
A few years back a group of people got together under the name of the PRD working group. They deliberated for some time and completed a report that addressed the many issues of Special Use Airspace. There were 20+ recommendations and I don't think to date many if any of them have been introduced. It is my understanding that many of the recommendations did not sit comfortably with Defence.
Such things as criteria, numbering, Warning areas, MOA's and off shore Restricted areas were addressed. Many of the recommendations when implemented would have certainly improved the use and understanding of such areas.
In relation to off shore Restricted areas. Outside of 12nm Australia has no authority to control foreign state aircraft and the restriction may only be applied to Australian aircraft.
I think it all got bogged down in the legal department/s of defence/airservices/casa and of course nothing has changed.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bonez, due to the increased procedural(non-radar) separation of aircraft in E airspace, that only recieve DTI at the moment, the concensus of controllers is that there won't be job losses for controllers, in fact there may be more of us. So to say the ATC Union is against airspace reform because they are trying to protect our jobs is a crock. The reason they are against it is because they realise the proposals are flawed and when there is that midair IFR-VFR collision one of its members is going to be hauled over the coals. A scenario of E airspace that scares me is that you give an IFR a clearance to leave and no IFR or radar observed VFR traffic. Unknown to you while you were busily separating a couple of guys on the other side of you airspace, a radar VFR paint popped up for one paint then dropped off (as happens constantly on the edge of radar coverage).
When the IFR coming out of cloud slams into the unknown VFR shooting along just under the cloud, and the investigator plays the tapes, and sees the one VFR radar paint, do you think the controller will be held accountable. Most certainly.
When the IFR coming out of cloud slams into the unknown VFR shooting along just under the cloud, and the investigator plays the tapes, and sees the one VFR radar paint, do you think the controller will be held accountable. Most certainly.
So the evidence presented for it being a better system is based on. .1. Statistics (great what you can make numbers do)and. .2. Politicians point scoring in a senate hearing. (point scoring in a pointless arena some might say).. .No wonder change makes me nervous.. .The new airspace system octa. .Speak no evil (save $ on radios). .See no evil (refer to the BASI report, one mob in this debate who have nothing dollar wise to gain).. .Hear no evil (refer to speak).. .I'm open to change (believe it or not) but I want to see it done the proper way. LAMP may not be the answer but at least it was a proposal put forward by a TEAM of players.
Downunder111. .There is another issue that you fail to mention. One of the prime reasons for low-level airspace reform was to use TAAATS for where it is Class A, C, E and blow the rest - Gee!. .When the system was first introduced it was expected that about 60 workstations would be used, however as you would now know almost every consol at ML and BN is in use one way or the other. Many will blame this on the fact that ATC had to absorb FS and look after the LL airspace. Hence the push to introduce LLAMP. As already mentioned the resectorization that just had to happen has not yet past first base. AD and his men were waiting for LLAMP to come about. It was never going to happen. The along comes DS with a north American plan and together with some change of policy from CASA, LLAMP is in the bin. I feel sorry for PC and his men because they put a lot of effort into it and even stood up to the policy makers. The energy wasted there cost quite a bit I can assure you. The NAS some say will cost more, however as nobody trusts Airservices estimates maybe we will never know. Would LLAMP have cost less? Again we don't know. The push for the NA model is partly on the basis that the VFRs are not in the system therefore the sectors and their sizes can be larger which the proponents say will over time reduce the number of controllers required. Certainly COCO would not be doing its job if it did not protect its workers, but at what cost to industry.. .Certainly this debate will have a political conclusion, but which politician will have the guts to make it remains to be seen. The whole problem goes back to the Government (and previous ones) policy on cost recovery and location specific charges. At the end of the day the fuel tax that we used to pay was without a doubt a better option. I think it was 1985 when the Bosch report came out. The rot set in then well and truly.. .Certainly reform should be considered, but do we NEED it? Certainly those that support the NA model and free in Gee might say yes, but at what cost and at what risk. If such a change can be made so that everyone understands it and why, then maybe there is a chance, but it will certainly take time. Years in fact. At the end of the day this is all about "risk management". Work out what the risk is then put procedures in place to 'minimize' the risk. We do that every day with almost everything we do. ETOPS is a form of risk management and we support it. What is really the risk of a mid air in Gee? I can tell you it is more likely that your wing will fall off and that is ten to the power lots! Where the risk is, is in the non-controlled terminal area such as CTAF and MBZ area. I guess that is why they are there. Educate our pilot to realise this and we might get somewhere. I support reform, but it must be objective and we must know why and understand the benefits that will come from it. When the salesman shows me that the wheels might turn?
Triadic: Your summary of the PRD review process and its moldering recommendations is accurate. Methinks you might have first hand knowledge, yes?
We’re starting to hone down a more accurate statement about what the Commonwealth can and can’t do “outside the 12 nm limit”. Rather than bog the thread down in the complexity of that question, let’s just say that the Commonwealth has very extensive powers “outside the 12 nm limit” with respect to things Australians do (in aircraft or otherwise) and with respect to what people (Australians or otherwise) do in Australian aircraft. (I think the latter was what you were referring to, Triadic.) The bottom line is that the Commonwealth has far more extensive powers “outside the 12 nm limit” than LeadSled’s assertion would suggest. As an Australian or as an operator of an Australian aircraft, one would be very, very imprudent, to bust an Australian Romeo “outside the 12 nm limit” in the hope that the court would find the restriction not to validly apply.
ozbiggles: slow down son. I have steadfastly and sedulously refused to express an opinion on which airspace system is “better” than another. I can’t make the assessment because I can’t sort the objective wheat from the political chaff. And that’s my point.
BTW bonez: that “old record”, as you call it, was made at the point airspace reform in Australia stalled. The record starts skipping from about that point. If you want to know how you got to where you are today and why, I suggest you read carefully all the references that I provided. I think you’ll be better equipped to find your way out of the quagmire, if you equip yourself with the knowledge of who got you into it, and why.
We’re starting to hone down a more accurate statement about what the Commonwealth can and can’t do “outside the 12 nm limit”. Rather than bog the thread down in the complexity of that question, let’s just say that the Commonwealth has very extensive powers “outside the 12 nm limit” with respect to things Australians do (in aircraft or otherwise) and with respect to what people (Australians or otherwise) do in Australian aircraft. (I think the latter was what you were referring to, Triadic.) The bottom line is that the Commonwealth has far more extensive powers “outside the 12 nm limit” than LeadSled’s assertion would suggest. As an Australian or as an operator of an Australian aircraft, one would be very, very imprudent, to bust an Australian Romeo “outside the 12 nm limit” in the hope that the court would find the restriction not to validly apply.
ozbiggles: slow down son. I have steadfastly and sedulously refused to express an opinion on which airspace system is “better” than another. I can’t make the assessment because I can’t sort the objective wheat from the political chaff. And that’s my point.
BTW bonez: that “old record”, as you call it, was made at the point airspace reform in Australia stalled. The record starts skipping from about that point. If you want to know how you got to where you are today and why, I suggest you read carefully all the references that I provided. I think you’ll be better equipped to find your way out of the quagmire, if you equip yourself with the knowledge of who got you into it, and why.
All,. .Re: PRD's, of course Creamie is right about Commonwealth powers over Australian registered aircraft, but what is the point of a system that has no similar application to other aircraft in the same airspace.
Would anyone argue with the proposition that charted designated airspace should mean the same thing to all aircraft operating in the airspace, so we all know where we all stand, and it does not "all change" just because you have VH- instead of VR-,N-,G- etc.
If you had a really good imagination, you could conjure up all sorts of "safety" reason, not too many non- VH, so the rest are not a risk etc, to "explain" the Australian practice.
However, that would be retrospective and specious, because the real reasons were a combination of ignorance and arrogance, even if they were created with the best motive.
At least I know, when I pick up a US chart, exactly what a P,an MOA or W area means. And there are far fever of them, making day to day operations so much easier.. .Tootle pip!!
Would anyone argue with the proposition that charted designated airspace should mean the same thing to all aircraft operating in the airspace, so we all know where we all stand, and it does not "all change" just because you have VH- instead of VR-,N-,G- etc.
If you had a really good imagination, you could conjure up all sorts of "safety" reason, not too many non- VH, so the rest are not a risk etc, to "explain" the Australian practice.
However, that would be retrospective and specious, because the real reasons were a combination of ignorance and arrogance, even if they were created with the best motive.
At least I know, when I pick up a US chart, exactly what a P,an MOA or W area means. And there are far fever of them, making day to day operations so much easier.. .Tootle pip!!
You reckon the risk of a midair in G is pretty small, eh, Cogwheel?
How unlikely does this sound then - 2 aircraft tracking via same waypoint at same level, one overtaking, perhaps, or just converging from similar tracks.
A number of not-so-far fetched things could happen with respect to radio transmissions - perhaps they overtransmit eachother, one has a comms failure, perhaps the standard scratchy old radio problems that always occur, do.
If the weather's bad they're probably already loaded up and losing a bit of situational awareness.
In the old system, FS pursues them to ensure they know about eachother. Without DTI, it's too bad. If they have both made their broadcasts, they think they're OK.
In my opinion, that's quite a probable situation, and a big backward step in aviation safety management in this country if we go for it.
How unlikely does this sound then - 2 aircraft tracking via same waypoint at same level, one overtaking, perhaps, or just converging from similar tracks.
A number of not-so-far fetched things could happen with respect to radio transmissions - perhaps they overtransmit eachother, one has a comms failure, perhaps the standard scratchy old radio problems that always occur, do.
If the weather's bad they're probably already loaded up and losing a bit of situational awareness.
In the old system, FS pursues them to ensure they know about eachother. Without DTI, it's too bad. If they have both made their broadcasts, they think they're OK.
In my opinion, that's quite a probable situation, and a big backward step in aviation safety management in this country if we go for it.
LeadSled
Slow down and read all that I say.
Your latest post concedes that the Commonwealth has extra-territorial powers over “Australian registered aircraft”, but you go on to ask the rhetorical question: [quote]what is the point of a system that has no similar application to other aircraft in the same airspace.<hr></blockquote>
You thereby suggest that PRDs can have no effect in relation to anything done extra-territorially in aircraft other than Australian-registered aircraft.
The kewpie doll’s still on the shelf.
I’ll say it again, with emphasis this time. The Commonwealth has very extensive powers “outside the 12 nm limit” with respect to things Australians do (in aircraft or otherwise) and with respect to what people (Australians or otherwise) do in Australian aircraft.
If you, as an Australian citizen, bust an Australian Romeo in any aircraft - foreign-registered, unregistered or whatever – you may be prosecuted under Commonwealth law. The scope of the Commonwealth’s extra-territorial powers extends not only the Australian-registered aircraft, but also to Australians operating any aircraft.
But wait! There’s more. Your hasty response to the above might be to ask the slightly more sophisticated question: What is the point of a PRD system that has no extra-territorial application to aircraft that are neither Australian registered nor operated by Australians? Here’s another question as a clue to the answer: what if each contracting state has passed a law to the effect that aircraft registered in their state, or any aircraft operated by citizens of their state, are prohibited from entering any airspace declared or controlled by another contracting state, except in accordance with the conditions (if any) of entry imposed by that other state?
Your hasty response to the above might be to ask an even more sophisticated question: What is the point of a PRD system that has no direct or indirect extra-territorial application to aircraft that are neither Australian-registered nor registered in a contracting state, nor to persons who are neither Australians nor citizens of a contracting state? The short answer is that most of the remainder are not in the habit of wandering happy as a cloud around the few Australian PRDs that extend “outside the 12nm limit”, and rest are targets.
Having said all of that, I still agree with the underlying policy of your point: there are unnecessarily numerous military Romeos in Australia, covering unnecessarily large volumes of airspace, for unnecessarily protracted periods. I think you’re much more likely to get the outcome you want if you convince the Commonwealth of the merits of reducing the number, volume and activation periods of military Romeos, rather than playing bush lawyer.
Slow down and read all that I say.
Your latest post concedes that the Commonwealth has extra-territorial powers over “Australian registered aircraft”, but you go on to ask the rhetorical question: [quote]what is the point of a system that has no similar application to other aircraft in the same airspace.<hr></blockquote>
You thereby suggest that PRDs can have no effect in relation to anything done extra-territorially in aircraft other than Australian-registered aircraft.
The kewpie doll’s still on the shelf.
I’ll say it again, with emphasis this time. The Commonwealth has very extensive powers “outside the 12 nm limit” with respect to things Australians do (in aircraft or otherwise) and with respect to what people (Australians or otherwise) do in Australian aircraft.
If you, as an Australian citizen, bust an Australian Romeo in any aircraft - foreign-registered, unregistered or whatever – you may be prosecuted under Commonwealth law. The scope of the Commonwealth’s extra-territorial powers extends not only the Australian-registered aircraft, but also to Australians operating any aircraft.
But wait! There’s more. Your hasty response to the above might be to ask the slightly more sophisticated question: What is the point of a PRD system that has no extra-territorial application to aircraft that are neither Australian registered nor operated by Australians? Here’s another question as a clue to the answer: what if each contracting state has passed a law to the effect that aircraft registered in their state, or any aircraft operated by citizens of their state, are prohibited from entering any airspace declared or controlled by another contracting state, except in accordance with the conditions (if any) of entry imposed by that other state?
Your hasty response to the above might be to ask an even more sophisticated question: What is the point of a PRD system that has no direct or indirect extra-territorial application to aircraft that are neither Australian-registered nor registered in a contracting state, nor to persons who are neither Australians nor citizens of a contracting state? The short answer is that most of the remainder are not in the habit of wandering happy as a cloud around the few Australian PRDs that extend “outside the 12nm limit”, and rest are targets.
Having said all of that, I still agree with the underlying policy of your point: there are unnecessarily numerous military Romeos in Australia, covering unnecessarily large volumes of airspace, for unnecessarily protracted periods. I think you’re much more likely to get the outcome you want if you convince the Commonwealth of the merits of reducing the number, volume and activation periods of military Romeos, rather than playing bush lawyer.
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Faulconbridge, New South Wales, Oz
Posts: 64
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like the last para- what exactly can we do to convince?
As for bush-lawyering, well at least it's interesting to uncover a thing or two in the debate. But I know the reality is not about pilots 'interpreting' law, it's a matter of cruising on through coz it's too difficult. Not justifying, merely seeing it happen.
As for bush-lawyering, well at least it's interesting to uncover a thing or two in the debate. But I know the reality is not about pilots 'interpreting' law, it's a matter of cruising on through coz it's too difficult. Not justifying, merely seeing it happen.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In regard to the R areas outside the 12nm limit, it is not about anything operational, but legal responsibility. The fact is that the lawyers that run (yes run) CASA and ASA have the final say. Until someone further up the food chain tells them to go jump and make a sound operational decision we will be stuck with this mess (amoungst others).
I knew it! These interminable discussions about the pros and cons of NAS versus LAMP, DTI, the G airspace trial, AMATS, see and avoid, compulsory transponders, compulsory radios, ADS-B, the size of military romeos, Galapagos airspace, ICAO airspace, etc, etc, etc are not about operational efficacy at all.
If we just got rid of the lawyers who run CASA and Airservices, the airspace stakeholders would be able finally to unveil the airspace model upon which they have agreed all along but have been too intimidated by the lawyers to reveal.
If we just got rid of the lawyers who run CASA and Airservices, the airspace stakeholders would be able finally to unveil the airspace model upon which they have agreed all along but have been too intimidated by the lawyers to reveal.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
15 February 2002 . .A16/2002. .AVIATION REFORM PROGRAMME. .The Government will announce the terms of reference for the Airspace Reform Group next week, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, said today.
"I have commissioned Dick Smith, the chairman of CASA, Ted Anson, and the chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth, to provide the Government with advice on the next stage of airspace reform.
"Airspace management in Australia has remained unresolved for too long, and the adoption of world's best practice will result in significant savings for the aviation industry and the travelling public.
"Airspace reform is an important part of the Government's aviation reform programme, which will emphasise the following:
. .the corporatisation of Airservices Australia; . .the future responsibility for rescue and firefighting services, terminal navigation, and tower ATC services; . .the establishment of an air standards task force to complete the reform of the aviation regulations; . .a review of the structure and reporting arrangements for CASA; and . .airspace reform. . ."The Government will not be revisiting its decision on the future airport needs of Sydney, which we announced in December 2000," Mr Anderson said.
Media Contact: Bill McKinley 02 6277 7680 / 0407 701034
"I have commissioned Dick Smith, the chairman of CASA, Ted Anson, and the chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth, to provide the Government with advice on the next stage of airspace reform.
"Airspace management in Australia has remained unresolved for too long, and the adoption of world's best practice will result in significant savings for the aviation industry and the travelling public.
"Airspace reform is an important part of the Government's aviation reform programme, which will emphasise the following:
. .the corporatisation of Airservices Australia; . .the future responsibility for rescue and firefighting services, terminal navigation, and tower ATC services; . .the establishment of an air standards task force to complete the reform of the aviation regulations; . .a review of the structure and reporting arrangements for CASA; and . .airspace reform. . ."The Government will not be revisiting its decision on the future airport needs of Sydney, which we announced in December 2000," Mr Anderson said.
Media Contact: Bill McKinley 02 6277 7680 / 0407 701034
Australia: You’re a joke.
You’re going to have a “review of the structure and reporting arrangements for CASA”.
Is that in addition to the ongoing review process in which KPMG and Accenture have had millions of taxpayers’ dollars thrown at them?
Is that in addition to the ongoing review that Mr Anson is conducting?
And what exactly are the experts at the helm of CASA paid millions of taxpayers’ dollars to do? Weren’t they recruited on the basis of their claims to expertise in, among other things, project management, change management, strategic management and management full stop?
And what exactly is the Minister and his Department’s Aviation Policy Division paid to do?
You’re also going to establish an “air standards task force to complete the reform of the aviation regulations”.
If only you’d brought a bunch of experts together before, to work out what the rules should say! I can see the tidal wave of new, simple, unanimously agreed regulations on the horizon already.
But what exactly is the standards division in CASA paid millions of taxpayers’ dollars to do?
And the jewel in the crown, the icing sugar on the cherry on the cake: the “Airspace Reform Group”. Dick’ll be falling over himself to accommodate views contrary to his.
Prediction: you’ll still be wallowing in your third world quagmire in 5 years’ time.
Thanks for the laugh.
You’re going to have a “review of the structure and reporting arrangements for CASA”.
Is that in addition to the ongoing review process in which KPMG and Accenture have had millions of taxpayers’ dollars thrown at them?
Is that in addition to the ongoing review that Mr Anson is conducting?
And what exactly are the experts at the helm of CASA paid millions of taxpayers’ dollars to do? Weren’t they recruited on the basis of their claims to expertise in, among other things, project management, change management, strategic management and management full stop?
And what exactly is the Minister and his Department’s Aviation Policy Division paid to do?
You’re also going to establish an “air standards task force to complete the reform of the aviation regulations”.
If only you’d brought a bunch of experts together before, to work out what the rules should say! I can see the tidal wave of new, simple, unanimously agreed regulations on the horizon already.
But what exactly is the standards division in CASA paid millions of taxpayers’ dollars to do?
And the jewel in the crown, the icing sugar on the cherry on the cake: the “Airspace Reform Group”. Dick’ll be falling over himself to accommodate views contrary to his.
Prediction: you’ll still be wallowing in your third world quagmire in 5 years’ time.
Thanks for the laugh.
Creampuff
How do we get our snouts in this trough?
Sounds like the beginnings of something beautiful $$$ .
You know Canberra fairly well, why are you so surprised? Quite often these millions are spent to build a new reality to deliver to the punters. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
How do we get our snouts in this trough?
Sounds like the beginnings of something beautiful $$$ .
You know Canberra fairly well, why are you so surprised? Quite often these millions are spent to build a new reality to deliver to the punters. <img src="cool.gif" border="0">
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expect a statement from the Ministers office on the NASvLLAMP issue next week.
Recent CASA policy change on MBZs means that LLAMP is dead unless it is changed to bring the Class E down to the top of MBZ/CTAFs.
Gos is that the Minister will NOT have any industry reps on the review panel. Hmmmmm! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Recent CASA policy change on MBZs means that LLAMP is dead unless it is changed to bring the Class E down to the top of MBZ/CTAFs.
Gos is that the Minister will NOT have any industry reps on the review panel. Hmmmmm! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
AFAP seem very quite on this proposal. Knowing how much they support the provision of DTI I would have thought we would have heard from them by now.. .Maybe they still don't understand the issues! <img src="confused.gif" border="0">
Creamie,. .This is getting serious, I'm forced to agree with you again.
The second time in a week or so.
Looks like I am going to have to re evaluate my approach to the Universe, the meaning of life and everything.
As for airspace matters, clearly the only solution to conflict of interest, cronyism, capture, change aversion, and sectional interests is to have a panel made up of persons with no knowledge of anything remotely associated with aviation, or transport in any form, thereby guaranteeing total lack of bias. The results would/should be hilarious.
Tootle pip??
PS Have a look at Senate Hansard RRA&T , Tuesday 19 Feb, P206 to P221. Interesting stuff.
The second time in a week or so.
Looks like I am going to have to re evaluate my approach to the Universe, the meaning of life and everything.
As for airspace matters, clearly the only solution to conflict of interest, cronyism, capture, change aversion, and sectional interests is to have a panel made up of persons with no knowledge of anything remotely associated with aviation, or transport in any form, thereby guaranteeing total lack of bias. The results would/should be hilarious.
Tootle pip??
PS Have a look at Senate Hansard RRA&T , Tuesday 19 Feb, P206 to P221. Interesting stuff.
LeadSled
For a moment there I thought we were going to break our unanimity distance record. But then I read your very last word. [quote]As for airspace matters, clearly the only solution to conflict of interest, cronyism, capture, change aversion, and sectional interests is to have a panel made up of persons with no knowledge of anything remotely associated with aviation, or transport in any form, thereby guaranteeing total lack of bias. The results would/should be hilarious.<hr></blockquote>[my bolding]
We would still be unanimous if your last word had been “objective”.
That you appear not to comprehend any irony in your ridiculing an objective decision-making body as a mechanism to resolve airspace management issues makes the irony even more exquisite.
I’ll bet you genuinely believe that airspace issues are so vastly complicated, so extraordinarily convoluted, so indescribably esoteric, that no panel of mere lay people could possibly comprehend their intricacies and implications.
There are internationally-agreed, objectively-ascertainable airspace standards. There are actuarially-recognised, objective methods for modelling and estimating collision risks in various kinds of assumed airspace. There are reliable ways to estimate the comparative costs – in both dollar and accident/incident terms – of various airspace models.
So we have the technical capacity to obtain objectively-justifiable estimates as to comparative levels of collision risk, comparative levels of compliance and differences with international standards, comparative levels of cost, comparative levels of the number and qualifications of required air traffic and related services personnel, across a range of different airspace models.
Each model will entail opportunity costs in terms of estimated comparative collision risk, estimated comparative compliance with international standards, and estimated comparative cost.
Those comparisons are easily understood by laypersons with average intelligence and education. Indeed, they are the sorts of comparisons that are made by non-expert private- and government-sector executives dealing with vastly more complex matters than aviation, every day.
The decision as to which opportunity costs should be paid is ultimately a political one, not a technical one. It is an example par excellance of the kind of decision that should be made by “a panel made up of persons with no knowledge of anything remotely associated with aviation, or transport in any form, thereby guaranteeing total lack of bias.”
You’ve convinced yourself that only technical experts should make decisions about which opportunity costs should be paid. Not surprisingly, the politicians who would otherwise be held responsible for making those decisions are hardly falling over themselves to disabuse you of that view. Therein lies another of the causes of your quagmire.
For a moment there I thought we were going to break our unanimity distance record. But then I read your very last word. [quote]As for airspace matters, clearly the only solution to conflict of interest, cronyism, capture, change aversion, and sectional interests is to have a panel made up of persons with no knowledge of anything remotely associated with aviation, or transport in any form, thereby guaranteeing total lack of bias. The results would/should be hilarious.<hr></blockquote>[my bolding]
We would still be unanimous if your last word had been “objective”.
That you appear not to comprehend any irony in your ridiculing an objective decision-making body as a mechanism to resolve airspace management issues makes the irony even more exquisite.
I’ll bet you genuinely believe that airspace issues are so vastly complicated, so extraordinarily convoluted, so indescribably esoteric, that no panel of mere lay people could possibly comprehend their intricacies and implications.
There are internationally-agreed, objectively-ascertainable airspace standards. There are actuarially-recognised, objective methods for modelling and estimating collision risks in various kinds of assumed airspace. There are reliable ways to estimate the comparative costs – in both dollar and accident/incident terms – of various airspace models.
So we have the technical capacity to obtain objectively-justifiable estimates as to comparative levels of collision risk, comparative levels of compliance and differences with international standards, comparative levels of cost, comparative levels of the number and qualifications of required air traffic and related services personnel, across a range of different airspace models.
Each model will entail opportunity costs in terms of estimated comparative collision risk, estimated comparative compliance with international standards, and estimated comparative cost.
Those comparisons are easily understood by laypersons with average intelligence and education. Indeed, they are the sorts of comparisons that are made by non-expert private- and government-sector executives dealing with vastly more complex matters than aviation, every day.
The decision as to which opportunity costs should be paid is ultimately a political one, not a technical one. It is an example par excellance of the kind of decision that should be made by “a panel made up of persons with no knowledge of anything remotely associated with aviation, or transport in any form, thereby guaranteeing total lack of bias.”
You’ve convinced yourself that only technical experts should make decisions about which opportunity costs should be paid. Not surprisingly, the politicians who would otherwise be held responsible for making those decisions are hardly falling over themselves to disabuse you of that view. Therein lies another of the causes of your quagmire.