The NAS - without the personalities
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coming right out of left field, my recent attendance of the coronial into the King Air alleged depressurised accident in Burketown made it very clear to me that whilst the ATSB are usually there after the fact they have much to contribute before if it possible to posit their involvement in this way.
Woomera got it exactly right in his closing post to the last thread.
Unless the industry takes and is given and seen to be given true "ownership" of this or any other system then it will fail or become very difficult if not impossible to implement.
The imparting of "received wisdom" from "on high" has been the way of the past, it has been shown to be almost totally ineffective and counterproductive.
IMHO Mr Mike Smiths' real job is to empower and facilitate the ownership of the system by "all" parties and if necessary but paradoxically to the exclusion of Mr Dick Smith.
He brings too much baggage to the argument.
And apologies Doug for the introduction of personality but;
If Mr Dick Smith is truly committed to the evolution of the best system, he should be satisified with having got it back onto the agenda, by whatever means and for whatever motivation and step back and allow the industry to get on with the continuing development of their not his business.
He should accept that he is not the only person in Australia with both the motivation and expertise.
Woomera got it exactly right in his closing post to the last thread.
Unless the industry takes and is given and seen to be given true "ownership" of this or any other system then it will fail or become very difficult if not impossible to implement.
The imparting of "received wisdom" from "on high" has been the way of the past, it has been shown to be almost totally ineffective and counterproductive.
IMHO Mr Mike Smiths' real job is to empower and facilitate the ownership of the system by "all" parties and if necessary but paradoxically to the exclusion of Mr Dick Smith.
He brings too much baggage to the argument.
And apologies Doug for the introduction of personality but;
If Mr Dick Smith is truly committed to the evolution of the best system, he should be satisified with having got it back onto the agenda, by whatever means and for whatever motivation and step back and allow the industry to get on with the continuing development of their not his business.
He should accept that he is not the only person in Australia with both the motivation and expertise.
Last edited by gaunty; 22nd Jul 2002 at 04:16.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creamy,
Beautiful!! The clip of pre-election squabbling reflects the poor state of aviation in Oz. Undoubtedly the most astute assessment of the whole NAS debate to date has been succinctly summed up in that short description of the relationship between Dick and Anderson.
I think time will prove that you are also correct as to the intention for NAS to be little more than a time waster between elections. One suspects he (Anderson) knows quite well that any proposal associated with Dick will end up in turmoil and confusion given the entrenched attitudes in the industry. Pretend to be doing something while actively doing nothing.
Doug,
NAS without the personalities was LAMP.
Unfortunately due to the noticeable lack of detail it is difficult to discuss the technicalities of NAS and or understand the reasons for selecting it. Even Mike Smith is reluctant to do that.
I too apologise for bringing in personalities but it’s a little like having a discussion about how to make peanut paste without referring to peanuts.
NAS is nothing but personalities and politics, as Creampuff has pointed out. From what I see of the membership and selection of the Implementation Group it is continuing on that path. As the past convenor of NAPAC I would have thought you, of all people, would be outraged at the complete disregard for a project (LAMP) that was widely supported by RAPAC.
That having been said I wholeheartedly support becoming involved in the process in order to ensure we are not subjected to yet another airspace debacle costing millions of dollars of industry money. The resulting confusion and distrust between operators and CASA/Airservices cost the industry far more.
The only way I see this happening, given past experience, is ,as Guanty points out, for Dick to walk away and let the industry (with guidance from an impartial Implementation Group) work out the details of how NAS can best be implemented in Australia.
Of course that would involve consultation and education and would not happen overnight.
Beautiful!! The clip of pre-election squabbling reflects the poor state of aviation in Oz. Undoubtedly the most astute assessment of the whole NAS debate to date has been succinctly summed up in that short description of the relationship between Dick and Anderson.
I think time will prove that you are also correct as to the intention for NAS to be little more than a time waster between elections. One suspects he (Anderson) knows quite well that any proposal associated with Dick will end up in turmoil and confusion given the entrenched attitudes in the industry. Pretend to be doing something while actively doing nothing.
Doug,
NAS without the personalities was LAMP.
Unfortunately due to the noticeable lack of detail it is difficult to discuss the technicalities of NAS and or understand the reasons for selecting it. Even Mike Smith is reluctant to do that.
I too apologise for bringing in personalities but it’s a little like having a discussion about how to make peanut paste without referring to peanuts.
NAS is nothing but personalities and politics, as Creampuff has pointed out. From what I see of the membership and selection of the Implementation Group it is continuing on that path. As the past convenor of NAPAC I would have thought you, of all people, would be outraged at the complete disregard for a project (LAMP) that was widely supported by RAPAC.
That having been said I wholeheartedly support becoming involved in the process in order to ensure we are not subjected to yet another airspace debacle costing millions of dollars of industry money. The resulting confusion and distrust between operators and CASA/Airservices cost the industry far more.
The only way I see this happening, given past experience, is ,as Guanty points out, for Dick to walk away and let the industry (with guidance from an impartial Implementation Group) work out the details of how NAS can best be implemented in Australia.
Of course that would involve consultation and education and would not happen overnight.
The ad
Sun rises over busy airport.
Slow motion shots of aircraft taxiing, landing, pushing back.
All in slow motion:
Pan to pilot (captain’s hat and lots of gold bars) doing walk around. Kicks tires and puts a big tick on clip board she’s carrying. Peers into intake. A mechanic appears, takes torch out of her pocket and shines it down intake. Captain and mechanic give each other a big smile and a thumbs up. Captain puts another big tick on clipboard.
Jump to shot of little old ladies and cute children being helped onto the aircraft. FA helps a little old lady into her seat. She can’t read the safety card. FA reaches across and turns on overhead light. Both FA and lady smile.
Jump to tower shot: lots of radar displays and panoramic views of the airport. Controller looks at clipboard, but can’t quite read it. She reaches up and turns on the overhead light, reads the clipboard and nods wisely. She then picks up a large microphone and says: “Alpha Bravo Teakettle BarBQ – you’re clear for take off!”
Jump to cockpit shot. Captain and FO turn to each other, and give each other a smile and a thumbs up. The captain reaches up and pushes a button. Jump to outside shot of landing lights coming on. Jump to shot of aircraft rotating and climbing away.
Fade to shot of captain/mechanic/controller/FA/little old lady smiling, against background of blue sky with scattered fluffy CU.
Caption and voice over: LAMP: NAS without the personalities.
OR: LAMP: We’ve got all the personalities we need.
OR: any suggestions?
I was thinking about having a scene where the pilot stumbles out of bed and, in the half-light of dawn, reaches into the cupboard for something to put on her toast. Unscrews a jar without looking, and drowsily spreads it on the toast. Takes a munch, then collapses on the floor with anaphylactic shock: she is allergic to the peanuts in the peanut butter.
But I thought that might be too obvious.
Slow motion shots of aircraft taxiing, landing, pushing back.
All in slow motion:
Pan to pilot (captain’s hat and lots of gold bars) doing walk around. Kicks tires and puts a big tick on clip board she’s carrying. Peers into intake. A mechanic appears, takes torch out of her pocket and shines it down intake. Captain and mechanic give each other a big smile and a thumbs up. Captain puts another big tick on clipboard.
Jump to shot of little old ladies and cute children being helped onto the aircraft. FA helps a little old lady into her seat. She can’t read the safety card. FA reaches across and turns on overhead light. Both FA and lady smile.
Jump to tower shot: lots of radar displays and panoramic views of the airport. Controller looks at clipboard, but can’t quite read it. She reaches up and turns on the overhead light, reads the clipboard and nods wisely. She then picks up a large microphone and says: “Alpha Bravo Teakettle BarBQ – you’re clear for take off!”
Jump to cockpit shot. Captain and FO turn to each other, and give each other a smile and a thumbs up. The captain reaches up and pushes a button. Jump to outside shot of landing lights coming on. Jump to shot of aircraft rotating and climbing away.
Fade to shot of captain/mechanic/controller/FA/little old lady smiling, against background of blue sky with scattered fluffy CU.
Caption and voice over: LAMP: NAS without the personalities.
OR: LAMP: We’ve got all the personalities we need.
OR: any suggestions?
I was thinking about having a scene where the pilot stumbles out of bed and, in the half-light of dawn, reaches into the cupboard for something to put on her toast. Unscrews a jar without looking, and drowsily spreads it on the toast. Takes a munch, then collapses on the floor with anaphylactic shock: she is allergic to the peanuts in the peanut butter.
But I thought that might be too obvious.
Suggestion
You could also have the Captain and FO as a gay love interest. So you really use that bed and food scene.
You also need to get patriotism into the ad. like one of those inane buy Aussie ads. And to top it off, you could include it as a Liberal party election advertisment, spoken by, for and on behalf of <insert party hack here>.
You also need to get patriotism into the ad. like one of those inane buy Aussie ads. And to top it off, you could include it as a Liberal party election advertisment, spoken by, for and on behalf of <insert party hack here>.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm,
The choice of toast spread is a bit tricky, peanut, yeast extract, bit of a problem whichever way you go.
I hear Alfred E Neumann is available, currently between gigs.
The choice of toast spread is a bit tricky, peanut, yeast extract, bit of a problem whichever way you go.
I hear Alfred E Neumann is available, currently between gigs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Neddy and Creampuff, you're letting the cat out of the bag. Through one election with this strategy. Probably had a grace period to get through at least one more election undisturbed, possibly even two. Not any more.
Creampuff: For a slogan/headline, try this:
NAS debate in isolation with LAMP off.
Creampuff: For a slogan/headline, try this:
NAS debate in isolation with LAMP off.
Last edited by Lodown; 24th Jul 2002 at 15:04.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS/LAMP..no decision was necessary.
Despite all of the discussion on this and previous threads, one fact remains:
There really was no decision to be made. Once CASA had knocked back LAMP on safety grounds, the only remaining option was NAS.
Since CASA did not accept the LAMP safety case (and presumably accepted the NAS safety case), the ARG could not seriously have advised the minister to adopt LAMP, could it?
What we need to do now is have a look at CASA's reasons for rejecting LAMP and to ensure that similar safety deficiencies are identified and rectified early in the NAS implementation process.
Similarly, the NAS safety case (and CASA's reasons for accepting it) will make interesting reading, as it should outline the risk mitigation strategies to be adopted under the new system. This will provide a valuable resource in the industry consultation and education which is necessary before implementation.
Mr (Mike or Dick) Smith
I have been unable to find the documentation in which CASA rejected the LAMP safety case (and accepted the NAS safety case).
Could someone please provide a link or reference?
There really was no decision to be made. Once CASA had knocked back LAMP on safety grounds, the only remaining option was NAS.
7/5/02 Why the LAMP airspace proposal did not go ahead
LAMP downfall?
This change to MBZs was the LAMP downfall. CASA refused to allow MBZs to be changed to even larger DAFs and did not accept the safety case that was prepared. It is understood that one of the reasons that the increase in size of MBZs was not accepted is that CASA already believed that radio alerting should only be in small areas where all traffic is relevant. A DAF with over 20 airports on one frequency did not comply with this.
http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=213
LAMP downfall?
This change to MBZs was the LAMP downfall. CASA refused to allow MBZs to be changed to even larger DAFs and did not accept the safety case that was prepared. It is understood that one of the reasons that the increase in size of MBZs was not accepted is that CASA already believed that radio alerting should only be in small areas where all traffic is relevant. A DAF with over 20 airports on one frequency did not comply with this.
http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=213
What we need to do now is have a look at CASA's reasons for rejecting LAMP and to ensure that similar safety deficiencies are identified and rectified early in the NAS implementation process.
Similarly, the NAS safety case (and CASA's reasons for accepting it) will make interesting reading, as it should outline the risk mitigation strategies to be adopted under the new system. This will provide a valuable resource in the industry consultation and education which is necessary before implementation.
Mr (Mike or Dick) Smith
I have been unable to find the documentation in which CASA rejected the LAMP safety case (and accepted the NAS safety case).
Could someone please provide a link or reference?
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS Safety Case
I am assuming so.
You wouldn't reject one proposal because a safety case had been rejected, if the other proposal had not already had the safety case approved, would you?
You wouldn't, would you?
(Mike or Dick) Smith should be able to clear this one up in no time.
You wouldn't reject one proposal because a safety case had been rejected, if the other proposal had not already had the safety case approved, would you?
You wouldn't, would you?
(Mike or Dick) Smith should be able to clear this one up in no time.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4711,
I think this rubbish in regard to the LAMP safety case, and safety cases in general, has been perpetuated long enough.
First, they are not definitive and yet everybody likes to “hang their hat” on them. They are an exceedingly complicated “best guess” and are reliant on subjective (all be it attempting to be objective) assessments of probabilities. They are an attempt to quantify risk so that at some stage later, if it all turns to crud, you can say “we tried your Honour”. This is however a damn side better than saying “it seemed like a good idea at the time,” which seems to be the way we are going on this one (again).
Second, I am told the LAMP safety case was by no means complete or correct. Nobody associated with it, including Airservices I understand, claims otherwise. It was essentially the first cut at addressing as many of the issues as possible. Like the actual development of the procedures for airspace changes safety cases often go through a number of iterations before there is any degree of confidence that the elements have been adequately addressed.
Third, CASA’s knowledge of safety cases is approximately equivalent to their knowledge on any other matter related to aviation. Like most things they have some very good people (particularly relating to mathematical analysis in this case) but the way in which they use them, and the information derived, somehow gets lost in the process (sound familiar). The image of crocodiles and swamps comes to mind!
CASA’s inferred rejection (of which there has been no formal notification) of the LAMP safety case amounts to little more than a requirement to clarify or reassess some of the elements and outcomes. I understand that some of these objections were accepted (and consequently needed some more work) and some were seen to be an indication that CASA did not understand the design of the airspace and concept of operations. Given their refusal to provide any assistance to, or participate in, the Airspace Working Group it is not terribly surprising. Be interesting to see if they take the same “arms length” attitude to NAS (where’s Mike from?).
As to NAS, if my memory serves me correctly, very early on Dick said there would be no requirement for a safety case and, again perhaps someone may correct me here, Mick Toller agreed. The basis of their argument was that “NAS is the same as the US system so we know it works” (how many times have we heard that now as a response to a technical question). When Airservices brought in D towers they needed a safety case. When they introduced E airspace CASA required a comprehensive safety case.
Now given these both existed overseas prior to implementation why is it that suddenly we don’t need one for NAS?
Let me take a stab at it! A safety case would be difficult (as they are). They require detail as to the procedures applicable to the airspace (Hmmmmm). They take up a lot of resources (that means money). They require skill and expertise (that means consultation and money). They take time (not enough till the next election). And finally they may not produce the answer you wanted (Doh!).
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Toller is willing to take both the risk and the responsibility.
Lodown,
Stop it or you will need an optometrist!
I think this rubbish in regard to the LAMP safety case, and safety cases in general, has been perpetuated long enough.
First, they are not definitive and yet everybody likes to “hang their hat” on them. They are an exceedingly complicated “best guess” and are reliant on subjective (all be it attempting to be objective) assessments of probabilities. They are an attempt to quantify risk so that at some stage later, if it all turns to crud, you can say “we tried your Honour”. This is however a damn side better than saying “it seemed like a good idea at the time,” which seems to be the way we are going on this one (again).
Second, I am told the LAMP safety case was by no means complete or correct. Nobody associated with it, including Airservices I understand, claims otherwise. It was essentially the first cut at addressing as many of the issues as possible. Like the actual development of the procedures for airspace changes safety cases often go through a number of iterations before there is any degree of confidence that the elements have been adequately addressed.
Third, CASA’s knowledge of safety cases is approximately equivalent to their knowledge on any other matter related to aviation. Like most things they have some very good people (particularly relating to mathematical analysis in this case) but the way in which they use them, and the information derived, somehow gets lost in the process (sound familiar). The image of crocodiles and swamps comes to mind!
CASA’s inferred rejection (of which there has been no formal notification) of the LAMP safety case amounts to little more than a requirement to clarify or reassess some of the elements and outcomes. I understand that some of these objections were accepted (and consequently needed some more work) and some were seen to be an indication that CASA did not understand the design of the airspace and concept of operations. Given their refusal to provide any assistance to, or participate in, the Airspace Working Group it is not terribly surprising. Be interesting to see if they take the same “arms length” attitude to NAS (where’s Mike from?).
As to NAS, if my memory serves me correctly, very early on Dick said there would be no requirement for a safety case and, again perhaps someone may correct me here, Mick Toller agreed. The basis of their argument was that “NAS is the same as the US system so we know it works” (how many times have we heard that now as a response to a technical question). When Airservices brought in D towers they needed a safety case. When they introduced E airspace CASA required a comprehensive safety case.
Now given these both existed overseas prior to implementation why is it that suddenly we don’t need one for NAS?
Let me take a stab at it! A safety case would be difficult (as they are). They require detail as to the procedures applicable to the airspace (Hmmmmm). They take up a lot of resources (that means money). They require skill and expertise (that means consultation and money). They take time (not enough till the next election). And finally they may not produce the answer you wanted (Doh!).
It will be interesting to see if Mr. Toller is willing to take both the risk and the responsibility.
Lodown,
Stop it or you will need an optometrist!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Given the importance and relevance of this subject I have applied a "sticky" to it.
This means it will stay at the top of the forum list UFN and not need to be brought to the top or someone to post to do so.
Hopefully its continued presence there, will generate the interest and discussion that Mr Stott would like.
SO lets hear it.
The NAS - without the personalities Please
This means it will stay at the top of the forum list UFN and not need to be brought to the top or someone to post to do so.
Hopefully its continued presence there, will generate the interest and discussion that Mr Stott would like.
SO lets hear it.
The NAS - without the personalities Please
Why do we need it?
Sticky in more ways than one Woomera.
Okay. Going back to first principles, why do we need a new airspace system?
In fact who is we?
Is AsA pushing for it? CASA? The GA sector of the industry or the RPT sector? Dick Smith?
What is so wrong with the present system? Anyone? Dick says NAS would save millions, how was this been demonstrated if we don't even know how the system works?
TAAATS was to deliver huge cost savings and efficiencies to AsA but we still have a Terminal Control Unit at Cairns, Adelaide, Sydney and Perth. Why?
Okay. Going back to first principles, why do we need a new airspace system?
In fact who is we?
Is AsA pushing for it? CASA? The GA sector of the industry or the RPT sector? Dick Smith?
What is so wrong with the present system? Anyone? Dick says NAS would save millions, how was this been demonstrated if we don't even know how the system works?
TAAATS was to deliver huge cost savings and efficiencies to AsA but we still have a Terminal Control Unit at Cairns, Adelaide, Sydney and Perth. Why?
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ask ASA for a cost analyses of TAAATS full stop.
Moving TCUs is a tenuous cost argument. That's not where the 'massive savings' are/were.
ASA needs to change the (services provided in) airspace in order to reduce costs.
Moving TCUs is a tenuous cost argument. That's not where the 'massive savings' are/were.
ASA needs to change the (services provided in) airspace in order to reduce costs.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Enjoyed reading your informative posting Neddy. Seems to imbed some common sense and relevant facts into the discussion. I am looking forward to seeing supportive arguments and figures from the pro-NAS side.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug is right in trying to discuss this business without the personalities. If one side of the argument does not like one of the 'drivers' then it will never be 'the safest' system. It would not be in their political interest to HELP in making it safe. Perhaps all the controllers should join the AFAP or all the pilots join Civil Air. Perhaps then we might all pull in the same direction. I was at one of the RAPAC meetings when the LLAMP was paraded up. We just looked at one another. That to was flawed by the 'driver' of the system. Now we have a proposal from the other side and again we have a problem with the 'driver'.
Perhaps Australia might be best off with a 'driverless' system?
One of the problems I see is that we spend a lot of money on fixing a system that perhaps is not as broke as we make it out to be. But it all comes from one side. It is the pilots and operators that put their hand in THEIR pocket and pay and pay and pay. In any other 'normal' situation it would be "those who pay have a say". Unfortunately this does not work with airspace, we need the controllers to WANT it to work too. So how about we all put our heads together for the good of Australia and live and let live. But all is not lost. I am already working on the next generation transportation system for Australia. I breed Donkeys.
Perhaps Australia might be best off with a 'driverless' system?
One of the problems I see is that we spend a lot of money on fixing a system that perhaps is not as broke as we make it out to be. But it all comes from one side. It is the pilots and operators that put their hand in THEIR pocket and pay and pay and pay. In any other 'normal' situation it would be "those who pay have a say". Unfortunately this does not work with airspace, we need the controllers to WANT it to work too. So how about we all put our heads together for the good of Australia and live and let live. But all is not lost. I am already working on the next generation transportation system for Australia. I breed Donkeys.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Victoria
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Giday All,
Scran – I believe you would be correct. The idea is much the same I understand. I am told the delay was attributed to other priorities in the Ministers office or within DoTRS. Of the proposals that floated about at the time, I think the one from Defence was by far the best. Present indications are that DoTRS are doing the fine tuning at this time.
Gaunty
You say…
This is certainly a significant fact in any change process. The change must be developed in partnership by the people that are involved so as to give that "ownership". The only other way is for it to be developed and then SOLD to all the players.
Neddy – LLAMP too had it's personalities and was very much driven by them. Even tho' many of the RAPACs supported LLAMP as a concept and were involved in it's development, I believe it was in fact CASA that brought it down by not supporting large areas of mandatory radio. A lot of time, effort and money went into LLAMP but looking back I think perhaps it was doomed from the start given the guidelines the group were forced to work within. They did not start with a blank bit of paper. If they did, it may have been different. Yes, it is certainly disappointing to see such efforts go much to waste. I do believe that some aspects of LLAMP and the work done might be useful at a later date however.
4711 – You are obviously close to the action. The only comment that I would make is that from my understanding if the safety case for LLAMP was started by CASA it was certainly not completed. From what I gather in the first instance further info was required and in the second instance the policy statement on large MBZs came out and pretty well stopped LLAMP in its tracks. Safety case or not. In regard to the NAS safety case, it is my understanding (as posted elsewhere) that if NAS is based on the North American model and there are minimal changes from that, then as an established and proven model the safety case may hang its hat right there (??) I doubt however (and would be surprised) if we can do it without at least some local requirements for change, so maybe at least some form of safety case will have to be completed.
Scran/4711 – If a specific NAS safety case has been conducted I am not aware of it. (See above). My understanding is that it is because if it based on a "proven" model.
Neddy – Agreed. I don’t believe that we can hang our hat on a safety case to know if it is appropriate or not. Certainly we must ensure that we understand and are happy with the level/s of safety provided – but does that mean it will work? What comes first the chicken or the egg? Neddy, if my memory serves me correctly the safety case for D towers and class E was because they were NOT the same as used elsewhere. Maybe they should be!
I fly - You are right about the need for all to pull in the one direction... maybe the donkeys would help!
I really believe that the problem that we have before us is one that many of the players really believe that "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" and don't understand why we have to proceed with such a change. This really means that the proponents of the change have to SELL it to all the customers so at the end of the day all the customers are happy to embrace it (and clearly at this point in time many are not!).
Another significant fact is that in this business there are not very many people that are conversant with what goes on on both sides of the fence. Many of us believe that we are, but I really have to question some of the things that are said about what pilots say of the airways system/controllers and what controllers say or don't say about/to pilots etc. I would go out on a limb and say that the level of knowledge of how our counterparts do business and how things should work is nowhere as good as it should be. This is one reason that any consultation has to be detailed and not dictatorial otherwise the lack of understanding (on either or both sides) will in itself kill the change process. Perhaps another reason is that the airways system is becoming far too complex and is no longer as simple as it used to be. Why is this so? (Eg: Refer the other post on STARs – geeeez!) But more to the point, why is this so in Australia and not in North America where the system is much larger and the level of traffic is significantly greater, yet it is simple to participate in? Maybe, just maybe this is one of the reasons that we need to consider change?
IF it is accepted that we need to change, then I am of the opinion that the change should be such that it is accomplished at a rate at which the Education (big mobs of) and the practical application is easily handled by all participants. If this means a drip feed over a number of years then so be it. Experience has shown that the big bang theory of introducing change to aviation in Australia is not a good bet.
There are many good aspects in the North American airspace model (and this includes Canada) and it would be my suggestion if we are to make any move towards that model, then it should be cut up into bite size bits, and sold to the consumer over a conservative time frame. For example, VMC climb/descent for IFRs in E and the introduction of a Multicom (to clear up the ATC freqs of much of the low level traffic) would be my first "bits".
That’s my two-bob's worth for this week. It is good to see some of the comment. These are just my own views and I am more than happy to see another point of view in order to promote the discussion.
Woomera, I don't know about this sticky bit - don't think I deserve to see my name at the top all the time…!! Thanks for your support, but maybe we should let it float for a while ?
cheers
Scran – I believe you would be correct. The idea is much the same I understand. I am told the delay was attributed to other priorities in the Ministers office or within DoTRS. Of the proposals that floated about at the time, I think the one from Defence was by far the best. Present indications are that DoTRS are doing the fine tuning at this time.
Gaunty
You say…
Unless the industry takes and is given and seen to be given true "ownership" of this or any other system then it will fail or become very difficult if not impossible to implement.
Neddy – LLAMP too had it's personalities and was very much driven by them. Even tho' many of the RAPACs supported LLAMP as a concept and were involved in it's development, I believe it was in fact CASA that brought it down by not supporting large areas of mandatory radio. A lot of time, effort and money went into LLAMP but looking back I think perhaps it was doomed from the start given the guidelines the group were forced to work within. They did not start with a blank bit of paper. If they did, it may have been different. Yes, it is certainly disappointing to see such efforts go much to waste. I do believe that some aspects of LLAMP and the work done might be useful at a later date however.
4711 – You are obviously close to the action. The only comment that I would make is that from my understanding if the safety case for LLAMP was started by CASA it was certainly not completed. From what I gather in the first instance further info was required and in the second instance the policy statement on large MBZs came out and pretty well stopped LLAMP in its tracks. Safety case or not. In regard to the NAS safety case, it is my understanding (as posted elsewhere) that if NAS is based on the North American model and there are minimal changes from that, then as an established and proven model the safety case may hang its hat right there (??) I doubt however (and would be surprised) if we can do it without at least some local requirements for change, so maybe at least some form of safety case will have to be completed.
Scran/4711 – If a specific NAS safety case has been conducted I am not aware of it. (See above). My understanding is that it is because if it based on a "proven" model.
Neddy – Agreed. I don’t believe that we can hang our hat on a safety case to know if it is appropriate or not. Certainly we must ensure that we understand and are happy with the level/s of safety provided – but does that mean it will work? What comes first the chicken or the egg? Neddy, if my memory serves me correctly the safety case for D towers and class E was because they were NOT the same as used elsewhere. Maybe they should be!
I fly - You are right about the need for all to pull in the one direction... maybe the donkeys would help!
I really believe that the problem that we have before us is one that many of the players really believe that "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" and don't understand why we have to proceed with such a change. This really means that the proponents of the change have to SELL it to all the customers so at the end of the day all the customers are happy to embrace it (and clearly at this point in time many are not!).
Another significant fact is that in this business there are not very many people that are conversant with what goes on on both sides of the fence. Many of us believe that we are, but I really have to question some of the things that are said about what pilots say of the airways system/controllers and what controllers say or don't say about/to pilots etc. I would go out on a limb and say that the level of knowledge of how our counterparts do business and how things should work is nowhere as good as it should be. This is one reason that any consultation has to be detailed and not dictatorial otherwise the lack of understanding (on either or both sides) will in itself kill the change process. Perhaps another reason is that the airways system is becoming far too complex and is no longer as simple as it used to be. Why is this so? (Eg: Refer the other post on STARs – geeeez!) But more to the point, why is this so in Australia and not in North America where the system is much larger and the level of traffic is significantly greater, yet it is simple to participate in? Maybe, just maybe this is one of the reasons that we need to consider change?
IF it is accepted that we need to change, then I am of the opinion that the change should be such that it is accomplished at a rate at which the Education (big mobs of) and the practical application is easily handled by all participants. If this means a drip feed over a number of years then so be it. Experience has shown that the big bang theory of introducing change to aviation in Australia is not a good bet.
There are many good aspects in the North American airspace model (and this includes Canada) and it would be my suggestion if we are to make any move towards that model, then it should be cut up into bite size bits, and sold to the consumer over a conservative time frame. For example, VMC climb/descent for IFRs in E and the introduction of a Multicom (to clear up the ATC freqs of much of the low level traffic) would be my first "bits".
That’s my two-bob's worth for this week. It is good to see some of the comment. These are just my own views and I am more than happy to see another point of view in order to promote the discussion.
Woomera, I don't know about this sticky bit - don't think I deserve to see my name at the top all the time…!! Thanks for your support, but maybe we should let it float for a while ?
cheers
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I really believe that the problem that we have before us is one that many of the players really believe that "If it ain't broke, why fix it?" and don't understand why we have to proceed with such a change.