The NAS - without the personalities
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: 28s
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gents,
Some comments on previous posts.
NEDDY
In response to your post on 25th July
It is my opinion that safety cases are required when ever a change is to take place within the aviation industry. I agree with you that safety cases are not definitive, yet usually persons at the 'front line', whether pilots or controllers, are assigned the task of identifying risks associated with the proposed change and on some occasions, they are assigned the task of nominating proceedures to mitigate the hazard. These persons are the best to objectively identify hazards which could be associated with the change.
Usually, the safety case is forwarded to management for perusal and acceptance. As most managers would not have field experience, whether pilot or controller, they must rely on the ojective assessment of hazards by those designing the safety case prior to making a decision whether to go ahead with the model or to investigate further mitigators. (Some managers have signed off on a safety case which highlights potential problems and no acceptable mitigators by appearing to consider the 'big sky theory')
I agree that when everyting turns to crud it will be the managers who say 'we tried your honour' and the controllers or pilots will be left to carry the can of blame. (It's about time the accounts were held accountable)
I assume by your final sentence that you agree with safety cases to some extent but would appreciate if the were less complicated. (Anyone from CASA, AsA, DotARS, could you take that on board)
Doug
With reference to your response to 4711
It seems that Mr Anderson and the ARG are of the opinion that a "A safety case will be required to be developed for NAS".
The following is taken from Media Release A54/2002 on 13th May 2002.
http://www.dotars.gov.au/media/ander...a54%5F2002.htm
In fact, further in the release it appears the the ARG are also of the belief that a Safety Case will be required.
Whilst I suppose that the implementers of NAS would like not to have to publish a safety case for the reasons sited by 4711, it appears that both the Minister and the ARG are expecting one.
I would like to see specific safety case for NAS should anybody know if one has been completed or if it has it has been published for general viewing.
I find it hard to believe that the ARG has selected a proposal which has very little basis other than what appears to be a cut and paste of some parts of the USA system. LAMP at least had a safety case with mitigators for risks as well as designed proceedures. The decision by the ARG to adopt the NAS model has regressed airspace reform by at least another 12 to 18 months if not more.
With reference to pilot education, the pilots must want to learn about the airspace or changes. (There are still pilots out there using the old domestic flight notification forms)
Doug, I agree that a drip feed approach to change over a number of years would be the best approach to education, yet will the aviation industry accept a time frame of that length for their cost benefits.
With reference to you nomination for VMC climb for IFR aircraft within class E airspace, that may very well work however proceedures would require to be changed.
e.g. An IFR aircraft in Class E airspace is required to be separated from another IFR aircraft within Class E airspace. Whether or not the aircraft climbs in VMC a separation service is still required to be provided.
I'm with Achillies, are we changing for the sake of change or is there a reason.
Open Mic, looking forward to when you have a page up and running on the DotARS site.
Some comments on previous posts.
NEDDY
In response to your post on 25th July
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).
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).
Usually, the safety case is forwarded to management for perusal and acceptance. As most managers would not have field experience, whether pilot or controller, they must rely on the ojective assessment of hazards by those designing the safety case prior to making a decision whether to go ahead with the model or to investigate further mitigators. (Some managers have signed off on a safety case which highlights potential problems and no acceptable mitigators by appearing to consider the 'big sky theory')
I agree that when everyting turns to crud it will be the managers who say 'we tried your honour' and the controllers or pilots will be left to carry the can of blame. (It's about time the accounts were held accountable)
I assume by your final sentence that you agree with safety cases to some extent but would appreciate if the were less complicated. (Anyone from CASA, AsA, DotARS, could you take that on board)
Doug
With reference to your response to 4711
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.
The following is taken from Media Release A54/2002 on 13th May 2002.
http://www.dotars.gov.au/media/ander...a54%5F2002.htm
"This model is based on the airspace model used in the world's leading aviation nation, the United States. A safety case will be required to be developed for NAS, and the existing processes will continue to be followed in finalising the safety case. The implementation of NAS will mean that Australian airspace will be harmonised with ICAO's airspace classifications.
The ARG recommended:
(i) the National Airspace System (NAS) be selected as the preferred model for future airspace reform in Australia, subject to the development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) endorsement of a comprehensive implementation safety case, specifying an appropriate timeframe for all necessary industry communication and education programmes;
(i) the National Airspace System (NAS) be selected as the preferred model for future airspace reform in Australia, subject to the development and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority's (CASA) endorsement of a comprehensive implementation safety case, specifying an appropriate timeframe for all necessary industry communication and education programmes;
Whilst I suppose that the implementers of NAS would like not to have to publish a safety case for the reasons sited by 4711, it appears that both the Minister and the ARG are expecting one.
I would like to see specific safety case for NAS should anybody know if one has been completed or if it has it has been published for general viewing.
I find it hard to believe that the ARG has selected a proposal which has very little basis other than what appears to be a cut and paste of some parts of the USA system. LAMP at least had a safety case with mitigators for risks as well as designed proceedures. The decision by the ARG to adopt the NAS model has regressed airspace reform by at least another 12 to 18 months if not more.
With reference to pilot education, the pilots must want to learn about the airspace or changes. (There are still pilots out there using the old domestic flight notification forms)
Doug, I agree that a drip feed approach to change over a number of years would be the best approach to education, yet will the aviation industry accept a time frame of that length for their cost benefits.
With reference to you nomination for VMC climb for IFR aircraft within class E airspace, that may very well work however proceedures would require to be changed.
e.g. An IFR aircraft in Class E airspace is required to be separated from another IFR aircraft within Class E airspace. Whether or not the aircraft climbs in VMC a separation service is still required to be provided.
I'm with Achillies, are we changing for the sake of change or is there a reason.
Open Mic, looking forward to when you have a page up and running on the DotARS site.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reasons?
Fundamentally, there are two reasons to change;
1) AsA doesn't want to be in charge of any airspace from which it can't produce the appropriate revenue for the Government. Pure and simple. If the dubious revenue DTI in G service [which, without the nit-picking semantics, is really F] could be removed and the only airspace they had to administer was E and above, they would be greatly relieved. They've tried very hard to get rid of FS by reduction and marginalisation, but the service is required by ICAO in all classes of airspace.
2) AOPA as the voice of GA [can't hear anything from anybody else, can you?], have been pushing the "Free in G" campaign for some time. While getting close [and only this time Dug, I promise] to personality introduction, the progenitors of this campaign would see their ideal realised if the NAS was dropped onto Aust.!!
That's why.
What, I'd respectfully suggest, we need to debate here, is either/or,
A) do we need to change or is the present system adequate in balance of safety/service/costing since the majority of pilots seem to understand it?
B) if the NAS is introduced, how can we do it safely AND ensure its integrity?
Addressing (A),with all my hats on,I think we have a pretty good balance.
However, [B] is a two-edged sword!! The NAS works [very well, too
] in the USA because it's a PACKAGE!!! If you buy it, buy the PACKAGE!! Then look at how to teach ["Not in my budget!" the usual AsA response to this startling concept of change management] the users to utilise the package.
I'm heartened by ensor's analysis that a Safety Case will be developed and change management/education is to the fore in the minds of those seeking its development. Make no mistake though, fiddling with the NAS "because we're different here" takes us down the slippery road that developed LLAMPS and the homegrown beaurocracy that preceeded AMATS. We aren't different from the USA; the 'radar' is where the traffic is and there are procedures to cover the rest.
Enuff for now. My intention was to answer Achilles question.
G'day
Fundamentally, there are two reasons to change;
1) AsA doesn't want to be in charge of any airspace from which it can't produce the appropriate revenue for the Government. Pure and simple. If the dubious revenue DTI in G service [which, without the nit-picking semantics, is really F] could be removed and the only airspace they had to administer was E and above, they would be greatly relieved. They've tried very hard to get rid of FS by reduction and marginalisation, but the service is required by ICAO in all classes of airspace.
2) AOPA as the voice of GA [can't hear anything from anybody else, can you?], have been pushing the "Free in G" campaign for some time. While getting close [and only this time Dug, I promise] to personality introduction, the progenitors of this campaign would see their ideal realised if the NAS was dropped onto Aust.!!
That's why.
What, I'd respectfully suggest, we need to debate here, is either/or,
A) do we need to change or is the present system adequate in balance of safety/service/costing since the majority of pilots seem to understand it?
B) if the NAS is introduced, how can we do it safely AND ensure its integrity?
Addressing (A),with all my hats on,I think we have a pretty good balance.
However, [B] is a two-edged sword!! The NAS works [very well, too
] in the USA because it's a PACKAGE!!! If you buy it, buy the PACKAGE!! Then look at how to teach ["Not in my budget!" the usual AsA response to this startling concept of change management] the users to utilise the package.I'm heartened by ensor's analysis that a Safety Case will be developed and change management/education is to the fore in the minds of those seeking its development. Make no mistake though, fiddling with the NAS "because we're different here" takes us down the slippery road that developed LLAMPS and the homegrown beaurocracy that preceeded AMATS. We aren't different from the USA; the 'radar' is where the traffic is and there are procedures to cover the rest.
Enuff for now. My intention was to answer Achilles question.
G'day
Last edited by Feather #3; 28th Jul 2002 at 07:51.
Thanks Feather 3 that seems to be the closest so far to reasons for the required change.
Now then. AsA are the service provider and they wish the system to be changed so they can increase the return that they already provide to their shareholder, the Commonwealth of Australia.
Huh? Sounds like the tail wagging the dog here or am I missing something?
Now then. AsA are the service provider and they wish the system to be changed so they can increase the return that they already provide to their shareholder, the Commonwealth of Australia.
Huh? Sounds like the tail wagging the dog here or am I missing something?
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Icarus,
I wasn't quite prepared to put it that way, but that's it in a nutshell. [BTW, you left out the word "monopoly" before 'service provider! ]
G'day
[Edited for syntax.]
I wasn't quite prepared to put it that way, but that's it in a nutshell. [BTW, you left out the word "monopoly" before 'service provider!
]G'day
[Edited for syntax.]
Last edited by Feather #3; 28th Jul 2002 at 07:49.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety OFF....
Doug,
I agree with your sentiment regarding the need to provide an environment conducive to Aviation flourishing. That said, don ya Skid lid and Duck : -
I cannot accept that because the Minister for whatever reason has put “AusNAS” on the table in preference to LLAMP, we therefore have to swallow the pill and run with it. Why?
The motivations behind its rise to prominence seem smelly in the extreme. One could be forgiven for thinking this is all about reducing services that do not make $$$ for Howard PTY LTD.
Einstein’s pet ferret could tell that GA could not afford to pay for ATS services by themselves, so they are sold the savior of “You don’t really need them do you"??. Removing VFR participation in the system may be seen as a “good” reform by some. I wonder how many IFR and VFR pilots have but for the grace of god “pass like ships in the night?”
Wild sweeping statement I hear you say! Well time will tell I guess. They won’t always miss, and when they don’t lives are lost in a hideous fashion that the media love to focus on, which I might add stands to do more damage to punter confidence and thus patronage in Aviation than any cost of ATS issue.
To suggest that we must re-invent the wheel to save costs for the GA industry is in its singular form a red herring in my opinion dressed up to allow the Fed Gov’t to abdicate their funding and service provision responsibilities.
I will share will you why I think this is the case: -
Despite all the hype and rhetoric mention has not been made as to why we need change nor how the costs levied to industry will improve. Profit motives are IMHO the driver behind the airspace change debate. Was that not the case why would change be needed? Is there some sort of system problem that AusNAS will fix, NO!
The only thing I have seen on this subject is the ill-informed opinion of an amateur aviator, who considers ATC can take on larger responsibilities geographically for IFR at the exclusion of VFR. That’s fine if we accept the premise that IFR will know about each other and miss the VFR’s purely based on probability (Big Sky), further all things being equal, ATS sectorisation needs to be smaller to enable frequency management of all traffic types.
Nowhere in this AusNAS thing is there any risk mitigated in a way that addresses the climb and descent phases of flight outside RADAR coverage.
The underlying theme has been right from the get go that we will simply be following the US system, and because they have only minimal fatalities it is acceptable for us, BOLLOCKS!. We have less traffic but more importantly ****** ALL CONPARABLE INFRUSTRUCTURE.!!!
Mike says, “see the FAA site to see where we are going”. Well, I have spent the last week on and off becoming conversant with US.NAS, and their 15-year plan for modernisation. It is clearly a program given a lot of resources and very carefully laid out objectives, based on achievable and regularly assessed change timetables. In fact I have not seen such a comprehensive plan from an Aviation body previously.
The following URL’s for the interested reader. I suggest if you really “give a rats”, taking the time to read them will do more for understanding the difficulties of what is being proposed than going around the park endlessly:-
<<US.NAS Architecture.url>> http://www.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/
<<Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.url>> http://www.icao.int/cgi/eshop_anx.pl?GUESTguest#an11
<<National Airspace System Architecture Version 4.0.url>> http://www.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/version4.htm
Great I hear you say, we will copy them!, well that is unrealistic and not possible for the following reasons:-
A) We do not have the Surveillance infrastructure to go with from the start. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT UP; WE DO NOT HAVE THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY RADAR COVERAGE TO ENABLE THE GA COMMUNITY TO FLY WITHOUT USING THOSE PESKY RADIOS OR TRANSPONDERS!
B) We have no funding commitments for the upgrades needed down the track to make free flight for all a reality, unless it becomes a “big sky free for all”.
C) IFR cannot be made aware of VFR if ATC cannot see them or FS cannot hear them. This is the fundamental incompatibility with the US and OZ.
D) The Fed Gov’t are not interested in re-investing profits raised from the commercial sector of the industry! Without that fundamental shift in policy this whole industry will continue to be squeezed until GA no longer exists at an affordable level.
E) ATS has been calved up and now charges itself for everything. You would fall over at the drama involved in getting anything done!!! (Training, equipment, etc) and the costs, Fu…ark!!!
The FAA re-invests in the future needs of the Aviation sector. What happens here????
Suck, suck, suck, whilst the Canberra leeches get rounder and rounder…
If only a tipper truck full of salt would do the trick..!!!
I guess in a nut shell:-
If we are not going to adopt the whole box and dice, (Funding, Infrastructure etc). It ain’t gunna fly!!!!
So lets assume for one moment that they knew that NAS was unachievable?
Then this whole thing was likely an exercise to muzzle a lose cannon and get re-elected!
If not, then they genuinely are DUMB and listened to the verbal diahorrea in the hope it would deliver the cheap option dressed up as a system improvement??
Either way you cut it “It smells like a dead cat!!!”
I believe the other motive here perhaps by coincidence, is the death of LLAMP. As 4711 has asked about the CASA involvement re the LLAMP death I will sit and wait to see what gets coughed up!!!
I believe we can evolve a system in OZ that addresses the concerns of most. However whilst the bean counters and the contract suits are supported by the Fed’s with the ethos of dollar signs in their eyes and nothing else, it is tantamount to urinating on an oil fire to think they will do the right thing.
The only way this industry will thrive into the future is if the mass of ATS Operators, Pilots, Engineers across the board get together, define the fix and bomb the Fa..rk out of the suits in Canberra with it until they are embarrassed enough to do the right thing.
If we cannot get it together and achieve similar, I guess we are not only not serving the industry today, but also leaving *****’ all for the youngun’s in the future.
QF, VB et al will have fun teaching the kids how to TALK and Fly at the same time.
Feather#3,
Agreed it is not generally desirable to have monopolies, however the option is private enterprise squeezing profits out of individual ATS units that have expensive cost structures by there very nature. OS examples of this folly have without exception ended in higher cost and less service.
Government should provide the services under strict rules on subsidy and price caps.
If there is another solution lets hear it?
I’ll shut up now as the barrel has melted…. Meddddddiiiiiiiicccc….
Rant:- Select OFF
I agree with your sentiment regarding the need to provide an environment conducive to Aviation flourishing. That said, don ya Skid lid and Duck
: - I cannot accept that because the Minister for whatever reason has put “AusNAS” on the table in preference to LLAMP, we therefore have to swallow the pill and run with it. Why?
The motivations behind its rise to prominence seem smelly in the extreme. One could be forgiven for thinking this is all about reducing services that do not make $$$ for Howard PTY LTD.
Einstein’s pet ferret could tell that GA could not afford to pay for ATS services by themselves, so they are sold the savior of “You don’t really need them do you"??. Removing VFR participation in the system may be seen as a “good” reform by some. I wonder how many IFR and VFR pilots have but for the grace of god “pass like ships in the night?”
Wild sweeping statement I hear you say! Well time will tell I guess. They won’t always miss, and when they don’t lives are lost in a hideous fashion that the media love to focus on, which I might add stands to do more damage to punter confidence and thus patronage in Aviation than any cost of ATS issue.
To suggest that we must re-invent the wheel to save costs for the GA industry is in its singular form a red herring in my opinion dressed up to allow the Fed Gov’t to abdicate their funding and service provision responsibilities.
I will share will you why I think this is the case: -
Despite all the hype and rhetoric mention has not been made as to why we need change nor how the costs levied to industry will improve. Profit motives are IMHO the driver behind the airspace change debate. Was that not the case why would change be needed? Is there some sort of system problem that AusNAS will fix, NO!
The only thing I have seen on this subject is the ill-informed opinion of an amateur aviator, who considers ATC can take on larger responsibilities geographically for IFR at the exclusion of VFR. That’s fine if we accept the premise that IFR will know about each other and miss the VFR’s purely based on probability (Big Sky), further all things being equal, ATS sectorisation needs to be smaller to enable frequency management of all traffic types.
Nowhere in this AusNAS thing is there any risk mitigated in a way that addresses the climb and descent phases of flight outside RADAR coverage.
The underlying theme has been right from the get go that we will simply be following the US system, and because they have only minimal fatalities it is acceptable for us, BOLLOCKS!. We have less traffic but more importantly ****** ALL CONPARABLE INFRUSTRUCTURE.!!!
Mike says, “see the FAA site to see where we are going”. Well, I have spent the last week on and off becoming conversant with US.NAS, and their 15-year plan for modernisation. It is clearly a program given a lot of resources and very carefully laid out objectives, based on achievable and regularly assessed change timetables. In fact I have not seen such a comprehensive plan from an Aviation body previously.
The following URL’s for the interested reader. I suggest if you really “give a rats”, taking the time to read them will do more for understanding the difficulties of what is being proposed than going around the park endlessly:-
<<US.NAS Architecture.url>> http://www.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/
<<Annexes to the Convention on International Civil Aviation.url>> http://www.icao.int/cgi/eshop_anx.pl?GUESTguest#an11
<<National Airspace System Architecture Version 4.0.url>> http://www.faa.gov/nasarchitecture/version4.htm
Great I hear you say, we will copy them!, well that is unrealistic and not possible for the following reasons:-
A) We do not have the Surveillance infrastructure to go with from the start. IT DOES NOT MATTER HOW YOU DRESS IT UP; WE DO NOT HAVE THE PRIMARY OR SECONDARY RADAR COVERAGE TO ENABLE THE GA COMMUNITY TO FLY WITHOUT USING THOSE PESKY RADIOS OR TRANSPONDERS!
B) We have no funding commitments for the upgrades needed down the track to make free flight for all a reality, unless it becomes a “big sky free for all”.
C) IFR cannot be made aware of VFR if ATC cannot see them or FS cannot hear them. This is the fundamental incompatibility with the US and OZ.
D) The Fed Gov’t are not interested in re-investing profits raised from the commercial sector of the industry! Without that fundamental shift in policy this whole industry will continue to be squeezed until GA no longer exists at an affordable level.
E) ATS has been calved up and now charges itself for everything. You would fall over at the drama involved in getting anything done!!! (Training, equipment, etc) and the costs, Fu…ark!!!
The FAA re-invests in the future needs of the Aviation sector. What happens here????
Suck, suck, suck, whilst the Canberra leeches get rounder and rounder…
If only a tipper truck full of salt would do the trick..!!!
I guess in a nut shell:-
If we are not going to adopt the whole box and dice, (Funding, Infrastructure etc). It ain’t gunna fly!!!!
So lets assume for one moment that they knew that NAS was unachievable?
Then this whole thing was likely an exercise to muzzle a lose cannon and get re-elected!
If not, then they genuinely are DUMB and listened to the verbal diahorrea in the hope it would deliver the cheap option dressed up as a system improvement??
Either way you cut it “It smells like a dead cat!!!”
I believe the other motive here perhaps by coincidence, is the death of LLAMP. As 4711 has asked about the CASA involvement re the LLAMP death I will sit and wait to see what gets coughed up!!!
I believe we can evolve a system in OZ that addresses the concerns of most. However whilst the bean counters and the contract suits are supported by the Fed’s with the ethos of dollar signs in their eyes and nothing else, it is tantamount to urinating on an oil fire to think they will do the right thing.
The only way this industry will thrive into the future is if the mass of ATS Operators, Pilots, Engineers across the board get together, define the fix and bomb the Fa..rk out of the suits in Canberra with it until they are embarrassed enough to do the right thing.
If we cannot get it together and achieve similar, I guess we are not only not serving the industry today, but also leaving *****’ all for the youngun’s in the future.
QF, VB et al will have fun teaching the kids how to TALK and Fly at the same time.
Feather#3,
Agreed it is not generally desirable to have monopolies, however the option is private enterprise squeezing profits out of individual ATS units that have expensive cost structures by there very nature. OS examples of this folly have without exception ended in higher cost and less service.
Government should provide the services under strict rules on subsidy and price caps.
If there is another solution lets hear it?
I’ll shut up now as the barrel has melted…. Meddddddiiiiiiiicccc….
Rant:- Select OFF
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Feather #3.
What about the official reasons as to why our airspace needs reform?
Whilst we discuss the merits of NAS, why does this system need to be implemented in the first place. Why are we even having these discussions? Is the current system so unsafe that it needs overhaul?? Is it too expensive to operate? If reduced costs are to be a consequence of the new system, where are the figures justifying this?? If it will be a safer system, where are the documents supporting that assumption?
What, if any, statements or rationale has the Minister made or presented to parliament, the Australian public and the industry?
Last time I checked, Australia was a democracy- granted, a decaying one since the Howard gov't took office - but since when do major infrastructural changes take place at the decree of a minister without PROPER AND DUE PROCESS??????
And that includes a proper explanation as to why such changes need to take place.
Airservices has yet to send me any official notice or circular about the impending New NAS system, yet I got detail about the change in address of the publications centre.
It is unfair to assume that resistance to the new NAS system is because of fear of change. Pilots and ATC's operate in a constantly changing and dynamic environment, and we play for keeps. the fact is, you can't just decide to impose a NAS on a country and expect the professionals (and recreationals) to :
1. Appreciate being taken for a pack of chumps.
2. Accept a system, without question, based on another country's that have phenomenal aviation infrastructure and funding and and automatically believe it will work because it does there.
I make the assumption 'without question' as there has been very little, if any, or if there was any, very vague and devoid of detail, consultation on this system - and it's implementation was supposed to start in June!!
How does the Minister for Transport get away with this??
I repeat again, have any professional bodies directly confronted the Minister on these and other issues regarding the NAS?
Doug, what directives have you received from the government regarding the consultation process and what ideas may or may not be garnered from the industry and incorporated into the NAS?
What about the official reasons as to why our airspace needs reform?
Whilst we discuss the merits of NAS, why does this system need to be implemented in the first place. Why are we even having these discussions? Is the current system so unsafe that it needs overhaul?? Is it too expensive to operate? If reduced costs are to be a consequence of the new system, where are the figures justifying this?? If it will be a safer system, where are the documents supporting that assumption?
What, if any, statements or rationale has the Minister made or presented to parliament, the Australian public and the industry?
Last time I checked, Australia was a democracy- granted, a decaying one since the Howard gov't took office - but since when do major infrastructural changes take place at the decree of a minister without PROPER AND DUE PROCESS??????
And that includes a proper explanation as to why such changes need to take place.
Airservices has yet to send me any official notice or circular about the impending New NAS system, yet I got detail about the change in address of the publications centre.
It is unfair to assume that resistance to the new NAS system is because of fear of change. Pilots and ATC's operate in a constantly changing and dynamic environment, and we play for keeps. the fact is, you can't just decide to impose a NAS on a country and expect the professionals (and recreationals) to :
1. Appreciate being taken for a pack of chumps.
2. Accept a system, without question, based on another country's that have phenomenal aviation infrastructure and funding and and automatically believe it will work because it does there.
I make the assumption 'without question' as there has been very little, if any, or if there was any, very vague and devoid of detail, consultation on this system - and it's implementation was supposed to start in June!!
How does the Minister for Transport get away with this??
I repeat again, have any professional bodies directly confronted the Minister on these and other issues regarding the NAS?
Doug, what directives have you received from the government regarding the consultation process and what ideas may or may not be garnered from the industry and incorporated into the NAS?
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yup....Picked it like a bleeding nose..!
Achilles,
As usual astute questions and observations.
As for Professional group approaches to Anderson, short answer I do not know!
I assume Civilair will wait for some detail (If any surfaces) on this thing before responding.
Rest assured we (Individually and as a group) are watching VERY closely.
Apparently Smith is going to brief our Association Members (Civil Air) at the Annual Conference.
That should be a turkey shoot…
Cap.
As usual astute questions and observations.
As for Professional group approaches to Anderson, short answer I do not know!
I assume Civilair will wait for some detail (If any surfaces) on this thing before responding.
Rest assured we (Individually and as a group) are watching VERY closely.
Apparently Smith is going to brief our Association Members (Civil Air) at the Annual Conference.
That should be a turkey shoot…
Cap.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who, me??
Doug
Nowhere near as close as you might think. I am just an average controller who, one way or the other, will have to deal with whatever system we end up with. Everything I have said on this and other threads has been based on information that is publicly available. The interesting aspects arise from what is not said.
I am just a born sceptic, I guess. (If I was a born 'septic', I might be pushing the NAS barrel more strongly!!!!
)
Whenever I hear statements like "CASA refused to allow MBZs to be changed to even larger DAFs and did not accept the safety case that was prepared." and these words are not immediately followed with an explanation of how CASA did accept the NAS safety case, my scepticism is raised even further.
It's a bit like hearing: "McDonalds foods are high in fat!" This may be true, but when it's Colonel Sanders making the statement, a sceptic might want to look at how much fat is in the 'eleven secret herbs and spices' before committing to a diet of KFC!
More and more will be revealed in time, but so far it's what hasn't been said/revealed/answered that will be the real issues.
Mike Smith
Are you able to clarify exactly what did happen with any LAMP safety case that may or may not have been prepared, whether interim,partial or complete and whether or not CASA did in fact accept or reject or in any way comment on it? It seems that something as fundamental as this is causing all kinds of confusion.
Similarly, are you able to comment on the status of any NAS safety case?
4711 – You are obviously close to the action.
I am just a born sceptic, I guess. (If I was a born 'septic', I might be pushing the NAS barrel more strongly!!!!
)Whenever I hear statements like "CASA refused to allow MBZs to be changed to even larger DAFs and did not accept the safety case that was prepared." and these words are not immediately followed with an explanation of how CASA did accept the NAS safety case, my scepticism is raised even further.
It's a bit like hearing: "McDonalds foods are high in fat!" This may be true, but when it's Colonel Sanders making the statement, a sceptic might want to look at how much fat is in the 'eleven secret herbs and spices' before committing to a diet of KFC!
More and more will be revealed in time, but so far it's what hasn't been said/revealed/answered that will be the real issues.
Mike Smith
Are you able to clarify exactly what did happen with any LAMP safety case that may or may not have been prepared, whether interim,partial or complete and whether or not CASA did in fact accept or reject or in any way comment on it? It seems that something as fundamental as this is causing all kinds of confusion.
Similarly, are you able to comment on the status of any NAS safety case?
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The history of this debate as I understand it.
1. TAAATs was implimented and the initial design was for CTA only, not OCTA.
2. Qantas told all and sundry that they would not continue to subsidise the rest of the industry and they would only pay for what they used. Ansett supported this notion.
3. AsA, being a quasi government department, with a mandate to pay for itself had no option but to close down FS and intigrate DTI into TAAATS.
4. This was the start of Lamp or Llamp as it was first called in August or September 1999.
5. We are still waiting and will wait until after the next election.
6. The US has finilised the ADS-B transponder issue (S mode for all except GA) this clears the way for the rest of the world to follow and I pridict that nothing will happen until the radar issue has been resolved by 2003.
So, we are here having a non person debate because Anderson does not want to pay for aviation, Qantas does not want to pay for aviation, so it is left for the rest of us to pay for it. CASA does not mind, because if you read every NPRM out there at the moment, they all have a cost/benifit and they all say that industry can pass on the small amount onto the paying pax.
1 little ant does not matter, but thousands of little ants do!
And I did not say Dick once!
1. TAAATs was implimented and the initial design was for CTA only, not OCTA.
2. Qantas told all and sundry that they would not continue to subsidise the rest of the industry and they would only pay for what they used. Ansett supported this notion.
3. AsA, being a quasi government department, with a mandate to pay for itself had no option but to close down FS and intigrate DTI into TAAATS.
4. This was the start of Lamp or Llamp as it was first called in August or September 1999.
5. We are still waiting and will wait until after the next election.
6. The US has finilised the ADS-B transponder issue (S mode for all except GA) this clears the way for the rest of the world to follow and I pridict that nothing will happen until the radar issue has been resolved by 2003.
So, we are here having a non person debate because Anderson does not want to pay for aviation, Qantas does not want to pay for aviation, so it is left for the rest of us to pay for it. CASA does not mind, because if you read every NPRM out there at the moment, they all have a cost/benifit and they all say that industry can pass on the small amount onto the paying pax.
1 little ant does not matter, but thousands of little ants do!
And I did not say Dick once!
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug,
I agree that LAMP did not start from a “clean sheet”, but then again how many initiatives to do with airspace restructure have you seen come out of the industry of their own volition? That having been said the “not so clean sheet” looked nothing like the original as a result of industry input.
I am amused at this constant reference to what killed off LAMP. LAMP was, right up until the ARG’s involvement, undergoing changes. It’s called consultation. This included the reduction in the mandatory radio use by VFR and perhaps the introduction of Class E steps to reduce the size of MBZs (sounds a lot like NAS doesn’t it). The MBZ design, as I see it, was actually reflecting the CASA requirements as laid down in the NPRM relating to airspace (Part 71 I think).
My point is that none of these were critical to the overall concept for LAMP so it is complete rubbish for Dick and others to claim this as a reason for interfering. Any alternative should be capable of standing on its own merits, not some pretence of “the failure” of another proposal.
I personally couldn’t give a rats which model we use (Lego’s always worked in the past) but I severely object to being misled. I agree that most within the industry do not have sufficient knowledge of the intricacies (I could well be one) however that is no justification for not asking them.
In regards to the safety case for D towers and E airspace you may be correct about it being done because the way we do it is not the same as the U.S. And that is exactly the point. NAS will not be the same as the U.S. It is a combination and we do not have the same infrastructure, charts, regulations, traffic mix, ATC system…….so where is the design safety case upon which the decision was based?
Ensor,
I did not wish to imply that a safety case is not required (as you can probably now see). I do not believe they provide any certainty overall however they have been shown to be extremely useful in highlighting deficiencies and thereby enhancing the integrity of a design.
By the way, the reference to the NAS safety case is, as the media release says, an IMPLEMENTATION safety case, not a Design safety case. Two different dogs!
An implementation safety case (also essential) is for the purpose of assessing the manner and method in which a proposal is to be implemented. It assesses items such as staggered versus “big bang” introduction, facility upgrades, pilot education, controller training etc. A design safety case (as in the LAMP case) addresses the airspace architecture, the associated procedures, collision risk analysis and how the various airspaces and services interface. First you do the design then you work out how you’re going to bring it in.
To suggest that a design safety case is not relevant, in my opinion, is both wrong and deceptive.
I applaud your sentiment regarding pilots need to “want to learn” if the education process is to be of any use at all. All the education and PR in the world will be of no relevance if the players do not have faith in the model and the process by which it came to be. Horse and water……
I agree that LAMP did not start from a “clean sheet”, but then again how many initiatives to do with airspace restructure have you seen come out of the industry of their own volition? That having been said the “not so clean sheet” looked nothing like the original as a result of industry input.
I am amused at this constant reference to what killed off LAMP. LAMP was, right up until the ARG’s involvement, undergoing changes. It’s called consultation. This included the reduction in the mandatory radio use by VFR and perhaps the introduction of Class E steps to reduce the size of MBZs (sounds a lot like NAS doesn’t it). The MBZ design, as I see it, was actually reflecting the CASA requirements as laid down in the NPRM relating to airspace (Part 71 I think).
My point is that none of these were critical to the overall concept for LAMP so it is complete rubbish for Dick and others to claim this as a reason for interfering. Any alternative should be capable of standing on its own merits, not some pretence of “the failure” of another proposal.
I personally couldn’t give a rats which model we use (Lego’s always worked in the past) but I severely object to being misled. I agree that most within the industry do not have sufficient knowledge of the intricacies (I could well be one) however that is no justification for not asking them.
In regards to the safety case for D towers and E airspace you may be correct about it being done because the way we do it is not the same as the U.S. And that is exactly the point. NAS will not be the same as the U.S. It is a combination and we do not have the same infrastructure, charts, regulations, traffic mix, ATC system…….so where is the design safety case upon which the decision was based?
Ensor,
I did not wish to imply that a safety case is not required (as you can probably now see). I do not believe they provide any certainty overall however they have been shown to be extremely useful in highlighting deficiencies and thereby enhancing the integrity of a design.
By the way, the reference to the NAS safety case is, as the media release says, an IMPLEMENTATION safety case, not a Design safety case. Two different dogs!
An implementation safety case (also essential) is for the purpose of assessing the manner and method in which a proposal is to be implemented. It assesses items such as staggered versus “big bang” introduction, facility upgrades, pilot education, controller training etc. A design safety case (as in the LAMP case) addresses the airspace architecture, the associated procedures, collision risk analysis and how the various airspaces and services interface. First you do the design then you work out how you’re going to bring it in.
To suggest that a design safety case is not relevant, in my opinion, is both wrong and deceptive.
I applaud your sentiment regarding pilots need to “want to learn” if the education process is to be of any use at all. All the education and PR in the world will be of no relevance if the players do not have faith in the model and the process by which it came to be. Horse and water……
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of the Tweed, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Class G (enroute) procedures?
For anyone:
I can't seem to find the reference for this anywhere.
What are the proposed radio procedures for class G (enroute, i.e. outside terminal areas/CTAFS)?
From the NAS document:
VFR to monitor "relevant ATC/FIS or monitor 121.5MHz"
What will IFR do? Will they make position reports/departure reports/'maintaining' reports/amended estimates/"top of descent" etc.?
If yes, on what frequency?
If not, how will traffic become known in IMC?
I can't seem to find the reference for this anywhere.
What are the proposed radio procedures for class G (enroute, i.e. outside terminal areas/CTAFS)?
From the NAS document:
VFR to monitor "relevant ATC/FIS or monitor 121.5MHz"
What will IFR do? Will they make position reports/departure reports/'maintaining' reports/amended estimates/"top of descent" etc.?
If yes, on what frequency?
If not, how will traffic become known in IMC?
Psssssst, Psssssst, Mike, Psssst Mike
Yes you: Mike Smith.
Don't tell anyone else this, but each every time you come in and sneak a peak at this forum, your psuedonym appears on the 'who's browsing' strip.
We know how often you are sedulously refusing to provide what should be easily ascertainable answers to fundamental questions.
You'll have more credibility if you provide unpalatable but truthful answers, rather than ignoring the questions.
Don't tell anyone else this, but each every time you come in and sneak a peak at this forum, your psuedonym appears on the 'who's browsing' strip.
We know how often you are sedulously refusing to provide what should be easily ascertainable answers to fundamental questions.
You'll have more credibility if you provide unpalatable but truthful answers, rather than ignoring the questions.
The stunned silence started about the same time I posted this:
Open Mic
What is the situation if, despite what personalities on the ARG want, Industry want something different from NAS eg. retaining MBZs instead of downgrading to CTAFs, DTI etc.
Is Industry going to be forced to accept what they are given, or do they have the choice of what elements of NAS if any they want?
We would appreciate an answer from you Mike. Apart from the Minister's press releases (back in April?), there has been no information at all, and the above is something some of us are concerned about.
Open Mic
What is the situation if, despite what personalities on the ARG want, Industry want something different from NAS eg. retaining MBZs instead of downgrading to CTAFs, DTI etc.
Is Industry going to be forced to accept what they are given, or do they have the choice of what elements of NAS if any they want?
We would appreciate an answer from you Mike. Apart from the Minister's press releases (back in April?), there has been no information at all, and the above is something some of us are concerned about.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The document????
Open Mic
Is NAS available anywhere for public perusal?
I don't mean some 'unofficial', out-of-date copy to be found on someone's private web page. I mean an authorised copy of the document the Minister has approved.
Is NAS available anywhere for public perusal?
I don't mean some 'unofficial', out-of-date copy to be found on someone's private web page. I mean an authorised copy of the document the Minister has approved.
Show me the NAS.
I have just tried a search of the DOTARS web site and the latest I could find was a press release from February.
http://www.dotars.gov.au
I could find was a press release from February.http://www.dotars.gov.au
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day All,
I'm sure you all understand the need for due process to be followed in this project. I submitted my first report to the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) yesterday. The report presents my teams first cut at a cogent set of implementation plans. Once the ARG has had a chance to consider the report I will be in a position to activate our webpages which will give everyone a lot more information about the NAS and the way ahead. I hope we can do this very soon.
In the meantime, anyone wanting more info can follow the lead of many other PPRuNers, including Gaunty, Doug Stott, Time Bomb Ted, Woomera and Dick Smith and 'phone me on (02) 6287 6510 or 0418 673 677.
Regards,
Mike Smith
I'm sure you all understand the need for due process to be followed in this project. I submitted my first report to the Aviation Reform Group (ARG) yesterday. The report presents my teams first cut at a cogent set of implementation plans. Once the ARG has had a chance to consider the report I will be in a position to activate our webpages which will give everyone a lot more information about the NAS and the way ahead. I hope we can do this very soon.
In the meantime, anyone wanting more info can follow the lead of many other PPRuNers, including Gaunty, Doug Stott, Time Bomb Ted, Woomera and Dick Smith and 'phone me on (02) 6287 6510 or 0418 673 677.
Regards,
Mike Smith
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Oz
Posts: 190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While still a little bemused as to why so many here feel the NAS will cause catastrophy even though it hasn't in the US I put forward the following response to the;
pesky little transponders and radios / no radar coverage
argument
Mode S Transponders
These little beasties, even under development in oz, will get your position, from a GPS, altitude via an encoder and possibly even groundspeed, track and destination (again from the GPS). They then bung this out on the normal transponder freq so other similar transponders can tell where you are and if there is a problem.
AND That is not all
With your brand new brand oz mode s thingy you also get a link to the VHF repeaters. If AsA get it together this new thingy transmits little beeps (like your internet modem) on the VHF to AsA. A computer plots it and what do we have, whacko, virtual radar
And not only that, virtual radar anywhere we have VHF. Since VHF - sat repeaters are so cheap, that means anywhere.
They will cost, about $5K for a standard VFR thingy. But instead of spending squillions on new Thomson CSF radars (and associated rorts) why not subsidise these things into every aircraft.
Now, with all the time everywhere virtual radar (which even has the ability to 'track' in the event of lost signal by extrapolating from track/speed/heading/destination) it seems to me the NAS would be far far better than the antiquated system we have now.
Gee, we might even be able to get the Hazo drivers to make departure calls!!!!
pesky little transponders and radios / no radar coverage
argument
Mode S Transponders
These little beasties, even under development in oz, will get your position, from a GPS, altitude via an encoder and possibly even groundspeed, track and destination (again from the GPS). They then bung this out on the normal transponder freq so other similar transponders can tell where you are and if there is a problem.
AND That is not all
With your brand new brand oz mode s thingy you also get a link to the VHF repeaters. If AsA get it together this new thingy transmits little beeps (like your internet modem) on the VHF to AsA. A computer plots it and what do we have, whacko, virtual radar
And not only that, virtual radar anywhere we have VHF. Since VHF - sat repeaters are so cheap, that means anywhere.
They will cost, about $5K for a standard VFR thingy. But instead of spending squillions on new Thomson CSF radars (and associated rorts) why not subsidise these things into every aircraft.
Now, with all the time everywhere virtual radar (which even has the ability to 'track' in the event of lost signal by extrapolating from track/speed/heading/destination) it seems to me the NAS would be far far better than the antiquated system we have now.
Gee, we might even be able to get the Hazo drivers to make departure calls!!!!