The NAS - without the personalities
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Victoria
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The NAS - without the personalities
The NAS - without the personalities
Giday All,
I have been observing the threads on the proposed NAS with some interest over the past few months and thought I would like to take up Dick Smiths suggestion to make some comments here under my own name.
As some of you would know I have for the past 20 odd years been involved in "Airspace politics" and have in fact spent much of my own time and efforts in participating in the RAPAC and NAPAC process. My involvement goes back to the early '80's when the RAPACs were still in their early years. Prior to the RAPACs there was still a considerable amount of airspace "left over" from post war military activity and up until then there was no avenue for civil participation in matters relating to airspace (other than through the service provider, then DCA). The establishment of the RAPACs and the subsequent establishment of regular airspace audits saw most if not all the old airspace go or be modified in accordance with then existing requirements. A major step forward and the audits continue to this day.
As many of us may recall the first major change to Australian airspace occurred back in 1991 when the first stage of AMATS was introduced. Many thought it would not work, but it did and it was certainly a significant change, especially for the VFR. To this day it is still really the only major airspace change we have completed in Australia in contemporary times(and certainly the last time we saw any major education effort). As a country that has evolved its airspace model far removed from the rest of the world it is not surprising to realise that we maybe different! Interesting, since the air, the aeroplanes and airports etc are much the same worldwide!! Certainly there is not a significant amount of non-airline international traffic as in many other parts of the world and the push for standardization is perhaps not seen as necessary by some. There is however some advantages in adopting similar practices from elsewhere in the world, especially when there is talk of ATS hardware, which of course is never cheap.
I would be one of the first to argue that perhaps we already have worlds best practice in many areas so why should we change for that reason alone? A common question that always promotes much enlighten discussion. International harmonization is the other catch phrase used to help justify the change to an ICAO based airspace model. Again there are many arguments as to why we should or must change. Certainly ATS hardware and pilot/controller procedures are the two main points in support of this.
As one involved in the 1997 review of pilot/controller phraseologies, I am very much aware of the difficulty many went through to process that change. Unfortunately like many other changes, the level of education on the subject was insufficient and we still have some pilots and controllers that really don't understand what they are saying on the radio and why, or perhaps what the consequences may be! Don't get me started on readbacks!!
Much of the other threads on the NAS have been devoted to various "political" aspects of the proposal and to one or more of the personalities that are involved. This sort of project is much bigger than any individual and all our comment should be directed with the "greater good" in mind, not just our own personal preferences, which of course we all have.
The main reason for starting this thread is to provide an area where we might concentrate on just the airspace issues involved with the proposal and NOT the personalities. Certainly to date there has been very little published on the NAS, although some have seen the paper and it has been available on various private web pages. Despite various requests it still does not feature on any formal website. I am of the belief that this should change soon with perhaps an airspace page on the DoTRS site. Obviously, the sooner the better.
Like many of us, I have followed both LLAMP and the NAS proposals and like it or not, I think perhaps we really do have to accept the Ministers decision to place the NAS on the table and to now work with it. Meanwhile of course the status-quo will continue to exist.
Certainly it is obvious that there are still many aspects of the NAS proposal that need to be worked through, but it is clear that so long as it stays close to the North American model then we should not be reinventing the wheel so to speak.
The major issue, I believe, with this or any other proposal is the management of the change process itself. We should all be aware that it is human nature to be cautious of change and many find it difficult to embrace any sort of change whatsoever. It is for this reason that the introduction of any change/s to our airspace model and the procedures must be managed in a manner that allows the great majority of participants to understand the reasons for the change and to be able to adopt the change with a minimum of stress. (the KISS principle)
The big "E" for EDUCATION is part of the key to any successful change and to date I do not believe that we have yet ever seen more than 25% of the required education for any major changes within our industry. (I hate to mention the G trial, but I would not be far from the mark if I said that for every 100 pilots that operated in that area during the trial there were maybe 90 different interpretations on how they should participate - 'nuf said!)
The other important issue is careful planning for the implementation of the change that enables all the participants ample time to become aware of the change, why it is so and to work through any changes that they might be directly effected by. Once this has occurred then the proposal should be put forward in bite-sized bits that everyone is comfortable with and there is a freeze on any other unnecessary change during the implementation. Most of this sounds obvious, but as we may recall it does not seem to have occurred in the past and as a result the change process has failed. We must learn from those lessons, as it is we in the industry that finishes up paying for such mistakes.
I urge those readers with an interest in NAS to participate in the development by being involved in their local RAPAC where all of the associated issues will be discussed. Details of the RAPACs and their Convenors are listed in the CASA Safety Journal or from your company, the AFAP/APIA or other industry associations such as AOPA, SAAA etc. General Aviation is on a slide at the moment and unless some significant effort is made to make flying simple and affordable then much of the industry that we grew up in will vanish. If we care about this then we owe it to ourselves and the industry to put some effort into helping make it better. Both Airservices and CASA need to look at how they can improve this situation and not continue to hide behind the cash register, the lawyers or the rule writers.
I don't have all the answers but I am certain that if the question is asked then someone will put forward their views. Mike Smith certainly has a task in front of him and for the sake of an improvement in our airspace model I wish him well in this project…. (good luck would be another way of saying it!)
Please if you want to play the man and not the ball do it on another thread. Keep this one for discussion on airspace architecture and procedures issues alone. We all stand to gain from the experience.
cheers
Giday All,
I have been observing the threads on the proposed NAS with some interest over the past few months and thought I would like to take up Dick Smiths suggestion to make some comments here under my own name.
As some of you would know I have for the past 20 odd years been involved in "Airspace politics" and have in fact spent much of my own time and efforts in participating in the RAPAC and NAPAC process. My involvement goes back to the early '80's when the RAPACs were still in their early years. Prior to the RAPACs there was still a considerable amount of airspace "left over" from post war military activity and up until then there was no avenue for civil participation in matters relating to airspace (other than through the service provider, then DCA). The establishment of the RAPACs and the subsequent establishment of regular airspace audits saw most if not all the old airspace go or be modified in accordance with then existing requirements. A major step forward and the audits continue to this day.
As many of us may recall the first major change to Australian airspace occurred back in 1991 when the first stage of AMATS was introduced. Many thought it would not work, but it did and it was certainly a significant change, especially for the VFR. To this day it is still really the only major airspace change we have completed in Australia in contemporary times(and certainly the last time we saw any major education effort). As a country that has evolved its airspace model far removed from the rest of the world it is not surprising to realise that we maybe different! Interesting, since the air, the aeroplanes and airports etc are much the same worldwide!! Certainly there is not a significant amount of non-airline international traffic as in many other parts of the world and the push for standardization is perhaps not seen as necessary by some. There is however some advantages in adopting similar practices from elsewhere in the world, especially when there is talk of ATS hardware, which of course is never cheap.
I would be one of the first to argue that perhaps we already have worlds best practice in many areas so why should we change for that reason alone? A common question that always promotes much enlighten discussion. International harmonization is the other catch phrase used to help justify the change to an ICAO based airspace model. Again there are many arguments as to why we should or must change. Certainly ATS hardware and pilot/controller procedures are the two main points in support of this.
As one involved in the 1997 review of pilot/controller phraseologies, I am very much aware of the difficulty many went through to process that change. Unfortunately like many other changes, the level of education on the subject was insufficient and we still have some pilots and controllers that really don't understand what they are saying on the radio and why, or perhaps what the consequences may be! Don't get me started on readbacks!!
Much of the other threads on the NAS have been devoted to various "political" aspects of the proposal and to one or more of the personalities that are involved. This sort of project is much bigger than any individual and all our comment should be directed with the "greater good" in mind, not just our own personal preferences, which of course we all have.
The main reason for starting this thread is to provide an area where we might concentrate on just the airspace issues involved with the proposal and NOT the personalities. Certainly to date there has been very little published on the NAS, although some have seen the paper and it has been available on various private web pages. Despite various requests it still does not feature on any formal website. I am of the belief that this should change soon with perhaps an airspace page on the DoTRS site. Obviously, the sooner the better.
Like many of us, I have followed both LLAMP and the NAS proposals and like it or not, I think perhaps we really do have to accept the Ministers decision to place the NAS on the table and to now work with it. Meanwhile of course the status-quo will continue to exist.
Certainly it is obvious that there are still many aspects of the NAS proposal that need to be worked through, but it is clear that so long as it stays close to the North American model then we should not be reinventing the wheel so to speak.
The major issue, I believe, with this or any other proposal is the management of the change process itself. We should all be aware that it is human nature to be cautious of change and many find it difficult to embrace any sort of change whatsoever. It is for this reason that the introduction of any change/s to our airspace model and the procedures must be managed in a manner that allows the great majority of participants to understand the reasons for the change and to be able to adopt the change with a minimum of stress. (the KISS principle)
The big "E" for EDUCATION is part of the key to any successful change and to date I do not believe that we have yet ever seen more than 25% of the required education for any major changes within our industry. (I hate to mention the G trial, but I would not be far from the mark if I said that for every 100 pilots that operated in that area during the trial there were maybe 90 different interpretations on how they should participate - 'nuf said!)
The other important issue is careful planning for the implementation of the change that enables all the participants ample time to become aware of the change, why it is so and to work through any changes that they might be directly effected by. Once this has occurred then the proposal should be put forward in bite-sized bits that everyone is comfortable with and there is a freeze on any other unnecessary change during the implementation. Most of this sounds obvious, but as we may recall it does not seem to have occurred in the past and as a result the change process has failed. We must learn from those lessons, as it is we in the industry that finishes up paying for such mistakes.
I urge those readers with an interest in NAS to participate in the development by being involved in their local RAPAC where all of the associated issues will be discussed. Details of the RAPACs and their Convenors are listed in the CASA Safety Journal or from your company, the AFAP/APIA or other industry associations such as AOPA, SAAA etc. General Aviation is on a slide at the moment and unless some significant effort is made to make flying simple and affordable then much of the industry that we grew up in will vanish. If we care about this then we owe it to ourselves and the industry to put some effort into helping make it better. Both Airservices and CASA need to look at how they can improve this situation and not continue to hide behind the cash register, the lawyers or the rule writers.
I don't have all the answers but I am certain that if the question is asked then someone will put forward their views. Mike Smith certainly has a task in front of him and for the sake of an improvement in our airspace model I wish him well in this project…. (good luck would be another way of saying it!)
Please if you want to play the man and not the ball do it on another thread. Keep this one for discussion on airspace architecture and procedures issues alone. We all stand to gain from the experience.
cheers
Last edited by Doug Stott; 17th Jul 2002 at 14:45.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank You Doug.
I had already made the point about 'personalities" at the end of the other thread and thank you for starting this one. I will close that thread to "clear the air" perhaps and let every one get on with it.
Dick Smith is of course entitiled to open his own thread at any time.
I had already made the point about 'personalities" at the end of the other thread and thank you for starting this one. I will close that thread to "clear the air" perhaps and let every one get on with it.
Dick Smith is of course entitiled to open his own thread at any time.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Doug,
You are right, a web page is currently being developed for the DOTARS site describing the NAS in more detail than has been previously available. I'm sure most of you will appreciate that I am currently climbing a very steep learning curve about NAS at the same time as I am putting together the Implementation Group.
I have resisted the temptation to rush into answering questions before I am sufficiently across the subject to deal with the intricacies and nuances of the scenarios which inevitably form the basis of much of the discussion.
The NAS will very closely follow North American practice, I suggest anyone interested look at the FAA website and the AIM to see where we are heading.
I agree that education and communication are the keys to successfull implemenatation and I expect that my experience in this area was behind my being asked to lead the Implementation group. I hope to be able to get around to all the RAPACs in the near future and I will take advantage of other similar forums for face to face discussion.
Mike Smith
You are right, a web page is currently being developed for the DOTARS site describing the NAS in more detail than has been previously available. I'm sure most of you will appreciate that I am currently climbing a very steep learning curve about NAS at the same time as I am putting together the Implementation Group.
I have resisted the temptation to rush into answering questions before I am sufficiently across the subject to deal with the intricacies and nuances of the scenarios which inevitably form the basis of much of the discussion.
The NAS will very closely follow North American practice, I suggest anyone interested look at the FAA website and the AIM to see where we are heading.
I agree that education and communication are the keys to successfull implemenatation and I expect that my experience in this area was behind my being asked to lead the Implementation group. I hope to be able to get around to all the RAPACs in the near future and I will take advantage of other similar forums for face to face discussion.
Mike Smith
One of the sticking points appears to be that we will
without the North American infrastructure. Admittedly also without the traffic density.
closely follow North American practice
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Usually Oz
Posts: 732
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Probably the major point of frustration with our system after operating in the USA is just how easy it is to fly IFR or VFR over there. Thus, we tend to be proponents of the NAS because we see it removing the hassles we have here.
Problems:
1] trying to sell an airspace concept on paper is like trying to describe a spriral staircase without using your hands! Aussies tend to be extremely rule conscious and want to get right into the nitty gritty before committing - perfectly reasonable.
2] much is made of IFR/VFR seperation. Look at the GA accident record in the USA compared to ours - AOPA say the US is lower!! [Not in a position to research this at the moment.] They achieve this with traffic levels and rule freedoms we dream of, BUT if, as a professional pilot you DO step out of line, the FAA will be down on you like a ton of bricks and make CASA seem positively friendly!! So, if their seperation requirements seem less than that to which we're used, please compare like with like - traffic levels in similar airspace and how they do the job, not just the rules.
Mine for now. Good luck Mike S! It may have been easier to take the earlier opportunity.
G'day
PS Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater; there is just a chance that despite any spin, what we have IS 'world's best practice' for us!!
Problems:
1] trying to sell an airspace concept on paper is like trying to describe a spriral staircase without using your hands! Aussies tend to be extremely rule conscious and want to get right into the nitty gritty before committing - perfectly reasonable.
2] much is made of IFR/VFR seperation. Look at the GA accident record in the USA compared to ours - AOPA say the US is lower!! [Not in a position to research this at the moment.] They achieve this with traffic levels and rule freedoms we dream of, BUT if, as a professional pilot you DO step out of line, the FAA will be down on you like a ton of bricks and make CASA seem positively friendly!! So, if their seperation requirements seem less than that to which we're used, please compare like with like - traffic levels in similar airspace and how they do the job, not just the rules.
Mine for now. Good luck Mike S! It may have been easier to take the earlier opportunity.
G'day
PS Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater; there is just a chance that despite any spin, what we have IS 'world's best practice' for us!!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of the Tweed, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 1
Doug
Thanks for opening this thread. Great idea.
Open Mic
Likewise, the DOTARS website should be a valuable resource.
As a matter of interest, I spoke to Dick Smith last week, just before he headed off to Timbuktu. I raised a number of issues with him regarding NAS, the universe and everything, and he gave me permission to ‘quote’ him. (The ‘quotes’ are in italics.) I stress, however, that this is my recollection of the conversation, and invite Dick to correct me where I have got it wrong. Also, because I am placing some comments into a different context, they might not fully reflect Dick’s views.
To kick off the discussion, a few observations, comments and questions:
NAS and AIM
On first reading, the NAS document by itself does not reflect the full significance of the changes proposed. Only when one looks at the US AIM does the full picture emerge.
The significant changes are not just the distribution and promulgation of airspace, but also the changes within each category of airspace.
A lot more detail will of course emerge, and an important function for Mike Smith will be to identify which parts of the US system we will not be adopting, so that the correct picture emerges early in the piece.
There will be significant cultural issues to overcome. One example would be the practice of “implied” clearances (my term) where an aircraft calling at the boundary of class C airspace would provide details, and the clearance would be “implied” as long as ATC responded with the aircraft callsign. This removes the concept of a readback which has always been one of our safety mitigators.
Flight Plans
In my conversation with Dick Smith, I raised my concern that the practice of IFR aircraft calling ATC for a clearance to transit E airspace without filing a flight plan would add significantly to ATC workload.
I used the example – as happens in the current system – of Dick flying his Citation VFR into class C airspace. Departing Temora (Class G –Base of C at FL200) climbing to FL245 for Gundaroo (Class G, below Canberra TMA class C steps).
The workload involved at the ATC console of receiving the details, entering them into the TAAATS computer (creating a Flight Data Record - FDR) and coordinating with 4 sectors all has to be completed prior to being able to issue a clearance.
My point was that if I had a flight plan (therefore a TAAATS FDR) available, my workload would be minimal and the distraction from the radar (or non radar display) would be minimal (a safety issue). On gut feeling, the workload involved for this one flight would be equivalent to handling 4-6 aircraft with flight plans.
Dick’s response: Under the US system, VFR aircraft are discouraged from filing flight plans to reduce system ‘overload’. In his experience, controller’s in the US are able to handle large numbers of VFR and IFR “no details” flights with no apparent workload or safety implications.
I would suggest that this issue needs to be looked at closely.
Question for Mike Smith – consultation
When the website becomes available, could it be possible to include a discussion forum, similar to this one? Suggested criteria for restricted access would be that participants must use their real names, must have a valid flight crew licence or be employed by Airservices, CASA, ATSB or other organisation with a valid interest.
The purpose of the forum would be to sound out ideas, encourage input from individuals especially where these views may differ from their official “company” line etc.
I realise that it would an informal, non-binding sort of forum, but it may encourage the emergence of new ideas.
Training Issues - ATC
Mike, I am not sure if this is even remotely within your area of expertise, influence or concern, however someone may like to comment.
I asked Dick Smith about the procedures for locations such as Dubbo (which was mentioned on the previous thread) when NAS is implemented.
Response from Dick Smith: In the first phase of implementation, little or no change. When fully implemented, with class E down to 1200AGL, the controller would (in IMC) be issuing clearances for instrument approaches, and providing separation between IFR aircraft. This would mean that departing aircraft could not be issued a clearance until the arriving aircraft had landed, was in the missed approach (and separated) or broke visual and cancelled IFR.
In VMC, the IFR aircraft would simply “cancel IFR” and separation would no longer be required.
Controllers (enroute controllers) will have to be trained in separating aircraft in non-radar airspace conducting instrument approaches.
This raises a couple of issues. First of all, it would have to be determined whether or not this constitutes procedural approach control, given that CTA ends at 1200 AGL. As most enroute controllers do not hold approach ratings (i.e. they have never been trained in approach control), will they have to do approach conversion courses? If so, the logistics and cost need to be looked at fairly carefully. I think that a current approach conversion course would run to something like 10 weeks or longer.
Secondly, a number of CARs, AIP provisions etc. will have to be changed, such as the inability of RPT to ‘cancel IFR.’
Response from Dick Smith: Yes, a number of regs etc. will have to be changed to implement NAS.
Continued in Part 2.....
Thanks for opening this thread. Great idea.
Open Mic
Likewise, the DOTARS website should be a valuable resource.
As a matter of interest, I spoke to Dick Smith last week, just before he headed off to Timbuktu. I raised a number of issues with him regarding NAS, the universe and everything, and he gave me permission to ‘quote’ him. (The ‘quotes’ are in italics.) I stress, however, that this is my recollection of the conversation, and invite Dick to correct me where I have got it wrong. Also, because I am placing some comments into a different context, they might not fully reflect Dick’s views.
To kick off the discussion, a few observations, comments and questions:
NAS and AIM
On first reading, the NAS document by itself does not reflect the full significance of the changes proposed. Only when one looks at the US AIM does the full picture emerge.
The significant changes are not just the distribution and promulgation of airspace, but also the changes within each category of airspace.
A lot more detail will of course emerge, and an important function for Mike Smith will be to identify which parts of the US system we will not be adopting, so that the correct picture emerges early in the piece.
There will be significant cultural issues to overcome. One example would be the practice of “implied” clearances (my term) where an aircraft calling at the boundary of class C airspace would provide details, and the clearance would be “implied” as long as ATC responded with the aircraft callsign. This removes the concept of a readback which has always been one of our safety mitigators.
Flight Plans
In my conversation with Dick Smith, I raised my concern that the practice of IFR aircraft calling ATC for a clearance to transit E airspace without filing a flight plan would add significantly to ATC workload.
I used the example – as happens in the current system – of Dick flying his Citation VFR into class C airspace. Departing Temora (Class G –Base of C at FL200) climbing to FL245 for Gundaroo (Class G, below Canberra TMA class C steps).
The workload involved at the ATC console of receiving the details, entering them into the TAAATS computer (creating a Flight Data Record - FDR) and coordinating with 4 sectors all has to be completed prior to being able to issue a clearance.
My point was that if I had a flight plan (therefore a TAAATS FDR) available, my workload would be minimal and the distraction from the radar (or non radar display) would be minimal (a safety issue). On gut feeling, the workload involved for this one flight would be equivalent to handling 4-6 aircraft with flight plans.
Dick’s response: Under the US system, VFR aircraft are discouraged from filing flight plans to reduce system ‘overload’. In his experience, controller’s in the US are able to handle large numbers of VFR and IFR “no details” flights with no apparent workload or safety implications.
I would suggest that this issue needs to be looked at closely.
Question for Mike Smith – consultation
When the website becomes available, could it be possible to include a discussion forum, similar to this one? Suggested criteria for restricted access would be that participants must use their real names, must have a valid flight crew licence or be employed by Airservices, CASA, ATSB or other organisation with a valid interest.
The purpose of the forum would be to sound out ideas, encourage input from individuals especially where these views may differ from their official “company” line etc.
I realise that it would an informal, non-binding sort of forum, but it may encourage the emergence of new ideas.
Training Issues - ATC
Mike, I am not sure if this is even remotely within your area of expertise, influence or concern, however someone may like to comment.
I asked Dick Smith about the procedures for locations such as Dubbo (which was mentioned on the previous thread) when NAS is implemented.
Response from Dick Smith: In the first phase of implementation, little or no change. When fully implemented, with class E down to 1200AGL, the controller would (in IMC) be issuing clearances for instrument approaches, and providing separation between IFR aircraft. This would mean that departing aircraft could not be issued a clearance until the arriving aircraft had landed, was in the missed approach (and separated) or broke visual and cancelled IFR.
In VMC, the IFR aircraft would simply “cancel IFR” and separation would no longer be required.
Controllers (enroute controllers) will have to be trained in separating aircraft in non-radar airspace conducting instrument approaches.
This raises a couple of issues. First of all, it would have to be determined whether or not this constitutes procedural approach control, given that CTA ends at 1200 AGL. As most enroute controllers do not hold approach ratings (i.e. they have never been trained in approach control), will they have to do approach conversion courses? If so, the logistics and cost need to be looked at fairly carefully. I think that a current approach conversion course would run to something like 10 weeks or longer.
Secondly, a number of CARs, AIP provisions etc. will have to be changed, such as the inability of RPT to ‘cancel IFR.’
Response from Dick Smith: Yes, a number of regs etc. will have to be changed to implement NAS.
Continued in Part 2.....
Last edited by Maaate; 18th Jul 2002 at 04:41.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of the Tweed, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Part 2
Question for Mike Smith - timing
Is it too early to get indications of what the timing of implementation, training etc. is going to be? Even a rough guess, such as when you think we might reach the end state?
Questions for Dick Smith/ Mike Smith or anybody – new airspace authority
What functions and powers are envisaged for the new airspace authority?
How big will it be?
Will it be a permanent body, or is just for the implementation of NAS?
Obviously, promulgation of different classes of Airspace will have a huge impact on Airservices’ staffing, costs, income etc. (i.e. class G costs nothing and earns nothing, but E and better requires staff and generates income.) Who will decide on whether or not a particular bit of airspace warrants being a particular class? Is that the role of the new authority? What if Airservices says they don’t want to provide (for example) class E services to 1200 AGL at Dubbo, for commercial reasons?
Mike, to clarify something: Is your role part of establishing this authority or are you still working purely for CASA, with the new body yet to be formed?
Finally, the “Seven Questions”
Woomera - your advice please
When I rang Dick, the conversation did turn to 4711’s 7 Q’s. Dick provided some comments (not necessarily detailed answers to each question).
I have Dick’s permission to ‘quote’ him. I don’t want to clog up this thread since that is not what Doug wants. Your suggestions?
'Tis all....
Is it too early to get indications of what the timing of implementation, training etc. is going to be? Even a rough guess, such as when you think we might reach the end state?
Questions for Dick Smith/ Mike Smith or anybody – new airspace authority
What functions and powers are envisaged for the new airspace authority?
How big will it be?
Will it be a permanent body, or is just for the implementation of NAS?
Obviously, promulgation of different classes of Airspace will have a huge impact on Airservices’ staffing, costs, income etc. (i.e. class G costs nothing and earns nothing, but E and better requires staff and generates income.) Who will decide on whether or not a particular bit of airspace warrants being a particular class? Is that the role of the new authority? What if Airservices says they don’t want to provide (for example) class E services to 1200 AGL at Dubbo, for commercial reasons?
Mike, to clarify something: Is your role part of establishing this authority or are you still working purely for CASA, with the new body yet to be formed?
Finally, the “Seven Questions”
Woomera - your advice please
When I rang Dick, the conversation did turn to 4711’s 7 Q’s. Dick provided some comments (not necessarily detailed answers to each question).
I have Dick’s permission to ‘quote’ him. I don’t want to clog up this thread since that is not what Doug wants. Your suggestions?
'Tis all....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maaaaaaaate.
I will reopen the Dick Smith thread for you to post them there.
Unfortunately a lot of the stuff is in cyberspace for the moment.
But if you have a copy of the questions and the "comments" it would be a start.
I will reopen the Dick Smith thread for you to post them there.
Unfortunately a lot of the stuff is in cyberspace for the moment.
But if you have a copy of the questions and the "comments" it would be a start.
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maaate,
I'm not yet in a position to answer technical questions simply because I'm not sufficiently up to speed on what the NAS will look like but I would like to set the record straight on my role in all of this. You asked, "Mike, to clarify something: Is your role part of establishing this authority or are you still working purely for CASA, with the new body yet to be formed? "
The answer is that I am not at all involved with the establishment of any new authority, my role is to lead the Implementation Group for NAS which is a seperate activity to the establishment of any other group. I am also not currently working for CASA, I have taken leave from CASA to work on this task and I am currently employed by DOTARS.
I do expect to be launching the new web site and indicating likely timeframes for change within the next two or three weeks.
Mike
I'm not yet in a position to answer technical questions simply because I'm not sufficiently up to speed on what the NAS will look like but I would like to set the record straight on my role in all of this. You asked, "Mike, to clarify something: Is your role part of establishing this authority or are you still working purely for CASA, with the new body yet to be formed? "
The answer is that I am not at all involved with the establishment of any new authority, my role is to lead the Implementation Group for NAS which is a seperate activity to the establishment of any other group. I am also not currently working for CASA, I have taken leave from CASA to work on this task and I am currently employed by DOTARS.
I do expect to be launching the new web site and indicating likely timeframes for change within the next two or three weeks.
Mike
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: North of the Tweed, Australia
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Woomera and Mike
Gentlemen
Thanks for your replies. I will try to post the comments on the other thread ASAP. I don't have a copy of the questions at hand, but I'm sure I will be able to find them on the thread/s.
Mike, with the various groups involved:
a) Airservices NAS implementation
b) DOTARS
c) CASA (I presume will have a 'team')
d) The ARG (continuing in an implementation role)
e) The new airspace authority
It looks as if there will be a serious issue of keeping all the groups pushing in the same direction and at the same pace.
I gather that part of your role will be to play 'ringmaster'. A daunting task. Good luck.
Thanks for your replies. I will try to post the comments on the other thread ASAP. I don't have a copy of the questions at hand, but I'm sure I will be able to find them on the thread/s.
Mike, with the various groups involved:
a) Airservices NAS implementation
b) DOTARS
c) CASA (I presume will have a 'team')
d) The ARG (continuing in an implementation role)
e) The new airspace authority
It looks as if there will be a serious issue of keeping all the groups pushing in the same direction and at the same pace.
I gather that part of your role will be to play 'ringmaster'. A daunting task. Good luck.
Who takes Dick Smith seriously on aviation? Nobody other than Dick Smith.
Does anyone recall who uttered those words, and the circumstances in which they were uttered?
Folks: you don’t need to worry about the ARG actually doing anything or the NAS actually being implemented. It won’t happen. This circus is merely the pound of flesh that Mr Anderson has to pay for the last minute stay on his political execution.
Anderson’s not stupid. He knows full well that with its current constituency and lack of power, the ARG cannot achieve anything this side of the next election, after which Mr Anderson will be taking rest anyway. But he'll keep Mr Smith amused in the meantime.
You can try to take the personalities out of this, but you’ll never avoid the politics.
Dick Smith declares war on Anderson
Australian Financial Review, 13 August 2001
Katharine Murphy
[bolding added]
Folks: you don’t need to worry about the ARG actually doing anything or the NAS actually being implemented. It won’t happen. This circus is merely the pound of flesh that Mr Anderson has to pay for the last minute stay on his political execution.
Anderson’s not stupid. He knows full well that with its current constituency and lack of power, the ARG cannot achieve anything this side of the next election, after which Mr Anderson will be taking rest anyway. But he'll keep Mr Smith amused in the meantime.
You can try to take the personalities out of this, but you’ll never avoid the politics.
Dick Smith declares war on Anderson
Australian Financial Review, 13 August 2001
Katharine Murphy
The Deputy Prime Minister, Mr John Anderson, faces an election-eve assault by the populist entrepreneur Mr Dick Smith, who is planning a grassroots political campaign in north-west NSW to attack Mr Anderson over aviation policy.
Confirmation of Mr Smith's plans for a six-week "roadshow" in Mr Anderson's electorate during the federal election campaign comes as concern mounts in the Coalition about the threat posed by rural independent candidates.
Mr Smith said he would use the roadshow to tell voters in Mr Anderson's electorate of Gwydir that the National Party leader and Minister for Transport had failed to implement reforms that would have helped regional Australia.
"He can expect constant campaigning by me on the fact that he has completely let down country Australians," Mr Smith said.
"When I give my talks, I am just going to explain all the [aviation] reforms we had - it was great stuff - and how every bit of it which was to suit country Australians was undermined."
Mr Smith denied suggestions that he was financing the campaigns of several rural independents, including the high-profile State MP Mr Tony Windsor. Mr Windsor has not ruled out contesting Gwydir. The Government faces a strong election challenge from conservative independents that threatens the National Party's hold on rural Australia.
Rural independents include the former National Party MP Mr Bob Katter in the Queensland electorate of Kennedy, Mr Peter Cochran in the NSW regional seat of Eden-Monaro and a group of dairy farmers who plan to stand as independents in up to 10 federal electorates.
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, warned voters last week not to support independents, saying a hung Parliament - where neither major party had a majority in its own right - would unsettle global financial markets, create economic instability and have an adverse effect on interest rates.
The National Party has also intensified its attack on independents in recent weeks, arguing they cannot deliver tangible policies and services that can be delivered by major parties in government.
But Mr Peter Andren, the independent member for Calare, rejected these claims yesterday, saying recent evidence from States showed independents acted responsibly with majority parties.
Mr Smith was asked whether he was funding Independent candidates. He said: "Every journalist asks me if I am putting money into independents. The answer is no, I won't have to. I won't be putting one dollar in - but I will be using something far more effective, and that is my speaking abilities and the following I have in country Australia.
"I don't think they need all that much [money]. I think the dissatisfaction is so great, it will be interesting to see. It's very sad for Australia because I think the two-party system or the three-party system is a very good system. It has given us stability".
Mr Smith has been a strong critic of Mr Anderson since the two fell out over Mr Smith's controversial aviation policy agenda when the entrepreneur was chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Last night, a spokesman for Mr Anderson described Mr Smith's comments as "absolute and utter rubbish". "Who takes Dick Smith seriously on aviation - nobody other than Dick Smith," he said.
"He is entitled to pursue any aviation agenda that he wants, but he failed twice to implement his as chairman of CASA.
"His policy prescriptions have been found by independent agencies to be dangerous and poorly managed."
Mr Anderson's spokesman said the Government had guaranteed access to Sydney airport by regional airlines, and he signalled more would be done in a forthcoming statement on regional policy.
Mr Andren said yesterday that up to five independents could win seats in the House of Representatives at the forthcoming poll.
On the attack by Mr Howard, Mr Andren told the Seven Network: "It suits him and I'm sure it suits the Labor Party to speak in derogatory terms of the independents and the impact they will have."
He said that, in Victoria, there was "no hint of any sort of economic instability".
"And, in fact, the feedback that the true independent can bring to Parliament adds, I believe, the necessary degree of common sense and indeed grassroots input into the process."
Confirmation of Mr Smith's plans for a six-week "roadshow" in Mr Anderson's electorate during the federal election campaign comes as concern mounts in the Coalition about the threat posed by rural independent candidates.
Mr Smith said he would use the roadshow to tell voters in Mr Anderson's electorate of Gwydir that the National Party leader and Minister for Transport had failed to implement reforms that would have helped regional Australia.
"He can expect constant campaigning by me on the fact that he has completely let down country Australians," Mr Smith said.
"When I give my talks, I am just going to explain all the [aviation] reforms we had - it was great stuff - and how every bit of it which was to suit country Australians was undermined."
Mr Smith denied suggestions that he was financing the campaigns of several rural independents, including the high-profile State MP Mr Tony Windsor. Mr Windsor has not ruled out contesting Gwydir. The Government faces a strong election challenge from conservative independents that threatens the National Party's hold on rural Australia.
Rural independents include the former National Party MP Mr Bob Katter in the Queensland electorate of Kennedy, Mr Peter Cochran in the NSW regional seat of Eden-Monaro and a group of dairy farmers who plan to stand as independents in up to 10 federal electorates.
The Prime Minister, Mr John Howard, warned voters last week not to support independents, saying a hung Parliament - where neither major party had a majority in its own right - would unsettle global financial markets, create economic instability and have an adverse effect on interest rates.
The National Party has also intensified its attack on independents in recent weeks, arguing they cannot deliver tangible policies and services that can be delivered by major parties in government.
But Mr Peter Andren, the independent member for Calare, rejected these claims yesterday, saying recent evidence from States showed independents acted responsibly with majority parties.
Mr Smith was asked whether he was funding Independent candidates. He said: "Every journalist asks me if I am putting money into independents. The answer is no, I won't have to. I won't be putting one dollar in - but I will be using something far more effective, and that is my speaking abilities and the following I have in country Australia.
"I don't think they need all that much [money]. I think the dissatisfaction is so great, it will be interesting to see. It's very sad for Australia because I think the two-party system or the three-party system is a very good system. It has given us stability".
Mr Smith has been a strong critic of Mr Anderson since the two fell out over Mr Smith's controversial aviation policy agenda when the entrepreneur was chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Last night, a spokesman for Mr Anderson described Mr Smith's comments as "absolute and utter rubbish". "Who takes Dick Smith seriously on aviation - nobody other than Dick Smith," he said.
"He is entitled to pursue any aviation agenda that he wants, but he failed twice to implement his as chairman of CASA.
"His policy prescriptions have been found by independent agencies to be dangerous and poorly managed."
Mr Anderson's spokesman said the Government had guaranteed access to Sydney airport by regional airlines, and he signalled more would be done in a forthcoming statement on regional policy.
Mr Andren said yesterday that up to five independents could win seats in the House of Representatives at the forthcoming poll.
On the attack by Mr Howard, Mr Andren told the Seven Network: "It suits him and I'm sure it suits the Labor Party to speak in derogatory terms of the independents and the impact they will have."
He said that, in Victoria, there was "no hint of any sort of economic instability".
"And, in fact, the feedback that the true independent can bring to Parliament adds, I believe, the necessary degree of common sense and indeed grassroots input into the process."
Last edited by Creampuff; 21st Jul 2002 at 00:11.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff, I am hearing similar things from my end. The other issue to consider is funding. Where they'll get the money from for implementation while Costello makes a run for PM is anybody's guess.
But I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how things pan out.
But I suppose we'll just have to wait and see how things pan out.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Things have changed
Creampuff
An election is a long time in politics.
Now, trying to stay in the spirit of the 'no personalities' part of the thread title:
1) Whatever Mr Anderson might have said in the heat of an election campaign, he now obviously believes Mr Smith is the right person for the job.
2) We all have to take him 'seriously'. NAS is the Minister's preferred model, and enourmous amounts of money and effort will be expended in getting it implemented.
3) Mr Anderson mentioned 'independent agencies'. The role of the ARG, CASA, Airservices, DOTARS (particularly Mike Smith), RAPACs and others in the impelmentation process is going to be crucial. They must maintain an independent and impartial stance and ensure that, when implemented, NAS is the best possible solution.
4) Remember that the Minsiter's direction to the ARG in the first place was to choose a system that was 'more closely harmonised with international best practice'. This (as opposed to harmonisation with 'common' international practice or the practices of our neighbouring FIRs) provides an opportunity to develop the NAS system into the 'best' in the world, perhaps making it even better than the US system.
5) Following on from the above: If we adopt what is effectively the US system, there will be ramifications arising from the fact that the US system is very different to the practices of our neighbours, of Asian countries and the majority of Europe. This will mean that the majority of our international traffic will have to adapt to the different procedures. For those airlines which fly to the US, this will be less of a problem.
6) Also following on from the above: Adopting only the US system may be short-sighted. The TAAATS system has unique characteristics, which may make it possible to continue to provide services to IFR aircraft in class G without significant increase in cost.
For example, an IFR aircraft departing in class G, with one position report and then entering class E (base 1200agl)
Currently: ATC takes the departure report, takes the position report and provides traffic - enroute and for arrival. (Assuming that the destination is curently an MBZ surrounded by class G)
NAS: Aircraft calls ATC prior to entering class E. ATC needs to activate the flight plan (i.e. do the same as would have been done on departure), enter time at position and the estimate for destination (i.e. do the same as would have been done at the position report) and provide separation (a 'new' function, which requires much more stringent criteria than just passing traffic).
Net result: Same or similar computer interaction (no saving in workload), less time to assess and plan for separation (because the aircraft calls approaching class E rather than on departure when still well out in class G).
The increase in safety due to separation in the terminal area (class E) is good. I believe that the cost savings in removing the class G DTI may not be as significant as first thought.
As I have said all along, the NAS system may well work very well in Australia, but a lot of work is required to ensure it is implemented properly. We have not got off to a good start, but who knows what the future may hold.
An election is a long time in politics.
Now, trying to stay in the spirit of the 'no personalities' part of the thread title:
1) Whatever Mr Anderson might have said in the heat of an election campaign, he now obviously believes Mr Smith is the right person for the job.
2) We all have to take him 'seriously'. NAS is the Minister's preferred model, and enourmous amounts of money and effort will be expended in getting it implemented.
3) Mr Anderson mentioned 'independent agencies'. The role of the ARG, CASA, Airservices, DOTARS (particularly Mike Smith), RAPACs and others in the impelmentation process is going to be crucial. They must maintain an independent and impartial stance and ensure that, when implemented, NAS is the best possible solution.
4) Remember that the Minsiter's direction to the ARG in the first place was to choose a system that was 'more closely harmonised with international best practice'. This (as opposed to harmonisation with 'common' international practice or the practices of our neighbouring FIRs) provides an opportunity to develop the NAS system into the 'best' in the world, perhaps making it even better than the US system.
5) Following on from the above: If we adopt what is effectively the US system, there will be ramifications arising from the fact that the US system is very different to the practices of our neighbours, of Asian countries and the majority of Europe. This will mean that the majority of our international traffic will have to adapt to the different procedures. For those airlines which fly to the US, this will be less of a problem.
6) Also following on from the above: Adopting only the US system may be short-sighted. The TAAATS system has unique characteristics, which may make it possible to continue to provide services to IFR aircraft in class G without significant increase in cost.
For example, an IFR aircraft departing in class G, with one position report and then entering class E (base 1200agl)
Currently: ATC takes the departure report, takes the position report and provides traffic - enroute and for arrival. (Assuming that the destination is curently an MBZ surrounded by class G)
NAS: Aircraft calls ATC prior to entering class E. ATC needs to activate the flight plan (i.e. do the same as would have been done on departure), enter time at position and the estimate for destination (i.e. do the same as would have been done at the position report) and provide separation (a 'new' function, which requires much more stringent criteria than just passing traffic).
Net result: Same or similar computer interaction (no saving in workload), less time to assess and plan for separation (because the aircraft calls approaching class E rather than on departure when still well out in class G).
The increase in safety due to separation in the terminal area (class E) is good. I believe that the cost savings in removing the class G DTI may not be as significant as first thought.
As I have said all along, the NAS system may well work very well in Australia, but a lot of work is required to ensure it is implemented properly. We have not got off to a good start, but who knows what the future may hold.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another Idea
Perhaps one way of addressing the concerns raised by some about removing DTI in class G can be addressed by introducing class F airspace.
This could be done as follows:
Subject to VHF coverage, establish class F from 8,500' to the base of overlying CTA.
IFR aircraft unable to climb to high level E (i.e. non-pressurised) would have the option of 9,000 or 10,000 with full IFR/IFR DTI.
For the reasons described in my previous post, the additional ATS workload (and therfore cost) would be minimal.
This gives everyone the choice (regardless of aircraft type):
Either class G, fend for yourself, or class F - DTI. If able and where available, the additional safety of class E or C.
Worth thinking about - as it is fully ICAO and 'international best practice' compliant.
This could be done as follows:
Subject to VHF coverage, establish class F from 8,500' to the base of overlying CTA.
IFR aircraft unable to climb to high level E (i.e. non-pressurised) would have the option of 9,000 or 10,000 with full IFR/IFR DTI.
For the reasons described in my previous post, the additional ATS workload (and therfore cost) would be minimal.
This gives everyone the choice (regardless of aircraft type):
Either class G, fend for yourself, or class F - DTI. If able and where available, the additional safety of class E or C.
Worth thinking about - as it is fully ICAO and 'international best practice' compliant.
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?
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?
Airspace reform without personalities or politics?
I must have the wrong Australia.
Maaate: don’t forget to include Defence in the list of fingers in this pie.
Which brings me to my question.
Mike: I noticed that the email address you posted in the ‘NAS/do you want answers” poll, was a “defence.gov.au” address.
Why do you have a Defence email address?
Maaate: don’t forget to include Defence in the list of fingers in this pie.
Which brings me to my question.
Mike: I noticed that the email address you posted in the ‘NAS/do you want answers” poll, was a “defence.gov.au” address.
Why do you have a Defence email address?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Victoria
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff - my info is that the office made available for this project is at the RAAF base at Canberra airport. I would think that a def em address is a result of that. (??)
Capt 2400 - A difficult question, but I suggest that if we are to experience any change whatsoever then it has to be sold to those players that will be expected to use it. That in some cases will not be a walk in the park. The processing of change is never easy as there is always very entrenched culture that has to be sold on the alternative. On the other hand are you saying that certain aspects of the present model are ones you are not prepared to consider for change if an appropriate case for an alternative is presented to you? I would suggest that the consultation should result in conscience, depending on how it is 'sold'. As I understand it, NAS is a package and I doubt if you can just add or take away bits here and there to suit?? Sure some aspects will be open to some panel beating, but I doubt if there will be any wholesale changes due to the implications of covering off those changes in the safety case.
4711 - I have always thought there was a place for class F and continue to believe that is the case. In fact what we have now as G many believe is closer to F than G. On the other hand, if you are going to change the existing G to another type of G, then I strongly believe there is a role for F in the change process so that there is minimal misunderstanding during any change of what type of G you might be in !! The use of F during any transition would be a significant aid to education. If education is the make or brake of any such change then it (F) has to be seriously considered, both in the long and short term.
Maaate - in regard to your comment re the proposed Airspace Directorate - this is one thing that industry through the RAPACs have been pushing for some time as the existing situation has not been perfect, and would certainly not be tenable once ASA are opened to competition. Various proposals seem to indicate a small office taking on the responsibilities that ASA presently have for the management of airspace. It would most likely be within DoTRS and have both civil and military participants. It would I believe (amongst other things) be responsible for promulgation of PRD areas and other airspace, audits, various databases, International liaison and the facilitation of the RAPACs etc. I doubt if it will be high profile and would not necessarily be involved in the NAS project. The exact detail we will have to wait and see.
Woomera - thanks for the support. This is a subject that is not going to go away for some time and I think we need to ensure that everyone gets to see what is proposed and be given the chance to comment - both in this forum and elsewhere. Your help in keeping it on the rails within Prune has the potential to help significantly.
Mike - No doubt you will correct any errors of fact in my comments.
cheers
Capt 2400 - A difficult question, but I suggest that if we are to experience any change whatsoever then it has to be sold to those players that will be expected to use it. That in some cases will not be a walk in the park. The processing of change is never easy as there is always very entrenched culture that has to be sold on the alternative. On the other hand are you saying that certain aspects of the present model are ones you are not prepared to consider for change if an appropriate case for an alternative is presented to you? I would suggest that the consultation should result in conscience, depending on how it is 'sold'. As I understand it, NAS is a package and I doubt if you can just add or take away bits here and there to suit?? Sure some aspects will be open to some panel beating, but I doubt if there will be any wholesale changes due to the implications of covering off those changes in the safety case.
4711 - I have always thought there was a place for class F and continue to believe that is the case. In fact what we have now as G many believe is closer to F than G. On the other hand, if you are going to change the existing G to another type of G, then I strongly believe there is a role for F in the change process so that there is minimal misunderstanding during any change of what type of G you might be in !! The use of F during any transition would be a significant aid to education. If education is the make or brake of any such change then it (F) has to be seriously considered, both in the long and short term.
Maaate - in regard to your comment re the proposed Airspace Directorate - this is one thing that industry through the RAPACs have been pushing for some time as the existing situation has not been perfect, and would certainly not be tenable once ASA are opened to competition. Various proposals seem to indicate a small office taking on the responsibilities that ASA presently have for the management of airspace. It would most likely be within DoTRS and have both civil and military participants. It would I believe (amongst other things) be responsible for promulgation of PRD areas and other airspace, audits, various databases, International liaison and the facilitation of the RAPACs etc. I doubt if it will be high profile and would not necessarily be involved in the NAS project. The exact detail we will have to wait and see.
Woomera - thanks for the support. This is a subject that is not going to go away for some time and I think we need to ensure that everyone gets to see what is proposed and be given the chance to comment - both in this forum and elsewhere. Your help in keeping it on the rails within Prune has the potential to help significantly.
Mike - No doubt you will correct any errors of fact in my comments.
cheers
Last edited by Doug Stott; 21st Jul 2002 at 13:05.
Thanks Doug – that would explain the ‘defence.gov.au’ email address.
The fundamental flaw in this process is encapsulated in your statement:
There will be no genuine consultation on the core aspects. There will be dictation dressed up as consultation.
The decision cart has been put before the consultation horse, again. They’re letting a high profile businessman-cum-adventurer play crash through or crash, again.
Aussies seem never to learn. The metaphor fails me at present.
The fundamental flaw in this process is encapsulated in your statement:
Sure some aspects will be open to some panel beating, but I doubt if there will be any wholesale changes due to the implications of covering off those changes in the safety case.
The decision cart has been put before the consultation horse, again. They’re letting a high profile businessman-cum-adventurer play crash through or crash, again.
Aussies seem never to learn. The metaphor fails me at present.
Music Quizmeister
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Can'tberra, ACT Australia
Age: 67
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doug,
The airspace authority you mention sounds a little like the proposal that was considered by DOTARS/Defence/ASA/CASA a while ago. A lot of work done (then ASA - and CASA - seemed to go cold on the idea) in 1998/99...........
I think they even had a name considered:
the Joint Centre for Airspace Management - JCAM
The airspace authority you mention sounds a little like the proposal that was considered by DOTARS/Defence/ASA/CASA a while ago. A lot of work done (then ASA - and CASA - seemed to go cold on the idea) in 1998/99...........
I think they even had a name considered:
the Joint Centre for Airspace Management - JCAM