...it is proposed that military restricted areas will be replaced with military operating areas. Restricted areas will then only cover weapons ranges. Traffic will be able to broadcast intentions, await a reply and then decide weather (sp?) to transit the airspace or not.

Scary.

melchett: good of you demonstrate LeadSled's point, old boy!

Just a couple of corrections to the more recent replies.

LAMP did propose a reallocation of resources according to lines of risk. As I understand it this was to be achieved via a combination of airspace restructure and a new frequency management plan (to eliminate retransmits and congestion).

LS, you say that Australian "professional pilots" reject any objective analysis based risk assessment. The implication being that it does not match their perception of risk. Unfortunately that is exactly how a risk assessment is carried out. It utilises a number of pilots and ATCs from all walks of professional and private flying to provide their best objective/subjective view on the likelyhood of a particular event (eg failure to hear a call).

It is also interesting that you say that any such risk assessment is automatically rejected by certain professional groups. That is exactly what RHS and the various hangers-on including AOPA have done in this instance. I have yet to hear a substantive rebuttle from any of them to what is an exhaustive safety case associated with the first stage of LAMP. Nor have I seen one to support the NAS.

Sorry, thats right, RHS is advocating (as are all those same hanger-ons that are unable to think for themselves) that NAS does not need a safety case because "it's what they do in the "good ol' US of A". If it's good enough for them then it's good enough for us.

I think that is a wonderful hypothesis. So lets also have Class B in all our primary terminal areas, mandatory transponders(as they are now about to do), primary radar coverage down to 1200' over most parts of the country, a multiplicity of Class D zones, change our Regs and charts and training......

You see as a friend in the US told me recently they have a system that works just fine. But it works just fine because it is a package that has regs, infrastructure, traffic levels, charts etc that have evolved over many years in support of the system.

What Indiana(thank you Gaunty)has done, which is usually what he does, is pick and choose the bits he wants that support his theory for the day and selectively forget the bits that don't. Fine, but don't rely on the "it works over there" argument.

I reckon Airservices would love Indianas plan. LAMP was going to be a reduction in services and their revenue base but thanks to RHS spending on software upgrades for Tarts, ATC recruitment and training to handle all the low level "E" along with associated charges should see a smile on all their dials. And I thought the Honourable John was just playing a round of "political payback".

This is your last warning Neddy: one more well-reasoned and factually-based post like that, and you're outta here.

I have received a copy of "the alternative proposal" which being over 19 pages long with graphics is too long to post here.. .Can someone put it up on a web site so that we can link to it? If they do not have a copy they can email me.. .Then we can have some real Professional scrutiny of his alternative.. .In a recent discussion with him in regard to "several inaccurate postings about him" Mr Smith has offered to provide information that will correct them. I will promptly post it or a link to it as soon as it is received.

Mr Smith is of course quite at liberty to post directly and personally to this forum for our collective edification.

I believe that this is the document that you are talking about. It is in acrobat pdf format.

<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.pdf" target="_blank">http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.pdf</a>

I have added the document in RTF format for those who do not have acrobat. The link for this document is:

<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.rtf" target="_blank">http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.rtf</a>

[ 21 January 2002: Message edited by: 89 steps to heaven ]</p>

Dick,

While we're on the subject of "picking the bits" out of the american airspace model for our use, perhas you could enlighten us as to why your model has NO Flight Service Stations, as used extensively in the USA and Canada (which has 74 of them!). If you've conveniently forgotten what a North Amercian FSS does, do a google search for "Flight Service Station". Very interesting stuff!

And by the way, don't bother looking out: I go so fast neither you or I will see each other before it's too late. And I suggest you have your radio turned off as well: you may hear a bloodcurdling scream just before impact which may frighten you.

<img src="eek.gif" border="0">

I note on the "Another **** Whinge Mk 2" thread that Mr Smith has responded to some of the alleagations raised about him. . .One of the hang-ups that he mentions seems to be about getting a word in edgewise on re-transmitted freqs.

Can someone enlighten a simple pilot on why it is necessary for us to have so many freqs retransmitted to each other? It was somewhat disconcerting recently for myself to be doing some flying in West Oz and hear posn reports etc from aircraft from what seemed to be most of West Australia, and some of NT and SA!

I understand that one Air Trafficker is now running heaps of freqs, but wouldn't it be better to at least cut down on re-transmit and only have to hear said Air Trafficker talking to folks. I for one wouldn't mind only having to hear 'one half' of a conversation if it means that I don't need to hear Bill and Ted chatting to each other out of Kalgoorlie when I am hanging around off Onslow...

Only vaguely related to this thread... but I guess it is about proposed changes!...

And thanks to 89 steps for posting the doc on the Web. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

The problem with not retransmitting the 15 freqs that you are monitoring is that potentially 15 people can then talk to you at once. When there was dedicated FS, the operators were pretty sharp, and could manage without the retransmit when it was quiet. Under the 'improved system' now, a controller has a lot more freqs and is actually controlling upper level traffic, and cannot afford to have Farmer Brown overtransmitting that traffic.

Hmmmm.... And I don't suppose that we could hire a few more guys to look after upper airspace whilst the lower airspace folks can work with Farmer Brown et al?

Maybe I'm just a luddite

Yes, they could. I mean, they only sacked all the FSO's a year ago, I'm sure they could hire them back again. But they won't. Now they just have to keep fiddling with the airspace to remove any need to provide any service whatsoever- outside CTA (and therefore those that can pay pay pay). ASA is dying to get rid of directed traffic, have been for years.

FishHead, I seem to recall a system that did more or less just that 10 years ago (before redundancy) that Dick decided wasn't workable.... .I also seem to recall a lot of the indians saying at the time that a partial US setup wouldn't work in Oz... <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

LS. ."Another case of "don't confuse me with facts, my prejudices are made up" ???"

Isn't that just another way of saying "We have always done it this way, so we will not agree to anything that makes us do it any another way?"

Sport aviations way of justifying why they will not use a radio, and will never use a radio!!

The Lamp commitee asked Sport Aviation to use your radio at all times or if a competition was being held or a number of gliders were conducting a navex, to NOTAM the event so other airspace uses would know thay would be OFF frequency. But no, this was rejected because the have never used a radio and they have a God Given right never to use a radio so they won't and we will not agree.

No wonder no one takes them seriously.

As for the airspace in the USA being "Worlds Best Practice" why do they have 7 pages of differences to ICAO annex 11 and Australia has less 1 Page for the current system and will have less than 1 Page for Lamp.

twodogsflying

89 steps to heaven, thanks for posting the url's for electronic copies of the "NAS". It bugs me that the document is still not available from an "official" source which many will only settle for as can be expected, but at least now it is out there.

Re the LAMP final proposal. My info is that the only airspace working group representatives that did not agree with it were AOPA, the Gliding Federation of Australia, and the AFAP. The last is interesting. The operating companies endorsing it but those at the sharp end not -

As previously promised Mr Smith has provided a response to this thread as follows.

. . [quote] I’ve noticed many entries on this thread in relation to airspace which are factually incorrect.

The whole issue is complex, however it should be noticed that the main feature of the Airservices LAMP model is the deletion of the directed traffic information service for IFR aircraft performing instrument approaches at non-tower airports.

I understand that this removal is deemed unacceptable by the hierarchy of the major airlines, and also by the safety people at CASA.

This means the LAMP proposal is doomed to failure in its present form.

It should be noted that this proposal has taken three years to formulate, even though the Minister was promised by Airservices that it would be completed by the end of 1999. (See “A Policy Statement by The Hon. John Anderson MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services&#8221 <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

If any person is interested in having a briefing on the National Airspace System (NAS) model, please give me a phone call on (02) 9450 0600 or (0408) 640 221.

The NAS model harmonises closely with the North American model and gives a highly disciplined and efficient airspace system, which I believe will save the industry up to $50 million per year.

Just think how many more pilots could be employed for $50 million!

Most importantly, I suggest that everyone reads the NAS proposal and sends their comments, either for or against, directly to the following address by the end of this month.

Ms Jennifer Morris. .Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. .Parliament House. .Canberra ACT 2600

<hr></blockquote>

A few factually incorrect statements corrected herewith too:

[quote]. .I've noticed many entries on this thread in relation to airspace which are factually incorrect.

The whole issue is complex, however it should be noticed that the main feature of the Airservices LAMP model . .<hr></blockquote>

It is not the "Airservices" LAMP model - it is the model developed by the LAMP Airspace Working Group, of which Airservices was/is one of the 14 or so members. I am told that Airservices organised and assisted the LAMP meetings & forums and presented progress reports etc. but that is all. Allow the AWG members to take credit for all their hard work over the last two years please, not brush it off as an Airservices exercise.

[quote]. .is the deletion of the directed traffic information service for IFR aircraft performing instrument approaches at non-tower airports. . .<hr></blockquote>

I understand from reading the LAMP Concept of Operations document that this is addressed by the addition of E base FL125 and as low as A075 over MBZs, which are stepped up to meet the overhead E airspace. This means that an aircraft with at least a 3° profile will go from E &gt; MBZ or vice versa. DTI is not currently provided in MBZs, and the expansion of E airspace vice the current G is an improvement.

[quote] . .I understand that this removal is deemed unacceptable by the hierarchy of the major airlines, and also by the safety people at CASA.. .<hr></blockquote>

You would seem to be wrong. The AWG included QF Air North Pearl Aviation Skywest Eastern Hazelton RAAA AN KD Sunstate, and I have been told that prior to Christmas most as well as RAPAC & DoD supported the LAMP model.

[quote]. .This means the LAMP proposal is doomed to failure in its present form.. .<hr></blockquote>

A wild and ridiculous statement, and not worth commenting on.

[quote]. .It should be noted that this proposal has taken three years to formulate, even though the Minister was promised by Airservices that it would be completed by the end of 1999. (See "A Policy Statement by The Hon. John Anderson MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Transport and Regional Services". .<hr></blockquote>

As I understand it, three years of consultation, airspace and procedures development and amendment, safety case preparation, facility analysis and costing etc. by a knowledgable team. Better a thorough job, than the rushed and haphazard G demonstration trial debacle.

[quote]. .If any person is interested in having a briefing on the National Airspace System (NAS) model, please give me a phone call on (02) 9450 0600 or (0408) 640 221.. .<hr></blockquote>

How about posting a URL where an official copy of the document can be obtained, so people can make up their own minds, save money and not get earbashed?

[quote]. .The NAS model harmonises closely with the North American model . .<hr></blockquote>

The North American model is largely not compliant with ICAO, as seem many proposals in the NAS, despite claiming to have minimum differences. Notwithstanding that, I (and most other pilots I gather) am yet to be convinced that Australia should adopt the US model in preference to one thoroughly thought out and developed locally as the LAMP model appears to be.

[quote]. .and gives a highly disciplined and efficient airspace system, which I believe will save the industry up to $50 million per year. Just think how many more pilots could be employed for $50 million! . .<hr></blockquote>

The NAS document has no detailed costing eg. Airservices staffing, equipment or any other specifics for that matter so the claim of saving $50M is unsubstantiated. The NAS model could also cost additional $ rather than save anything. Without a thorough analysis, we just don't know.

[quote]. .Most importantly, I suggest that everyone reads the NAS proposal and sends their comments, either for or against, directly to the following address by the end of this month.

Ms Jennifer Morris. .Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. .Parliament House. .Canberra ACT 2600. .<hr></blockquote>

We agree on one thing at least <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

I encourage people to download the LAMP concept of operations and safety case documents from the Airservices website (or phone the contact numbers and ask for copies), and compare the documents with the NAS one. The latter lacks substance and detail, and in many parts seems not thought out eg. the proposal for E airspace down to 700/1200FT AGL "in terminal areas with published letdown procedures but without tower services" - would that not be many hunderds of AD ie. every one with a navaid or GPS approach???

And submit your comments to the address given!

Enough of this. Pass the barley water, Myrtle -

Capt Midnight

To keep bandwidth under control the URLs of a site where the proposed NAS document has been kindly hosted by 89 Steps to Heaven in both *.pdf and *.rtf are as follows.

<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.pdf" target="_blank">http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.pdf</a>

<a href="http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.rtf" target="_blank">http://members.ozemail.com.au/~maddia/NAS.rtf</a>

<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> . .(Sound of Ice Cold Can opening)

Ah.....

To you Capt Midnight - Cheers !! <img src="wink.gif" border="0">

For you sir have saved me a deal of typing

:) :) :)

Kudos to you Captain Midnight. I appreciate your intelligent comments. Nice to know the REAL facts.

Good god!... Reasoned argument? Not what I expected....

Cap'n Midnight, thanks for that. Given my background, my view on the NAS proposal is from a slightly different perspective.

Call me a coward, but the concept of MOA's (Military Operating Areas) scares the bejeezus out of me. Whilst there are some areas that these could apply to (can't think of any off the top of my head), the idea of being out doing my thing in an area when any Joe-lightie could come wandering through terrifies me. See and avoid just isn't going to hack it for me.

I might fly a slow and lumbering aircraft compared to an F-111, but compared to a Duchess/Seminole/C-150 outta Parafield it's a lightening fast beast. See and avoid doesn't do it for me when I am down low conducting a ditching drill in my training area, no speed up my sleeve for maneouvering, ****** all forward visibility due to my high angle of attack, and the chance that half my cockpit windows are covered with a sheet of canvas to simulate IMC. <img src="eek.gif" border="0">

Perhaps Mr Smith could help me out here and educate me on why MOAs are a good idea? I'm open to new ways of doing things - so long as there is a valid reason for doing so.

(Edited - Sorry about the stars, I didn't think that bugg-er was a naughty word!)

[ 23 January 2002: Message edited by: FishHead ]</p>