First of all let me say that despite all the lucid, logical arguments put forward in opposition to NAS (but not necessarilly supporting LAMP) Indiana's ramblings will take place in some format or other. "How can this be so" I here the gentle folk ask? Because it really doesn't matter whether or not his proposal is better or not, it gets down to "who you know and who you owe".

We have seen it all before. Airspace 2000, Airspace 2000MK11 and the Class G demo. All obvious and demonstrable failures from their inception but Airservices, CASA and the Industry were all forced to partcipate in Dick's fantasy.

Don't be disconsolate. You're not all wrong. That's just life in Aus aviation for now. And don't worry it won't actually be implemented. CASA and Airservices will both waste millions of your money (not his , but yes your's AOPA) playing out this delusion, just like before and then there will be the inevitable tanti (just as before) and he will sulk in the corner and we can all get on with our lives.

Pikey,

I know it suits you to argue that large sectors of the industry just don't appreciate his superior knowledge. I would however like to know, given he has now had numerous opportunities(with the full resources of the tax payer and two stints leading CASA), and by his own admission failed, on what basis do you believe he deserves another shot at reform?

You see you have to earn respect, admiration and trust. I see nothing in the recent past that warrants any respect for his or AOPA's reform agenda. I'm afraid your argument that he's not very "lovable" or good at motivating the great unwashed to participate just doesn't cut it. Guess what? Thats the hard bit.

Bit like having a cake that looks great and probably tastes fantastic but nobody will eat it because the chef scratches family jewels,picks his nose and abuses the customers.

. ."Neddy, open your wallet and repeat after me, Help yourself".

Just a quick additional point....why wouldn't the aviation industry for the most part think Dick is a Dick. It is he who under the banner of "affordable safety", managed to get rid of flight service, and make controllers do the job, concurrently with separating jets. As a result we have the ridiculous situation where farmer Brown is rabbiting on about how he's going to do a touch and go at Butt Crack Valley before proceeding to Cleavage Canyon (as he's entitled to do) all while the B747 is in Severe Turbulence and can't get a word in to request a level change. Hmmm yeh lets let Dick lose again so he can make some further "improvements to the system", as his track record is obviously spotless.

And one last thing Dick, that $50 million dollars you'll save under NAS, will that employ more pilots, or pay out some law suits from the familys of pilots who became the affordable casualtys of our system that was as safe as we could afford.

And sorry on a roll, I hope all you pilots who fly between 7,500ft and FL200 realise that rather than just getting directed traffic, under both LAMP and NAS you will be procedurally separated, and as such we will need in the order of 20NM by DME and 30NM RNAV to get you cleared into the airspace reference other punters, as such there will be a hell of a alot of grumpy ******s at 7,500ft calling us every name under the sun. I apologise in advance.

"Jealous" of Dick Smith?

Hardly!

What a strange comment from AOPA.

Neddy: right point; wrong example. And, ironically, the latter produces the former.

Dick Smith did not make the class G trial happen. He had no power to make it happen. Responsibility for the class G trial should be borne by the people who made the decision to run the trial.

Note: I make no comment upon whether the class G trial was a good or bad thing. All I’m saying on this point is that if you think it was a bad idea, at least blame the people who made the decision to run the trial.

Discussions about airspace proposals are in the main, and in this forum almost invariably, politics dressed up as safety. Somebody presents an argument that’s ostensibly about safety – and in many cases the author earnestly believes so - but the argument is really based on value judgments and is mostly about the interests of their constituents.

And that, as they say, is politics. And one of the skills in politics is deflecting the blame to someone else. Bear that in mind when the next airspace model is blamed on Dick.

Creampuff,

Give that man a cigar!

You are of course correct. To blame many of the ills of the past entirely upon Indiana would indeed be an injustice.

Many within CASA, Airservices and , indeed, various industry groups have aided and abetted his follies at various times in order to advance their own agendas or careers. Which, as you quite rightly point, out brings us back to our present predicament, how it has come about, and why it will happen again.

" I'm walking backwards for Christmas..."

Creambluff – Don’t know where you were when the “G” fiasco was in progress?

Quote:. .Dick Smith did not make the class G trial happen. He had no power to make it happen. Responsibility for the class G trial should be borne by the people who made the decision to run the trial.

Indiana was at the helm at the time! Are you suggesting that he was asleep at the wheel and unaware of what was occurring with G?. .Cream- you need to get out a bit!

Quote:. .Note: I make no comment upon whether the class G trial was a good or bad thing. All I’m saying on this point is that if you think it was a bad idea, at least blame the people who made the decision to run the trial.

The cancellation of the trial was well publicised, as were the reasons.. .Blame rest with those who would not listen to various sectors of the industry who warned of the dangers. . .(Not many people could have such influence as to ignore the wide held concerns about the model!)

Quote: . .Discussions about airspace proposals are in the main, and in this forum almost invariably, politics dressed up as safety.

This is the place for such discussions, political or not! People’s views are just that, nothing more, nothing less. However most can distinguish sound argument based on reality and that which is political rhetoric devoid of factual content.

Quote:. .Somebody presents an argument that’s ostensibly about safety – and in many cases the author earnestly believes so - but the argument is really based on value judgments and is mostly about the interests of their constituents.

The decisions taken on Airspace change should incorporate as many of the desired elements as is safely possible. The process of design verification must remain free of political interference! That delivers a sound system to its constituents ie Aircrews, Pax, ATC and the Australian populous (Who elect and pay our Government to act in the Public’s best interest!).

Quote:. .And that, as they say, is politics. And one of the skills in politics is deflecting the blame to someone else. Bear that in mind when the next airspace model is blamed on Dick.

Hey, you might be on to something here, Cream –

Step 1 - Indiana is promoting “Model B”. .Step 2 - Indiana is put on Aviation advisory panel (Of 3 people). .Step 3 - Model B is put up to trial to prove the Airspace professionals wrong?. .Step 4 - Airspace trial goes pear shaped. .Step 5 – Indiana has Hissy and blames Joe Contract Manager for approving his airspace fantasy!!

Political genius!!!!. . <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0"> <img src="rolleyes.gif" border="0">

What's going to happen under the new system at places like Ayers Rock, Karratha, Kununurra, Kalgoolie, Dubbo & Broome where you get a whole bunch of IFR Jet/Turbo Prop aircraft all turning up within 5 minutes of each other all piling into the circuit?? Will they all become non radar control zones?? Or will ASA put radar into these places?? Or will the aerodrome radio service be expanded to provide more of a traffic controlling role??

I don't quite understand how, under the new system this will work. Will ATC separate them all en-route whilst in class C and E. Or will they all be left to their own devices without traffic information!!???

Can you really think that having say 5 aircraft doing roughly 250kts all into the same area without knowledge of each other as safe??

At present with DTI information you generally receive it pretty early in the piece so then you can formulate a plan as to how you will get into without colliding and generally it works well as long as it's not to busy. Mind you if Virgin and or Ansett start going back to these places it could get a little more interesting.. . . .I personally cannot see how ,without DTI, a radar service or a Control Tower (proceedural or otherwise) the busier of above mentioned aerodromes/ local airspace will work safely. Are they all suppose to jump on the DTA and try and get a word in to seperate each other???

[ 09 February 2002: Message edited by: scud_runner ]</p>

SCUD – I suspect you are not Robinson Crusoe!

The problem is not easily or cheaply solved.

- DTI as you suggest with mandatory VFR call at say, 15nm inbound on the Area/ATC Freq, 5nm on MBZ freq and then approaching the circuit. . .Getting compliance might be nigh on impossible.. .- Third party on the field will cost as would remote radar installation.It may be needed if traffic levels are high enough!. .You would think it is possible to stick an MSSR head on a hill and add volts for not to much now days, although I have no idea of the actual cost. Remote radar would value add to the high level services also, surely a case could be made as to the value of such installation over its lifetime?.

Can’t help but think that operational reform in recent years is summed up in one statement-

“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!. . <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Mr Pike,

It may be a surprise to you, and AOPA offficials, that many Australian pilots are not AOPA members. The reasons for that are numerous but at least two are 1) AOPA appears incapable of effectively putting, and arguing, its message to a wider audience and 2) AOPA's apparent inability to effectively influence avaition policy formulation in this country.

Your most recent post further underlines that problem. Your arrogant dismissal of your critics, and refusal to argue and support your point of view in a wider forum by blurring it with irrelevant and disjointed detail, is one of the reasons why I have chosen not to join AOPA.

May I again invite you to answer the questions in my previous post and the following additional questions:

1. Would you care to name the "vested interests" you accuse of peddling half-truths? In the event you are unwilling or unable to name the "vested interests", would you care to discuss who the "vested interests" represent?. .2. May I ask why, in your canvassing of industry opinion, did you not extend your meeting to include any representatives from GA or the military? By the way, of those you spoke with, how many were AOPA members?

And may I suggest that the problem most aviators face with Dick Smith is not only his "undoubted impatience and abruptness" but his refusal to consider any view other than his own, his failure to consider factors outside aviation that might impact on and affect the idea and his view that critics in any form are to be ignored or belittled.

And, as Capcom and Captain Midnight have both said, you and your organisation have a great deal of work to do. The methods you employ at present seem designed to alienate, demoralise and degrade any person unprepared to adhere to your point of view.

Neddy, Your rocket-propelled guided NAAFI is ready for launch

. .Eccles - 'Allo dere. .Needy - Standing before me was proof that Piltdown Man was not a hoax.

Capcom

Most debates about aviation in Australia are also typified by ignorance. (Please note: I use the word “ignorance” in its strict rather than pejorative sense.)

In response to my statement that: [quote]Dick Smith did not make the class G trial happen. He had no power to make it happen. Responsibility for the class G trial should be borne by the people who made the decision to run the trial.<hr></blockquote> you asserted that: [quote]Indiana was at the helm at the time! Are you suggesting that he was asleep at the wheel and unaware of what was occurring with G?. .Cream- you need to get out a bit!<hr></blockquote>

Capcom: you need to learn a bit about airspace regulation.

At the time of the G airspace trial, and to the present day, CASA had and has no power to declare classes of airspace, or to determine the level of services provided in a class of airspace. Even if CASA had either or both powers, neither was exercisable by the Chairman of CASA.

If the people who implemented the trial were so lacking in integrity that they were incapable of saying ‘no’ to Dick Smith when they doubted the efficacy of ‘his’ model, then that’s an indictment on their integrity. Perhaps they were convinced of the efficacy of the model, but were happy to claim that “the Dick Smith devil made me do it” when it was no longer politically convenient to support the trial.

When I said: [quote]Note: I make no comment upon whether the class G trial was a good or bad thing. All I’m saying on this point is that if you think it was a bad idea, at least blame the people who made the decision to run the trial.<hr></blockquote> your response was: [quote]The cancellation of the trial was well publicised, as were the reasons. Blame rest with those who would not listen to various sectors of the industry who warned of the dangers. (Not many people could have such influence as to ignore the wide held concerns about the model!)<hr></blockquote>

You seem to be suggesting that the existence of safety flaws in the trial airspace, compared to the airspace it replaced, has been established as an objective fact.

I suggest you read in detail the various players’ evidence to the Senate Committee that inquired into the matter. I think you’ll find that decisions about single but crucially important words in BASI reports were made ultimately on the basis of political pressure, not safety. Letters in bottom drawers, shredding of documents, crucial elements of reports changed without anyone remembering exactly why – that’s a political process, not an objective safety analysis.

One needs only to read ATSB’s propaganda purporting to prove that Australian GA is safer than USA and Canada, to see that the ATSB is prepared to use dodgy methodology and preliminary figures to come to categorical conclusions about absolute levels of safety, for purely political reasons.

I say again: Discussions about airspace proposals are in the main, and in this forum almost invariably, politics dressed up as safety. Somebody presents an argument that’s ostensibly about safety – and in many cases the author earnestly believes so - but the argument is really based on value judgments and is mostly about the interests of their constituents

Creampuff,. .Well done, whoever you are, injecting a little rigor and intellectual depth to this debate will do a great service. Is this some conversion on the road to Damascus, this is the first time I have agreed with everything (or even anything) you have said.

Just maybe we are actually moving towards a useful discussion, and moving away for "all the usual suspects", shooting all their usual rather well worn barbs at each other, when they miss their own feet, which often seems to be the primary target.

But I am not holding my breath.

There is an immense bibliography on matters of airspace management, achieving acceptable standards of separation assurance ( target level of safety, ALARP, but not "safe", because that is meaningless) and the various methodologies used, has undergone progressive development over many years. Does anybody actually believe otherwise.

Except in Australia, a case of arrested development.

EVERY proposed airspace management change model presented so far has satisfied every reasonable criteria for acceptable outcomes, ie: target levels of safety, required levels of separation assurance or whatever term you prefer. Quite simply, they have to, the liability consequences, both personal and corporate, leave no alternative.

But still the successive proposals fall down, at huge cost to the Australian economy. ATC costs are a very significant part of the costs of an IFR operator, for a Regional LCRPT the AsA costs are critical in the viability of many routes.

Why? There are more reasons than protagonists, in this debate, where assertions parade as facts, and long held beliefs remain just that, held, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. There is obviously unfounded "faith" in the present "system".

The various claims for the efficacy of the non ICAO DTI has never been established, the principle (but far from the only) shortcoming would seem to me to be clear, it is just too imprecise to make any measurable difference in the current system level of separation assurance.

That argument is completely lost on the supporters of DTI.

Somebody dug up the "BASI and Alerted See and Avoid". Bit late, ATSB have given that one a decent burial, it was getting a bit smelly. Is this ATSB's conversion on the road to Damascus. Does objectivity and accuracy now rule the roost at ATSB. I don't know, I hope so, but I do know that closing this old file is a good start by the new team.

One lulu that is always trotted out is "Cultural Differences", I think it was bonez a few pages back who put forward one view. Are his assertions correct?? If so,why would this be?. .Could it be that the US system trains/explains the commonsense reasons for doing something, and the receiver thinks "yes, that sound reasonable, I'll do that".

In contrast, is the Australian approach: "It is mandatory-----" don't ask why, just do it or we will belt you round the ears with a whacking great fine if you don't", ----- with the predictable reaction, ----- "Up yours".

Actually, it is none of the above, quite simply because nobody has ever produced any evidence of any credible kind to support this assertion, bordering on a "belief".

On the contrary, we have done studies on levels of compliance with "mandatory" at MBZ's, and what happens at CTAFs. Ask AsA for copies. What it does show, in my opinion, is that Australian pilots are just as sane and sensible as their American cousins, despite the swinging differences in the size of the rule book.

Thinks about it, if this were not the case, how do Australian pilots flying in US ( or anywhere else for that matter) make a Total Temporary Cultural Adjustment (TTCA, not to be confused with TCA, or ATC), for brief periods of time.

If bonez is correct, I propose Australian license holders should be limited to Australian FIR's, until such time as they have completed TTCA training and endorsement, application on the prescribed form has been made, and the prescribed fee has been paid.

Tootle pip!!

Please be assured that I do not post anything here in the hope of influencing the yapping lap-dogs that inhabit the place. My hope to put a saner view point to those who read but do not chose to insult others from behind anonymity.. .LLAMPS is primarily about extending that uniquely Australian (OK some French Canadians have similar)invention MBZ's. No Directed Traffic Information in MBZ's remember, Rafferty's Rules separation there. I believe that E beats the Hell out of MBZ's. I do not accept that Australian pilots have to be regulated into submission (obvious CASA man here). I believe that we are as compliant as anyone, bit less tolerant of bull**** perhaps. You are aware that surveys showed that most aircraft transmitted in CTAFs and that about as many did not in MBZ's as in CTAFs for various reasions. Would any Australian regional pilot on site who considers himself unable to operate as efficiently, or see out as well, as his American counterpart please identify yourself? You are being called culturally deficient pilots by some. Long time since I was a commuter pilot, maybe you young blokes can't cut the mustard, do you consider the Americans are able to handle traffic that you cannot? It was interesting to read that a controller believes that Australian pilots would be lulled into a false sense of security in E because it is 'controlled". Are you guys really that stupid? I am here to be educated if you are. Maybe I am wrong about this, maybe you are an ocularly deficient culturally inmpaired sub-species this generation, if so please speak up. My opinion is that Australian controllers do in fact have a cultural problem, they consider controlled airpace to be "theirs " and the thought of VFR uncontrolled in "their" airspace causes them conniptions. Works elsewhere chaps. . .Goodnight to some.

The problem with airspace reform is that many do not understand why it may be needed and very little (or not enough) effort has been undertaken by the various proponents to educate those that need to know how to use or understand it.

Bonez is correct. There is a difference in "culture" but it is in the training and acceptance of the system, not in how one participates. LeadSled has explained it well.

The main reason for the proposed reform, one way of the other is the desire (better or worse?) by some including Airservices management to rid the system of DTI. Airservices clearly want no part of providing a "service" in class G airspace, notwithstanding the safety implications. I don't know anyone that believes the estimates provided by AsA of the cost of providing any of their services. AsA say it will cost M$15 more to provide NAS, but it is in their interests to make it more expensive, so like all their other costings it should be taken with a grain of salt!

The full ability of TAAATS to do what it is designed to do has been held off pending the introduction of low level airspace reform (this delay has cost industry millions!) It has now been left to such a stage that a major re-sectorizaton will more than likely achieve greater savings than any new airspace model.

The bottom line is that there needs to be some change in order to obtain a safe, more efficient and cost effective airways system (that is mostly in line with ICAO). This will not come about unless significant effort is directed at the education of all involved.

As mentioned above, it is Airservices that presently has the powers over airspace and not CASA. It is a sad situation where the ATC service provider and its senior management have lost all their credibility in regard to airspace reform.

Is it any wonder that it has not come about?

Firstly to Mr Pike, while I am aware that there is not complete radar coverage in the U.S and Europe, their coverage makes ours a pitiful joke and as such, from a controllers viewpoint providing Radar observed VFR info in these other Countries/Continents that you keep basing your argument on is possible and more comprehensive. . . Due to our severe lack of radar (next chance you have go to Brisbane or Melbourne Centre and observe how far out from Capitol cities we actually get VFR's at 7,500ft...not far!) ,I, along with many controllers feel that E airspace is not safe outside radar coverage.. . As far as radar heads being placed in Ayers Rock, Alice Springs etc., this was looked at about 5 years ago, and due to the high traffic levels was given the highest priority. Unfortunately, due to the dreaded bottom line and drive for profit, this has been indefinately canned and won't happen in the foreseeable future.

So please Mr Pike, when comparing systems of airspace could you take into account the underlying factors involved, in this case mose importantly being Radar Coverage. Otherwise we are comparing apples with oranges.

Triadic, other than giving controllers headaches from working with out of focus screens and RSI of the wrist and hand from clicking a mouse furiously to enter position reports, only to get the dreaded "data not current-repeat action"....... what exactly is TAAATS fully capable of???????????

Creampuff – I agree that ignorance and influence is an unfortunate part of Aviation in OZ!

I concede delegations relating to service establishment/dis-establishment/levels etc may exist elsewhere. In my experience, it depends on who you talk to, from which agency on any given day, the view will vary as to who has the decision!. Whilst that might sound bazaar, it happens in practice! ( Left hand, Right hand etc ). .Not withstanding, you are of course correct, others must have participated in the approval process. . .You may not be aware that many who objected to the Airspace for safety reasons ( Not political dressed up as safety ) were either shown the door or given a sound proof office. I am also aware of the coal face objections put by various reprentative groups! ( Without the premise of Ignorance of any description and with no political advantage as a result. )

You and I will have to agree to disagree as to why it happened!

Quote:. . You seem to be suggesting that the existence of safety flaws in the trial airspace, compared to the airspace it replaced, has been established as an objective fact.

Not one person I spoke to leading up to or during, (And that was a wide cross section of industry) considered it was a good Idea that a frequency for use in G was not accessible by Radar controllers to provide DTI services. . .Many had predicted the G frequency would be a useless cacophony of noise, and it was. Even more dumb was the idea that people could leave the G freq and obtain a RAS service. . .Jesus – you don’t have to be Einstein to work out that no one would know when to contact Radar for that traffic snap shot! Moreover the Radar controller sat there watching 2 go together unable to do anything! Great use of resources and well thought out, NOT.

If you remember there were more than a few reported incidents investigated thoroughly that led to CASA suspending the fiasco. In fact it took a fairly public lambasting before they acted.

As for your comments re: ATSB(BASI). .I have had dealings with this agency over the years and have never, repeat never had any cause to doubt their professionalism, motive or intent.. .For you to suggest such a thing shows clearly you know very little of the day to day running of our aviation agencies.. .To have done the things you suggest the Senate would have pursued it. Rather, a case of a ranting fool attempting to deflect his own culpability. Are you seriously suggesting that entire agencies conspired to cover up. Please…….!!. . <img src="redface.gif" border="0"> <img src="redface.gif" border="0">

LS

Quote:. .EVERY proposed airspace management change model presented so far has satisfied every reasonable criteria for acceptable outcomes, ie: target levels of safety, required levels of separation assurance or whatever term you prefer. Quite simply, they have to, the liability consequences, both personal and corporate, leave no alternative.

Someone in an earlier post mentioned the Insurance implications. Well that is borne out of the change and subsequent net reduction in tangible safety levels or the G trial.

Quote:. .But still the successive proposals fall down, at huge cost to the Australian economy. ATC costs are a very significant part of the costs of an IFR operator, for a Regional LCRPT the AsA costs are critical in the viability of many routes.

Agreed – So do we:-. .1. Provide services based on 1 operator’s ability to pay irrespective of traffic levels?. .2. Provide services based on traffic levels irrespective of who can pay or not?

Who makes that decision?

Quote:. . Why? There are more reasons than protagonists, in this debate, where assertions parade as facts, and long held beliefs remain just that, held, regardless of the evidence to the contrary. . .There is obviously unfounded "faith" in the present "system".

“Boldly going where we have been twice before”. I am yet to see the evidence to the contrary! If you are wheeling out our American cousins as the example to be set the consider this:-. .Radar is in most terminal and enroute corridors that have moderate traffic levels. Wild Bill admitted it, and there is the critical difference. . .America has more annexed variations from ICAO that most other countries, this enables our pilots to easily transition to their system as the variations allow Joe GA to start and depart and arrive at the other end having spoken to no-one. Everyone else new about Joe from the good old Radar folks! Or. .His track is that remote that all Joe will see is Geese and Buckshot.. . . .I haven’t seen that many GA Americans using our airspace however the few I have for the most part are fortunate we had ATC to keep them in the pipe, I suspect because they are not use to actively participating in the airways system.. .Does that make them better or worse?

I an not enamoured with the present system in the context of VFR in Non-radar E and G. At no time did I say the existing system is faultless!!

Sled- I am surprised with your comments re ATSB. . .Eminent persons such as Macathur Job have written about see and avoid and the results, as did BASI. Australia does not have to suffer our own PSA182 do we?. .It won’t always be 2 lighties in the circuit at HOX.

I know, I know your sitting there thinking Doomsdayist! . .No, just a realist! It has already happened and it will happen again, the Big Sky theory (luck) will catch up!

Quote:. .On the contrary, we have done studies on levels of compliance with "mandatory" at MBZ's, and what happens at CTAFs. Ask AsA for copies. What it does show, in my opinion, is that Australian pilots are just as sane and sensible as their American cousins, despite the swinging differences in the size of the rule book.

How do you record compliance? Rely on CAIR reports etc. Most non-compliance goes unreported. Most would have an MBZ or CTAF (“***** - what is that fool upto&#8221 <img src="wink.gif" border="0"> experience to raise the hair on ones neck.. .How do you record Movement rates? Most MBZ’s are not recorded nor acurate records kept, so who’s opinion are we relying on for traffic levels and are they saying what they are told to say OR does someone just guess? . .I don’t know the answer to that, does anyone?

One thing is certain, our industry cannot sustain higher costs... .How then do we address these issues in a way that delivers a result for all? . .To be honest I think that is unachievable in the current climate!

Until costs are levied in such a way that all sectors can have a bite of the cherry without it costing them their businesses, we will not resolve these issues satisfactorily.

Perhaps a start might be to :-

- Ditch LSP and returning to a Levy at Towered airports and allow it to operate as one entity with one income.. .- Levy free fuel for those airports in areas not receiving terminal services

I have probably opened Pandora’s box even suggesting the above!

If anyone has a better idea, let’s hear it... . <img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

[ 10 February 2002: Message edited by: Capcom ]</p>

Downunder111. .The human interface problems are noted in your post and I don't argue with what you say as I have heard it many times before. What I was refering to was the operational capabilities of TAAATS. Get the sector boundaries right, in line with workload etc and there is a great potential to save whilst in many cases improving efficiency.

The argument can be used that Class E is used without radar in many countries. Does that mean those countries accept a different level of safety or we can't do it?

AOPA Bill. .Good to see you in the discussion. I don't believe that you really understand some of the issues. Although mentioned above you make no mention of the VFRs in Class E, which from what I can see is the major problem of acceptance by IFRs. Especially if another VHF frequency is involved.

Capcom. .The survey's commented upon I think you will find were undertaken over a period (a few years back) where an team of people were paid to go to various aerodromes with a VHF radio and report on movements and calls.

This whole thing went off the rails with the introduction of user pays and LSP. It was much better when our tax's paid for the service, and yes it was a service

Different topic completely, but when the towers have all been tendered out to the highest bidder (in many cases that won't be AirServices), almost certainly in the next 12 months, it will be all user pays. As such the status quo where the profitable towers (ML,SY,BN etc) subsidise the operations at Tamworth etc. won't continue.

I'm wondering how that will go down with those small regional IFR operators, and whether it will send some to the wall.

Anyway different topic.

And in reply to the question about whether those other countries using E Airspace in a non-radar environment are less safe, my response is comparisons are pointless. If it is unsafe and leaves a real possibillity of an accident (which this does as I have personally seen nearly happen on two occasions in 18 months) then even if the rest of the world does it we should not.

1st Priority Safety. .2nd Priority Safety. .3rd Priority Safety

Triadic,

I agree that the operational advantages of TAAATS are under utilised but there are still a couple of vital pieces of software that need to be added. One of them is a Flow Management system for the whole country and I am not talking about the joke known as Maestro. A strategic traffic Management plan should be initiated from the outer edges of Australias airspace, from there Sector workload and traffic planning, staffing levels etc can be monitored and increased accordinly, along the lines of the Eurocontrol CMFU which can predict traffic levels and allow supervisors to staff accordingly. Additionally, aircraft wholly within radar coverage eg. Cairns to Melbourne etc should be allowed to track direct to points within 80nm of destination for example. At present this is not allowed due to anally retentive management who have drawn up procedures based on isolated incidents. This direct tracking is a "Service" ATC should be allowed to provide and one where ATC is capable of providing in TAAATS ( imagine the savings to airlines).

To abstract the issue, the parties involved with reform all have their own agendas and vested interests. All want the best outcome for their stakeholders. Unfortunately, all proposals are restricted by a charging regime resulting in distorted solutions that really can't come close to satisfying any party (except probably AsA). Capcom has made one of the best suggestions prising the lid off that Pandora's box. User-pays systems always discourage activity. It is a Government decision (not a GBE or agency decision) as to whether regional and GA services deserve encouragement ie subsidisation. Think about the recent increase of the Sydney Harbour Bridge toll. Ability to pay applied intelligently. Effective reform cannot be complete unless the reformists can play with the funding mechanism. I'm pretty sure DOTRS is in a good frame of mind right now.

DownUnder111 gives a timely warning on the slippery slope we're on if/when the towers are privatised.