The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

To all Dick dislikers...

Old 10th Sep 2003, 21:41
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: On Top
Posts: 27
2B1 - Pull your head out - its dark in there!

10,000 hour flight experience I respect your flying ability but not the I am always right because I have 10,000 hours to say so, well Im sorry but your not always right and your attitude is why GA is dying.
Sorry mate, but I don't buy this one, it is a bigotted and unjustified remark. There are many reasons for GA going down the tube, mostly relating to costs.




I have flown in the sydney basin area for some years now as I instruct out of Bankstown on a daily basis this is arguably one of the most busy training areas in Australia sharing the same training area as three other GA aerodromes funny how in all this time I have not had to make a radio call in the traininig area to let other pilots know where I was or where I was going.
Well I can tell you fella that I have had to make radio calls on a number of occasions WITHIN AN MBZ to avoid traffic on/close to a collision course.
Out in the training area, the big sky principal applies and anyway class g outside MBZs won't be affected by NAS proposal so you have made a meaningless statement.
Skin-Friction is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 07:34
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

Skin-Friction your comments demonstrate what you realy know about NAS ie nothing! MBZ's have been put on hold untill suitable mittigators have been put into place to address the risks or perceived risks associated with there removal as raise by the regional airlines. As I have stated alot of work is being put into this by all sectors of aviation and all risks are being identified and addressed. Nothing gets implemented untill all safety issues have been addressed. Your tone suggests you may in fact be one of the regional jockeys that thinks the world will fall apart if things change, with your attitude it may well, I am not attacking you please try and keep a open mind on NAS alot of people out there are on your side and working for a better system. Dick does not get it all his own way I can assure you the implementation group are a mixed bag and working bloody hard for us to inprove Australian airspace.

GA aviation should be simple and safe teaching someone to fly is the easy part teaching them the rules and regs and understanding where they can and cant fly and why, its a crock and takes 10 times the training than the actual flying. Thats partly why GA is dying trust me the cost is only a small part, none of my students complain about the cost, they complain about how complicated rules and regs are and why there are so many restrictions. I have been in aviation for 23 years and am dissapointed on a daily basis in the manner we attack each other in other countries being a pilot PVT,COM or ATPL is something to be proud of and there is no I am better because I hold an ATPL attitude this is the Australian cultural difference everyone is on about don't even attempt to deny or justify it I have been on many sides of the fence and see it all the time, remember GA supplied that licence without GA aviation will collapse.

You are realy missing the point this is not about Dick personally I dont like the man its about lowering the accident incident rate and improving our airspace and safety standards and making GA a more user friendly environment. Just because you can't fully understand how NAS will work please don't destroy it keep your mind and eyes open I can assure you with the amount of people working on this every safety issue you can possibly think of has probably been raised and mittagated.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 10:43
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
There is another great thread HERE regarding NAS issues.
C182 Drover is offline  
Old 11th Sep 2003, 22:08
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Please enlighten me

its about lowering the accident incident rate and improving our airspace and safety standards and making GA a more user friendly environment....
How does NAS do any of that? current state? after 27 November? End state?

I can assure you with the amount of people working on this every safety issue you can possibly think of has probably been raised and mittagated.
The majority of mitigators are eductaion or pilots and or controllers... Where is the pilot training package for the next round of changes; how many people actually even know what it is they're about to get...? IMHO consultation has been disgraceful.

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2003, 17:22
  #45 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel

SM4 Pirate

Why I waste my time I don't know, the training package is there, just because you can't be bothered to get of your backside and attend the seminar's around the country or go to the 30 or 40 links and documents posted in various Mags and on various forums to find out the information don't assume others won't. What do you want them to do hand deliver it to you in a gold plated envelope please give us all a break.

Personally I think your a brick short of a full load probably a regional pilot that things GA owes you a living and the average GA pilot should not share the same airspace as you please impress me and show me otherwise perhaps read some of the info or stats on NAS and attempt hard as it may be to look outside the tiny bubble you live in and understand where its coming from and its potential to increase safety in our skies by easing the workload and looking out a little more to name just a few concepts. I suggest the best thing for you would be to give up flying and take a more appropriate hobby up such as knitting.

I notice that the majority of people that object to NAS are regional pilots Isuggest you all stop trying to protect your nest eggs and give a little back to GA the very people that got you there in the first place after all if NAS is so dangerous why are the national carriers flying into the US simple because its lucrative for them to do so. I dont hear them complaining about VFR aircraft transiting over major capital airports or they are worried that non radio equipped aircraft may stroll into their path why I wander? simple concept realy just because you dont have to carry a radio does not mean that the majority are stupid enough to do it. At least give Australian pilots enough credit to do the same. Sure you will get the odd dope taking the rules to the limit I suggest to you that they are the same dopes that do it today under our current system.

How you cant be so negative astounds me the US system has far fewer accident and incidents than ours this crap about them being so different is only a cop out a plane is a plane and we are only pilots if we can bring our stats down to similar rates then even better as I stated in my first post on the topic wake up and smell the coffee.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 15th Sep 2003, 18:29
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
You are one

Why make it personal, I'm smelling the coffee, freshly brewed every day.

I have participated in the devlopment of many HAZID's HAZLOGs etc, for implementation of procedures. To claim that I have little or no knowledge is a clumbsy attempted attack, I'm neck deep in the weeds of NAS implementation.

I am convinced that NAS is safe; but it is less safe than what we have now, show me why I'm wrong; CASA has just said that last week, when they approved the design safety case.

There are no cost savings to be had overall from NAS; sure some elements will deliver some savings, many more elements will deliver increased costs.

The US model works because of their infrastructure; which we simply do not have. To say otherwise would be misleading. Where is the evidence to say they have a safer system? Where is the evidence to say they have a cheaper system? There just isn't any; you can't line up apples and oranges.

The training packages are pathetic; and delivery of Stage 2B packages is under real danger of not being met; so what is it I'm supposed to be relying on? Where is the mitigation for many of the Hazards, which was pilot training? Mike Smith himself stated at the Melbourne J&M King road show; that he didn't understand the procedures himself; he came back after the break and corrected himself after being 'savaged' from the ML ATC implementation manager.

Where in the USA do the 5 points I listed earlier occur; how is it that NAS is the US model; when clearly it is not.

I don't care whether we get NAS or not; we might just end the process on 27 November, from what I'm hearing; which is to who's benefit.

Convince me it is safer than what we have today, I'm willing to listen and/or smell the coffee. Don't ask me to find out why myself (I think I'm fully briefed), that's just weak; tell me your side of the story.

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 16th Sep 2003, 15:32
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

SM4 Pirate

Your teasing me suppose I better hit you with some facts. Your welcome to look up the following statistics to verify their contents. To be fair to all I will pick the accident rates and fatality rates over the last 12 years both here and the US. Period 1992-2002 GA accidents and deaths US average out at 7.51 accidents and 1.45 deaths per 100,000 flying hours NTSB US report can be verified on numerous websites. Australia 10.80 accident and 2.3 deaths per 100,000 flying hours again can be verified on ATSB website. Some may think that they are pretty close after all whats 1 more death per 100,000 flying hours you may say. Its worse US have almost 6 times the traffic and flying hours than Australia. Further more looking at the two trends the US statistic are improving on a yearly basis not so in our case they have a made very little change and our annual hours are dropping in GA.
In fact when looking at a 30 year trend if we were ever lucky enough to match GA US in flying hours our accident rate would be around10 times higher looking at the trend of accident rates versus annual flying hours over the last 30 years.

Wake up Australia has an unacceptable GA accident rate, infrastructure my backside its clearly easy to see that the US system is better and although there will be a few problems in cultural change it will be for the better, don't quote US radar cover as a big issue simple fact US pilots look out the window far more than we do and are far safer they have managed to reduce the cockpit workload and allow PVT pilots to concentrate on looking out. The average student here has such a workload trying to avoid unnessesary large CTA steps, military zones frequency changes and fear of breaches and regulations he may or may not have remembered that actually looking out and flying the aircraft becomes second to looking down at his map and trying to navigate complicated airspace, I see this every day.

You have to be a regional jockey please stop trying to use NAS to feather your own perceived safety issues you owe it to GA. CPL and ATPL as in you case perhaps are a minority 6000 CPL 6000 ATPL and 18,000 PVT I think at last count Im pretty sure some regional jockey out there will correct me, thats not the issue we are all pilots and need a better system our accident figures are high many countries are adopting the US system in whole or part and are getting good results.

In answer to your statement I don't think your are fully briefed or have in fact looked outside the information provided to you by the workshop if you are neck deep in the process then with your attidude NAS is doomed to fail and GA will continue to decline in Australia. If it does end on the 27th Nov then it will be a sad day and you will have got what you want and put another nail in the GA coffin. I emplore all pilots to work together on this and help it work don,t listen to the crap about the training package not being out in time contact your local school if your not sure part 2b is not a great change just a small step of many changes dont,t let regional dictate how our airspace is run which in fact is whats happening and at our cost and there benefit simple fact the average regional does not think we should share the same airspace. There argument that they have such responsibility is also garbage, the prestige of being a regional pilot good pay and fast toys is the real motive. When the poo hits the fan and when the your final day is near, wisest of us know not when the good old human self preservation steps in and in fact passengers become non exsistent statistically and psycologically speaking please ask me for a refference if you wish.

I have no axe to grind, no fence to sit on or side to support personally I have always been a facts and figures man and dont jump to to many conclusions without evidence to support it. So to re-cap the main issue U.S accident rate not only lower but 5 to 6 times the amount of traffic GA booming Australia higher accident rate than most other non third world countries and dying please don't ask for quotes as I have spent far too much time on this topic. As I said smell the coffee or at least change brands. This is by no means personal so don't make that an issue.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 05:19
  #48 (permalink)  

Grandpa Aerotart
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: SWP
Posts: 4,620
For the sake of it I'll assume your figures are correct. You're assuming that all those oz accidents are caused by over complicated airspace causing pilots to not look out/see and aviod!

That's just rubbish. We have virtually no midairs in Oz...what 1 or 2 a year on average? The yanks have 20 or 30 which probably yields a similar rate given the vastly increased annual hours flown in the States.

NAS will have NO EFFECT on air safety in Australia!!!

NAS will have NO EFFECT on rejuvinating aviation in Australia!!

This is just 'spin' to convince dumbies.

Spend as much effort on reforming CASA and Flight Licensing Standards and you could improve air safety heaps...but that's just too hard!!!

Chuck.
Chimbu chuckles is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 06:26
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 964
Chimbu is 100% right on this.

I have supported airspace reform for many years (pre AMATS) and we do need it… and yes it would be good to see a similar effort go into regulatory reform and in particular training.

NAS will not provide any savings to GA whatsoever. It is not as safe as the existing system. That does not mean I am anti NAS – just a realist!

Part of the problem is that many pilots (both GA and airline) do not understand the existing system. (just listen to the r/t any day, especially the dredded readbacks) And why is that? Well show me the training in airspace knowledge and participation and where it is examined on? It's just not there. One is supposed to just pick it up from your instructor or training Captain .. and who sets the standards for that training?? Nobody! (and the AIP is not a training manual)

The major mitigator on the introduction of any changes is TRAINING TRAINING TRAINING…and don't stop. The training program for NAS is not good and there is no evidence that it will be on-going (five years plus?), which it must be in order to succeed.

"No known traffic"
triadic is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 06:54
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 12
2B1ASK1

I had the same thought as Chimbu how many accidents in Oz are caused by the airspace?

(stats mean nothing 9 out of 10 people know this)
roach trap is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 07:12
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

You guys are obviously to stupid to see the facts, thats the real problem stick to bus driving as thats your limit. You know very little about statistics cant enven get of your arse to look up facts, the figures assume nothing they indicate only that the US system has a accident rate somewhat less than ours and that most countries that operate a similar system are getting similar figures and this is over a 12 year period not just a snapshot, your attempts to squash NAS are pathetic to say the least. Wow lets ignore the figures and make up our own and I can get enough regional pilots to agree because it must be true because I say so come back to me when you have grown enough brain cells to actually give some real facts. REAL FACTS LESS DEATHS AND LESS ACCIDENTS! HELLO something must be working.

The NAS training package is working there are schools offering working nights across the country personal letters have gone out to school owners from NASIG stop wasteing our time atempting to de-rail NAS to feather your own interests I have listened to your regional representatives blackmail NAS by threats of walkouts I suggest to you that people like you are the real people that are destroying GA stick to what you know ie nothing.
We are working hard to improve flying standards at student level on a daily basis and things are getting better but is hard to get a student to understand and airspace system that is fractured and comlicated and has only been changed over the years to cater for regional airline demands.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 11:34
  #52 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

Roach trap

Try running a business and tell me stats mean nothing 9 out of 10 stupid people may belive this, mmmm interesting maybe you should run for prime minister and work out the countries budget maybe gov forcasted spending is not worked out on statistics or our road system not worked out on statistics or the sewrage plants and power supply you have a very interesting theory exuse me if I don't decide to run my company by wont you.

Statistics are just what they say they are if you lot want to twist and bend them to suit your needs then go ahead if it makes you feel better and more able to justify your week and crumbling opinions about NAS, perhaps you will de-rail it go ahead 1less death is one less death and 3 less accident are exactly that 3 less to top 5 to 6 times the amount of GA flying. Are you guys for real?.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 11:41
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 25
NAS

2B1ASK1

You are exactly the type of person the 'Smiths' love. Some flying qualifications and experience and absolutely no f*cking idea.

The fact that you believe that the NAS is safe for ALL airspace users is 'forgivable'.

The fact that you can not understand that the statistics you are quoting have absolutely nothing to do with airspace is not.

This combined with your inarticulate and poorly spelled ramblings perhaps demonstrate why we have the accident rate we do. Because they are being instructed by morons like you.
q1w2e3 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 11:55
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

q1w2e3

Did that keep you up all night thinking of what to say you would not have a clue when you have got more than 5 mins in the industry and actually have something intelligent to say talk to me Ill just get my secretary to check my spelling, who gives a sh#t the point is the same grow a brain. x
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 12:23
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: The Hornets Nest, NSW
Posts: 833
Snoop 2B1ASK1.....

Your's and the FAA's/ NTSB's figures match-up precisely. Unfortunately you have possibly either deliberately or unintentionally mislead everyone here by the lack of inclusion of the disclaimer....

...."Not all instances of either accident or inccident will be shown here for reasons of successful outcome"..... - FROM THE NTSB's WEBSITE!!!!

The "New and improved" rules relating to accident reporting came into effect in August 2000 - FAA - Accident Reporting

Loosley interpreted under the old FAA rules, an engine failure in a twin gets a mention in the FAA's/NTSB's database if the outcome is that the aircraft crashes or suffers major structural damage as a result. If the aircraft manages to land safely with either no structural damage or loss of life, then there is no accident/incident in their eyes as there was a safe resolution to the flight. They do have to report it, but there is no data compiled upon it nor is it included in their final accident figures.

As you are aware, here 'one only has to sneeze without a serviceable hanky and they call it pilot error', as a person who will remain nameless, but he went-on to head what was then the CAA, said once upon a time.

You've done well, but didn't have the full story of the figures you're quoting.

To paraphrase someone off PPRuNe about 5 years ago "Statistics are like lamposts - meant for illumination, not support."

It's all about context and apples and oranges - Your ball tiger!
OpsNormal is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 12:28
  #56 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Darwin, Mostly.
Posts: 159
Statistics

When text for the first year of an MBA is "How to Lie With Statistics", who in their right mind would ever believe them.
Given any set of raw data, and manipulating them with allowable, legal statistical analysis, you can get diametrically opposite answers.
As has been quoted, "There are 3 great untruths, Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics ".
When you resort to quoting numbers, you've lost, give up!
Pharcarnell is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 14:00
  #57 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

You guys are great Im glad you did not serve in the military as you feet would be full of holes. The only people twisting statistics is you guys sure they changed the goal posts in recording but I do have stats from over ten years ago and funny they pretty much say the same thing and just incase some of you want to open your minds to the real facts if only half the accidents were recorded from some parts of the industry here EG AUF then our figures would be so bad its not funny.

These figures are not to support NAS or argue the fact they are just raw accident figures. Anyone that is realy aware of whats happening in GA in this country would know that there is a shit load of accidents that happen yearly that dont get recorded or fall into the correct basket Im not twisting the stats in anyway the reson stats dont work in general is because of how they are used and or twisted.I would ike to see any of you lot try to run a business without them one thing I can be sure of is that it wont be a business for long.

Last edited by 2B1ASK1; 17th Sep 2003 at 14:18.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 20:31
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Stats, stats, stats...

2B1,

This is text from the official CASA documentation on the approval of the Design Safety Case...

CASA has reviewed the Design Safety Case (DSC) dated 1st September 2003 and makes the following comments:

1. The DSC identifies 10 ‘characteristics’ to be changed in Stage 2b, 7 of which are assessed as being not compliant with the US FAA/NAS model and thus subject to the Design Safety Case requirement.

2. The detailed evaluation of the presented DSC evidences that the Stage 2b implementation will bring about an increase in risk beyond that which exists in Australia today, but CASA is unable to determine the degree of this additional risk from the material supplied in the DSC.

3. CASA believes that the US FAA/NAS model is safer than the existing Australian airspace system. Therefore, any increase in risk over the existing airspace system will also be a greater risk than the US FAA/NAS model.

4. The DSC states that each airspace design and each procedure is safe.

5. Material supplied to CASA by NASIG claims that it is necessary for the full implementation of the Australian NAS that Australia transition through this interim stage.

6. Based on the statement contained in paragraph 4 above, the expectation that full implementation of the NAS will provide a significant decrease in risk and that appropriate risk mitigation strategies are in place in the interim, CASA has no objection to NAS proceeding to the next phase.

7. CASA is not amenable to these transitional arrangements remaining in place for an extended period and requires advice as soon as practicable when the transitional arrangements will end in accordance with the NASIG Terms of Reference (IG Task 4c).
I think we can draw from that text: (my slant from the weeds)

Point 1 AUSNAS isn't he same as USNAS.

Point 2 Stage 2b implementation will bring about an increase in risk beyond that which exists in Australia today

Point 3 This phase of implementation is increasing the already higher risk.

Point 4 Each element is safe; but is it safer, not at this phase...

Point 5 We are sure that end state will be safer than what we will have in November.

Point 6 Bring on the next phase, fast, we don't like this one...

Point 7 Hurry up... We think staged implementation sucks...

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 17th Sep 2003, 22:57
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 964
We are working hard to improve flying standards at student level on a daily basis and things are getting better but is hard to get a student to understand and airspace system that is fractured and comlicated and has only been changed over the years to cater for regional airline demands
2B1ASK1

The real problem is that the levels of training and any training in airspace participation is just not there. Every instructor thinks he is an expert, but is that the case.... I doubt it! Who taught the intstructor? What standardisation program is in place...? What examinations were sat and who set them?

The real deal with airspace is there is no real training, no standardisation and no exams. Only CASA can do that and they fail big time in setting standards in airspace education... and that is with our existing system....geeeeez!!

Any changes must be subject to additional education and a complete change in the way it is undertaken. And whats more over a long period of time (5 years).

Without such changes to education....NAS will fail ... no matter how good it is.


"no known traffic"
triadic is offline  
Old 18th Sep 2003, 12:39
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS

SM4 Pirate

Shame on you you like shooting your self in the foot.
Yes CASA has agreed that US NAS is safer than our system which is why we should have it as you are well aware, your one of the prime reasons for non compliance and the rest of the regionals attempting to change the model to suit there needs dont attempt to pull the wool over poeple eyes we would have the much safer US system if it was not for the basic bully and blackmail tactics use by the regionals at the workshop that were basically voicing personal feelings with no facts to back it up you and I both know this is true.

It has been agreed by many proffessionals the the US airspace system is far better for many reasons which is why many countries are adopting it sorry to say this but Austrailia is not the only country the has different requirements but we are the only country thats to arragant to accept change and move on.

You have only reinforce my previous posts and proved that the real reason NAS will fail is not to protect GA but to protect the regional jockey's wallet and jobs shame on you all at least my conscience is clear. You should start your own forum the proffessional backstabbers rumor network because in truth all regionals have done is put a knife in the back of GA with people like you we have no hope very very sad.
2B1ASK1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.