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 18th Sep 2003, 17:36
  #61 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
Angel NAS


I know I may be harsh on this subject and I am very passionate about flying in general. I agree with what you say but there is alot of us out there trying to stamp out the old sausage factory schools and improve training standards. I also know NAS is moving fast it would have moved much smoother and training packages earlier if the regional airline representatives present at the workshop did not insist on drastic changes. SM4 Pirate I apologise for being so harsh (bad day) I will edit it if you wish I am sure if you were present and are dealing with NAS you will understand what I am saying I may be directing it at the wrong person if so I am sorry. To finish most of my working day is spent trying to improve GA and has consumed most of my life and makes it difficult to not get hot under the collar so I apologise to all those I may have offended happy flying to all.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2003, 03:52
  #62 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Between the NAS lines.

Reading (with interest) this tooing and froing I am beginning to form a scary opinion.

It seems, to me at least, that in the sentiment expressed above, there are members of a certain group, who for brevity I shall call 'regionals', who think they should have all the say in uncontrolled airspace.

I am further surmising that this gaggle of 'regionals' feel GA should just get out of their way.

Now this is dangerous and could be expensive. I operate from a regional airport. Whenever a 'regional' comes in we ALWAYS do the right thing and extend (or whatever) so they can get in and out as quickly (and thus cheaply) as possible. Not the law (and it never will be) but courtesy? yes, also though an important part of keeping the profit margins where you 'regionals' stay viable.

Now, should one or two of you (I am loath to paint all 'regionals' with the same brush) so p!ss GA off to the extend an enimity forms, your safety, timetables and profitability could suffer as you are told to "get st^ffed, slow down and join the circuit!", then possibly, there go your jobs!!!!.

So those of you who THINK you have some sort of priority, and those of you who know a fool who thinks this, sit down, do some naval gazing and work out where the political lobbying power is.

As for NAS, the sooner the better, I am here in LA at the moment and, apart from [email protected] visibility, the system works fine and me n my bugsmasher get the same priority as a white rat jumbo


snarek is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2003, 05:56
  #63 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
sore toes?


Sorry, you need to understand context.

CASA has stated that US system is safer, we are not getting their system! That's my point. If we were, bring it on, you are beleiving the bad PR.

The US model is safer, why? Terminal airspace, statistically is safer; because most of the terminal airspace is call B. and has Transponder and radio vails. Are we getting that? Control towers, with radars at most RPT destinations, etc.

Enroute airspace statistics is reversed; Enroute here is safer, than the US system. Why because less Class 'E'; which is statistically less safe than Class 'C'.

This phase is giving us the worst of both possible combinations; no change to the less safe Terminal areas; which CASA says is less safe, combined with lots of change to the enroute areas which is already safer...

This is why I think this sucks, not because it isn't safe, it's because it is less safe, and doesn't save money... So why do it? The money isn't real, the big boys say more costs, the provider ASA says more costs, more cost to them equals more costs to users and customers, who benefits from that other than consolidated revenue?

PS I'm not a regional... keep fishing...

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 19th Sep 2003, 07:27
  #64 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Enroute airspace statistics is reversed; Enroute here is safer, than the US system. Why because less Class 'E'; which is statistically less safe than Class 'C'.
...... .....Oh my gawd, why I am I not friggin surprised? Only several tens of thousand more planes plying the skies at any one time perhaps? I am only guessing SM4 not lost his virginity cause its less safe.
Winstun is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2003, 11:03
  #65 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: oz
Posts: 12
2B1ASK1 I think you missed the joke in my comment but I would not expect much less from an obvious to$$er
roach trap is offline  
Old 21st Sep 2003, 17:31
  #66 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Winny you are a fool. We are implementing the worst of both systems; that's the point.

The stats say eighteen times more planes, 20 times more ATCs, 30 times more incidents in enroute...

As for my virginity; further evidence of the first line in this post.

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 22nd Sep 2003, 14:12
  #67 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 25
Crikey the hidden agendas must be stinky for so many groups to be hammering so many others within the industry. I'm not a Regional but let me get this straight - fairly fast aircraft, busy in the cockpit, full up with POBs down the back, no-radio traffic, no mandatory calls, no specified area freq, no mode Charlie, not even a freq boundary, all sorts of things in the air from Hornets to plastic seat with a lawn mower engine driven by anyone who can afford a plastic seat and a lawnmower engine - in busy terminal areas.

Everything recommended - nothing prescribed - yeah that's gotta be safer. Why not scrub all the lines on charts, wipe the AIP, and ditch ATC - gotta be safer! Hey we could do that with the pharmaceutical drug industry - drug prices would drop - everybody coud afford them because the companies would drop prices (whilst maintaining quality of course). The US drug system would suit us to a T.

You guys!!!!!!!!!!

Us turkeys!!!!!!!!!

You got us a bewdy there.

Yeah - the Regionals have a reason for concern. Especially with all of those peddlers of US NAS cure-all poison. They have all the statistics, from another country, in another environment, with different people, with almost total RADAR to almost ground level. Anyone who has been around aviation safety for more that five minutes knows the value and hazards with safety performance indicators - they are just not accurate to the point of being worthless - never mind if they are from another system in another country.

What smells to me is the energies the IG has gone to implement without design safety case. Tantamount to selling a used car without a warranty and so there goes the IG's credibility and integrity day one. Why implement a system warts and all when you have an opportunity to get the best and discard the crap. Are we really so dense that we think that US NAS is perfect.

You lot have two choices - accept the good with the crap or lobby for the best outcome overall with reasonable safety margins that are appropriate to AUSTRALIA and not the United States of Australia.

Watch out for those who do not wish to compromise, argue only with dodgy stats, keep saying this is good for you etc. They have the scariest hidden agenda. You will also find them hidden underground when we have the first attributable collision.
KAPTAIN KREMIN is offline  
Old 23rd Sep 2003, 09:17
  #68 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 138
Sorry to take so long to get back to you..

Thanks for all the posts folks, however I feel we've been sidetracked by the NAS a bit. The topic was really intended to challenge the concept that Dick didn't care about aviation in Australia. Having said that, I'll now get sidetracked too.

All the well constructed argument about the NAS is interesting, but the case for the negative has been repeated for years and never backed up with sufficient facts to support the argument.

There is plenty of argument citing the benefits of an ATC separation service, however, this does not seem consistent with the fact that many mid-air collisions occur in CTR's or the circuit area. A mate of mine had a mid-air in the AF circuit and survived, and the closest I've come to a mid-air was in the Wagga CTR although I'd spent years in the BK training area which as we know is quite a bit busier than Wagga, and this was back about 10 years ago when BK was really busy.

For years I felt compelled to disbelieve the rhetoric that many in the industry were quite happy to accept and perpetuate. There are literally hundreds of examples that I could cite in support of the concept of see and avoid and the real safety benefits of the NAS but I'm sure that those opposed to it are unable to accept the argument for reasons that are deeply rooted in their concept of safety. I, too, am unable to support the philosophy that it is better to have someone else responsible for my safety. They are not sufficiently connected to the results of their actions to enable me to rely on them any more than I need. And because they are not sufficiently connected to the safety and efficiency of my flight operations, then it is obvious that they will err disproportionately on the side of safety, unless they make an error....

My argument is that this does not mean greater safety. This disproportionate bias toward safety away from efficiency fails in a wholistic sense to result in greater overall safety. It aims for greater safety in an area that is already low risk.

Look up the accident stats on the ATSB website if you wish, but I'd guess that you don't need to. You would already be well aware that mid-air collisions account for very few lives. The interesting thing to note from all the mid-airs that have occurred over the years is that more than half involve gliders. Not one in Australia has involved an RPT aircraft. More effort should be put into solving the problems that account for accidents year after year. The only thing that stops us from doing it is the fact that that would not benefit us, the professionals in the industry.

Perhaps that is why Dick has sought to introduce this change. Because we, (read pro-pilots, ATC, and CASA) have failed to adequately consider the problems of the weakest links in the chain. Do you think that we might carry some of the blame on this score?

I can understand other's reluctance to change, especially since their whole concept of safety is so deeply connected to the idea that MORE IS BETTER . If some radio talk is good, then more is better . If some checks are good, then more are better . If some ATC is good, then more is better . If some aviation regulation is good then more is better .

What this philosophy fails to accept is that too much of anything is not good for you . As someone once said, in a debate about "Is too much sex good for you?", "Of course too much sex is not good for you, that's what too much means!

Things need to be in correct balance. And just what is the correct balance?

I'd guess that the correct balance is struck when the system is able to handle more traffic for less money and effort in the same safety. The correct balance doesn't discount the abilities of any player in the game, instead it relies on all players to work in together. The correct balance doesn't rely on heroics out of anyone. It requires a team effort.

The reason why a disproportionate bias toward factors that we would prefer to address, rather than factors we really need to address, results in less overall safety can be explained quite easily. The fact is though, that it may not be so easily understood, especially if you have a mindset of safety based on flawed concepts.

We as human beings are finite creatures. That is, we can only do so much, process so much, and make sense of so much. If we place an undue emphasis on a factor that has little to do with safety or efficiency then we actually reduce our ability to do, process, and make sense of, those factors that in reality do pose a hazard to our prospects of reaching retirement age. In addition to that, we fail to adequately do , process, and make sense of, air traffic in the belief that it is being done for us, to a greater or lesser degree.

Truthfully, as has been pointed out in the latest AOPA article titled "Do we have an aviation culture deficit?" I think we have.
John King is quoted as saying, "Everything about aviation in Australia seems to be more difficult than in the US."

This could be justified perhaps if we were less capable pilots, less responsible, less respectful of authority, or just plain immature. What do you think is the answer?

Personally I believe that we are at least as capable pilots, at least as responsible, and probably more respectful of authority.

By the way Chuck, I accept your advice about the use of multi-crew analogies. And I didn't intend to patronise. It may have seemed patronising, but believe my intentions are honourable. I have great respect for you and your opinion despite it differing from mine. It has been made abundantly clear to me that only together can we make our industry safe, not in spite of others.

A bit like the philosophy of CRM, yes?
He hesitates to use another multi-crew analogy...

Life's a bitch, then you fly...

Manwell is offline  
Old 27th Sep 2003, 18:47
  #69 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Did it occur to you that the reason for the lack of RPT collisions is the system that you are attempting to dismantle?
WhatWasThat is offline  
Old 29th Sep 2003, 17:21
  #70 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Emerald, Vic, Aust
Posts: 183

Actually, no!

It is more likely because at most of our RPT airports outside Class C you could stand on the runway 23.5 hours a day and not get hit by anything except training aircraft following existing - and more stringent proposed - CTAF rules (given that the new CTAF rules embrace MBZ procedures).

I'm not sure how the existing IFR to IFR separation arrangements by radio, not including any VFR component, are watered down by the NAS in the out of radar areas.
Brian H
brianh is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2003, 06:39
  #71 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

I had a look at airspace around brisbane last night, just for some light entertainment.

Little lines everywhere, everyone getting out of the way of Brisbane (and I have no problems with that, however a little simplification would be nice), but Maroochy, spare me!!!

It is C, to a certain level, then D. It is C out of Brisbane, D around the tower, but only at certain times and not unless Mrs Jones of Coolum has had a roast chook for dinner this month.

No simple corridors anywhere, no easy transits, no wonder gun happy knuckleheads had a lightie in their sights!!!!

Roll on NAS I say, lets clean up the mess and make flying fun again!!!

Andrew Kerans
AOPA Director
snarek is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2003, 10:43
  #72 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
the idea that MORE IS BETTER . If some radio talk is good, then more is better . If some checks are good, then more are better . If some ATC is good, then more is better . If some aviation regulation is good then more is better .
Fair point Manwell.... but let us change the record....

Years ago we had MORE ATC services, I thought it was good.
Now we have DEGRADED SERVICES.... and using your argument more DEGRADED services would NOT be better ... hey, I agree.

Nowadays we are getting charged MORE $$$ to fly, once again, I agree that less $$$ is better.

This argument of yours will work well, if you are on the same side of the fence as the person you are arguing with.
Say for example, you want to argue with a bean counter at QF, and the argument is about COMPETITION... some might argue "More is Better", guaranteed that QF exec will disagree that more competition is better... FOR QF! Speak to Joe Public... he will say that 'More competition IS better, because he gets better service at a lower cost, and more flexibility with his travel."

However ther ARE times when I will agree with this theory of yours .... MORE OF DICK SMITH, is DEFINITELY not better!!!!

I am still having a hard time trying to figure out what "too much sex" is.

BTW, if regionals started sacking pilots for 'joining the circuit on downwind', or by having a less courteous GA, then maybe they shouldn't be in business! If your entire profit margin is based on a C172 giving way to your DHC-8 at Moree, then YOU have problems!!!!

Sure, it helps but Jeeez.... what sort of a threat is that ?

Reading back thru SNAREK's post .... I too have flown in LA, and whilst I agree that the visibility IS poor, and the ATC service IS good... I must say that I would HATE to be having a problem where i required ACTUAL help from ATC, as one just cannot get a word in at a controlled and calm pace. there are also twice to three times as many freq changes required.

I also have a couple of questions for you :
1/ How much money does the FAA ( or whoever) get from the taxpayer to fund ATC in the US ? (I honestly do not know)
2/ what percentage of that money makes up the entire budget for ATC in the US ? (once again, I honestly do not know)
3/ from the shortfall, how much does the average PPL have to pay every time he flies ? (once again, I do not know)
4/How much tax is there per litre of AVGAS/AVTUR bothe here and in the US ? (again, I do not have actual figures)
5/ Why is it that AOPA is a vehement supporter of DICK SMITH? and considered a joke by the rest of the aviation fraternity in Australia ?

Is it any wonder that the AOPA acronym has a somewhat differing meaning to what the association would like ?

I apologise, snarek, if this is a little personal, however I have found in my experience, that Dick, and to a lesser extent AOPA, have NOT made the airways either safer OR cheaper for me.
apache is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2003, 11:17
  #73 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

I have been on the board for 3 years now. I didn't enjoy the first two. On that Board the wisdom of a couple of members was unassailable. This board works, and it works well and effectively across the spectrum of GA.

I didn't support NAS then. Because I don't ever trust force fed wisdom, and that's all I got from the dominant board members and from both Smiths.

Now, while I find Dick Smith to be a little full of his own importance, I took the time to listen to him re NAS. He has his own hype sure, but he made sense.

I also spoke to Mike Smith, now he and I probably don't like each other, we certainly joust. But he has a job to do and delivers his message well.

The same can't be said for the transparrent scaremongering of CivilAir and AFAP.

It is that honourless rubbish that has contributed as much to my support for NAS as the Smiths. However I personally (ie not the AOPA view) think NAS needs ADSB to allay the real fears of the one or two genuine people on here.

But those that think AOPA is irrelavent are probably skipping hapilly in a field of claymore mines. This is a new AOPA, with political experience and clout and the ability to get the Government to listen. If the AFAP and CivilAir people are stupid enough to ignore such a foe, then winning for NAS will be easier than i thought and they are stupider.

snarek is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2003, 11:35
  #74 (permalink)  
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
It looks like AOPA ballsed it up in representing their members with NAS. It appears the media do not even know who we are to even rank a mention. This needs to be changed so we capitalise on the use of the media to help us move forward.
C182 Drover is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2003, 15:28
  #75 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 271

the name AOPA was mentioned and you haven't frozen the post.

I take it that things are going "swimmingly" if one of your mates posts, but if someone else, does things go sour.

Why don't you let these blokes "spruik" on the AOPA forum and let us people who see through their perceived importance in GA get on with being a strong opposition to their aquiesance with CASA. This mob have been neutered and not by the members, but their own doing.

Strong representation, STRUTH !!!
axiom is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2003, 16:03
  #76 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 70
Posts: 4,275
Axiom et al

Use of the word "AOPA" in a post is not reason to close or moderate a thread.

I have no association with AOPA, but am getting tired of attempts to subvert PPRuNe into an "unofficial AOPA web site for the disenchanted" and the time taken to read (and moderate) uninteristing, repetitious ramblings, which rightfully belong within the AOPA organisation.

Or anywhere, except PPRuNe!

I give you fair warning: AOPA topics of general aviation interest are welcome on PPRuNe. However should the thread degenerate into repetitious, rambling, slanderous direct or indirect attacks on anyone (AOPA Director, Member or any other person), the threads will be removed and posters banned - without fear or favour!

If you don't like the Rules to play with Danny's toys, go get your own toys.

Woomera is offline  
Old 30th Sep 2003, 18:46
  #77 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Sydney
Posts: 817
Please don't misunderstand me, which I am sure you haven't. I respect your words, and your ability not to take my post personally. However, I am also sure you can see why I do not entirely trust the organisation you direct, as a matter of fact I have banned my fiancee (years ago, but still ) from buying Dick Smith products.
I am all FOR change, when it is for the better. Air Services Australia did not get the axiom of Air NoServices for no reason, and whilst it is NOT the fault of the guys and gals at the coalface who are to blame, a continued reduction in VALUABLE services is NOT acceptable to me.
Since I started flying I have seen :
Tower closures
Sydney Airport closed due lack of staff
Degradation in the quality of pilot training
Cost of flying (excuse the pun) soar
Class G Airspace reform, which led to many near collisions and, which after being rejected by the industry AS A WHOLE, is being brought in by stealth... starting in the NT.
Congested CTAF's , resulting in many a near miss.
LSP fees including for circuit training.
Pay as you fly, resulting in pilots flying less than IFR machines in TOTAL IMC to save a few bucks
Fuel Crises.... including a group (nameless) who used it to "drum up membership"
CAO48, which I believe was in place to PROTECT the pilot, about to be substituted by fatigue (mis)managment .

just to name a few.

I once flew with a pilot who said, whilst we were VFR, "DO NOT make any radio calls, as it clutters up the frequency... just listen!" Now, call me naiive, but if EVERYBODY "just listened' then there would be nothing to listen to! ie just like flying without a radio at all..... now THAT to me reeks of the 1920's et al.

In EVERY instrument rating renewal, I have been told, and DO, use everything at my disposal... an UNUSED instrument is a USELESS instrument.

If, as you say, AOPA has become a force to be reckoned with... why not take up a legitimate fight, like pilots wages and conditions? You can start with the instructors, which will lead to a better quality of training, less people going north with starts in their eyes, and will flow on to a pilot shortage in the north which might lead to pilots being paid what they are worth/entitled to.

please prove me wrong.
apache is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2003, 21:11
  #78 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 138

I come back to have a look at what's been going on since I've been away, and I'm a bit disappointed.

Please re-read the thread heading and rules of engagement, my rules. There are plenty of places you all can go to vent your spleen, just make sure it's not here. Reasoned, rational argument, please gentlemen. Otherwise, please play on someone else's thread.

Can't you blokes see how bloody obnoxious you become when anonymous? This thread is for general viewing, ie. I'd like you to be proud for your sons, spouses, Mums, etc to check out your posts.

To all the gentlemen who have observed my rules of their own volition, without the threat of legislative enforcement, I have a deep respect and admiration for you.

And the rest of you,.....I will, if you respect my rules for this thread.

Life's a bitch, then you fly.
Manwell is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 06:51
  #79 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429

Most instructors and low end CPLs are not members. If these people represented the majority, then thier gripes/problems would be represented.

AOPA is an organisation of its members. We aren't here to fight for non-members.

On GA, we are trying. last year we gave away 16 x $4000 'learn to fly' scholarships (funded by AsA). That has got to be a good start.

This year we are discussing an advertising capaign where we provide a 13AOPA number and people get given a TIF at THE AOPA AFFILIATED school of thier choice (we will give them the schools within Xk of their location), a logbook and a trial AOPA membership.

But to do more we need more. The money we get is membership money, we have to be very careful to make sure our MEMBERS get benefit from their subscriptions. That's why we aren't being a union for CPLs.

snarek is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2003, 16:45
  #80 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 194

Are you saying, then, if more CPLs/Flying Instructors were members, then AOPA would be more likely to take up their views and present them?

Sounds fair enough to me.

Safe flying

NOtimTAMs 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.