Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

AOPA Presents a NAS Seminar for Sydney Pilots

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

AOPA Presents a NAS Seminar for Sydney Pilots

Old 24th Nov 2003, 13:09
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WA
Posts: 61
It was a good turn out and thanks Ron and Mike Smith. Great job.

There is only a small minority against NAS, like in anything people hate change.
C182 Drover is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 16:37
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
The small minority are the VFR's flying around for free not paying to maintain the infrastructure, and the majority are those aircraft full off hundreds of people, paying to keep the system maintained. The majority are against NAS, the small minority with the Minister for Transport in their back pocket, are for it, purely out of selfish reasons.

Yeh I know I'm in the BugSmashers Room now so I'm gonna get paid out on, but if just one of you sits and thinks about the greater good rather than just your own little patch, you may start to question the wisdom of this disgraceful airspace change.

Anyway cheers.

FACT: E airspace is not as safe as C airspace.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 18:43
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
ANSA

If we did away with unnecessary separation requirements, AND if we did away with the priority system, AND if VFR were not made to subsidise the system by way of an AVGAS levy, then PERHAPS you'd get some sympathy.

Unfortunately, RPT etc are in it to make a dollar, so they lobby for us to share their costs. We don't want to. Simple.

Another fact

E is safer than G, and there will be more E created than C lost.

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 19:55
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Devil Bazaar....

So let me get your “VFR SUPPORT for NAS” argument straight:-
E is safer than G
– IFR are the only category affected in this change SO WHY DO YOU VFR’s CARE!
– You are in effect attempting to dictate the level of service provided to a sector of the industry (IFR) that DO NOT support NAS and YOU DO NOT REPRESENT!

IFR will foot the bill for extra E, guess they can blame Dick and AOPA for that! (Jeez that sounds familiar)
and there will be more E created than C lost.
- “C lost”. So I assume in that context you agree that where C is replaced by E the result is a reduction of separation services available to both IFR and VFR.
- Resulting in nothing other than VFR being able to listen to “Faith No More” rather than use a radio and receive ATC services above and around terminal areas.

And besides, how is it that you consider acceptable justifying a program of reform where the creation of a volume of one class of airspace in anyway justifies the removal or downgrading of another volume of airspace. Basic stuff!!!!

Can you remind me what your members whom you purport to represent and VFR GA in general actually get from NAS that they could consider a WIN?!?
Capcom is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 21:02
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: messemate way to bondi icebergs
Posts: 403
Grrr

I am very concerned as to the introduction of the NAS system. I can see very large flaws, particulary with this VFR no calls trash. I have flown out of Kununurra for the previous 2 years and there were several very busy VFR routes through non CTAF areas(classG). The routes in particular that concern me are the routes to the northwest, to forest river and kalumbaru and back to YPKU. There can be several A/C on descent back into YPKU from various levels and several on climb on reciprocal tracks. No calls when leaving the MBZ on BN centre or TOPD calls will put many VFR A/C on collision courses. The kimberley can be extremely hazy during the times of peak activity and whilst VFR vis can be maintained, see and avoid only, collision avoidance can be extremely difficult bordering on impossible.

I understand that I'm talking about a small portion of the country and these changes will affect the whole of the country but making VFR no calls in high density VFR lanes is so STUPID. Im sure that there are other areas around the country with similarly high VFR traffic congestion, that forsee there will be similar problems. My work now is predominately (east coast) IFR and it makes my situational awareness much greater when I hear VFR traffic broadcasting their intentions and that includes on BBN/MEL centre. When I down grade to VFR, then I promise that every time I WILL BROADCAST my intentions on centre because I actually care that those around know who, where, what Im doing and when etc. The suits who design the rules in the comfort of the aircon down in the eastern states dont care, make sure you do and broadcast intentions.

Let them have their new airspace but for [email protected]#ks sake, VFR MAKE RADIO BROADCASTS

Happy flying DR Shmoo
drshmoo is offline  
Old 25th Nov 2003, 21:43
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Hmmmm

– IFR are the only category affected in this change SO WHY DO YOU VFR’s CARE!
Actually I am IFR a lot of the time as are many AOPA members. However when the Wx is VFR I fly VFR.

IFR will only 'foot the bill' if the pull up IFR for no reason, i.e. in VMC, or if they use services, like C.

“C lost”. So I assume in that context you agree that where C is replaced by E the result is a reduction of separation services available to both IFR and VFR.
No, I don't agree with that at all. C lost = C gone = replaced by E, not some quasi political union inspired argument you wish to put on it. There will be less C but more E and therefore overall safety should improve.

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 08:06
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
No, I don't agree with that at all. C lost = C gone = replaced by E, not some quasi political union inspired argument you wish to put on it. There will be less C but more E and therefore overall safety should improve.
Andrew this is absolute rubbish; because Civil Air, AIPA and AFAP say something doesn't make me back it to the hilt.

Putting in 2000 feet of E instead of G over the GAFA does nothing to enhance safety, there is nothing to identify that this area of flight FL180 to FL200 has any risk now, or will have that improved under NAS.

A045 to A100 is where it counts, C is being replaced by E; there is masses of data available saying that this is a critical area of flight and that C is safer than E. Your self imposed safety scale doesn't add up.

On another thread you quoted some class A incidents and some class C incidents, how will NAS do anything about them; in fact because of the distracting nature of class E, these have been identified in the safety case as increasing.

Fact E is less safe than C. If I make a mistake controlling in C there is a collision risk, if I don't make a mistake in E there is a collision risk.

We will see when this all comes out in the wash, you will be bitching and moaning about the amount of extra controllers employed. I'll say, you wanted the NAS buddy.

Bottle of Rum
SM4 Pirate is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 12:47
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 62
copied from d & G

I have been in this industry for 24 years now, maybe not as long as some. What I can say is that having seen and at times been part of airspace changes in a few countries in the world. I hear the very same arguments over and over again, remember when mandatory position reporting was stopped, professional pilots had there arms in the air quoting mid air accidents would happen all over Australia it did not happen we accepted then that there would be an increased risk.

There are many examples of this worldwide and overall I hear stories all the time about America having greater radar coverage than us. Tell that to the pilots that fly over there in areas with no coverage and 6 to 7 times the amount of traffic, does that mean they are better? Do you think they wanted the change? Well I can say the answer to both is no, but they have now moved on and get on with it so should we.

I have an extract of an sop from a well known flying school re: NAS it clearly states as policy and teaching practice the following appropriate frequencies to monitor would be the same that are used today, we will now operate lights on always and transponder is switched to alt during run ups and will be amended on the check lists. Now is that not reasonable? The fact that most PPL pilots out there realise that large aircraft travel faster can have a heavier workload and find it harder to see escapes most of your pea brains.

You did not invent the wheel most PPL pilots do have a brain and some have more flying experience than check and training captains that I know. Last night I listened to Robin Brevill Anderson actually say what happens when a light aircraft descends through a small hole in the cloud at the same time as us and we collide (don’t quote me for exact words). Is he real? I now instruct and do BFR's etc the fact that most VFR pilots do not like to fly above cloud let alone descent through a small hole.

Remember the outcry again from you guy's when they introduced the PIFR how there would be an increase in midair collisions, well where were they? Give some credit to the GA industry in fact whether you like to admit it or not they are the ones that are at greater risk. We are a belt and braces country sometimes we only need a belt.

When passenger aircraft were first manufactured they had a built in safety fact of between 1.6 and 2. Today’s modern fleet has factors between 1.2 and 1.4 on average does that mean they are less safe? Sure, but that has now been accepted as being as safe as it needs to be and I don’t see that many aircraft falling out of the sky do you?

Most of you think I am a pro NAS supporter, I see good and I see bad but I am prepared to work with it and help adjust and try and make it work and be safe, not the view I see on this forum.

Take a pill or take up golf if you really cant see ways to make this work then I am afraid aviation perhaps is not your field.
2B1ASK1 is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 19:43
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Grrr

SM4 Pirate

Thankyou, Concur

2B1ASK1

You are in denial!

No Spin, no amount of baseless waffle and crap about union agendas can justify what is CLEARLY THE FACTS articulated over and over about the realities of AusNAS 2b.
Capcom is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 20:10
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Nup, not me.

SM4-Pirate

you will be bitching and moaning about the amount of extra controllers employed
No I won't. AOPA support this because it will (we are told) result in savings.

White rat airlines are having 2 bob each way, as are a few others. The RAAF can't work out airspace (which is why they have more than the USAF for 1/1000000 th the fleet) and AFAP and Civil Air have lost the argument through transparrent bleating.

IF it takes more controller, then the AIRLINES will have to ask for them. Then the AIRLINES can pay for them. I have no problems with that.

What this does is sets a standard of service that VFR need to operate and defines anything above this as service to commercial entities.

If the Government have got it wrong then they will have to foot the bill.

I personally am of the view that air safety, when it comes to the travelling public, is a public interest and should be funded from the budget, not some farcical user pays system anyway!!!

But that's just my view, comrade

AK
snarek is offline  
Old 26th Nov 2003, 21:28
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Perth, Western Australia
Posts: 19
This may help: www.australis.biz/nascomment

We thank Dick Smith for his personal phone call and for taking the time to add to our debate. Dick must be a very busy man and it is interesting that he sees it necessary to call and spell out his opinions to me, a relative unknown. Thanks for making those on my web site feel heard and important!

Before we all forsake flying and take up the safe pass-time of boating as interestingly suggested further below in a separate post, I would like to add my comments to Dicks.

Dick writes:

We have always had affordable safety and always will. In the 1970s the system was better, but it was 50% funded - over $200 million per year - by general taxpayers. The Labor Government at the time decided that this was to stop and that aviation should pay its own way.

I say:

It is my humble opinion that anyone who travels by air or who lives under an aircraft in flight has a vested interest in aviation safety. That is every member of our society today. Vested interest? Commensurate input.

Whether we support this or not, it is a fact of life and the Coalition, the Democrats and virtually every other politician supports this - i.e. it is unlikely to change, and we who fly will be lumbered with the costs from now on. That's the reason I work so hard in reducing costs.

Whilst this may be true, there is no reason that we should accept this! It seems that there is strong feeling that this should not be true, even from the relatively small number of entries at this site. We have a vote. Perhaps we should let the politicians know how we intend to use that vote.

How often have we been told that complacency is the biggest killer in aviation? Accepting that we must pay 100% from now on is complacency. Are the people who dwell under and use aviation happy for us to be complacent about the safety of aviation in order to save a dollar? Are they themselves blameless of complacency?

It is interesting to note that since the 1970s, we have had the major AMATS airspace changes of 1991. At the time, there were dire predictions of doom and gloom in aviation safety - just as there are now - however despite the removal of the full position Flight Service Class G service for VFR aircraft, safety has actually improved. The latest Flight Safety Australia states that the Australian aviation accident rate has "dropped significantly" in the last 10 years.

This ATSB article actually goes on to say “better awareness resulting from educational programmes was largely responsible for the improvements”. Nowhere does the ATSB attribute these improvements to any airspace reforms already in place. (Read for yourself, Page 11, FSA Vol 7 No 5 Nov-Dec 2003).

It can only be concluded as irresponsible then, that we are receiving, even today, just 8 days out from implementation, information packages on the N.A.S. latest and greatest.

The ATSB has stated that educational programmes contribute positively to aviation safety. The lack of education, as we see in the rushed implementation of the 27th November changes can only degrade safety.

Why is this implementation so rushed? Why is it being granted public scrutiny so (almost too) late?

It must be mentioned that since then, by removing the Flight Service full position system - which I agree was really good - that over $1.2 billion has not had to be paid out by the aviation industry. Can you imagine what the situation would be like if that change was not made? It would not only be Ansett that went broke, but many other operators as well. In effect, there would be many hundreds of pilots without jobs and many dozens of additional businesses in bankruptcy.

It was really good wasn’t it? So, our airspace as it stands is not as good… And we prepare to take it a step further. Backwards!

And Ansett went down anyway! Ansett was subject to all the fees and charges that all other carriers are (still) subject to – it was and is an even playing field. You cannot cite Ansett’s demise as an example for the affordable safety argument as no other carrier has (yet) gone down as a result of those financial pressures. I am saddened to say that, nothing other than poor management sent Ansett under.

If the Government had continued to fund aviation safety there would be less funding burden on the Industry than there is now. My flying over the years has certainly become more expensive through ‘user pays’. That expense is surely and evidently killing off the industry. Not a spectacular and visible fall but a slow and exhausted sigh.

I agree that there is a lot of criticism of this new airspace system. As stated before this is similar to the criticism I received at the time of the AMATS changes, which strangely enough is now the airspace everyone wants to keep (and has played its part in the safety improvements over the last 10 years.)

AMATS is only the airspace we want to keep because, as we are told, it is the best we are likely to be left with. The only options offered involve (further) degraded safety.

The ATSB article drawn from does not state that there is any evidence that AMATS contributed to improved aviation safety.

It should be noted that the reason for the removal of the requirement for VFR to monitor an ATC frequency enroute is so that the VFR pilot will concentrate on radio in the approach and departure space of an aerodrome.

If you look at the ATSB reports you will see that we get an extraordinary number of incidents in MBZs and CTAFs. One of the reasons could be that VFR pilots must monitor traffic when enroute and virtually all of this traffic is not relevant in relation to collision risk. One pilot I spoke to recently said that in 5 years of consistently flying VFR between Melbourne and Brisbane, and monitoring the enroute ATC area frequencies, he has never been in a position where he has had to answer an IFR aircraft for traffic reasons. All of his communication has been when in the MBZ or CTAF.

There are an extraordinary number of incidents in MBZ and CTAF. This is the point! Degradation of control services around aerodromes leads to a degradation of safety.

Oh to fly a GA aeroplane where one has the luxury of enough radios to distract one! If I am in an MBZ or CTAF I must monitor this terminal frequency. I am not going to be distracted by enroute frequencies because even if I were silly enough to want to monitor extraneous traffic on approach to land – I usually only have ONE radio. And in the real, slightly under funded world, this is usually the case!

If there are an extraordinary number of incidents in MBZ’s (as well as CTAF’s), why is the next phase of N.A.S. endeavouring to remove them? At least in an MBZ we can be expectant of ALERTED see and avoid, which evidence submitted here suggests is already an unsafe form of separation assurance.

One also must ask, where is the saving to industry afforded by the scrapping of MBZ’s? Air Services does not monitor MBZ or CTAF. If it doesn’t save money, why scrap them? Even the amendment to AIP when scrapping MBZ’s will cost money - not save it!

This is the classic "cry wolf" principle. Pilots are forced to listen to communication from high level airline traffic, which adds to stress and takes away from the concentration of traffic in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome.

A pilot can fly right across the USA in Class E airspace at 4,500' or 5,500' AGL. Much of the way, the pilot is below radar coverage but in Class E airspace. The pilot flies in almost complete silence, normally monitoring the local flight service outlet or the FAA recommended frequency of 121.5. If this system can work in the USA (with 20 times the density of traffic in the same land area) and results in a slightly higher level of safety than we get in Australia, surely it can work here.

I think the answer to this is – we don’t know if it can work here, the parameters are still too different to directly compare. It looks like we will all get to test it and find out first hand if further degradation of services around aerodromes which causes such problems now, will improve safety.

And I am not just talking about CTAF’s and MBZ’s but Class E over Class D airspace degradation of service and other N.A.S. design instances as well.

As you said in our telephone conversation, there is an improvement to safety, in the new N.A.S., manifested in the addition of vast numbers of cubic miles of Class E (more services) airspace in what was otherwise Class G airspace.

That improvement to safety is not refuted, but that airspace was Class G, and prior to alphabet airspace was OCTA, precisely because the traffic density was so low as not to represent a hazard in the first place.

It begs the question then – are we getting more Class E airspace as an expensive mitigator to placate the ill-informed?

Dick Smith

Gerard Street
CloudStreet is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2003, 05:20
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 29
This is a pretty crap site www.australis.biz/nascomment

If your email reply does not suite their case, it will not be posted. I would not even bother going there.
Mooney Operator is offline  
Old 27th Nov 2003, 09:52
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 71
Im sure they wont miss you.
WhatWasThat is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.