The sounds of silence............Nov 27th
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
snarek
You are showing your ignorance of the system .. primary radar does not go out that far and has little to do with the issue.
Your attempts to make this an industrial issue continue to be misguided. Give these people some credit for what they do. There are a lot of unanswered real safety concerns out there and nobody is prepared to answer them. That is the issue.
"No known traffic"
Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.
Your attempts to make this an industrial issue continue to be misguided. Give these people some credit for what they do. There are a lot of unanswered real safety concerns out there and nobody is prepared to answer them. That is the issue.
"No known traffic"
Snarek
A couple of points if I may.
1. It isn't a union issue - I made up my mind about this subject all by myself without union influence - and i reckon that it is dangerous.
2. You mention radar - how would this have played out in non radar E - where the controller couldn't see the vfr aeroplane.
3. without mode c the TCAS has no idea what level the traffic is at - do you expect crews to "fill the airwaves" querying all non mode c aircraft? the offending aeroplane could be 10000 ft below - it sort of defeats the purpose of not talking doesn't it?
4. if you don't expect crews to call non mode c aircraft do you expect TCAS equipped aircraft to divert to miss?
5. I asked on another thread - what is a reasonable distance to miss by? should we be expecting to hear from VFR aeroplane if they expect to miss us by a mile or so or by 3-400 ft? what is the standard that we apply here? if there is no standard how can we as ifr jet drivers expect to know when vfr drivers are going to tell us about themselves - on the appropriate frequency...
it isn't union motivated, quite the contrary, the unions are actually doing what we tell them to do in this instance, which is a nice change....
This airspace is unsafe, and whilst it may not be proven this week or next it WILL be proven, and the people who forced this upon us against our advice and wishes WILL be brought to account.
A couple of points if I may.
1. It isn't a union issue - I made up my mind about this subject all by myself without union influence - and i reckon that it is dangerous.
2. You mention radar - how would this have played out in non radar E - where the controller couldn't see the vfr aeroplane.
3. without mode c the TCAS has no idea what level the traffic is at - do you expect crews to "fill the airwaves" querying all non mode c aircraft? the offending aeroplane could be 10000 ft below - it sort of defeats the purpose of not talking doesn't it?
4. if you don't expect crews to call non mode c aircraft do you expect TCAS equipped aircraft to divert to miss?
5. I asked on another thread - what is a reasonable distance to miss by? should we be expecting to hear from VFR aeroplane if they expect to miss us by a mile or so or by 3-400 ft? what is the standard that we apply here? if there is no standard how can we as ifr jet drivers expect to know when vfr drivers are going to tell us about themselves - on the appropriate frequency...
it isn't union motivated, quite the contrary, the unions are actually doing what we tell them to do in this instance, which is a nice change....
This airspace is unsafe, and whilst it may not be proven this week or next it WILL be proven, and the people who forced this upon us against our advice and wishes WILL be brought to account.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith said:
"Better trained".... and by who? and when?
who is responsible for training? (NASIG or CASA?)
who is responsible for training the trainers? (NASIG or CASA?)
who is responsible for standardisation? (NASIG? how?)
who is responsible for the audit of the training material?
why was the training package not out 3 months prior to the changes?
when the 3 month notice failed, why was the implementation not delayed?
As I have said before the training for 2b is almost a joke if it were not so serious.
What of the lessons learnt from the “G Trial” in 1999? Seems they have been forgotten.
In the management of any change process, the training is critical and there needs to be a deep understanding of the process including any cultural changes issues. You can change the system overnight, but you can’t change the culture of the participants in a like manner and from where I sit absolutely no attempt has been made to address these issues.
If there had, then much of the discussion in this forum would not occur.
The ARG have shown no leadership at all in this project and certainly no understanding of what was required to manage such a change in a much more acceptable way. They have certainly hoodwinked the Minister.
At this time it is the lack of training that is THE issue, not the specifics of the change.
"No known traffic"
Jet_A_ Knight, I can assure you that unalerted see and avoid incidents will be reduced with the new airspace system as pilots will be better trained to concentrate on using the radio where it really matters. That is, in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome.
who is responsible for training? (NASIG or CASA?)
who is responsible for training the trainers? (NASIG or CASA?)
who is responsible for standardisation? (NASIG? how?)
who is responsible for the audit of the training material?
why was the training package not out 3 months prior to the changes?
when the 3 month notice failed, why was the implementation not delayed?
As I have said before the training for 2b is almost a joke if it were not so serious.
What of the lessons learnt from the “G Trial” in 1999? Seems they have been forgotten.
In the management of any change process, the training is critical and there needs to be a deep understanding of the process including any cultural changes issues. You can change the system overnight, but you can’t change the culture of the participants in a like manner and from where I sit absolutely no attempt has been made to address these issues.
If there had, then much of the discussion in this forum would not occur.
The ARG have shown no leadership at all in this project and certainly no understanding of what was required to manage such a change in a much more acceptable way. They have certainly hoodwinked the Minister.
At this time it is the lack of training that is THE issue, not the specifics of the change.
"No known traffic"
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek....
rant on.
Surely you cannot be serious about questioning EVERY primary or secondary paint on the screen if it's track will cross or get somewhere near an IFR aircraft?
As has been said already, what freq are they monitoring? do they know what freq to monitor etc etc etc.
Do you seriously believe that they actually know where they are in relation to IFR points...for instance, "aircraft squawking 1200, 47DME on the 206 radial from Brisbane, identify yourself" We don't have VTC or VEC's handy to say "oi, bugsmasher, 10 miles west of Fred's cowpaddock, who are you?"
also kind of defeats the point of Dicks quiet airspace where everyone is looking out the window.
BTW do light aircraft have rear view mirrors fitted as standard?
As for your fire all the controllers idea...hmmm, I just hope that was a troll, if not, have a good look at yourself and then decide if you realy should be representing all the other pilots out there, including, perhaps, the one flying the C421 vs the DJ737 the other day.
You keep saying that you are there for your members and if we want anything done(or to even have a say) we should join AOPA..not this little black duck if your comments on this ond other threads are anything to go by. You really should post under your non de plume (ULM) when you spout this kind of uninformed rubbish.
You want everything and not have to pay for it..how about YOU and your board educate your members, I'll be happy to apologise if it has already been done to the PROFESSIONALS satisfaction.
rant over.
BTW I am not a member of any ATC or pilot union...I don't even live in Australia any more, but loads of my friends and family still live and work there...so don't try the "Ted Lang's puppet" tag on me please.
rant on.
Surely you cannot be serious about questioning EVERY primary or secondary paint on the screen if it's track will cross or get somewhere near an IFR aircraft?
As has been said already, what freq are they monitoring? do they know what freq to monitor etc etc etc.
Do you seriously believe that they actually know where they are in relation to IFR points...for instance, "aircraft squawking 1200, 47DME on the 206 radial from Brisbane, identify yourself" We don't have VTC or VEC's handy to say "oi, bugsmasher, 10 miles west of Fred's cowpaddock, who are you?"
also kind of defeats the point of Dicks quiet airspace where everyone is looking out the window.
BTW do light aircraft have rear view mirrors fitted as standard?
As for your fire all the controllers idea...hmmm, I just hope that was a troll, if not, have a good look at yourself and then decide if you realy should be representing all the other pilots out there, including, perhaps, the one flying the C421 vs the DJ737 the other day.
You keep saying that you are there for your members and if we want anything done(or to even have a say) we should join AOPA..not this little black duck if your comments on this ond other threads are anything to go by. You really should post under your non de plume (ULM) when you spout this kind of uninformed rubbish.
You want everything and not have to pay for it..how about YOU and your board educate your members, I'll be happy to apologise if it has already been done to the PROFESSIONALS satisfaction.
rant over.
BTW I am not a member of any ATC or pilot union...I don't even live in Australia any more, but loads of my friends and family still live and work there...so don't try the "Ted Lang's puppet" tag on me please.
Metrosexual
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Enroute
Posts: 622
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek,
From what I can gather, the AOPA can't even organise itself, yet expects to be taken seriously in its support of the new system. How do you reconcile that fact with your chest- beating rejection of ATC and pilot concerns as being union motivated.
The professional associations are unified in their concerns about the safety of the system. If these concerns are union motivated I ask you this question:
How do both Professional Pilots & Air Traffic Controllers actually benefit or gain from opposing the new system on the basis of their safety concerns?
By the way, I am not an airline pilot or ATCer, but I do have a vested interest in the safety of our airspace (I fly in it professionally and live under it - so do most of my friends and family).
PS You comment of the 'Reagan Methodology' to deal with the ATCers is shameful - and you should be ashamed of yourself. I am sure if you were in trouble in the air, they would be the first you would call up - and they would do everything in their power to help you - even though you don't want to contribute to the system when all is 'fun and games'.
From what I can gather, the AOPA can't even organise itself, yet expects to be taken seriously in its support of the new system. How do you reconcile that fact with your chest- beating rejection of ATC and pilot concerns as being union motivated.
The professional associations are unified in their concerns about the safety of the system. If these concerns are union motivated I ask you this question:
How do both Professional Pilots & Air Traffic Controllers actually benefit or gain from opposing the new system on the basis of their safety concerns?
By the way, I am not an airline pilot or ATCer, but I do have a vested interest in the safety of our airspace (I fly in it professionally and live under it - so do most of my friends and family).
PS You comment of the 'Reagan Methodology' to deal with the ATCers is shameful - and you should be ashamed of yourself. I am sure if you were in trouble in the air, they would be the first you would call up - and they would do everything in their power to help you - even though you don't want to contribute to the system when all is 'fun and games'.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek, sir...you are 100% correct...a union beatup..
This nauseating drivel all stems back to a historical governmental Australian institutional slack work ethic of moaners and bludgers..
Even the friggin pre Reagan controllers were capable of providing radar traffic information...And no sounds of silence on their frequencies....
This nauseating drivel all stems back to a historical governmental Australian institutional slack work ethic of moaners and bludgers.. Even the friggin pre Reagan controllers were capable of providing radar traffic information...And no sounds of silence on their frequencies....
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UAE
Age: 63
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Reagan methodology
When Reagan sacked the 13000 odd controllers, it was for going on strike...not raising legitimate concerns about safety.
Pratt!
Whingestun...are you old enough to remember the strikes? Or were you off in Afghanistan helping Rambo and the mujahadeen?
Muppet!
Ps I'm still waiting to see how these changes make life safer for the airspace users. Is it a paper excercise...they can't speak, so you don't know they are there therefore there is no breakdown?
So the stats look better?
edited for the last para.
Pratt!
Whingestun...are you old enough to remember the strikes? Or were you off in Afghanistan helping Rambo and the mujahadeen?
Muppet!
Ps I'm still waiting to see how these changes make life safer for the airspace users. Is it a paper excercise...they can't speak, so you don't know they are there therefore there is no breakdown?
So the stats look better?
edited for the last para.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ahaha whingestun. welcome
firstly I must say that I am not happy that this thread is not in reporting points as I have only checked there this week for new debate. My mistake though
Speaking of mistakes.
So am I to understand that you would have ATC pass all non mode C observed paints to all aircraft that will come within the radar standard? So a paint with a ground speed of 110 knots and nil mode C will be passed to the aircraft in A at flight level 410? If he should have been passed to the aircraft at F180 then why not 410? Are you saying that VFR aircraft may be in E without servicable transponders? Are you telling me that AOPA dropped the ball with education? Are you telling me by default that aircraft are going to be operating in airspace and disobeying rules in blackand white. Are you therefore telling me that an aircraft may make an approach at sydney with no transponder at all talking to noone doing its own thing because they were not educated in what they had to do but that is ok because the controller should pick it up because of pilot incompetence. Are you telling me that. Are you actually believing your own rubbish?
Once more I add. I fing Preen is the great unstainer. Use it on your hat. Just keep that hat the f(_)ck away from aviation until you have any idea what it is you are dealing with.
Love
Plazbot.
firstly I must say that I am not happy that this thread is not in reporting points as I have only checked there this week for new debate. My mistake though
Speaking of mistakes.
Therefore, there was both a primary and transponder paint on the screen, albeit possibly without altitude info.
So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.
So why, when the aircraft were obviously closing, was the 'unknown VFR' not queried.
Once more I add. I fing Preen is the great unstainer. Use it on your hat. Just keep that hat the f(_)ck away from aviation until you have any idea what it is you are dealing with.
Love
Plazbot.
Please correct me if I am wrong here. When I mananged to get a look in on the new TAAATS(did I get enough A's) system about the time CS had come online in partnership with old system, I seem to remember the console had facilities to call up various map features as well as the regular waypoint and route details. Also noticed on the radar console up in the EN twr a month ago that topo features were marked. As the good controller put it "To make sure that we actualy are where we say we are"
Also primary paint was only good for 50nm. So if this was correct then reporting position and alt in relation to a main feature is wrong would be a little disingenious.
Regards
Mark
Also primary paint was only good for 50nm. So if this was correct then reporting position and alt in relation to a main feature is wrong would be a little disingenious.
Regards
Mark
ozbusdriver
The presentation of some geographic features on a radar may be helpful to a controller when the vfr pilot calls up and says that they are 5 miles west of driazabone station, but it doesn't help other aeroplane drivers, particularly IFR drvers because I (and I reckon most others) wouldn't know where driazabone station is....
The presentation of some geographic features on a radar may be helpful to a controller when the vfr pilot calls up and says that they are 5 miles west of driazabone station, but it doesn't help other aeroplane drivers, particularly IFR drvers because I (and I reckon most others) wouldn't know where driazabone station is....
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
struck a funny bone.
triadic
C band radar is good for a primary paint out to about 75 NM depending on the height of the tower. The 50 NM limitation is an artificial one imposed by the post radar processing. But thats just technodribble.
Now I have one point of agreement with the 99% insult 1% rational comment above. I still do not understand why an aircraft this close to a CTR should not be monitoring the appropriate ATC freq.
So, let's just assume for a minute he was (and he apparently actually was) what is wrong with....
"Aircraft abeam XYZ please check Mode C"
Oh, and the Reagan method provided a better system, it got rid of the "pommy shop-stewards" (do they have those there) and left the good guys reasonably well alone. I don't actually see the difference between going on strike and trying to stuff up an improved airspace model with scare mongering and factually incorrect press releases and statements design to falsely alarm the travelling public.
In my view the CivilAir action will lead to the same outcome as the pilot's strike, and that won't be good for the ordinary members just trying to do their job.
Insult shields up
AK
C band radar is good for a primary paint out to about 75 NM depending on the height of the tower. The 50 NM limitation is an artificial one imposed by the post radar processing. But thats just technodribble.
Now I have one point of agreement with the 99% insult 1% rational comment above. I still do not understand why an aircraft this close to a CTR should not be monitoring the appropriate ATC freq.
So, let's just assume for a minute he was (and he apparently actually was) what is wrong with....
"Aircraft abeam XYZ please check Mode C"
Oh, and the Reagan method provided a better system, it got rid of the "pommy shop-stewards" (do they have those there) and left the good guys reasonably well alone. I don't actually see the difference between going on strike and trying to stuff up an improved airspace model with scare mongering and factually incorrect press releases and statements design to falsely alarm the travelling public.
In my view the CivilAir action will lead to the same outcome as the pilot's strike, and that won't be good for the ordinary members just trying to do their job.
Insult shields up
AK
Andrew
You continually fail to answer the questions put to you.
What do controllers and pilots have to gain by using NAS as an industrial issue? The number of pilots won't be reduced under NAS (well it might be but midairs don't count!) and the same with controllers - there is no demonstrable reason why the number of controllers will reduce.
The reason why it is a union thing is that both groups of aviation professionals are fearful for the safety of this system - that is all - there is no mysterious underlying sinister motive - we reckon it isn't safe...
What would you do if all the controllers and professional pilots joined AOPA and demanded that our voice be listened to? would it be industrial then?
but - could you please answer these questions...
what is considered a safe miss - and at what point will a private VFR pilot pipe up on the appropriate frequency and let the IFR traffic know about his/her whereabouts?
will what the VFR pilot considers safe be different to what the IFR pilot considers safe - and if so - how do we educate people the think along the same lines
you keep talking about primary radar returns etc in relation to the VB/cessna incident. what would have happened in non radar E?
show me the safety benefits - what are they?
do you concede that professional pilots and atc'ers may have legitimate concerns - or do you honestly believe - in your heart of hearts - that the noise is ALL union scaremongering?
You continually fail to answer the questions put to you.
What do controllers and pilots have to gain by using NAS as an industrial issue? The number of pilots won't be reduced under NAS (well it might be but midairs don't count!) and the same with controllers - there is no demonstrable reason why the number of controllers will reduce.
The reason why it is a union thing is that both groups of aviation professionals are fearful for the safety of this system - that is all - there is no mysterious underlying sinister motive - we reckon it isn't safe...
What would you do if all the controllers and professional pilots joined AOPA and demanded that our voice be listened to? would it be industrial then?
but - could you please answer these questions...
what is considered a safe miss - and at what point will a private VFR pilot pipe up on the appropriate frequency and let the IFR traffic know about his/her whereabouts?
will what the VFR pilot considers safe be different to what the IFR pilot considers safe - and if so - how do we educate people the think along the same lines
you keep talking about primary radar returns etc in relation to the VB/cessna incident. what would have happened in non radar E?
show me the safety benefits - what are they?
do you concede that professional pilots and atc'ers may have legitimate concerns - or do you honestly believe - in your heart of hearts - that the noise is ALL union scaremongering?
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek,
I'm sure you enjoy yourself spouting this rubbish, but I would have thought that your interests could be served better. As a board member of an organisation struggling for industry credibility you do your cause little credit.
While AOPA may be exploited for political purposes by the likes of Dick and co. (to provide them with some desperately needed "GA" support), it only represents about ten percent of active pilots in Australia. I'm sure that the rest, and probably many members, can only look on with increasing dismay while its board members (yourself and the two Ronnies for example) engage in petulant, ill-informed and frequently offensive attacks on other parts of the aviation community while simultaneously stamping out the recurring spot fires in their own boardroom. Great stuff - sure to lead to an increase in credibility, influence and membership numbers!
Your descent into "union bashing" demonstrates that you are inclined to go below the belt, being unable to sustain an argument based on any depth of knowledge.
The puerile, gutless personal attacks made on Ted Lang by some idiots in this forum are misdirected. Particularly regarding NAS, Civilair and it's executive is driven by the very strongly expressed views of it's members. In a totally voluntary membership environment, more than ninety percent of ATC are members - pity AOPA can't boast the same coverage.
Perhaps you should visit a major centre (Brisbane or Melbourne) and find out what the "good guys" think of NAS in general and your position in particular. Wear a spray jacket.
Anyway, here's a little knowledge for you:
Primary radar is no longer a dedicated enroute surveillance tool. COST is the reason. To paraphrase the great NAS puppet master, it's about focussing the resources where there is the greatest need - around primary control zones. The engineers may "wind it out" to greater ranges on request if there is a specific need (in flight emergency response, for example), but this costs a lot of money to continue over the long term. Also, many of the current Monopulse SSR sites (themselves expensive to run) are in remote areas where the costs of also maintaining a primary radar facility are prohibitive. Of course, costs are not an issue for those who pay nothing anyway!
And by the way, a CTR is a Control ZONE. You know, about 7 - 10 miles radius of an aerodrome? Perhaps you meant a Class C airspace boundary. Look it up.
I'm sure you enjoy yourself spouting this rubbish, but I would have thought that your interests could be served better. As a board member of an organisation struggling for industry credibility you do your cause little credit.
While AOPA may be exploited for political purposes by the likes of Dick and co. (to provide them with some desperately needed "GA" support), it only represents about ten percent of active pilots in Australia. I'm sure that the rest, and probably many members, can only look on with increasing dismay while its board members (yourself and the two Ronnies for example) engage in petulant, ill-informed and frequently offensive attacks on other parts of the aviation community while simultaneously stamping out the recurring spot fires in their own boardroom. Great stuff - sure to lead to an increase in credibility, influence and membership numbers!
Your descent into "union bashing" demonstrates that you are inclined to go below the belt, being unable to sustain an argument based on any depth of knowledge.
The puerile, gutless personal attacks made on Ted Lang by some idiots in this forum are misdirected. Particularly regarding NAS, Civilair and it's executive is driven by the very strongly expressed views of it's members. In a totally voluntary membership environment, more than ninety percent of ATC are members - pity AOPA can't boast the same coverage.
Perhaps you should visit a major centre (Brisbane or Melbourne) and find out what the "good guys" think of NAS in general and your position in particular. Wear a spray jacket.
Anyway, here's a little knowledge for you:
Primary radar is no longer a dedicated enroute surveillance tool. COST is the reason. To paraphrase the great NAS puppet master, it's about focussing the resources where there is the greatest need - around primary control zones. The engineers may "wind it out" to greater ranges on request if there is a specific need (in flight emergency response, for example), but this costs a lot of money to continue over the long term. Also, many of the current Monopulse SSR sites (themselves expensive to run) are in remote areas where the costs of also maintaining a primary radar facility are prohibitive. Of course, costs are not an issue for those who pay nothing anyway!
And by the way, a CTR is a Control ZONE. You know, about 7 - 10 miles radius of an aerodrome? Perhaps you meant a Class C airspace boundary. Look it up.
for farksake Andrew
you STILL have not answered the questions!
What is considered a reasonable distance/altitude to miss another aircraft by.
At what point will a VFR driver get onto the appropriate frequency and let a conflicting IFR aeroplane know about their presence?
why do you think it is a union led exercise?
What do the unions, and individual pilots/controllers stand to gain by opposing this disaster?
TELL ME - I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK THE WAY YOU DO!
It is only with knowledge of WHY you think the way you do that others can being to at least try and understand your perspective.
using the old "the airspace is safer because it is - poopyhead" defence is hardly conducive to reasoned debate
So come on - fill us in!!
you STILL have not answered the questions!
What is considered a reasonable distance/altitude to miss another aircraft by.
At what point will a VFR driver get onto the appropriate frequency and let a conflicting IFR aeroplane know about their presence?
why do you think it is a union led exercise?
What do the unions, and individual pilots/controllers stand to gain by opposing this disaster?
TELL ME - I WANT TO KNOW WHY YOU THINK THE WAY YOU DO!
It is only with knowledge of WHY you think the way you do that others can being to at least try and understand your perspective.
using the old "the airspace is safer because it is - poopyhead" defence is hardly conducive to reasoned debate
So come on - fill us in!!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why you guys spend so much time trying to reason with Snarek is beyond me. As I have said before he is a dumb private VFR (sorry PIFR) pilot with no understanding of the big picture. Even AOPA members are embarrassed by him.
As he cant make it as an aviation professional, he obviously wants to be in a position of power with AOPA (an oxymoron if ever there was one) so he can mix it with the professionals.
At least Dick Smith has some credibility and believes in what he is doing, this guy is just a moron in some pathetic power trip.
As he cant make it as an aviation professional, he obviously wants to be in a position of power with AOPA (an oxymoron if ever there was one) so he can mix it with the professionals.
At least Dick Smith has some credibility and believes in what he is doing, this guy is just a moron in some pathetic power trip.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 294
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never really got over AOPA's promises of 58c Avgas if we went along with location specific pricing. What do we now have? High tower fees, exorbitant airport fees and very expensive fuel. ( and dont say the oil price has gone up. Avgas increases are way in front of auto fuel. The oil companies got a blank cheque from that and AOPA did not see it coming?)
Is thier position on NAS equally credible?
Is thier position on NAS equally credible?
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snarek,
You seem to be dribbling and no one is there to clean up after you.
Please answer the ( quite valid) questions put to you or simply just stick your..........opinions back in you well used suite case and exit stage left.
Thankyou!
You seem to be dribbling and no one is there to clean up after you.
Please answer the ( quite valid) questions put to you or simply just stick your..........opinions back in you well used suite case and exit stage left.
Thankyou!
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Tasmania
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wheeler
Just for the record, the promise of 58c AVGAS was made by an AOPA well before snarek joined. The only remnant of that AOPA is Bill Hamilton.
In fact snarek lobbied hard against them, sending e-mails around to everyone he could, including me on 'user pays' as well as the infamous Part 47.
He and his girlfriend actually had Part 47 disallowed, against the wishes of some of the old fogeys still in AOPA and a couple of the less stable ones over on AGAF.
I have also read a lot of pro/anti NAS stuff in various threads here.
There is some pretty nasty stuff, most from the anti side. The only 'pro NAS' poster I have ever seen here actually conceeding a point (the frequencies issue) is snarek.
But I suppose bullies have to have a whipping boy.
Just for the record, the promise of 58c AVGAS was made by an AOPA well before snarek joined. The only remnant of that AOPA is Bill Hamilton.
In fact snarek lobbied hard against them, sending e-mails around to everyone he could, including me on 'user pays' as well as the infamous Part 47.
He and his girlfriend actually had Part 47 disallowed, against the wishes of some of the old fogeys still in AOPA and a couple of the less stable ones over on AGAF.
I have also read a lot of pro/anti NAS stuff in various threads here.
There is some pretty nasty stuff, most from the anti side. The only 'pro NAS' poster I have ever seen here actually conceeding a point (the frequencies issue) is snarek.
But I suppose bullies have to have a whipping boy.