The sounds of silence............Nov 27th

[Aussie Andy]

WhatWasThat said:

Can we really expect a pilot out for a joyflight to juggle frequencies in this fashion? It would seem to me that the chart simplification may not have simplified things at all. November 26 our VFR pilot could have expected to hear the broadcasts from IFR traffic arriving and departing all three aerodromes on area, now he/she will have to juggle frequencies depending on proximity to aerodromes, necessitating more “head down” map reading than the FIAs ever did.

For what its worth (there is no need for you guys to repeat how little importance you attach to my views), I think its absolutely reasonable to expect any PPL - even low hours or a student - to be able to change frequencies in the manner you describe. For example, when I did my flight test for my PPL several years ago, it involved departing Wycombe Air Park (Buckinghamshire, 15NM northwest of Heathrow), changing from TWR to Benson MATZ to obtain permission to transit their MIL zone within 5 minutes (about 9 track miles), thence out the otherside a similar distance to Oxford Kidlington APP to transit their ATZ, thence immediately to Brize Radar for a flight information service, etc. Admittedly the first time you do it, its a bit of a handful, but had I not been able to communicate in this way, without assistance, whilst simultaneously aviating and navigating, then I would not have passed. I don't think I'm special, so I think it is within the capabilities of any PPL to do this.

And there should be no need to have extra head-down time in the cockpit to achieve this... The key, of course, is to simply WRITE THE FREQUENCIES DOWN (they can easily be looked up in AIP / ERSA / etc.) prior to flight on your PLOG, or just a scrap of paper, or even on your map in chinagraph if you want... You then put the next frequency in the standby window of your COM box, or in COM 2 or whatever, ahead of time. You are then just a button-press away from the next APPROPRIATE FREQUENCY. Its not hard - anyone can do it as long as they have been trained to do so. The inexperienced simply have to put a bit more tiome and energy into planning ahead. I would be shocked if you really believe that Australian PPLs can't cope with such frequency changes.... whether on a pleasure flight or any other sort. So this seems a bit of a red herring.

Andy

[WhatWasThat]

Andy,
The point I was trying to make is that frequency management for our hypothetical VFR pilot at say A075 has been made more complex by the NAS changes (and therefore more likely that he/she will throw up their hands and listen to John Laws instead). Given that the overwhelming opinion of the professional pilot community is that this change represents a reduction in the level of safety it seems pretty ludicrous to continue with it if it actually makes things harder for VFR pilots.

The FIA system seemed pretty simple to me, there was a nice big box drawn on your map to indicate which freq you should monitor in any given location, If you did this there was at least a reasonable chance you would hear that IFR jet thats about to descend through the cloud layer above you. It also gave you a fighting chance of having your distress call heard by ATC without having to fumble around to find the appropriate freq. Nothing about having FIA boundaries on the map prevented pilots from changing to the CTAF or MBZ when it was appropriate to do so, to suggest that their removal will somehow reduce incidents of VFR pilots selecting the wrong terminal area freq smells a lot fishier than anything I have had to say. (red herring indeed)

[Chief Wiggam]

National Airspace Suicide.

Page 1 - IFR & VFR INFLIGHT GUIDE


1. REDUCE CHATTER - Aviate, Navigate, Comm.....pile CD music for next leg.

2. TUNE IN - To an appropriate frequency (such as ATIS, AERIS or 123.45)

3. LOOK OUT - For falling aircraft debris from overlying class E airspace

4. TURN ON - A smile, as I feel safer already.

[Islander Jock]

Chief Wiggam,

I was amazed at the "TUNE IN - To an appropriate frequency (such as ATIS, AERIS or 123.45)" line.

WTF has listening to ATIS or AEIRIS got to do with any improved situational awareness that might be obtained from a knowledge of traffic arriving, departing, ascending or descending from a certain locationl? But then again, 123.45 has turned into the VFR chat room over the last week.

BTW, by how far do you RPT guys want me to avoid the known RPT direct track route?

[Two_dogs]

CAR 175A

I have a CPL, SE\CIR, and around 3000TT. I have a S\E Aircraft fitted with 2 x VHF, 2 x NAV (1 ILS), 1 x ADF, 1 x TXPR, 1 x HF and a Garmin 295. I also have all the other stuff, jackets, ELT x 2, rations, MED kit etc... and I try to be as professional as possible.

I flew VFR into Horn Island from Cairns several times this year. My customer liked me to arrive at 0000z, the same time as the Dash 8, ex Cairns is scheduled to arrive. I used the same tracking points as the IFR guys, and I used the same frequencies as they did. I self separated with the Dash 8 / Metro RPT services on many occasions, both on arrival and departure. A couple of times I even called them first, or included their callsign in my BROADCAST, because I knew they were in the area. On more than a few occasions there may have been separation conflicts had we not been aware of each other. Usually separation was enabled using GPS distances.

This all seemed to work quite nicely!

I like to fly IFR when I can for several reasons, recency, more service, not being treated like a hick etc. I had planned on flying IFR as often as possible after 27/11, if only so everyone else knows I'm there. But what can I do when conducting passenger charters in my single engine aeroplane?

Should I tell my commercial fare paying pax that our Government doesn't consider them IMPORTANT enough to be included in the system, or it's just that they don't consider me COMPETENT enough?

Two Dogs

[185skywagon]

i would like all to consider the following, given that nas is here to stay, relevant to G space:
1: freq boundaries be reinstated on the erc(l).
2: Ctaf below 3000-5000' in the inland areas. area freq overlaying.
3:ifr boys and girl actually giving a distance and direction at TOD.

the way things are now, i will have to fit a second com for peace of mind even in west qld. have had 2 instances of crossed conflicting tracks in the last 3 days, one an rpt metro at 8000' and one vfr flight. these were only dealt with as i have some local knowledge of regular movements.
as a 4000 hr charter pilot, i shall be keeping a log of the pitfalls of this system as it applies to the west of qld.
education is not working. met two frequent outback pilots yesterday, who were completely unaware of what the new system entails. they said that they would continue as if the old system was still in place. something is not working.
we have sunstate making ctaf calls from fl140 at 50 miles into aerodromes(i don't blame them).

[Clothears]

A couple of my own experiences post NAS:


Experience 1:

Provided radar advisory to an identified VFR in G (yes, it's overservicing, but he was correctly asking for a clearance into class C at the time) about an unidentified track 3 miles at one oclock, roughly opposite direction but crossing at the same level. Pilot response - "looking" (good).
At one mile apart, offered the added info that the miss would be less than half a mile on the left in about 20 seconds. Pilot response "still looking (good) followed immedietely by "traffic sighted, avoiding" (thank Christ) and observed a quite sharp turn of about 40 degrees to the right. The unidentified target didn't utter a peep or change course by one iota....was probably listening to a nearby CTAF, MBZ or John Laws for all I know.

In this case I am certain that the unidentified aircraft did not see the conflicting traffic.

Experience 2:

Same airspace, an IFR aircraft being identified in class G prior to clearance, offered radar advisory about an oposite direction unidentified aircraft at the same level Sighted when abeam at less than a mile. No radio contact.

I cannot be sure whether the unidentified aircraft did or did not see the conflicting traffic.

Before this NAS frequency rubbish both of the target aircraft would have been on the FIA frequency and probably (in my experience) heard some of the reports of the other aircraft or our communication about them, and piped up.

Regardless, in both cases my choices as an ATC were to believe in the new system and keep mum, or to protect the flying public as I see fit. To put it on a more personal level, I would hate to have to defend my actions in a court of law if any of them had hit and I had done nothing.

The point? See and avoid doesn't work in isolation, but as a part of an inclusive system (particularly including pilots listening out on the appropriate frequency) it used to work.

Thanks Dick.

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Clothears,

'But this is how it works in America'.

See and avoid as part of an inclusive system - dead on.

I commend the ATCers who are still 'looking out' for aviators in airspace that there is no regulatory requirement for them to do so.

Thanks

[Dick Smith]

WhatWasThat, thanks for your friendly answer. I point out that there has been 13 years of consultation and this nearly always leads to a move back to the way that we were taught.

For example, many would know that I was instrumental in bringing in the AMATS changes. That is basically the present airspace system that people now want to keep. I still have the newspaper cuttings from 1991 showing the tremendous opposition to removing VFR from the enroute system. Many will remember that in those days, VFR aircraft flew enroute at IFR levels, and had to operate “full position”. In fact, in those days, when you were given traffic you were not even told if it was IFR or VFR as it was irrelevant. That system cost about $100 million extra per year because of the extraordinary number of flight service officers that were necessary to provide a directed traffic service – not only to IFR aircraft, but also to all VFR.

I instigated the change to the international system where VFR flew at 500’ hemispherical levels and basically did not have to become part of the air traffic control system when flying enroute in Class G airspace.

Despite claims that safety would be reduced, the recent ATSB report shows that in the last 10 years, aviation safety has increased considerably. Of course this is not substantially because of the changed airspace, but it does show that the airspace changes – which have saved one billion dollars in 10 years – did not reduce safety.

Since those AMATS changes, the plan that had been approved by the CASA Board during my Chairmanship was stopped. There have been a number of attempts with industry consultation to move forward.

One famous one was called the “11/11 system” which was championed by Buck Brooksbank, a previous President of the AFAP. This system, whilst increasing the amount of Class E airspace, basically brought VFR aircraft back into the system. For example, it was mandatory for all VFR to monitor and make self-announcements on the Class E ATC frequency. It also removed the directed traffic service in the terminal area for IFR aircraft, which I (and others) considered to be a major reduction in safety.

When debating Buck Brooksbank on the ABC, he made it quite clear that pilots with airline experience (such as himself) were not concerned about IFR aircraft receiving a directed traffic service – they were more concerned about VFR aircraft being put back into mandatory reporting when enroute. The airspace reflected this.

Many years later, the LLAMP system did almost the same thing. It removed the CTAFs – which I’d introduced in 1991 to follow international practice – and planned to introduce a system where it would be mandatory for all VFR aircraft below 10,000’ monitor a particular frequency called a “DAF”. This DAF covered up to 30 aerodromes, meaning that a VFR aircraft flying enroute at say, 8,500’ or 9,500’, would have to monitor the circuit traffic of up to 30 aerodromes, once again having a constant barrage of communication in the pilot’s ear with no real safety improvement.

I believe it is natural for many people in the industry to want to return to the system similar to when they were taught – i.e. VFR enroute position reports being a major part of the system. Surely people can understand that this was a very large misallocation of safety resources. The billion dollars which has been saved since then – with no measurable reduction in safety – has surely gone towards improving the profits or reducing the losses of airlines, or in some cases in employing people that would otherwise not have jobs.

Some people have claimed to me that if the billion dollars in savings had not been made, that it would not only be Ansett’s 15,000 workers out of jobs, but also many of the Qantas employees. This would be no good at all.

No other country I know of has area frequency boundaries marked on charts, and they have all told me that this is not accidental, it is to ensure VFR aircraft monitor the approach and departure airspace at an airport wherever possible.

None of the postings so far have explained why we have so many unalerted see and avoid MBZ incidents filed with the ATSB. The ATSB has made findings in relation to this, however if you go to the USA you find that there is not an equivalent problem in their CTAFs. No one can prove that the US system – i.e. no recommendation to monitor when enroute but strong training to monitor when in the approach and departure airspace of an aerodrome – is safer. However it gives a very good safety outcome and it is logical to believe that this could offer an improvement for Australia.

The comments that have been made about there being three aerodromes in close proximity and having to monitor three different frequencies is no more valid than the claim that if an aircraft is coming over a frequency boundary shown on the old chart, that the pilot would not know of any calls given at the other side of the boundary (on the different frequency) unless he or she was monitoring either two or three radios.

Most of the postings I see on this website resist change. Just how we are flying around in mostly modern FAA certified aircraft, and not Nomads, is mysterious to me.

Four Seven Eleven, you state that quieter ATC sectors do not necessarily equate to savings. I agree, however I draw your attention to a previous posting on PPRuNe where an air traffic controller stated that the only reason a special extra low level sector was introduced in the Perth area was because early in the morning all the VFR flying school aircraft started making position reports on ATC frequencies.

Again in relation to frequency boundaries, I do not know of any country in the world that shows frequency boundaries on charts. This does not mean that we should follow this without question, however we should at least examine why we are different. I believe it is because we were once obsessed with having VFR aircraft in the system when enroute. Even though this may have given us a sense of security it actually did not improve safety in any way, but cost a bundle.

Four Seven Eleven, you also state that statistics and empirical data exist to “prove that the B767 is safer than the Electra”

These statistics and empirical data were not proved before the 767 was introduced. It is the same with the airspace. Commonsense has to be used as to whether a result is more likely to be so because of the rational argument and judgement that is used in making the decision.

Icarus2001, yes I do believe that if substantial savings are made by Airservices that they will be passed on to the industry. They always have been in the past – savings of over 20% have been given. The Government will always take its profit, however I have never seen a situation where the majority of savings are not passed on to the industry.

Chief galah, if I made an error during my approach to Essendon the last time I was down there, please advise what the error was. That is the only way that human beings can rectify mistakes.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Dick,

I have asked the following question a few times and have yet to receive an answer:

Are you aware of the 1990 BASI Research Report 'The Limitations of See-and -Avoid principle' and if so how do you reconcile its conclusions to the greater weighting toward and reliance in, the use of this principle in the new NAS?

Also, why is it such a problem to make monitoring a standardised frequency (ie when in E, or G)? RPT a/c departing an MBZ/CTAF will give a departure call, which can be heard by VFR aircraft. If they are in conflict, then separation can be made with the assistance of the radio.

I can't understand why aircraft operating in similar airspace, are not required to at least monitor the same frequencies, even if it is not done overseas, surely this is not such a big problem.

The removal of the freq boundaries is cause for concern for concern for many pilots, professional and recreational. To remove these from the charts as a disincentive to 'clutter the radio' is extremely shortsighted, and a flawed rationale. Surely educating pilots to use the radio more conservatively/properly/productively would be a better option, rather than scattering everybody's radio watch to God knows what frequency and eroding safety by relying what effectively becomes solely see-and-avoid.

Why has the safety data accumulated by the CASA and Airservices that substantiates the safety of the new system not been made available? If so, where can it be found?

Lastly, why aren't the industry being listened to in their concerns?

PS Re: The B767 analoigy:

Apart from the fact that the A300 was the first widebody 2 engine jet airlinerI think you will find that data regarding the reliability of operating 2 engine wide body jets would have been garnered from engine reliability testing etc etc for hundreds of hours prior to the aircraft being certified. The aircraft was not certified solely on a whim and without data to back up the safety case of the aircraft - where as, the NAS has not been subject to any safety testing at all except for the fact that it is based (loosely) on the US NAS.

[DownDraught]

Greetings to all.

Dick

My question relates to the fact that you state the following

Despite claims that safety would be reduced, the recent ATSB report shows that in the last 10 years, aviation safety has increased considerably. Of course this is not substantially because of the changed airspace, but it does show that the airspace changes – which have saved one billion dollars in 10 years – did not reduce safety.

And

Icarus2001, yes I do believe that if substantial savings are made by Airservices that they will be passed on to the industry. They always have been in the past – savings of over 20% have been given. The Government will always take its profit, however I have never seen a situation where the majority of savings are not passed on to the industry.

If these savings of 1 Billion dollars have been saved and injected back into the "system", why was/is it that this NAS reform has, as one of it's main reasons for implementation, (along with others) is to reduce costs?

And all the previous "cost cutting" that has gone on since this amount of extra revenue has been injected back into the "system"?

Others may feel free to add actuals.

Cheers

EDIT/-Minor grammar and spelling changes

[Dick Smith]

Jet_A_ Knight, I will answer the questions again. Yes, I’ve closely studied the BASI report the Limitations of the See and Avoid Principle. I’ve also studied the CASA reply where they reject the absolute nature of the BASI argument, and I also note that BASI/ATSB have “accepted/closed” the CASA response – i.e. the ATSB agree with CASA.

In relation to monitoring a standardised frequency when enroute, you either have not read what I have stated previously, or do not understand what I am saying. The reason for the removal of the frequency boundaries is not primarily to reduce chart clutter, but primarily to reduce the number of unalerted see and avoid incidents in the MBZ/CTAF area.

If you care to look at the ATSB reports filed of unalerted see and avoid incidents in MBZs particularly, you will find that they are horrifying. There are many situations where aircraft – which obviously are fitted with a radio – either have the radio on the wrong frequency, the volume turned down, or something else wrong.

The FAA has stated that it intentionally does not have frequency boundaries on charts, not because of any pressure from any organisation such as AOPA, but because they want pilots to concentrate on monitoring the radio where the collision risk is greatest.

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.

[Jet_A_Knight]

Thanks Dick. I must have missed your reply to my previous questions. Where did you post it?

Re: See and Avoid Report. On what basis did the CASA reject the absolute nature of the BASI argument?

What documents/research did they have to substantiate their rejection of the reports conclusions?

Also, the BASI are not empowered to make regulatory or procedural change - their reports are for advice of fact. I don't believe their acceptance of the CASA rejection is an admittance that the initial report was incorrect.

Do you believe that the see-and-avoid principle is without flaws, or is it on the basis of the rejection of the BASI report by CASA that you believe that unalerted see-and-avoid is satisfactory and safe as a primary method of traffic separation for all aircraft including highcapacity RPT?

Frequencies

When I said clutter, i meant of the frequency, not of the chart.

Why can't pilots monitor CTAF/MBZ frequencies when transiting these areas (as is required for radio equipped aircraft), or in close proximity, and the area frequency elsewhere, or god forbid, BOTH?

A scenario if you would indulge me.

A VFR 182 aircraft is transiting the airspace between the Griffith MBZ and Narrandera CTAF at 3500' enroute Temore-Hay. The aircraft has no transponder, nor is one. required. S/he believe that their track takes them closer to YNAR CTAF, and monitor that as they pass between the two fields.

A REX SF340 will be transiting the YGTH-YNAR route on brief climb and descent. S/he calls ML centre with the taxi/departure call etc,and once airborne is still monitoring the MBZ as well as they are required to, as well as ML centre .

Centre don't know about the VFR aircraft. The VFR aircraft doesn't know about the SAAB. And the SAAB doesn't know about the VFR, the TCAS won't show it up.

Which one of the 3 frequencies is 'appropriate'?

I am sure you see the potential for conflict. If the VFR aircraft was required to be on area, he would get the IFR taxi call of the SAAB, and be aware of that aircraft's movements, and may even be able to make a broadcast alerting the saab crew of the possibility of conflict, or to arrange mutual separation.

You are absolutely correct about the incidence of actual or near MAC around airfields. The ARFU's have been a great step in the right direction at least in the way of having a net to catch a wrong frequency set up. Aircraft are REQUIRED to monitor the CTAF/Freq if radio equipped - so why make aircraft outside of an airfield's airspace monitor that airspace (that they may have no intention of entering), at the expense of a listening watch in that aircraft's immediate or nearby airspace? Surely in the process another risk is now introduced?

Also, please keep involved in these forums, even if it gets a bit 'hot', and uncomfortable. I also ask others to keep the arguments çlean'yet honest.

Many people have doubts, concerns and questions and I dont for one minute believe that they are just being bloody minded for the sake of 'scuttling' airspace reform, as long as there are beneficial outcomes, and safety is not comprimised.

PS Does anyone knoe why does my damn keyboard keep spitting out French characters??????

[Wheeler]

Inclusive system is what it should be all about. With Radar the risk, certainly when at least one IFR, is involved is minimal.

IFR descending into (e.g.) BK training area is no problem, one gets almost too much information from Radar. When I fly in some quite remote CTAF's, RPTs usually tell me they have me on TCAS sooner or later (and then sometimes rather rudely attempt to usher me away) and quite often if there is radar coverage, they get RAS too.

All of which means the tables have turned - RPT/IFR have all that gear and help and so it must be their responsibility to avoid the poor old VFR jock, who of course will be helping matters along with transponder on (that he does not need to have) and blaring away.

Now, what happens when there is no TCAS, no radar or only VFR's using their highly sophisticated mk 1 eyeballs to keep clear of eachother?

Ahh! but John and wotsit from the USA told us there is virtually no risk of collision away from an airport - it's just a matter of risk management.... So I guess we don't need to rely on the patchy radar coverage we have or TCAS at all?

[Rum Bottle]

OK Dick, you have finally pushed your barrow.

Ever heard of situational awareness.

Even the most inexperienced pilots are taught to listen out and look out. Situational awareness is derived from more than one input. And we are taught how to sort out what is relevant and what is not.

Enroute, how am I to know if a VFR pilot is on the same frequency as I am if there is no boundary. It doesn't really matter whether it's in VHF coverage of ATS, it's the airspace that I'm in that concerns me.

With the addition of GPS, there is a strong possibility of more than one aircraft occupying the same airspace at the same time. Aircraft get pretty big in the wind screen very quickly.

But of course, you're right and everyone else, especially the professionals are wrong.

Congratulations, John Anderson shut you up by letting onto this committee, and look what you have achieved.

[Piper Arrow]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...351697164.html

Union scaremongering with near miss reports: Anderson December 4, 2003 - 11:36AM



A union was today accused of scaremongering over claims a plane was within 20 seconds of a mid-air disaster near Melbourne.

Transport Minister John Anderson said the claim was horrendous.

He said it was simply one of more than 60 incidents from the past week since new airspace rules took effect that would be reported to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB).

Ted Lang, president of the air traffic controllers union Civil Air, claimed Virgin flight DJ980 from the Gold Coast to Melbourne was believed to be 20 seconds from colliding with a twin-engine Cessna yesterday when an alarm was triggered yesterday as it was descending north-west of Melbourne.

Mr Anderson said he could not guarantee there would never be a mid-air crash but said the government would not have implemented the new system if it did not believe it was safe.

"Can I guarantee there will never be an incident? No I can't, of course I can't," he said.

"You can't guarantee wherever human beings are involved, wherever mechanical contrivances are involved, total and absolute safety, you can't."


He described claims of a near miss by the union representing air traffic controllers and Mr Lang, as outrageous.

"I hear all of this irresponsible talk about close collisions and 20 seconds and so forth," Mr Anderson said.

"The ATSB has a responsibility now to investigate it.

"This happened in controlled airspace, all the scaremongering that Ted Lang's been engaging in has been about uncontrolled airspace.

"The aircraft, both of them were in contact with the tower."

Mr Anderson said he believed the new airspace system would enhance safety.

"A lot of this centres on so called incidents and it is horrendous to describe something as a near miss when a responsible person knows full well that an incident does not constitute a near miss."

Mr Anderson said there were around 50 incidents reported each week and this had risen to more than 60 in the week since the new rules were introduced.

Earlier, Virgin Blue spokesman David Huttner said the airline would consider in its investigation whether the new National Airspace System was to blame. But he said anyone speculating on the possible cause of the incident "would be doing so without all the facts".

Mr Huttner cast doubt the claim that the aircraft were only 20 seconds from crashing. "Certainly at this point in time nobody has all the facts to make such a statement. It's speculative at best."

AAP

There are more press releases
Here Too!

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Arrow, is that the best you can come up with?

How about an independent thought or argument?

[bush mechanics]

Uncle Dick,
Ive been in the industry for the past 15 years and have had the privelage to see and work in the GA hey days of the late 80s
You and others say that the numbers of aircraft incidents/accidents are at there lowest in ten years.
Maybe thats because theres far less ga a/c flying now.
Ten years ago you couldnt even get a park for your a/c at Parafield.On the grass or the tarmac,You go there now and they may as well run cattle on the grass.The whole place is dead!!!Where have all the planes gone?
Soo maybe It wasnt your system what made it safer, but maybe there are far less ac flying now!
By the way Dick ol chap you still owe me a carton for looking after your old Jet Ranger which sat in our hangar for six months!!!Back in the 90s.Please no DICK BITTER!!!VB will be fine!!

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

Dick,

How can a pilot in a lightie in Class E effectively scan BEHIND the aircraft to avoid getting run down by a FASTER aeroplane, like a B737 on descent that may not see him below the nose on descent if the lightie has forgotten his transponder, or is unknown to him, U/s?

Was the scenario of trying to visually acquire an aircraft you were closing on against the ground clutter ever considered? If so, why no 'recommendations'on how to scan for aircraft closing from behind?

More holes than the Swiss cheese stock pile outside of Emmental.

To quote an old footy saying: Thanks for setting us all up for the 'dump'.

Assurances are not enough - as yesteday's event shows.

[Gone Fishing]

Dick,

I am fairly new to this forum and can't help but wonder why you are not contributing to the the NAS related topics in D+G Reporting Points.

I can only summise that it is because you are afraid your arguments will not stand up to the scrutiny of aviation professionals.

So here we find ourselves in D+G General Aviation where maybe you hope to bamboozle the GA industry with your rantings and ravings.

It would appear that the GA industry are not as naive as you thought or hoped. The majority of those who are contributing here (the very ones you claim these new rules will help), seem to disagree with much of what you say.

The majority do not want these changes, but when did a majority count for anything in a democracy?