National Aviation Policy Paper
Thread Starter
National Aviation Policy Paper
The Department (not CASA, although OAR must have written it) has a paper on their website inviting feedback. I have tried to attach it, but the URL is below.
<https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/australian-airspace-policy/files/national-strategic-airspace-national-aviation-policy-issues-paper.pdf>
I do not know how long it has been there but this coming Friday 16th July is the cut-off for responses.
My opinion after the first reading is that the document is as confusing as is the current airspace. It seems very confused about the purpose of having airspace classes and what Australia is trying to achieve, apart from the AAPS reference to passenger transport aircraft. By it's reliance on reproducing so many possible iterations of airspace organisation (although it fails to mention the ADF R areas) for us to "choose" from demonstrates that both CASA and DIRD are very risk-averse. Clearly, they want someone else to choose so that they may claim that it was not either their fault or the Minister's fault
If I am correct in my, admittedly cynical, theory I would recommend that the Government simply re-adopts the decision made by Cabinet many, many years ago, to introduce the tried and trusted FAA model. I was there when we tried and now nearly 30 years later we are still stuck in the 1950s!
From the FAA web site:
Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration provides air traffic services to more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers traveling across the more than 29 million square miles that make up the U.S. national airspace system (NAS). (Australian Airspace is approximately 26.5 million square miles)
The NAS is a network of both controlled and uncontrolled airspace, both domestic and oceanic. It also includes air navigation facilities, equipment and services; airports and landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules and regulations; procedures and technical information; and manpower and material.
<https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/australian-airspace-policy/files/national-strategic-airspace-national-aviation-policy-issues-paper.pdf>
I do not know how long it has been there but this coming Friday 16th July is the cut-off for responses.
My opinion after the first reading is that the document is as confusing as is the current airspace. It seems very confused about the purpose of having airspace classes and what Australia is trying to achieve, apart from the AAPS reference to passenger transport aircraft. By it's reliance on reproducing so many possible iterations of airspace organisation (although it fails to mention the ADF R areas) for us to "choose" from demonstrates that both CASA and DIRD are very risk-averse. Clearly, they want someone else to choose so that they may claim that it was not either their fault or the Minister's fault
If I am correct in my, admittedly cynical, theory I would recommend that the Government simply re-adopts the decision made by Cabinet many, many years ago, to introduce the tried and trusted FAA model. I was there when we tried and now nearly 30 years later we are still stuck in the 1950s!
From the FAA web site:
Every day, the Federal Aviation Administration provides air traffic services to more than 45,000 flights and 2.9 million airline passengers traveling across the more than 29 million square miles that make up the U.S. national airspace system (NAS). (Australian Airspace is approximately 26.5 million square miles)
The NAS is a network of both controlled and uncontrolled airspace, both domestic and oceanic. It also includes air navigation facilities, equipment and services; airports and landing areas; aeronautical charts, information and services; rules and regulations; procedures and technical information; and manpower and material.
The document states “Safety is the highest priority in aviation”-
This is not true. If it was true for airspace we would have Class B everywhere.
The only reason we do not have the clearly safer Class B everywhere is that they have put cost as the highest priority.
This is not true. If it was true for airspace we would have Class B everywhere.
The only reason we do not have the clearly safer Class B everywhere is that they have put cost as the highest priority.
Nice to see that the latest ICAO documents are being used.
International Civil Aviation Organisation, Air Traffic Services Planning Manual, 1st Edition, 1984
International Civil Aviation Organisation, Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept, 1st Edition, 2005
[and yes, these are the most recent ICAO documents]
Planning for the future when one of the documents is 37 years old. And that document probably took 3-5 years to be published. Everyone who worked on that document are either long retired to at least planning retirement. Back to the future.
International Civil Aviation Organisation, Air Traffic Services Planning Manual, 1st Edition, 1984
International Civil Aviation Organisation, Global Air Traffic Management Operational Concept, 1st Edition, 2005
[and yes, these are the most recent ICAO documents]
Planning for the future when one of the documents is 37 years old. And that document probably took 3-5 years to be published. Everyone who worked on that document are either long retired to at least planning retirement. Back to the future.
Dick Smith said: The document states “Safety is the highest priority in aviation”-
This is not true. If it was true for airspace we would have Class B everywhere.
Some years ago I went to a CASA sponsored safety lecture by Tony Kern. He mocked the organisations & companies who use the slogan "safety first, saying that if safety was really the paramount consideration, then we'd all stay in bed. Instewad he suggests that getting the job done is the primary objective. But that we should do it in the safetst, owest risk manner. This seems emminantly more sensible.
James Reasons in his books also publishes a graph of safety vs regulation, suggresting at ones gets to a point where increasing regulation diminishishes safety. Where is that pijnt? Look behind us, not in front.
This is not true. If it was true for airspace we would have Class B everywhere.
Some years ago I went to a CASA sponsored safety lecture by Tony Kern. He mocked the organisations & companies who use the slogan "safety first, saying that if safety was really the paramount consideration, then we'd all stay in bed. Instewad he suggests that getting the job done is the primary objective. But that we should do it in the safetst, owest risk manner. This seems emminantly more sensible.
James Reasons in his books also publishes a graph of safety vs regulation, suggresting at ones gets to a point where increasing regulation diminishishes safety. Where is that pijnt? Look behind us, not in front.
