From their website:
What an absolute load of BOLLOCKS!
I - for one - have NEVER heard of these 2 until now!

They sound like a couple of American TV evangelicalists...what's his name, and Tammy...trying to defraud the gullibles of several million bucks.

Who in Oz has fallen for them??!!

ps. Their qualifications are waaaaaaay short of Winstun's!!

You know, it becomes exceedingly obvious to anyone viewing this thread why Aus does not have a thriving aviation industry.

Many of us seem more intent on getting one up on everyone else than enlightening anyone, with a few notable exceptions.

Just my opinion, Dick is right, not that I actually like the guy, but if you look at the big picture then our system is very labour intensive, without justification.

Someone mentioned there being more midairs in the US as a proportion of total. Well, that might be. But our overall accident rate is higher. Think about it.

Blokes, just think about it quietly and calmly.

The Kings are not what I particularly want to see here either, unfortunately, they probably do know a fair bit about the US system, and every single person I know who's flown there considers it superior. Think about that too.

This isn't the whole argument for the case, but unless you are willing to fill in the details I'm sure that any further effort to enlighten you would be futile.

Live, and let live...

Manwell
You mean, like this
Hope that as part of that "enlightening" process, you become aware that Aus is not getting the US system!! We are getting bits and pieces of that system. Aus cannot afford the level of infrastructure that the US has. So statements like are just irrelevent.

Think about that.

the reason for rattling off radio instructions at breakneck speed and non-standard radio calls if for traffic. When you have the congestion you have over here, full call signs, lingo and hitting your ident button for replies become useful.
As for John and Martha king, yeah their courses are popular over here, but I really dont' think they can do anything to boost GA over there

"the reason for rattling off radio instructions at breakneck speed and non-standard radio calls if for traffic. When you have the congestion you have over here.."

At airports the likes of KLAX, I might agree, druglord, however my experience there was that there were often Say agains from foreign crewed aircraft that had arrived there tired after a longhaul flight, and whose first language is not English.

However, American controlllers also work in other countries eg. Japan, Guam, in control zones where traffic is NOT a factor, and on the whole their delivery is Gatling gun fast.
It's UNnecessary and counter-productive, imo.

I hope John and Martha can explain to me how NAS Stage 3, characteristic 7, works safely. i.e. Where I work, it can be demonstrated regularly and on a daily basis, that establishing intelligible communications on first contact with pop-up VFR's is far from the norm. The interpretation of this procedure is going to be by far the most hazardous NAS change. It is going to affect all major CTR's as per Stage 3, characteristic 11 where So it appears that some priority is offered to a VFR flight that pops up at the CTR boundary, even though he is under the continuously used flight path of passenger planes, that have flight planned, and are operating under a IFR clearances designed to provide separation, having paid a reasonable amount for the service.
The slightest mis-interpretation of the first communication means the non flight planned, non paying VFR popup is in the CTR without anyone having a schmick of an idea about what he's doing, or where he's going.

Which leads me to Stage 4, charateristic 9.Not trying to offend anyone here, but I can only imagine that Sydney, then perhaps Melbourne and Brisbane qualify. The others will have there busy times I'm sure, but are they in line for B status?
Once Class B is established, goodbye VFR's. All traffic is separated, so VFR's, "line up here outside the zone for your clearance", (and to quote an old instructor from the ATC college) "there'll be a three day delay."
At the moment Class C CTR rules offer the best balance of controlled separation and safety for IFR's, and traffic freedom for VFR's.
The proposed changes will be detrimental for all ops no matter which way they go.

I hope J & M can explain this to me.

Will anyone be at the Melbourne forum?

CG

"If a problem exists then the government help change the circumstances by providing financial aid/legislative support rather than just putting an end to the operation. If an operator continues to be seen as unsafe than market forces either dictate change or put the operator out of business. The government should not be in the position of putting someone out of business except as a last resort."

weasil. My hero!!!! :ok: :ok: :ok: :ok:

Betcha can't get that message into any thick Canberra heads! :{ :{

Manwell,

But there is nothing in NAS that will make a huge difference to the participation rate here, nothing. Just because an MBZ changes to a CTAF? Have you really heard of any pilot that won;t go flying because there's an MBZ? Apart from those ones without radio who probably are too damned irresponsible anyway?

This concept that NAS and the Kings will kickstart an industry that has been stuffed by Dick Smith (User pays) and AOPA (demanding regulation changes) is a complete nonsense, and the sooner the pollies realise the better. Just stop stuffing us all around and leave things as they are. That's why private pilots are %issed off and don't go flying: things keep changing all the time and they can't keep up.

You asked for an alternative system: well here it is. Rename Class G, Class F (that's what it really is), make all towers Class C (solves the crazy problem highlighted by Chief Galah), allow VFR to operate in C airspace outside major airports without charge, mandate radio or transponder above 5000ft and in MBZs, which exist where RPT turbines go to more than once a day. It's ICAO compliant with 2 differences.

You know what i find hard, this forum begins with a certain topic and ends somewhere in the wilderness.
I may not fly planes, but damn, its hard when you have a comment you wish to post, relating to the subject, then after reading from post one to the last, it jumps topics!

All i wanted to say is .....well great now, i forgot!

Have met John in person, nice bloke he was on his way to Costa Rica in his Citation, with Martha, but didnt see her.
His videos and training material are aimed at abinitio Aviators. And are based on the US system which hasnt had to go thru the change the Aussie system has. Doubt wether its relevant, for him coming to talk about the changes in Oz.

Promotional stunt that , I think has been planned without correct consultation. May be embarrasing for both Air Services and Mr King...........:( :uhoh: :{


Regards
Sheep

Can someone tell me what "FBO" stands for?

The difference between AUS and US is 250 million people.

Is Australian airspace ever left alone long enough for anyone to get a handle on it.
It seems we now have Air Services inviting an American couple, who write syllabi for trainee American pilots, to come and brief Australians about a system which is neither totally Australian or totally American.

Sounds like a turkey hunt, with the turkeys trying to organise it.

Pre-Dick, I thought the system worked fairly efficiently from both the operational and cost point of view.
Since the "user pays" systems were introduced, operationally it has become a muddle, and the user finds he is paying for MORE than just the services he uses - he's subsidising experimental forays and snake oil shows!

Captain Custard; Your suggestion for airspace changes sounds very sensible and logical IMHO. That's why it would never happen.:{ :{

Kaptin M; It was a lot simpler pre Dick was'nt it? I often wonder why there is this frenetic rush to adopt ICAO standards when as they were once described to me by someone who should know, as 'the lowest common denominator':confused:

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

AUS-NAS v US-NAS
 

How much is the King's visit costing Australian aviation?
Heard a rumour which had their visit at over $500K...

While I'm here, A design Safety Case will be conducted in Sydney on 19 August, for stage 2b.

Does that mean that someone somewhere has finally actually recognised a difference in Aus-NAS and US-NAS?

Will it be nothing more than a box ticking exercise? All the procedures, maps etc have been developed; it would be to late to make changes would it not?

Bottle of Rum

Kaptin well said. Continual changes and people eventually get the Sh!ts with it.:ugh:

On-topic discussion:

I'm going to see the Kings, I reckon there may be a cup of tea in it for me. Another reason to go and a frustration I have with this septic procedural invasion is the difference between what the US documents say, and what ATC & operators do. Still not sure which we are getting. But anybody who doesn't go, and is bleating about any points they actually convince me on will recieve the full length of my tongue...

Off-topic discussion:

Galah - aircraft tells C/D airspace controller "ABC, I'm here buddy, wanna go there, um, that there level" (extract from draft AIP/SUP). Controller then has the option of saying "ABC" which the pilot takes as to approval to do as he said (no fr*gg*n readbacks required coz he's already said it) or still has the option "ABC, y'all remain outside this here control area and I'll get back t'ya" (another extract) or an alternate clearance if it will work better.

The difference in traffic moving between B and C airspace is buggar all. In C we separate VFR from IFR but only give traffic and don't separate VFR from other VFR. I've probably done this 5 times in a decade. The only advantage to B airspace is you get more volume where VFR require a clearance (US model) and the transponder veil. F*ck all difference for traffic moving.

custard - making all towers C airspace won't fix anything as implied clearances DO apply in C:\ Agree F would be nice, we've had it for 12 years, the powers to be just aren't game to hang the right tag on the airspace:8

Mr. Hat - Agree the NAS project has used up a lot of goodwill with crappy changes nobody uses. ******** Smith is obsessed with the multi-staged implementation plan from Airspace 2000 (he still has the education leaflet from that in his briefcase - I've seen it). On the other hand, to implement stage 4 with nothing prior would just not work. Too much for pilots and ATC to learn, too big a risk of complete failure. Personally I think stage 3 (with the retention of traffic in G,) would be a good end-state.

News from the Roadshow...
 

Well my spies in sunny Canberra tell me that the first NAS King/Smith Roadshow presentation was...predictable.
Some highlights...

Canberra was obviously chosen as a "soft" starting point for Mike Smith to warm up his power point presentation and smooth out any wrinkles prior to travelling to more challenging locations. The audience was full of CASA and AsA staff! All there of their own free will of course. So no challenging questions there then. Even Dick Smith kept quiet.

Apparently the NAS will " create an anvironment for growth by bringing in a simpler and more flexible system" and will "save $70 million for our industry". Who will actually save the money and over what time period?

DTI is to remain until at least after June 2004 as it is not in the changes scheduled for then. It will only be removed when there is something to replace it. Huh?

Frequency boundaries will disappear from charts to be replaced by frequency boxes showing the location of the transmitter. Pilot's will simply use the one that they think is the closest and most appropriate. This is only on ERC and TAC's.

The Kings were really pushing the message that NAS will stimulate GA and apparently FBO's will pop up everywhere to service your every need. So clearly it has been our airspace system that has been hindering any growth in GA all this time. If only we had known we could have fixed it earlier!

Mike Smith's presentation was VERY quickly presented, no time to linger on messy details, simply gloss over the gaps. The Dorothy Dixer questions from CASA stooges were apparently all too obvious.

Ferris,

you're probably right. Sorry it's taken so long to respond.

Enlighten may not have been the best choice, perhaps, "complete the argument", or something like that would have been more appropriate.

I'd write more, but I'm a bit short of time,



Copyalater

Roadshow
 

Interesting comment from my CASA mole. Apparently, Mike Smiff's presentation opened with "good evening and welcome to Canberra". It would seem, that was the last honest thing he said !!

What a waste of money, lots of glossy brochures were handed out, pre-punched for your ring binders (to hold the volumes that will follow).

I look foward to attending to see what these puppets have to say.

I wonder whether the King's read Prune? Probably not, or they wouldn't have bothered coming. But then again, the money's good.

I feel better now.

Mr Hat,

FBO - Fixed Base Operator.

Don't have the actual definition on me, but in general terms it is the organization/s located on an airport that operates or causes to operate aircraft.