The roadshow is being paid for by DoTRS not Airservices, and is said to cost around $200k.

Lodown,

Nonsense. In Australia, FBO stands for F@cking Boring Operation, and adequately describes 99% of Australia's outback airports, where a US FBO wouldn't even bother to land to do a feasibility study!!

Australia=18 million and no FBOs, USA=300 million and many FBOs. GET IT DICK and JOHN? Cost benefit analysis, old chaps! Affordable Service (geez, I almost said Safety!), and all that!! Where's me chikkie babies with their boobs hanging on my spinner??!!

GA to boom
 

All the Aussie Airspace Tour lacks is Chuck Heston selling NAS from a NRA perspective.
John and Martha give an AMWAY style of presentation to an aging audience, who nod knowingly at all the right times.

If all goes well, we will be able to land at remote locations where happy and obliging staff will park, wash, refuel our planes, and feed us with friendly efficiency, 24/7.

And we can land at Melbourne Airport, or any other of the major airports, to pick up our friends, even tho' they've been delayed to allow you to land ahead of them.

CG out

Hey CC!!! I was just responding to MH's question. I made no comment on the viability of an FBO in Australia. I think you have done a reasonably good job of that one.

For Mr Hat, if your question was legit, the FBOs in the US often provide fuel, parking facilities, rental/loan cars, hotel bookings, taxi arrangements, snacks, catering contacts, coffee, maintenance, flight planning facilities, pilot supplies, toilet facilities, crew rooms, etc and a sort of airport weather and rough traffic information service to arriving and departing aircraft through a staffed base radio, in addition to their flight operations. The radio airport information particularly is a very nice service if the traffic and customer levels justify the allocation of staff and other resources. Dick and the NAS group are focussing on the niceties of this radio service. And no two ways about it, it is nice if it can be provided. The fuel profits as a percentage make up a significant portion of an FBO's justification for providing the service. Some competing FBOs at airports have been known to send out 'Follow Me' cars to lure taxiing customers away from other bowsers. When the bizjets come in, the red carpets come out - literally.

You can figure out whether FBOs will be populating Australia like rabbits after the implementation of NAS. Capt. [Dis]Custard has expressed his opinion. I don't think he is far off the mark. I think there is also a lot to be said for the US charts and docs supporting operations with FBO servces. I don't know how viable this would be in Oz.

FBOs will exist or not by the laws of the free market. Friggin duh.
However....this is no excuse for not having efficient ATC, easy access to airspace and airports for all, airline pilots that can think a little quicker ("on the whole their delivery is Gatling gun fast" :rolleyes: ), and airline pilots that practise basic airmanship of maintaining a vigilant lookout the window. One would not think the Kings would be the obvious choice for re-education in Australia, but on reflection, it is evident from posts here that Aussie aviators need to go back to the ABCs..:{

Was a legit question and thank-you for you reply. Have always wondered what it stood for.

So they make their money off the fuel or do they have extra charges?

Cheers

Winstun
 

Thanks for making a few interesting points. I, too, have wondered why the U.S. doesn't have more efficient ATC (they have 20 times the number of controllers as oz). They have so many more mid-airs every year, too. I dunno, I just don't get it. Maybe they should adopt some world's best practice ?

Is this behind Dick's obsession? He can fly into Hicksville, USA and get his plane washed and 3 people arse-licking to fill it up, so he figures if he implants some of the features of their system in oz, the same thing will spring up? I can't believe the man is that stupid.

"..airline pilots that practise basic airmanship of maintaining a vigilant lookout the window."ala Winstun.

Good one Winstun. You just stay strapped in seat 26A, clutching "Aero Modelers World" with one hand, and :mad:ing with the other, as you peer out the window looking for "traffic", and let US do our job of looking after YOU (and the rest of the "good travelling public").

!!!!!!!! Well. Kaptin M. Excuse anyone with an opinion other than yours.

I happen to agree with him. And I may have taught you. Pity you still don't understand the need to lookout the window...
Can you at least use the rudders?

Kind Regards....

Manwell

Conversely Manwell, it may have been me who taught YOU!
Oh and I do use the rudders :O although it does seem to be something many of the younger guys DON'T do.
Unfortunately I don't qualify for the latter any more.

Pity some of you PPL'ers don't fully comprehend "rate of closure" vs the lack of depth/distance perception at altitude, even at night and excluding the daytime glare factor.

Even when advised by ATC of the position and distance of a converging aircraft, AND with the benefit of TCAS (assuming you know what TCAS is), 7 times out of 10 neither of the 2 pilots will locate it, and in the instances when they do, it's usually within 10 miles (at a closure rate of 900kts+).
As is often also the case, 1 pilot will be able to sight the aircraft, but the other cannot, due to the above mentioned factors.
"Clear Left - Clear right."

Winstun,

Great to have your whining back. I thought you must have gone walkabout to do a thesis on the complete FAILURE of Lookout to be an adequate mitigator against no-radio twits buzzing around looking at their GPSs (or perhaps for the chickee babes on the tarmac in the Follow Me van).

Manwell, given that professional crews can't even see each other go past with TCAS and DTI, how do you reckon Joe Jet in his powered wing thing is going to go picking up a 737 that's running him down??!! When are you jokers going to get the message?? Unalerted See and Avoid is downright stupid, quite apart from being bloody dangerous!

I can tell you one thing: WHEN a lighty and RPT jet gets taken out, all the BASI reports and correspondence on See and Avoid will come floating to the top, and the lawyers will have a field day, and rightly so. Hopefully, the perpetrators of this ridiculous airspace will end up in jail.

Why do again we need Americans to advise us? To me the Sepos are passion fingered i.e. everything they touch they f....! It is the good old USA thats need advise from people such as us.

I am sure we are smart enough and have the infastructure to sort out the problem. Why do we treat ourselves as dumb colonials? With the damage the Sepos have done through out the world and still are doing it would be very smart to give them a miss!

Kaptin , I totally agree , I have flown with USA trained pilots here in Europe and Africa. They are the most undisplined , unprofessional pilots I have ever met. The average Australian trained pilot is miles ahead Im proud to say.

End of Whinge.. " Yes.. what....coming warden!

Kaptin M, totally agree on the see and be seen. Those who have operated TCAS would know. I have had aircraft within 5 nm , 1000' below on TCAS with a rate of closure of 600 nm both of us looking and not seen a thing. Especially in Africa where conditions are the same as Aust, with heat haze, dust etc.

Sheepdog and Ferris I think your aussie nationalism is clouding your rational. Firstly ferris I've flown in both countries and the system in the US is 100% more efficient than in oz. That's why they can do 1700-2000 movements a day at certain airports. I'm not sure what sydney moves but I doubt you've every been number 40 for departure there.
Sheepdog I think you think because the ATPL over there is tougher that somehow they have a superior system over there. Not true, testing is different in all countries not better or worse. Americans do things different from aussies not better not worse. I'd get out of the self-aggrandisement soap box if I were you and give us aussies a better name than the arrogant obnoxious one your giving them now.

Druglord if you put me in that category then you better put most other people around the world in the same. Its the Americans are the only one who think that they and their system is the best.
Its not being obnoxious it just facing the facts. I will admit to being one eye Australian and Im proud of it . We need to be more confident of our abilities.

Guys guys guys

These two systems are very different and we realise that they will never be the same. But that doesnt stop productive debate and consultation. Maybe Martha and John will be snowed under with questions and asked why they have come. But I disagree with sheepdog that they are here to support change the system.

Ive flown in both systems and honestly they differ heaps. With good reason.

In the US in CTR ATC only gives separation to IFR with IFR, VFR have to fend for themselves. Of course when IFR cancel and go VFR they have to fend for themselves ( ie. respeed schedule in with the other VFR traffic)

US has a system based on supreme Radar coverage, Australia has not. When there is a RADAR departure for YAGGA YAGGA in Northern W.A. Thats when I belive both systems will be comparable. But when that happens:uhoh: . Your guess as good as mine.

I agree with Druglord that the US system is very efficient, and can dispatch Aircraft with tremendous speed and ontime slotting.

Australia aint too bad, ever watched Sydney on a Friday arvo or Melbourne for that matter.


sheepguts

:rolleyes: Try 10/10 if you got your head up your ass. I always see TCAS traffic. :hmm: This continual Aussie aviator wet dream that they are the best is obnoxious. Not only gives us Aussies a bad name, but is downright embarissing. :cool: Luckily I have other nationalities at hand. Like the ability to manufacture submarines (collins) and aircraft (nomad). No, Australian aviation has failed to reach anywhere near its true potential from domestic incompetance and infighting. The problem has not been sorted out for decades . Time for progression. :ok:

Question.....:confused: Has anyone actually been to one of these seminars to hear what is actually gone on?????

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

Winstun,

We need more lerts like you. "Pick em up at 50 miles, just like my mate Chuck Yeager! I don't need a TCAS!".

Or perhaps you could donate some of your eye genes for transplanting into all aviatiors!

I think wagga needs a strip that won't flood after a half a mil of rain first if I remember correctly.

As for a better system sheep guts is right, when australia has complete radar coverage perhaps a comparison can be made...as for who has better pilots, well that's just alpha male breast beating that smells of inferiority complex... something that's rarely done by the proffesional pilots I work with.

whoops I meant yagga

There is just no evidence that ATC is not already efficient; the ratio of Movements vs. ATCs is the best in the world in Australia. (According to Eurocontrol). But lets keep relying on a few anecdotal stories.

I have worked the same airspace now since 1997; (my last move) I have had two VFR aircraft call me from out of the blue in all that time looking for a clearance; there seems to be some myth that you can't just call because ATCs are a bunch of pricks and won't let you in; there may be times/locations when that happens but as an enroute ATC it almost never happens, so there is no need to knock anyone back.

The concept of getting into places like Sydney because you change the airspace category is ludicrous. You can do it now and nothing will change. If you do it in the RPT push (or certain LTOP modes) expect delays; come the end state NAS if you do it in the RPT push (or certain LTOP modes) expect delays; NAS does not equal better access to major aerodromes, if we roll out class B it may mean less access.

Australia's biggest problem with ‘aerodrome efficiency’ is political interference; with caps on movements and procedures to appease the noise lobby, mode sharing etc.

I currently control ‘E’ airspace; I've done all the training in the new procedures and not once have I had one request for IFR pick-up, VFR descent/climb or VFR on TOP. How cost effective and efficient is the training of 150 ATCs in new procedures (300 days training so far, with much more to come 2- 5 days each just for 2b changes) for ****** all requests? Can I remember the fandangled procedures 3 months later? No chance of doing them right because I've never seen it; I’ll look to the books and work it out when I get a request; is that efficient, safe or service orientated?

The majority of traffic that I'll have requesting any of this stuff, if it ever happens, I'll just give them heading if needed, which could be rare and get 5 miles and separate them, as the ATCs do in the USA. I'm so glad I've got radar coverage; then again I might actually have to watch someone of Winstun’s character do something stupid 'because I always see them'; then the aircraft coming the other way might ask me to intervene and offer some ATC protection (vector me away from that cowboy) because they don’t trust the someone of Winstun’s character.

Bottle of Rum

SM4 Pirate,

Good post. At least you have radar to use. Imagine what it's going to be like with no radar coverage. Let's face it, if you can't give an IFR clearance to an aircraft because of conflicting traffic being so close, then these "VFR" procedures will hardly be appropriate either.

Bit like the idiot who thought up the glossy brouchure for VFR Climb: "Clearance Not Available due to crossing Dash 8 12 o'clock at 7 miles!" IFR smasher: "Righto Oh, request VFR Descent so I can go straight thru his level and I promise to keep my eyeballs out!". Now that IS a great scenario to use as a piece of education material...NOT! If I was the Dash 8 pilot, I'd say "no you're bloody-well NOT going to descend thru my level until WE can both SEE each other, thank you! I don't care whether you're Winstun or not!".

Sad times for all.

US Airspace
 

In my very limited experience in US airspace I found it great. Given effectively a radar vector to take me from one side of the country to the other :)

Totally agree though that we are comparing Apples and Oranges. I don't think it's wise importing their airspace system without importing there equipment support (radar!) and COST structure.... and I doubt they'll take on there cost structure.

Winstun says:
Stick to making jokes about aircraft because you clearly don't know what your talking about with submarines :rolleyes:

That and the two page colour adverts in every issue of every flying magazine. And I think they give away an aeroplane every year or so.

Mr Hat, as soon as you asked what FBO stood for, I couldn't remember. They make their money selling gas, running a flight school, maybe a spot of maintenance, perhaps a small pilot shop, maybe a restaurant, also hangar rental if they have them. They can range in size from a little dusty office with a couple of old timers hanging about to a sleek executive terminal with lots of staff, car hire desk and rolled up red carpets for the visitors.

A quick question what is wrong with the airspace the way it is? I seem to get from A to B safely IFR, How is removing MBZ's going to make this safer for me? Is NAS to far along to stop or can a united industry stop it?

Does anyone know what the difference between a north american CTAF and our CTAF is and where i can read up on it

Go here for the answers to most of your questions.

NAS Implementation

I shared a meal recently with John and Martha.

They are both very fine people and sincerely dedicated to the ground school training industry in particular and aviation in general.

They are very much aware of the differences and the educational and cultural changes required.

They are flying around in a Navajo and finding out first hand, just how big this country is and the specific issues and dificulties of remote area operations first hand.

They are very active in the advancement of the industry, very keen to understand our problems and share their considerable experience with us. It should be very educational for us both.

John and Martha are indeed two of the finest people one could ever hope to meet.

Their commitment and enthusiasm is unparalleled.

But more than that, they are gifted communicators. John and Martha are able to share their vast knowledge with others in a way that is both motivating and inspirational.

John and Martha have done more to contribute to the growth of general aviation than many contributors to this thread will ever know.

I cringe at some of the xenophobic nonsense posted on this thread. I suspect that most of the BS comes from those who have never flown outside Australia.

It seems that some contributors to this thread would prefer to f*ck up the Australian aviation industry their own way rather than take advice from someone they perceive to be an outsider. These are probably the very same d*ckheads who were complaining a couple of months ago about there being no visible sign of a NAS pilot education program! :rolleyes:

To John and Martha – thanks for coming to Australia to try and educate some of these numb skulls. Your efforts are very much appreciated and I hope that you are enjoying your stay. :ok:

Woomera

That link says the MBZs will change to a north american CTAF where does it say what nth american CTAF is?

BIK let people make up there own minds and get your hand of it

With regard to the VFR descent thing:

It sounds like MARSA without the requirement for both parties to accept.

I guess the King's will be bringing out some educational text books?

:}

Seriously though, all things aside - I still can't see why we need to change the current airspace. Not that we will be listened to anyway.

Glad I've got TCAS :E

Woomera

You won't find many answers or much detail in the link you provided.

John King could not get his head around our priority system. While that is in place, as well as user pays, it is difficult to see where GA VFR will fit into the major airports at peak times.

These are the current rules that ATC have to abide by.

CG

Thats a BIG ask......:uhoh:

BIK116, you hit the nail on the head. I dont' know why there's so much anti-americanism around here, after all it where aviation originated and has a great ATC system that I'm sure australia would love to have if it had a population of 270 million.

The spouting off about how we're the best is an absolute embarassment to aussies abroad who are too proffesional to participate in this behaviour.

:p

Sorry to say this, guys, but J and M, which I endured, including the @#$% about landing on the taxiway at LAX, are full of it. IF you could do it at SYD, AsA would slug you big bikkies: DS and AOPA wanted User Pays; they've got it. QF (and AA when they were around) don't want to subidise VFR, and, after reading the posts here from Bindook, Winstun and others, I don't want to either. You guys are arrogant, self-centered, single issue fanatics and do not deserve any sympathy. In fact, it is your attitude that has got the industry into this mess. To suggest that MBZs and Class C towers have killed the industry is totally ludicrous, as is the idea that their removal will be the panacea of all VFR ills.

Bindook, go and make a fortune printing thousands of nice maps for VFR to use, like John suggested. Ha. Oh, and I hope you get to critical mass! Ha. They just don't understand that we DON'T, and never will, get to critical mass with our population numbers.

They, and a few jokers here, need to have a reality check. The industry's stuffed because of DS and zealot beancouters (aided and abetted by DS and Co): it's got nothing to do with the airspace.

NAS won't save a cent and will decrease safety to boot, and to have two yanks come over here and tell me otherwise really gets up my nose. They even had NAS shirts on! For god's sake!

All that said, I admire the way the yanks generally have a more can-do attitude than our bureauracy (I get dicked around by AsA and it p#sses me off), but I draw the line at having to mix it with no-radio circuit traffic and non-radar E airspace.

US CTAF

MBZ & CTAF as an airspace will no longer exist. It will be a recommended practice to make MORE calls than now. This will apparently reduce freq congestion...:confused: Inbound call at about 10nm for a bug-smasher, bit further out for Dick in his Crustacean. Nothing marked on charts, other than non-126.7 freqs. Same procedure for YPMQ and a rectangularish paddock in the middle of nowhere.

PRIORITES

I remember Boyd Munroe's stunt a few years ago, flying around in circles all day over BIK and still unable to land at SY. I can't help thinking multiple runways facilitate the flexibility the Kings spoke of at LA. Using one runway, with wake-turb separation and the difference in performance, it costs about 2 jets worth of slot to land one bug-smasher. With that in mind, regardless of it being a rule now, all it would take is a CHANGE of rule and it would be done, and f*ck the paying passenger. It might even provide a boost to GA and business aviation if they didn't have to wait for somebody to die before they could inherit a landing slot:E So, Dick, why isn't that one of your "characteristics"?????

Developing the theme, why does our runty f*ckw*t of a prime minister get priority over the same paying passenger. If I get the nose of my car in front of his car on a Canberra roundabout a traffic cop doesn't jump out of a bush and make me drive in circles until he's gone. First in best dressed, why not??? It could be fun to manage the changes in sequence! Us Maestro newbies are learning things can change quickly anyhow! The only real casualty would be the ridiculous movement cap at Sydney.

roach trap,

If you think that one post from me somehow prevents people making their own assessment and forming their own view then you must be inferring that people are significantly more gullible than I would give them credit for. How has my post in any way reduced your ability, for example, to make up your own mind? Doesn’t the very existence of your dissenting comments prove that you have been able to make up your own mind? Aren’t your very comments a self-defeating prophecy?

Captain Custard,

I’ve never sought any sort of subsidy from anyone.

I’m happy to pay for all the air traffic services I need - ie none.

Who’s seeking sympathy? :confused:

Why? I don’t need the money, nor do I need the maps. I’m very happy with my US military ONCs for topographic information and my Jeppesen enroute charts for airspace and navaid data – all ably assisted by the Garmin’s moving map display. I’ve never been lost yet! :ok:

(I’m a particular fan of the S11 ONC, if you get my drift. ;) ;) ;) )

Is that because you suffer from xenophobia, or is it just that you dislike taking advice from anyone?

Who’s forcing you to? If you cant stand the heat....

After reading the implementation program I cannot see that at places like Ayers Rock & Broome which will become CTAF's, how you could say that the new system is safer. If you had radar it would work fine, however under the new system still with no radar I think it is an accident waiting to happen. As you could have in a busy time numerous jets, a few metro's, conquest, possibly a PC-12, plus numerous bug smashas all arriving within 5 minutes of each other. The IFR traffic have no DTI on each other and there is no requirement to carry a radio. This gets even worse when the wx is bad as you have guys ploughing along in cloud with no idea who else is out there!! Can't see how that is a better system. I think if the system is to be better and SAFER then we need to have the radar coverage.

general thought, but IMHO, don't the airports have a say in who they let in and when ?

For example, if Sydney airport doesn't want bugsmashers in there, they'll either deny clearence or price us out ...

Also, was at the CASA flight safety forum today and a presenter said that with NAS, you tell the controller that your coming and if they reply with your callsign and no clearence, that's supposed to mean "come on in, I don't have your clearence yet, i'll just go get it". I'm thinking if they were heaps busy, they really wouldn't want to deal with a bugsmasher ....

Another point that i'm a little unsure about (and i don't mean to stir up or divide opinions) but for areas of relatively high volume VFR traffic, I helps reassure my peace of mind if i make a general broadcast on the area frequency just to quickly state, who, where, height and north/south bound. In the new system, where you're only supposed to talk to ATC, i think this sort of 'broadcast' will be frowned on... IMHO, this will be a shame ...

Anyway - I know i'm only a PPL pilot - but that's my 2 cents ... no offence intended to anyone who disagrees ....:cool:

I think the whole NAS idea needs to be put out of its misery but thats just my opinion

Neville Nobody I am no great fan of NAS as I can't see much wrong with what we have, however your comment...

DTI is not being removed.

Have a close read of the implementation program on the back page.