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.