John and Martha King
 

Open Mike, could you please tell us what the cost of bringing these people here is and what relevence their apprearance will be to Australia?

From reading the blurb put out by you at great expence, it looks like it is a justification for the "Willoughby Report".

Historically we get far more people training here from Asia and Europe than the US, will these areas also be changing over to the US NAS or will they have to learn their airspace system once they return home?

Please explain????????

Niles,

I bet you are an Air Traffic Controller? (No make that a "Professional Pilot") Money seems to be the only thing on your mind. Aviation in Australia needs stimulating and if John and Martha can help, go for it. I note their envious record amongst the Aviation industry in the US and hope to hell they can help us stimulate ours. Lord knows it needs it. Especially the GA end of the market.

TBT

The letter that comes with the registration form states :

Is this possible???

CG

Chief............
 

635,000 Active Pilots in the US @~ 40 Hours for PPL

Therfore John & Martha will have approx 25 million hours each in their logbooks.

Obviously they are older than they look then. Maybe some cosmetic surgery did the trick ;) ;) ;)

Lies, damn lies etc.

Have a look at their web sit www.kingschools.com

All they do is produce educational, study, CD-ROM and video stuff.

Oh, and they spend alot of time self promoting aka Dick.

And the web site said almost 1 third of employed pilots have used their educational stuff. No hands on instructing here.

So they seem to be here to promote the US system so they can make some more green backs. And.... tell us all about how to make money from all the extra instruction we will be doing because of the new system. Give me a break!

These will be really interesting breakfasts. Here is my spin on things.

The first one will be great, we will even be able to ask questions.

The second one will have a very small time for questions.

The third will have no questions at all.

The forth will be a free for all and they will return to the US siting a family emergency, sickness etc and "Thats all folks, y'all come back now ye here"

John & Martha King
 

A few years ago the Kings visited Aus and flew their Caravan around the place. They wrote an article for one of the Aus aviation magazines (Flying? not sure...)

One thing struck me about what they had to say about that visit. It appeared that they couldn't figure out made the Australian GA industry different from that of the USA. I think they expected thriving hives of activity at every little backwater country aerodrome - line boys, rental cars, cafes, 24 hr UNICOMs, etc.

The USA might geographically be big spread out and made for aviation, just like Oz, but that's where the similarities end. Can you imagine flying your PA-28 to Parkes or Dubbo or Bathurst and having people compete for your refuelling business? Imagine places like Port Macquarie or Wagga having class C radar, ILS, HIAL and a multitude of schools, a couple of FBOs and hundreds of movements a day. Most parts of the USA seem to be like that, but most places here are cobweb covered, run down and empty.

AUS & USA AREN'T THE SAME MR & MRS KING!

I'm not sure if I'll pay much attention to their seminars, but I will be interested to find out if they understand these differences.

Good night, rant over.

"There are no better experts..."

So why, then, are they not on the NASIG displacing all the experts that are currently on it, the ones that have to duck off to the USA every 5 minutes (at IFR industry expense) to work out how to implement the dream of the boy from Terry Hills?

Open Mike is busy
 

Niles.
Open Mike is unable to respond to your questions because he is busy writing his application for the CEO of CASA's job. I wonder who his referees will be? :p :p :p :uhoh:

From the King's web site:

"Do you think that a 30 nautical mile Presidential TFR is necessary to protect the President?"

Unfortunately the only choise is "yes" or "no".

Wish they had a box that says "No, except for missile equipped RAAF F/A 18's.":{

Gotta admit that this whole thing looks like a big gimmick to try and get the pilots onside with these changes.

If I really want information on this, I'd rather read about them in the relevant documentation, not listen to some damn Yanks spouting on how well it works in the good ole US of A.

:suspect:

Hyped up seppos to sell us a dangerous downgrading of services? What the?

I would like to see a former head of CASA be made to ask them about higher rates of mid airs in the states, and their feelings on the new class G airspace. Oops sorry, I mean NAS!

They look like absolute friggin idiots in those pictures with their thumbs up and pants up around their armpits.

Probably the kind of people who have number plates "PILOT 1" and PILOT 2".

New system?
 

The powers at be would be better off buying back some airports, abolishing their pay increase GST thereby making it affordable for private pilots to fly and for buisness to be able to afford some of the increase in productivity General Aviation could offer.

Lets get a %#$@ing industry happening before we spend your and my money(TAX that is) on buttering up people we do not need. For Christs sake their is a multitude of people in this country who have a very skilled and knowledgable background on the airspace subject.

Give AUSTRALIA a go, let us show the world that we are capable of innovative, workable solutions to air traffic flow.

And while I am having a winge, why would the Dept. ban banner towing around the City of Brisbane. JOHN HOWARD spent millions of dollars posting every AUSTRALIAN a BE NOT AFRAID BUT BE AWARE letter. Then CASA said we are giving in to the terroists, thou shalt not tow banners near the city.

Last I heard, banner towing was a commercial operation, required a commercial pilot and the lodgement of a flight plan. Not to mention the one or two people that can actually do it.

This industry is in serious need of a marketting campaign, the promotion of Aviation and the regulation of the Aviation laws needs to be taken from CASA and Airservices. They are not capable and do not seemingly give a damn about peoples livlihoods.

This is totally UN AUSTRALIAN. We are in Australia are we not.



Winge Finished.
:ok:

John & Martha

Is this a case of "Oz Inadequacy Syndrome" = "If it's local it's no good. America #1"?

If John & Martha "taught over half of US pilots how to fly" they need their asses kicked for teaching the Yanks to be the world's WORST, NON-STANDARD radio operators!!
"Checkin' in at three five ohhh"
"Outta seven point two for one nine ohhh"
And the breakneck speed at which the controllers rattle out instructions to non native-English speaking pilots is nothing short of mindless stupidity....imo!

Have to agree GT-R. Shocking photo. Place a copy of the "Watchtower" in the other hand and they could be mistaken for Jehovas Witnesses. No offence to J.W.'s out there.;)

What the hell has Open Mike got to do with this??

Open Mike, looking through the members, I may have mistaken you for "Open Mic", my apologies if you are not the head of NAS, but if you are, or if you are not, this is intended for that asteemed person:

According to the flyers being posted out, your name and the name of the organisation that you head is the one who is inviting everyone to attend these breakfasts and evenings..

I am asking at what cost these events are costing and where the money is coming from?

It would seem to me that the only beneficiaries are the VFR types who do not pay for any services and it will be left to the IFR types to suffer a loss of services and have to pay for the privilege.

I can see no financial benifit to IFR out of the only report that has been produced so far, the "Willoughby Report".

As we live in an open and democratic society, I would like to know the cost??

Oh yeah the Kings,

I remember them from the USA back when I was there trying to jumpstart a flying career.

They put out a series of video tapes for the US ATPL exam. What a bloody farce! The exam books are freely available in the US with the ACTUAL questions in them!

These tapes were just John and Martha going over the questions. Very little theory involved from memory and designed to pass the exam over a weekend or so.

Now I am not trying to denegrade the kings but CASA really has lost the plot!

The Kings certainly are widely used in the US. Their success has come from finding ways to help people pass written tests with a minimum of effort.
They teach little rules of thumb to answer FAA test questions. Some of their videos have useful animations to help explain theoretical ideas but overall I have never been very impressed with them. That being said, what is it they are being asked to do in Australia?

Are they being asked to explain the US airspace system? If so then they are certainly good people for the job. Are they being asked to help explain what benefits the NAS has for Australian pilots? If so.... then who's idea was that? They don't know a damn thing about Australia I'm sure.

I do know this. A lot of people make comments on this forum RE: CASA's role in aviation. It seems they think that if noone flies there will be no crashes!

Having flown in both the US and Australia I can tell you there are significant differences between the FAA and CASA. One of the most important ones is this.

In the US the system is much more user friendly. The idea is that everybody should be able to participate & it is the FAA's role to help make everybody as safe as can be. If people violate regulations there are certainly consequences but more of the burden is put on the pilot & the operator with FAA oversight.

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.

The government here realised a long time ago how vital aviation is to the economy & in a country spread out like Australia this would only be more true. The Federal Government needs to promote aviation by making it easier for people to get involved.

The Australian system needs an overhaul. It would be great to see some people on this forum coming up with ideas on how to change the system for the better rather than trashing every idea somebody else comes up with.

Also the services provided are available to all pilots VFR & IFR on a workload permitted basis. If you want to hear a good example of ATC and Flight Service helping out a VFR pilot in distress go to www.naats.org and click on the red MAYDAY MAY DAY MAYDAY link on the right.
This is one of my company's former students who had an inadvertent encounter with IMC conditions and entered a spin. Through the quick actions of ATC he was rescued.

So I know we started out talking about the Kings, & whether you like them or not they are a great example of the American Aviation spirit which is..... everybody should be able to participate. That is why their educational material is directed to the lowest common denominator.

Weasil: Thanks for the link.
Having personally been involved in an identical situation, it makes me all the sadder to watch Dick et al move thru the oz system with a wrecking ball. It's hard not to get angry. The guy in the sound file is exactly the statistic that will be deemed 'acceptable'.

Ask the King's how someone like the guy in the sound file will get help under the ausNAS. Remember, Australia is not getting the US system, just parts of it. There is no 'flight service', flight following or other parts of the infrastructure that the US has. He won't even know what frequency to be on, it won't be on the chart! But keep going Dick, Mike etc. You might just get what you wish for. I hope that somehow, somewhere, someone will make you accoutable.

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.