 |
AirTalk.org
Aviation discussions newsgroups
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BB
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed Jan 21, 2004 9:47 pm Post subject: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
 |
|
In today's SMH...
http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/index.html
For all his indignation with critics of his two-month-old National Airspace
System, the federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, has been unable to
quell wide disquiet over his changes to sky management.
He can portray protesting air traffic controllers as motivated by job
security self-interest and protesting airline pilots as caught in a 1950s
"time warp". The findings of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau
investigation of a Christmas Eve incident involving a passenger jet and
light aircraft at Launceston will prove hard to bury, however.
That the two aircraft nearly collided, said the bureau, made a review of the
new system imperative. Such serious findings of such an expert body made Mr
Anderson's response almost cavalier. Rather than vindicating critics of the
new system, he said "virtually all" claims of near misses "have been shown
to have no justification whatsoever". It was a strange qualification to add
because it seemed to be suggesting that a 100-1 or 1000-1 risk might be a
fair price to pay for aviation economies.
Under the new system, light aircraft can share more airspace with jets
without having to inform air traffic control. Pilots are instructed to watch
more closely for other aircraft, and light aircraft must be equipped with
signal-emitting transponders detectable by other planes if flying above 4500
feet.
The savings? Air traffic communication is less cluttered and fewer air
traffic controllers are needed, cutting operating costs by about $70 million
a year. Advocates claim US experience with the same system has demonstrated
its safety. Critics insist the two nations are incomparable because the US
has almost complete radar coverage, allowing air traffic controllers to
track most movements, while Australian coverage is sparse. They say the
system is a tragedy waiting to happen.
The travelling public, therefore, is left flying in a vacuum, either
blissfully unaware of the argument's claims and counter-claims or with
little option but to trust in the assurances of the new system's defenders
and the good judgement of all pilots.
The difficulty for Mr Anderson is that system reliability is more obviously
exposed in failures than in incident-free operation. Clear flying will not
satisfy detractors because they will forever insist that an avoidable
tragedy could happen any time hence. That is why Mr Anderson must not show
himself too ready to pigeonhole the Launceston inquiry findings as if they
were just another irritant incapable of causing him to pause to reflect on
his vision for a more streamlined, less costly general aviation sector.
There are enough doubts and enough well-credentialled doubters for the
public to have legitimate concerns about the imposition of this doctrine of
affordable air safety. That does not mean Mr Anderson's advocacy is wrong,
although many might question how the minister can be so certain. He would do
well to strive for better methods of demonstrating the system's assuredness
and less time deriding "virtually all" claims of near tragic consequences.
Regards,
BB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Peter Creswick
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tosser
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 12:49 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"Peter Creswick" <ventus45 (AT) ihug (DOT) com.au> wrote
The only problem with that, Pete, is that the following line isn't as prominent
in html ...
"This material is subject to copyright and any unauthorised use, copying or
mirroring is prohibited."
<GRIN>
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mil80C
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 11:51 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
OK BB, it certainly is a topical subject but what is YOUR opinion of the NAS
in Aust?
"BB" <not (AT) all (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: | In today's SMH...
http://www.smh.com.au/editorial/index.html
For all his indignation with critics of his two-month-old National
Airspace
System, the federal Transport Minister, John Anderson, has been unable to
quell wide disquiet over his changes to sky management.
He can portray protesting air traffic controllers as motivated by job
security self-interest and protesting airline pilots as caught in a 1950s
"time warp". The findings of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau
investigation of a Christmas Eve incident involving a passenger jet and
light aircraft at Launceston will prove hard to bury, however.
That the two aircraft nearly collided, said the bureau, made a review of
the
new system imperative. Such serious findings of such an expert body made
Mr
Anderson's response almost cavalier. Rather than vindicating critics of
the
new system, he said "virtually all" claims of near misses "have been shown
to have no justification whatsoever". It was a strange qualification to
add
because it seemed to be suggesting that a 100-1 or 1000-1 risk might be a
fair price to pay for aviation economies.
Under the new system, light aircraft can share more airspace with jets
without having to inform air traffic control. Pilots are instructed to
watch
more closely for other aircraft, and light aircraft must be equipped with
signal-emitting transponders detectable by other planes if flying above
4500
feet.
The savings? Air traffic communication is less cluttered and fewer air
traffic controllers are needed, cutting operating costs by about $70
million
a year. Advocates claim US experience with the same system has
demonstrated
its safety. Critics insist the two nations are incomparable because the US
has almost complete radar coverage, allowing air traffic controllers to
track most movements, while Australian coverage is sparse. They say the
system is a tragedy waiting to happen.
The travelling public, therefore, is left flying in a vacuum, either
blissfully unaware of the argument's claims and counter-claims or with
little option but to trust in the assurances of the new system's defenders
and the good judgement of all pilots.
The difficulty for Mr Anderson is that system reliability is more
obviously
exposed in failures than in incident-free operation. Clear flying will not
satisfy detractors because they will forever insist that an avoidable
tragedy could happen any time hence. That is why Mr Anderson must not show
himself too ready to pigeonhole the Launceston inquiry findings as if they
were just another irritant incapable of causing him to pause to reflect on
his vision for a more streamlined, less costly general aviation sector.
There are enough doubts and enough well-credentialled doubters for the
public to have legitimate concerns about the imposition of this doctrine
of
affordable air safety. That does not mean Mr Anderson's advocacy is wrong,
although many might question how the minister can be so certain. He would
do
well to strive for better methods of demonstrating the system's
assuredness
and less time deriding "virtually all" claims of near tragic consequences.
Regards,
BB
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:28 pm Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"Mil80C" <ddeanSNIP4 (AT) bigpond (DOT) net.au> wrote
| Quote: | OK BB, it certainly is a topical subject but what is YOUR opinion of the
NAS
in Aust?
|
I've deliberately steered clear of those threads...
I must admit I'm a bit suspicious about the thing - in saying that, I'm
neither a pilot nor an air traffic controller - I'm concerned more with
aircraft maintenance and related things (I tell you this in advance so
you'll know that this opinion comes from no-one more qualified in this area
than a casual observer).... I have seen the (unfortunate) term 'affordable
safety' used in relation to the new NAS (even though IIRC the term was
coined by Dick Smith some time ago - in describing what I can't remember)..
The main driving factor going by what I've heard from the Government seems
to be to save money and while saving that money to at least maintain the
current safety levels... I guess that's the rub for me - what we had before
was, by inference, quite safe - but we'll replace it with something that may
or may not prove to be as safe to save some money... The term 'affordable
safety' implies to me that what we had before was not affordable (is this so
or is it some spindoctoring?).... Last time I looked the Govt. made plenty
of money from civil aviation so people using and working in aviation can
never be accused of not paying their own way.... I get the impression that
the Govt. feels it's too expensive to save people from a misfortune that may
(or may not be) just around the corner...
I get the feeling that we should be striving for 'worlds best'... and
instead somehow settling for the US system
I guess that sometimes you get what you pay for...
Regards,
BB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Peter Creswick
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:35 pm Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
BB wrote:
| Quote: |
I get the feeling that we should be striving for 'worlds best'... and
instead somehow settling for the US system
I guess that sometimes you get what you pay for...
Regards,
BB.
|
Where have you been. We had world's best, but we have decided to downgrade to the lowest common
denominator.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 1:51 pm Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"Peter Creswick" <ventus45 (AT) ihug (DOT) com.au> wrote
| Quote: | BB wrote:
I get the feeling that we should be striving for 'worlds best'...
and
instead somehow settling for the US system
I guess that sometimes you get what you pay for...
Regards,
BB.
Where have you been. We had world's best, but we have decided to
downgrade to the lowest common
denominator.
|
Like I said... I've kept away because I ain't really up to speed on the
whole thing...
Regards,
BB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ken (good grief it's upsi
Guest
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 24, 2004 10:54 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"Affordable safety" hmmm this of course is opposed to unaffordable safety.
It seems that considerable experience with safety suggests that there is no
such thing as unaffordable safety as the direct and indirect costs of
accidents has been found to outweigh the safety costs in every case, whether
it is human loss, economic loss or simple human tragedy. So are what they
saying is that some losses are acceptable in order to save costs? This
sounds like the "core" and "non-core" promise gibberish we here from the
current Prime Minister. I can only hope and pray that it is not my life or
the lives of those that might travel with me who become "affordable" losses.
"BB" <not (AT) all (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
"Mil80C" <ddeanSNIP4 (AT) bigpond (DOT) net.au> wrote in message
news:FOOPb.23560$Wa.14017 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...
OK BB, it certainly is a topical subject but what is YOUR opinion of the
NAS
in Aust?
I've deliberately steered clear of those threads...
I must admit I'm a bit suspicious about the thing - in saying that,
I'm
neither a pilot nor an air traffic controller - I'm concerned more with
aircraft maintenance and related things (I tell you this in advance so
you'll know that this opinion comes from no-one more qualified in this
area
than a casual observer).... I have seen the (unfortunate) term
'affordable
safety' used in relation to the new NAS (even though IIRC the term was
coined by Dick Smith some time ago - in describing what I can't
remember)..
The main driving factor going by what I've heard from the Government seems
to be to save money and while saving that money to at least maintain the
current safety levels... I guess that's the rub for me - what we had
before
was, by inference, quite safe - but we'll replace it with something that
may
or may not prove to be as safe to save some money... The term 'affordable
safety' implies to me that what we had before was not affordable (is this
so
or is it some spindoctoring?).... Last time I looked the Govt. made plenty
of money from civil aviation so people using and working in aviation can
never be accused of not paying their own way.... I get the impression that
the Govt. feels it's too expensive to save people from a misfortune that
may
(or may not be) just around the corner...
I get the feeling that we should be striving for 'worlds best'... and
instead somehow settling for the US system
I guess that sometimes you get what you pay for...
Regards,
BB.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stew Hunt
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:14 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
BB, do you know what I find strange? None of the pro NAS people have been
able to point to a single cost saving. The Minister has mentioned 70 million
$ of savings, but cannot say where any of these savings will come from.
Anyone out there know?
Stew.
"BB" <not (AT) all (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
"Mil80C" <ddeanSNIP4 (AT) bigpond (DOT) net.au> wrote in message
news:FOOPb.23560$Wa.14017 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...
OK BB, it certainly is a topical subject but what is YOUR opinion of the
NAS
in Aust?
I've deliberately steered clear of those threads...
I must admit I'm a bit suspicious about the thing - in saying that,
I'm
neither a pilot nor an air traffic controller - I'm concerned more with
aircraft maintenance and related things (I tell you this in advance so
you'll know that this opinion comes from no-one more qualified in this
area
than a casual observer).... I have seen the (unfortunate) term
'affordable
safety' used in relation to the new NAS (even though IIRC the term was
coined by Dick Smith some time ago - in describing what I can't
remember)..
The main driving factor going by what I've heard from the Government seems
to be to save money and while saving that money to at least maintain the
current safety levels... I guess that's the rub for me - what we had
before
was, by inference, quite safe - but we'll replace it with something that
may
or may not prove to be as safe to save some money... The term 'affordable
safety' implies to me that what we had before was not affordable (is this
so
or is it some spindoctoring?).... Last time I looked the Govt. made plenty
of money from civil aviation so people using and working in aviation can
never be accused of not paying their own way.... I get the impression that
the Govt. feels it's too expensive to save people from a misfortune that
may
(or may not be) just around the corner...
I get the feeling that we should be striving for 'worlds best'... and
instead somehow settling for the US system
I guess that sometimes you get what you pay for...
Regards,
BB.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:19 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"Stew Hunt" <NOSPAM6stewhunt (AT) bigpond (DOT) net.au> wrote
| Quote: | BB, do you know what I find strange? None of the pro NAS people have been
able to point to a single cost saving. The Minister has mentioned 70
million
$ of savings, but cannot say where any of these savings will come from.
Anyone out there know?
Stew.
|
Presumably any saving is based upon them not having to contribute when it
all goes wrong...
JB
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BB
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:17 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"Stew Hunt" <NOSPAM6stewhunt (AT) bigpond (DOT) net.au> wrote
| Quote: | BB, do you know what I find strange? None of the pro NAS people have been
able to point to a single cost saving. The Minister has mentioned 70
million
$ of savings, but cannot say where any of these savings will come from.
Anyone out there know?
Stew.
|
I assumed reductions in staff numbers at Air Services Australia.... In
terms of the Australian economy, $70m is pretty much chicken feed isn't it?
Regards,
BB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
alan
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 10:44 am Post subject: Re: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
One of the major problems I have with the new N.A.S, is previous to the
implimentation of the N.A.S, I was tought to make an "all stations
call" regardless of where you are (especially about the Sydney basin).
if it was a particularly busy day you were aware if anyone else was in
the vacinity "situational awareness".
That and flying your correct hemispherical altitudes reduced the
probability of conflict. Now no-one is talking! especially (for those
flying north from YSBK) "in the lane of entry", from YSBK north and
from the north to YSBK! because the local monitoring frequency is a
Sydney Radar frequency! and we all know were not to transmit on
Syd/Mel/Bne Centre freq's........ Any way just thought i'd get that off
my chest..... any other comments?
--
alan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted via OziPilots Online [ http://www.OziPilotsOnline.com.au ]
- A website for Australian Pilots regardless of when, why, or what they fly -
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tosser
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 29, 2004 9:27 pm Post subject: Re: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"alan" <alan (AT) REMOVETHISOziPilotsOnline (DOT) com.au> wrote
| Quote: |
One of the major problems I have with the new N.A.S, is previous to the
implimentation of the N.A.S, I was tought to make an "all stations
call" regardless of where you are (especially about the Sydney basin).
if it was a particularly busy day you were aware if anyone else was in
the vacinity "situational awareness".
That and flying your correct hemispherical altitudes reduced the
probability of conflict. Now no-one is talking! especially (for those
flying north from YSBK) "in the lane of entry", from YSBK north and
from the north to YSBK! because the local monitoring frequency is a
Sydney Radar frequency! and we all know were not to transmit on
Syd/Mel/Bne Centre freq's........ Any way just thought i'd get that off
my chest..... any other comments?
|
Only that anyone in a lane of entry should expect other aircraft to be there,
too.
(Including those who didn't make radio calls before NAS, either).
I can't see how radio calls in lanes of entry are going to improve your
situational awareness.
In fact, they may be distracting.
And you never have any guarantee that everyone responds!
Changing heading slightly every minute or so to clear your nose, tail and wings
will serve you better than the radio in traffic funnels like this.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stew Hunt
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:19 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
That would be a reduction of well over 700 staff. I don't think so.
;-)
"BB" <not (AT) all (DOT) com> wrote
| Quote: |
"Stew Hunt" <NOSPAM6stewhunt (AT) bigpond (DOT) net.au> wrote in message
news:wh3Sb.33127$Wa.29799 (AT) news-server (DOT) bigpond.net.au...
BB, do you know what I find strange? None of the pro NAS people have
been
able to point to a single cost saving. The Minister has mentioned 70
million
$ of savings, but cannot say where any of these savings will come from.
Anyone out there know?
Stew.
I assumed reductions in staff numbers at Air Services Australia.... In
terms of the Australian economy, $70m is pretty much chicken feed isn't
it?
Regards,
BB.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BB
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 30, 2004 8:10 am Post subject: Re: Editorial in SMH (Re: NAS) |
|
|
"Stew Hunt" <NOSPAM6stewhunt (AT) bigpond (DOT) net.au> wrote
| Quote: | That would be a reduction of well over 700 staff. I don't think so.
;-)
|
Point taken, but that $70m probably also includes the extra
superannuation payments and the like that would be owing if they'd stayed
until retirement. Add to that anything else the Government can throw in to
make things sound better than they really are... In reality they'd probably
save less than the cost of the consultants they would have hired to come up
with the whole scheme...
Regards,
BB.
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
