A consensus of disagreement.
One item 'airspace' seems to be begging solidarity attention and not receiving it. There exists a great rift within the Australian aviation community – that of airspace; the sides are equally determined that ‘their’ solution is the answer to a pagans prayer. The degree of animosity and determination are notable.
I see the alphabet groups are gearing up for the 100 day deadline, which is a fine thing and the solidarity is both impressive and admirable on all matters except that of ‘airspace’. Seems to me this is a weak area, therefore exploitable by the powers of darkness.
I wonder, would it not be sensible to call a meeting – a forum if you will – and thrash out exactly which ‘model’ suits best. Call in ASA, call in ATSB, drag CASA to the table. Discuss it, fight over it, shout each other hoarse; but FCOL come out of the meeting with a majority if not unanimous agreement which can be presented to government as a Concorde.
As it stands, the only thing industry is likely to be stuck with is the incredible bill for ‘One-Sky’; which, IMO would be nice to have, but we don’t need it. What we need is ‘efficiency’ in the form of reduced holding, infrastructure in the form of better operational management in bad weather; better weather information; better coverage from ATC etc.
So, before everyone is up in arms; let’s have a look at the worlds airspace models and see which one would suit our ‘unique’ conditions; the UK has a pretty good system; Canada has another; the USA same-same. No matter which ‘system’ is favoured; nothing, except ‘One-Sky’ will happen while the industry is unable to reach a majority agreement.
That’s my two bob, spent as pleased me best.
Toot toot.
One item 'airspace' seems to be begging solidarity attention and not receiving it. There exists a great rift within the Australian aviation community – that of airspace; the sides are equally determined that ‘their’ solution is the answer to a pagans prayer. The degree of animosity and determination are notable.
I see the alphabet groups are gearing up for the 100 day deadline, which is a fine thing and the solidarity is both impressive and admirable on all matters except that of ‘airspace’. Seems to me this is a weak area, therefore exploitable by the powers of darkness.
I wonder, would it not be sensible to call a meeting – a forum if you will – and thrash out exactly which ‘model’ suits best. Call in ASA, call in ATSB, drag CASA to the table. Discuss it, fight over it, shout each other hoarse; but FCOL come out of the meeting with a majority if not unanimous agreement which can be presented to government as a Concorde.
As it stands, the only thing industry is likely to be stuck with is the incredible bill for ‘One-Sky’; which, IMO would be nice to have, but we don’t need it. What we need is ‘efficiency’ in the form of reduced holding, infrastructure in the form of better operational management in bad weather; better weather information; better coverage from ATC etc.
So, before everyone is up in arms; let’s have a look at the worlds airspace models and see which one would suit our ‘unique’ conditions; the UK has a pretty good system; Canada has another; the USA same-same. No matter which ‘system’ is favoured; nothing, except ‘One-Sky’ will happen while the industry is unable to reach a majority agreement.
That’s my two bob, spent as pleased me best.
Toot toot.