http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8004159%255E23349,00.html
My response to the editor:
As a recreational pilot, I've been following the controversy about the
national airspace system (NAS) with some interest.
On one side there are professional pilots and air traffic controllers
issuing dire predictions of aviation catastrophes, and on the other
side there are recreational pilots, CASA and Transport Minister John
Anderson claiming that the new system is safer.
Through all this, I've been watching TV reports and reading newspaper
articles which are peppered with information which my pilot training
tells me is patently false -- And most of these falsehoods are being
propogated by those who are opposed to the new system.
The online edition of The Australian on 1 Dec 2003 carried an article
called "Ghost Riders in the Sky" which contained many of those falsehoods.
As someone affected by the new regulations, I feel compelled to correct
them.
The article states, "For the first time, light planes flying between 4500
feet (about 1371m) and 10,000 feet will be allowed to fly without radio
contact and without air traffic control clearance. In other words, they
will share the same airspace as commercial jets without having to announce
their presence. "
That comment is wrong on several levels. Firstly: Pilots of light planes
have always been able to fly at the levels described without radio contact
or clearance. All of Australia, with the exception of corridors between
Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra, and areas in the immediate vicinity of
our other capital cities, has always been covered by uncontrolled "Class
G airspace" between the surface level and 23,500 feet. The Kendell,
Qantaslink, and other turboprop aircraft operating regional airline
services have always had to contend with the fact that they're flying
in the same airspace as light aircraft; And they cope with it by looking
out of the cockpit.
The other incorrectness in that comment stems from the implication that
nobody will know where those light aircraft are. One of the little-
mentioned aspects of the NAS is that light aircraft are now required to
carry transponders, meaning that air traffic control (ATC) and large jets
can now see them for the very first time. Previously the Cessnas which
take off from Bankstown have been essentially invisible to ATC radar; Now
they're seen, and airline traffic can be vectored around them. This
simple change has infinitely improved the safety and security of airline
travel, because for the first time it is no longer possible for a jet
to crash into a light aircraft without warning. In that context, there's
no NEED for light aircraft to announce their presence before sharing
airspace with jets, because the jets already know they're there.
The other thing which irks me about the coverage of this issue is the
statements from the professional pilots which indicate that they're
antagonistic to the idea of avoiding targets by looking out of the cockpit
and seeing them before they hit. As a regular air traveller I'm frankly
appalled that our professional airline pilots have so much difficulty
with this most basic and fundamental safety measure. ALL pilots are
taught to "see and avoid", from their very first lesson; Yet the
"professionals" would have us believe that they're exempt from that
requirement even though they're responsible for the lives of hundreds
of their passengers.
A good "look-out" has always been required: A pilot can never trust
that his radio hasn't failed, or that his transponder is working, or
that his navigation has been perfect, or that the air traffic controller
who is telling him what to do isn't drunk. So it is ALWAYS a pilot's
number one responsibility to look out of the cockpit and avoid any
potential collision risk. Yet if I read Lawrie Cox's comments correctly
I can't help but conclude that him and his federation are terrified of
the risk of collision with "weekend warriors." Is the standard of
training and professionalism of our airline pilots really that low?
The air traffic controllers don't like the new system because less
controlled airspace means less controllers are necessary, which puts
their jobs at risk. So they've roped-in the pilots in a show of union
solidarity and embarked on a campaign to scare Australian airline
passengers into believing that our skies aren't safe - Even though the
same system has worked successfully for years in the US, with older
technology and ten times the traffic density.
To have aviation professionals attempt to scare the public away from
air travel is frankly irresponsible, and must surely qualify as one
of the most short-sighted examples of union PR in recent memory.
I trust that in future The Australian will realize that the naysayers
behind this new system are politically motivated, and be less inclined
to give the lies and falsehoods equal time with the truth.
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 -----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
