Fascinating to watch the professional liars at work.
What about this (from Mr. Dolan)
We are now in a better position, since we had a very detailed version of the final state of the NAS, to move forward to a full review,
Perhaps he'd like to share it with the rest of us?
From Mike Smith;
If I can add to that: sometimes our area frequencies can be several hundred square kilometres or 1,000square kilometres, and often many area frequencies are grouped, so pilots currently listening on the area
frequency could, for instance, if they are listening around, say, Newman in Western Australia, hear pilotsoperating at Albany, some 2,500 kilometres away. By making this change in practice, pilots will only be
hearing generally traffic that is around them and of interest to them. So the specifics of it in the new system are
that, if you hear something, more often than not it is going to be relevant to you whereas in the current system
it may or may not be relevant to you. The important thing is to encourage pilots and to educate them about the
choice of an appropriate frequency, and that is going to give them better information.
Really?
So, you kill flight service, make the controllers group frequencies, then cite that as a bad thing that needs to be fixed by your great, new, ozNAS? Yes, minister.
This whole section is then a great insight into the crash or crash-thru mentality being employed:
Senator O’BRIEN—I hear what you are saying but I have not been asking about the proposal ‘Do not doit’ but about a proposal to include two mitigators.
Mr M. Smith—But one of those mitigators has been basically ‘Do not do the change.’
Senator O’BRIEN—Sorry, I did not understand them to be saying that. I thought the mitigators were
about inclusion of frequencies on maps.
Mr M. Smith—If the characteristic is removal of the area frequency boundaries and the requirement for
VFR aircraft to monitor an area frequency, and the mitigator is to leave the area of frequency boundaries on
the charts and require the VFR aircraft to monitor the area frequency, then I actually do not think you have
mitigated against implementation. I think you have actually stopped implementation.
In other words- if it's in the model, but it's stupid and dangerous, do it anyway, because that's what you've been told to do. Yes minister.
More from Mike
We have a system where we have good two-way communication with these aircraft, excellent navigation, a
surveillance system and trained air traffic controllers who are sitting on their hands providing a direct to traffic
information service, when really they could be providing a proper air traffic control service that is compatible
and consistent with international practice—and that is the system we are introducing.
That is just lies. How is removing DTI consistent with "international practice". The US system is not universal, not international, and we are not getting the 'US system'. The US system has FS and DTI, plus unicoms. This is just cost shifting. ATC doing DTI (instead of FS) was supposed to be an efficiency gain. Now they will remove DTI and try and tell us it's to 'make ATC more efficient'.
Lies? Yes minister.
In the next breath, this gem from Mr. Matthews
The second characteristic is that we expect there will be cost savings. It is yet to be
quantified, but we expect that there will be cost savings to the industry.
How can you know there will be cost savings if they aren't quantified? Do you know more about the end state than the rest of us? Yes minister.
From Bernie
Mr Bernie Smith—We do not know what the final position is, because not all the characteristics have been determined fully.
So we know there will be cost savings, even though we don't know what the end looks like? Yes minister.
Mr Bernie Smith—No, we have not done any work on that. The government has said that this isgovernment policy; this is what you are to do. That is what we are doing. Whether it saves or loses dollars is
not something that we can determine accurately at the moment or could change the outcome of any way.
Says it all, really. Yes, minister.
And what a fine show it is, too.
To any pilots who think the changes won't affect them much;
(from M. Smith, Hansard, as above)
It is interesting when you think of these procedures. A lot of people like to think that the ‘mandatory’ word is the thing that delivers a safe outcome there. The new system introduces a range of new and improved
recommended practices, but ‘recommended’ does not mean optional. It really means that if you are a pilot
operating into that airport, the responsibility is now yours, and not the regulator’s, to determine what the
appropriate calls to make are. As a pilot myself operating potentially in the new system, I would look at the
new CTAF procedures and see that there are now nine calls that the regulator recommends that I make. I had
better be pretty careful if I do not make any of those calls, because I have got the regulator telling me that I
should make those.
So these 'new and improved
recommended practices' are that we are not going to tell what to do any more, but if you do something wrong then we will get you because it's not our job to tell you what to do.?
All care, no responsibility. Yes minister.