Dick Smith
That is a pretty tough statement to make. As I would like to direct my “energy and commitment” in the most effective direction, can you advise further?
Yes, Dick it was a bit tough, but I am sure that realise that even tho' you are a successful businessman etc., you are not a career aviator. Your experience and knowledge is certainly significant, and your motivation towards this change process is also significant. I know you have a lot to offer and it is my belief that you could do most off what you want with most everyone on side, if you tackled it slightly differently. But then you probably might say you may have not have been so successful if you had followed tradition? No win I guess? Is there middle ground?
However….
I would suggest that every proposed airspace change from AMATS on could have been introduced successfully if you had stayed right out of it (or at least right in the background). Sure we have only got this far because you have the ability to pick up the phone and call the Prime Minister and any other politician that the average Joe does not. You also obviously have much political influence which I suggest from observation you use from time to time to further your cause. NAS 2b is a political push, make no bones about it. I guess if you are doing the pushing then everyone else has to toe the line with your ideas or just butt out? Certainly the Minister is not listening to anyone but you right now. This is not the way business is undertaken in aviation and the Minister should know better if he really wants to promote aviation reform and aviation safety in particular.
Many aviation professionals (those that get paid for it) see you as a Private pilot regardless of your experience and qualifications. This does not necessarily place you in a position of respect with the industry at large, even if you are a nice bloke with all the right motives. The issue with airspace changes is and always will be in how those changes are "sold". The debate on 2b has only been brought about because nobody really understands why it is all going this way, especially as many believe that we already had "worlds best practice". Certainly I would be the first to agree that our airspace model needed an overhaul, but with the appropriate methodology and industry involvement it might have been a walk in the park.
I don't believe the issue is really about what is in the NAS proposal, but in the way it is presented and understood by those within the industry. One of the reasons we have so much angst on this matter is that the motive has not been sold or what's more understood. The savings are questioned and most would say highly dubious. The levels of safety are of concern to many and many pilots just don't understand the message.
The ARG is a joke and has little respect as a group, although the individuals thereon may be ok people it has never come out and made any public comment or statements in support of what it is doing, nor has it held open forum with industry representatives to discuss many of the issues that industry leaders have a problem with. This is no way to do business in aviation – you only get the opposition that you now see. This has been left to poor old Mike and the NASIG, again good people just trying to do a job, but failing because the direction they have been given is seen as totally inflexible.
For example, when it was obvious that the training package was not going to be in place some 3 months before the planned intro date, then the call should have been made and the implementation postponed. There are still pilot's not in receipt of their package and nobody has picked up the banner to take responsibility for training the trainers and for standardisation. (CASA?? Cant seem the for dust… not in their budget I suspect)
From what I hear the meeting called by Minister Anderson last Friday came out very strongly with concerns on the education and how it should have been handled. Sadly many of us have seen it before where the implementation date drives the project or the change process. The implementation date should only be agreed upon when the whole package is complete including all the education. To do otherwise is to put the cart well in front of the horse.
Even CASA said that the major mitigator on the implementation of 2b was education. What we have seen to date is only token and not for real. Only time will tell how many pilots got right into their package and understood it. You can bet many did not, but with a good plan and presentation they could have been picked up.
If you are of the belief that NAS will be the saviour of GA, which is now suffering it's worst time in history, then you obviously know something that many do not. I have seen numerous pilots give flying away over the years and usually it is all cost related. Certainly the introduction of user pays and a lack of an understanding by both Commonwealth and State Governments of the value of aviation and it's infrastructure is a significant factor that is not given the support it needs, because I guess it usually means high expense for not many votes. Well of late, I suggest there are certainly many pilots still walking away because of the cost, but now they are also walking or maybe running away because it is "over regulated", "too complicated", "strict liability" "in-fighting", etc. That certainly did not feature a decade or more ago. The direction of CASA must take responsibility for this. Any wonder it is really the CARA – they are more concerned with regulation than with safety. And as you would know, one can be 100% compliant and not safe – something the legal people in CASA and AG Dept just don't understand.
The standard of flying training is with few exceptions the worst we have seen and the standards of testing have been compromised by a system that does not work. A pilot passing a CPL today would not have passed a PPL 15 plus years ago. Now I wonder why that is?
Why is AOPA now floundering? Did you really use that platform as a stepping stone to other things? Many feel that you did and then you walked away at a crucial time. The last decade of that organisation has been quite tragic, something you should understand and perhaps take some responsibility for. Remember that a strong AOPA might have made a difference of late.
Bottom line
Yes we can have airspace reform and a vibrant GA sector. BUT… it takes some understanding by those that make the policy decisions and provide the marketing of change to process it with a minimum of fuss for it to occur. The flow-on effects are just not seen, let alone forecast.
Place your energy into some of these other aspects of aviation and you may well be seen as a Messiah.
(Nothing personal, but you did ask…. Apologies for the long post.)
"No known traffic"
