"What they're saying is that safety will go down by 88 per cent - the figure is so ridiculous that people should treat it with the contempt that it deserves," he said.
"It's a classic example of people resisting change - I can assure you that these more modern procedures will be far safer."
I see you are back to the "I assure you", "I believe" mode of risk analysis and regulation by fiat.
Mr Smith would serve his argument better if he were to present equally well researched and peer reviewed analysis that refutes or at least mitigates that which he finds contemptuous.
Does Mr Smith have any formal expertise in these matters that enables him to make these very brave assertions against an array of what appears to be impressive talent?
Does that mean Broome will have a tower with the attendant costs or will you continue what appears to be a well proven seemingly, or close to, cost neutral sytem of MBZ?
Why is it necessary to change something just to satisfy what appears to be an ideological agenda.
A look at the pictures on the Broome website and my Jepp online suggests that a tower would dominate that beautiful landscape.
Would it require a redesign of the approaches and/or increase in the LSALTs, MDA's etc.
From where I sit, if this is the way your country goes about it's aviation regulation, it is the only one in the world that seems to allow a single individual to decide what is and isn't good for you.
Unless of course you really are a third or fourth world country.