Slanderous Smith Comments

[WALLEY2]

Dick accuses CASA and AA

Due to the Dick Smith broadcast I have decided to post his letter we received prior to Easter and my response

These letters have now been forwarded to CASA and AA as we feel, considering the current circumstances, they should be aware that the statements made by Mr Dick Smith were not an isolated "heat of the moment" unfortunate mistake.

When viewed in the light of the broadcast I now believe Mr Dick Smith's final paragraphs re CASA and AA requires Ministerial action: as if true CASA and AA CEOs need to explain how this illegal action occurred and other responsible executives must be dismissed and possibly charged- if the statements are not true then one of his advisers has in writing slandered two of his major and most important agencies, the appropriate action in this case is clear.

On advise, I will not comment further except to say we stand by our letter of reply and deny any wrong doing by ourselves, CASA and to our knowledge AA.



DICK SMITH


Phone: [phone] PO Box 418
Fax: [phone] Terrey Hills NSW 2084
Email: [email protected] Australia

8 April 2004 40406ca.cap

Mike Caplehorn
Chairman
Broome International Airport
53 Wheatley St
GOSNELLS WA 6110
By fax: [phone]

Dear Mike,

Thank you very much for the copy of the Design Aeronautical Study into Broome International Airport.

This report confirms the obvious illegal operations that are taking place at Broome Airport. For example, in numerous places you state that the service you provide is a Directed Traffic Information service.

“The important distinction to draw is the difference between “airport information” and “Directed Traffic Information”… DTI is more than “airport information” and provides additional lines of defence… In this report, and preliminary aeronautical study, it is the provision of a “Directed Traffic Information” (DTI) service that is significant.”

You also state:

“The CAGROs must hold an ATC or Flight Service Officer licence and are certified by CASA to provide advice on conflicting traffic.”

Mike, it is obvious from the above that you are providing an illegal service. As Chairman of CASA, when I introduced the original CAGRO I was clearly advised that we could only provide a service similar to that provided by the US UNICOM – i.e. basic information on a non-prescriptive basis with the pilot being totally responsible for deciding on whether to act on the information. The reason for this advice is that in Australia – as in the USA – certain authorities have the sole responsibility to provide air traffic services. In Australia, it is only Airservices Australia and the Defence force. In the USA, it is only the FAA.

The fact that you have a tower set up at Broome, that you have arranged to obtain the special Airservices Australia flight strips, and that your “licensed” operator not only fills these flight strips out for aircraft that fly enroute IFR across your airspace (say, at 8.000’ or 9,000’) but also provides a full directed traffic service to these entroute aircraft, shows that you are providing an identical service to that provided by Airservices Australia to IFR aircraft in Class G airspace. You are providing a service that is identical to the old Aerodrome Flight Information Zone (AFIZ).

You confirm this by comparing your CAGRO with the Flight Service Station at Ketchikan in the USA. In the USA this type of Directed Traffic Service can only be provided by the FAA. It is clear that a Directed Traffic Information service can only be provided in Australia by Airservices Australia, or the Defence force.

Your operator also acts like an air traffic controller and verbally records an Automatic Terminal Information Service (ATIS) in an identical format to that provided by Airservices Australia air traffic controllers at Class D towers.

I believe all of these services you provide are, not only misleading to pilots, but also, to put it quite simply, illegal. The law states quite clearly that such services can only be provided by Airservices Australia or the Defence force.

From what I can make out, you have somehow been able to get CASA officers to turn a blind eye to what you are doing. I point out that the same thing happened at the time of the Seaview crash, where CASA officers turned a blind eye to Seaview, which was allegedly operating airline services under the charter category. I understand that after the Royal Commission into the Seaview accident CASA officers were actually prosecuted.

I confirm that I introduced the original Air/Ground system to closely copy the US UNICOM system. It could not be interpreted in any way as an air traffic control or directed traffic service. It was not prescriptive and did not provide hazard alerts – the job of licensed people.

The fact that you can continue this illegal operation can only come about because Airservices do not wish to operate their own system there and lose money (and bonuses), and because officers in CASA know that their mates will benefit – as only licensed people (who have worked for the Canberra bureaucracy such as Airservices or CASA) can operate these illegal stations.

I’ll still be pushing for a proper Class D tower – at least a 20% improvement in safety for very little cost – and it will be legal.

Yours faithfully





Dick Smith

13 April 2004


Facsimile: [phone] – 2 Pages




Mr Dick Smith
C/- Dick Smith Investments
PO Box 418
TERREY HILLS NSW 2084

Dear Dick,

Thank you for your letter of 8th April, 2004. These are my thoughts on the matters you raised. I hope you find them adequate.

Firstly I can understand, but do not agree, with your position on pushing for a Class D tower at Broome. However, I am astounded that you would state that I, or our company, would allow or carryout “illegal operations” at Broome International Airport (BIA).

We first communicated years ago on establishing a CAGRS and you stated your opinions and support on the establishment of CAGRS facilities at busy mixed use airport such as BIA. After you resigned as the Chairman of CASA and before the legislation was finalised during the CASA NPRM process, a number of issues were raised and addressed.

There are three CASR Parts involved in the final CAGRS regulations, namely: Part 139H, Part171and Part172.

CAGRS operates according to Part139H and the service and the operators are audited by CASA on a yearly basis to ensure compliance. As you are aware the requirement to use ATC or Flight Services Trained Personnel was introduced as the CAGRO gives details of relative traffic to all aircraft. The decision on what is relevant traffic means the CAGRS Operator needs to conceptualise the three dimensional terminal area and without error determine possible conflicts and pass this information to the aircraft entering the 30nm zone. The Pilots or Captains then organise their separation from each other, as envisaged this is an alerting service only. The safe operations at ever increasing traffic numbers without an aircraft conflict during the four years of operations of this service is a testament to their operational judgement and the system.



BIA is particularly pleased to note the pilots response contained in the Design Aeronautical Study overwhelmingly supported the success of the CAGRS and its enhancement to safety in the BIA terminal airspace. Without a CAGRS, if all aircraft attempted to do Mandatory calls or recommended calls the terminal frequency would become saturated causing a dangerous hazard just when aircraft are in close proximity and on converging flight paths.

Both of us should be pleased with the survey results, the stakeholders’ comments, the analysis and findings of the DAS and most importantly the safety record of the inaugural terminal airspace service we helped initiate.

Dick, you may not be aware that during the NPRM for Part 171 and 172, some years later, it was apparent that either BIA Pty Ltd needed to be included in the list of ATS providers or the CAGRS excluded from the definitions of ATS. This matter was raised and discussed with senior CASA officials. Finally it was agreed to exclude CAGRS from the definition of ATS as this required less alterations of the proposed legislation. This decision was also influenced by the former CASA decision to include the CAGRS in the Airport Section of the CASR; namely Part 139.

Consequently the lawful operations of CAGRS throughout Australia are governed by CASR 139H and CAGRS is by definition, in Australia, not an ATS as defined by CASR Part 171 and 172. The service as noted by the DAS is comparable to the FAA Airport Advisory Service as regulated by AC90-42F and is therefore NAS compliant.

Unicom under FAA rules does not have authority to advise on relative traffic, it is the AAS also known as Local Airport Advisory that under the FAA’s AC90-42F is authorised to provide this service.

Your comments on Airservices, CASA, and the Canberra Bureaucracy are noted, but personally I find them inaccurate, unhelpful and unkind and upon reflection I am sure you may also see them as a little harsh.

I hope this letter answers your concerns. Please ring me if you have other queries or preferably arrange an informal meeting next time you are in Perth.

Till then,

Yours sincerely



MIKE CAPLEHORN
BE (Civil) MIE Aust CP Eng FAICD
Chairman

should read as CASR PART 139F not H