Note: Dick Smith has such contempt for the safety of the Australian public that he does not even bother to address the serious safety issues raised. He merely prattles on and on about his own vested intests.
Despite what is said in other threads, Class C airspace (especially non-radar) often results in VFR aircraft being held or
vectored extra distances.
Where is your evidence? Let me guess.........just
believe….
(The evidence of the Class C non-radar vectors might prove your otherwise defamatory case for 'basically criminal' activity. I suggest you gather your facts and report them immediately to CASA, ATSB and the police. Next time you ‘make up' a fact, at least make it look somewhat plausible.)
Remember, the difference between success and failure in a small business is quite often small amounts of money. The extra costs of flying in the airspace can have a substantive difference on the success of the general aviation industry.
And your answer to this is to
increase costs to US levels?
BTW: What does A B747 RA climb cost in terms of fuel burn, customer confidence etc.?
Name one Australian aviation company which has
ever shown that the ‘extra costs of flying in the airspace’ have even been noticed, never mind becoming the ‘difference between success and failure’. No facts? No examples? Pure Dick Smith fantasy. (I believe!!!)
I believe now the hours are getting so low that we will possibly get into a situation where the whole industry becomes non-viable. This would be a great pity for Australia.
Agreed. Imposing a less safe, more expensive system seems to be a rather dangerous and ridiculous way of fixing the problem, however.
I have heard aircraft attempting to get a VFR clearance across a place like Sydney and the clearance is simply not available. However if the same aircraft files IFR and pays the enroute charge, the clearance is most often immediately available with no delays.
Where is your evidence? Let me guess.........
And NAS addresses this issue ‘across a place like Sydney’……how was that again?
BTW: Before you made this ‘example’ up, you would no doubt have been fully aware of exactly how traffic priorities in a place like Sydney are allocated. (MED< RPT< training etc.) You attempted to mislead people into believing that the flight rules have a bearing, while knowing full well that this is a lie.
Of course, Airservices earns money from IFR flight plans - even in CAVOK conditions - whereas they make no money from VFR enroute flights.
Shock horror. Are you suggesting Airservices
stop free services to VFR? Try getting that past Boyd, AK and the other boys.
There is obviously a conflict of interest with the organisation that is responsible for the design and allocation of airspace also being responsible for making a profit out of that airspace - especially when the top executives are paid a share of that profit. They have incentives not to provide cost savings to general aviation when they lose money from this.
Show us the clause in any Airservices Manager's contract which specifies this. (I know, let me guess......)
Try and tell the US they need to create
three separate bureaucracies just to replace the FAA, and see how quickly you are laughed out of Washington!
To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.
Why not put it even more simply: Don't tell us, just show us the numbers (A bit hard to do when you are making it up as you go along, I guess.)
And the cost of NAS so far? Who do you think is going to pay the enormous bill you have imposed upon the industry?
If used correctly, the NAS system has the potential to be very safe and to save general aviation large amounts of money - this will assist the industry to be viable again and employ many more people.
So, why are we not using it 'correctly'? Why was it not introduced 'correctly'?
Specifically - and I know you are ignoring the question as hard as you possibly can, because you it will come back to haunt you - "Why was Class E airspace introduced in Australia without the US safety mitigators which allow it to operate safely in the US?" Why are you risking lives and livelihoods in this manner?
Why are we, once again, discovering things to our collective 'horror'
after the fact? Why do you not allow proper, safe implementation of reforms that are so sorely needed? For how long can Australian aviation survive the costs, both in lives and dollars, of yet another Dick Smith 'experiment'?
By 'very safe" do you mean in the 'horrific/ basically criminal' sense of safe. Show us your evidence. (I know, we just have to
believe and it will be so.)
What are the 'large amounts'? Why not ‘heaps’ or ‘shed-loads’? Why are you still hiding the figures the ARG was paid to come up with to justify NAS? You were paid to determine the cost effectiveness of NAS vs LLAMP. How much will NAS save? How much would LLAMP have saved? You
must have the numbers. Why do you keep denying this and say it is up to someone else to provide the figures? (Willoughby, DOTARs, BTRE etc.) Why are you hiding the truth? Too damning perhaps?
PS: The chart shows that 'private/business' aviation has been in decline since 1990 (about when you became chairman of the then CAA) and the decline levelled off somewhat at the end of 1992 (when you left the CAA). It slumps dramatically around 1995 (what were you doing in 1995?) and continues an accelerated decline around 1997 to 1999 (The time your were in charge of CASA). Coincidence? The correlation seems more logical than your lies about airspace issues being the cause.
Your post is full of unsubstantiated, meaningless garbage. Whilst you are sprouting this twaddle, you shamefully ignore the dangerous mess you have created.
Dick Smith, what are you doing to fix the system which created the ‘horrific’ near mid-air collisions recently. Are you going to wait for actual deaths before you do something?