WALLEY2, Mike, you state in relation to your study
You are aware of the time and effort that went into the DAS and the very high standard of the panel and CSIRO audit.
Mike, I must admit I can’t quite agree. I will soon post on my website
www.dicksmithflyer.com.au a copy of an independent review of the “Design Aeronautical Study for Broome Airport Terminal Airspace” by Dr S J Roberts. Whilst I cannot say that I know Dr Roberts personally (it appears that I have met him at two public functions in relation to the Eureka Awards), he is a life member of the Australian Skeptics – a group of which I am patron.
I should point out that Dr Roberts, quite unlike the authors of your report, has no financial link or benefit whichever way the decision is resolved. I particularly point out some of the comments from his report.
Page 6: The audit made complimentary remarks about the original report, which are then quoted by yet again the same authors in the target document. This conduct shows a deliberate self-delusion that is quite alien to the scientific process. One is forced to conclude that the persons involved have an “axe to grind” and therefore cannot be trusted to conduct an objective study.
Page 14: It is highly unlikely that Capt Bollard, or anyone else, would have been included in the study group unless their opinions happened to match the pre-formed social thinking of the existing group.
Page 42: With the authors of the report being self-appointed and self-auditing, it is clear to me that an arbitrary and illogical decision to omit ground collisions must have been taken precisely because their inclusion would have weakened some of the preconceived logic already beloved of the authors. Such willingness to discard unwelcome facts is another characteristic of cultic pseudoscience and of dogmatic thought.
Page 64/65: Tables 14 and 15 contain egregious examples of illogical – I would say bizarre – calculation. Once cannot simply add rankings in this way, and to do so demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of statistics. Some authors were said (on page 14) to be qualified in statistics; either this is untrue, or they cannot have seen this part of the report. These tables (and the data that will follow from them, including assertions in the principal conclusion) represent either a spectacular degree of incompetence, or an attempt to deliberately mislead the casual reader.
Page 77: The figure of “88%” comes from table 17 on page 73, which in turn takes it from Figure 9 on page 66. Above I have shown that the data involved is fatally misconceived, so that this figure of 88% must be rejected.
Based on my professional experience I hold the opinion that this report must be ignored, on the grounds of –
· Deliberate non-independence of authors and of persons surveyed;
· Unjustified arbitrary decision to focus on mid-air collisions while dismissing ground-based collisions;
· Obvious lack of mathematical and statistical knowledge;
· Deception in presentation of results, tantamount to scientific fraud;
· Reliance on deliberately unstated, arbitrary methodology.
Indeed I would recommend that any scientific work done by the authors involved must now be called into question. As some authors appear to be associated with public bodies such as CSIRO, I strongly suggest that higher management should invite them to explain their conduct or to dissociate themselves from the report.
S J Roberts, BSc ARCS DIP PhD JP
24 May 2004