Dick Smith said:
Four Seven Eleven, whether you like it or not, you work for a commercial organisation. As an air traffic controller your income comes from the commercial sale of your services to a customer. You will benefit if your organisation produces higher profits as your union will be astute enough to make sure you get a share – that is good. Don’t kid yourself, you are not some type of charitable safety regulator – you are just as commercial as when I stood behind the counter selling products. You sit behind a radar screen selling air traffic services. Don’t be holier than thou, everyone knows that your interests are commercial and that is in total conflict with having Government regulatory powers for airspace – which your organisation has.
And your point is? Whilst my organisation has a commercial focus, that in no way stops it or its employees from having safety as a major (in fact primary) focus. Are you suggesting that someone selling electronics, or food for that matter, is unable to do so safely just because they do so commercially?
Are you suggesting that, as an entrepreneur, you totally ignored public safety, because you wanted to make personal profits?
I know that I have
never let safety be diluted as the primary motivator behind every decision I make in my work. I can also tell you that I have never let
profits influence any operational decision I have made. My only motivators are the provision of a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic – in that order. Whether the aircraft is IFR (and therefore paying) or VFR (and receiving the services for free) plays
absolutely no part in my operational decisions. Beyond safety, the only priorities I apply are those in AIP and MATS, which make no mention of flight rules.
Money is not everything.
The Brisbane Incident – what are the facts?
I note that you have not yet provided any answers (as you said you would do) to your own question about the Brisbane SMOKA (Virgin) incident. I note also that you have a history of lying about providing answers, but I had hoped that in this case, you would be true to your word.
It certainly appears that you have no intention of any sort of truthful discussion about safety in Australian aviation. I would have thought that you had some vestige of interest in aviation safety left, but it seems that you are proving this to be a false belief. It seems that you will deliberately ignore safety, to the extent of lying, just to achieve your political ends.
Your tactic, when the truth does not suit your selfish political agenda, is to make up lies about those who have asked you legitimate questions, or to make up lies about ‘basically criminal’ acts, when you know these to be false and defamatory.