Voices of Reason
Probably the same place Dick got his "200,000 private and sports aviators" in a country with a population around 20,000,000
Lets see AOPA US has over 400,000 members and that is a very significant %age of the US "private and sports aviators" in a country with a population around 280,000,000.
And he complains Oz GA is being "killed off",
I suspect that on his logic the US should be beating a pathway to Oz to find out how we are doing it.
I don't know (I do really) what happened between June 2003 and Nov 2003, when I, in the presence of two others was personally assured by the CEO of Airservices that there would be
NO changes to airspace by the NAS without a formal DNV or similarly accepted metric being applied.
A reassuringly sensible and responsible approach from the guy and his board who were going to have the "duty of care" can attached to their and his person.
It was made very clear that personal "feelings" or "prejudices" would have no place, it would either stack up with a scientifically accepted methodology or it wouldn't. Whatever issues that were revealed would as you would accept and of necessity have to be dealt with.
I had then and do not now have any reason to doubt that it was sincerely given and the truth.
I have been pilloried in other places for holding the view that our public servants are for the most part highly competent and dedicated practitioners and deserve respect for that.
Somewhere along the way a whole lot of people got "monstered" into proceeding with something with which they were not happy and it wasn't just the so called "union thugs" or "executive swine".
. The evidence is there in plain view.
A rhetorical question really, but are you able to provide evidence of a "monstering" process being part of aviation reform in other First World countries?
The reason offered for "frequencies and boundaries" NOT appearing on the "new" charts in transition, notwithstanding that the
whole of industry had agreed that it should be so, as part of a formal consultative process was, "it's not part of the US system so it wont be here" a decision attributed to Mr Dick Smith
If this was not so was it a formal decision of the ARG as a group, when was it taken and how was it formally communicated to the industry as part of the "consultative" process?
And what metric, if any, was applied to that part of the process beyond the usual anecdotal "I believe" and "its the same here as it is there" scientific?? routine that has been so thoroughly debunked here.
So far the only "metric" we have seen is the privately funded Broome DAS, God bless em
, and didn't that put the "duty of care" wind up em all and the incontrovertible "black letter law" and "evidence" provided by yourselves.
I'm getting really tired of the Australian flag being waved in my face to justify what is IMHO exquisitely unAustralian behaviour.