In the meantime notwithstanding Mr Smiths laudable intent, the RFDS is still short of Dicks $5,000.
I’m prepared to make a $5,000 donation to the Royal Flying Doctor Service (Broken Hill Branch) if the VOR who wrote the below mentioned piece
will identify himself or herself and assist with airspace reform.
appears either to have fallen on deaf ears or;
the VOR by identifying themselves see themselves on a hiding to nothing or;
are of the belief that there is truly
nothing they can add to the issue.
If I recall correctly they only entered the fray here;
http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=117373 its worth reading through the thread again
to observe ;
Before we close – a respondent made a reference to our organizational allegiance. We do not represent anyone or any organization. We are concerned that many decisions made not only in your country, but in many others, are based not only on [hopefully] mis-understanding – but also [hopefully not] on deliberate mis-interpretation. We are concerned about safety – and we are concerned that any money that is spent on airspace management is correctly applied to ensure safety, without unnecessarily restricting the amenity of any user.
and suggest;
Might we suggest that rather than exchange frustrations on this site - clearly not heeded by your airspace designers - that you access ALL of the information on which their decision making is based - you might be [very] surprised at what you uncover.
We would suggest two mechanisms. First, as we said - be very specific in your request. Do not simply ask for airspace documents - ask for documents relating to every name and iteration over the last several years. We think you have had NAS, Class G Demonstrations, LAMP, Airspace 2000 and so on. Make sure you ask for information at EVERY level in the organization - not just at senior executive level.
The second is to establish a credible [to you] framework in which to request and analyse the information - that could be done by partnering with an interested party - such as your aviation investigation body - or if you are serious, with a dedicated newspaper reporter. You might find that the latter is less manageble [obviously reporters have particular reasons for participating] - but might accelerate the process so that your aviation investigation body is DIRECTED to act [we suspect you will understand what we mean].
If we can be of assistance, please post accordingly.
and point out;
If our views are not helpful, we will, of course, withdraw from your forum. We seek only to offer the benefit of experience in these matters - and to offer sources of information which you may use to the benefit of aviation safety in your country. From what we have observed, you are fighting misinformation - skillfully manipulated - but incorrect, nonetheless. We can provide assistance to discredit such misinformation, and point you to correct source material.
It's a pity that the RFDS will miss out on a donation the trigger for which was probably unfounded and uncollectable. It got everybodies attention though.
So lets get back to tors and context on this shall we, before you or anyone else feels tempted to invoke their authority to personal advantage.
It is a fact the
your airspace designers
referred to in the context of the debate were NOT Airservices nor CASA they were the NASIG and you know who.