Gunnadothat, you state:
Dick, The affordable safety snowball that you threw over 15 years ago has grown into an avalanche, blanketing all in its path.
Just to get the facts right, it was the Labor Government in the late 1980s (before my involvement in any way with aviation reform) who decided that air traffic control should not only pay its own way, but also make a profit for the Government.
I simply said, “In that case, if all of air traffic control and a lot of safety regulation is to be paid for by the industry, the costs levied will have to be ‘affordable’ – otherwise the industry will go broke and we will have no industry.”
It is all pretty basic kindergarten stuff.
I, and many others, could see that having three Flight Service Officers stationed (with houses provided) in a place like Cooma, was pretty well unaffordable if it was to be charged to the people who flew to Cooma – which was the plan. However to have 27 Flightwatch outlets (or maybe even more) right across Australia, which are evenly paid for by the industry, would most likely be affordable.
By ‘affordable’ I mean the extra amount loaded onto the air ticket – which is where it ends up – doesn’t put up the air ticket to such a high price that people decide not to fly.
I’ve heard it all before – “Dick Smith introduced affordable safety,” “Dick Smith has a concept of affordable safety.” All of this is rubbish. I just pointed out a fact of life, as simple as 2 + 2 = 4. That is, if the Federal Government is going to force the industry to pay its own way, the costs have to be reasonable so the participation in aviation does not drop.
I didn’t ask for these Flightwatch outlets to be reinstated without any cost benefit study. I asked that proper industry consultation took place, and that a proper cost benefit study be performed. I even said on this thread that if this does not show that Flightwatch is a cost effective way of providing safety, I would support (to be consistent) its closure.
I remain totally convinced that a proper expanded Flightwatch is a very cost efficient way of providing higher levels of safety to our industry. I believe the costs are so small that it will not affect the number of people flying – privately, in business aviation, and in the airlines.
I can assure you that people lose credibility if they deny a basic fact of life. That is, those who pay for a service have to be able to afford to pay for it – otherwise the service will cease to exist.
Blip, what happens if you turn around a Cb and collide with another aircraft? Surely it would be better for the controller to advise that TIBA procedures apply before he or she leaves the console – so an aircraft wishing to divert around a Cb can simply make an announcement and see if any other traffic is present. It is not an ideal system, but it is certainly better than not telling the pilot that there is no rated controller present and you are just going to get the words “Standby.”
Former AusFICer, yes I am very happy with the results. I believe that with the rejection of the standalone Flightwatch system closure in Australia from almost the entire industry, and knowing that all other countries have a separate VHF Flightwatch system, will result in us keeping – or possibly improving – our system.
I have a feeling that the people in the Department, within CASA, and many people within Airservices, didn’t really realise that changing Flightwatch from a standalone VHF frequency, to combining it with ATC, had a number of serious implications. Now that many understand this, I believe that we will retain our separate system. It will all depend on rational objective information being provided to the external reviewer.
As I’ve said before, I have confidence that the officers of the Department will genuinely look at this and not be overly influenced by those at Airservices who are trying to improve profits.