QSK, you are bringing up some interesting points on a very serious issue.
There is no doubt that safety cases can, on occasions, be flawed in that they were based on incorrect data or invallid assumptions but, in my experience, they are always conducted with the best of intentions by safety management staff and are NEVER FAKED as there are too many checks and balances within the Government system that prevent this from happening.
The same could have been said about the Wheat Board when the bureaucrats were writing fake invoices to hide the secret commissions to Saddam Hussein.
You state:
In any case, Dick, do you honestly believe that anybody inside CASA would seriously put their whole career on line by faking a single safety case on something as insignificant as CAGRS vs ATC at Newcastle?
Yes, I do, in exactly the same way as bureaucrats put their careers on the line so Australia could sell wheat to Iraq. What other explanation could there be?
The reason CASA does not take any action in relation to my statements about fake safety cases is because they know that my comments are true. For example, why don’t they even make a public announcement in relation to this? Bruce Byron put out an announcement in relation to Williamtown being safe under a civil operated air/ground – just before the Minister decided to instruct the military to come back and offer a service using the radar displays.
I’ll give you one proven example of how they fake a safety case. One of the most important safety mitigators given to allow Williamtown to operate without air traffic control over the Christmas period was the fact that general aviation pilots had been educated on how to fly through the airspace outside the hours of Defence operation.
Look at the CASA October 2008 Williamtown Review
here. Look at the Executive Summary on page 3. Paragraph 1.4 states:
The controls put in place since the 2007/2008 POS for the hours outside of Defence provided ATC and which were in effect at the time of review included:
b. Defence and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA)
had developed and published, in the AOPA magazine, guidelines
for transiting Williamtown airspace.
(My underlining).
As shown in my solicitor’s letter to CASA (see
here), this is a blatant lie.
The only “guidelines” published in the AOPA magazine were in relation to the airspace when it was active and a clearance was required. When this was pointed out to CASA in my solicitor’s letter, they simply stonewalled, did not answer the question, and maintained their safety study was accurate.
I can assure you that these people are going down the same line as those at the Wheat Board. It is really sad and I just hope it will be rectified before a major accident occurs.