Dick Smith, 28th August 2009, 13:15 Ambidji Report thread
if the Benalla accident had happened at a similar airport where the radar went to ground level they would have still all died.
That's because there has been constant resistance to putting in proper procedures or airspace after the FSO's were removed.
How many more will have to die before modern proven overseas practices are introduced?
- you allege that CTA and radar as used today would not save lives (where are the IFR in surveillance covered airspace accident records?)
- you allege that
your removal of OCTA Flight Services has not cost lives, resistance to proper procedures or airspace is!
2 days later on the 30th of August 2009, 23:59 CASA Revised GAAP procedures thread
He predicted (among other things) that the savings gained by removing full position reporting for VFR and removing the AFIZ's would come at a great cost to safety.
Eighteen years later it is clear that he was wrong- safety has improved.
-
you allege that by
your removing of OCTA Flight Service and related procedures
that safety has improved!
Which is it? is the current OCTA system safer, not safer, cheaper, more expensive? Then you say we should pay for the huge additional expense asociated with ATC surveillance services where safe and efficient Flight Service use to be before you binned it?
Removing OCTA services and replacing them with the system we have today (ATC CTA combined with OCTA services) was presumably a known outcome of your OCTA changes. If those changes back then (which is basically the system today) were not safe (as you alledge just 2 days prior to saying OCTA safety has improved), why did you allow the change in the first place?
It is one or the other Mr Smith!