NAS - Government Policy

[Voices of Reason]

We have been reviewing the curious process that is being used to justify the continued implementation of your National Airspace System.

From the Airservices Australia web-site, we found this statement:

Airservices Australia Customer News Flash 20 February 2004: In addition to progressing the above temporary options work will commence on fully specifying the 5 year “end state” airspace model that will be implemented, having regard to Government policy that we harmonise with the US model to the maximum extent possible within our statutory obligations. This model would then be subjected to a full Design Safety Case and Cost/Benefit Analysis.

The critical statement in this extract is “…having regard to government policy that we harmonise with the US model…”.

The “government policy” to which this newsflash refers was actually contributed to, in large part, by Airservices Australia, by way of the response provided to your Minister for Transport and Regional Services in response to his request for a comparative analysis of both NAS and LLAMP.

We understand that that response, though measured, was nonetheless biased towards NAS, and that the Airspace Reform Group established by the Minister to provide an objective position on airspace reform, may have further influenced a bias towards NAS by way of the participation of the NAS architect, and of an Airservices Australia board member as an expert in his own right – even though Airservices Australia had provided a nominally pro-NAS response. Further, we understand that the status quo option, though canvassed internally as a viable alternative, was not offered as an option to your Minister for Transport, as it was not specifically referred to in his request.

In a previous post we have pointed out that in fact the decision to adopt NAS on the basis of a comparative safety analysis was not supported by any international standard. From evidence that we have uncovered, there is little doubt that this fact was available to the senior management and board of Airservices Australia prior to a response being provided to your Minister for Transport.

It is therefore reasonable to assume Airservices Australia not only put forward a response supporting NAS which contributed to its acceptance as government policy, they may also have withheld information that the safety arguments supporting NAS were fatally flawed.

Your Minister for Transport, probably innocently, probably made his decision to make NAS a government policy on the basis of incorrect information.

The argument that Airservices Australia is simply following government policy in pursuing NAS is specious at best, and deliberately deceptive at worst.

It is our considered opinion that if the facts were obtained and revealed to your Minister for Transport, your Government policy may very well change. At worst, all efforts towards NAS should be suspended until a full design safety case has been completed.

[Air Ace]

So, VoR, in lay-speak, you are suggesting the ARG, in consultation with the Board of AsA, provided only one option, NAS, on which a safety analysis had not been conducted, and the Minister, woefully ignorant of aviation operational matters, accepted the NAS option as he was assured it was in accordance with Government Policy - a policy which in turn had been formulated by the Board of AsA?

Presumably that decision also took some pressure off potential competition in the seat of Gwydir at the next election?

Are you aware it is suggested an injunction may have, or may be sought to restrain AsA from distributing amended charts and other material?

[bonez]

the ARG is no more - all the players have moved on except Dick

the "new" group is now the "SAC" - Safety
Advisory Committee

the members are: CEO ASA, CEO CASA, CEO DoTRS & Dick

they have no terms of reference and no agenda to date

[DirtyPierre]

The Safety Advisory Committee consists of CEO ASA, CEO CASA, CEO DoTRs, & Dick.

CEO ASA - Bernie Smith

Bernie Smith is a career manager and private pilot. Haven't they learned anything. If common sense were glass, dick wouldn't have enough to make a monocle for the eye of his dick. As for the other, - just two more political appointments.

Aviation Professionals are required for this group, not managerial yes men.



AAAAAGGGHHH!!!!!

[QSK?]

DirtyPierre:

Aviation Professionals are required for this group

I would respectfully suggest that the CEO of the country's national ATS Provider IS an aviation professional, as is the CEO of CASA. Both gentlemen are receiving remuneration for their involvement in the air transport sector, which qualifies them as aviation professionals by anybody's standard!

Secondly, your (apparent) condescending attitude towards private pilots is not warranted in all cases. Although I have never worked for an airline, I also hold a significant role in the air transport industry with a private pilot licence which I have held for some 25 odd years (my name is not Bernie Smith, by the way).

Despite my (lowly?) licence status, I take my flying very seriously and adopt what I like to think is a very professional approach - better, in some cases, than what I have occasionally observed from some "real" CPL/ATPL holders.

I have also contributed 60 odd responses on PPrune forums regarding pilot and flying techniques, as well as the inadequacies of NAS in terms of flying safety and efficiency, which is line with similar concerns raised by controllers and commercial pilots. I would like to think that most PPrune participants would judge my comments and observations as displayijng a "professional" perspective.

Just because a person only holds a PPL, doesn't automatically imply that they can't effectively manage an aviation organisation. Similarly, even in ATC; it has been my observation that some of the best performing controllers have never held a pilot's licence!

[SM4 Pirate]

Perhaps it was a comment about form; Bernie Smith has it... It's not good. He might be running in the Melbourne Cup; be he'll still end up dog food; he has no winning character or ability. If it going to cost Bernie one dollar of his bonus, he won't do it. It's about form, we've had him for 6 years, he'll be gone in two.

[DirtyPierre]

QSK?,

I would respectfully suggest that because one is made the head of an ATC organisation this does not make one an aviation professional. How would it. It's like saying the person who runs a hospital is necessarily therefore a medical specialist.

SM4 Pirate picked it like a nose. I was commenting about form and lamenting that Bernie has poor form as does Dick.

As for the private pilot bit...well it seems you might have something of a thing there, I've reread my post and it doesn't seem condescending to me. Is it because I don't think private pilots should have so much say in the airspace development in this country is the problem. Tough!

Sure you can be a private pilot and have a "professional" attitude about flying. Bravo! However, someone who is a private pilot, regardless of his/her hours, has neither the experience nor training to be an aviation professional.

If I want an opinion from an aviation professional I'll talk to one whose training, qualifications and experience enable them to have an aviation career. If I want an opinion from an enthusiastic amateur, then obviously I can talk to Dick or any other person whose hobby, that's right hobby, is aviation.

Sure Bernie is a private pilot, but his aviation expertise is as a private pilot and as a manager. His profession is management, his hobby is aviation. Shame he can't get this right.

[AerocatS2A]

You guys are arguing over semantics.

QSK is quite correct to regard someone who works in the aviation industry as an "aviation professional". Their profession is in aviation. In this way a flight attendant is an "aviation professional". This does not necassarily mean that a flight attendant would be the best person to work on airspace reform however.

DirtyPierre is using a more restrictive form of the term "aviation professional" which is probably limited to senior commercial pilots and ATC personel.

[Dog One]

The line up of SAC makes one gag! How much more money is going to be wasted by these amateurs. The coal face picked the problems with NAS right from the start, but their comments and suggestions were totally ignored.

NAS needs fixing now - and the people to fix it are the people who have to operate the system, and those who have to fly in it. The time for face saving by the Minister is gone, for-ever.

Get rid of the dead wood off SAC and replace them with professionals to fix the mess as quickly as possible.

[Chris Higgins]

To DSK, Dick Smith and others...

I am not here to offend anyone with regards to the fine efforts made to contribute to these forums. We all agree on the need for airspace reform.

DSK can and should be a good contributor to airspace discussion. He values his freedom, has shared the airspace with others and has invested his resources and his spare time to add to this forum.

What DSK will also acknowledge is that the experiences of a celebrity millionaire, making his way around the world on sponsored adventures, being hosted at receptions as he goes, has absolutley nothing to do with being a professional either.

To use these experiences to change an entire airspace system is like using a teenage Summer romance to choose a wife.

DSK, you might in fact have a better idea on how the airspace system should be run than me? Let's hear it!

But... I, as a professional, would only institute such a change after considerable consultation with international, domestic and regional airlines, AOPA, military airspace users, customs, flying schools, politicians (heaven forbid!) and Air Traffic Contollers.

To run an airspace, or anything, for that matter, you don't just wake up one day, state your own contrived opinions as fact and cost the tax payer millions of dollars.

That would make you a rank amateur!

[QSK?]

Chris (and DirtyPierre):

Thanks very much for your professional response; much appreciated.

However, please note that my nic is QSK not DSK (the latter is a bit too close to the initials of one Dick Smith for my liking).

Firstly, I must strongly clarify one point. I'm not a supporter of Dick Smith's position on NAS, and never have been, as can be evidenced by my numerous contributions on the NAS topic. I am totally aligned with most controllers and professional pilots on this one!

Consultation with professional stakeholders, as you have proposed in your response, is both a given and a must and is fully supported by me and other aviation professionals. It's a pity that it never occured properly as you have alluded to in your response.

No, my initial email was simply "having a slight dig" at DP at his blind insinuation that, because someone only holds a private pilot's licence, they can't be an "aviation professional":

(1)...someone who is a private pilot, regardless of his/her hours, has neither the experience nor training to be an aviation professional; and (2) If I want an opinion from an aviation professional I'll talk to one whose training, qualifications and experience enable them to have an aviation career.

I, for one, have the training, qualifications and experience to have a very flourishing aviation career. I guess the many other guys who used to be former military or airline pilots, or guys who used to be flight ops specialists or controllers in the old DCA, and can now only hold a private pilot's licence as they no longer qualify for a Class 1 medical, don't qualify as "aviation professionals" under DP's stringent criteria.

And a final message for DP. Don't get upset mate, it's all tongue-in-cheek, good humoured fun. I've been an admirer of many of your posts and looking forward to when you post again! Cheers mate.

[DirtyPierre]

QSK,

Didn't mean to come on too strong, but it really gets me about the term "aviation professional" applied to someone like Bernie Smith.

Some background on BS. He is an ex-CEO of another GBE (in Victoria, I think). He is a private pilot, but the type who doesn't like talk to ATC on radio. He used to be the AsA CFO (chief financial officer) when Bill Pollard (a real aviation professional) used to be the CEO. Bernie "inherited" the job when Bill decided he'd had enough. So we got a bean-counter as our CEO.

So does this make Bernie an "aviation professional". Maybe, until he becomes the next CEO for Mayne Health and becomes a "health professional" or the next CEO for MIM and becomes a "mining professional".

Sorry for being so pedantic about the terminology. It's a habit to do with being a follower and stickler for rules like separation standards.

QSK, I am sorry, didn't realise you were being tongue in cheek. As for having the training, experience and qualifications to be an aviation professional, so what if you don't fly professionally now, you still have a valid opinion supported by your training and experience. I don't believe that the members of SAC can say the same with any conviction.

[WALLEY2]

Firstly a general comment.

The previous post by VOR lifted the pprune replies above petty argument and self interest.

It is disappointing to see this effect has waned.

With regards to airspace reform while recognising pilots and ATC imputs, you are dealing with system models and scientific evaluation of data and cause and effect of behaviour rules.

Elements of the system are simple enough to be managed by extensive mathematical modeling. The more complicated systems need to be started as an existing system and incrementally changed with each increment at least qualitatively modelled.

This is what a Design Aeronautical Study does. I will post Broomes terminal airspace DAS within the week. When you look at the matrix of the study panel note the strength on engineering and mathematics also the five Phds!!

ATC and Pilots can tell you "I know this will not work" others with similar qualifications can say "nope it will work" or " it works here so it will work there". That is fine it is info the panel need to source and through enquiry evaluate they are not a facts.

It is not an end product or a study. The science is to find the parameters that cause tha ATC and Pilots to make those assessments model the parameters interactions and then see what will occur if one parameter changes and what will be the extent of the system changes.

This is not rocket science, it is harder! as there is no Newton laws of gravity and motion to guide you.

In your team you need Engineers, Scientists and Mathematicians otherwise you are in the same duck pond you seem willing to chuck your adversaries in.

I would like VORs opinion, but I would consider it an impossible task to do a DAS on a NAS starting from a blank sheet and also very difficult to try to transfer a NAS from the USA which has such major differences in primal parameters like RADAR, Traffic Density and available central funding.

After following the study teams efforts to address a DAS for CAGRS and MBZ vs CAGRS and CTAF vs Unicom and CTAF vs D Class tower at one regional airport - now I understand the modelling and science for a DAS on the NAS is an incredible task.

My solution? I never saw LAMPS but I would guess it was an incremental appproach, consulting analysising implementing waitng reviewing and then consulting......... changing a number of parameters at a time bedding them in and then .....

VOR is right when NAS was raised the powers in AA and CASA should have sought guidance from ATC, Pilots and Scientists Eng. and Mathematicians and tod the Dep PM. This will not work it is over slimplistic and could kill Australians, infact with a fair degree of probability I can tell you sir IT WILL KILL AUSTRALIANS. They did not say this or if they did and were ignored, they should have gone public.

Read the DAS on Broome terminal airspace to be posted soon and I think you may agree.

[QSK?]

DirtyPierre:

This is slightly off the subject of this thread, so I won't prolong the discussion on "aviation professional" any longer than today, but I think you may be under a misconception re Bernie Smith's background and experience.

I seem to recall that his background is avionics engineering and that he was the head of AWA's avionics division for a while, when they used to do the majority of avionics R&D and maintenance in Oz. He then went on to become CEO for the Victorian Gas Authority for a while before coming to ASA.

I might be wrong but I don't think BS was ever a "bean counter" and I don't think he was ever the CFO for ASA. In fact, I don't even think he was in ASA when Bill Pollard left. I think he applied for, and won, the job in his own right.

Cheers mate.

[SM4 Pirate]

Bernie has been with us since 1998.

Bill left in 2001.

I don't think Bernie was the CFO; but he was ATMGM; he moved up and then our CFO (Fleming) moved up too.

Fleming is the true bean counter.

[AirNoServicesAustralia]

I may be wrong, but wasn't Bernie the man who oversaw the breaking up and sell off of the State Electricity Commission in Victoria, which saw thousands of people lose their jobs. I know first hand from the man that if he had his way ASA would be broken up as well and Towers at least would be sold to the highest bidder. Fortunately political pressure, especially in the regional areas has stopped this becoming a reality.

[Jungmeister]

It is quite simple to find the profile on Airservices home page;

Bernard Smith was appointed Chief Executive Officer of Airservices Australia on 6 November 2000.

Mr Smith joined Airservices Australia in 1998 as Chief Operating Officer to head the organisation's Air Traffic Services business. Prior to becoming Chief Operating Officer at Airservices Australia, Mr Smith was Managing Director and Chief Executive Officer of Kinetik Energy and Westar, two trading companies that resulted from the privatisation of Victoria's Gas and Fuel Corporation. His previous positions included Chief Executive Officer, Hazelwood Power and General Manager Maintenance and Engineering at Australian Airlines.

[DirtyPierre]

Jungmeister,

Had a wee captain cook myself, and you right! Its all there in the profiles. He was the COO, but we don't have one anymore.

If you read the other profiles, there would have to be at least two other people on the board who are way more qualified to be on any ARG or SAC than Bernie.

The new Chairman and Kevin Gale are way more qualified, but for some reason don't get a jersey on the run on side.

Bernie does have a "history" of being a hatchet man, maybe that's why he is our CEO, just like that Kiwi Baldwin we had before Pollard.

Anyway I'm off the doggo, and I think I need to go and have a good lie down before the kiddlewinks are home.

Hasta manana

[Voices of Reason]

We note that one of the proponents of the current airspace reform program in Australia refers, on occasion, to a concept of “affordable safety”. We note also that a cost and benefit study was undertaken on the airspace reform program.

We think the following references from documents commissioned by the EUROPEAN COMMISSION - Joint Research Centre - Institute for the Protection and Security of the Citizen - Unit of Technological and Economic Risk Management might be relevant. They show that it is possible to question the amount of money spent on aviation safety – as long as it is done in a constructive manner.

Note the focus on the term “the cost of unsafety”, which we believe to be extremely relevant to your current debate.

This model has been available since late 2000. We are surprised that your regulator would not have required at least a reference to this process in any safety or economic study carried out in relation to your airspace reform program.

…………………..



“…….The objective of this section was to estimate the cost of unsafety. To measure the cost of unsafety means to measure the costs of effects (i.e. accident chance) which are related to certain safety level of the air transport system. In other words, this section is useful to determine the cost for not implementing a safety measure (safety lack). The unsafety costs will become safety benefits when a given improvement measure aimed at increasing this particular safety target is implemented……”


PROJECT DESIRE: Development of a Method for Air Transport Safety Improvement through Quantitative Risk Evaluation


This 3-years project (Brite EuRam No. BE97 – 4110) was completed by the end of the year 2000. The following partners took part in the Project: National Aerospace Laboratory NLR (NL), Joint Research Centre (JRC/ISIS), Airbus Industrie, Sextant Avionique (FR), Marsh (GB) and Airclaims (GB).

The objective of the project was to develop and evaluate a quantitative risk assessment model of air transport safety, which allows cost-benefit analysis of safety measures. THE MODEL IS INTENDED FOR USE BY REGULATORS, AIRLINE AND AIRPORT MANAGEMENT, ATM ORGANISATIONS, AND OTHER DECISION-MAKERS IN THE AVIATION INDUSTRY, TO HELP SPEND THE SAFETY BUDGET MOST EFFECTIVELY. The project started with an assessment of the factors that govern the need to improve aviation safety.

New pressures on aviation safety, such as airport congestion, declining financial resources, ageing aircraft, insufficient safety oversight in some parts of the world, were identified. Safety assessment techniques that are currently being used were evaluated, and developments in risk based regulation were reviewed. The role of cost/benefit criteria used by decision-makers in the aviation system was discussed in the perspective of current safety assessment techniques.

It was believed that by placing accidents into a limited number of broad groups, based on the sequence of events and the likely severity of their outcome in terms of physical damage and deaths and injuries, a model could be derived allowing predictions for 'typical' groups of accidents.

Hence, the model architecture was centred on the 'single-consequence' concept, at the end of a chain of events. The consequence is defined as "the event in the accident sequence that resulted in the most damage and/or deaths and injuries". Detailed analyses of the expected outcome in terms of aircraft damage and the death of the occupants were carried out for each of the defined consequences.

A classification of causal factors in aviation accidents and incidents was developed enabling to describe the chain of events that can lead to a particular consequence. The classification provides a set of categories for the creation of an accident scenario, in which both the events (i.e., factual information – the 'whats') and the causal factors (i.e., causal information - the 'whys') related to a consequence are highlighted. For each of the categories, an attempt was made to quantify their frequency of occurrence in normal operations (Roelen et al. 2000).

In order to allow cost benefit analysis, a classification of cost factors was also developed. Both direct cost factors, such as those related to passenger deaths and injuries and aircraft physical damage, as well as indirect cost factors, such as airline loss of reputation, were considered.

Financial data for a large sample of some 1000 accidents was reviewed in order to produce a cost profile for each 'consequence'. The cost-side of the model is not intended to predict the costs of individual accidents but rather to provide an indication of broad average costs, which may arise from accidents falling into typical groups.

Although considerable care was taken in selecting the factors, the interconnections, the probabilities and the financial equations and data, it is expected that users will make their own choices to tailor the model to their specific situation.

The model describes 'average' accidents, both on the causal side as well as on the cost side. In reality, each individual accident may have its own peculiarities. THE MODEL SHOULD NOT BE USED TO JUSTIFY CUTS IN THE SAFETY BUDGET. IT SHOULD BE USED AS ONE OF MANY TOOLS THAT CAN HELP DETERMINING HOW TO SPEND THE SAFETY BUDGET IN THE MOST EFFICIENT MANNER.