NAS on the 730 report Tonight (Wed)

[Capn Bloggs]

Rumour has it that the NAS will feature on the 7:30 Report tonight, Wed 26th. Go Dick!

[Foyl]

If Broome AC were solely interested in profit, taking the matter as far as they can in the courts is hardly a profit growth move (unless you're one of the lawyers of course). I wonder if there's any chance that a copy of the safety study could fall, accidentally, into a copier, say 50 or so times? :E

[Dog One]

One of the more interesting outcomes of tonights reporting was the threat made by Dick Smith to the Director of Broome airport. I wonder if similar threats have been made to other people?

[hadagutful]

Now ****su and all the other Dick Smith bashers.........enough is enough.

YOU'VE GOT TO GET OVER IT, anyone would think that Dick and ONLY Dick was the sole architect of the NAS the way you carry on.
But I'm sure it is only a personal vendetta against him and some vested interests thrown in as well.

You know, there is also an Airservices and a CASA involved comprising many industry experts with lots of aviation experience. Are they all "wrong" as well ?
It just happens that Dick has a media profile and they love to talk to him. But where are the silent majority who believe the system can work ?

If you really think that aircraft are going to fall out of the sky, go to the media as well, contact your local member, go to the senior bureaucrats in AS and CASA with your concerns.
Just continually whingeing about Dick won't improve the system.
He may be of some influence in certain areas but really, he doesn't run the bureacracy, the government or the country for that matter !

(Incidentally, the Broome Airport Manager made a serious blunder on the ABC TV tonight when he said that safety will be compromised because there would be no radio communication at Regional Airports, but you and I know very well that every aircraft must have radio communication within MBZ's and any tower controlled airport.
Pity he didn't tell the viewing public that fact)

[Richo]

Just a bit of truth, Hadgutfull.

but don't forget to mention that many of the aviation pros from CASA and AsA were told to play along by the apointing Minister.

You may need to do a quick review of NAS 2c HG, as you will see it calls for CTAF's to replace MBZ's. So no radio required.

So the manager of Broome AP did tell the public something they do need to know, and so maybe do you.

Bits of NAS are fine, but as an overall package it is a reduction in safety, as AsA have concluded and have made/are making changes.

[GoNorth]

To save ya a bit of time with your review HG

Pulled from the NAS website: http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/I_Timetable.htm

Class G

Stage 1 (first phase)

Introduce CTAF on multicom of 126.7 MHZ at all aerodromes that are not currently CTAFs or MBZs.

Stage 2 (third phase)

North American CTAF procedures will apply at all aerodromes in Class G airspace. (This includes MBZs reclassified as CTAFs).

[mexicomel]

The story was very revealing, and threats should never be made when it involves people's safety. NAS is being rolled back for the right reasons. Dick, think about it, there are fines now for pilots flying into MBZ's ... it's not for the first time. You said in the story that this was new, come on, dick, seriously. You are dealing with professionals, you can't bluff us.

[scramjet77]

Dear Hadagutful, your ignorance is the very thing that is helping to drive the whole NAS issue. Under stage 2C of the NAS all mbz's will become CTAF's with NO MANDATORY requirement to carry a radio. Straight-in approaches will be allowed by no radio aircraft, so light aircraft and heavy jets will be sharing a tiny amount of airspace with no guarantee of communication at all. It is all very well for Dick to bandy about figures of $5000 for non compliance, however the thing he neglects to add is that fining people is a moot point as they are not required to carry a radio anyway.

Unfortunately the people you mention from CASA and Airservices do not concur with the NAS, however they are not permitted to voice their concerns due to the political pressure placed upon them from Anderson's office and his proxy Dick Smith. Why on earth did they place a moritorium on 2b if they all believed it to be a beneficial move.

The only group of people to delight in the changes are AOPA and that in itself is an indictment of the system.

Check your facts mate, you should at least do us all the courtesy of that before posting.

[mexicomel]

dick ... your reply?

[m-dot]

Missed it Damnit!!

Does anyone know if it gets a replay tomorrow after lunch ???

[mexicomel]

is there a repeat? cos my mates want to see it as well?

[P51D]

Dick Smith as usual came across as the consumate know-all but stunned me when he suggested that Broome airport was only doing this to safeguard their profits - what a despicable comment from a desperate man trying all avenues to sidetrack the issues. It's a pity DS wasn't taken to task by the investigative journo. Congrats to Mike Caplehorn for standing up and showing a duty of care as an airport owner against what has been a snow-job on the pollies and the unknowledgable. The public has a right to know the implications in a fair and impartial way. One can but hope that CASA will fulfill its duty to consider this in a rational manner with the safety of the travelling public at the head of the list.

Hadagutful - you need to do some serious reading to get yourself up to speed. Previous writers have corrected you but if you are the level of support for Dick on this one, no wonder we're all grimacing.

[Agent86]

A Transcript appears to be available here (http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/) ... however the page is either not there OR lots of people are reading it and :yuk:

Check the archives later ...

[mexicomel]

Well done Mich Capelhorne and the pilot who told us the truth. Not only a credible guy but you fly, and you fly now.

Ten points to you too... now I want change. I cant keep on flying into these MBZ's knowing that they are going to change to a system that's not guaranteed and untested, what do we do. why is it that... the people of authority cant see what we see?

[WALLEY2]

I think I need to make a few points re my 7:30 interview.

Firstly the segment was a cutdown from a 40min interview. My comment on Mr Dick Smith threatening me was in relation to how it perverted the CASA and AA system.

I once was an engineer in the public service. To have a mate of the P.M. phone me up and threaten me would have been very disturbing. Even in my early airport consulting years I would have been troubled on the effect such a prominant person could have on my business.

I also stated on the interview that I met with CASA and AA staff in homes and hotels and always off the record as they were scared to be on the record and in the open.

We are talking about an aviation safety why threaten anyone unless you are demented enough to leave the issue and play the man when dealing with safety.

Hadagutfull, this is what you do not realise the 2c NAS changes would not be even considered if Dick was not pushing for them, and he will and does play the man, this has been going on for years. READ our letter to CASA on the below web site.

Unfortunately I do not have a boss or a career and our corporate group within which the Airport is only one part (the Boards and our CEOs favourite part) pays its taxes and acts within and according to the corporate lagal fremework.(threats don't wash with us, try scientific evaluation and Data, those push our buttons)

Infact we like a common saying, which Dick could learn "In God we trust all others must have data!!"

INFORMATION The Design Aeronautical Analysis is on the BIA(Broome a/p) web site www.broomeair.com.au (http://www.broomeair.com.au) clic on the NAS button.

We took a digital video of the 7:30 report and will also post it there, already we have posted some of the relevant letters.


Finally to Pprune moderators and contributers, this forum has been invaluable in advising us of documents, incidents and arguments from both sides.

Thank you for your concerns in trying to get the system right and some of your complements about our efforts.

Regards Mike Caplehorn Chairman BIA Group

[Capn Bloggs]

Now that's not very nice, Dick.
http://img49.photobucket.com/albums/v151/webpixx/prune/dickfinger.jpg

[OverRun]

When you strip away Dick's excellent and smooth presentation, and look at the facts in the 7:30 report, it makes for a pretty damning story. I would be surprised if the government lawyers would want this one to get to court because once the judge saw a replay of the 7:30 report and then read up his colleague's dictum on negligence, the verdict might be quickly within reach.

[QSK?]

I'm so angry and frustrated with this whole process so, Pruners, please excuse my ramblings but this is the only place I can vent my feelings.

Against a range of solid opinion from a range of qualified aviation professionals, all we get from Dick is his usual smooth media-savvy presentation and mouthfuls of unsubstantiated garbage.

AS ALWAYS DICK - YOU CONTINUE TO GET IT WRONG. YOU DON'T HAVE WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FROM THE PROFESSIONAL AVIATION INDUSTRY WHICH IS WHY TRUE AIRSPACE REFORM WILL NEVER OCCUR (OR BE ACCEPTED) WHILE YOU REMAIN INVOLVED. FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATION, DICK, STAY OUT OF THE AIRSPACE DEBATED AND THEN MAYBE SOMETHING POSITIVE MAY OCCUR FOR ALL OF US. (Sorry for shouting!).

Why can't the Government (DOTARS/CASA) see him for what he really is and accept the fact that airspace reform will not proceed satisfactorily while he remains involved? The fact is the industry no longer has confidence in DS so, even if he was right on an issue (can't see that happening), the chances are the industry would still ignore him. HE HAS TO GO IF AIRSPACE REFORM IS TO PROCEED! Maybe this should be our collective motto on our signature blocks!

I thought there was one positive though and that related to the (previously undisclosed) internal comments re DS's resistance to the safety case. Pressure must surely come on DOTARS, CASA and ASA to investigate this aspect further and remedy any shortfalls in process.

QSK?

SACK DICK SMITH TO ADVANCE AIRSPACE REFORM!

[Duff Man]

Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1116709.htm

Broadcast: 26/05/2004

Close calls place airspace system under close scrutiny
Reporter: Sarah Clarke


KERRY O'BRIEN: It's been controversial from the outset -- the introduction of the new national airspace system over Australian skies.

Just six months after it started there have been three major midair incidents.

Tonight we reveal details of a subsequent close encounter.

As a result of the three earlier incidents, the aviator regulator has this week been forced to dilute some of its key initial reforms affecting major airports and restore controlled airspace for passenger jets.

But the battle over the contentious new system, which allows light aircraft to share airspace with commercial planes, isn't over yet.

As the Government winds back some of the new rules, some regional airports are already gearing up to fight the next wave of airspace reform, which will be imposed across Australia in coming months.

This report from Sarah Clarke of the ABC's investigative unit.

SARAH CLARKE: Just two weeks ago, three aircraft came within seconds of a midair collision at one of Australia's busiest regional airports.

The ABC has obtained details of the close encounter at Coffs Harbour on May 13.

A Virgin 737 and an Eastern Airlines passenger plane were coming into land when a light aircraft was observed 1,000 feet below heading directly into their flight path.

The Cessna did not show up on air traffic control radar because its identification transponder was not switched on.

TED LANG, CIVIL AIR: In this case, the aircraft was completely invisible to us.

It's a bit like a car driving at night without its lights.

SARAH CLARKE: Fortunately, the Eastern Airlines crew was able to take evasive action.

The Virgin Blue 737 followed suit.

CAPTAIN AL ADKINS, COMMERCIAL PILOT: We now have a situation where there's large airlines, up to 737-A320 standard carrying up to 170 passengers who are having to take avoiding action on light aircraft who are not announcing their position.

SARAH CLARKE: For the past six months Coffs Harbour, like many other major airports across the country, has been operating under a controversial new system, which allows light aircraft to have uncontrolled access to airspace also used by commercial services.

Light aircraft no longer have to identify themselves or their intentions to other pilots or air traffic controllers.

DICK SMITH, NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION GROUP: We've made it simpler because if you look at Europe and the United States if you make it simpler you get greater compliance and high levels of safety.

SARAH CLARKE: But after investigations into three earlier midair incidents above Brisbane, Launceston and Melbourne, Air Services Australia, the body responsible for air traffic control, has decided to reintroduce controlled airspace around the nation's busiest airports.

Despite this setback, the Government is pressing ahead with plans to extend airspace reform to more than 80 regional airports later this year.

CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: The same type of incidents, in our opinion, are going to occur but the severity of them will be even more, we believe, because there's no radar coverage at a lot of the regional airports we fly to and also transponders, which help us pick up other light aircraft, are not mandated either.

SARAH CLARKE: Captain Al Adkins is a former fighter pilot who now flies 737s for a commercial airline.

He warns that pilots will be forced to rely on what was once considered a last resort procedure -- see and avoid.

CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: The only time we'll pick them up is when they appear in our windscreens at close range and we have to take avoiding action, if, indeed, we see them at all before we collide with them.

DICK SMITH: The commercial pilot, every pilot has always had to look out because people make errors.

Air traffic controllers make errors.

You've always had to look out.

There is now less need to do that because we will have more people complying with radio procedures, more people complying with transponder procedures because it is all simpler.

SARAH CLARKE: But it's not only pilots who are speaking out against the new airspace system.

Mike Caplehorn is chairman of Broome International Airport.

MIKE CAPLEHORN, BROOME INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT GROUP: They're going way back to the square one.

The aircraft don't even need a radio and you can come into an airport any time you want.

Now, if that happens at the same time that a large jet is going down and coming into that airport, then you have a very, very serious chance of a major crash.

It's not just Broome -- we're talking about Karratha, we're talking about Kalgoorlie, we talking about Ayres Rock, we're talking about a lot of our major regional airports and, quite frankly, it's crazy.

SARAH CLARKE: With 250,000 air passengers travelling to this popular holiday destination in north-western Australia each year, Broome Airport's private owners commissioned an expert panel to perform an independent safety study and one that could have implications for 80 other airports.

It concluded that the new system would significantly raise the risk of midair collision, in return for a saving to passengers of just over $1 per return ticket.

MIKE CAPLEHORN: It's a 500 per cent jump in risk.

500 per cent, and that costs you $1.

For $1 that we charge a passenger, we can increase their safety by 500 per cent and Dick wants us to unwind it and that's why we will fight all the way to the courts.

We will not unwind it.

DICK SMITH: We've had mandatory broadcast zones for over 10 years.

There has been thousands of incidents where pilots are not on radio in mandatory broadcast zones, including airlines.

If we go to this new system, which the plan is in November, it will be safer because people will have to comply with the law for the first time or be fined $5,000.

That's got to be an improvement.

SARAH CLARKE: Broome Airport's management is now clashing head-to-head with former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith, a key member of the Government advisory board pushing for change.

MIKE CAPLEHORN: Now, Dick is a very good, intuitive businessman.

He's a famous adventurer and, personally, I quite like him but unfortunately when it comes to this area, he appears to be obsessed and last week my CEO, Kim Maisey, received a call from Dick Smith and he said, "Tell Mike that whatever he does to me, "I'm going to do 10 times worse to him."

DICK SMITH: He's worried about the profits of his airport.

Good on him, right -- and he tries to make out that he's driven by safety.

He owns the airport.

He has to get a return.

He makes a profit out of the airport.

He doesn't want change.

SARAH CLARKE: A suggestion Broome International Airport Group denies.

The ABC has obtained a letter from Transport Minister John Anderson to Dick Smith, which suggests Mr Smith was keen to avoid an official study of the safety implications of the new airspace regulations, also known in the industry as a design safety case.

The letter said: "I have noted your concerns that if a design safety case is performed "it will not be accepted by CASA."

Then a brief from the Transport Department to Minister, which said: "Dick Smith will oppose any finding "that a design safety case is required "as it has the potential to delay the current implementation timetable."

DICK SMITH: They say, "Oh, we need to do a design safety case," and then they never finish it.

It's a classic bureaucratic ploy.

Now I'm not going to be into that.

SARAH CLARKE: With just six months until the changes come into effect, the battle over regional airport safety appears destined for the courts.

MIKE CAPLEHORN: Let me make myself very, very clear on this point.

If anyone tries to force us to do a negligent act, we will take it to the High Court.

As far as we can take it, that is where we'll go.

We are not going to be there realising that we allowed something to happen that has now killed women, children and men because we didn't have the guts to take it as far as we could.

DICK SMITH: People resist change -- it's very human -- but once they've been able to use a new system, especially if it's proven around the world, you suddenly find they start to say, "Oh, this is actually working, it actually is better."

CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: In the long run, in, say, 5 or 10 years time, the safety levels will be so low that there'll be a good chance of us having midair collisions with light aircraft in regional airports especially.

KERRY O'BRIEN: That report from Sarah Clarke.

[Ushuaia]

Schedule before safety, eh, Mr Smith?

That philosophy comes across in your views last night on conducting a design safety case. Rather than consulting and involving ALL stakeholders to design a new modern airspace system, ensuring the new system works properly and is safe, you just want it, something, implemented on schedule. Doesn't matter if the stakeholders have problems with it, just implement it. This succinctly sums up why most professional pilots in this country have such a low opinion of you. As a 7000 hr RPT pilot I have sat alongside a LOT of other professional pilots. Not one of them has had a good word for you. I have tried to keep an open mind towards you but you have continually destroyed any good will, usually with attitudes like this one.

I am all for change, but structured, properly managed change, where stakeholders participate, are empowered and own the outcome. That is how you produce quality outcomes. It's basic, modern management stuff. The NAS management process has been a disgrace and belongs in the 19th century. 95% of people flying in Australia do so as passengers on RPT or charter aircraft (source: Aust Bureau of Stats). The NAS outcome is that flying for the 95% is less safe then pre Nov 27. There is simply NO argument about it - from my 7000hr RPT viewpoint, that is FACT. How on earth did the 5% private flyers achieve THAT? Now that's an empowered, quality outcome involving all stakeholders.... NOT.

Final thought: Professional pilots think SAFETY BEFORE SCHEDULE, you think SCHEDULE BEFORE SAFETY. Therein lies a serious disconnect between you and the professional aviation industry, Mr Smith.

[Boney]

Yes, it was interesting.

Dick seems to think by pilots being fined $5,000 for forgeting to turn on the transponder will fix everything.

I can see it now - 737 and C-172 collide, relatives obviously not too happen and Dicks reponse will be "you don't understand, if a pilot does not operate his/her transponder it is a $5,000 fine".

Peoples, believe me, this mans attitude is scary.

Dick, in your 6 million flying hours, have you EVER accidentally forgotten to turn on your transponder, for example after a code change - yeah thought so.

Boney

[QSK?]

More dodgy statistics from Dick for the gullible Oz public:

We've had mandatory broadcast zones for over 10 years. There has been thousands of incidents where pilots are not on radio in mandatory broadcast zones, including airlines.

From Page 8 of the ATSB Aviation Safety Research Report "Airspace-Related Occurrences Involving Regular Public Transport and Charter Aircraft within Mandatory Broadcast Zones":
"A search of the OASIS database identified a total of 573 airspace-related occurrences in MBZs during the calendar years 1994 to 2001. For this period, there were no accidents within MBZs where airspace related issues were found to be a contributing factor. All 573 occurrences were classified as being either a Category 4 or Category 5 occurrences.

ATSB did go on to say that due to a level of under-reporting of incidents, the 573 figure should be considered as "conservative" however, if the actual number of incidents was, in fact, double 573 - that still hardly qualifies as "thousands".

Cat 4 occurrences generally are not considered a serious safety deficiency, although they are of interest to investigators for safety trend analysis purposes. Cat 5 occurrences are generally not investigated.

So, on one hand, we have ATSB saying there was only 573 occurences which had no significant safety impact; while Dick, on the other hand, says we need to get rid of MBZs because of the "thousands" of unsafe incidents that have occured over the last 10 years! Que?

[amos2]

Who was it that said some years ago...

Dick Smith before he dicks you?

How true! :mad:

[OZ Junglejet]

When will Dick and the minister for Qantas wake up and realise just how dangerous Class E is for those of us operating high performance regional aircraft that are not fitted with TCAS. It's hard to 'see and avoid' when you are doing 300kts on descent. By the time that little C172 comes into view it's to late.

[Dick Smith]

Ushuaia, QSK? and others, thanks for your posting in relation to The 7.30 Report. You state that most professional pilots in the country have a low opinion of me. If this is so it is probably because they are not informed correctly in relation to what I am doing. After all, I constantly post my phone numbers on this site and don’t receive any calls.

I liken the present situation, with its resistance to moving to modern international airspace practices, as almost identical to what happened to Ansett. I constantly communicated with Ken Cowley – Rupert Murdoch’s man on the Ansett Board – advising that if the airline did not follow modern international practices that it would go broke. Ken Cowley once even flew me at airline expense (the only time it has ever happened in my life) to Melbourne to address the Ansett technical group. Despite this, just about everyone resisted change and stuck their heads in the sand.

Isn’t it amazing that Sir Richard Branson can bring his money to Australia, then use Australians to copy the latest international practices, make hundreds of millions of dollars and be declared a hero?

I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.

No one on this site ever comes up with a valid reason why we cannot accept the advantages of the US system. Of course the excuse most often used is that America has more radar coverage. Yes, I agree. However our plan is to copy what the US does in radar coverage, and to copy what the US does outside radar coverage. After all, the US airspace system has evolved like a Boeing 747 – it is the best of its type in the world.

I find it fascinating that most of my critics are all flying around in US FAR certified aircraft. People may remember that before 1991 all overseas certified aircraft had to be re-certified and modified to operate in Australia. As Chairman of CAA, the regulator, I changed this so aircraft from five proven aviation countries could operate here without modification. At the time bureaucrats within the airworthiness department of the CAA predicted death and doom. Of course this hasn’t happened and our industry has been able to save tens of millions of dollars, which has obviously helped to keep more people employed.

Ushuaia, it is amazing that you want to keep a system that focuses airline and VFR aircraft at one point within 300 metres of each other. In the Aussie system small aircraft flying from south to north in Sydney descend below the steps, find their way to Parramatta, and then (yes, I kid you not) look for flashing lights on the ground to track to Hornsby.

In the United States lights on the ground were used in the 1920s for the mail planes. Just last year I went to an Airservices meeting in the office below Bankstown Tower where they proposed a new and better flashing light for the light aircraft lane.

As I’ve stated, all small aircraft flying north track via the recommended reporting point of Hornsby. Where do we put the airline aircraft? Yes, you’ve got it – we direct them to Hornsby with about 300 metres of vertical separation. US experts have advised me that nowhere in the USA would they ever do such a thing. To focus airline aircraft and VFR aircraft to the same location, where a simple altimeter setting error could cause a collision, would not be acceptable.

The American expert said, “Dick, you must get lots of incidents in this airspace.” I checked up and found that it is the airspace in Australia that has the highest number of problems in relation to breakdowns of separation and inadvertent entry into controlled airspace.

Now let’s look at the US system that I (and others) are trying to move to. At a place like Los Angeles, where Qantas flies every day, VFR aircraft are not encouraged to fly by any low level topographic feature or town which is overflown by airline aircraft. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The airline routes are shown on the Los Angeles VFR chart and VFR aircraft flying from south to north (or vice versa) are encouraged to overfly the centre of the LA field at altitudes where there are no airline aircraft. Where VFR and IFR aircraft could potentially collide in the LA system (i.e. when they pass through the same level) they are typically 20 to 30 miles from the airport where the risk of collision is far lower.

The ARG and the Government is planning to move to this safer US system. Many pilots who have not been informed probably think that the Aussie system (where no transponder or radio is required for aircraft 300 metres away from an airline aircraft at Hornsby) is the ideal and should not be changed. Commonsense alone shows that this is wrong.

More flashing lights in the light aircraft lane – the Airservices proposal – will never bring us into the 21st century of modern air traffic control movements. I, and many others, would much prefer light aircraft be encouraged to overfly Sydney Airport at say, 7,500’ or 8,500’, following a route which kept the aircraft the maximum distance away from approaching and departing airline traffic.

In relation to Mandatory Broadcast Zones, the ATSB have said that reported incidents are probably less than 5% of what actually happens. This means that there are indeed many thousands of incidents.

The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.

For example, when a Qantas 737 departed Ayers Rock without giving any radio calls on the MBZ and to the Certified Air/Ground Operator, no action was taken in any way by CASA. If you check with the FAA you will find the reason they get such high compliance rates in CTAFs is that firm action is taken against the small number of pilots who do not follow the recommended practices and therefore endanger the life or property of another. American pilots are so aware that enforcement action will be taken that they discipline themselves to operate so that this does not happen. Imagine if in Australia 5% of cars could drive through a stop sign and we all knew that in a 10 year period no one had ever been prosecuted.

In relation to Broome Airport my claim has been consistent. In following the NAS, Broome will have a Class D tower. The Broome Airport report shows that this will increase safety by 20% and this is a classic example of moving resources to where the risk is highest. Mike Caplehorn constantly fights against the tower because his profits will be affected. He knows that safety will be improved by at least 20%, so for what other reason could he be against a Class D tower at Broome?

I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there. At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.

In relation to see and avoid, with the new system there will be less need for collision avoidance by unalerted see and avoid. This is because the US procedures are designed to concentrate everyone’s attention to where the collision risk is highest and to keep IFR and VFR aircraft away from pressure points.

I post the diagram of the US airspace again. As you will see, the airspace is Class G at low density traffic and then moves in a totally scientific way to Class A. As risk and traffic density increases a higher category of airspace is allocated where necessary.

http://www.aopa.com.au/airspace6.jpg

[tobzalp]

I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there. At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.



http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/aopa.jpg

[Ushuaia]

Dick, thanks for your reply. There is a lot in it, so let me get to the heart of the problems.

First, I'm sorry, but people have a low opinion of you, and others, because of the total lack of consultation, collaboration, involvement and input into changes. We are not against change but it must be for the better. When we end up with a less safe system and haven't been involved, then that is what people end up thinking.

You now have Class E airspace in Australia where IFR RPT jets doing groundspeeds of up to 450kt are charging down into the paths of un-notified, uncontrolled, non-speaking VFR lighties. We are expected to see these things or hope their transponders are on or hope that ATC's advise us, ON A WORKLOAD PERMITTING BASIS, of their presence, for US to take avoiding action. That, Dick, is crap. Completely and utterly. The 95% of people flying in Aust skies deserve better. Please explain to me why the other 5% cannot get a clearance, be on the radio like the first 95% and be separated properly? Why cannot the 5% integrate with us instead of being unknown targets?

Ok, we keep going on about the US system. I've been to LAX many times. Let's look at what Class E is the States REALLY MEANS. From Jeppesen, US-8, Enroute: in Class E airspace IFR aircraft are separated from ALL, repeat ALL, aircraft. Yes, ALL. Here IFR is separated from IFR only and just get traffic advisories on VFR, workload permitting. THe latter is the ICAO system which the Americans ARE NOT USING. Now, if I am mistaken, well, tell me so. But that is the info that my airline provides me. That's all I can go on, that's my understanding of the US system. And that's not what we have here in Australia now.

I have no problem with your ideas such as flying lighties over the tops of airports as per the States. Yes, they do that extremely well. But don't forget things like Sydney, for instance, where we have way too much controlled airspace purely so we can share the noise around!! Ok, deal with lanes for lighties better. No problem with that. Great idea. However, do not think I am advocating staying with a system that focuses lighties and jets within 300m of each other. I never suggested that or think that. What I DO have a problem with is a system that puts unknown lighties into the paths of jets and requires TCAS RA's to sort the mess out. TCAS is meant to sort out human mistakes, NOT system design flaws.

I won't comment on other areas of your post - not my area of expertise and it's been ages since I've been to places such as Broome. But Dick, can you not hear us? Work WITH us! We are the one of the major stakeholders. We fly the 95% of airspace users around. We have good ideas. We can see the good aspects of proposed changes and also the problems. Where is the commercial airline input in this latest body - the Aviation Council? Where is such input in the current airspace review team? You keep saying AM Angus Houston is the CPL rep - well, he's a top bloke but he's not a commercial airline pilot. Not good enough.

You should well know - thoughout the operational side of my company people are very concerned about the changes to date and about the further proposed changes. The worry goes right up the chain. However you won't hear them being officially vocal - due to commercial and other strategic reasons. I'll leave that for you to figure out..... But don't delude yourself by thinking the airlines support what we have in Aust now and what is proposed. This is one of the reasons why there has got to be better collaboration amongst ALL parties from the outset, more involvement, a process whereby the stakeholders own the result.

Thanks for reading and listening - I appreciate it.

[QSK?]

Dick:
In relation to Mandatory Broadcast Zones, the ATSB have said that reported incidents are probably less than 5% of what actually happens. This means that there are indeed many thousands of incidents. Show me the EXACT reference for this statement.

[Chapi]

Safety cases get done every day of the week. The only time they are not completed is when they are not actually started
Maybe another reason they don't get completed is when the safety case process determines that its NOT SAFE !!

[WALLEY2]

Dick,

Read your post and saw the 7:30 report.

You are aware of the time and effort that went into the DAS and the very high standard of the Panel and CSIRO audit.

What I do not underatand is why you think it is acceptable to cherry pick a scientific report which has its conclusions confirmed by Pilot survey and Stakeholder interviews and audited by the CSIRO.

The reports conclusions from all these sources says CAGRS procedures are all that is necessary at Bme for the present.

We make no money from the CAGRS infact it costs us $60,000per year.

Why do I not support a D class tower? It is not necessary and will cost GA and Pax heaps, you estimate $20 per head we feel around $16 unless we do it as a sub-contractor to AA(I am aware you support the subcontract method, so do I) On our short haul routes this is a heavy impost as unlike the USA towers Aust. towers do not get funded from central revenue.

The DAS study team looked at the need for a tower at BME using the USA FAA model. BME if in the USA would not get an FAA D class tower!!!! as it is in G class airspace a LAA where flight service personnel advise traffic would be warrented.

Yes in the USA it would have a CAGRS(USA) not a tower. Dick please read the whole of the DAS as these questions you raise are analysed and answered in detail.

You agree that CAGRS is NAS(USA) compliant and you were a great proponent of affordable safety. With some very important cost savings achieved as mentioned in your post.

The DAS proved the following:

CTAF(USA) vs CAGRS 500% increase in safety $1:00 per Pax cost.
CAGRS vs D class Tower 20% increase in safety $16 per pax cost

Finally if Bme gets a tower what about Ayr Kal Kta? Each tower is around 4million p/a. I thought NAS was to reduce costs not impose a further burden on Pax and GA.

We still disagree on this one!! cheers Mike

[FarCu]

Isn’t it amazing that Sir Richard Branson can bring his money to Australia, then use Australians to copy the latest international practices, make hundreds of millions of dollars and be declared a hero?

Your jealousy of SIR Richard Branson is noted. Must be his fault, all his silly jets getting in the way.

[Adamastor]

Now let me get this straight, Dick...

1) You are upset that CASA doesn't follow through on its obligations to penalise non-complying and negligent pilots (something that I happen to agree with).

2) You spent a considerable period as head of CASA (or its antecedent).

3) During that time you also did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it.

You, my dear man, are a first class prat.

[triadic]

Dick,
It is always good to see you contribute here… especially since nobody else in the NAS IG is prepared to talk in open forum. No wonder there continues to be a credibility problem?

If this is so it is probably because they are not informed correctly in relation to what I am doing. After all, I constantly post my phone numbers on this site and don’t receive any calls.


Dick, the problem here is you are not able to communicate on the same level of those that you wish to sell this project to. And those of us that have called you or spoken to you, often find that we don’t get much to say or you don’t want to listen. Can you blame people for not calling if they don’t think it is worth it??


I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.
Could not agree more!


No one on this site ever comes up with a valid reason why we cannot accept the advantages of the US system. Of course the excuse most often used is that America has more radar coverage.
Perhaps this is because it has not been “sold” to those that have to make it work. As the major proponent of this change, you have to “sell” the changes and convince everyone that we will all be better off. To date, neither you nor the NAS IG have done that in any shape or form.

In the United States lights on the ground were used in the 1920s for the mail planes. Just last year I went to an Airservices meeting in the office below Bankstown Tower where they proposed a new and better flashing light for the light aircraft lane.
I think you will find that the light thing relates to the attitude of those in CASA and ASA that don’t want change and don’t have the ability to do it. If some of the CASA attitudes back in the ‘80’s were a bit more practical, much of this would have been done by now. I think it was a “power” thing! Maybe still is?

Now let’s look at the US system that I (and others) are trying to move to. At a place like Los Angeles, where Qantas flies every day, VFR aircraft are not encouraged to fly by any low level topographic feature or town which is overflown by airline aircraft. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The airline routes are shown on the Los Angeles VFR chart and VFR aircraft flying from south to north (or vice versa) are encouraged to overfly the centre of the LA field at altitudes where there are no airline aircraft. Where VFR and IFR aircraft could potentially collide in the LA system (i.e. when they pass through the same level) they are typically 20 to 30 miles from the airport where the risk of collision is far lower.
What you don’t realise here Dick, is that the Australian culture is not the same as the US culture. You use the word “encouraged” and in other places “recommended”. The problem is this means a very different thing in Australia vs US. That is why we had to have MBZs because it was the only way we could achieve the level of compliance that is required. You ought to know as you were the one that introduced MBZs…!

The ARG and the Government is planning to move to this safer US system. Many pilots who have not been informed probably think that the Aussie system (where no transponder or radio is required for aircraft 300 metres away from an airline aircraft at Hornsby) is the ideal and should not be changed. Commonsense alone shows that this is wrong.
Dick, you don’t seem to realise that the NAS education to date has been a total failure and it does not matter if it is “commonsense” or not. It all depends on what is common and what is sense.. no?


The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.
Dick, this is really where you have gone off the rails. Whilst I agree there needs to be some form of penalty for transgression, You don’t achieve compliance by introducing huge fines, YOU ACHIEVE IT BY EDUCATION AND TRAINING in the first instance, not by making threats. Of course you know that you can be safe and not compliant, and being 100% compliant does not mean you are SAFE. You have to change your approach to this or you will fail big time.


I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there.
Does this mean you are telling the Minister and CASA what to do?

In relation to see and avoid, with the new system there will be less need for collision avoidance by unalerted see and avoid. This is because the US procedures are designed to concentrate everyone’s attention to where the collision risk is highest and to keep IFR and VFR aircraft away from pressure points.

Dick, this only applies if you introduce the US culture in conjunction with the US procedures. To date, neither you nor the NAS IG have addressed the culture differences. When you do that, in conjunction with (and part of) a serious education program which is based on selling the changes and justifying the results then we might see some progress in airspace reform, which one way or the other many of us would like to see - just not the way you are doing it!

"no known traffic" :ok:

[Chapi]

... we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas....
So why do Airbus and Boeing come to Australia to develop future pilot/atc integrated systems for their aircraft ?

... maybe its because we are smarter and have the only environment in the world where sophisticated integrated systems can work and be evaluated ...

Boeing wouldn't be here if they do could do the same in USA ... and Airbus wouldn't be here if they could do the same in Europe ...

... and they take what they learn here back to develop what will become international practice ...

... of course Boeing and Airbus don't make planes for GA ... so I guess they don't count and we're not really that good after all.

[Frank Burden]

Dick,

I had a look at the US airspace model you posted Dick and noted that Australian NAS has different levels of service with different volumes of airspace. For instance, why do the US only have Class G up to either 700' or 1200' AGL and we are looking at more than ten times this upper level? And so on. Call me simple, call me stupid, but we do appear to be replicating the system but morphing it to suit some arbitrary design rules. Not against reform but either we implement it the same or do the full Monty on it.

[Dick Smith]

WALLEY2, Mike, you state in relation to your study

You are aware of the time and effort that went into the DAS and the very high standard of the panel and CSIRO audit. Mike, I must admit I can’t quite agree. I will soon post on my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au a copy of an independent review of the “Design Aeronautical Study for Broome Airport Terminal Airspace” by Dr S J Roberts. Whilst I cannot say that I know Dr Roberts personally (it appears that I have met him at two public functions in relation to the Eureka Awards), he is a life member of the Australian Skeptics – a group of which I am patron.

I should point out that Dr Roberts, quite unlike the authors of your report, has no financial link or benefit whichever way the decision is resolved. I particularly point out some of the comments from his report.

Page 6: The audit made complimentary remarks about the original report, which are then quoted by yet again the same authors in the target document. This conduct shows a deliberate self-delusion that is quite alien to the scientific process. One is forced to conclude that the persons involved have an “axe to grind” and therefore cannot be trusted to conduct an objective study.

Page 14: It is highly unlikely that Capt Bollard, or anyone else, would have been included in the study group unless their opinions happened to match the pre-formed social thinking of the existing group.

Page 42: With the authors of the report being self-appointed and self-auditing, it is clear to me that an arbitrary and illogical decision to omit ground collisions must have been taken precisely because their inclusion would have weakened some of the preconceived logic already beloved of the authors. Such willingness to discard unwelcome facts is another characteristic of cultic pseudoscience and of dogmatic thought.

Page 64/65: Tables 14 and 15 contain egregious examples of illogical – I would say bizarre – calculation. Once cannot simply add rankings in this way, and to do so demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of statistics. Some authors were said (on page 14) to be qualified in statistics; either this is untrue, or they cannot have seen this part of the report. These tables (and the data that will follow from them, including assertions in the principal conclusion) represent either a spectacular degree of incompetence, or an attempt to deliberately mislead the casual reader.

Page 77: The figure of “88%” comes from table 17 on page 73, which in turn takes it from Figure 9 on page 66. Above I have shown that the data involved is fatally misconceived, so that this figure of 88% must be rejected.

Based on my professional experience I hold the opinion that this report must be ignored, on the grounds of –
· Deliberate non-independence of authors and of persons surveyed;
· Unjustified arbitrary decision to focus on mid-air collisions while dismissing ground-based collisions;
· Obvious lack of mathematical and statistical knowledge;
· Deception in presentation of results, tantamount to scientific fraud;
· Reliance on deliberately unstated, arbitrary methodology.
Indeed I would recommend that any scientific work done by the authors involved must now be called into question. As some authors appear to be associated with public bodies such as CSIRO, I strongly suggest that higher management should invite them to explain their conduct or to dissociate themselves from the report.

S J Roberts, BSc ARCS DIP PhD JP
24 May 2004

[mjbow2]

Frank Burden...

I suggest you do further research on the US class G airspace. Class G goes up to 14500ft. Class E 'airways' aprx 8nm wide, start at 1200ft agl. Class E associated with an instrument approach- 700 agl.

[tobzalp]

Ahahaha dick. You should get a tarot card reader as well. And that guy who does that 'crossing over' thing as well. Just when I thought you could be any more irrelvant to this airspace problem you bring forward a guy like this.

Hey, did you know that the WTC attack was actually from the CIA? I have a web site that I can direct you to that proves it! Conspiracy theorists like your mate here are a laughing stock and I can not believe that you actually think that anyone would take this seriously.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
After reading the spiel by your lacky, you now have only one option: do a complete design safety case on commercial operations at uncontrolled airports to sort out the truth once and for all. I don't give a stuff how long it takes. If it "delays implementation", too bad.
Reference the "lack of inclusion of ground collisions" and how that has alledgedly contributed to the invalidity of the BME DAS, doesn't your expert appreciate that ANY type of third party, starting at a CAGRS, would significantly increase the safety of commercial operations by maintaining a visual lookout from his "tower", thereby further strenthening the conclusions of the DAS? This one point severely calls into question the credibility of Dr Roberts. Perhaps that is the problem: "experts" such as him (and yourself?), commenting on things about which they know little or nothing.

mjbow2,
Could you please explain how much of the Class G airspace you claim goes up to FL145 is used by commercial operations? You may also like to mention how much FL145 Class G is filled up with the Rocky and other mountain ranges. Der.

[Dick Smith]

Frank Burden, if you look at the US airspace model you will see that the United States has Class G airspace to 14,500’ – just as our NAS design shows should be introduced by November this year! The US Class G airspace to 14,500’ covers large areas of low traffic density airspace – areas in Arizona, Nevada and Wyoming of many thousands of square kilometres.

Ushuaia, I can assure you that in the United States they follow ICAO compliant Class E airspace just as we have introduced – that is, they separate IFR from IFR and give traffic where practical on others. Are you sure you have interpreted the Jeppesen documents correctly? If you have, they are obviously in error and need to be changed.

Adamastor, you are accusing me of not being tough with enforcement. If you check with the Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, or possibly with Creampuff, you will find that when I was Chairman of CAA in 1991 I introduced the administrative fines legislation. After I finished my term no one acted on this legislation. When I came back in 1998 I worked again with the Office of Legal Counsel to actually put a system in place so the administrative fines were used – and they were.

FarCu, yes, I am jealous of Richard Branson - not because of the Sir but because of the fact that he has been able to very successfully introduce reform into Australia and many Australians have benefited, including lots of jobs created. That is what I am about. Just as Richard Branson does, I like the idea of copying the best practices from around the world and introducing them into Australia so we employ more people and create more wealth for all Australians.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dick,
Branson had 30% of the Australian market GIVEN to him. If you don't understand that, you shouldn't be in business. Sorry, you're 60 and retired, right?
including lots of jobs created
What ARE you smoking again??!! Perhaps you could give us the jobs lost by Ansett's collapse verses the jobs created by Branson's good fortune? I do understand that you, being a typical "boss", think "reform" is defined as half the number of people, working for 1/2 the pay, doing twice the work. That's not reform, that's capitalism. Don't try to use one to justify the other.
areas in Arizona, Nevada and Wyoming of many thousands of square kilometres.
You know very well nobody flies there because there are huge MOUNTAINS in that G airspace. Tell the WHOLE story, for god's sake man.

[ferris]

Dick, please read this post carefully.

This forum is populated by (mostly) industry professionals. You can go on TV and 'spin', half-truth, waffle etc as much as you like. The public might buy it. The professionals might, by providing factual balance, get the public to see the truth.

BUT YOU CANNOT TELL PORKIES HERE. You will have the facts presented against you every time (as has happened time and again). PLEASE STOP.

Even I can see, from afar, that the tide has turned against you (again). Have the decency to clean up your own mess. If you are incapable of any humility, bow out and let someone else do the job.

[Icarus2001]

mmmmm let me see, how does it go...

You can fool all of the pilots some of the time and you can fool some of the pilots all of the time but you cannot fool all of the pilots all of the time.

I came to NAS like most, with an open mind. Two points still have to be addressed:

1. What are the benefits?

In answer to this we get motherhood statements such as " it is a safer system" I even endured Mr & Mrs King telling me that NAS would stimulate GA in Australia. For goodness sake how? It does not remove any costs and even if it did ATC costs are a very small portion of aircraft operating costs so the actual total costs would vary little.

2. Why has there been so little input allowed from the professional aviation sectors, ATC, GA, Airlines etc and so much said by Dick and yet so little from Mike Smith and John Anderson?

The education material has been too little too late and then for AsA to send out yet another chart to put the frequency boundaries was laughable. Not because it was not needed but because someone :rolleyes: thought that it wasn't. The costs to add these back to the next issue of the charts must be high. At least I hope they are added back to the VNC and VTC again, otherwise once again we will have pilots drawing lines in pencil on their charts transposed from a chart of a different scale!

Dick I agree that sometimes "the people" do not know what is good for them and have to be pushed. eg seat belts in cars, motorcycle helmets etc. However, people also know when they see a lemon. You have tried to cherry pick the US system for whatever reason. Will we get their flight service and briefing offices? Can we go to FL140 without oxygen? Will we get a pro rata amount of radar in Oz?

Please stop this nonsense and find some other issue to put your resources behind. How about streamlining CASA services to reduce costs for a start.

[WALLEY2]

Dick, Where do you get them from?

These comments are simply wrong.

Did your expert read this report in full ?

The comment on p42 "only considered the risk of the mid-air collision" refers to the paper Fulton and Westcott (2001).The Broome DAS most certainly includes ground based risks!! Infact if as Topzalp said " your Tarrot card reader" had looked at the Table "REAL and SIGNIFICANT HAZARDS AT BROOME" p59 out of the 14 hazards listed
H2 COLLISION RISK VEHICLE-AIRCRAFT
H3 COLLISION RISK RUNWAY INCURSION AIRCRAFT-AIRCRAFT
H7 RUNWAY HUMP(line of site on ground problem)
H8 APRON CONGESTION

THERE ARE MORE IDENTIFIED GROUND HAZARDS THAN AIRSPACE HAZARDS. I KNOW YOU MAY HAVE TROUBLE READING BUT SURELY AS THIS GUY HAS A Ph.D he can read!!

Ground hazards are even included in the tables he quotes as being handled statistically incorrectly.

Those tables are on page 64 & 65 If he had bothered to turn the page to 66 he would have read

"No formal mechanism exists to aggregate the rankings of Table 14 and Table 15 and they are simply summed."

THAT SHOULD BE CLEAR EVEN TO YOU LET ALONE YOUR Ph.D GUY

Also for the record I do not know Dr fulton except by reading some of his many published papers. The DAS contributers are well published in scientific journals and conferences, could not find any papers by your guy, what is his Ph .D in? and which country does he publish in? Give Kim or me a ring or email us as this is a personal matter to him and I do not want to embarrass him in the public domain

With the exception of Dr Emery I do not know any other of the 9 or so contributers to the DAS.

Now a fair warning if you publish this report on your web site and it contains errors like those I have just advise you of, I will fund any recourse (academic or legal) any of the scientist, mathematicians, engineers,pilots, psychologists or ATC experts wish to take against this Dr .

I helped to put them in the position to be exposed to your "play the man tactics" so I am obliged and will gladly finance their defence of their credentials and work.

In 15 minutes I have shown that this Guys major tenet of suposed error is manifestly wrong. I will not pass this on to the DAS Panel or comment publically on this forum about this again. You love controversy and I will not feed it to you when other innocent persons end up getting hurt.

Beside numerous praise by professionals within Australia and CASA's decision on MBZs, as an Australian you will be pleased to know that the DAS has been nominated for an international award.

[Lodown]

Walley2, I'm enjoying reading your posts. Sounds like both Dicarus and Micarus are flying a little too close to the sun yet again.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Umm Dick...where exactly along the BK Lane of Entry do light aircraft transiting it come within '300 meters' of RPT Jets inbound to YSSY?:confused:

I have only used it, the BK LOE, a few times in the last 20+ years since learning to fly at BK but I think you'll find that at Horsnby the jets are in the vicinity of 4000'+ while those in the lane are at 1500'. And that's just verticle seperation...there would be a mile or so lateral as well.

Chuck.

[mjbow2]

Capn Bloggs....

How many of these airports in WY, UT, AZ, CO, ID, MO, NM have you actually
flown into on a regular basis either on regional airline operations or as a GA pilot?
I would suggest approximately none! If you had, you would have a much more accurate idea of how many GA and RPT aircraft occupy the said airspace. That low traffic density class G airspace in the US is busier than most class E I have experienced in Australia.

[Neddy]

Dick,

I wonder if the nice "Dr. Skeptic" would mind running his investigative eye over a couple of balloon and helicopter "record" flights while he is working in the aviation arena.

I also know a guy who is related to the Boulia airport mower driver (therefore an expert on aviation) who can prove that it is physically impossible for aeroplanes to fly.....if that helps with your safety case!

[QSK?]

AND, by the way Dick, I'm still waiting for an answer from you on my "5%" question??

[Duff Man]

Chimbu, to take the Devil's advocate role... (and sorry to be so boring for the rest of the country)

VFR aircarft tracking up the BK LOE currently frequently get within 500FT vertical and zero lateral of IFRs in the radar circuit for 16R. Class C LL is A025. Considering we may let the 1200's Mode C get up to A027 before reacting, there is a 300FT safety margin. That's ... what ... under 100 metres?

If the track from Parramatta to Pennant Hills then Hornsby is missed by 1 NM in error to the east, the 700FT step gets infringed and should there be traffic on final nearby (this is the 16R IAF) we'll get a BOS incident and potential TCAS RA (assuming transponder operating).

Dick, just some of the rather expensive and political hurdles to jump before getting a VFR lane overhead YSSY: LTOP mode flexibility; putting the lane out to sea at least 3NM clear of 16L circuit (LA VFR lane is 90 degrees to the circuit, not 30 degrees as SY would be); Holsworthy demolition/live firing; Lucas Heights; Airline-preferred STARS connected to runways for fuel savings no longer possible; getting departures from BK up to 7500/8500 before crossing the SY circuit (... where?). It's ridiculous to suggest this would work at SY. And even if you could manage it, at what cost to the industry for what benefit (oh, sounds like NAS all over again!)?

[Capn Bloggs]

mjbow2,
That'd be the "ICAO" Class G airspace where ALL IFR get a clearance, would it, because that's the way the yanks do business? Bit of a shame THAT part of the US NAS is not being implemented here...
You're defending the indefensible.

[Towering Q]

But look...."Dr Sceptic" is a JP too!!

Surely the sign of a man desperate to collect letters after his name. :yuk:

[mjbow2]

Capn Bloggs

I wasnt defending anything. You made a very misleading statement. Argue your point all you want but I think the readers are entitled to accuracy where it can be provided. Sorry but your statement was quite wrong.

If you would take the time to search the FAA database on aircraft owned in the said states I would put even money on there being more privately owned aircraft (not counting the dozens of operators) flying around the class G of the Rocky mountain area than are on the entire Australian civil register.

As far as the other waffle about IFR clearance through class G, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you take off from a class G airport and fly through class G with a 'clearance'. your clearance gives you seperation for the controlled airspace....not class G. The clearance is always for that portion of the flight which is in controlled airspace.

I find it hard to beleive that you have ANY experience in the US airspace system that you seem to want to pass comment on.

I think the readers are entitled to know your credentials when making these staements to support your arguement. If you do have any at all then you are grossly misrepresentling the truth to support your argument. Exactly how much time have you spent flying in the US?

[Dick Smith]

WALLEY2, Mike, no I’m not concerned about your threats. The Roberts report is now on my website as well as a fantastic report by Bob Hall of the Gliding Federation making similar comments.

I happen to believe that there should be no secrets when it comes to aviation safety. I don’t object to you in any way publishing your report. I believe it is healthy to also obtain other views.

If anyone wants to read either the Roberts or the Hall report go to www.dicksmithflyer.com.au

[tobzalp]

self advertising/promotion and multi spamming of own site. Edit and delete and ban thx Woomera if you want to remain consistent.

[R4+Z]

You know it would be interesting to see Dr Roberts opinion of the report recommending NAS in the first place. Can you imagine what he would make of all the "I believes".

[Woomera]

self advertising/promotion and multi spamming of own site. Edit and delete and ban thx Woomera if you want to remain consistent. Plazbot, kindly be specific, rather than cryptic about your request. What are you talking about? This is my first post on this thread.

Who was it that said some years ago...Dick Smith before he dicks you?
Amos, (I believe) that was long-time member Hugh Jarse.

[tobzalp]

Dick smith is pimping his site. I have no probelm with linking directly to the document that he refers to but posting his personal web site url and direct us to go and look for it is not on. People will read a thread and if there is a document to do with that they can see by clicking a link but having to read tons of propaganda along the way that is completely unrelated is and has never been accepted here.

Even though it is my side of the fence as an example ****su Tonka links directly to the documents that he/she feels are related to a thread and does not ram the rest of the Civil Air site down peoples throats. The Broome study was exactly the same. Other posters have had their posts edited in the past. Why is this little man any different?

All he needs to do is this

http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Content.php?ContentID=267

That is the study.

I assume you will replace his with this.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I assume as you introduce him as Bob Hall of the Gliding Federation he lacks any more compelling/pertinate qualifications?

Chuck:ugh:

[Icarus2001]

I thought it was time I visited the NAS website again which was a complete waste of time as it is so far out of date. However I did find this gem at the foot of the page...

DISCLAIMER - Material and opinions contained within are solely those of the Australian Airspace Reform and do not necessarily represent, in whole or in part, the position of the Department.

What a joke. The Minister for Transport is supposed to run DOTARS and therefore NAS so why would the NAS site disagree with DOTARS policy? Oh I know...:rolleyes:

So where do we go for up to date information?

[WALLEY2]

Dick,

We agree on another thing, no secrecy in aviation safety matters,
I look forward to Professional pilots and ATC experts being given copies of ARG and NASIG reports and minutes.

My post was not a threat just a warning to Dr Roberts to be careful in his comments on other experts who did the DAS as certainly if it had been me I would have taken offence.

Normally these matters are thrashed out by examining the same data and reaching a different analysed position, a growth of knowledge approach, even if the different findings mean the matter is contentious. This is the prefered approach of many researchers rather than a direct attack on a report page by page as Dr Roberts wants to do.

With Dr Roberts approach even if you prove the other guy wrong you have not advanced the matter under consideration.

Scientifically you are back to status quo.

Probably this is the fate of skeptics or how bankers ask their risk managers like Dr Roberts to tackle problems.

Cheers Mike

[canuck76]

Chimbu chuckles

Bob Hall, Gliding Federation? Not unqualified at all. His PhD "Hall, Robert James" in 1970 is from University of New South Wales in, as I recall, "Microbial Dynamics".

His publication list shows just the one academic publication. This was the field of modelling anaerobic digesters. He did peer-acknowledged work with the Biotechnology School at UNSW from 1986, with Linklater on cheese.

This would presumably make him a cheese expert. Does this make Dick Smith the Big Cheese?

[WALLEY2]

MJBOW2

Ok USA airspace heaps of G class and RPT Jets and GA mixing in together??

Find an airport like Broome, Ayers, KTA,KAL say 20-30,000 aircraft movements p/a, RPT upto 737-800 around4-5,000 movements p/a.

G class airspace no radar below 20,000ft above airport reference point ground level. Uncontrolled terminal airspace no Local Airport Advisory by FSS stationed at the airport.

In short: Find a USA CTAF Airport with this kind of traffic, in this kind of area and terminal airspace.

[Chapi]

I agree with Dr Roberts ....


... This conduct shows a deliberate self-delusion that is quite alien to the scientific process. One is forced to conclude that the persons involved have an “axe to grind” and therefore cannot be trusted to conduct an objective study.

... It is highly unlikely that ...anyone else, would have been included in the study group unless their opinions happened to match the pre-formed social thinking of the existing group.

... would have weakened some of the preconceived logic already beloved of the authors. Such willingness to discard unwelcome facts is another characteristic of cultic pseudoscience and of dogmatic thought.

... demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of statistics ... represent either a spectacular degree of incompetence, or an attempt to deliberately mislead the casual reader.

... the data involved is fatally misconceived ...

... must be ignored, on the grounds of –

· Deliberate non-independence of authors and of persons surveyed;

· Unjustified arbitrary decision ...;

· Obvious lack of mathematical and statistical knowledge;

· Deception in presentation of results, tantamount to scientific fraud;

· Reliance on deliberately unstated, arbitrary methodology.

... would recommend that any ... work done by the authors involved must now be called into question.



He was referring to Dick wasn't he ???

[Capn Bloggs]

mjbow2,

Who is the one who doesn't know what goes on in the US? I quote from a report by one of the members of the Airservices fact-finding visit last year, the so-called Class G airspace you claim to know all about:

Class G airspace.
In the US NAS IFR aircraft receive an IFR/IFR separation service in Class G airspace. This Service is not dependent on radar coverage, and indeed most Class G airspace lies beyond radar coverage. This is in stark contrast to the proposal in AUSNAS to have IFR aircraft operate without an en-route traffic information service in Class G.

When the question of IFR in Class G airspace was raised at the FAA headquarters in Washington, Mr Reggie Matthews, Manager Airspace and Rules Division, who is the FAA executive with policy authority to make an interpretation on ATC regulations, stated that FAA policy requires IFR aircraft in Class G airspace to operate on a clearance. This policy is not documented, however Mr Matthews advised that it is current custom and practice, both for industry and FAA, to function in this manner, and that if an interpretation was required it would come to him for decision.

Just because the regulations are not specific in prohibiting a particular activity, does not mean that particular activity will be tolerated by the FAA. The FAA will not tolerate aircraft intentionally operating in IMC in any airspace without a clearance.

The FAA acknowledged that they are providing a de-facto Class E service to IFR aircraft in Class G, and they have no intention to change. The Continental USA has remnant areas of Class G airspace. Much of the higher altitude Class G has such high grid lowest safe altitudes, that en-route IFR is not practicable in the airspace. The low altitude Class G is considered to exist to permit VFR operations in conditions of one mile visibility, and clear of cloud..

I don't believe I'm deceiving anyone, sport. It's the Dick Smith camp that is attempting (increasingly unsuccesfully) to pull the wool over our eyes.

Actually, it's funny you should mention all those aircraft that are registered in the Rockies: that demonstrates that the Smiths' assertions that "the US has 20 times the traffic" is a total furphy. Their "20 times the traffic" is actually spread over a much larger area (probably about twenty times the size?), and so the RATE of activity per square whatever is about the same.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Cannuck76....pertinant/compelling qualifications;)

To the chap playing devils advocate on the seperation at Hornsby I suggest you pull out the Sydney VTC and take a closer look.

LL CTA at Hornsby 2500' until 12 DME straight in on rwy 17 when it becomes 700' and then 500' over the harbour.

Given Hornsby is 15 odd nm from YSSY any inbound transport cat jet will be passing overhead at 5000' +/- a bit. At 12 DME, the closest a lighty can get to the threshold of 17 and still be at 2500', the jet aircraft will be at 4000' +/- a bit.

Even if not following a 3 X profile, rare in large jets, and conducting a visual approach the lowest they can be is 500' above the lower limit of CTA...and to actually be that low with that many track miles to run would be highly inefficient and against virtually every SOP in the book...whomever's book.

At 8.5 DME, the closest said lighty can be to the threshold of 17 and maintain 700', the jet would be approximately 2500'.

So how close were they going to be in your opinion?

Every time ******** opens his mouth he spouts forward with lies and half truths...anything that will convince Ma & Pa public that he is the aviation messiah and we a bunch of overpaid whingers.

With widespread industry consultation NAS could have been introduced seemlessly...******** has stated very clearly that excluding industry input was a deliberate act....and imho negligence/arrogance of monumental proportions.

So few things need tweaking to make NAS workable that it beggars belief that ******** and his political puppets have taken such a untenable position.

NAS only needs tweaking because we have it in place...any truly knowledgeable industry professional could compare the system in place pre Nov 2003 to what we have now and see that the change was unwarranted financial waste for no significant gains.

Rather than wasted, late, 'educational material' to support NAS2b why didn't AsA just spend some money on educating ******** and AOPA in how they could achieve virtually everything their little hearts desired while remaining part of the existing system?

Chuck :mad:

[Duff Man]

Chimbu, I'm not here to fight Dick's argument (note that he never replied to my comments). Needless to say the bulk of Dick's knowledge of terminal airspace comes from his house in Terry Hills, right in the LOE we've been talking about. The few times that he or other people have been refused zone clearances WE get to hear about it after he goes into print via the Airservices CEO. I'm sure he listens intently ever time we get a VFR stray out of that lane into the path of aircraft on final 16R. He's fully aware of the problems in the LOE. Regarding the separation at Hornsby vv traffic on 16R, may I suggest you pay attention next time you fly IFR into YSSY? Jets are routinely forced to fly well below profile (A030 on base at 15NM) to accommodate IVA and PRM standards. This isn't the place to explain boring details - feel free to call the SY traffic manager and ask for a visit to the TCU. The comment about the 700 ft step is that it is close to a corner in the LOE and IF the VFR misjudges and flys east of the tracking point, that step is infringed and they can be horribly close (alt+pos'n) to the IAF for 16R.

[Frank Burden]

Capn Bloggs (tipping his hat),

Thankyou.


Frank Burden

The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit

[QSK?]

Thank you Chapi - you've made my day.

Your last post was a classic!

Keep it up

[Chimbu chuckles]

Fair enough Duff man...I don't fly jets into YSSY at the moment, although my company will be starting Asia direct in a few months.

I have flown over a big chunk of the world and it's always nice hearing an Aussie ATCO on the other end of the line:ok:

Chuck

[triadic]

Dick,

Back on May 30, I posted here some comment on your earlier posts which concluded:


Dick, this only applies if you introduce the US culture in conjunction with the US procedures. To date, neither you nor the NAS IG have addressed the culture differences. When you do that, in conjunction with (and part of) a serious education program which is based on selling the changes and justifying the results then we might see some progress in airspace reform, which one way or the other many of us would like to see - just not the way you are doing it!

To date you have chosen to ignore my comments.

NOWHERE to date have you even attempted to address the culture or training issues associated with NAS or airspace reform in general. You cannot put your head in the sand on these issues which are critical to the success of any change management project (which NAS is) and expect a smooth passage. I note with interest both culture and training is mentioned by others, both on this thread and others, yet you choose to ignore or not to comment on them. Why?

[Dick Smith]

triadic, I couldn’t agree with you more in relation to the US culture compared to the Australian culture. I’ve been talking about it for over 10 years. When I was Chairman of CAA I arranged a program where Australian controllers regularly visited the USA and many came back to Australia and wrote positive reports. I’ve still got copies of those reports – they are excellent. Virtually every controller came up with ideas on how we could make improvements in Australia. I don’t believe any of these ideas have ever been introduced.

You do not seem to understand that I am not in a position of authority. The only people who have this ability to bring in cultural change are the people who are in positions of authority. Unfortunately there seem to be none who have the courage and leadership abilities to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.

The management of both Airservices and CASA have done everything they can to undermine the Government’s decision to move to the NAS.

I point out that I was in a position of authority when we introduced the AMATS changes. There was resistance to change, however I made sure competent experts were employed. When you consider it is the airspace we have been flying in for the last 13 years with very high levels of safety, and it has now been generally accepted. It shows it was a competent process.

It is simple. You can’t blame me as I have no position of authority and most advice I give to those who do have a position of authority is ignored. From my experience, the management in Airservices and CASA are so insecure with their leadership abilities they are simply not prepared to copy the world’s best practice.

For example, you may know that I have worked for three years to attempt to get US experts out to help with the cultural and training issues. Both CASA and Airservices have done everything they can to make sure this does not happen. Basically the management’s view is “it wasn’t built here”.

A good example of not asking advice is the most ridiculous “design safety cases” which are now taking place at Airservices. They are all based on subjective opinion from people who have made up their minds – just like the Broome study. Andrew Fleming, General Manager Air Traffic Management, was surprised that the USA could not supply a design safety case for their Class E airspace. The facts are simple. The airspace in the USA, including Class E, has evolved over 100 years of experience. You only need a design safety case if you are inventing something. The reason I have always pushed for copying proven systems is that you can readily obtain objective evidence on the safety result you will achieve.

At Airservices, the management gives no leadership at all in relation to the change process. Of course, in a vacuum, you end up with a situation where the least informed “fundamentalists” communicate their fears of change and dictate the agenda.

[ferris]

So you have enough authority to change the airspace, but not the culture ???????
Hahahahahaha.
(Adopt a child's voice) it's all them, it's not my fault, it's all a conspiracy, a cultural conspiracy etc.:zzz: most ridiculous “design safety cases” which are now taking place at Airservices. Yeah, imagine employing basic change management processes:hmm:
From my experience, the management in Airservices and CASA are so insecure with their leadership abilities they are simply not prepared to copy the world’s best practice I look forward to the re-introduction of flight service, the US charging regime (all world's best practice) etc etc at your earliest convenience.......:hmm:

[Icarus2001]

Hey Dick good see you engaging on these forums again.

Surely something you are skirting around above is that ...

to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.

Okay I accept the right of an elected government to do that. I also accept that what they may do may be personally not beneficial but may benefit the community as a whole.

The question remains how did the government ie John Anderson and DOTARS come to this policy decision? That has not been answered. Clearly they think NAS will be better than what you introduced with AMATS but why. Who told them it would be better? Where is the advice without fear or favour from the bureacracy?

[R4+Z]

You've just got to love that phrase "World best practice"

So it begs the question how can you call a system which has seen mid air collisions involving RPT, "worlds best practice", when justifying replacing a system that has had none? Add to that the total lack of any saving financially to date and the looming prospect of the need for greater expense.

This may make the Guiness book of records for the most spent by a government to stroke the ego of one man.

[missy]

I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there (Brrome). At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.

Dick, could you please elaborate on what you believe to be the correct establishment formula study? From what I have heard, establishment/disestablishment hinges on the figure used for loss of life. What loss of life figure are you suggesting should be used?

[DownDraught]

His publication list shows just the one academic publication. This was the field of modelling anaerobic digesters. He did peer-acknowledged work with the Biotechnology School at UNSW from 1986, with Linklater on cheese. This would presumably make him a cheese expert. Does this make Dick Smith the Big Cheese?

"Cheese Dick" for me, I BELIEVE you give him too much credit!

[Creampuff]

Dick

In this thread you said on 0405310549, in response to Adamastor:you [Adamastor] are accusing me of not being tough with enforcement. If you check with the Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, or possibly with Creampuff, you will find that when I was Chairman of CAA in 1991 I introduced the administrative fines legislation. After I finished my term no one acted on this legislation. When I came back in 1998 I worked again with the Office of Legal Counsel to actually put a system in place so the administrative fines were used – and they were.I confirm that you were instrumental in and at the forefront of the introduction of the administrative fines legislation. I also confirm that during your stint as Chairman of CASA, you pressed for strong and fearless enforcement of the rules. However, I think it is also worth remembering that CASA was built on the blood of Seaview and Monarch: both products of the ‘group hug’ regulatory approach of the CAA. The US had long since learned the dangers of the ‘dual mandate’, but then, as now, Australia seemed unable to learn an obvious lesson without replicating the US’s mistakes.

In this thread at 0406040448 you said, in response to triadic::You [triadic] do not seem to understand that I am not in a position of authority. The only people who have this ability to bring in cultural change are the people who are in positions of authority. Unfortunately there seem to be none who have the courage and leadership abilities to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.Here we get to the crux of the issue. The “Government” has to comply with law, just like everybody else. Unless and until a Government “policy” is reflected in or supported by the law, it has no force or legitimacy.

The policy as to the process to be followed, and as to the relevant considerations to be taken into account, in the decisions as to what classes of airspace will be declared where, and by whom, is clear. That policy is the product of legislation passed and endorsed by the Parliament – note, not the “Government” – to give effect to the policy decided by the the Parliament.

Among the policy underpinnings of the law relating to airspace design and management, is the concept of objective decision-making, isolated from political interference. It’s a fairly simple concept to grasp: politicians tend to focus on their short term political interests, which interests may not be consistent with the long term interests of the public. If Ministers were given power with respect to airspace, they might be tempted to exercise those powers so as to protect their political hides. Next thing you know, airspace design and management is being run radio talkback hosts and anyone else with clout to swing voters.

You expect that people “in positions of authority” should give effect to “Government policy”. An entirely reasonable expectation. The trouble Dick, is that what you describe as “Government policy” with respect to airspace, isn’t.

NAS is merely the pound of flesh that one politician paid for your stay on his political execution. The ARG (or whatever it is called this week) never had and never will have any legal power with respect to airspace – it’s merely an expensive exercise in Dick diversion. The real “Government policy” – the one reflected in the legislative framework – is that airspace design and management is to be carried out independently of you and the politicians.

A while ago I put a simple question to you in this forum. I asked: if the legal power with respect to declarations of airspace and the services to be provided therein could be delegated to you personally, would you accept the delegation and make the decisions necessary to create the airspace model you wanted? To your credit, you answered, and you answered honestly. You said: no.

Therein lies the problem Dick: You expect someone else to make and take responsibility for decisions which you are not prepared to make and take responsibility for yourself.

But two can play at that game Dick. The politician you saved is playing it too. There’s no way he’s stupid enough ever to put himself into a position of authority with respect to airspace design and management. In the Parliament, he’s repeatedly and pointedly drawn distinctions between himself and the people he describes as “those responsible” for air safety and airspace design and management.

That said, some of the people “in positions of authority” haven’t showered themselves in glory on this one. Some of them played politics for a while, hoping to crash through and give you what you wanted and earn Brownie points with the Minister. However, the cold chill of an airprox, and the certain knowledge that you and the Minister would deny all responsibility for a mid-air, put paid to that. They’ve ‘fessed up and acknowledged that they didn’t make their decisions properly. They’re now doing what they should have done in the first place: they’re following the real “Government policy”.

[Lodown]

Spot on Creampuff.

Anderson must be smiling to himself. He's managed to get through another three years with Dick off his back.

[gaunty]

Creampuff

Phew. :ok:

You'd better be careful lest you are found to be of sound mind.:)

And Mr Smith expects us to take him seriously when he makes public statements thus :{

At Airservices, the management gives no leadership at all in relation to the change process. Of course, in a vacuum, you end up with a situation where the least informed “fundamentalists” communicate their fears of change and dictate the agenda.

[twodogsflying]

Wow Dick, good post!!!!!

The only people who have this ability to bring in cultural change are the people who are in positions of authority.

Hitler, Amin, Osama, Smith? come to mind.

No Dick, we live in a democracy, only the military in our "Culture" have the luxury of only doing as they are told without question.

One cannot change "Culture" over night. The difference between us is simple.

An American has a regulation, they will ask "How do I comply?"

An Australian has the same regulation, the aussie will ask, "How do I get around it?"

This is ingrained from childhood and will take a number of generations, if at all to change.

Please, if you like the US so much, feel free to move there, or is being a Big Fish in a Small Pond more to your liking?

[Lodown]

Dick,

You're condemning your NAS with your own words:

Of course, in a vacuum, you end up with a situation where the least informed “fundamentalists” communicate their fears of change and dictate the agenda.
And you class yourself with your NAS agenda as...?

They [design safety cases] are all based on subjective opinion from people who have made up their minds And NAS is based on...?

There's a saying that goes something like, "Be careful pointing a finger because there are three fingers pointing back at you."

Virtually every controller came up with ideas on how we could make improvements in Australia. I don’t believe any of these ideas have ever been introduced.
As you would be aware, coming up with ideas is not hard. Evaluating those ideas and implementing the best ideas to get the most benefits is the difficult part. What was done to establish the groundwork for ideas evaluation and implementation teams? What tools were provided to people for evaluation and implementation? Without these functions and resources, ideas stay just ideas.

[Four Seven Eleven]

triadic, I couldn’t agree with you more in relation to the US culture compared to the Australian culture. I’ve been talking about it for over 10 years. When I was Chairman of CAA I arranged a program where Australian controllers regularly visited the USA and many came back to Australia and wrote positive reports. I’ve still got copies of those reports – they are excellent. Virtually every controller came up with ideas on how we could make improvements in Australia. I don’t believe any of these ideas have ever been introduced.
Whilst I cannot comment specifically upon the content of those controller reports, I do know that Australia has changed a lot over the last ten years. Much of the change has been positive, in terms of safety and economics. The introduction of RNAV separation standards, GPS standards, reduced oceanic time standards, integration of ATC and FS into TAAATS, etc were all Australian initiatives, often uniquely Australian.

Having said that, more change is required and is inevitable. The industry will need to recover from the current debacle before meaningful change can be effected, but those players who survive this low point will no doubt take up the challenge. It is just a shame that so much money is being wasted on political recklessness.

You do not seem to understand that I am not in a position of authority.
The only people who have this ability to bring in cultural change are the people who are in positions of authority.
This displays a remarkable lack of understanding of what culture (and more specifically safety culture) is all about. Your idea that culture is only changed from the top down is one of the notable flaws in the way NAS has been introduced. Your lack of understanding about safety management, change management, safety culture etc. combined with your undoubted political influence, are one of the greatest dangers to aviation safety and the viability of the aviation sector in Australia today.

You asked the question in another thread about why Class E apparently works in the US but has been a ‘horrific’ failure here. To this point, you have not had the courage to respond to you thread, nor to my later thread asking you to do so. Instead, you resorted once again to a typical Dick Smith tactic: you ignored the safety issue and made up a lie about the identity of the person asking the question. Whilst that distraction diverts some attention away from safety, most people here recognise it for what it is and realise that you are fast running out of answers to justify your dangerous debacle.

If you have any integrity left, or wish to restore any credibility in the safety debate, I once again challenge you to respond to your own thread –or do you lack the answers and the courage to do so?

Unfortunately there seem to be none who have the courage and leadership abilities to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.
Yes, there was a failure of ‘corporate governance.’ Airservices senior management have acknowledged that if proper policy (and legislation) had been followed, the NAS2B changes should not have gone ahead on 27 November 2003. The cost to at least one board member (John Forsyth) is already apparent.

The management of both Airservices and CASA have done everything they can to undermine the Government’s decision to move to the NAS.
And I suppose you have evidence of this? Or is this 'fact' like all of your other statements?
I point out that I was in a position of authority when we introduced the AMATS changes. There was resistance to change, however I made sure competent experts were employed. When you consider it is the airspace we have been flying in for the last 13 years with very high levels of safety, and it has now been generally accepted. It shows it was a competent process.
I will not start another argument here about the safety or otherwise of the pre-NAS2B system. I will take you to task on your statement that “ it has now been generally accepted. It shows it was a competent process..” It shows no such thing. What it shows is that there have been few adverse consequences to this date. If that is the extent of your understanding of what constitutes evidence of a ‘competent process’ then it is no wonder that Australian air safety is in the parlous state it is.

It is simple. You can’t blame me as I have no position of authority and most advice I give to those who do have a position of authority is ignored.
If you can’t be held accountable, and you have no authority, then what are my tax dollars paying you for? You have enough of your own money; stop taking the tax-payers’ money if you are unwilling to accept the responsibility that comes with it.
From my experience, the management in Airservices and CASA are so insecure with their leadership abilities they are simply not prepared to copy the world’s best practice.
So exactly when was a modified version of the US system suddenly accepted as ‘world’s best practice”? Without wishing to defend Airservices and CASA management unduly, perhaps they are indeed looking for the best practice, incorporating all of the world’s experience and expertise with a bit of locally produced know-how. A ‘cut-and-paste’ of the North-American/hybrid/US system, without a basic understanding of the culture and experience that makes it work, is not ‘leadership’. It is dangerous folly.

For example, you may know that I have worked for three years to attempt to get US experts out to help with the cultural and training issues. Both CASA and Airservices have done everything they can to make sure this does not happen. Basically the management’s view is “it wasn’t built here”.
And I suppose you have evidence of this?

A good example of not asking advice is the most ridiculous “design safety cases” which are now taking place at Airservices. They are all based on subjective opinion from people who have made up their minds – just like the Broome study. Andrew Fleming, General Manager Air Traffic Management, was surprised that the USA could not supply a design safety case for their Class E airspace. The facts are simple. The airspace in the USA, including Class E, has evolved over 100 years of experience. You only need a design safety case if you are inventing something. The reason I have always pushed for copying proven systems is that you can readily obtain objective evidence on the safety result you will achieve.
Very few people would argue with the basic premise that copying a proven system is a valid response to a demonstrated need. However, NAS implementation has led to ‘horrific’ consequences precisely because of the way that political interference has caused what should have been a sound plan to be rushed, steps to be ignored and dangerous practices to be introduced.

1. The US system has indeed evolved over some time. 100 years is somewhat exaggerated, but we will forgive the hyperbole in this case.
2. Similarly, the Boeing 747 aircraft has evolved over a number of years.
3. It is axiomatic that any airline with a certain level of experience and infrastructure should be able to adopt this ‘proven’ aircraft, with little difficulty.
4. You make the point that a country should be able to adopt a proven airspace system with little difficulty.
5. Ansett, an airline with considerable experience attempted to introduce the B743, with specularly unsuccessful results some years ago.
6. Australia, a country with considerable experience, attempted to adopt a modified US style system, with spectacularly ‘horrific’ results last year.
7. The two experiences have many parallels, and the lessons should be learned now.
What are the similarities?
· In both cases, it was accepted that there should be no problems introducing the new system.
· In both cases, there were significant external pressures, which imposed an unrealistic time frame upon implementation. In Ansett’s case, commercial/political pressures dictated a specific ‘first flight date. In AusNAS’s case, the political pressure imposed largely by you led to unrealistic start dates for an immature and untested system.
· The very fact that the US system has ‘evolved’ is one of the prime safety mitigators in that system. Just as the system evolved, so did the culture. You deliberately removed that safety opportunity from AusNAS, expecting a new system to work without the requisite culture, knowledge, experience and procedures.
· In the case of Ansett, their procedures, documentation and training were cobbled together, with flight crews using different versions of operating manuals. In the flight deck, the experience gradient was extremely steep, leading to a serious break-down of CRM and the command structure. In normal circumstances (and with the benefit of hind-sight), the decision by a B743 crew to continue and approach and landing after a ‘four-greens’ call seems astonishing. It is only explicable when one considers what went before.
· In the thread in which you asked the question ‘what are the facts’ and in your defamatory remarks about the pilots and air traffic controllers in the Brisbane incident similar parallels are apparent. Your introduction of some parts of the US system without any of the safety mitigators led to a situation in which neither the controllers or either aircrew were able to prevent the incident. Eventually, it was only by falling back on known procedures (TCAS is one example) that an accident was avoided.
· Perhaps tellingly, in the Ansett case there were examples of procedures which were not followed by the aircrew. In the AusNAS case, it is important to realise that all parties followed the procedures introduced by AusNAS, but that these procedures were not enough to prevent the ‘horrific’ incident. That is one of the major failings of AusNAS. If you follow the procedures, it will still go wrong.


At Airservices, the management gives no leadership at all in relation to the change process. Of course, in a vacuum, you end up with a situation where the least informed “fundamentalists” communicate their fears of change and dictate the agenda.
Unfortunately, this lack of leadership extends to the highest levels. The reasons why the Minister appointed someone ‘who no-one takes seriously on aviation except Dick Smith himself” are not yet apparent. The results of appointing you, an ill-informed fundamentalist, are becoming starkly and frighteningly clear. We have now had four high profile and more lesser known incidents, directly as a result of the failed implementation of AusNAS.

The fact that the US system was inexpertly copied, without recognition of the safety mitigators which were omitted has been a direct causal factor in the reduced levels of safety in the Australian airspace system.

The fact that systems have been introduced without proper safety analysis is another.

The fact that the truth became such an early casualty of your crusade, with you spreading lies in the public arena, has meant that rectification of the safety flaws has been delayed.

The expected, but inexcusable, unwillingness of the minister to acknowledge the dangers in the new system is leading to delays in restoring air safety in Australia. One of the unfortunate characteristics of politics in Australia is that politicians who admit a mistake are hung out to dry by both the political system and by the media. The minister, having caved into political pressure at the last election, must be questioning the wisdom of that decision now.

[Capcom]

Creampuff and 4711

Poignant exposé http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/otn/wink/1bluewinky.gif

Will R.H.Smith reply?

Nah, probably not, far too busy in the Ministers office.....http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/contrib/edoom/urinate.gif

Or;

Perhaps he is learning about safety management.....http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/contrib/blackeye/arcadefreak.gif


When ALL ELSE FAILS.......http://www.computerpannen.com/cwm/contrib/blackeye/all_coholic.gif.......:\ .........:bored: ...........:sad: ................:{




http://instagiber.net/smiliesdotcom/cwm/cwm/piss2.gifAusNAS

:mad:

[PGH]

Where would you copy a model for adopting World's Best Practice in seeking political favours for you pet project - would it be the good ol' USA? Is it from there that RHS imported the practice where any honourable or dishonourable backer with enough $$ can earn favour from politicians - especially with those politicians frightened of a bad result at the polls! Why wouldn't current discusions surround how much $$ might be needed to sure up support in an electrate while making make sure RHS remains the white knight of aviation in OZ.