Four Seven Eleven
10th Jun 2004, 13:20
Regular readers here will be acutely aware of the problems PPRuNers have in discussing air safety issues with Dick Smith. While he is willing to post frequently and at length, he is unwilling to answer the most basic questions about safety – even the questions he poses himself. When cornered, he trots out the old ‘anonymity’ excuse, or makes up a ‘reliable’ source who has ‘told’ him something which is not true, or completely ignores safety altogether.
Even though Smith hates talking about safety, he seems to have opinions on everything. But, unlike us mere mortals, Smith often has more than one opinion, even on the same topic!! It is informative to study the many, many faces of Dick Smith in action.
Sorting out the truth from the lies:
On the one hand.....
Yes, I will certainly support an objective analysis of whether the NAS changes result in higher safety than the previous system. I have no doubt that they do. One truth? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1195363#post119536//)
But, on the other hand.....
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. Another truth? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1370444#post137044)
So, which of the above is true, and which is a lie?
Or, on the one hand.....
By the way, if you really believed in what you posted on this thread, I believe you would do it under your own name. For what other reason can your anonymity reflect other than a lack of confidence in your beliefs? One truth? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1195363#post119536)
But.....
It has been claimed that most of the PPRuNe contributors use false names because they are cowards. I don't agree. These pilots have my sympathy as I understand their careers could be jeopardised if they identified themselves. I do not wish to know their true identities andI'm not sure that it's constructive to distribute lists of who they are. Another truth (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Content.php?ContentID=156)
Once again, which is true and which is a lie?
So you've got an American air space system coming in here….
But… (just to appease anyone who might not like the ‘American’ system, here’s another ‘truth’….
And by the way, this one is not just the US system, it's the system used in Canada, used in Europe, it's simply the most efficient in the world.
An opinion for every occasion!!!
On the one hand…..
The air traffic controller allowed this to happen. It's basically criminal.
Station : 4BC Program: John & Ross Breakfast Show
Aired at : 6:48 AM EST on 15 April 2004
But wait, the story changes…..
What I just couldn't believe is that a pilot would actually, when he was told to descend by air traffic control, would actually climb and turn right into the path of another aeroplane.
Station : 4BC Program: John & Ross Breakfast Show
Aired at : 6:48 AM EST on 23 April 2004
A complete change of story. But not one which he has the courage to address on his own thread about the incident. Of course, the thread was started between the two radio interviews, before he realised how wrong he was. His attempt to justify the defamation was comprehensively proven to be wrong, no doubt explaining his silence on this and all safety related issues.
It seems that the problem facing the aviation community when deciding upon whether Dick Smith is right or wrong is not so much what he says, but when he says it. By adopting every possible position under the sun, he will eventually find someone, somewhere who agrees with him.
A slippery customer indeed.
Even though Smith hates talking about safety, he seems to have opinions on everything. But, unlike us mere mortals, Smith often has more than one opinion, even on the same topic!! It is informative to study the many, many faces of Dick Smith in action.
Sorting out the truth from the lies:
On the one hand.....
Yes, I will certainly support an objective analysis of whether the NAS changes result in higher safety than the previous system. I have no doubt that they do. One truth? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1195363#post119536//)
But, on the other hand.....
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. Another truth? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1370444#post137044)
So, which of the above is true, and which is a lie?
Or, on the one hand.....
By the way, if you really believed in what you posted on this thread, I believe you would do it under your own name. For what other reason can your anonymity reflect other than a lack of confidence in your beliefs? One truth? (http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=1195363#post119536)
But.....
It has been claimed that most of the PPRuNe contributors use false names because they are cowards. I don't agree. These pilots have my sympathy as I understand their careers could be jeopardised if they identified themselves. I do not wish to know their true identities andI'm not sure that it's constructive to distribute lists of who they are. Another truth (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Content.php?ContentID=156)
Once again, which is true and which is a lie?
So you've got an American air space system coming in here….
But… (just to appease anyone who might not like the ‘American’ system, here’s another ‘truth’….
And by the way, this one is not just the US system, it's the system used in Canada, used in Europe, it's simply the most efficient in the world.
An opinion for every occasion!!!
On the one hand…..
The air traffic controller allowed this to happen. It's basically criminal.
Station : 4BC Program: John & Ross Breakfast Show
Aired at : 6:48 AM EST on 15 April 2004
But wait, the story changes…..
What I just couldn't believe is that a pilot would actually, when he was told to descend by air traffic control, would actually climb and turn right into the path of another aeroplane.
Station : 4BC Program: John & Ross Breakfast Show
Aired at : 6:48 AM EST on 23 April 2004
A complete change of story. But not one which he has the courage to address on his own thread about the incident. Of course, the thread was started between the two radio interviews, before he realised how wrong he was. His attempt to justify the defamation was comprehensively proven to be wrong, no doubt explaining his silence on this and all safety related issues.
It seems that the problem facing the aviation community when deciding upon whether Dick Smith is right or wrong is not so much what he says, but when he says it. By adopting every possible position under the sun, he will eventually find someone, somewhere who agrees with him.
A slippery customer indeed.