Nas 2b - The Actions Of A Reasonable Man

[Voices of Reason]

We read with interest an article in your Australian newspaper this morning concerning the airspace reform debate, and note that Mr Dick Smith and certain other parties have asked for the release of the documents on which the Board of Airservices Australia made its decisions. In particular we understand they have called for the release of the Design Safety Case.

First, we would, in most cases, encourage the publication of safety cases, as it serves to hold the organisation that is relying on that safety case accountable in public for ensuring the safety mitigations that it has identified are actually put in place and monitored.

In some cases, particularly those involving security issues, we acknowledge that the publication of a safety case may, in fact, be detrimental to overall safety, by putting into the public domain information that may be misused. That does not, however, absolve the organisation from ensuring the safety mitigation requirements are met.

The publication of a safety case is NOT an invitation for the general public to provide inputs or seek to challenge the findings of that safety case – provided that safety case has been properly constructed.

One of the key considerations in constructing a safety case is the assignment of appropriate staff to conduct and write the safety case – and the engagement of appropriate expert staff to conduct the hazard analyses within the safety case.
Like a legal case, the safety case depends on the inputs and judgements of reasonable and professional persons. In other words, the decisions made in a safety case process should be defendable as the decisions or actions “of a reasonable man” – or more important, a “reasonable professional”.

We found the following discussion of the “test of the actions of a reasonable man” on the web. Clearly you can see the relevance of these arguments in relation to those who have made decisions in relation to the current airspace reform safety case – that is, the acquisition of inputs from “reasonable persons” to make “reasonable decisions”.




“……rationale for such a standard, is that the law will benefit the general public when it serves its reasonable members, and thus a reasonable application of the law is sought, compatible with planning, working, or getting along with others. The reasonable man is not the average man: this is not a democratic measure. To predict the appropriate sense of responsibility and other standards of the reasonable man, "what is reasonable" has to be appropriate to the issue. What the "average man" thinks or might do is irrelevant to a case concerning medicine for example. But the reasonable person is appropriately informed, capable, aware of the law, and fair-minded. That person might do something extraordinary under certain circumstances, but whatever he or she does or thinks is always reasonable.

In cases where professional opinions may be necessary the doctrine of the reasonable professional has developed. Thus if a doctor misdiagnoses a patient, the question is not, "Was that diagnosis wrong?" but rather, "Would a professional acting under the same circumstances, with the knowledge available to the field at the time of the diagnosis, have concluded that the given diagnosis was reasonable?" Questions about the knowledge of a professional in a particular discipline in a particular environment are relevant here, "Is the reasonable professional an expert or a general practitioner in this area? Of course as with any legal concept these lines of reasoning may be applied differently in differing jurisdictions…..”




The key question here is whether or not the inputs from the general public would be seen as the inputs of the “average man” rather than the “reasonable man”, and whether or not the inputs from Mr Dick Smith would be seen as “a response from a general practitioner, or a specialist in the area”?

From what we have seen on this site over the last several months, there is no doubt that Mr Smith is in the category of both an average man, and a general practitioner.

Your Civil Aviation Safety Authority, if it truly understands the safety case process, and if it is satisfied that appropriate expertise was brought to bear in the design safety case, will dismiss any input from Mr Smith as that of an “average man” and not of a “reasonable man”, and certainly not that of a “professional person”.

Similarly, offerings from those representing general aviation, including gliding associations, would also fit within that framework.

[WALLEY2]

VoR,

Sirs, you have hit the nail on the head again.

Following critism of the Broome DAS from unqualified sceptics even with Phds in Pond Bacteria and Banking Stats. I recently met with the DAS panel and saw their reply to the criticism which will be made public following discussions with other professionals in the aviation risk assessment field as yet another audit to ensure they have got it right.

What was absolutely clear is that they (the study panel) should have made a preliminary statement that this document was for and required appropriate qualification to understand the basis of the data analysis and study of the report.We needed comment from "reasonable persons" not "average persons" which is what we got in spades. Clearly in both the main cases of criticism they had neglected to even read the preliminary report and failed completely to assess the convergence to the conclusions from the four prongs of the study, namely

Semi quantative analisis of the possible systems
Operators historical comparisions
Pilot survey
Stakeholders interviews

In the world of the 2minute news grab I would advise CASA and AsA to not publish the safety study but have it audited and advise industry of the qualifications of the study team and auditors.

Otherwise their study will be subjected to the rubbishing by the "average person" who will sensationalise one aspect and try to devalue the report to achieve their own agendas.

Broome Aiirport has some issues with regards the outcomes of this current AsA-CASA study, however, we feel no desire to try to undermind its findings as a whole.

As "reasonable persons" our team will raise these matters directly with CASA and AsA and will I am sure be heard and have our concerns examined and resolved. This can occur in a reasoned manner and is not a public issue. It is a matter that experts can meet and debate in a scientific manner without angst.

This new approach by AsA and CASA is a huge difference to the NAS 2b approach where it was obvious that "reasonable persons" had been sidelined and a preconcieved position taken by unqualified "average" personnel based on a totally flawed premise that "the USA system could be transplanted into Australia" even though we were not getting the same complete package and major parameters between the USA enroute and terminal airspace were totally different from Australia's airspaces. Yet no Design Safety Case was to be done nor any implimentation safety analysis required.



From bitter and costly experience my advise to CASA and AsA is.

Audit the study
Advise Industry of the Qualifications and Experience of personnel involved
Accept critique from stakeholders using "reasonable persons" and explain why this critique is invalid or modify the study's outcome to absorb these documented and reasoned arguements. Clearly the inclusion of the Industry Otion was this process in action.

DO NOT EXPOSE THE STUDY TO UNREASONED SENSATIONALISED PUBLIC DEBATE FROM THE "AVERAGE PERSON"

Mike Caplehorn
B.Eng,C.P.Eng, MIEAust,FAICD
Chairman BIA Group

[Bizpax]

There is no reason in the utterances of the NAS supporters - even the Man on The Clapham Bus knows that!

[gaunty]

WALLEY2 took the hammer right out of my hand so to speak.:)

Not surprisingly the "reasonable person" process described herein is the one that has been used succesfully by First world countries in becoming and remaining succesful First world countries.

[Dick Smith]

Voices of Reason, the more I read your posts the more I believe you are a commercial organisation directly involved with Airservices, increasing profits and snouts in the trough for management.

I particularly love your comment:

Your Civil Aviation Safety Authority, if it truly understands the safety case process, and if it is satisfied that appropriate expertise was brought to bear in the design safety case, will dismiss any input from Mr Smith as that of an “average man” and not of a “reasonable man”, and certainly not that of a “professional person”.

Similarly, offerings from those representing general aviation, including gliding associations, would also fit within that framework. I can assure you that I would never put any subjective opinion in a safety case. However I would want to hand the safety case to independent qualified experts to see if it was biased.

I love the point you make that myself, anyone from the general aviation, and anyone from the gliding associations should be excluded, however the non-biased “professionals” within the airlines, CASA and Airservices are quite OK!

The important point for unbiased readers is the fact that Airservices will not make the safety case available – they claim “commercial-in-confidence”, and another poster has said that it is not yet finished.

Can you imagine making a decision that means we cannot follow the airspace of leading competitive countries in this globalised world, however not releasing the information that was used to make the decision? If I had been responsible for this, I would have made sure that as many people as possible were involved, and it was openly discussed with everyone – both people supporting the airspace changes and people against them.

I believe there should be no secrets in aviation safety – everything should be open.

To the many silent aviators who do not post on this forum due to frustration, I ask you to be patient but also to be angry. A very effective job is being done of withholding information so that commercial monopolies and duopolies can benefit.

Any safety case which shows that Class C airspace is necessary above Hobart, but Class G airspace is adequately safe at Broome, is obviously a con. I’m sure most would agree.

[Voices of Reason]

Nice to cross paths again, Mr Smith.

First, you are absolutely correct in your contention that safety arguments should be open and transparent. That is the best basis on which to found a safety management system, and is an exceptional defence when incidents occur.

Our original post, however, was aimed at distinguishing between the publishing of that safety argument for transparency, and the publishing of that safety argument for mischevious interventions.

What we have said is that only appropriately qualified persons - the so-called "reasonable man" or " professional person" are truly entitled to contribute to a safety case .

That is not a criticism of you or your associates in other GA type organisations. It is simply a statement that from a legal and technical standpoint, the average person that you represent would not be a factor in legal procedings.

You yourself through countless postings have demonstrated yourself to be the "average Joe" in Australia - not a technical expert. You admit that on your own website.

You are no doubt a good Australian, a quinessential Australian, a representative of the average Australian and a role model Australian - but you are not the legally defined "reasonable Australian".

You are also not a professional aviator, nor a technical expert. At best, we might grudgingly call you the "general practitioner". You are not the qualified specialist required to comment in or on a safety case. In fact, legally, should you offer a professional opinion that was accepted, or which influenced a safety decision, you may find yourself at risk of prosecution should an incident or accident occur. Look at the statements in our first post. "Would a REASONABLE MAN have done this?".

No, we are not associated with Airservices, CASA, Qantas, Virgin Blue or Dick Smith Foods. We do not have a "snout in the trough" because we have absolutely no connection - financial or otherwise - with your Australian aviation industry.

We act only for aviation safety - clearly you do not.

[buzztart]

You are no doubt a good Australian, a quinessential Australian, a representative of the average Australian and a role model Australian -
__________________________________________________
VOR, I have to disagree with the above statement on all counts

[Frank Burden]

Dick,

I love my Mum and she loves you so you can't be as bad as people say. A suggestion, how about you put your energies into the products used by the elderly ladies as you seem to have a reall connection with this demographic. Possible products could be an updated version of the Smokey Dawson self standing armchair or a lightweight walking frame made from Kevlar using aerodynamic principles. Just a thought. :rolleyes:

--------------------
Frank Burden

The attainment of wisdom is a life long pursuit

[Creampuff]

Dick

At 0408040124 in another thread you asked rhetorically:Can you imagine that? Airservices (a Government owned monopoly) has to keep safety cases “commercial-in-confidence”? Yes, a bit Monty Python.At 0408060102 you said in this thread:I believe there should be no secrets in aviation safety – everything should be open.Where can I get copies of the minutes and other records of the deliberations of the ARG, up until recently a Government owned airspace reform monopoly?

[Chapi]

From bitter and costly experience my advise to CASA and AsA is.

Audit the study
Advise Industry of the Qualifications and Experience of personnel involved
Accept critique from stakeholders using "reasonable persons" and explain why this critique is invalid or modify the study's outcome to absorb these documented and reasoned arguements. Clearly the inclusion of the Industry Otion was this process in action.

DO NOT EXPOSE THE STUDY TO UNREASONED SENSATIONALISED PUBLIC DEBATE FROM THE "AVERAGE PERSON"

Mike Caplehorn


That's what the safety case is about ....

Airservices are correct in treating a safety case as "commercial-in-confidence". For Airservices, a safety case is an internal report that they use to help manage safety in the airways system, support their changes to the system and to demonstrate due diligence.

The safety case documents the systematic identification, assessment and management of identified risks and represents a structured and comprehensive argument with supporting evidence that a change to the airways is adequately safe.

Additionally, a safety case can be used to show that they have acted diligently to the regulator (CASA)

Not only can the safety case be used to support a change, it can also identify circumstances that may preclude a change from occurring because the change cannot be achieved safely.

It doesn't have to be made available to be scrutinised by some arbitrary source or public debate (but should include input from affected stakeholders)

[gaunty]

Mr Smith

If I had been responsible for this, I would have made sure that as many people as possible were involved, and it was openly discussed with everyone – both people supporting the airspace changes and people against them.

Really, that's certainly not my experience with the NASIG and others associated with you or your supporters and sycophants.

I like, others were, the subject of;
machiavellian deceit;
intensely vituperative and malicious harrassment;
spittle and foam flecked verbal abuse;
private investigation;
serial reports to ASIC alleging all manner of corporate misconduct;
labelled corrupt;
called criminal;
libelled as a person charged with real estate and corporate fraud;
threatened with telephone and internet interception;
accused of fraudulent behaviour;

and that is just the polite version.

Why?

For having the sheer impertinence and daring to suggest that your NAS and a bunch of other bits of "received wisdom and folk lore" might need some "careful assessment" by "reasonable persons" before committing the organisation to its implementation and that a "real" consultative approach dealing with each other as "reasonable persons" was waaaaaay more productive than the hectoring them to death, demonising them as "the enemy" and labelling them as swine.

I guess you could say they comprehensively failed the "reasonable person" test and why most people want to hide or remain anonymous.

And about AOPA, an organisation that in 1995, about the time you became the President, had around 11,000 members, owned a fully tenanted office building in Canberra, owned their own aircraft, with $750,000 cash in the bank, a fully staffed and professional secretariat and were respected as part of he regulatory process.

Today, maybe 4,000 members, barely 400 of your "true believers" voted at the last election, renting an office at Bankstown, no aircraft, not much money (they sued AOPA US believe it or not at a cost conservatively $250,000 as well as suing the regulator, cost unknown and I cant believe they are threatening to have another go and one of the current directors literally threw away $30,000 and so it goes) only tolerated in Canberra and they want to be taken seriously as the champions of GA.

I note they are lending their support and encouragement to the Bondi beach thing, I wonder if the members know and support that as an idea.
I seriously doubt it no one asked me what I thought about it.

This, from an organisation that represents itself as a peak aviation body going in as a subordinate to a well meaning "visiting fireman" who has facilitated the meeting through PPRuNe the avowed nemesis of most of their Board.

Unless Chris Higgins has some other agenda he hasn't revealed to us.

Kinda ironic really, if it wasn't so sad.

Thats what happens to organisations when you run personal agendas through them.

[Bob Murphie]

You genuinely make me sick with this drivel.

Even allowing for your usual irrational manners, this is a bit rich.


You have now proved you had no right to be on any AOPA Board with this crazy outburst and it goes against the basic concept of the organisation and it's mission statement.

What were you trying to achieve?

[Sultanas and Gin]

Yes, what did he hope to achieve? Outbursts like his belong in the Agony Aunt forum along with a heap of his Union thug mates.

Foam and spittle, save us, how do you prove something like that?

We believe you Gaunty. have another sip and calm down.

[Vampire 91]

VOR

Thank you for your 'reasoned' posting. I only wish that the media would pay as much attention to your considered views as they do to the views of the individual who misuses the media to his own ends. I get a sense however that some of the media now recognise this person for what he really is, and not what he thinks he is. The angry silent majority are not all on his side. It's simply the frustration of wasted time having to deal with his endless and repititous mischievous attacks on anyone who disagrees with his views. The arguement that anyone who disagrees must be an employee of a major operator or administering authority who is only interested in having a snout in the trough is an insult to all those thinking people who have a genuine interest in working within a safe and efficient system.
Keep up the good work.:ok:

[Oz Ocker]

"General Practitioner"??
More like a bl@@dy Witch Doctor, with all of his "I believes" rather than usin' solid factual stuff.

Stop yer rantin' Dick.
Even if Voices of Reason was contracted by Airservices - and he said that he's not - the arguments he presents are FACTUALLY based, with references to back them up.
Your's ARE NOT!

Ya might have a lot of backing from political heavyweights, but they've let you lead 'em up the garden path, and it's gunna be their neck on the choppin' block for your stuff-ups and misinformation.

Still better that 1 or 2 necks roll than to lose a whole plane load because of your amateurish, nonsensical meddling!

Be seein' youse round.

[mjbow2]

Dick,

I have long given up reading the NAS posts here on Pprune, let alone posting an NAS related reply. With the exception of this post I will continue not to post. For what its worth....I support you!

[Chris Higgins]

Gaunty

I am sorry to read that you have so many hard feelings towards the meeting that will allow people, such as yourself, the opportuntiy to come together and gain some concept of resolve.

I am not affiliated with any political entity, nor any association in Australia, but I am an active general aviation pilot that also flies around at Mach .80 for a living to pay the bills.

My American and Australian experience have both been hard won as have all the achievements of those attending The Bondi Beach Project. I recognise that everyone has something to contribute, just as you do, but: the difference between You and I is that I recognise that Dick Smith also deserves to be heard as well!

I fly with people once in a blue moon that I could see myself falling into a personality clash with, but I don't let that happen. I act calmly, use standardised procedure and focus on their positive attributes while in the work place. That's all I'm asking of those that show up at the meeting.

You can have a different view of the world than Dick Smith, but sadly, you sound like a man with an awful vendetta. If you have bright children as you say, and I'm sure you do, and if you've contributed your time to G/A as I suspect you have, you owe it to yourself to be happier than you seem right now.

You're gonna have to let it go!

Your visiting fireman (?).

Chris Higgins

[Foyl]

Pity Bob won't let it go.

Reading Gaunty's post it was more about DS than AOPA. But it does raise the interesting question about AOPA's apparent support of the Bondi Beach project - something about which I, as an AOPA member, was not aware. Uh, that would kind of demonstrate Gaunty's point wouldn't it...?

Re the safety case, there is need for public scrutiny, regardless of those who make it their business to report selectively. Had their been no security issue, regardless of the particular bandwagons certain parties are pushing, public release should be made.

In the circumstances I sincerely hope that (a) circulation of the report will be limited for security reasons, and (b) that there will be no attempt to release "selected highlights" of the report in an attempt to maintain security and at the same time give satisfaction to those who demand information in the name of "public interest". It leads to all sorts of fun with opinions touted as fact based on part rather than the whole of the picture.

Chris I wish you well in your endeavour. I sincerely hope, for the sake of GA, that some improvement in the present situation is obtained. However I greatly fear that although it is one thing to talk, it's another thing to LISTEN. And it's not the talking but the listening which is ultimately going to affect the outcome.

Edited for pore spelin. :p

[Capn Bloggs]

Gaunty,

Well said.

CH,

"Bad things happen when good men do nothing". That's why we are so passionate about this, and that's why we won't let him win.

[Chimbu chuckles]

I'm sorta curious to hear what Chris (or anyone) believes will be achieved by this meeting in Bondi that will have such a powerfull effect on GA's future.

GA is stuffed because there's not enough money in it to support the huge number of wannabe Charter company owners etc. Not enough students wanting to learn to fly to support the bizarre numbers of flying schools.

The reasons charter/third level airlines are dead over most of Australia is because of low fares and frequency of airline schedules.

The reasons people aren't attracted to aviation in the numbers they once were is because there are a great many options..boats, jetskis, 4 WD camping, computer games...the list is long.

Aviation is also expensive and requires great ongoing effort/commitment...not traits in huge evidence in todays population who, as an example, can buy a boat, get a licence in no time flat which never requires renewing, park the boat on a mooring/trailer in front yard...and hardly ever use it!

Just take a look around mariners and bays on Sydney harbour at the huge amounts of money floating there which get used a few times a year. All the effort required is get in car and drive to mariner and they still can't be bothered.

Relabelling airspace has zero effect on the viability of aviation. Outrageous landing fees at various privatised/corporatised airfields has an effect but that isn't on the agenda anyway. Not to mention the forces of evil doing their level best to close GA airports all over the country so they can realise the real estate value...hence the jacking up of landing/hangarage etc.

Aviation infrastructure all over Australia is in the hands of developers who have no interest in Aviation...witness what's going on at Bankstown, Hoxton Park etc at the moment.

So what's the point...particularly in light of the alledged rollback. How many aviation people, who have been listening to DS's misguided bs for years are going to turn up and listen to more...is it just an opportunity for DS to grandstand ? An opportunity to put faces to the names from this board so they can be attacked later through exposing them to their employers?

Given his proven history of the above there's gotta be a better than even chance.

Me thinks there will be just the two of you..plus some AOPA wallies who think the airspace is their personal playpit... turn up

It seems that professionals are back in control of airspace reform...exactly as it should be!!!

Beyond that there is nothing on the adjenda for the meeting that can possibly ever influence the core problems of general aviation in Australia...which are the same core problems affecting light and general aviation the western world over.

Chuck.

[Bizpax]

Now that Steve McCreedy and the Australian's FOI editor have revealed most of the dark muck about NAS2b, what I want to know, as a passenger, is why it's taking so long to restore my safety levels back to pre Nov 2003? If there is a major degradation in safety - especially at Hobart, Albury and other regional airports- and I and the other 3 million of us are exposed to greatly increased risk daily- why is it not being reversed immediately! Every day this farce continues, to Australian aviation's great shame, aircraft are flying in an increased risk environment.

Why is CASA and the Minister tolerating it? What's the dark secret in Canberra?

[Dog One]

Bizpax

I, like you, are amazed at the slow re-action of people who live and travel to and from Hobart and Alice Springs.

Why are these passengers second rate citizens whose life value is more expendable than passenegrs travelling in and out of Melbourne or Sydney?

What are the real savings for E outside radar?

By having this most desirable airspace available to GA to track direct to their destinations, how many more jobs will be available through the increased amount of flying supposely generated?

Bizpax, if you live in Hobart, you should be approaching your local MP's and ask why you are a second rate passenger. You no doubt will be told how safe you are, because the Minister said so.

I have been a Liberal supporter for all of my voting life, but after watching this fiasco, I like many other professional pilots will vote for the alternatives.