ASA: Public Safety is Paramount

[Here to Help]

http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/mediainfo/press/Archive/prarchive2004/PR25_04.asp

Public Safety is Paramount

No. 25/04

Airservices Australia Chief Executive Officer, Bernie Smith, today called for an end to alarmist and unsubstantiated statements being levelled against the national air traffic control corporation its staff and management and other members of the aviation community.

He made the call following statements made on Perth and Canberra radio stations by Dick Smith.

‘The management of the corporation has come to expect inaccurate remarks from Mr Smith, but when these attack the corporation’s staff, question the integrity of investigating authorities and unnecessarily alarm the public - then enough is enough,” Bernie Smith said.

‘We are considering legal action against Dick Smith concerning a number of his allegations against the corporation and staff,’ he added.

Bernie Smith said the statement “I wouldn’t recommend anyone flying into Canberra at night or in cloud at all, because it looks as if there is a real problem with the radar there’, made on Perth ABC radio station, 720, yesterday was totally irresponsible in the context of an ongoing ATSB inquiry.

Unfortunately, Dick Smith is also seeking to inappropriately link his airspace reform agenda by using a recent tragic accident at Benalla , Victoria and a ground proximity warning event near Canberra.

‘The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is the agency with legislative responsibility for investigating such aviation events, incidents and accidents and the ATSB, our own staff, and others must be free to carry out investigations unimpeded by such speculation.

‘It is highly inappropriate to debate these issues through the media while they are being dealt with by the ATSB, and in the case of Benalla, a likely coronial inquiry,’ Bernie Smith said.

Dick Smith launched legal proceedings against Airservices Australia in the Federal Court this week, to overturn a decision of the Corporation Board to introduce changes to the National Airspace System on 25 November 2004 . This matter will be heard on 1 November 2004.

‘Airservices Australia will not engage in a ‘trial by media’ during these investigations or this current litigation,’ Bernie Smith said.

‘I reassure everyone that in the interests of safety, we are continuing with the implementation program for the 25 November changes, which include comprehensive industry training and education and the distribution of new radio frequency boundaries on aeronautical charts.

‘Airservices Australia ’s primary focus is on safety and it will not bow to the pressures of individuals or groups,’ he said.


For further information contact: Richard Dudley
0412 146 828


Date: 24 September 2004

[Uncommon Sense]

I didn't think I would agree on much with Bernie Smith, but on this subject credit where credit is due: He is 100% right.

It will cost even more dollars that have to be recovered from the Aviation industry to fight Dick Smith in the courts - and it is all Dicks doing.

Thanks again Dick for looking after GA. :rolleyes:

[chief wiggum]

Whereabouts can I donate some money to the "Sue the Dick(head) fund, for slander and lible " ?

I am sure that there would be much money raised to stop this idiot.

Gimme a link and I shall donate!

[Pinky the pilot]

chief wiggum; Whilst I would generally support the idea you raised in your post I do have one reservation.
Why make even more (expletive deleted 'cos I don't wanna get banned) Silks/Barristers/Lawyers richer?
The biccies man will surely sink himself into the oblivion that is waiting for him without any further input from any assistance that the 'Legal system' can supply.
Just my thought anyway.

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[chief wiggum]

Fair call Pinky ....

How about this...
I will contribute money to be held by someone responsible (not your former employers in SA!!!). We find a lawyer who will work on a "no win, no fee" system, and if he/she will work pro-bono, then ALL of Australian Aviation can have a HUGE party, a bit like "the worlds biggest BBQ" a couple of years ago, to celebrate the gagging of Australian Aviations biggest hypochondriac ?

[apache]

Can I nominate BENDO to be the pro-bono Lawyer / party planner ?

[Baldricks Mum]

‘Airservices Australia ’s primary focus is on safety '

Yeah RIGHT! Never have I heard such codswollop. If that is a true and correct statement, then why do Airservices charge the recreational pilot to get the weather, submit a flight notification or even ammend the notification.

It has everything to do with making obscene amounts of profits, so the Senior Managment can take home equally obscene amounts of bonuses.

Anyone want to let the industry in on how much AsA forks out on bonuses??? Go on, We won't tell anyone........

Rant over.

[bushy]

If safety was important to them, then forecasts and notams would be easier to get, and understand. The miltary style system of putting every thig in code and using fictitous locations makes it necessary to constantly study thier data to mke it understandable. What is wrong with saying "the ridges are obscured," and things like that, instead of a string of numbers?We speak english in this country, and most people understand it???????
And why do we need a password.?. Is it all secret??

[buzztart]

BM.
When the bickie man ran CAA he was the most vocal advocate of user pays. Until ASA can stop running like a buisiness you will have to pay, so stop whinging.

[Ultralights]

As we are all AsA "customers" paying for a very poor service, then as in most Industries, the customers stop paying until service improves!

[Uncommon Sense]

BM,

I agree with your point about bonuses - totally inappropriate.

But how accurate are your other statements? Just like in Dicks Mecca, the USA, here in Australia I can get all that information from the AIS/MET system for no charge, and submit a flightplan for no charge using the net.

[YCKT]

So, the enemy is users pays, not CivilAir, NAS, AOPA, AFAP???

So get together and fight it instead of each other :}

[tobzalp]

I see the only one of those associations that could benefit as AOPA. They are the only one to back NAS and not a change to the pricing system. The others are trying to fix it and they are heir own worst enemy.

[YCKT]

Sir, madam, whatever.

You are, by your previous posts and this one, fixated and not helping.

As my dear mum would say, have a Bex and a lie down.

[tobzalp]

So then explain to me how my statement is not correct?

[YCKT]

Because it is not based on fact.

Show me where AOPA are doing that. Prove to me that when I fly PVT I should pay en-route under a user pays system. Show me why 'user pays' is rational in a safety enironment.

Why are you wrong, because you seem fixated on AOPA bashing and not on the real problem, Government Ideology.

[tobzalp]

You show me how the other associations can benefit from it. I do not agree with user pays. I agree with safe airspace using tha available resources that this country has. A bunch of tossers with their own planes should not dictate this when the history disputes you.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

A bunch of tossers with their own planes should not dictate this when the history disputes you.

Ah Mister Plazbot, your colours are showing.

[DirtyPierre]

Guys, guys, guys!

Settle down, there is a common enemy.

Everyone deserves a safe airspace. It has to be paid for somehow, and that is either through your taxes, or through a user pays system. Either way you have to pay for it.

As for weather and Notams in code. Sorry Bushy, but Airservices does not dictate how this information is formatted and presented. Thats ICAO, they dictate the format. It the same everywhere as far as I know.

Also, correct me if I'm wrong. But if you use the net, is there still a charge for Wx and Notams and submitting flight plans?

[5miles]

YCKT ,

Prove to me that when I fly PVT I should pay en-route under a user pays system.

Maybe I've misinterpreted the context of this statement, but the fact is (and was pre-NAS 2b) that VFR aircraft do not attract an enroute fee.

Personally, as a VFR only pilot, I feel ripped off by Dick space. Pre-NAS 2b I would submit flight details, request a clearance as appropriate (& did actually get briefly delayed once) then receive a full separation and flight following service. Outside the terminal areas, this was absolutely free. Now at the same altitudes/levels I get nothing.

BM

why do Airservices charge the recreational pilot to get the weather

Airservices is not a Wx forecasting service/business. It is however, one of the BOM's biggest customers. It pays the BOM huge fees to provide that information. If you don't think the end user should pay for it, then who should? If your argument is that it should be free, fine, I have no problem with that. Try convincing the BOM first though.

[Capt Claret]

Why all the hoopla about delays and the supposed "clearance not available"?

As an IFR RPT pilot I frequently get speed restrictions, very occasionally holding, the odd vector or two. There's no clearance not available but then again, I don't just pop up and request it without a flight plan, but all the others are some sort of traffic management strategy, as is denying a clearance or some other delaying tactic.

Should I spit the dummy and demand that I be allowed to blast through with no regard for other users?

No, I do as I'm told and fit in with the whole picture. Some times ATC are too conservative, some times I am. It's swings and round-abouts. As pilots, IMHO, we can't have a full picture of the airspace needs, unless we are monitoring ACD/GND/TWR/APP/DEP & CNTR all at once.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

DirtyPierre NAIPS is free on the internet for wx,notams and plan submission.Also useful for retrieving avfax codes as well. A good system now that an AirServices guy (God bless him :D) formatted it for the internet rather than by direct modem connection.

With my 1800 bigpond account, anywhere there is a phone line I can connect my laptop to NAIPS no matter where I am :D

5Miles If you access the BoM site directly on the net, you can access the aviation wx page using a password for no charge. However, the same data is furnished on NAIPS including all charts. A good system all round.

http://www.bom.gov.au/reguser/by_prod/aviation/

Public Safety is paramount. No doubt, but it should never ever have been user pays. Chimbu Chuckles' post on another thread sums this up beautifully. If we are going back to the old days then bring the lot back including the old charging regime and remove having to pay a "dividend" to consolidated revenue. On that point, Words cannot describe the malicious intent of making money out of safety assets.

Mark

[Wheeler]

There is really nothing inaccurate about anything Dick is saying. I hate flying GPS NPA's in G airspace- on my own, when there is radar there that could easily vector me to final. Instead, I'm just like the blind man outside the court, grappling to find the right waypoint, whilst others sit there and ignore me just because they 'dont do G airspace'. I only have to key in the wrong waypoint and my passengers and I could be gone. We have a $300 milllion radar system, that could make things much safer - but for some reason we cannot make a 'G' into an 'E'. Its only the stroke of a pen and things could be much safer! Meanwhile we hear rumours (and that is what this network is about?) that alarms go off from this wondefulr radar system and nobody hears them whilst plane crash, just becaue they 'dont do class G".

As for GPWS systems, How many times have you listened to a Cockpit Voice Recorder of a doomed plane ina CFIT situation? What was the last thing on the tape? Something like 'Whhoop Whopp pull-up, pull up'? - then silence.... makes one wonder about that sort of thing in G airspace too!

PS Is there any truth in the rumour that the blind man outside court was in fact one Qantas's most experienced senior captains, who just happens to use Class G airspace at other times? He should know! Time for the ludites to listen!

[Baldricks Mum]

Uncommon Sense ,

Pick up your phone and dial R****** D****** in AsA PR section. Ask him how much income is generated by G.A. for AsA. He once told me at Avalon that we represent half of one percent, so get real with what we ask for. (coming from one of the "bonus boys" makes it a little difficult to swallow.)

The weather decode thing will always come up, however it has little to do with access to information that I was alluding to. Sitting on the ground in Barcaldine, waiting for the WX to clear, with only a mobile phone does not help me get access to the info in a timely manner. Especially if the boss refuses to pay for any mobile phone bill associated with job of making him money.

Ahh the price of safety. Must it always come out of my pocket???

BM

[Obiwan]

As for weather and Notams in code. Sorry Bushy, but Airservices does not dictate how this information is formatted and presented. Thats ICAO, they dictate the format. It the same everywhere as far as I know.

Perhaps someone should tell ICAO that we no longer have wireless operators sending and receiving messages in Morse - and can we please have information in English instead of creating abbreviations of 3 letter words... :confused:

[Icarus2001]

BM then why do Airservices charge the recreational pilot to get the weather, submit a flight notification or even ammend the notification. The weather and Notams are available for FREE on the internet. Flight notification is not usually required just leave a flight note with a responsible person. Rest assured the SAR system that relies on that Flight note is FREE.:D

[YCKT]

5Miles

You read my post correctly. I believe ATC should be paid from consolidated revenue. I think maps should be paid from a licence charge so everyone has up to date ones. $100 a year for PVT and CPL. $200 a year for IFR and/or ATPL. (or something like that)

All maps plates etc free. Everyone has up to date (but currently very confusing) information.

As for poor tobzalp, I fear he is so angry he bites at anyones heels without actually checking to see if they are agreeing with him or not. Perhaps a case of Dicktaphobia????

DirtyPierre
Yes, it is only when we all come together we will defeat the econorats. That even means tobzalp and AOPA (perhaps not Dick though :E )

[Chimbu chuckles]

Wheeler you only have to dial up the wrong QNH and you could die too...how much of your operation would you like to hand over to others?

I guess that NDB approaches in G horrify you similarly?

IFR approach capable GPSs are not infallible but really how hard is it to check what you have loaded into it for finger trouble before you use it?

I have loaded in the wrong waypoint before today but upon seeing my distance to go readout indicate 5000+ nm I rechecked and deleted the XXX VOR that was in Brazil and selected the one labelled VOR AUS...or whatever.

I am curious to know how you can actually load the wrong GPS NPA. In my Bonanza I have a KLN90b and it won't offer an approach unless a/. the database is up to date and b/. I have the flightplan in correctly...as in blah waypoint-ROM NDB- YROM airport. If I then twist the right knobs to page 8 of APT it will offer various NPAs to each runway...ENT xx rwy then activate approach and it inserts the app in the flight plan...modify the flightplan to go direct to the IAF if that's what I want. I can of course go D-> YROM (or wherever) and bring up the approach page..load the runway and then the NPA...but I'm not loading individual waypoints to build an approach?

I can do that in the 767 FMC...great building an NDB approach using conditional waypoints and then fly the lateral track in LNAV and the verticle profile in VS:ok: Pity we only ever do them in 6 monthly sim recurrent :(

WX, NOTAMS and flightplanning in Oz either VFR or IFR is free...if you're paying for it (not you wheeler I mean anyone)then you deserve to be.

As to safety and 'user pays' am I alone in remembering the loudest voices in that era were DS and AOPA? AGAIN! From a VFR owner/ pilots POV it has been something of a success too. They/we pay virtually nothing except some fuel GST. But now some want more access to the system that they say they don't/didn't need....or at least the sky that the system reserves for people paying their way.

They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Either continue paying nothing and fly VFR outside CTA via LOEs etc, or move to a different charging system and get full access to the system...like the US system DS is so keen on...well parts of it anyway.

Would (and this I know will garner screams of rage from AOPA) a system that say charged $100/tonne rego and $100/annum licence fee VFR or $200/annum IFR (irrespective of licence held) be acceptable to most pilots/owners if it gave them full access to the airspace system and regular chart/map/approach plate updates?

For my Bonanza that would mean a ANC of about $160/annum and another $200/annum licence fee for publications for me. That would save me money overall.

Of course AsA will scream that they'd lose money on the charts...not if you ***ts stopped putting out 1000s of pages of useless ammendments and only did them say once a year for really usefull/meaningfull changes.:mad: :mad:

The great NAS ROLLBACK is just DS BS. It's not happening...except around places like YBMC where jets will get a clear run in C into D.

Nothing wrong with that if you look at it in a mature way.

How about if all the E went to C and we applied the above charging system with independant audits of AsA so that they bring there costs in line with reasonable fees for services rendered?

I know that there would be screams of outrage from AsA but only because the little empires (not so little I bet) would need to be dismantled.

But guess what AsA...the industry can't afford you!!! Start with redundancies for 80% of staff in publications...that way they'd be forced to think hard about what REALLY needs amending.:rolleyes:

Under this system I check NOTAMS/WXs and File using NAIPS or whatever (I like Champagne) before leaving home. I pull my Bonanza out of the hangar at YRED and do the usual preflight stuff. Taxiing out I call on 127.6 (I think:ugh: ) and give a taxi call to BNE. I accept clearance airborne and whatever vectors ATC deem appropriate to get me on my way before the "track direct xxx resume own nav" call...usually it's track direct to overhead the tower...hardly brain surgery. Full service enroute, including if available/appropriate vectors for finals at desto.

And no bill in the mail a month later.

If I'm going somewhere OCTA and don't need the services I can just go NOSAR/NO DETAILS but can expect that if I change my mind it may take a bit of time to get me into the system...I may even be denied a clearance for a little while but hey...that's MY fault!!!

If I'm joyriding around Moreton Is:E I just tune to a geographically appropriate frequency and listen out/make the odd all stations call if appropriate...I DON"T CHIT CHAT on frequency:ok:

None of this will work because;

1/. AsA/Govt will scream because it's costing them (lots and LOTS of) millions in revenue...well guess what dick-heads if no-one flies you get **** all too. Between the GST on fuel and the above charges YOU work it out and DOWNSIZE your operation to match what the industry can afford and what is a reasonable impost after taking into account the NATIONAL DIVIDEND from having the airways system in the first place and what is reasonable for the Govt to pay for (their share) based on their Constitutional obligations to provide the framework that allows industry to flourish.

2/. DS will hate it because he didn't think of it.

3/. AOPA won't like it because...well they just won't.

4/. SAA (or WTF they call themselves) won't like it but who cares..glorified hang-gliders should flown around very remote spots away from everyone:} :ok: :E

rant mode off.

[Binoculars]

Chuck, we need you and Captain Claret on a symposium entitled "Should we get the beancounters out and return commonsense to aviation?".

:ok:

[Uncommon Sense]

CC,

I am glad you mentioned the processing of VFR via O/H BN TWR ex YRED. It is done every day, both directions, not just low ALT either, and it works. Threading the BN TFC around is no big deal. It just gets done - even though it is literally ten times the work of handling a standard IFR DEP on SID.

So you can imagine how much it $hits me when I hear the whinge brigade telling me that ATC say 'Remain OCTA, CLNCE N/A'. It is a pack of lies! I doubt they have even tried to get a clearance properly!

It is a case of the foolish following the rhetoric of the Dicktator - it's just that like Missing-in-Action Minister, the foolish have all been misled as well - yet again.

[Chimbu chuckles]

Unfortunately we need a few beancounters...to audit the system and show quite clearly that whatever profit is made from the system goes back to the system.

I think forcing AsA and CASA to downsize would get swallowed up in a public service two step and we'd end up with as many, if not more staff/registered aircraft than we do now...I have no figures but I'd bet money that's what happened when DCA started the metamorphosis that became DoT Air then CAA then CASA/AsA/ATSB.

Outsourcing or Govt Business Enterprises or whatever Beanny/polly catchphrase is current means one thing...more money for less service...it literally cannot mean anything else...it's double taxation on the part of the population that uses said infrastructure. Instead of privatising airfields the reasonable charges charged go into an Aviation Trust Account....for the benefit of the airfield users, which includes btw the surrounding community usually, and the industry at large. If there's not enough aviation activity to use all the available space then the excess (like at YSBK) can be rented at competitive rates to non aviation businesses as in the business park at YSBK...and the money goes into the Aviation Trust Account...not CONSOLIDATED FECKING REVENUE..unless, as I believe happens in the US, Govt borrows some money at competitive interest rates...and then the extra revenue goes back into the Aviation Trust Account.

I see AsA want to have a $200 licence fee for photo licences...presumably some BS security thing...what was wrong with the ATSIC Cards? Car licences don't cost $200...and that's all that's required to drive a van full of home made explosive under the tallest building handy!!

Security is definately one area, just for starters, that is paid for from general taxation only...IRAQ was their fecking idea they pay for it...if there ever was anything that is a constitutional govt responsibility its national security for ****'s sake.

The industry would need a watchdog made up of industry professionals like GAPAN and/or the Chief Pilots Conference forum and/or a voluntary retired pilots and/or...dare I say it AOPA:uhoh: That would meet several times a year with representatives of the FAA :ok: and recieve the audited years figures. They would also have copies of any meaningless amendments and table them to have the fella from publications explain why he can see the need when 20000 other pilots looked both sides of said piece of paper and could find **** nothing different from the piece of paper they're binning...you can probably tell this is one of my bug bears:suspect:

As to charging and what % industry should meet as opposed to Govt well that would have to be negotiated and refined over time. Lets say we started off with the figures in my previous post....there might have to be a sliding scale BTW say $100/tonne to 20000kg and then $200/tonne to 100000kg etc like that to allow for the extra services really big aircraft need that I don't in a Bonanza like RFF...although if I'm burning and pinned at YBBN please come and get me anyway:ouch: (didn't think of that did ya AOPA!!!) If the figures arrived at by negotiation with all levels of industry (and everyone must be a little better off (except FAA) for it to work) add up to x% then that means the Govt pays 100%-x%. If the audit shows that all revenues from aviation activity, govt loan repayments to the Aviation Trust Account and rental receipts for various busness activities on airports = x% + y$millions then every aviation business from QF down to me get an equal % rebate in the form of next years ANC might only be $96.50/tonne and the licence fee reduced to $95 for VFR and $190 IFR. And so on.

Infrastructure renewal would be from the Aviation Trust account too.

Who knows...an idea like the above might actually spur all areas of aviation into more growth...create jobs (IN PLACES OTHER THAN THE FAA!!!) and decrease airfares...increase profits for shareholders without having to rip them out of the employees:suspect:

Oh what a wonderfull little world I live in:uhoh: :ok:

Edit we ALSO pay GST on parts and aircraft purchased where we didn't before...yet more revenue the GOVT rips out of aviation, even if only on an interest free loan basis unless you have no mechanism for reclaiming it. It's one of those areas that was swept under the political rug...we didn't pay duties on aircraft parts before but we got hit with GST..windfall for Govt, huge impost for a sick industry.

[CaptainMidnight]

Be careful posting internal Airservices documents, coral. Aside from the legalities while court action is underway, you might be providing assistance to parties you may not have intended.