"A Current Affair" TV Segment

[Duke16]

I understand "A Current Affair" will have a major feature on the Benalla crash Monday, 4 October at 6:30 PM on Channel 9.

Just saw a promo on Ch 9 stating the segment wil be aired Thurs, 14 October at 6:30 pm.

[404 Titan]

Like everything else ACA does it will consist 1% accuracy and 99% journalistic sensationalism and creativity. That program and many like it lost their credibility many many many years ago. Frankly most TV today is an insult to once intelligence. They catering for the lowest common denominator by the amount they have dumbed everything down.

[Lodown]

And the 99% will be spoon fed by you-know-who because of an absence of information on the subject by authorities unable to draw any conclusion until the ATSB has finished the report. And in typical journalistic fashion, if you can't find out the facts behind a good story, make something up. Or better still, find a nutcase who can provide some controversial quotes bagging the hapless government department which is unable to respond. Must be a good story to be had in the mates' network and bonus protection efforts.

Ho hum...good fodder for Sydney's western suburbs.

[Pinky the pilot]

Whilst I nearly always manage to avoid watching the abovementioned show this time I'll make an exception.
I will of course make sure that there are no heavy objects within reach.
404Titan; You are spot on with your comments. One thing that most of these 'current affairs' shows are most emphatically not is serious journalism. Infotainment would a better description.

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

[Uncommon Sense]

Oh big bucket of puke - I can already see it.

Some 22 year old blonde bimbo journalist presents the world according to Dick Smith.

Back to Mike Moore, sorry, Ray Martin for a lowered eyebrow look into the camera before a commercial break with a disturbing turn of phrase ....." Hmmm, controversial. (insert toothy grin and light hearted look) After the break Russell Crowe is back in a new movie!"

http://members.ozemail.com.au/~paulma/images/Frontline_mike.gifhttp://members.ozemail.com.au/~paulma/images/frontline_autocue.gif

Nice work Dick - how much did this 'advertorial' cost you? God almighty, why is it that CH9 viewers are permitted to vote - Dick knows it and is all too willing to continue his crusade riding their backs all the way.

Did you pull another one of your temper tantrums to get some air time from Kerry Dick? You know - like the one everyone is talking about from the last NASIG briefing?

[No wonder Howard is trying to destroy the ABC - we can't have people thinking for themselves!]

[Starts with P]

I tuned in to see the report, but alas, nothing tonight. Perhaps it has been pushed to another night? Any further developments? Or perhaps they came to their sences....Naaa ;)

[tobzalp]

I worked fairly close to an ATC who was often to be featured on TV. The amount of time that he was supposed to be on v the amount of times actually featured were vastly different.

Unless there is direct scandal to bring someone down the media don't care. The media report after the fact not expose potential failings.

[muddergoose]

Well Duke16, can you update us as to the real time for the alleged segment?:hmm:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Received an Email from BM stating:

PLEASE WATCH “A CURRENT AFFAIR” 6:30pm Tuesday 5th October

Please watch this show with Ray Martin on Channel Nine for a plain-language explanation of the unnecessary risks to which Airservices is exposing us.

I think that is a fairly plain indication of the stance the program will take...:rolleyes:

[Uncommon Sense]

Oh I am sure the language will be 'plain' all right.

Plain leading questions to the sponsor of this 'advertorial' no doubt.

Haven't even seen it yet, but I am sure my pre-judgement will be vindicated - mores the pity.

Expecting much tut-tutting and wafer thin content.

Don't let the facts get in the way of some good spin Ray, I mean 'Mike' - you really are the best journalist money can buy.

Tell me I am wrong....

[STOP PRESS: The story must have been dropped at the last minute due to unfolding events with the 'new Nicole Kidman Perfume Advertising campaign' - cutting edge journalism at it's finest. Let's hope no 'breaking news events' like that 'bump' the next screening schedule from Boyd. Glad I set in on VCR and didn't have to sit through that crap.]

http://www.workingdog.com/frontline/series3/who.jpg

[CaptainMidnight]

Suffice to say they or any participants want to be very careful about making any allegations.

[Uncommon Sense]

Yet again Fraud Munro could not get this important plain language news item past the breaking stories tonight of:

Tom Cruise - breaking news : new movie!

Harry Kewell - new DVD out tomorrow!

James Packer telling us how innovative and brave John Howard has been in industrial relations - to an audience including Geoff Dixon - hilarious!

Guess you will be sending me out another email tonight Boyd? Must see TV!!

I dont who is the worse sycophant - you or Ray Martin pretending to be a journalist.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Sorry if I made more people watch Ray Martini.

Last thing I would have wanted to do is artificially inflate Mr Packer's ratings and advertising revenue, or (even worse) give Uncle Boyd more credibility.

I can rest easy on the credibility.

In the long run, there would have been a spate of CPLs and ATPLs rocking up to their Class 1 medicals and reporting that they are using Beta blockers and Renitec (blood pressure meds) had the segment gone to air...

[Dickcheese]

Hi folks,

I spoke with ACA in Sydney a matter of minutes ago.

Whilst they confirmed they do have a story to run on the crash at Benalla, they do not have a screening date for it and "we'll just have to keep watching for the promo".

oh joy....

Is it possible they have come to their senses and are decently & respectably waiting for the ATSB to complete their investigation, unlike their most probable interviewee or am I becoming too cynical?

DC

[ATCguy]

I am glad to see a good voice of reason here. I only learned of the story a couple of days ago via internal email and it seems all of you are expecting the same BS I am slung toward a victim unable to defend itself because of bureaucracy.

As an ATC I would like to know the general opinion of all pilots who get services from us in any class of airspace.

Are we doing a good job for you?

[Pseudonymn]

Imparja Television are running ads for this "Ray Martin Special Investigation" :rolleyes: to be aired tomorrow, 14/10. Will I tune in & watch, I don't yet know.

[Uncommon Sense]

An earlier Transcript (http://www.civilair.asn.au/bulletins/otherdocs/transcript_smith_bartlett.pdf)http://www.civilair.asn.au/images/acrobat.gif

4thTermWatch (http://fourthtermwatch.********.com/)

[Jerricho]

Is it just me, or is Mr Smith referring to this site just a little too much. It is a rumour network, and it's obvious that some of the information he's quoting on his web-site and elsewhere of "on the Professional Pilots Rumour Network.........." could infact be a 14 year old pot-smoking keyboard warrior who's old man is a pilot and has overheard something?

Perhaps he should be made to include in any reference to here

"As these are anonymous forums the origins of the contributions may be opposite to what may be apparent. In fact the press may use it, or the unscrupulous, to elicit certain reactions.,"

[Lodown]

Aaaaaggghhhh!!!! I've been found out. Age is a little off though and my dad's not a pilot.

[Jerricho]

Lodown, I wouldn't worry. Dirty Pierre and Plazbot aren't really controllers :p

[Lodown]

Jerricho, I already knew that about Dirty Pierre and Plazbot. They seem to know what they are talking about, so naturally I discounted them long ago as being professional air traffic controllers.

That might elicit certain reactions...

[gaunty]

Just arrived in my inbox;

AOPA President Ron Bertram would like to advise that "A Current Affair" (Channel 9) has confirmed and is advertising that its story on the Benalla air crash tragedy will air tonight (Thurs 14th Oct 2004).

Recent scheduling changes have delayed this broadcast but AOPA has been in contact with ACA and they have indicated that it will be shown tonight.

It is a disturbing look at the way that Air Services were involved in this terrible crash and is of the greatest interest to all members of AOPA and those who have to deal with Air Services.

Please check your local guides for broadcast times.
my bolding. :rolleyes:

Be prepared for some mind numbing and discursive Smith approved polemic from their own inhouse legend.

Ghost writers in the sky. :)

I hope they have more expert "legal" advice than is usual on what they should, may or may not assert.
Their last legal fracas, intiated by them against AOPA US (now over 400,000 members, near the total pilot population) I expect based on the same expert advice, with the same cast incumbent, cost em over $250,000 of members funds.

Have they been indemnified or financially supported in some way on this little adventure?

The membership, mostly "ex" (over 6,000 at the last count of a once near 11,000) are terminally tired of being used as a dilletante millionaires plaything and the personal soapbox of old hasbeens.

I'll be surprised if they are not the single voice on this programme, which can only have been generated by Smith et al.

Whatever, I am not aware that the membership has been canvassed on nor would, I suspect, support this action in their name.
One can only guess that this is part of the new "let's put AOPA (actually the legend) back on the map" plan, they seem to have forgotten that it was this form of rubbish that IMHO took em off it in the first place.

Anybody got any idea when the final ATSB accident investigation report and coronial will be available on the causes and;

is there anybody who can educate me on when and where the law relieved the pilot of the responsibility for their own navigation whilst conducting an instrument approach outside of a control zone.

Or have the responsibility for those activities now been delegated to Smiths AOPA.

[Andrew Kerans]

Gary

One again you attempt to make something out of nothing. Of course Airservices had something to do with the crash, it was an aeroplane, it was in airspace and it crashed. Ron has said nothing more.

Whether Airservices was in any way culpable is a matter for the ATSB and subsequently the coroner. Unfortunately though ambulance chasers and some on PPRuNe will have their say. It reminds me of the front page picture of a dead (burned) family in the Cairns Post last year (Aztec at Mareeba), you will remember I solicited an apology for that apology of a news article.

I personally have little time for some of the more outlandish statements attributed to some people, unfortunately I include your comment above as one of these.

Gary, in my opinion you are putting out the fire with AVGAS, that in my view doesn't help either your reputation or that of GA.

Andrew

[gaunty]

Gary, in my opinion you are putting out the fire with AVGAS, that in my view doesn't help either your reputation or that of GA.
Au contraire mon ami, it is your mates part in the ACA circus that IMHO does it.

Andrew you are very much smarter than that. And in case anybody else missed the point, the news of my given name is not news around here and has never been a secret.

You of course are entitled to your opinion, and I thank you for stating it personally without your colleagues resorting to their usual absurd and idiotic behaviour, the like of "poison dwarf" calling anonymous users here cowards :rolleyes: amongst other things here, then getting all bent out of shape when challenged on it himself. It's a joke, I imagine this will fuel another frenzy on that other forum, whose name we dare not say. :rolleyes:

Ron has said nothing more.
Hullooooo.

So, and we seem to agree, Whether Airservices was in any way culpable is a matter for the ATSB and subsequently the coroner. perhaps then you can tell tell me howIt is a disturbing look at the way that Air Services were involved in this terrible crash and is of the greatest interest to all members of AOPA and those who have to deal with Air Services. is NOT a non-sequitur, the conflation of issues we are used to seeing, nor a clumsy attempt at a linking of Airservices "involvement" with it?

There is nothing AOPA can gain from their part in this, there is no link with the Mareeba crash (and I agree with you) apart from some publicity. The adage that any publicity is good publicity has some significant exceptions, this is one of them.

Why aren't we hearing from your mate Smith, wouldn't it be smarter to let him make the running and then if it gets up you could weigh in. But I think he is much smarter than that and in any event you are probably unable to prevent your hitherto limelight deprived "friend" from making a public come back.

I personally have little time for some of the more outlandish statements attributed to some people,me too, which is why your silence on the idiot "dont fly QF to Canberra from Perth" statements and other stunts by Smith in the attempts to link the Benalla and QF incidents with "'G' or dirt road airspace" puzzles me, when both you, I and everyone else I know, thought it was Smith who tried very hard, led to introduce "'G' , but not as 'dirt road airspace'" :confused: in the first place, in the same places during his last CASA incarnation.

I look forward to being proved wrong after tonight, otherwise be prepared to wear it

[tobzalp]

Welcome back snarek.

[ferris]

Gary, in my opinion you are putting out the fire with AVGAS, Best you look in the mirror. Gaunty is absolutely spot on. AsA 'involved in this terrible crash'? What is terrible is the way AOPA says one thing, then you come on here then pretend it is saying another. Who do you think you are kidding? You'd get a lot more respect (especially from the industry) if you stopped behaving like perfect puppets. Grubby Smith-like tactics are transparent.

[Uncommon Sense]

Well I wasn't surprised.

Nice bit of fiction by Ray and Dick.

Love the line from Ray that the Air traffic controllers didn't care - nice to have words put in to your mouth is it Ray?

Dick - you are a disgrace.

I was waiting for one, just one, fact - I am still waiting (like most arguments you make).

It's not like any of the issues were glossed over - they were simply avoided completely.

Worse, you have exploited a grieving family.

I will bet the demographics of that show are spooky - low IQ, and right-right wing conservative voters.

And remember: "More Australians get their 'news' from CH9 than any other news source".

The only thing more depressing than that thought is that the recently re-elected Reich believs they have a mandate to dispose of cross-media ownerhsip legislation. So soon, EVERYTHING will be the same quality as ray martin - the best journalist money can buy.

When will this country wake up and get passionate about something.

[Lynx206]

I don't normally go in for posting to forums although I enjoy reading them; however, (pause for effect...)

I was incensed by the dribble and absolute hypocrisy that came from DBN's mouth. To say I am angry is an understatement. Unfortunately, most of what I want to say is unprintable.

[Transition Layer]

What a load of disgraceful crap...I still don't see the link between the TNP accident and the QF 737 at Canberra.

At least it was a good reminder why I never watch ACA. As always, it caters for the lowest common denominator.

Dick Smith you are a disgrace.

TL

[Lynx206]

Oh yes, I forgot to add:

"DBN, you are a disgrace!"

[KLN94]

I liked the dubbed sound effect of the KingAir flyby which sounded suspiciously like a C152 on takeoff...

[Laikim Liklik Susu]

WHAT A FRIGGIN' farce! Another platform to launch ********'s "case".

What the bloody hell did Airservices have to do with TNP hitting terrain? In the end, it all comes down to AVIATING, and the pilot obviously did something wrong, VERY wrong. No amount of Airservice anything was going to help him.

So, we got no facts, a lot of BS from the ********, and a scanty report about Qantas' almost CFIT at YSCB, supposedly because a controller was late, almost causing the CFIT (according to ********), and yet Qantas supposedly couldn't AVIATE and NAVIGATE???????? WTF?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The whole thing reeks of BS, deception, a ********'s Revenge agenda, typically crap journalism, and absolutely positively no mention of AVIATING.

I can just see how ********'s Nat. Airspace Reform was going to solve all that - on the contrary - resorting back to tried and true would be a better step than his farce!

I'll go back to watching the Simpsons again....

OOPS! Forgot the automatic substitution. Read all those asterisks as D!ckhe4d (Dick Smith, the electronics wizard, in an electronics land of Oz. I am NOT a Dick Smith Wizz kid....:yuk: :} :p )

[OBNO]

ACA what a load of garbage. They can't even get simple facts correct for eg. "RAAF Blackhawk Helicopter pilot", wrong try Army, "GB" being a Qantas Skipper - wrong try Second Officer.

I'm still trying to follow Dicks argument here with regard to the two examples sited and Airservices. Since when did the intoduction of NAS involve increased Radar coverage. Dick try and be consistent with your arguments and may be you will have a bit more credibility.

[CaptainMidnight]

The show was a complete crock. And Ray Martin's unbiased journalism??? It reinforces why any thinking person doesn't watch ACA.

Could be some legal action as a result of allegations methinks :ok:

[The Voice]

wonder who paid for the T-shirt worn by the 'blind ATC' .. better still, wonder who dreamed up that brilliant piece of advertising!

very ordinary really.

[RTB RFN]

Contempt your honour????

[Spaced]

Ummm, I got a little confused watching this, for want of a better term, "program".
I may just be a low time heli guy, but wasnt the whole idea of NAS to reduce the "interference" of ATC?
Wasnt Dicks whole idea that talking on the radio was such a bad idea for pilots, that it was far better to remove all of those confusing frequencies off the chart?
I must say that my favourite bit was when Dick said he was taking Air Services to court because they were reducing the control of ATC. Last time I checked he was suing them because nobody (except Dick) liked the system, so they were scapping it, and like little kid running to mum wants to sue.
Personally I found that segment deplorable, another proud chapter in modern Australian journalism.
Great to see that trial by media is alive and well:yuk: :yuk: :yuk:

[poteroo]

How can journo's start with so many facts - yet end up with so few ?

happy days,

[robroy]

I agree with all of you canning smith.

Please go to, smithhead on tv.

I am serious, its the only way, I think, that we, the Professionals can get rid of this amateur CLOWN FOR EVER

Cheers

ROBROY.

the only time I have signed in Capitals.

[Cactus Jack]

How about everybody stops and takes a deep breath? :D There. Thats better.

Now have a look at this rationally and logically. Yes there were inaccuracies. It's TV - and specifically - it's ACA. Youv'e gotta expect it.

DS seemed to be arguing for different things this time. Now he seemed to be more interested in the fact that radar and ATC assistance wasn't available. Prima Facie - his statements were fair enough.

The QF 737 in YSCB - if that acft had been under radar control - would the incident have occurred? Possibly not. I dont know for sure.

The Benalla crash. If under RAS, would the accident have occurred? If the warnings had been acted upon, or if they were required to be acted upon, or if indeed they even sounded, would the accident have occurred? Possibly not.

The concept of ASA being run for a profit. Make much sense? Possibly not....

My point is this. Don't go off the deep end without taking a logical, rational and unemotional look at what was stated. I dont particularly like DS or ACA, but think first, act later. My impression was that DS was simply posturing, and politicing, rather than fighting for a particular cause. Question is - why was he doing this?

But take the segment for what it is - sensationalist journalism designed to scare the sh1t out of the average punter...

[ferris]

Jack;
What I think is causing the display of emotion here is the audacity of Smith. Everyone in aviation has heard him carrying on for ages about overservicing and 'freedom' for light aircraft. The next he is on tele bleating about how there should and could be MORE servicing, using ridiculous logic. Why?

He takes a wrecking ball to the airspace design, trying desperately to reduce the infrastructure ($70 million worth of reduction according to Willoughby), introducing as much "Dirt road airspace" as he can, pushing higher classes of airspace toward the "dirt road", then proceeds to spout exactly how bad "dirt road airspace" is. He as to be winding everybody up. Why else would a high-profile individual run around contradicting himself so publicly? Or is he just a PATHOLOGICAL liar?

Everyone involved in aviation just wishes he would shut up and go away.

[spinout]

write to ACA at [email protected]

[Cactus Jack]

Agreed, Ferris. He is an extremely destabilising influence. Thats partly because his lobbying seems erratic, and his goals ever changing. Also, unfortunately so, the media listen to him. I wish he'd go away too.

I refer you back to my original question though. Why does he do this?

[Booville Monroe]

I liked the Airservices board minutes referred to as "the secret report".

[Dog One]

One could only call the whole segment "gut wrenching"! It was so bad it made you throw up.

Jack, I view DS without emotion. He is a prize clown that has to much money to throw around getting publicity for himself. He was the driving force behind freedom to fly for his mates at AOPA and tried to convince every one that E airspace outside of radar was safe for rpt passengers. Now, he says that ATC caused this accident, and should have advised the aircraft etc. We are lucky to have such an expert, who can determine the cause of the accident so quickly. ATSB should pack up now and leave all investigations to DS.

What would be the outcome, if ATC had advised the aircraft that it was off track, and the aircraft had responded "Roger - thank you" It was outside CTA, what else could ATC have done.

[Howard Hughes]

I refer you back to my original question though. Why does he do this?

So that one day Ray can host: "TV's greatest moments when little aussie battlers (read millionaires) take on the world to make aussie airspace safe using as many backflips and changes in position as necessary so long as he can overfly Kingsford Smith at dot feet during the morning gaggle" and just plain TO GET HIS HEAD ON TV!!

I think that about covers it!!

Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[Andrew Kerans]

I think Cactus jack has made a little sense.

Having said before, I personally put no stock in, and don't support, personal attacks, the TNP accident was tragic and I await the report from the proper authorities as to what went wrong and why.

As for the Canberra 'incident' well for starters I was on the plane (and gawd I hate the redeye, but the aircon problem wasn't that bad...), it didn't come 'between' any peaks, possibly below LSALT, but again why is once again a matter for the ATSB.

But the salient point that Smith et al made, 'More E and more controllers' i.e. not relying on one in Canberra who calls in sick (and sick is sick, you can't do that job when you are sick!!!), what exactly is the big problem you are all railing against.

Perhaps if you could put aside your hatred of Dick Smith and make comments rationally on NAS and the issues surrounding it the problem would progress towards solution.

Flak vest on!

AK

[Howard Hughes]

Mr Kerans,

I certainly dont "hate Dick Smith"!!

However his linking of the Benalla accident with the Canberra incident, which occured in two totally different types of airspace in order to push his own agenda/s (which seem to change continually) is reprehensible. Mr Smith does'nt even seem to understand the airspace that he has helped introduce.

People (albeit anonymously) on this forum have gone through the issues, both factually and in a non emotive fashion, time and time again. We all understand that in a perfect world total radar coverage and an appropriate number of controllers would be ideal. However this is just not going to be the case is it? What is required is a balanced rational solution (as eluded to by your good self). Of course in order for this to be achieved input must be sought from all areas of aviation and an independant safety case implemented. Furthermore individual agenda's can not be a part of the equation.


Cheers, HH.

:ok:

[VVS Laxman]

What would be the outcome, if ATC had advised the aircraft that it was off track, and the aircraft had responded "Roger - thank you" It was outside CTA, what else could ATC have done. Who says the controller had any idea it was off track? Isn't that the point. The RAM alert does not represent "off track"; it means not on planned track there is a difference... it could be perfectly normal ops for a RAM going off.

My understanding is that the RAM went off inside CLASS E airspace, but that would be normal if the GPS tracking point was not programmed into TAAATS, or the RER function was not used. This happens often.... it can be normal practice.

It is not a sinister event that a RAM goes off, it happens all the time, almost every vectored aircraft for example, sets off a RAM.

As for linking the CB event with the BLA one, it is nuts...

No mention of Broome, Ayres Rock, all regional airports after 9pm etc...

Dear Blind ATC - get rooted you big fat old goose.

[gaunty]

Andrew

Your point is well made re Smith.

We do need to get the discussion on OUR = Australias NAS not Smiths personal crusade, back on track, even you would have to agree with me on that.

I have discussed here many time the need for people to be given ownership of anything in which they are required to participate. You might find this discussion interesting.

We have had a decidedly rational discussion here including the participation of a group calling themselves the Voices of Reason, who for whatever you may think of their motivations, provided reasonable, reasoned and rational argument backed up by well researched publicly available but not easily obtained information for our mutual attention.

We even hosted a one on one debate here.
Mr Smith’s attempts to personalise the debate were shut down and he was forced to try and provide rational answers to rational questions
As the architect of his version of the NAS Mr. Smith did not come out well by anyones definition.

And that is the fundamental problem.

Despite what you may think, everybody wants to get this right and just get on with it, I get many calls from people wishing that this was so.

Your continuous challenges to myself and others on the board of "do you support NAS just yes or no" in a manner that left no doubt as to the consequences :rolleyes: of a “no” answer did not progress the debate nor inform the process. It does not become your academic background and considerable achievements in that area, we sorta left that kind of zealotry behind us a bit after Copernicus and Galileo and are still in the middle of another war on it. There are some similarities with the NAS on this. But I digress.
The more rational answer to that was “yes we support it, but will monitor the implementation and reserve the right to say no when WHAT and HOW it is to be implemented is known ”.
This seems to have been liberally and disrespectfully interpreted as “yeah right, that’s just another way of derailing my plan” and rational that is not. I will not bore the readers here with the campaign of personal vilification conducted against myself and by association others, the “unequivocal whatever Dick says form of NAS” supporters for having the temerity to raise rational questions.

However in the spirit of our old friend Cactus Jack,

Let me remind you in case you have forgotten.

The NAS has been and will continue to be a work in progress.

Because the NAS is a work in progress and Stage 2b was then due, a NASIG Hazard Identification workshop originally planned for two days but actually took longer (over two session,) due to an unanticipated volume of hazards identified for discussion and mitigation. This should not be construed as a criticism of the NAS as proposed but applauded as a necessarily constructive part of a very important process.

This process was required by law and Government policy to enable the final planning and production of the training and educational process vitally necessary for its successful implementation.

The workshop, held if I recall in July 2003, was a safety requirement on the road to the implementation of 2b as it was then proposed and due Nov 28th.

Each individual potential hazard identified was tested and if found to be so, a mitigator was developed for application to it.

Some potential hazards identified as I understand it required simple changes in wording or application, whatever.

Some potential hazards were found to be an issue only in the time required to get some new concepts properly bedded down into the system by training and education, including by Airservices staff.
That is, in the opinion of the industry there was not enough “time available” to promulgate the information, incorporate it into the training process and ensure that it was possible for every body to be ready “in time”, some elements of the old system would be temporarily transferred to the new for the transition for a time sufficient.
Viz, frequencies and boundaries on the new charts with a note regarding their possible removal. etc.

There were NOT to my knowledge ANY showstoppers.

Some of the more paranoid amongst us would have ANY constructive criticism or questioning of it is somehow destructive of the process. Rational that is not.

It was considered that three months was a reasonable period between the receipt of the final material T & E and new charts and its implementation. As the final material was the subject of that workshop there several issues in the implementation that could not meet the safety criterion in the time available.
There was not enough time in the view of the participants, between the workshop and intended implementation date to disseminate and conduct the training and education felt necessary.

It is significant that the TWO MAIN issues the subject of the current contentious rollback, frequencies on charts and airspace over towers, were the two very issues that were the subject of industry wide, including AOPAs agreement that the application of a training and education “time” mitigator was necessary due to the mechanics of the final completion and production of the necessary Training and Educational material.
Because they were time mitigators the information to be left on the charts was only to be in the transition for the life of the first issue and during the training and education process.
As far as I am aware, everybody left that workshop “relaxed and comfortable” with the final result and settled down to work with NASIG to help prepare the final implementation Training and Educational material for distribution.

The then President and the two VPs including myself at a meeting called by the NASIG in Sept for that purpose even agreed to badge or apply the AOPA imprimatur and logo and provide the resources of AOPA for its production testing and dissemination, including ideas for a proactive “live launch”. It was of course responsibly subject to what had been agreed by industry and AOPA at that Implementation workshop. As an aside, at my suggestion there were even seven return trips to Oshkosh incentives for ALL pilots put on the table as part of those activities.
Qantas at a similar meeting agreed to do likewise under the same conditions.

Quite a coup for the NASIG I would have thought.

A perfectly rational process so far, agreed?

I wont bore you again with the details of the before during and after, but several days before the cut off date for implementation we, at least the other VP and I, were alerted by an alarmed Qantas, not directly by NASIG you understand, that the above two mitigators did not appear to be included.
Enquiries proved that they would not be under the direct instructions of Smith. inter alia “it is not in the US NAS and will not be here”

That Smith unilaterally chose to ignore the entire industry and was complicit in the misleading conduct by NASIG and others in the hoodwinking and general bastardry that got 2b across the line without containing those industry agreed mitigators. The President at the time took it upon herself to decide, against the entire industry advice that pilots did not need the time provided. Courageous?,

By that action Mr Smith made his own bed, he can now lay in it.

His current protestations that there are fifth columnists all over the place conspiring to stop his change or whatever crazy idea he has next, will not stand rational scrutiny neither do his media stunts do anything to suggest he is ready for a return to rational process.

BTW Mr. Smith had and implemented some good ideas, it would be hard for any one now to remember. People who have made equally valid contributions are legion.

IMHO when Mr Smith can convince the Australian industry that he is prepared to listen AND participate as [/b]ONE[/b] of the stakeholders, we might just get there.
The other alternative of course is for Mr. Smith to go off and buy the whole shooting match lock stock and barrel, then he can go off and play to his hearts content and the public can decide whether they want to fly in his system, on his airline, run his way.

IMHO when Mr Smith is prepared to behave rationally on this issue, then I am sure he will regain, after some trial, the previous respect he might have held as a person who is genuinely motivated towards helping the aviation industry.

Meanwhile back at the ranch?

[Niles Crane]

gaunty.

2 points to your last post.

The Hazard ID program last year only looked at differences to the "US NAS" not changes from Australian Airspace to NAS. Therefore if a new procedure or airspace design (new to Australia) was the same as the US NAS, then no Hazard ID was conducted.

There has still been no Design Safety case for AUS NAS. The fundimentals have not been looked at.

Point 2.

Dick Smith participated in the Hazard ID process.

He designed, voted on and implimented the AUS NAS through his participation in the ARG.

Therefor of couse there where no problems encounted in the Hazard ID process!

Also, I have been to a large number of meetings and briefings from CASA, ASA and NASIG. Various people from all of these organisations have stated in one way or another "The Minister has Directed and we will comply with that Direction, so the NAS will be implimented".

Only 1 person to my knowlegde has definately resigned his position, (maybe 2 others) over the NAS.

When the inevitable happens sometime in the future, it will be good to see some public servents in court stating "I was only doing my job because I was directed by the Minister". The last time someone tried this defence was in Germany in 1946 and they failed!

This whole DS TV show reminds me of "Australian Story" a few years ago. A husband and wife where flying VFR in NSW, crashed, they both survived for 2 days, then the husband died and she was rescued a few days later. One DS and AOPA started their campagn about EPIRBS. The simple fact is, if we still had full reporting, he would be alive today!

How many more deaths do we have to put up with, just so the smallest contributing part of the industry can do as they please.

[Bob Murphie]

Niles Crane ??

Bugga me,,, Friday, a late lunch and with a nice Merlot, was just thinking, between wanting to throw him on an ant hill and his waffle, Gaunt, (please, please, don't sue me), sometimes comes up with some interesting reading but then you throw in..........

This whole DS TV show reminds me of "Australian Story" a few years ago. A husband and wife where flying VFR in NSW, crashed, they both survived for 2 days, then the husband died and she was rescued a few days later. One DS and AOPA started their campagn about EPIRBS. The simple fact is, if we still had full reporting, he would be alive today!

How many more deaths do we have to put up with, just so the smallest contributing part of the industry can do as they please......

........Tell me I misinterpret you through a drunken haze (or anything), but are you actually proposing we go back to full reporting?

Also I spoke with a Mr Miller from FNQ after he spent the night in the Gulf (with all those bities), and had his bacon saved because he had a FLOATING, PERSONAL, EPIRB, ATTACHED, TO, HIS, BODY, NOT,A,FIXED,EPIRB,WHICH,WAS,AT,THE,BOTTOM,OF,THE,SEA,WITH,TH E,AIRCRAFT. A Huey picked him up on the dot of first light.

How draconian is your suggestion, and to use EPIRB's to make your point on full reporting................

[ferris]

Mr. Kerans;
Perhaps if you could put aside your hatred of Dick Smith and make comments rationally on NAS and the issues surrounding it the problem would progress towards solution I think people are pretty sick of commenting on NAS. Sensible people have tried to progress toward a solution (rollback). Witness the result.
Rationally, on NAS:
How does a 'CAGRO', equipped only with a radio, (NAS end state) provide terrain clearance information?
How does a controller, with no access to HF (NAS end state), communicate with a low level aircraft that it is about to hit terrain?
How does a controller, who is working a much larger peice of airspace (Willoughby report, cost savings of NAS), detect anything is wrong with any aircraft below CTA (imminent collision, terrain, malfunction etc etc)? Even if he detects a problem, how would he communicate that problem to the aircraft?
How does NAS actually help anybody except the occasional VFR pilot too stupid to work within the system?
How does Smith have the gall to get on tele and contradict many of the things he holds as ideal, yet still claim he has the answers?

[Booville Monroe]

Dick is the master of the media. He is well aware that the Benalla incident is not related to airspace issues, but that Mr and Mrs Australia are not. And Minister Anderson receives the message via the talking toupe that Dick will not let his agenda rest.

[gaunty]

Bob love, you should pass your post past Unca Bill before you play here.:}

How many more deaths do we have to put up with, just so the smallest contributing part of the industry can do as they please...... you might well ask your mate Mr.Smith that question, he has been a champion of this concept at your expense? and have they informed the membership so.

The simple fact is, if we still had full reporting, he would be alive today! does this mean that the current AOPA policy is to go back towards full reporting. Nowadays that is not such a burden and one that I for one would welcome, particularly if I thought someone was taking a personal interest in the wellbeing of my own personal arsehole!.

The rest of your post is incoherent, help us out here willya.:uhoh:

[CaptainMidnight]

Rather than complain/write to A Current Affair which would do nothing, perhaps a better solution is to write to the ABC's "Media Watch" via this link here (http://abc.net.au/mediawatch/). The facts can be provided, and anonymimity preserved to a large degree I suspect.

I'm sure they'd love another opportunity to get stuck into Ray & ACA :ok:

[Bob Murphie]

Ferris;

Snarek can't answer you.

Gaunty.......

What part is incoherent??

I have offered the olive branch, why no response to my PM.

Whats this BS about Unca Bill? I am a real person with real emotions and real abilities to speak through my own mouth.

Niles may care to answer why he used "EPIRBS" to make a point about full reporting or perhaps it is OK to stick it up Dick for doing the same thing, but when I question someone else's motives, I get "soft banned"

Bob.

[karrank]

...put aside your hatred of Dick Smith...

Only when the slimy b@rstard is underground.

The hole he has dug for himself is impressive. I'm reasonably sure the smithead only got his plans past the minister with the promise that it:

:hmm: Would save money - hence the farcical Willoughyby report. (The original should be subject to careful preservation, if left in the open some of the crayon may fade...)

:rolleyes: Is supported by the industry - hence the flim-flam of dictating it to Walter Dolman so it ends up on Qantas letterhead?

:yuk: Will increase safety - Only a promise of this nature could explain the gruesome logic that claims E is safer than C, despite having wombats flying through it that think a 1 degree offset from a VOR will let them miss an inbound jet, and are still comfortable with the separation when the TCAS goes off...

I believe the 'logic' he's using is that he can only implement stuff if it increases safety, therefore anything he wants to implement will increase safety.

Now the minister is no longer terrified of an election will he do something decisive? Either fill in the smithead's big hole (yes please) or belt Bernie over the head with the shovel? Or is it to be more masterly inactivity?

Or are we just waiting for 01NOV?

Looking forward to more reforms, with no involvement from the smithead.

[YCKT]

Ferris

Where is CAGRO end state NAS. That statement is unfounded. CAGRO for coff/Tamworth etc maybe, but not for E.

I read the posts and have decided you are all blinded by an anti Smith rage.

Yeah there was a little emotion used on ACA. Bit like some of CivilAir's media releases I think :)

So what, that's the game. But if you lose the plot through blind range you have lost the argument.

Emotion and personalities aside, Smith called for more and lower E and more controllers. So where's the problem with that ... oh I remember, no C above D.

It would be nice to winn the lotto every week wouldn't it guys and girls, now who are you calling names for wanting it ALL his own way :E

[Dog One]

YCKT

"More E airspace and more controllers"!!

What will that do, outside radar coverage it just exposes the IFR aircraft to more risk.

Having flown in C over D for most of my career, I certainly feel safer outside of radar in C than E.

It ironical that you want safety brought to the lowest common factor ie the newly licenced week end flyer vs a professionally crewed RPT jet.

By the way, I don't hate your idol, I just share the contempt of him by the many professional people who lives he is playing with.
His dislike of professional aviators and controllers( who see through his schemes) is simply being returned to him.

[CaptainMidnight]

YCKT .... and more controllers. So where's the problem with that ... It won't contribute to saving $70M/year, which was the main factor Smith used to justify NAS.

You will find (verified by a recent poll I think) that 98% of us here believe airspace reform is a good thing - provided
it has demonstratable safety & cost benefits AND
is supported by the industry
is subject to thorough safety analysis AND
has widespread industry support, not one individual or group attempting to steamroll their wishes on others and exercising influence on the government to get their way.

[YCKT]

Dog1

He isn't my idol, but D-C-A airspace seems upside down to me.

I have flown extensively in the US where the pilots and controllers are just as professional as here, they don't have a problem with NAS-like airspace, why do you?

As for 'professional' I have in 25 years of aviation come accross thoroughly professional PPLs and absolutely unprofessional ATPLs and even Senior Captains (one of whom thought Sydney-Cairns was a 'six pack trip').

That statement itself questions your ability to rationalise without emotional clap trap.

[tobzalp]

This argument has gone a full 180. The NAS brigade were all for less controllers and more freedoms. With the actual end state of NAS there will be more E therefore more controllers and on the way more Radar for the user to pay for. These idiots get all they deserve. I thank Dick Smith and the supporters of NAS for strengthening the security of my job as an Air Traffic Controller.

[YCKT]

Hmmm

Violently in agreement with Smith.

Are you sure your pro-Smith-ism wot get you banned tobzalp

ooops, sorry, you re one of the 'protected species' silly me :E

[ferris]

YCKT
Where is CAGRO end state NAS. That statement is unfounded So, you don't even understand the end-state of the model you are happy with? Sums up your, and many other, pro-NAS people's position.

Suggest you do some reading.
Characteristic...
6. Encouragement of US-Style Unicoms.
30. Removal of en-route Directed Traffic Information.

Read Dick's own words on this forum, over and over (do a search).
He believes that Unicoms (we call them CAGROs in oz) are
free , because regional airlines (who are their main users) will have to provide them as part of their operating responsibility. Dick, after having flown in the US, thinks they are a great idea. Trouble is, he doesn't realise there is a slight difference in the volumes of regional traffic to support such infrastructure. In the same way that he thinks Flight Following is a great idea in the US. Just doesn't understand that they have a lot more infrastructure over there (radar, small sector sizes, many more controllers per square mile etc.) to support such things.

Then go and read the Willoughby report. It describes how the 'savings' from intrducing NAS come from such things as not providing any services to low-level aircraft, removing the HF system etc. etc.

How does a VFR aircraft receive any service in non-radar E? After all, the great majority of the E will be non-radar. How does an IFR receive any valuable service after it leaves the E? Or after it commences an approach? CAGROs (sorry, unicoms) in West Woop Woop don't have too many radars.

Perhaps if you removed your Dick-colored glasses and simply trawled thru the masses of NAS threads on here, then made a decision based on facts instead of Dick's fantasies, contradictions and 'spin', you might save a few of us repeating ourselves over and over, and understand the anti-Dick sentiment. Is it just possible, even remotely, that he tells whoever he is talking at (including yourself), exactly what they want to hear?
He has, after all, on this forum and in the media, called for
-less controllers
-more controllers
-less control exercised by controllers
-more responsibility to be exercised by controllers
-more safety
-more affordable safety
-more flexibility at the expense of safety
-more safety dollars spent in certain areas, but less overall safety dollars
-larger areas of controlled airspace
-less control in controlled airspace
-less waste in air traffic management
-more money spent on radars in regional areas and other things previously not needed
-less control towers
-more control towers (including radar approach units)
-privatisation of air traffic services
-air traffic services act less like businesses
-air traffic managers cease being paid like managers in private enterprise
-controllers should become privateers (business owners)
-removal of monetary incentives for air traffic service providers
-NAS will save $70 million dollars
-NAS has cost an extra $100 million dollars plus (Dick's own words)

and many other contradictions.

The final chestnutI have flown extensively in the US where the pilots and controllers are just as professional as here, they don't have a problem with NAS-like airspace, why do you? Re-read the NAS threads (as, clearly, you haven't) by doing a search. Come back in a few weeks, and see if you still need to ask that question.

[Obiwan]

Dickcheese I thought CPL was possible for the colour blind after the work done by Arthur Pape in this area?

http://www.aopa.com.au/infocentre/topicdocuments/colourvision.pdf

[Dickcheese]

In response to comments from our esteemed moderator to which I agree :O, I have removed my previous post that made reference to individuals suffering from colour blindness being unable to obtain a CPL. I found the article of Dr Pape's very informative.

[Woomera]

Thank you sir.

As an aside;
A good friend of mine went all the way through the Navy to earn a Brass Hat, Watchkeeping and Navigators ticket and all including his own ship, now retired, having not found out that he was color blind until he applied and was refused a Student Pilots License on that basis.:D
They never found out and he never got close to hitting anything either.

[triadic]

Yes, there is a need for airspace reform - I think most of us agree on that one.

However no matter how good the US-NAS might be you just can't import it across the Pacific and expect it to work.... UNLESS you also import the culture that goes with it.

The only way that there is any chance of importing that culture is to drown the industry in education and training, big time. And that project will take at least five years given previous attempts to process change in Oz.

None of the government agencies in this deal have shown any understanding on the amount of education needed, most likely due to the view that "it's not in my budget".

Airspace changes are like any other change management program and must be managed like one. To date, it has not!

[VVS Laxman]

Triadic,

Absolutely spot on, not in my budget and poorly managed change processes.

We need a long term plan and then work out how you achieve it with the minimum amount of steps, but steps that do not degrade the current saftey environment; NAS2b took much more away than it gave, that's why it failed.

Dickcheese, heard same rumour, but now there are ways around that little problem. Some controllers lost their Class 3 when the lantern test was replaced by the isihara... But are still working on the basis that they passed the lantern test; then a series of others...

[YCKT]

I find myself in violent agreement with Triadic. the education program has been abysmal!!!

[tobzalp]

And who was responsible for the education for pilots...???

[SM4 Pirate]

This is the nature of the problem, CASA was doing X, ASA doing Y, NASIG doing Z... Pitty that ASA thought CASA was doing Y and CASA thought NASIG was doing X and NASIG was doing nothing... Did Z get done? Who paid for the training, the analysis, the changes? Not from my bucket philosophy... It all comes back to the ministers office... They gave too much of the reigns to the wrong group...

Where is one dollar in savings from NAS? Identify one ATC job better assigned to areas where risk determines that greatest need (or made redundant)?

[Dog One]

YCKT

Sorry for the delay in replying to your post, my laptop died whilst away from home.

Why do I have a problem with NAS type airspace changes, simple, the introduction into Australia was flawed from day one.
After 45 years of operating in all types of airspace in Australia, NAS to me was simply bloody dangerous. Sorry for the emotion, but I really think that to have E outside of radar coverage with heavy RPT aircraft expected to look out for light aircraft at a critical phase of flight was plain stupid. Why should I have to expose passengers to such a danger. It was interesting that Airservices quickly moved to put some radar into LT after the Virgin air miss.

In my opinion passengers were safer in land transport than air transport. Australia has a much respected safety record, so why should we ape the US system and reduce our safety margins for no real gains in cost savings.

Do you really believe that E outside of radar is a safe operating environment for RPT aircraft?

[Lodown]

You can do all the education you like, but if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck and smells like a duck...then it's still a duck.