Australian airspace unsafe [Archive]

Dick Smith

1st Dec 2005, 07:23

bob_bowne, I agree in flying in enroute airspace at the flight levels and also into our major airports we have stock standard international airspace. You may not realise that we have 170 passenger jet aircraft flying into uncontrolled airspace where the pilots ‘call in the blind’ to arrange their own separation – even when in radar coverage.

I suggest you have a look at the link to the Unsafe Skies presentation (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/book/) and study it carefully before the Airservices Australia people have this thread deleted.

Many people in Australia don’t want the international community to know just how backward we are when it comes to low level airspace. Bob, I think you would agree that 24 fatalities from professional flight crews in 13 months, all in Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents, is a pretty sad record.

Capt Claret

1st Dec 2005, 07:55

Dick,

Why your obsession with Proserpine?

What about the 150+ seat jets that fly into AYQ (YAYE) without radar?

Radar would be lovely but unlikely. It's quite safe because we have a sound system in place. One where directed traffic is given.

The problems occur when you push your VFR no radio/don't talk system, so that we can't be reasonably sure we know where all the traffic is.

Sheesh. :* :ugh: :{

ThrillHouse

1st Dec 2005, 08:49

It is his way or the highway

http://users.bigpond.net.au/plazbot/dick2.jpg

and this is what he thinks of those that disagree with him

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

My favourite part was when he thought he would point out that Proserpine had no tower but actually presided over the comitee that made it disappear. Nice work.

blueloo

1st Dec 2005, 09:04

Dick, I am just watching this is your life.......... dont suppose you stood up for the pilots at QF, who along with the Engineers have made it a fairly good airline.... all I have seen so far is management basking in the Glory of QFs reputation.

2b2

1st Dec 2005, 09:12

and study it carefully before the Airservices Australia people have this thread deleted.

Are these the same people responsible for that journo ringing?

Or maybe the Unions are responsible this time.

Do you hear voices too?

Sick Squid

1st Dec 2005, 09:47

Airservices Australia, nor anyone else will not have this thread deleted, that is not how this site runs. We've adopted a deliberate editorial policy to let the debate on Australian airspace reform run in here when it arises as well as in D and G, in parallel if necessary, to raise awareness of the issue amongst pilots the World over.

Lose the personal attacks please, if you must address something Mr Smith has written or spoken about then please do so by addressing the argument only, and keep any references to past issues respectful and relevant. D and G is a bit looser editorially, (it has to be or it would end up like herding cats!) but keep this one on track please.

Squid

cradle mountain

1st Dec 2005, 10:01

Mr Smith claims that 15 people died in a CFIT that could have been prevented with radar. What he doesn't tell you is that the aircraft these poor people were flying in was not covered by radar, like much of the Australian continent.

His claims are based onhalf truths.

Uncommon Sense

1st Dec 2005, 10:18

http://www.civilair.asn.au/bulletins/otherdocs/ds_nov_05_pn.gif
[img]

Woomera

1st Dec 2005, 10:21

Sick Squid

Thanks for that, :ok: neither has there been nor would there be any attempt by the people at Airservices Australia to apply any influence for or against on the PPRuNe Dunnunda and Godzone Forum either.

Mr Smiths suggestion that they could or would is totally unfounded, untrue, scurrilous, mischievous and would in my Forum be challenged if not deleted and the poster banned.

He skates on very thin ice.

I would also draw PPRuNers attention to the Air Safety Alert by the Voices of Reason, published here which provides a proper balance to the matters involved.

I have also posted a warning in regard to the following of links in general from PPRuNe.

Australian Airspace is NOT unsafe.

It may have had the potential to be so, had not the industry and airspace experts with some encouragement from PPRuNers, not acted to directly mitigate and divert the latest planned 2c implementation based on dodgy ideology and a spurious safety case driven by Mr Smith and his cohort.
The changes refferred to above took the form of a 52 page AIP Supplement H51/05 to correct and clarify the originally published and disseminated documents.

Cheers
Woomera

Col. Walter E. Kurtz

1st Dec 2005, 11:08

Run a poll on here and see how many Australian PROFESSIONAL pilots believe that Australian Airspace is dangerous.

blueloo

1st Dec 2005, 11:45

Generally speaking it is safe, its just unfortunate that noise control at major airports takes priority over safety and common sense, and that at MBZ/CTAF(R)s we have big jets mixing it with bug smashers with no appropriate radar.

Radar will be implemented at these various locations after a media beat up with a near miss or actual mid-air. Its the only way it will occur, this was demonstrated in Launceston. The blatantly obvious accidents to be, are only acted upon as an after event.

I am not sure if its Dicks doing, but he certainly doesnt appear to be campaigning for radar implementation or possibly the next best thing ADS-B.

pilotdude09

1st Dec 2005, 13:36

"Blue: did you do a flight into an MBZ bob, sorry I mean CTAF-R? such as Ayres Rock or Karratha, with a combination of jets and lighties visually seperating themselves?"

Yes i have behind a 717 and 737 makes for an interesting flight let me tell you that, having done a go around just last week in a 172!!
cheers

chevvron

1st Dec 2005, 17:47

It would help us in the UK to understand the problem if you told us what class of airspace you have around these non-radar airports.
In the UK we have many IFR airports both with and without radar in Class G airspace, whilst in the US, I understand all IFR airports get 5nm radius class D.

Capt Claret

1st Dec 2005, 20:48

Chevvron, the system changed last week and I've only looked at the bits I'm using at present but, we have Class A from either F180 or F245 and above depending on radar availability I think.

Below A, is usually Class C leading into Class D or Class C control zones with E underlying the C and G underlying that; or Class E leading into G

Leading into non-towered Class G aerodromes is usually a layer of Class E from F245 to F180.

Along the J Curve (Cairns down the east coast to Adelaide) there's Class E below C down to about A085 (8500' AMSL [our flight levels start at F110]).

To give some examples; Mackay (YBMK) is a Class D towered aerodrome 22125-1100z daily. Outside these hours the tower closes and airspace up to A045 is reclassified Class G. BN centre has one on radar from about circuit height.

Alice Springs (YBAS) has no radar within cooee (a bloody long way). It has Class C steps with E underlying, running into a Class D tower zone, which gets reclassified Class G when the tower is closed at night. It is possible to avoid Class E (non radar) and descend wholly in A/C/D.

Ayers Rock (YAYE), has Class G Airspace to F180, E from F180 to F245 then A. It also has a CAGRO, Certified Air Ground Radio Operator, who provides known traffic info, weather at the field, and the like. S/He doesn't provide a separation service, it's info only.

Dick Smith

1st Dec 2005, 20:51

Chevvron, you ask

It would help us in the UK to understand the problem if you told us what class of airspace you have around these non-radar airports. That is exactly what my presentation explains. Here is a link to the book http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/book/ We have jet airline aircraft in good radar coverage using a ‘do it yourself’ separation system when in cloud and not being able to make use of the radar.

The Government decided to go ahead with the US NAS system, which is one of the best airspace systems in the world, but for some extraordinary reason the air traffic controllers’ union (Civil Air) have run a campaign against this.

The claim is that we do not have as much radar in Australia. That is obvious, but why not use the radar properly where we have it? That is between Tasmania and Cairns – i.e. the same distance as from London to Istanbul.

I ask all professional pilots to have an open mind and read the presentation, then possibly give some advice to Australian professional pilots on how the airspace could be better utilised to prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents.

I do agree that in the UK you have a lot of uncontrolled airspace, however you use the radar correctly when IFR aircraft are in cloud.

Note how my opponents attack me personally but do not comment on my ‘Unsafe Skies’ presentation – even when professional pilots inadvertently killed 24 people in Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents in a 13 month period.

ThrillHouse

1st Dec 2005, 23:09

Dick Smith, could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response.

Chippie Chappie

1st Dec 2005, 23:58

Dick Smith said:

We have jet airline aircraft in good radar coverage using a ‘do it yourself’ separation system when in cloud and not being able to make use of the radar.

Wasn't it your system introducing Class E that could potentially put a passenger loaded 737 and a Cessna 172 in the same piece of sky without being seperated by ATC?:confused:

BTW, other people have some good ideas (that are different from yours) about how to do things.

Cheers,

Chips

Dick Smith

2nd Dec 2005, 00:37

ThrillHouse, you ask:

could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response. The British pilots who read my presentation (Chapter 14 Cape York crash – 15 dead – local radio operator hijacked.
You will not believe we have airline aircraft operating into airports completely calling in the blind with no radio operator on the ground. I understand that in the UK an airline aircraft cannot operate unless there is either a tower or a Certified Air/Ground Operator at the airport. This is just commonsense.

The book clearly covers the serious Qantas incident, where 87 people went to within a hair’s breadth of losing their lives because the radar was not used properly.

British professional pilots will be amazed that every time I say we should use the radar coverage we’ve got to maximise safety, some Aussie pilot comes up and says, “But because we have areas without radar, that means we shouldn’t use it anywhere!”

Uncommon Sense

2nd Dec 2005, 01:21

I have to agree.

It is amazing.

I am absolutely dumbfounded.

At the hypocrisy.

Of Dick Smith.

ThrillHouse

2nd Dec 2005, 01:46

Dick Smith could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response. I await your answer as you quoted my words but did not respond.

Supplementary question, how exactly is a CAGRO responsible for terrain clearance and what part of the GPS approach do they monitor and using what equipment? Exactly in what way would a CAGRO have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response.

CaptainMidnight

2nd Dec 2005, 01:55

For our overseas readers, I will try to clarify this "calling in the blind" smokescreen.

In Australia the class of airspace and thus service provided in the vicinity of an aerodrome is dictated by the level of traffic movements.

Light traffic = class G airspace, may or may not have a UNICOM staffed part-time by possibly a baggie or refueller.
higher traffic = class G & Certified Air Ground Radio Service (full traffic information and WX service provided by a trained officer; a significantly higher service than UNICOM)
higher again = class D airspace and ATC Tower
highest = class C airspace and ATC Tower
The much-quoted Proserpine has 4 RPT movements/day (normally the same aircraft going in & out), and few if any locally based traffic. Therefore it and a number of other similar locations do not justify an ATC tower or a higher class of airspace, and if they were unsafe the airlines concerned would not operate in there.

It is also interesting to note that Mr. Smith was Chairman of the Board of the then Civil Aviation Authority, when a review of ATC Towers was ordered, and as a result closed Proserpine tower. Mention is also made in the presentation of the tower cab secretly hidden from view in the bush. The fact is that sometime after the tower closed in the early 1990's, it was dismantled and donated to the local motorcross club for their use - so that is why it is away in the bush :D

Also in enroute class G airspace IFR are given a traffic service by ATC, separated within overlying class E airspace, and given traffic on observed VFR. Thus the calling in the blind and being left to their own devices is a furphy.

The impracticality of ATC closely monitoring flight path adherance of all aircraft in their airspace conducting instrument approaches to remote aerodromes while continuing to provide a service to the rest of their aircraft is lost on the gent, unfortunately.

20driver

2nd Dec 2005, 02:25

I'm a little lost in this debate but to clarify one point.
In the US there is scheduled service into non towered fields and some of these fields have are out of center radar coverage.
Massena New York, (MSS) is a case in point. You can legally have a plane, in IMC, executing the ILS while you have local traffic -legal in the pattern. Boston center radar will not get you below 2500. The only "service" so to speak is pilots on the UNICOM.
Most US fields and canadian fields do not have UNICOM operators providing information in my experience. (Only come across this once, the local air cadets at Lachute)
Also - there are a lot of towerd fields where the tower has no radar. We had a mid air at KCDW, night VMC, a few years back when the tower was operating.
20driver

Uncommon Sense

2nd Dec 2005, 03:21

Don't worry 20driver.

Dick will gloss over those finer points - he is only interested in exclamation points.

Dick Smith

2nd Dec 2005, 04:10

ThrillHouse, you ask:

could you explain exactly how Radar would have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As my Unsafe Skies presentation clearly shows, there is no radar at Lockhart River. That is not the issue here. The chapter on the Lockhart River crash clearly shows how a UNICOM on the ground may have prevented the accident.

ThrillHouse

2nd Dec 2005, 04:48

Supplementary question, how exactly is a CAGRO responsible for terrain clearance and what part of the GPS approach do they monitor and using what equipment? Exactly in what way would a CAGRO have been used to prevent the crash at Lockhart River? As this crash is responsible for the vast majority of the lives lost I expect you have quite a detailed response.

CaptainMidnight

2nd Dec 2005, 05:25

Dick Smith said: ..... Lockhart River crash clearly shows how a UNICOM on the ground may have prevented the accident As you were told previously when you stated this, it was reported that the AD operator called the aircraft repeatedly without contact. Keep trotting out the same old furphys to a new audience.

GPWS or EGPWS are somewhat more likely to prevent CFIT than a UNICOM.

OzExpat

2nd Dec 2005, 06:26

I understand that in the UK an airline aircraft cannot operate unless there is either a tower or a Certified Air/Ground Operator at the airport.
Considering the geography and dimensions of the UK in the context of the amount of airline air traffic at any given time, I think that Dick is yet again comparing apples with oranges. This debate should be about the Australian situation, the geography, the dimensions and the mix of traffic that occurs away from the J-curve. It's a different world.

fairweatherflyboy

2nd Dec 2005, 23:04

Why the hell is anyone talking about adding more radar ? ADS-B is the way of the future, particularly in remote areas of Australia. The sooner some of the old radar sites are dismantled and the money put into ADS-B the better off we will all be.

blueloo

3rd Dec 2005, 02:10

20driver - we are only just getting ILS installed at our major airports, even places like Melbourne still dont have ILS on all runways, and to have a CAT 2 or CAT 3 is a pipe dream indeed (although to be fair conditions rarely occur such that CAT2/3 is needed). There is no chance of an ILS at smaller non-towered aerodromes. In fact there is a good chance the only navaid is an ancient NDB. Its a little bit behind the times in certain places, and the government only spends money after an accident occurs.

HectorusRex

3rd Dec 2005, 05:10

How about ignoring this petulant egotist?
With nobody to argue with or to harangue he will hopefully disappear into a well deserved oblivion.

4SPOOLED

3rd Dec 2005, 06:08

Im very surprised Dick is still on this one. You have got to hand it to him, he is not discouraged easily, but i would have thought he would have given in by now.

Fair suck of the sauce bottle Dick, geez your like a little kid jumping up and down screaming for attention when anyone with half a brain and no common sense is completely ignoring you and your ignorance.

I suggest everyone else, read the Dick thread's merged in dununda to get a more informed factual opinion of this guy before coming to any final conclusions.

4S

cradle mountain

3rd Dec 2005, 06:28

Dick Smith repeatedly says that 87 people almost died when a Qantas 737 got a ground warning near Canberra.

What he doesn't say is that the national accident investigation body - the Australian Transport Safety Bureau - has described the event as serious but never life threatening as the 737 was turning away from the nearest peak when the warning alarm activated.

He also fails to mention that the pilot plugged in the wrong coords on the FMS leading to an incorrect holding pattern.

As for Lockahrt River - the pilot and f/o would have known they were in bad weather long before they were anywhere near the aerodrome. A unicom at the airport would have been stating the bleeding obvious to the flight crew.

None of Mr Smith's claims add up - as usual.

He has no credibility in Australia - I hear that less than 10 people turned up to one of his `we're all going to die forums' in Sydney - our biggest city.

suzywiggum

3rd Dec 2005, 07:08

People of PPrune - I draw your attention to paragraph three. This was from our second most powerful man last year. Mr Smith had predicted an imminent air disaster in Australia.

MEDIA RELEASE
The Hon John Anderson MP
Deputy Prime Minister
Minister for Transport and Regional Services
Leader of The Nationals
17 November 2004
A166/2004

NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM: COMMENTS BY DICK SMITH

Australia's skies are safe and will continue to be safe after 25 November, despite the comments today by Dick Smith.

On 25 November, Airservices Australia will carry out enhancements to the National Airspace System. They are the product of a lengthy period of analysis and consultation.

Mr Smith's claims are not supported by anyone with any credibility in the aviation sector. The major airlines, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) and Airservices Australia all disagree with his views.

On 2 November, I released a report from CASA about the enhancements. Its Chief Executive Officer, Bruce Byron, concluded that:

Based on the material presented to CASA, including the risk mitigation strategies proposed, I have no safety-related basis to object to the planned changes being implemented on 25 November 2004.

(...) any attempt to halt the planned changes would result in widespread confusion that would present unacceptable risks to the travelling public.

The process of airspace reform will continue in line with the Government's election commitments. The next stage of the NAS reforms will take effect next year, and I will shortly be introducing legislation to establish a separate airspace directorate.

I invited Dick Smith to join the airspace reform process to offer conceptual advice on a model for airspace reform. I thank him for his contribution. The reforms are now progressing well, and I have advised him that his role is at an end.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Media Contacts
Bill McKinley ( Minister Anderson's Office ) 02 6277 7680

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

URL: http://www.ministers.dotars.gov.au/ja/releases/2004/November/a166_2004.htm

one25six

3rd Dec 2005, 10:02

suzywiggum,

Unfortunate choice of source there - I don't think Anderson has/had much credibility in Aviation matters (or many others) either.

However, in his appreciation of Smith above, few would disagree. It's just a pity that JA didn't listen to the wide chorus of opinion expressing that before he gave Dick another go at the controls.

Woomera

3rd Dec 2005, 10:43

Hmmm. I'd be inclined to agree with one25six. That press release seems to be the solitary unique instance when Anderson may have got it right! :ok:

2b2

4th Dec 2005, 09:28

Mr Smith's claims are not supported by anyone with any credibility in the aviation sector.

just in case anyone missed that bit !:ok:

Spodman

10th Dec 2005, 00:27

study it carefully before the Airservices Australia people have this thread deleted. Keep taking the tablets dick, the voices will go away.

UNICOM on the ground may have prevented the accident Crap.

Why the hell is anyone talking about adding more radar ? ADS-B is the way of the future, particularly in remote areas of Australia... I think that is obvious to everybody, to the point the plan appears to be to subsidise its fitting to GA aircraft, but dick is fighting it. Voices again I suppose.

For somebody who wants to promote Australia as the flying training capital of the world your pitch is a blinding example of aimless farkwittery.

aviate1138

10th Dec 2005, 06:19

This Dick Smith - is he a pilot? His terminology is strange and he seems to be extremely fond of his own misguided opinions. He is of the 'Frankenstein Food, Global Warming' genre. Oh! and 'missing death by a hairs breadth' panic mongering breed of sub human.

Dick by name, "Dick" by nature, I would venture.

Radar apparently, solves all aviation safety problems so far encountered.

Australia is, thankfully in this instance, a long way from
the UK. :)

Aviate 1138

Dick Smith

11th Dec 2005, 23:03

Aviate1138, you ask if I am a pilot. You obviously have not read the Unsafe Skies presentation which this thread was about.

I am not an extremist and I do not believe that:

Radar apparently, solves all aviation safety problems so far encountered. My presentation clearly explains that if you have radar you may as well use it as an extra safety feature.

May I ask why you are commenting without at least reading the presentation? You will find there is a rational explanation of why we in Australia use a ‘do it yourself’ system aircraft to aircraft when in cloud, under good radar coverage, rather than use a radar separation service – at least to help prevent Controlled Flight Into Terrain accidents.

MrApproach

12th Dec 2005, 11:02

We, in Australia, do seem to have created a blind spot when it comes to the allocation of resources. We seem to happily provide world-class ATS services where there is a dollar to be made, but ignore the low level environment where there are no profits, but statistically the majority of accidents occur.

This was not an issue pre cost recovery because OCTA was used only by low performance aircraft. However there was an extensive network of Flight Service Units providing what are now known as Class F airspace services. In effect the Government provided an OCTA safety system, down to the surface, that was appropriate to the aircraft types operating.

After cost recovery this Class F system was dismantled and should have been replaced where IFR, and/or passenger services flew, with Class E/D/C services utilising radar where available. Class G would have filled in the blanks.

The Government, for whatever reason, chose not to let this happen, so what is left is a massive investment unbalance. Money is spent on en-route surveillance and control, where the Government through Airservices charges by weight and NM flown, and recieves a handsome dividend every year. Conversely there is an almost complete lack of investment in low level safety except for the existing, and now obselescently equipped, Class D towers, all of which lose money and detract from the handsome dividend. In this environment even what should be a required reaction from Airservices to traffic changes appears to have ceased. ie. Towers that should be closed are still open, and airports that should have towers are ignored.

What we are arguably left with is in some areas an OCTA (Class G) system that is no longer appropriate to the types of aircraft operating, exacerbated by a controlled airspace system imposed down to low levels, apparently without due regard for is happening underneath. eg Proserpine

Our replacement for what was an excellent though expensive Government provided Class F airspace system, is now a very cheap pilot operated Class G system.

Perhaps the international PPruners can help here because I believe that the Governments of the US and Britain still provide a low level safety system. In Britain there is a low level radar service, and instrument approaches are protected by control towers (For airline ops). In the US Class E airspace is provided down to instrument approach minimas for all IFR operations. Radar is used where it exists but I don't believe it is a pre-requisite for any type of operation. What the pilots do have in both environments is the assistance of ATC both in the provision of information and separation.

The question posed by this thread is whether an all-weather pilot organised separation service in Class G airspace without the assistance of ATC is safe or unsafe given Australia's traffic levels and mix? The answer is probably "it depends", but then that is why the cocktail of airspace classes and associated air and ground based tools has been developed. Personally I don't think we use them very intelligently. There is far too much opinion and far too little objective rule based planning.

Dick Smith

12th Dec 2005, 21:55

PPRuNers may be interested to know that there is some pretty strict censorship going on. I’m not quite sure why this is so.

Originally I placed a link to my air safety website and this was deleted. On the thread dated 12 December 2005 (at 00:03) I mentioned my air safety site. Within hours this mention was edited out of the text.

This air safety website contains some very important information for professional pilots.

Can anyone explain why any mention of it is removed? Is it to stop professional pilots from being properly informed?

I should also point out that I am now barred from editing my own posts – even if I make a typo.

The air safety site is not a commercial site, it is purely in the interest of air safety – particularly for airline pilots and passengers.

Jerricho

12th Dec 2005, 22:20

You know damn well why it was removed Mr Smith. You constantly referred to the number of "hits" your site was receiving to all and sundry in a vain effort to substantiate and support your megalomaniacal and downright sensationalist "presentation". And as per normal, you shout down or just plain ignore ANYONE who disagrees with you, including pilots who may very well have far more experience and knowledge than you. And the fact you constantly refer to your site as an "Air Saftey Website" is pure falacy............it is simply a collection of your ramblings and thoughts, which every one certainly is entitled to. However, claiming it a gospel certainly is not.

I'll repeat something Cradle Mountain posted earlier that should reinforce to those who don't know you:

He has no credibility in Australia - I hear that less than 10 people turned up to one of his `we're all going to die forums' in Sydney - our biggest city.

Dick Smith

12th Dec 2005, 23:40

Jerricho, even if what you state is true, what could possibly be wrong with allowing professional pilots to look at the site and make up their own minds?

I should also point out that many professional pilots contact me directly through the dicksmithflyer website to say that they appreciate what I am doing and they agree that Australia should maximise the use of radar and controlled airspace. Many of these professional pilots are concerned about the rising fatality rate in Australia and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance of an unnecessary airline accident.

For those that are interested, following is my abbreviated CV from the Unsafe Skies presentation. I think most will be able to see that I do have some experience.

Dick Smith learnt to fly in 1972 gaining his Command Instrument Rating in 1983. In 1991 he qualified for one of most specialised ratings of all, the approval to fly a jet aircraft as a single pilot.

Dick Smith has flown a total time of 8,500 hours including over 1,000 hours single pilot jet time. He has made five flights around the world as pilot in command. Each of these flights has succeeded on time and as scheduled because of meticulous planning and thorough risk management.

Dick Smith was appointed to the CAA Board in 1988 and was appointed its Chairman in 1990 by the then Prime Minister, Bob Hawke. As Chairman of the CAA, his Board and Management made major policy decisions including a change in direction to purchase a modern “Two Centre” radar based air traffic control system using a proven design. The decision was also made to move to an international airspace system.

Dick Smith was appointed the Chairman of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority by the Transport Minister, Mark Vaile, in 1997. After the Aviation Reform Group was dissolved by John Anderson in November 2004 he now has no formal position in relation to aviation reform.

Over a fifteen year period, Dick Smith has travelled the World and met with the leaders of air safety regulation in the USA, Canada, UK, New Zealand and France. During this time he has gained an extensive knowledge of airspace design.

He holds the United Kingdom’s Guild of Air Navigators Sword of Honour, the Australian Oswald Watt Medal and the United States Lindbergh Award. In 1999 he was awarded the Order of Australia for his service to the Australian aviation industry.

Dick Smith is genuinely concerned about aviation safety in Australia. He is also concerned that important air traffic reforms that were started by the Hawke Government in 1990 have not been completed.

Prepared by Max Hazelton OBE AM

Jerricho

13th Dec 2005, 00:23

Many of these professional pilots are concerned about the rising fatality rate in Australia and want to do everything they can to reduce the chance of an unnecessary airline accident.

And those who disagree with you.......remember calling people Un-Australian? Shouted at any journalists of late?

Sorry sorry, play the ball not the man. I notice once again you have responded to my post, yet have ignored the post from Cradle Mountain and others stating FACTS regarding some of the instances you have distorted in you sensationalist writings. What say you to them?

jben

13th Dec 2005, 11:18

Oh wow, man, like if we get all this radar coverage, then, like, everything, you know, will be like soooo safe, man.

I wouldn't blame the admins for editing your posts... it's fairly obviously advertising for something you're selling. Also, i'm fairly sure the Airservices Australia soldiers will be storming pprune in the UK to change your bizzare posts... *cough*

Do tell me how your plan will prevent CFIT incidents... I was having a look at the Flight Safety Foundation pages on CFIT (http://www.flightsafety.org/cfit5.html) and i'm not seeing well... anything... to support your claims. I'd leave flight safety to the professionals.

As for your dire predictions of aircraft crashes... well... that's sort of like some of the products you sell, isn't it? The smell, I mean.

Jerricho

13th Dec 2005, 22:33

......and once again he goes quiet. :rolleyes:

Brian Abraham

14th Dec 2005, 04:08

He has made five flights around the world as pilot in command. Each of these flights has succeeded on time and as scheduled because of meticulous planning and thorough risk management.

Dick,
A lad that accompanied you on one of these jaunts was of the opinion that it was he to whom it fell to do all the donkey work - customs, flight planning etc, etc. The way he tells it you and spouse rocked up when it was time to hit the start button and disappeared to hotel immediately the rotor stopped turning. Didn't get too much stick time either.

Jerricho

15th Dec 2005, 13:44

Back to the top just in case Mr Smith happens to be a busy person and hasn't had a chance to read the latest contributions.

Woomera

23rd Dec 2005, 02:05

Whilst I hesitate to bring this back to the top, the following are the official facts from the Australian Air Transport Safety Board, in response to Mr Smiths public statements in regard to Australian aviation fatalities, which should bring some closure this discussion.

Whilst this thread is related to Airspace directly, Mr Smith has been holding public meetings advertised and paid for by himself, at which amongst other matters he has been attempting to link the most recent accidents to the "failure" of Australian aviation to enthusiastically support Mr Smiths aviation reform and airspace design concepts.

Australian Air Transport Safety Board
MEDIA RELEASE
41
ATSB releases analysis of data on aviation fatalities and pilots from 1990 to 2005

22 December 2005

ATSB data and analysis released today refutes recent claims reported in the media that the commercial aviation fatal accident rate in Australia is increasing and that the number of aviation fatalities involving professional pilots in Australia over the last three years is very high compared with the years since 1990.

Australia still has the best international record in high capacity regular public transport (RPT) with no hull losses or fatal accidents involving passenger jet aircraft.

Even using the broadest definition of commercial aviation to include both RPT and General Aviation except for business/private and sport aviation, shows a significant decrease in the number of fatal accidents between 1990 and 2005 (Fig 1). Although there was an increase in fatal accidents and fatalities for commercial operations during 2005, 2004 was the lowest recorded for the period examined for each measure.

Using the broadest definition of professional pilot, the data show no significant trend in fatalities involving professional pilots from 1990 to 2005 but a significant decline in the fatal accident trend (Fig 2). Fatal accidents and fatalities involving professional pilots were much higher compared with private pilots in 1993, 1994 and 2000 than in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The gap (related to hours flown) is neither recent nor growing.

Between 1990 and 2004 (the last year for which activity data is available) commercial aviation operations recorded an average of 0.6 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown compared with an average of 2.4 fatal accidents per 100,000 hours flown for non-commercial operations.

There were four low capacity RPT fatal accidents involving 32 fatalities recorded in the ATSB database from 1990 to 2005 including a 1995 training accident in which there were no passengers on board. The other three low capacity RPT accidents were Monarch (1993), Whyalla (2000) and the recent accident at Lockhart River.

The ATSB found that the total number of fatal accidents and fatalities declined significantly in the period from 1990 to 2005. The largest number of fatal accidents (30) and fatalities (64) was recorded in 1990. The lowest number of fatal accidents (10 and 11) and fatalities (24 and 23) occurred in 2002 and 2004. In 2005 there was an increase in the number of fatal accidents and fatalities to 13 and 34 respectively compared with 2004. But the number of fatal accidents and fatalities reported in 2005 was below the annual average (20 and 40 respectively) for the 16-year period.

While any aviation fatality is a tragedy and we must never be complacent, the ATSB’s analysis show that the fatal accident rate for both commercial and non-commercial operations is very low and has declined significantly from 1990 to 2005.

Media Contact: George Nadal: Telephone 1800 020 616

Fulll report here:

Analysis of data on aviation fatalities and pilots from 1990 to 2005 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2005/pdf/analysis_fatal_trend.pdf)

Uncommon Sense

23rd Dec 2005, 05:13

Nice Work.

The ATSB forced to commit resources to a report that didn't need to be made because Dick starts creating mischief in the media - yet again.

Dick - wasn't it you complaining that the ATSB takes too long with their investigation reports?

Maybe it is because their resources are diverted to putting out the little spot fires that turn up wherever you tread?

Jerricho

23rd Dec 2005, 21:13

Thanks for that Wom. Sure makes for some interesting reading.

BTTT for the antip-crew.

HectorusRex

24th Dec 2005, 08:23

From Aero-News Network further evidence of Smith dicking the figures to suit himself, and scaring the travelling public.

ATSB Says Country's Aviation Record Safe

Fri, 23 Dec '05
Former CASA Chief Alleges Fatality Rates Have Spiked

Australia's aviation safety body has rebuked claims by former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chief Dick Smith that the country's skies have seen a sharp increase in the number of fatal accidents of late.

A new safety report issued Thursday by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau shows the country experienced 23 deaths from 11 accidents in 2004, far below the 64 fatalities from 30 accidents in 1990. Although the country has seen 13 accidents with fatalities this year -- resulting in 34 deaths, 15 of which were from one accident -- that rate is still far below the 1990 level.

The ATSB stated, though, the record did not mean the agency could rest on its laurels.

"We've all got to keep working terribly hard to maintain this great record," ATSB executive director Kym Bills said to the Daily Telegraph.

"There's been an element of luck as well as an element of a good safety system that has kept Australia's rate at or better than world practice," added Bills, "but a serious accident could change that very quickly and so there's absolutely no room for complacency."

The ATSB produced the report after Smith claimed earlier this month the number of aviation deaths involving commercial pilots had spiked since the early 1990s, citing figures taken from the ATSB website showing 24 fatalities in 1990 and 1993, compared to 78 between 2002 and 2005.

Mr. Bills said Smith's numbers were a misuse of official figures, and could potentially "alarm the public before Christmas".

"Normally Mr. Smith calls us or emails us and asks for data and we provide that on a regular basis," he added. "On this occasion in the last month or so he seems to have sourced the data himself and unfortunately there are a number of errors in the data that have been used and therefore the wrong conclusions have been drawn from the data."

Smith stands by his numbers, and accused the ATSB of focusing more on politics than aviation safety.

"The ATSB has been instructed and even threatened by the government to keep aviation safety out of the news and it has done that very effectively," said Smith. "The announcements are always done before Christmas in the silly season when Parliament is not in session."
FMI: www.atsb.gov.au

Uncommon Sense

24th Dec 2005, 09:43

The ATSB has been instructed and even threatened by the government to keep aviation safety out of the news and it has done that very effectively," said Smith. "The announcements are always done before Christmas in the silly season when Parliament is not in session."

Dick - if you really said that on the public record I hope they sue your arse off.

If you have got some proof - put up or shut t.f. up.

Your petty response has not (as usual) addressed the challenge made that you have your facts wrong. So do you admit you have your facts wrong? Or are they false as well under threat from the government (who are on holidays you say? What - do they have a summer duty roster of threat makers?)

It will be a happy new year for everyone if we don't hear your ridiculous comments for 12 months.

Ever thought about going in to Public Relations? For a sector you purport to champion, you sure portray a solid impression of someone intent on destroying Australias aviation reputation.