Qantas/Jetstar no calls at Avalon

[Dick Smith]

PPRuNers have no doubt seen the incident number 200702586 on the ATSB website (See Page 19 here (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2007/pdf/aws270607.pdf)), where in April this year a Qantas/Jetstar Airbus A320 departed Avalon with the incorrect CTAF frequency set.

It is pretty obvious that if a professional Airbus crew ended up taking off with an incorrect CTAF frequency set, even when there is a fully operating beep-back unit, we have real problems.

When Rob Lee, the former Director of BASI, looked into the CTAF issue with the Final Report on the Review of Characteristic 29, of the National Airspace System (NAS) Stage 2c dated 11 December 2006, he followed the Qantas recommendation that more mandatory calls should be introduced.

I find it interesting how professional air crews do not support US style UNICOMS (because they claim “They won’t work here,”) however they want even more mandatory calls.

Could I suggest that we introduce a new type of CTAF? Say, a “MMM” (for triple mandatory), or even a quadruple mandatory. That surely will make it safer. Yes, special quadruple mandatory airports are sure to solve the problem!

I’m joking of course, but I know that CASA people read this website – so I ask one of them to come on to tell us a little bit more about this April incident at Avalon. I’m sure they must have investigated it as it is a passenger airline issue, and departing with a radio set on the wrong frequency in a “calling in the blind” environment could sure be risky. From the look of it, the professional crew, with perhaps 160 passengers on board, was operating totally on unalerted see and avoid. I wonder if they were actually looking out – or did they presume (as many pilots appear to do) that no one answering in a mandatory radio environment means no one is there?

Can CASA advise what actually happened? No doubt they have interviewed the crew. Was it simply that the wrong frequency was selected and the beep-back calls were not listened to, or was there some other reason?

I’m sure when we have the explanation we can all learn from it. I find whatever error is made, I always think, “When will I do that?”

Maybe CASA could recommend that we look at installing UNICOMS or controlled airspace at these busy RPT airports.

[morning mungrel]

Sorry Dick, but they would not have been blind as you call it. Taxi call made on Radar, 135.7, any traffic, VFR or IFR would have been passed. Doesn't excuse the "finger problem" if it was such, but not quite the beat up you seem to insist.

[Condition lever]

Dick,

How about making it, heaven forbid, a Control Tower!!!
Then there would not be any question of the radio calls being made.

Listen, on another point, you have been making many many posts on this forum. When is something going to be done. A very good thread on cutting costs and non essential CASA requirements - but when are you actually going to do something.

I would prefer you spent less time at PPRUNE and more time "in the office" if you get my drift.

[VH DSJ]

Sorry Dick, but they would not have been blind as you call it. Taxi call made on Radar, 135.7, any traffic, VFR or IFR would have been passed. Doesn't excuse the "finger problem" if it was such, but not quite the beat up you seem to insist.

Errrmmm .. what about the poor old weekend warrior over flying Avalon in his C152 heading for Point Cook training area listening out on CTAF frequency after having done the right thing and making his call at the CTAF boundary?

The other issue here is of course a human factors one .. would a low hour C152 private pilot be apprehensive in calling an RPT Captain in an A320 and talking to him/her?

Avalon should be at the least, a Class D aerodrome, IMHO.

[blueloo]

Dick I have not seen any QANTAS A320s around. Is it QANTAS or JETSTAR that you refer to.

[Keg]

I have not seen any QANTAS A320s around.

You're just a few years early blueloo. Give it time! :E :ok:

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... did I mention CASR Part 71 :hmm:
.
.. so what do you reckon Dick ... should it be D or E :E
.
.
.
"....hey spock ..... its a trap ....
.
.... logically ..... you are right captain ... :ooh:
.
... helm .... reverse ... maximum warp :}
.
.... she canna tek anymore captain ... :eek:
.
... dam'd Clingon's ..... :\
.
... quite Captain .. quite :ugh: "
.
.
.
..... did I mention CASR Part 71 :E

[Avid Aviator]

Blueloo,
It's Jetstar, a member of the Qantas group, as we are reminded ad nauseum (so I'd agree with Dick on that aspect).
Dick,
What about ADS-B? Would have removed (or seriously mitigated) the risk! Maybe you should re-think your position on that one?
Cheers.

[SOPS]

I like the Control Tower idea....handy things really.:}

[speeeedy]

Dick,

It is Jetstar, not Qantas Airlines.

Different AOC, different aircraft, different management, different pilots, different experience levels, different training, different standards and the list goes on and on.

The only thing the same is the parent company…. Hardly relevant when it comes to operational issues.

If Melbourne Bitter tastes like crap (which I believe it does) I don’t start a thread saying “Penfolds Grange/Melbourne Bitter” is crap just because the parent company is the same.

[BeGoneTFN]

I wonder if ASA has the capacity to staff AV TWR?:oh:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Dick is currently on Melbourne radio explaining how the mystery airline (QantasJetstar) refuses to provide staff to man the control tower in order to save 50c a ticket.........

He is also claiming that the tower opens for all International & Qantas movements because Qantas pilots refuse to go there as a CTAF - bullsh*t.

At least Jon Faine is now asking him if he coined the phrase 'affordable safety' - and theres a bit of backpeddling going on.....

[VH-Cheer Up]

Dick on the radio - birdstrikes - how would having the tower manned reduce birdstrikes?

I agree with him that jet RPT movements should ideally have a manned tower.

Just not sure what frequency the birds are on...

[porch monkey]

DSJ, I think you missed MM's point. If there was a 152 there, the traffic would have been passed by radar, regardless of what the 152 driver was doing. Ergo, the A320 crew would have been aware of it. As for your 152 driver being to timid to speak up anyway, if that's the case, WTF was he/she doing in a CTAF(R) then?

[Dick Smith]

Morning mungrel, you seem to be supporting this situation where the tower is not manned. I wonder why? You state that a taxiing aircraft would be given traffic by Melbourne Radar on 135.7. Yes, that is the traffic present when the aircraft calls, but it could be up to 5 minutes between the taxi call and actual departure. In that time other aircraft could have appeared from below or outside radar coverage. That is why it is sensible to have at least a local radio operator to look out of the window and give traffic.

Condition lever, I understand that CASA is presently going through the list of the regulations that could be changed to remove unnecessary costs. There will be an answer on this within the next 4 or 5 weeks I understand.

Speeeedy, yes, I agree Jetstar is under a separate AOC but it is owned by Qantas and gives its profits to Qantas. Qantas has just made a billion dollars. Surely a small amount of that could be spent in manning the control tower at Avalon.

UnderneathTheRadar, I stand corrected regarding the tower being manned for Qantas maintenance flights. Imagine a 350 tonne 747 flying around OCTA calling in the blind – probably in cloud!

I did not back-pedal in relation to the question about affordable safety. I simply explained that affordable safety is a fact of life and I communicated that to the public. The amount of money that can be spent on air safety is limited by what the public can afford. Do you deny this? What is your view?

VH-Cheer Up, in relation to bird strikes, I’m told by air traffic controllers that in many cases the tower can advise the safety officer that there are birds at a particular location and the safety officer can get them removed. It sounds pretty logical to me.

[morning mungrel]

Wonder away, Dick. Whether the taxiing a/c takes 2 minutes or 5 minutes is irrelevant. 135.7 is available on the ground, and should any further traffic become obvious, then it is given as traffic. Also, the taxiing a/c is often asked "How long before departure?" Radar is simply looking at the big picture, and if there is traffic that MAY conflict in a couple of minutes, passes that traffic. Do I care one way or another if there is a tower, CAGRO or whatever at AV? Not really. How would someone looking out the window, as you put it, help? Can they see the future? Because they'd have to to see that traffic that is 5 minutes away, wouldn't they...
My point was your post implied that the A320 would not have been aware of any traffic, by virtue of them having "finger problems" That isn't the case.

No, I do not work for QF, Jetstar, or any other airline, or Linfox or ATC either, for that matter......

[dodgybrothers]

CAGRO do nothing but clog up the airwaves, regular operators in and out of Broome will agree. Its a tower or nothing as far as I'm concerned. What I find extraordinary about Avalon, is they have full time RFF but no tower!! Surely the risk of a collision would be greater than a fire!

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... a beep back is just as effective in determining correct freq selection!
... an automatic gas gun will do more to reduce/remove any bird hazard
.
... air traffic controllers have told you that too :E
.
... whats the game here Dick? ... DS Unicom PTY (partly) LTD ... or;
.
... another ANSP? ..... DS ATC PTY (not) LTD :hmm:

[UnderneathTheRadar]

350 tonne 747s flying around in the cloud are in the safest place possible - ain't going to hit anyone else there.

Calling 'in the blind' - I assume you mean on wrong frequency - is certainly an issue but beepback should mitigate that - if it didn't in one case then that is an issue for CASA.

As for affordable safety, I work in an industry where, in the UK a definintion of 3million pounds per life was the yardstick used to determine if a risk was to be mitigated against or not - thus allowing ALARP to be theoretically calculated. In the same industry in Australia there is no dollar cost applied and sometimes the engineering solutions are completely over the top for the risks being mitigated. Neither system is perfect but at least having a attempt to quantify when risks become untolerable makes for better decision making. But, and this is a big but, combining a financial word (affordable) with safety instantly grabs the attention of beancounters and puts commercial pressure on engineers and other technical people - and can be blinding to their managers who ultimately make decisions.

I accept that Avalon was still manned when you left CAA but you have to take responsibility for giving that organisation and it's children the link between $ and safety by talking about 'affordable safety'. You also closed other reigonal towers which again put the link between financial bottom lines and safety firmly in the minds of the powers-that-be. With that legacy, it was only a matter of time before Avalon suffered the same fate.

My personal (and uneducated) position is that Avalon is OK as is. Traffic from Melbourne Radar, beepback, TCAS and the rules cover the very short time frame that a RPT jet is in the 'danger area'. If you're so worried about bird strikes - give the safety officer the keys to the tower - although at Avalon, just driving to the base of the tower will give you as good a view as you need. Traffic that 'pops up' after the taxi call - is required to be on the radio and do you realisitically believe that a CA/GRS operator with binoculars will see everyone/everything on an unalerted see & avoid?

What you need to consider - and that idiot from Avalon airport who was on the radio after you confirmed - is you need to get your facts straight before shooting off your mouth. Make your campaigns by all means but when you make silly, incorrect statements that are easily shown to be wrong then your whole house of cards comes crashing down - thats why you get such a hard time on this forum. Because of that guy from Avalon attempting to claim that Melbourne CONTROLS Avalon which was quickly and easily disproved, the Melbourne public now believes that the airports are run by idiots who have are hiding a lot (although that probably helps your case and your consipiracy theory).

UTR

PS Spent last night doing airwork over Avalon - 1 Jetstar departure, 1 VFR chopper, 1 VFR lightie and 2 IFR lighties - no problems.

[Dick Smith]

UnderneathTheRadar, you state in relation to the CAA:

but you have to take responsibility for giving that organisation and it's children the link between $ and safety by talking about 'affordable safety'. The link always existed – it just wasn’t spoken about. Why do you think that the CAA always had different safety standards for aircraft of different passenger carrying capacity if that wasn’t based on affordable safety? Why do you think in the old days that towers were only provided at airports with a certain number of movements? Once again, it was based on affordable safety – which has always existed.

The difference was that I was open about the facts so we could then move to an objective criteria to allocate our finite resources. I’m very proud of that.

People understand that you get what you pay for when buying a car. Why shouldn’t they understand that it is exactly the same in aviation (and in fact just about everything else in this life)?

I agree that the Mount Macedon radar would be worthwhile if there was a transponder requirement at Avalon – which there is not. Any non-transponder equipped aircraft will be invisible to the radar. If you don’t want to support a tower or a UNICOM operator, then support a mandatory transponder requirement – all will add to safety.

Nothing I have said affects the main point – that is, we have an airport with one million passenger movements without any air traffic control. This does not exist anywhere else in the world. It would cost only 30 cents per head to put in a proper Class D tower with air traffic control. This would assist with the typical pilot errors that occur anywhere.

[Capn Bloggs]

CAGRO do nothing but clog up the airwaves, regular operators in and out of Broome will agree.

Well I don't, dodgy. I find the CAGRO is most helpful. What better than get all the traffic in one hit instead of a gazillion individual calls, some probably overtransmitted, as I talk to each aircraft?

Put a tower in there and not only will in cost you, it'll slow the whole place down significantly and unnecessarily.

Why don't you talk to the airport operators if you think the CAGRO has verbal diarrhoea?

1,000,000 pax a year at AVV? That deserves a tower. Sounds like Alan Joyce's influence is more than yours, Dick. That must be incredibly frustrating! :}

[UnderneathTheRadar]

The link always existed – it just wasn’t spoken about.

Of course it always existed - as I tried to say - all risks must be mitigated against some criteria and cost is part of it. My point is that by making a song and dance in public and to the pollies/accountants which allows them to see cost savings and justify them with your catchy phrase. You started the process and created the mindset.

Now - my other point - regarding making misleading/wrong statements just causing yourself grief is coming home to roost. The World Today has just reported that all QF movements require the tower manned and that Jetstar refuse to pay. As soon as ASA are smart enough to publically demonstrate that your facts are wrong then your whole arguement falls over. The conspiracy theory that the press won't listen to you is actually revealed as them feeling they've been used by you to push your own barrow so don't expect much air time next week. Comprende?

UTR

[QSK?]

Dick Smith:
....and departing with a radio set on the wrong frequency in a “calling in the blind” environment could sure be risky. From the look of it, the professional crew, with perhaps 160 passengers on board, was operating totally on unalerted see and avoid. Hey, weren't you the same guy that, in late 2005, foistered an airspace model on Australian pilots that relied heavily on unalerted see and avoid and then tried to convince us pilots it was safe because that's how the US does it? So, using your logic, what's the problem here?

Somebody, please hand me an aspro before I vomit.

[mikedelta]

Operations of Avalon tower were significantly reduced well before Jetstar commenced operations. At the time that Avalon tower operations were reduced, aircraft and pax movements could not justify the level of service provided.

Jetstar now operate significant aircraft and pax movements into the aerodrome. The level of service provided should reflect the nature of the operations. Whether it be a CTAF, CTAF(R), UNICOM, CA/GRS or Control Tower.

If you look at Airservices Australia website http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/reports/movements/finlytd06_07.pdf (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/reports/movements/finlytd06_07.pdf) regarding movements at Australian aerodromes for 2007 Financial Year Totals, as at MAY 2007, it does make you wonder what the total movements at Avalon aerodrome possibly are given the limited tower hours of operation. It is likely that the number of pax per aircraft into Avalon is greater than that of number of pax per aircraft operating into Mackay. Mackay tower operates 2125 – 1100 UTC daily.

Whilst I understand the establishment and disestablishment criteria for ATS differs there needs to be greater transparency in ongoing reviews in the provision of ATS.

Comments regarding that an ATC radar service provided at 4500’ above Avalon should negate the requirement for a tower are ignorant. Radar services are provided above Mackay at 4500’ during tower operations.

[Critical Reynolds No]

Tricky D must have some spare time on his hands at the moment with the Helo parked at Rosehill!!

[blueloo]

I think anywhere that a large RPT jet operates should be class C. We should have Radar (or rapidly implement ADS-B with mandatory use) at all aerodromes with regualr large RPT ops.

Places such as Avalon, Alice, Ayres Rock, Karratha, Kalg, Broome, Isa etc.

You can be guaranteed, if their is a mid air (with large RPT) at any of these places - the governement will finally react. A radar/ tower etc will be installed the next day. The blame game will begin. As with most things our government does (and QF for that matter) - everything is reactionary, as opposed to preventative and precautionary.

[SOPS]

I am really confused now...I thought Dick closed a lot of towers and FSU's...now he wants them back??? Why shut the things in the first place Dick????:ugh:

[SM4 Pirate]

Nothing I have said affects the main point – that is, we have an airport with one million passenger movements without any air traffic control. This does not exist anywhere else in the world. It would cost only 30 cents per head to put in a proper Class D tower with air traffic control. This would assist with the typical pilot errors that occur anywhere.

There are four or five threads that have turned into airspace, CASA vs ASA, QFA safety vs JST safety, NAS, Why have this here and that there arguments; Unfortunately this is becoming a bit blurred for a dumb bloke like me; after all I'm but a humble ATC.

I think the biggest problem here is that we don't have proper, establishment and de-establishment criteria in this country. From what I understand of the Draft PART 71; to be reworked and still more than 2 years away; is that it requires two box ticks based on historical data.

We have a concept of providing a safe system; but that system is probably only supported by historical data and historical levels of service.

The solutions for changing that are to confront that history with often emotional commentary and anecdotes and picking holes in the concepts or implementation processes which lead to (or led to) safety deficiencies; e.g the LT radar solution; plug that safety hole ASAP; despite the apparent need for that particular surveillance elsewhere.

CASA is now responsible for determining airspace classifications; Airservices and it's subsidiaries for the provision of service; excluding CAGRO/UNicom.

ASA is a profit making business, first, a safety service provider second. The charging regime, courtesy of ACCC and the airlines lining up against the provider; means that ASA providing a tower service = extra cost and 3/5th of bugga all extra revenue, assuming that the fire service already exists; the price regime means no 'location only' charges (probably); ie cost of the service here and there is the same, regardless of the actual cost difference in providing it.

If CASA says provide this (level of) service; then ASA must comply; but then can they say no based on lack of resources or lack of profit in it or lack of profit in it vs the increase in risk burden? i.e. take the YMAV situation; providing a D or GAAP (call it VFR D) for that matter TWR service would equal about $3.00 extra revenue per airframe; but the cost is much higher than that obviously; so why would ASA do it; the $100K 'gesture' wouldn't pay for one ATC, cause you have to factor in the on costs 40% or so above the wage the ATC earns; As for 30 cents a pax; based on what I would guess wrong by a factor of 5 at least?

JST etc. have said don't want ATC at YMAV; but why do they care (and it's not up to them, right?); the extra costs would be next to nothing; but I'm not into yield management.

I think it is a disgrace that you can have RPTs landing in G without a full service; but that doesn't equal no risk by having ATC or less risk in toto. In some circumstances ATC = increase risk; but generally (98% or so) less.

I believe that ADS-B out will reduce risk greatly; but that's nothing to do with TWRs; Providing surveillance for DTI is a huge benefit and reduces workload remarkably; I've got radar where I work and giving DTI traffic using the radar happens about 10 an hour and it means something; radar bearings/distances and height advice; IFR to IFR is really simple; remove the radar, remove the relevance IFR to IFR and remove the VFR interaction all together.

Yes I get that some VFRs are out there with TSPDRs in radar coverage; but this is much less risky than not surveillance at all.

So where too from here?

1) We need a real method for assessing risk.
2) We need realistic criteria for establishment/de-establishment of TWRs
3) We need realistic transparent CBA/risk assessment for airspace provision.
4) We need minimum levels of services for categories of RPTs
5) We need to be able to adapt, much more quickly than we currently do.
6) We need proper cost statements for service provision; ie not adding on NAVAIDS into the cost of providing ATC; especially if those aids already exist.
7) Historical data is flawed; consider it, but it's not everything on which to base service provision; things change.

Enough for now, SM4.

[werbil]

Relying on ML radar is fraught with risk as an aircraft flying in D or G including CTAF and CTAF(R) is not required to have a transponder fitted. :ugh: I believe ML radar will still get a primary paint as YMAV is within 50nm (hazy on the distance), but at what height is the aircraft? :confused:

I wouldn't use Hamilton Island as utopia from an air traffic perspective. The tower closes for lunch and in time for ATC to catch the boat home (most if not all ATC live on the mainland), and the hours change during the year. When the tower is closed the CTAF(R) frequency is different to the tower frequency. The beep back is very low powered and only works within about 4nm of the aerodrome. The ATIS is only available on the VOR and a lot of the local VFR aircraft don't have NAV receivers. It is not a radar environment so all separation is procedural. (Give me radar any day - at least with ADS-B there is a chance of getting it at YBHM)

How long would 100k staff a tower HJ? Wild stab in the dark 3 months maybe?

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

SM4 ... Werbil :ok:
.
Re: Risk asessment for the ADS-B proposal, I ask this
.
1. how do you quantify risk where data is not available OCTA outside the current veil?
.
2. what is the risk increase of fitment? .. is there in fact any?
.
3. if there is is a clear risk reduction, (as yet not fully quantifyable due variables in third party and or 'in' alerting) is a risk assessment required before hand given there is no negative?
.
4. If costs are contained (guaranteed, which they are not as yet) to neutral why is a full spectrum CBA for GA required beforehand?
.
5. If GNSS is provided to aircraft that do not currently have it, how is that quantifed in benefit, particualry if it provides the basis for TAWS and 'In' plug -in's?

[dodgybrothers]

bloggsy, you were always the odd one out. You're there for 30 minutes once a week, I was there for 15 years and I can tell you they did nothing to enhance safety, again, just clogged the airwaves. If Dick has changed his mind on where towers should be then I congratulate him, because Broome is like Avalon, it needs a tower for the amount of RPT movements and lighties in and out of the place.

[Capn Bloggs]

Dodgy,

you were always the odd one out. You're there for 30 minutes once a week,

And that's the point. The only reason the CAGRO is there is because of the RPT. No RPT, no CAGRO. You're on your own. I'm quite happy with the service (and the increased safety) they provide me and my 100+ punters. It's a good trade between safety and cost. Remember, you'll be paying for a tower as well as us.

[Piston_Broke]

Dodgy

TWR = delays/holding due ATC required to separate. Be careful what you wish for.

CAGRS = traffic info and everybody sorts themselves out.

[Dick Smith]

Piston Broke, you are actually stating what happens in relation to a tower in Australia. When we move to the US NAS Class D procedures, when in VMC and pilots use the system correctly, you basically get traffic and arrange your own separation (other than on the runway). It is an unbelievably efficient and quick system without any real delays.

The American controllers are the consummate professionals with really good procedures – which unfortunately our controllers don’t have here.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

.. you know thats not how D works!
.
.. and even if it did .. were you saying self arranged separation had nobs on it? :suspect:

[Capn Bloggs]

Sic him Dog! :} :ok:

Dick, what's all this about

you basically get traffic and arrange your own separation

Geez times have changed haven't they? Arranging own separation. Now there's a concept I'll have to consider. But hang on, AIP ENR 1.1 56.5 says:

Direct Pilot-to-Pilot dialogue should be avoided wherever possible"

Oh well, let's forget the arranging own separation bit.

Or does class D really mean "I'm Dick Smith, VFR, and I can do anything I want. Keep out of my way"? :=

That's exactly why AsA wisely employs full control techniques in a CTR (call it what you like): the RPT users (and the controller) don't have to do pretty step dances wondering what the VFR is going to do next. The VFR gets told, just like the rest of us, and the whole thing works quite smoothly. In a busy CTR, the last thing we all need is self-arranged "you do this, I'll do that, OK?".

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Yep .. and I reckon thats exactly why this specific issue of AV is being blown up in the media ..... HE WANTS IT or WANTS ANYONE ELSE (other than AsA) who is stupid enough to take it to do just that! :suspect:
.
.. predictable as the sun rising in the morning is our Tricky :hmm:
.
.. heres another prediction .... if that happens watch how much 'FREE' support they get so it looks cheap to run .... Where is that AMBITCHY mob nowdays ... :=
.
.. thats why he will not respond to SM4 or my queries re CASR Part 71 .... i.e. trigger doc for CBA Risk analysis (Aero study) to determine the appropriate level of service .... that would leave enough time for AsA to find bod's to run it properly!
.
... cunning as a cunning thing ...... not cunning enough though :suspect:

[werbil]

Scurvy.D.Dog, Dick Smith According to the AIP in D IFR is only separated from other IFR and special VFR -- the only separation requirement regarding VFR is for it to be passed as traffic. Before you jump on me SDD, I know ATC may restrict VFR operations to expedite IFR and/or manage traffic. Locally (YBHM D) IFR is always separated from VFR until traffic is sighted, dare I say more like the AIP suggests I should expect in C.

Capn Bloggs AIP 1.1 56 applies to aircraft in class G airspace. I am not aware of any documentation that discourages air to air exchange in D or C.

Werbil

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Evening Cobba,
.
No not gunna jump on ya cause you are right (as a service minimum)!
.
As I have explained in the past, VFR will often be 'separated' from IFR and other VFR to save Traffic infomation on the frequency and provide a reasonable certainty that ATC can prevent a collision (as written in the CASR MOS and MATS), if the proximities are OK it might be TI, it might be nothing ... depends on the disposition of the conflict pair.
.
Restricting VFR is not really the case, rather, using easy things like 500 or 1000ft vertical to provide player comfort for all concerned.
.
Are VFR and VFR pairs always separated ... no! ... and thats the thing with D, as a last line you must always look see (as you will hear all traffic) and avoid if necessary!
.
In C, we must separate IFR/VFR i.e no TI ... and segregate or provide TI VFR/VFR (ATC service by definition)
.
.. thats the way it is supposed to work :ooh: :} :E
.
re pilot to pilot
.
.. unless you receive TI or are otherwise concerned about other traffic in proximity there should be no need for pilot to pilot yakity yak .. thus it is not stipulated in AIP for D, C etc
.
Cheers
.
Quiet Unassuming Shy Dog :8 :} :E :ok:

[Spaz Modic]

Y'know - Over the years there's not a lot of Dick's mutterings with which I have agreed. A lot of us do recall Dick's rampant charge into public aviation and talking about "affordable safety".
Also remember him ranting about the AFAP during 1989, while around that time he was wearing his honorary QANTAS crap - er, I mean - cap.
Had he been a bit more savvy then he might not have had to make this an issue. As he pointed out to the loony lefty Fungus Faine on 774 the other day - QANTAS pilots can't hack it into Avalon unless the tower is manned.
But I do want to give Dick credit for sticking his hand up and participate with professional (and amateur) pilots in the forum here. After all, there is no more a professional pilot than an amateur wannabe, or wish I coodabeen.:O

PS. I see Dick thinks 594 posts are "only a few"

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Spaz .... I agree 1.000000.00000.00000% .... you gota give him 1.00000.000000.000000 outa 10 for tenacity :E

[Capn Bloggs]

Werbil,
You are correct, although my caustic post was directed at RHS who has vehemently opposed the concept of pilots talking to each other to generate an acceptable outcome which he is now advocating in post of today at 0815, not the specifics of the type of airspace.

Of course (and I assume you have experience in this mutual traffic concept), there is little point me in being told about a VFR and then trying to keep out of his way while still following ATC instructions. It just wouldn't work unless I had the ability to manoeuvre to keep out of his way or better arrange a plan to get us both to where we wanted to go with minimum inconvenience.

[werbil]

Scurvy.D.Dog

Given the extra services normally provided in D re VFR / IFR separation, I still don't get why we need 1,000ft / 1,500m clearance from cloud whilst it is D and are only required to be clear of cloud when it is G (such as when YBHM tower closes for lunch). It's the same airspace / topography / aircraft mix. Yes SVFR is available, but it is soooo restrictive - if under a low base (600') or not so low base (1400') procedural separation effectively only allows one aircraft in the zone at a time. Whilst IFR aircraft are about keep us out of the zone or separated from them, but with professional third party traffic information the VFR minima seem the wrong way around. :confused:

As I have stated before I'm quite happy with self segregating from other aircraft.:ok:

I agree there is very rarely a need to directly contact another aircraft for collision avoidance when TI provided - it's basic courtesy / respect / airmanship to avoid clogging the frequency. :)

Werbil

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

No worries,
.
In short, most of those type of IFR/VFR conflicts will be best resolved by dropping the IFR to just below the cloudbase to get them into visual conditons. This enables resolution of the conflict by:-
.
- The IFR sighting the VFR (DTI whilst still vertically separated) then descending through using (the IFR) pilot asigned Visual separation, or;
- The VFR sighting the IFR (DTI whislt still vertically separated) then descending through using (the VFR) pilot asigned Visual separation, or;
- The controller can get the IFR in sight, and has the VFR in sight, and can provide visual separation for the IFR descent through the VFR (using azimuth).
.
the 1,000ft rule generally means there is the required 1,000ft available to facilitate the visual separation solution below the cloudbase. Of course it does not always workout that way and the IFR can be in cloud at the lowest assignable, for example
.
-IFR assigned A030 not below the DME STEP's, and you are in VMC at A020
.
.... and bugga me if the cloubbase isn't 2,900ft on QNH ... we generally :E will always have a plan B just in case :ooh: :}
.
Generally in any arrival/departure/crossing transit type conflict the controller may (dependant on track, relative positions etc) use up to 3 different separation standards one after the other to continously reduce the actual distances between targets until a visual solution is achieved. Visual separation being the tightest of all as far as proximities go.
.
As for why clear of cloud in G ..... dunno .. I personally think that is daft becasue OCTA, IFR would want that breathing space below the CBase to get visual and get looking before they got up close and personal :E
.
Hope that helps ....
.
I'm off to the cot before me eyes fall out :zzz:
.
Nite all

[89 steps to heaven]

Werbil
Locally (YBHM D) IFR is always separated from VFR until traffic is sighted, dare I say more like the AIP suggests I should expect in C.
Class D conditions are the minimum you will receive in this type of airspace.

However the overriding function of ATC is to prevent collisions between aircraft and other aircraft, vehicles, terrain, etc, so if the controller believes that there is a high collision risk, a higher level of service can be provided. So a VFR, with IFR in the area might just get traffic, get a clearance that requires or allows a segregated flight path, or full separation.

As far as a class D Tower for all movements at Avalon, how about we get rid of location specific charging for ATS and return to a more sensible business model of network charging. Providing ATS at locations like Avalon, staff availability permitting, would then become less of a cost impost to all users.

[werbil]

ScurvyDDog,
I understand the benefits of the separation from cloud and agree with that when the weather allows changing level or altering track to maintain that distance. However at A020 with a base of A029 I am not complying with standard VMC requirements. In this case I have the option of changing level, but if the base is below A015 the only legal option is to obtain a SVFR clearance.

The problem I have with SVFR due distance from cloud at low level is that it requires separation from other SVFR aircraft, which in a zone (like YBHM) which has high VFR and very low IFR traffic density things close down really, really quickly. As I have stated before, I very happy to be procedurally separated from IFR or even wait outside of the zone in conditions like this. SVFR due visibility is a completely different kettle of fish - even in 8km visibility I am edgy and appreciate the positive separation. When the tower is closed I am comfortable arranging segregation with IFR aircrew directly (I know we are discouraged from talking to them, but IMHO it is far safer when both parties confirm segregation arrangements). In a busy terminal environment with a number of IFR aircraft in average weather I'd definitely prefer ATC.

IMHO VFR to VFR has only small variation in see and avoid risk irrespective of distance from cloud providing the flight visbility is the same. Obviously VFR to IFR is a completely different kettle of fish. Safety is absolutely critical, but one segment of aviation should not be overly restricted because of another.

89 Steps
I have not problem with network charging providing the level of service provided is based on an objective, measurable safety basis (NOT political reasons) and charges are based on the level of service provided, and reflect the level of service required by the aircraft.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

werbil
.
are you or ATC going to able to discern 100ft or feet difference in actual cloudbase ;)
.
SVFR is for the reason you suggest ... if the base is low enough to require a SVFR clearance, then full separation will be necessary anyway :ok:
.
I agree re network pricing LSP/user pays has cost industry a fortune!
.
I think it is more about a yappie Unicom .... even though he supported CA/GRS, he hates it now cause' he reckons it is for retired ATC's and FSO only .... which is bulldust ... but thats his view :rolleyes:
.
Agree with your comments re association cooperative approach .... the ball is in his court .... he won't serve though :hmm:

[Piston_Broke]

AV TWR = bad; traffic levels don't justify it, guys & gals sitting doing little to nothing most of the time, thus overly restrictive and not cost effective

UNICOM = bad; untrained unqualified person not able to give relevant directed traffic info or weather obs; even FAA does not include them in any risk mitigation hierarchy for airspace and traffic services

CA/GRS = good; trained person a.k.a. flight service in an AFIZ from years past, directed and specific traffic info, MEL requirement for facility, able to give met obs. cloud & vis & approved source QNH able to be used for lower inst app minima.

[werbil]

Scurvy.D.Dog,

If you remove IFR aircraft from the equation (ie procedurally), how does distance from cloud affect VFR to VFR collision risk? Low visibility does, distance from cloud does not as neither aircraft should be in cloud. :ugh:

I am all for SVFR being separated from IFR, but I have not yet seen a convincing argument that justifies SVFR to SVFR procedural separation due to lack of distance from cloud alone. When low level in G distance from cloud alone only concerns me if there are IFR aircraft about.

GAAP control zones operate with very high density VFR operations with a significant number of low time pilots. Yet VFR aircraft are only required to operate clear of cloud. :ok: Correct me if I am wrong, but it wont be the distance a VFR aircraft is from cloud that stresses ATC in a GAAP, it will be the density of traffic, the distance (or lack of) between aircraft, the ability of pilots to follow instructions and the ability of pilots to develop SA of other traffic.

Werbil

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

Sorry cobba I should have explained further:-
.
SVFR due Cbase is treated differently VFR/VFR than due Vis.
.
See AIP ENR 1.4 2 2.1 (and specifically 2.1.3 for D)
.
Cheers :(

[werbil]

Scurvy.D.Dog,

:mad: . :O:O:O - this makes a couple of dozens posts or so in this and other threads irrelevant. This comes back to your point about pilots understanding precisely what they can expect in the different classes of airspace.

:O:O:O
Werbil

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... not a drama :)

[mrdeux]

As he pointed out to the loony lefty Fungus Faine on 774 the other day - QANTAS pilots can't hack it into Avalon unless the tower is manned

Not correct.

[fatigueflyer]

Still don't understand how modern jet aircraft with nearly 200 people on board can be allowed to operate into uncontrolled airspace and aerodromes???? Flight safety concerns......just a bit! Not just Avalon, but Ballina, Maroochydore, Proserpine to name a few. Guess its something unique to Australia, just like its endangered species. Doesn't happen in the real world....outside Australia, that is. Safe flying comrades....and keep your eyes on that TCAS thingy in front of you!

[Dick Smith]

I think you will find this concerns some educated Aussie airline pilots however they have been threatened if they speak out.

The US NAS system does not have large jets flying around in less than class E approach airspace and class D terminal airspace.

I wonder how long we will get away with our system before there is a horrific accident?

Many pilots are obsessed with the lower collision risk "link" airspace and not so concerned about the higher risk airspace close to the airport - where, uniquely in the world, we rely on uncontrolled airspace with a "calling in the blind" "do it yourself " system.

Many airline pilots in Australia do not know where the risk is greatest so our airspace tends to be upside down.

Just look at Proserpine- large jets at the Aerodrome in G with C above in the lower risk link airspace.

[framer]

Aus is a bit funny like that. Surely if a destination has gone beyond turbo-prop rpt and needs a jet service then a tower can be justified. If it can't afford the tower it really can't afford the jet rpt??

[Dick Smith]

Framer, be careful using the word "afford" here. Aviation is supposed to be funded from a giant cargo cult plane in the sky.

But you are correct. A typical class D contract tower in the USA costs less than a dollar per passenger per landing- pretty good value for money I would say.

If CASA still kept the NAS FAA Establishment and Discontinuence formula we would have more class D towers. For some reason- probably trying to please the Airlines (after pressure through the Department)-CASA have invented their own safety study which is subjective and allows them to dial up any answer that appeases their masters, just look at Williamtown.

[nomorecatering]

Just curious. why does Albury have a tower and avalon doesnt?

[peuce]

For one thing, it's easier to CONTINUE a Tower than to START one.

[dodgybrothers]

the cagro services that are provided at some airports are a thinly veiled attempt to stave off the opening of a tower. While I applaud they attempts of the actual cagros, they have little authority and the the only real success they have is cluttering airwaves.

Questions I have and maybe Dick can answer: if avalon requires someone there 12 or 14 hours a day and the cagros are either atc or fso, whynot put the tower ntoto action?

Also who employees these guys and how are they charged out? In other words, I suspect that Linfox might employ them, charge the airlines or ASA fees and turn a profit while in the process resisting a tower and again putting profit before safety.

I hope its just me being a cynic but how many times do you see this going on?

[Dick Smith]

I have been calling for a Class D tower at Avalon for 3 years.

No airport I know of anywhere else in the world has over 1.5 m PAX per year with jet airline aircraft and no ATC.

Qantas has clearly done a deal with CASA on this.

And the pilots remain silent!

Manning the tower would cost less than 50 cents per pax.

[Vref+5]

Pilots that are willing to claim that putting ATC into places such as Broome and Avalon will only result in delays, and there will not be any benfits are absolutely mad. If airports are busy enough to warrant ATC then it is required. Pilots can not do a better job separating traffic in a busy environment, contrary to whatever they may believe. All they can do is to reduce separation standards (remember there are no separation standards in Class G) that would be otherwise have been applied. How close you get depends upon the comfort zone of one of them. If some are comfortable of flying in echelon left as Bloggs not doubt would have been years ago (not saying he does now in his 717), that is your separation.

Here is a quick scenario for you. 2 jets descending into a Class D at one location receive one separation standard. They turn around and both head up the coast to a second class D location. The controller here thinks that these two really don't need the full separation standards applied so he decides to half these standards in an attempt to expediate their approach. How would we as pilots react to this? Would we think it was acceptable or would we be up in arms about the incident? What is different then if these 2 jets were descending into Avalon in the second instance and the pilots then elect to self separate at distances of half the ATC standard?

I have just flown around Europe into class C and D airports, and am about to complete a lap of the US into class Cs and Ds also (NO they are not all in radar coverage, not that it matters because not all the VFRs have transponders). I experience very few delays at these places because if you are visual you call visual and you continue on a visual approach. The weather forecast for the US locations I'm going to is for snow showers, sleet and freezing rain, low viz and ceilings. There may be delays. Personally if I get delayed due traffic going into one of these airports with these weather conditions I am more than happy to wait because I'm just a little busy worrying about not turning into an ice cube or sliding off the end of the runway.

Why re-invent the wheel people? Let's learn from the rest of the world where places like Avalon would have a tower.

[Wizofoz]

I think you will find this concerns some educated Aussie airline pilots however they have been threatened if they speak out.


VERY serious allegation there Dick. Specify who has been threatened by whom and back it up with evidence, or stop making scurrilous, unsubstantiated allegations.

Also please turn in your membership to Australian Skeptic. You constantly employ the most horrendous logical fallacies in your arguments. All very well
exposing water douser's and homeopathy, but when someone fails to support YOUR point of view, the conspiracy theories just FLY out of the cupboard.

Not the actions of an otherwise seemingly intelligent man.....

[Dick Smith]

Wizofoz, quite simply their companies have been told that they must not speak directly to the media in relation to air safety. Why else do you believe that airline pilots who fly into Williamtown send me private messages saying how they support my stand, however they don’t lift up the phone and talk to Alan Jones or The 7.30 Report?

You then state:

You constantly employ the most horrendous logical fallacies in your arguments.

Can you give an example? I don’t believe there will be any. My beliefs in relation to aviation are based on objective factual evidence. If someone of a scientific bent shows that a particular issue is not scientifically based, I change my view.

So there is the challenge. How about giving us just one example?

[Wizofoz]

Sure,

You say:-

I think you will find this concerns some educated Aussie airline pilots however they have been threatened if they speak out.


and

Why else do you believe that airline pilots who fly into Williamtown send me private messages saying how they support my stand, however they don’t lift up the phone and talk to Alan Jones or The 7.30 Report?


Logical fallacy:- Substitution of co-relation with causation. Pilots don't want to talk on Alan Jones therefore they have been threatened.

I flew for a Major Australian Airline for twelve years. It was that companies policy (as has been the policy of the other four companies I've flown for in three different countries) to not discuss incidents that happened during that companies operations. It did not, could not, and would have been at risk of legal action if it had tried to, limit my right or ability to make public statements about the air safety system in general.

Give one ounce of proof for your claim that pilots have been "Threatened" (YOUR word) or join the queue withe the alien abductees and witch-doctors.

I've known Robin Beville-Anderson for twenty-plus years. Are you saying Qlink limited HIS public statements on air safety when the AF AP opposed YOUR airspace trial?

As I mentioned in an earlier post, you are also guilty of the Logical fallacy Argument by Verbosity- You go on and on, repeating the same arguments, wearing down opponents, without expanding your actual points at all.

Have you seen Brian Dunnings piece "Here be Dragons?". I suggest you have a look.

You believe in your stance so sincerely that when an army of supporters fail to show up to storm Parliament, you invent the Dragons of threatening bosses and inertia-invested unions, because the idea that people who know what they are talking about don't agree just doesn't fit into your lexicon.

[Dick Smith]

Airline pilots have said to me "dick, if I speak out and show support for you I will get the sack" or words to that effect.


May be the threat is implied and not actually stated.

Either way the result is the same.

Now do you want the names of the pilots concerned? Phone me if you do and I will see if they are prepared to talk to you.

By the way, if I am incorrect, and they have not been threatened, why do they not speak out?

Do you think it is because they are happy to fly into Williamtown at the riskiest time without ATC?

And why isn't Robin BA or his equivalent saying anything now?

[QSK?]

Dick:

Wizofoz stated:You constantly employ the most horrendous logical fallacies in your argumentsYou asked:Can you give an example? I don’t believe there will be any.Well I can help Wizofoz on that one. Try this.

You said on the Willytown thread:So all the GA planes with young families aboard, but without a transponder, that in the past have been able to transit the coastal lane on weekends will now be forced onto the inland lane where it's not possible to do a safe forced landing .Unfortunately, at the time you put this statement on PPrune, there was a NOTAM current that clearly indicated that the VFR coastal route near Willy was still open and available. So what you said on PPrune could, in fact, be construed a fallacy.

This is just one example of many others and I would love to present them here if I could afford the time to do so.

[Wizofoz]

May be the threat is implied and not actually stated.


Right. So MAYBE your original statement was at best an exaggeration, and you are now falling back on the conspiracy theorists favorite ploy:-

Nut job:- Did you know (Insert ridiculous claim here)

Skeptic:- Actually, that's not true because (insert reasoned argument here)

NJ:- Well, it doesn't matter because the conspiracy is true anyway.

I've had just this discussion with WTC nuts who came up with ridiculous statements regarding the aircraft used in the attacks.

And why isn't Robin BA or his equivalent saying anything now?

Logical fallacy AGAIN Absence of evidence being evidence of absence. None of the people involved in the Apollo cover up has come forward because they've been threatened!!

Perhaps RBA and co are quiet on this one because they don't agree with you!! (No, sorry, how could that possibly be.....)

[Dick Smith]

QSK, I was clearly referring to the situation which would exist during the RAAF break. That's what the Willy thread was about!

A pilot without a transponder equipped aircraft can now not fly the coastal lane.

Before the latest CASA changes a non transponder equipped aircraft could fly the lane on weekends.

Wizo, defend the indefensible if you want to- it's pretty clear that the pilots I have spoken to consider that they have been threatened.

And this has no similarity with any "apollo cover up" and you know it. This is a simple matter-no ATC at a very busy airport and not one airline pilot making a public statement in relation to safety - they just send private E mails to me .

[Wizofoz]

Dick,

So you will continue to state (or at least not retract the statement) that threats have been made (or was that implied, or was it "I wouldn't have called it a threat but..") without offering one iota of proof that such a threat, which would, by the way, be very much an illeagal act, has actually take place.

Factually argue your points on ATC all you want, but don't go around making accusations you can't back up.

[Dick Smith]

Wizo, you appear to be playing with words to protect someone. Do you think those in the know at the Wheat Board didn't speak up because they were all dishonest?

Most probably they did not speak up because they knew their jobs would be threatened

Why would it be any different in Aviation?

Or do you believe airline pilots do not speak up about Williamtown because they are happy with the situation?

[Wizofoz]

And here we go again!!

Logical Fallacy- Straw man. I disagree with you making unsubstantiated allegations so I must be protecting some mysterious third party.

Logical Fallacy:- False analogy- what the hell has the wheat board to do with this?

Dick, I PMed you with my name, current location and job. I haven't lived or flown (apart from flying in and out as part of my current job) in Australia since 2001. You will also note I have made no comment on the situation with Willy tower as I neither have the expertise, current experience or particular interest to comment.

What I took you up on was your making very serious allegations of a criminal nature without an iota of evidence. You have still failed to do so and have in fact pretty quickly backed away from the allegation (though neither retracted nor apologized for it) when asked to put up or shut up.

Dick, you have been in high ranking positions more than once with the ability to bring positive change to Australian Aviation. By and large you have failed to do so. Your positions in both CASA and Air Services ended in acrimony and division.

Why?

Perhaps having a look at how you handle criticism might be a start.

but OH! You're ALWAYS open to criticism!

Unless people don't come forward to support you (because they are being threatened) or don't support you airspace trial (because the unions are sabotaging it) or a US expert engages you in debate (but he's really just a diss-effected Air services guy) or I suggest you don't make unfounded allegations (in which case I'm protecting someone (actually, last time I disagreed with you, I was OBVIOUSLY Air Services Management!!))

Dick, your motives are fine (not that that means you are always right, but your heart is in the right place) but the way you engage people Who disagree with you seriously damages your ability to effect meaningful change.

Around 28 years ago, a young flying wannabe wrote a letter to one of his aviation heroes. The thoughtful reply you wrote was a treasured possession. Watching the way in which you dismiss and defame anyone who doesn't think you are right has been one of the biggest heartbreaks of my life.

[waren9]

Aside from the personalities here having a spat, is there anyone else here who is starting to get the feeling the couple of recent GA mid-airs are akin to a couple of minor lotto wins prior to some poor bastards (about an A320 load) collecting the jackpot?

You might not agree with how DS comes across, but I've gotta say I shake my head at a system that allows RPT jets into non-towered aerodromes.

It is a testament to the skill and diligence of the crews that operate into these places that the jackpot hasnt yet been claimed.

[Kangaroo Court]

Like your lottery analogy, I think it's got something to do with good luck as well. Just hope they don't roll snake eyes anytime soon.

By the way, I think in this case, Dick Smith is right on the money; although I don't always agree with him.

[Dick Smith]

Kangaroo, Thanks!

[Dick Smith]

Wizofoz, so we can move this important safety issue forward I will retract the statement in relation to pilots being threatened and apologise to you and others. Can I ask a different question?

Many pilots have emailed me stating their concerns for the proposal to operate Williamtown without ATC and have thanked me for my involvement. Would you know why these pilots have not spoken out about this?

Sending me a private message seems to be a strange way of addressing an important safety issue.

You state:

You will also note I have made no comment on the situation with Willy tower as I neither have the expertise, current experience or particular interest to comment.

Surely you could look at the two safety reports – especially the claim where CASA said as a safety mitigator they had published an article in AOPA magazine educating pilots on how to fly through the airspace when it was uncontrolled. As I pointed out, the article actually was about flying through the airspace when it was controlled – i.e. the actual safety mitigator claimed was not effective and not truthful.

You state:

…the way you engage people Who disagree with you seriously damages your ability to effect meaningful change.

I will accept that, but surely I then have to be able to talk to people to be able to understand the differences. Or are you suggesting that I should engage in debate with anonymous people on PPRuNe and then change my views because of this?

By the way, I am the same person who wrote the “thoughtful reply” some 28 years ago. All the best for Christmas.

[Tiberius]

Dick Smith you state:

Or are you suggesting that I should engage in debate with anonymous people on PPRuNe and then change my views because of this?

Yes, one should leave one's own views open to change if presented with verifiable evidence to the contrary, regardless of the source of that evidence.

[Kangaroo Court]

He already has, or can't you read? He's already apologised to somebody on this page to move an important safety discussion in a more forward direction.

Mr Smith,

Please go on, we are listening....

[Tiberius]

Kangaroo Court you state:

He's already apologised to somebody on this page to move an important safety discussion in a more forward direction.

Yes, and has then regressed to the usual rhetoric as evidenced by the qoute I highlighted. I won't accuse you of not being able to read, simply failing to do so.

[Dick Smith]

Kangaroo Court, I really need an answer to my question i.e. would you know why these pilots have not spoken out about this?

[Dick Smith]

Douglas, after NAS 2b started to bed in the number of incidents reduced to less than we had before in similar airspace.Why wouldn't this happen- the system works in the USA where Qantas flies every day.

One of the strongest supporters of NAS was Angus Houston, the current CDF. He had flown extensively in the USA and understood how the use of Radar is maximised to protect aircraft.

Was he wrong?

The reason I resigned from the CASA Board was because the Minister would not allow me to change the CEO. You can then hardly blame me for what then happened!

And what are your objections to the US NAS Airspace system? Is it the fact that all Airline aircraft operate in a minimum of Class E Controlled airspace?

Or could it be that the use of Radar is maximised?

Or the fact that they don't have reporting points for class D that channel all the aircraft into a place they will most likely collide?

Sad you and your colleagues have not learned how to use my skills like the farmers did.When I left the CASA board I started Dick Smith Foods.

Dick Smith Foods has turned over $327 million and employed lots of extra people , making tens of million profits for Aussie business owners, and has donated it's $4 million profit to dozens of good causes.

Imagine if I received support to use these skills to help Aussie aviation- something I really love!

At least the farmers liked what I was doing!

[Wizofoz]

Dick,

I acknowledge your retraction and thank you for it. Factual debate runs much better with facts, rather than unsubstantiated allegations.

Many pilots have emailed me stating their concerns for the proposal to operate Williamtown without ATC and have thanked me for my involvement. Would you know why these pilots have not spoken out about this?


No. If you wish to provide some verifiable evidence of why, then I will.

Sending me a private message seems to be a strange way of addressing an important safety issue.


I'm not addressing an important safety issue. It's not that I don't care, but as I'm based some 7000Nm away, there are things I care about more, and others (and I include you in this) closer, more directly involved and better qualified than me to comment.

I'm addressing the fact that a very well known man made very serious allegations without any evidence to back them up. If you had named an individual or company as having made specific threats to shut people up, either they would have been in danger of legal sanction or you would have made an actionable libel. The fact that you left it as some vague, "The authorities are out to get us" statement is the type of nonsense practiced by conspiracy theorists, and not worthy of someone who claims to be a prominent skeptic.


I will accept that, but surely I then have to be able to talk to people to be able to understand the differences. Or are you suggesting that I should engage in debate with anonymous people on PPRuNe and then change my views because of this?


As has been said above, is a factual statement or well reasoned opinion less factual or well reasoned because you don't know the authors name? I believe it is the fact that you find it hard to accept things said here at face value, and have a propensity to ascribe ulterior motive to anything said here that makes your participation in an anonymous forum problematic.

But it has been said to you many times that if you don't like the format, don't post here!!

Surely you could look at the two safety reports – especially the claim where CASA said as a safety mitigate they had published an article in AOPA magazine educating pilots on how to fly through the airspace when it was uncontrolled. As I pointed out, the article actually was about flying through the airspace when it was controlled – i.e. the actual safety mitigate claimed was not effective and not truthful.


A perfect example of a factual statement that adds to your argument, without resorting to allegations or personal statements.

Oh, and a quick comment on DS foods. When you started the venture, did you go out to the farms, tell the farmers how to drive a tractor, advise then what fertillizer to use or when to harvest? Did you run for president of the Farmers Association? Did you spend a lot of time saying "But farmers in the USA do it THIS way!!"

Or did you let professtionals get on with what they know, and use your obvious talents at marketing to sell the end product of there expertise?


I'm spending my first Christmas in Aus since 2002 this year!! Seasons greetings to you as well.

[Oriana]

Airlines get away with it because it is legal to do so.

Until CASA changes things to make a tower a legal requirement when operating RPT jets into airports, it will continue.

Have you considered that many pilots have actually made safety reports pertaining to the risks involved in taking RPT jets into CTAFs?

If the company directs you to take one of their birds to destination 'A' , then you take it - and do your best.

Otherwise, it's obvious that you won't be welcome back on the basis of picking and choosing your line destinations.

[Dick Smith]

Wizo, Dick Smith Foods was successful because I asked advice and then used commonsense to decide which advice was most likely to be correct.I then made decisions and showed leadership.

I have attempted to do the same in the aviation field. Problem is when I received conflicting advice I was abused by those whose advice I decided not to take. Often those people are the most vocal and most influential.

They scream loud and clear "Dick Smith takes no notice of advice" when they really mean that I chose not to support their particular view.

Airspace reform is a good example- I took advice from some of the most experienced people in the industry who had flown Internationally. Nearly all of the objections came from Aussie pilots who had never experienced the system we wanted to bring in.

Oriana, thanks for your support - not so much a threat from airline management- just "you won't be welcome back"

[Kangaroo Court]

Dick,

People don't "speak up" anymore because they have a pile of debt and are scared for their jobs..it's really that simple. "Trouble makers" can't get work.

[waren9]

............or a command.

:oh: