Merged: Affordable Safety - Or Unaffordable Accident?

[Dick Smith]

I notice the thread has been locked but there were very serious questions raised. Here are the answers.

Scurvy, an acceptable risk criteria will always look at cost – otherwise it runs the risk of “misallocating” the finite safety dollars that are available. Once you misallocate these dollars you get less safety. It is as simple as that.

Peuce, you have stated:

say we said we can't afford Air Traffic Control ... would the Government agree to get rid of it? Most certainly if the statement was factual. Have a look at Mount Isa. It did have an air traffic control tower and this was closed because it was a misallocation of the safety dollars. It is better to spend the $1.5 million per annum elsewhere because more lives could be saved.

It is exactly the same situation with rescue and fire fighting at secondary airports. This was closed and over $20 million has been saved. Some of this money went to building a new fire station at a better location at Coolangatta. This meant more passengers could be saved with the money spent.

[WELLCONCERNED]

Affordable Safety – Day or Night

Dick Smith raised a post yesterday, which seems to have been closed off perhaps a little too hastily – and I suspect that I might suffer the same fate – but I would like to respond – first flippantly – and then seriously.

First – the flippant responses.

Dick proposed that the Sun always rises in the east. In fact, to be absolutely correct, Dick, in relative terms [relative to our solar system, that is], the Sun doesn’t move at all – it is the Earth that rotates about its own axis, and around the Sun, causing the concepts of night and day and seasons. In truth, the Earth sets rather than the Sun rises.

Dick also proposed that night always follows day. Again a ‘minor’ factual inaccuracy [as you are prone to do often, Dick]. In fact, in most parts of the world, the calendar day begins at midnight, and ends at midnight 24 hours later. In most parts of the world, it is dark at midnight – hence we say it is night-time. So, in most parts of the world, night both precedes AND follows day – i.e., day is squeezed between two periods of night.

In some parts of the world – most notably the Middle East – the ‘day’ actually begins at sunset – so it may actually be tomorrow in the Middle East when it is still today in ‘western’ terms. Believe me, it can be confusing when you’re asked to a person’s home tomorrow night [which is actually tonight in western terms]. So, in the Middle East, night-time ALWAYS precedes day-time.

But enough of the flippancy.

To the main thrust of Dick’s post – affordable safety. Though I don’t have the exact references in front of me as I write, the numbers I’m about to quote are ball-park correct. According to IATA, and according to ICAO, and according to Eurocontrol, total aviation costs world-wide amount to around 2% of Global Gross Domestic Product [GGDP] – but contribute 8% of the world’s GGDP – that is, you get a 4 to 1 ‘bang for your buck’ from global aviation. So, if you are going to argue affordable safety, you need to look beyond the costs to aviation industry partners, and look at the beneficiaries of aviation services. The ability for people in Europe to give red roses to loved ones on St Valentine’s day doesn’t come from wonderful farming techniques in Belgium – it comes from the ability of large aircraft to carry flowers from South America. The ability to buy fresh unseasonal fruit and vegetables at any time of the year at any place in Australia comes from the ability of large aircraft to carry freight and cargo underneath fare-paying passengers. I could cite thousands of examples of the relative benefit versus cost of aviation, and the size of the ‘user’ community that should be investing in aviation safety. It is NOT just the aviation community that needs to invest in aviation safety – it is the entire beneficiary community – most often best represented by governments.

It is therefore not unreasonable to expect that governments will invest a lot more heavily in aviation infrastructure than immediately looks realistic from an aviation only point of view. They need to protect their economies, and where else do you get a 4 to 1 return on investment.

There is also the counter argument to affordable safety – and that is unaffordable accidents. Perhaps nowhere else is the spectre of an accident more haunting than in aviation – and perhaps nowhere else is an accident’s effect more immediately detrimental to the economy. Look at the huge downturns in the industry associated with major accidents, and major incidents, including 9/11, SARS, and so on.

To put this in simple terms - whilst people naturally don’t want to pay more than they have to for a service, they sure as hell don’t want to pay the consequences of not having paid just that little bit more. Look at what happened recently in a major Australian city. People complained about rising energy costs, so the energy provider cut back on investment in infrastructure. Customers were happy their bills were ‘under control’. Suddenly we had 3 days of soaring temperatures – blackouts across the city – 42 degrees and no a/c for a day – who screamed – the consumers.

I assure you we’d see the same response from the public if applying ‘affordable safety’ principles based on the ability of relatively small aviation community alone to pay resulted in an accident – or even a disruption in the supply chain.

Dick – I don’t think anyone has a problem with the [small ‘a’, small ‘s’] affordable safety concept that is used in most countries. Your concept of Affordable Safety just doesn’t recognise the ‘greater good’ of aviation.

[lowerlobe]

The trick of course is who makes these decisions and how much is too much and where then is the money to be spent....

In other words who decides what an acceptable risk is and where the line in the sand is drawn...

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

:suspect: ..... is there more than one WELLCONCERNED
.
:D re: the above post

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

EXACERY :ok:
.
... the decision is not Dick Smith's, MJBow, Scurvy.D.Dog's or any other individual
.
... notwitstanding Dick .. you avoided the thrust of my answer/question anyhow .... AGAIN
.
... MJ keep ya doe mate .... we know how they do the job .... suggest you fly some of them out here to see how we do the job :ok:
.
... then lets compare!!

[Dick Smith]

Lowerlobe, you state:

In other words who decides what an acceptable risk is and where the line in the sand is drawn... I personally don’t believe there is any such thing as “acceptable risk” when it comes to flying in airline aircraft. We all want a flight without any risk. What is forced on us is the reality of the amount of resources we have in reducing risk. Because those resources are limited by what we can afford, we then have risk forced on us.

Note that it is not so much that it is acceptable, it is simply what is forced on us by the reality that we only have limited resources.

[Dick Smith]

Wellconcerned, actually I don’t have a “concept” of affordable safety, I’m just stating that it is a truism.

What you seem to be mixed up with is that you think – erroneously – that I believe the people who pay for aviation safety should just be the people who benefit from this safety. That is not actually my belief. I would be quite delighted to have general taxpayers contributing towards air safety.

The problem is that the basic truism of affordable safety remains the same whether one poor person pays for it, whether Jamie Packer pays for it, or whether the whole community pays for it. That is, if you misallocate the resources you end up with less safety.

[WELLCONCERNED]

...and Mr Smith, you're missing my point. It's not about misallocation of resources - it's about ensuring there are adequate resources available in the first place to ensure that the returns from our aviation industry are protected and enhanced.

You attack the resource issue by saying that because there isn't enough, we should apportion what's left in a different manner - which appears to provide 'appropriate levels of safety', but which is, in fact, a smaoke and mirrors exercise.

IF you read the various threads on this site closely, you'll see that ATC staff are stretched, there is a shortage of skilled pilots, engineers, and other skilled aviation personnel, and there is a substantial focus on cost-cutting and profit-before-anything - all within the context of 'affordable safety'.

No, I'm not advocating wasting vast amounts of taxpayer - or even aviation sector - money on unjustifiable programs - but lets make sure we start from a point of understanding that recognises the value of aviation to this nation's security and economy - and then allocating an appropriate amount of resource to protect it.

Use your connections to lobby the Minister and government to provide resource in the first place - don't lobby them to re-allocate the already scarce resources we current have, to the detriment of our industry.

[mjbow2]

Scurvy D Dog




MJ keep ya doe mate .... we know how they do the job .... suggest you fly some of them out here to see how we do the job

They are not interested in our 1950's style airspace, however we are quite interested in theirs which is why NAS is a parliament approved government policy. It makes sense to find out how they make it work so well given their experience with managing competing interests in airspace use.

MJ

[Plazbot]

mjbow2, I suggest you do a bit more study into it. You may be surprised to find that they themselves are not so keen on the USNAS. It is not hard to find.

[Starts with P]

Dick,

Can you explain how affordable safety works when Qantas, SACL and even Airservices Australia ALL need to make a big profit?

[ferris]

Or can we have you lobby for the level of affordable safety that is available in the US? ie. funded by general revenue, and not as the residual of profit-taking by the govt?

Or once again, will you run for cover and go silent when this aspect of the super-duper 'US System" is mentioned?

mjbow....Dick....anyone?


I mentioned the charging regime, but I think I got away with it

[WELLCONCERNED]

Ferris et al,

Given the enormous benefit that derives from aviation, it's not unreasonable to expect the Government of Australia to fund the major parts of the infrastructure required to provide air traffic services across Australia, and to contract out the service provision [i.e., to give a company like Airservices the responsibility to operate the system].

If Airservices or others didn't have to worry about funding new equipment, or technologies, and only had to focus on provision of resources, then I suspect that the economic equations might be easier to manage.

This is effectively what happens in the US - FAA budgets for staff - but also requests separate funding direct from government for major infrastructure and associated upgrade.

So, part of the 4 to 1 cost benefit is provided to us by government as enabling infrastructure, and the parts that are funded by industry relate to service provision.

Unlike the 50's and 60's, though, any infrastructure decisions would have to be made within a framework of industry need, and global harmonisation.

[Dick Smith]

Ferris, I’m not against the US charging system - which is based on a ticket levy and fuel taxes, plus an amount from the general taxpayer. It is just that it is not going to happen here. Look at all the political parties – no one supports it.

I can’t see myself wasting time on something which is not achievable. Also, journalists will correctly point out that I am well off and all I’m trying to do is to get other people to subsidise my flying. I’m not against you attempting this, however I think it is going to be very difficult.

I am actually for moving ahead with doing things better – such as having the best airspace system possible, and aviation safety regulations which are modern and international harmonised without adding unnecessarily to costs.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

I can’t see myself wasting time on something which is not achievable. .... comon Dick, anything is achievable with unity! Also, journalists will correctly point out that I am well off and all I’m trying to do is to get other people to subsidise my flying. .... that is no different from arguing for a separation service that you can afford to pay for under LSP!
.
.... were you to support a system that make the cost affordable for the little bloke .... you would not be seen as you suggest! I’m not against you attempting this, however I think it is going to be very difficult. .... so why not help ..... bring the industry togther in this one goal!

[Chimbu chuckles]

The big problem with 'user pays' has always been that the 'user' is very narrowly and incorrectly defined for political purposes.

As I have said before, over and over, if every GA aircraft (say everything below Metros) disappeared tomorrow essentially nothing would change within the ATC system...it would still be needed in its current form.

If every aircraft above Metros disappeared tomorrow the entire ATC system would be redundant and have to be closed down.

So who is the real 'user'?

As wellconcerned suggested above it is the economy...society if you will. That being the case the ATC system should be funded as per the US model as the fairest way...but note the US airline management are trying VERY hard to change to the style of user pays system that we have...because it is about the only way left they can think of to gain unfair advantage by passing some of their costs on to the part of the industry that does not need the ATC system and bolster their year end bonuses.

We used to have DCA/DOTA/CAA...one Govt department funded from a mix of taxes (general revenue and fuel tax) and it was a system that basically worked quite well.

Now we have three Govt depts, CASA/AsA/ATSB, two of which are GBEs required to return a dividend (profit) to Govt.

Much like Dick's diurnal analogy above it is a simple fact that a beaurocracy's first loyalty is to itself...to get bigger and be more important....to look busy and justify their existence with ever more complicated rules and procedures that attract Lawyers to the mix in ever increasing numbers too...never a good thing.

'Yes Minister' was actually more a documentary than a comedy...and a prescient one at that.

It is also a simple fact that Australia's civil aviation industry CANNOT afford the grotesque overburden of beaurocrats we are currently burdened with.

We used to pay fuel tax and we still do...it's just called GST now rather than fuel tax. Nothing, charts etc, was ever free in the old days...we paid for everything but it was done in a fair and equitable way, or as fair as possible.

The only real way forward is to reduce the beaurocratic burden down to 1/3rd it current size, remove the profit motive from that reduced beaurocracy and fund it as the US model currently does by having a ticket tax on the end users of the ATC system...the passengers.

As to GA recognise it's essential importance to society as a training ground for future airline pilots and Engineers , 'high tech' Employer, provider of essential regional services and lastly recreational flying.

Recognise that the GST we pay on every liter of fuel, minute of labor and $ of capital MORE THAN covers the costs (way, WAY more than covers the costs) of GA's participation in the system.

You think aviation is booming now?

Do all the above and watch the resultant BOOM!!!

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Chuck your ears must have been burning. You forgot to mention as per a post from yonks ago that the GST component on a stateless industry goes to the states. Not one cent gets spent by the states on aviation infrastructure because it is a federal issue...money for jam.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

If you look at just a handful of aviation fatalities over the last couple of years. The loss of the Spud King , very very high income earning potential lost to the community(Easily in the $200mills) The Benalla crash (possibly as high as $200mill) and Hotham ($300mill) The individuals lost in these three crashes are a considerable loss to the gross product of this nation. Granted their companies may continue after their passing but what is lost to the families of those people. Dick How much is YOUR LIFE worth? How much are you insured for? People who fly in GA charter aircraft can be considered high value individuals Those three prangs may well have cost the community in excess of $300million in lost earnings.

LHR lost so many lives that even at the vehicle accident costs it exceeds $23mill. How much would it cost the Federal government to come to a deal with the Japanese government to get a WAAS signal from the MTSAT. How many prangs could be PREVENTED in the future by having a WAAS derived glideslope at every NPA. LHR HOT and BLA could quite possibly have never happened.

My intentions to draw a cost comparison here is to show affordable safety as a prevention doesn't work! Affordable safety only works as a cost recovery statistic. If money was spent these accidents may well have never happened. Aircraft accidents are not similar to auto accidents. Most all pilots have a skillset that make them resist flying into the unknown, this is to the benefit of the bean counters. Auto accidents are a statistical certainty. If you have a high speed train crossing a major highway at a crossing that doesn't have boom gates the odds are stacked that there will be an accident. How many accidents must happen before an overpass is built? How many fatalities? Aviation? We are all in the business of PREVENTION. Prevention saves money, Fatality COSTS money. Why is aviation industry prevention not funded to the same level as transport fatality outcomes?

Every aviation service was created AFTER a major fatal accident. Bean counters(the state) have been reducing the level of service to save money. They will keep cutting and cutting until there is a statistical possibility of a fatality occuring. Once this level is reached they will have their level of affordable safety. How much of this level of safety can be directly contributable to the skill of its operators despite the criminally low levels of safety provided for by the state?

That rogue futures trader a few years ago. The market in Japan showed it was about to collapse. The rogue trader was trying to protect a position . He singlehandedly (AND the bank funds he was using) propped up the Japanese economy despite the amount of money being bet that the jap market would fall over. How much skill in aviation is it going to take to keep supporting the market when the government is betting they can take out more money and services before an accident WILL happen.

AFFORDABLE SAFETY IS A CROC OF :mad:T!

How many skilled/savy people left the department all those years ago?
How many skilled/savy people would they have trained to replace them?

We may never know what might have been nor what it would have really cost in prevention of fatality.

[porch monkey]

While you may or may not be right about LHR or BLA, I don't think HOT is a good example for your WAAS. The circumstances and actions undertaken virtually guaranteed the result there sadly. WAAS or no WAAS

[mjbow2]

OZBUSDRIVER says

AFFORDABLE SAFETY IS A CROC OF T!

My intentions to draw a cost comparison here is to show affordable safety as a prevention doesn't work!


Aviation safety 20 years ago was affordable as it was being paid for. Aviation safety 10 years ago was affordable as it also was being paid for. Aviation safety today is affordable as it is being paid for.

All you Neocons decrying affordable safety as an untenable 'concept' already have it. Aviation safety is currently being paid for. Therefore by definition is affordable by the party paying for it! This is a fact, not an opinion or an idea.

You are so wound up in trying to appear to defeat anything that Dick Smith says that you cannot even see that you already have affordable safety right now. Everything for sale is either affordable or unaffordable. This is a fact. If you can grasp this simple fact you can then debate the real concept that Dick Smith is offering aviation here in Australia and that is a reallocation of how the aviation safety dollar is spent.

MJ

[OZBUSDRIVER]

porch monkey, I would hope that given a glideslope, even a cowboy would learn his place in space.

[werbil]

IMHO affordable safety is about spending the available safety $$$$ where it makes the biggest difference. I would rather $1 to be spent on something that reduces the risk by a factor of 10 than $1000 to be spent on something else that only reduces the risk by a factor of 5. (Even better spend the $1,001, but the point is there is only finite amount that can spent on safety so use it efficiently).

One very good aviation truism is "if you think safety is expensive try having an accident." Every person involved in aviation management needs to understand this implicitly.

I remember statements being made following deregulation of airlines in America that even thought the fatality rate per air passenger/km went up in the short term, it was offset by a much greater reduction in fatalities as people got off the roads (comparatively unsafe form of transport) and into the air (this may be an urban legend).

I think "affordable safety" is a poor description - "prioritized safety" is probably more appropriate.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

MJBOW2, you such an appologist for the guy you missed my argument altogether! We are stuck with "User-Pays" with no credit given for the monies taken out of aviation in the form of a GST. We have been lumbered with a police dis-service that must act as a tax collector to pay for their services that we cannot access through any other source (Competition?).

What I am trying to stress is that affordable safety is more attuned to tallying up road kill until it becomes economical to put that pedestrian overpass over that four line major highway through your town, than it is to maintain a service that prevents a possible accident BEFORE it happens. I just hope that all this TIBA is just union posturing because if there is a sudden shower of aluminium confetti caused by undermanned and overworked ATC positions someone very high up the food chain is going to answer some serious questions.

Put it this way, most all of my flying is in Class G airspace. If I am forced out of flying into a CTAF that has a published approach procedure just because someone stopped a subsidy to the owner of the aeroplane I am hiring for fitting an ADS-B device I am going to be a little more than pee-ed off.

Or, Infrastructure is being held up over an argument of who will pay for it and who should get the savings from the new system if and when it ever eventuates.

User-Pays? Ask yourself, Who benefits from a full ATC service? The clients of the airlines, the passengers! This argument of a tower at AV. There is no argument. The tower should be manned! paid for by the passengers flying out of the place. On the contention of manning costs. Should the passengers have to pay for the people actually running the tower? Or the entire infrastructure from Canberra right down to the guy who cleans the floor.

My personal beef about "Affordable Safety" is the loss of a viable FULLSAR service when I WANT IT not when it is available. SARTIME is going the way of the dodo and for what? To save a couple of bucks? Nobody asked me if I was happy to lose a service. Nobody asked me if I was willing to pay for it. Nobody asked me if I was happy to be left out of the system.

CC is very correct. User-Pays is too narrowly defined and inequitous.

[bushy]

Affordable safety is FACT. It is the same as anything else.
IF YOU CAN'T AFFORD IT, YOU CAN'T HAVE IT.

[Scurvy.D.Dog]

... and if deemed necesssary??? .. but then you need an open, transparent, objective criteria on which to decide these things! ..... have we got that??? :ugh:
.
... affordable safety would seem to vary in definition anyway ...... particularly when if properly defined (in the current climate) it would be 'affordable profit' ... and we all know where that goes :ugh: :ugh:
.
... Dumb? ... I think not! ... whose side do you want us on? :(

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Bushy, how much is your life worth and do you pay insurance for that?

My first priority is to get my class1..er CIR. Then I will pay for what I use and I better damn well get that service!

On SARTIME I know there are people who forget to cancel or cannot get to a phone in time. But out of a hundred calls you have to follow up you get one poor bugger who IS missing, isn't that worth the cost of the service? I would rather have an aviation oriented person looking after my welfare.

[Creampuff]

Just because 'affordable safety' is a 'truism', does not mean that limited resources are allocated to produce the optimum levels of safety.

It is simply not true that the money 'saved' in reducing levels of safety in one area of aviation is then allocated to increasing levels of safety in another area of aviation, or safety in any other sector for that matter.

For example, the 20 million 'saved' in respect of RFFS at secondary airports didn't get spent making some other area of aviation safer. It went into the pork barrel for allocation to pointless projects in marginal seats and advertising.

The federal government didn't sit down with, for example, the NSW government, and work out the whether the money spent on RFFS at, for example, BK, would save more lives if spent on better roads and ambulance services in the Sydney metropolitan area, and then, having made that decision, give the money to the NSW government for spending on roads and ambulance services in the Sydney metropolitan area.

No one in CASA is shifting resources from (for example) regulatory 'reform' into (for example) safety promotion activities on the basis that more money spent on the latter rather than the former will produce a better safety outcome. Why not? Well, as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, there's simply no data on which to make decisions of that kind. For a start, CASA doesn't actually know how much it has spent or will spend on regulatory 'reform', much less have any data as to the extent to which money spent on 'reforming' the rules or safety promotion affects the rate of accidents and incidents, comparatively or absolutely.

If CASA has no data on which to make decisions as to the optimal allocation of resources within its own functions, how on earth can anyone make properly informed decisions as to reallocation of resources between, for example, Airservices, ATSB and CASA, or, for example, between aviation safety and backyard pool safety?

Aviation safety resource allocation decisions are made by politicians and, increasingly, by people who have a hip pocket nerve linked to 'efficiency gains' (translation: false economy through under-investing for the medium- to long-term, so that some other muggins can clean up the mess later). Resources are allocated to reduce the risk of losing power or money - whether that happens to equate to optimum levels of safety is a matter of coincidence, not deliberate planning.

An interesting letter to a daily Australian newspaper last week makes my point. It is from a Victorian who notes that $365 million was levied in speeding fines in Victoria during calendar year 2007, for the stated rationale of saving lives. The Victorian road toll was reduced by 4 compared with 2006. Thus (argued the correspondent) each of those 4 lives cost $91,025,000.00 to save!

Of course, the argument is specious as far as it goes - it is impossible to prove how many lives, if any, would have been lost on Victorian roads in 2007, but for the levying of those fines. But it does demonstrate a broader point: decisions about allocation of 'safety' resources often have little to do with safety. The speeding fine regime in Victoria won't change, the way in which the Victorian government spends its revenue won't change, and the GST revenue granted to Victoria by the Commonwealth won't change, despite the fact that it 'cost' $91,025,000.00 to 'save' 4 lives on Victorian roads last year.

Prove to me that the money spent on regulatory 'reform' has saved more aviation lives than would have been saved if the money had been spent on, for example, MILSPEC helmets for gyrocopter pilots.

What's true in theory is sometimes very difficult to apply in practice.

[Capt Wally]

:).................thread drift to Dick Smith:)

............how's the world trip going?............still on it?..........awaiting parts for yr charriot? ...........Now had you been driving a Toyota !!!!:)
..............oh what a feeling !:)

CW:)

[Dick Smith]

Creampuff, you state

Just because 'affordable safety' is a 'truism', does not mean that limited resources are allocated to produce the optimum levels of safety. I could not agree more. However this should not stop us from attempting to allocate the limited resources to where they are most effective. I have always worked towards this aim with the evidence that has been given to me.

In some cases, simple commonsense can see that resources are wasted if spent in some areas. For example, they built an expensive control tower at Gove and someone sensible decided not to waste the money in manning it. In those days no cost benefit was done – just good professional judgment could see that it was a misallocation of millions of dollars.

If you don’t recognise the affordable safety truism and simply leave the status quo it is not much of a challenge, is it?

All the supporters for ADS-B in low level airspace constantly claim that this will improve safety. This may be so, but if the $100 million was spent elsewhere, would more lives be saved? Surely that is an important issue.

Happy New Year to everyone.

[peuce]

Dick,

I would first ask myself a few questions:

Where are lives being lost now?
How many lives are being lost at FL330?



Methinks a bit of work needs doing below 10,000ft
So, perhaps, M$100 on low level ADS-B might in fact be the best use of resources

[Dick Smith]

Capt Wally, if we had been driving a Toyota the trip would have been too bloody boring! Just day after day of driving. As it was, with our US made Ford, we’ve had two major breakdowns which have got us involved with the local people – some of the friendliest on Earth in both Kazakhstan and Mongolia.

As we drove across Russia and Kazakhstan we often wondered what it would be like for the truck drivers. Well, I was to learn this by spending 5 hours beside the driver in 40 degree temperatures as he shuffled through his crash gearbox, one hand on the wheel (without power steering) and the other hand madly text messaging all his mates about how he was assisting us.

In Mongolia we were towed 100 km behind a coal truck over a 5,000 foot pass in a foot of snow.

It made the trip quite interesting. I’m hoping for a few more breakdowns before we get to Sydney.

[Capt Wally]

Sounds interesting Dick, you sure know how to attract attention there !:)
I read yr plight just the other day in an onboard flt mag.

I think we live in such a protected & safe world (as you would know more than most) that we rarely know what's going on out there. Still adventure for everyone takes many forms, just dealing with CASA is an adventure & you don't even have to leave the comfort of yr own home !:)
I bet Pip is enjoying the adventure, at ground level this time !:)

Tnxs Dick, wouldn't mind the odd update thru here is that's ok.

Regards

CW:)

[WELLCONCERNED]

Funny how the agruments all come back to who is paying, and how big the money-pot is, and how we make that money stretch to provide the 'best (non)bang for the buck".

the point I was making is that it's easier to provide higher levels of service all round - and actually ratchet up the levels of safety all round, if some of the big ticket items like infrastructure are paid for from the national purse.

Why? Because the national purse, as I explained earlier, benefits in a ratio of about 4 to 1 from aviation - i.e., the cost of aviation to Australia is about 2% of GDP - the benefit of aviation to Australia is about 8% of GDP.

To sustain this highly positive benefit ratio, the Australian people, through the Australian government, should make investments in the necessary infrastucture.

Once that infrastructure is in place, Airservices Australia can concentrate on operating the systenm, and ensuring that staffing and service is appropriate to maintain safety - and grow the economic benefit of aviation.

At the moment, AsA is trying to make its relatively small pot of user pays money stretch to both staffing and infrastructure - and that infrastructure is expensive.

It's like Dick's age old argument about towers, etc.

If you had to build a tower at a particular location to address a safety problem, the cost/benefit analysis would most likely fail, because the establishment costs for a tower [infrastructure] would swamp the equations. But if the infrastructure is already there [Avalon is a case in point] then the CBA becomes a lot more viable [putting aside internal arguments about actually wanting to staff the tower in the first place!!].

I say that it's time aviation was recognised for what it is - not a 'luxury item', where those who want to use it should pay - but a 'valuable GDP asset', worthy of a national infrastructure investment.

And no - I'm not talking about subsidising Joe Bloggs in his once a year C152 flight - I'm talking about supporting passenger and freight carrying operations, flying doctor, coastwatch etc - the threads that hold Australia together.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, if it is collision prevention you are looking at below 10,000 feet, surely the best thing to do immediately would be to increase the number of transponders and aircraft fitted with TCAS. After all, that is a system which presently works, and will work anywhere that the two aircraft are present.

With the planning for low level ADS-B, there is no certified system anywhere in the world that will give a resolution advisory between aircraft fitted with ADS-B. Also, ADS-B requires a nearby ground station – and a lot of them at low levels – for air traffic control to be of any use in relation to collision avoidance.

Most importantly, how will the present air traffic controllers cope with being able to give a tremendous amount more traffic information at low levels? Wherever there is an ADS-B outlet required (say, Birdsville, Bourke, Broken Hill), even for high level operation of ADS-B, the air traffic controllers will then have a duty of care and will have to provide a traffic information service – workload permitting – on any VFR “paints” in the vicinity of an IFR aircraft operating at these airports.

Come to think of it, they will even have to provide a traffic information service between two VFR aircraft at these airports if they are not too busy – as the aircraft will be clearly visible on their screen and they will have a responsibility. That is no doubt why the US is not bringing in mandatory ADS-B below 10,000 feet in Class E or G airspace.

Of course, with TCAS/transponders, the responsibility is clearly between the air crews concerned, and in many cases air traffic control will not have the clutter of these extra “paints”.

Also, I think if you spent the $100 million on fitting Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning Systems and training for pilots to have instrument ratings, you would actually get a greater improvement in safety.

[Chimbu chuckles]

The only way you get to make decisions about where X$ might be best spent is when you have a fund set aside...rather like the Aviation Trust Fund in the US where all tax revenue from aviation activity is deposited.

That won't happen in Australia because if they set up a trust fund in this country, along the same lines as the US model, into which all tax revenues gathered from aviation was deposited they would VERY soon be embarrassed by the extremely large number that resided therein.

And then what to do?

You can absolutely guarantee 'they' wouldn't be sat there deciding where that money could best be invested to give Australia in general and aviation in particular the best return...they would be sat there working out how to raid the Fund to syphon off the money towards various non aviation related activities like vote buying at the next election.

Which is what has been happening in the US...the US Govt has raided the Aviation Trust Fund to the tune of many billions and rather than pay it back the FAA/Govt have been trying to engineer, in concert with airline management, a new funding arrangement...called, funnily enough, 'User Pays'.

Rather like happened here decades ago...we used to have 'user pays' via fuel tax...but it all disappeared into Consolidated Revenue from which the Australian Govt funded all manner of things...some aviation related. Then some bright spark, and I have my suspicions DICK, sold them the idea of privatising everything, selling off the airports and corporatising CAA...after which they could charge for all services under the heading of 'user pays'...a term we never heard when we were paying fuel taxes.

The only thing making it difficult to pull this off in the US is that big old Aviation Trust Fund sitting there with all it's recorded transactions in and out.

Which is why it will never happen here.

[mirage3]

I have been listening to all sides of this argument for years and years. Let's cut the rubbish out and all admit that we all want everything but none of us is willing to pay for it. If you don't want an ATC service in Australia that used to be the very best in the world, write to your politicians, put the deck chairs into the back yard with a couple of beers, sit back and watch the sky. It'll be one hell of a free show. Australia's ATC system is in serious trouble. Unfortunately, I think it will end in tears in the not too distant future. I'm reluctant to blame any individual or group for this. But I can assure you, that if the aviation industry as a whole (that means me, you, the airlines, the politicians, Airservices Australia, the Air Traffic Controllers and the thieving scoundrels who run our major airports, the local governments who got swindled into assuming responsibility for their regional airports, the travelling public and all the communities who rely upon the industry) does not get off its collective whingeing backside and seriously look for answers, then I am afraid all will be lost.

[peuce]

Dick,

If I was a paranoid person, I would think that you were putting words in my mouth ... to suit your agenda.

Let's look at it another way:


ADS-B above, say, F200, is for airline EFFICIENCY only. That's what Airservices has been preaching and that's what it has been used for ... reducing track miles. If there was no ADS-B, there would still be very safe (if not as efficient) procedural separation

ADS-B below F200, and especially below A100, is for SAFETY. How? Improved pilot and Controller situational awareness, improved navigation facility, improved surveillance ( do not under estimate the pressure on pilots to "do the right thing" when they are being watched.... hell, there's even plenty of anecdotal evidence to suggest that GA pilots were more disciplined during the VFR FULLSAR days ... when they 'felt' they were being watched by Flight Service) and the POTENTIAL to provide expanded separation/traffic information services.


I think your M$100 could be well spent in this area.

[bushy]

I think better VHF radio in the out back and satellite weather information, along with a cood GPS with terrain, would do much more for safety than ADS-B. The yanks also have a cheap TCAS type system which could be fitted to GA aircraft.
ADS-B would help ASA and the airlines. It would not make GA safer.
But the bureaucrcacy and the airlines control Australia's skies. The other 10,000 aeroplanes do not.
We first need to define what safety is. This word is often used to scare the pollies, and the public, and the coroners.
Or to build a bigger and bigger bureaucracy.

[Flying Binghi]

Do I understand this correctly - ADS-B will only work near, and in line of sight of, a ground repeater station, but TCAS will work any where there is a transponder equiped aircraft ?

[werbil]

The proposal for ADS-B in OZ is the ADS-B ES variant - for air to air it is independent of ground stations, however it does require an ADS-B IN receiver.

[Dick Smith]

Flying Binghi, you state:

Do I understand this correctly - ADS-B will only work near, and in line of sight of, a ground repeater station, but TCAS will work any where there is a transponder equipped aircraft? At the present time this is the situation.

Eventually, possibly in a decade or so, no doubt there will be an ADS-B “in” unit which may work in a similar way to TCAS and give audible traffic advisories and audible resolution advisories. Even the US Capstone Project (which people rave about) does not give any type of audio traffic advisory when other aircraft are close. On the ADS-B screen with Capstone it simply shows “paints” of other aircraft. Even if you buy the latest Airbus A380, the actual display in the cockpit of other nearby aircraft comes from TCAS, not from ADS-B in.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

Dick, maybe you should use your vast influence to convince Honeywell to release its copyright on the use of audio traffic warnings and you may see changes within ADS-B.

ADS-B, if and when we get it, will be about SA.

Flying Binghi,The US system of ADS-B (UAT) requires a GA pilot to be flying within range of a ground station to receive traffic. ADS-B ES still works aircraft to aircraft regardless of location of the ground station. As Werbil said, provided you have "IN". London to a brick, once ADS-B is rolled out and aircraft fitment is mandated (subsidy or not) you will see a lot of people with PDA units connected up to their transponders. TSO or not the information derived is still useful. Otherwise, why spend thousands of dollars on non-TSO'd Garmin 296 colour units if they aren't certified. It all helps SA!

[bushy]

Owen
I believe aviators have a responsibility to try to improve things by any means possible. Making people aware of anomalies is one way we can do that.
I have tried 1000 times.

[Creampuff]

From a recent article about QANTAS, quoted in another thread: Perhaps the greatest concern in last year's private equity tilt at Qantas was the one least featured in the press. Amid all the debate on price and the role of the board, valid issues all, was the matter of cost savings.

The Macquarie-Allco-TPG consortium plan was to run up debt to drive financial performance and cut costs. The issue of safety was mostly ignored in the public debate, although the chances of an increase in "incidents" may well have risen under a more aggressive management.

There comes a point, however, in aviation when safety can really damage the bottom line. Were Qantas to crash, the premium for safety would be wiped out with devastating consequences for the stock price.Simple common sense could see that the ‘Aviation Regulation Review Taskforce’ set up by the previous Minister was an election stunt that would lead nowhere, but people still wasted resources on it, Dick.

[MrApproach]

We seem to be all in agreement then!

1. The Australian ATC system was "the best in the world" when the DCA was in charge........Crap, I think you would cop an argument from any Pom or Yank, their ATC systems were (are) coping with far more traffic than Australia ever did and with just as much success. More to the point the US and UK systems have always been much more flexible and user friendly, utilizing the equivalents of Class E and D airspace while "the best in the world" insisted on VFR Full SAR in Class F (Yes we had Class F airspace!) and IFR separation (Class B) in terminal areas instead of Class C. (Intro'd by DS back in the early 90's)

2. Affordable safety doesn't work because the money saved in one area doesn't find its way to another more needy area. Instead it bleeds off into the big revenue bucket while initiatives such as ASTRA seem incapable of creating the required baseline which can then be pursued by all aviation professionals.

Instead we spend our time aimlessly bickering with each other, and particularly DS, who, excuse me for saying so, seems to be the only one who comes up with any ideas.

So, what are we going to do?

My view is that Government, DOTRS, CASA and Airservices are incapable of policy formulation. Management spends far too much time watching their backs and keeping politicians happy. (What keeps politicians happy...don't stir the possum, don't frighten the animals, and wait for us to tell you where and how high to jump.)

It appears to be axiomatic that the various players in the aviation industry cannot agree with each other. I believe this is due to the nature of federal politics and the political, and in the case of powerful industry lobby groups, need to keep everyone at each others throats.

If you read MacArthur Job's books many of Australian aviation's rules and organisation was created from the results of various forms of judicial inquiry into aircraft accidents. That is, a learned gentlemen heard evidence from aviation professionals, determined from their input what was the right way to go and Government was over a barrel, they had to act.

What I am suggesting is that aviation people of goodwill, freed from opinion, and bound only to study factual evidence, (A whole document would be required to list what that evidence would be) could probably come up with an airspace structure that satisfied us all. (Basic assumption - none of us want to die while flying whether we are in an Airbus or a glider)

A couple of people have tried but have been shot down by those that preferred to sit on the sidelines.....no on second thoughts this isn't going to work. Everyone wants to sit on the sidelines!

I've shot my own argument down, I'm sorry, Australia is condemned to re-invent different railway gauges, Collins Class submarines, Jindalee OTH radars, crappy health care systems, creaking port infrastructure and an airspace system without a plan forever. Disfunctional government and government agencies are part of our heritage. If we can fix that perhaps there may one day be an airspace plan instead of an ongoing crisis.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

The day I see a new tower for Chief Galah and the gang is the day I believe that money is being spent for service of aviation.

[peuce]

Aren't the UK & USA also bound by, directed by and interferred with by Governments?

How do they balance those pressures?