Who is Mike Taylor? He should be famous.

[Dick Smith]

On another thread, Clapton posted the following comment in relation to the reappointment of Mike Taylor as the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, by Anthony Albanese.

The fact that he re-appointed Taylor for 5 years shows how incompetent he is and can't see (or doesn't care) that Taylor must ultimately also share total blame for Byron's failings because the Secretary is meant to properly oversee the operations and policies dreamt up by Byron (which is why the Act was changed in 2003 to give the Secretary proper powers of oversight). Taylor knew exactly what was going on - and what was not going on eg regulatory reform, partnership policy, allowing now to come to work - and stood by and let it all happen. As a reward he gets re-appointed for 5 years. Shows just how out of touch Albanese is - I suspect that he will be just as bad as Anderson. Nothing will change. Regulatory reform will drag on forever - or at least until there is a major airline accident.

It occurs to me that Mike Taylor is barely known. He has been in the position for nearly five years and obviously has immense power. For example, I have recently been told by a person in CASA that the decision in relation to the $100 million ADS-B subsidy rests solely with the Department.

Can you imagine that? They will be making the decision, yet the decision makers are almost invisible. Mike Taylor is in an incredibly powerful position and I’m sure most agree he is almost invisible. Surely he should be made famous. This is a democracy.

I’m sure he would be prepared to be held accountable for the decisions that are made by the organisations under him. He should be regularly interviewed by the media – just as the media regularly tries to get comments from Bruce Byron and Greg Russell.

Posters comment on the large amount of money paid to both Bruce Byron and Greg Russell, but no comment is made in relation to the pay that a secretary receives. Does anyone know what it is? Is it commensurate with the decisions they have to make?

My main criticism of the Department is that once a bureaucrat comes up to speed in aviation, they disappear. For over three years we had a man called Martin Dolan, who was the Deputy Secretary and responsible for aviation. He no sooner came up to speed when he left the Department. We then had the very capable Mike Mrdak, who came up to speed on aviation but then also left.

The main point is that Australia is an accountable democracy – it is not China, or not yet – and people who are making decisions must be held personally accountable and should be in front of the media at all times.

Most importantly, they must be responsible for the decisions they make which are correct, and also for the decisions they make when they are incorrect. You only have to look at the military procurement program (where no one has been held accountable for the $1 billion Super Seasprite fiasco) to know how the bureaucracy works. Why wasn’t the Secretary of that Department held accountable?

We want top people running our bureaucracies, not “Yes, Minister” type people. I’m sure everyone will agree.

Here is a bit of information about Mike Taylor (http://epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/dept_heads/mobile_devices/ch17.html). His experience primarily appears to be in the bureaucracy and specializing in agriculture – he doesn’t appear to have any experience in aviation. There is further information here (http://www.atse.org.au/index.php?sectionid=1075).

[ACMS]

You'd like that wouldn't you Dick? Someone you can give all your Aviation advice to without him knowing any better. Someone to mold into your way of thinking.

[Air Ace]

Your personal bias shows ACMS and reflects on the credibility and purpose of your post. I hardly think Taylor would seek Smith's counsel on any aviation matter...

"Bachelor of Agricultural Science at the University of Melbourne in 1970 and a Diploma in Economics at the University of New England in 1972."

Obviously a career public servant, hardly qualified to make any decision about transport operations and in particular the technicalities of aviation operations? :confused:

[T28D]

Taylor has also presided over the Security bungle that exists across Australia, the insane ASIC requirements for Cunnamulla, Ceduna and all.

The funding for Shire Councils to erect their funny fences and appoint mini "Hitler's" to enforce the insane regulations.

So he must be some sort of "Aviation" expert in the Commonwealth sense, it would seem he does know how to waste money which seems to be the primary qualification for any Aviation Administrator in Government.

[ACMS]

ouch...............Taylor might not ask Dick his opinion on all things Aviation BUT I'm sure Dick will give it anyway:D

[Dick Smith]

ACMS, you obviously do not know me. The fact that you believe that I want someone to “mould into my way of thinking” shows that you have little understanding of the way I work. My success has come from surrounding myself with capable people, asking advice then acting upon that advice. Unfortunately, sometimes you can get wrong advice, and that is where you need to use common sense to decide which advice is correct.

ACMS, I don’t “mould into my way of thinking” – I have no necessity to do that. When people have different views, I listen to them and ask advice from others to see if the views are likely to be correct. I believe a success force is to surround yourself with capable people – the reason you can be successful is by letting them perform and encouraging them. That is the way I have always worked. Do you think there is something different – i.e. that I somehow have the abilities to be successful and don’t need to take notice of anyone? If you do, that is indeed a great compliment to me, but it is not true.

ACMS, you may be interested in knowing that very little of my aviation knowledge comes from something that is ‘invented.’ It virtually all comes from others who have given me advice which I can see is correct.

You seem very biased – no wonder you are anonymous, even though you have made over 1,000 posts.

[AngelOfMusic]

Geez Dick, change the record.

Yes, ACMS uses a pseudonym, as is his/her/its right and privilege.

Using a pseudonym does not in any way lessen the strength of one's argument, and your persistent insinuating that because you have chosen to waive your right to anonymity somehow makes your arguments more valid is wearing very thin.

Change the record, please.

[james michael]

AOM

:ok: Well put. I've been there also. Even better is to denigrate anon posters because they are not real people - and don't mould to the righteous way of thinking :hmm:

There's a few people in business that are not well known and yet have enormous power. Wonder what makes Mike special - does he realise the power he holds re ADS-B one wonders?

Interesting timing Dick propelling Mike to fame around the time the Minister will be undoubtedly seeking Mike's opinion for the new Enid Blyton story - who will be the "Famous Five" to sit over CASA ;)

[Air Ace]

ACMS

"Taylor might not ask Dick his opinion on all things Aviation BUT I'm sure Dick will give it anyway. :D

In that we are in complete agreement. Smith may not always be right in the views of all, but he does speak out in what he bieves in. I respect his right to have his opinions heard.

If more Australians stood up and spoke out for what they believe in, we may not have the current mess in DoT and CASA.

That is what our democratic Australia is all about. :ok:

[Bob Murphie]

Mr Taylor could start by spending more time in his place of employment instead of operating out of Melbourne. I guess that is a hangover inherited by example. Is this is a Victorian thing, as all who live there seem touched with a divine right to rule?

The "headhunters" could be looking at anyone james michael. Thrown your hat into the ring yet?

[james michael]

Bob

Thank you for your vote but we humble researchers are not CASA Board aspirants.

The divine Victorian right to rule - good call - Jeff Kennett for next CASA CEO.

[ACMS]

Jeff Kennett for next CASA CEO?..........................My God man, you might have something there:ok:


Dick: I've been in Aviation as a professional for nearly 30 years and I certainly do know who YOU are. As do most of my fellow Professional Pilot's in the real world. We could hardly not after all the air time you get.

No get back to running your Biscuit business and leave the men's work to us.

I can't get the degrading image of you wearing a Qantas Captains uniform greeting Price Charles out of my head. Just like John F'ing Travolta you DIDN'T earn the right to wear that uniform. Amazing what money can buy isn't it mate.

[nomorecatering]

Geez guys, give thge bloke a break. Its so boring watching people take pot shots at Dick Smith for the sake of it.....its almost become a sport for some.

Like many, I either passionately agree or disagree with what Dick has to say, but I will always respect the bloke for what he has achieved. he puts his time and money where his mouth is and actually tries to do something about it, rather than the "aint it awfull" crowd here.

least he has the courage to post openly under his real name. How many of us post under our own names.

[ACMS]

That's his right, as is mine to stay under my handle ACMS.

[Chimbu chuckles]

The main point is that Australia is an accountable democracy

Dick where on earth did you get that quaint, and frankly naive, idea from?

[james michael]

CC

Probably from his submissions to the Senate on Report 400 etc re aviation security that proves what an 'accountable democracy' we are not. I'm certain he would have submitted :rolleyes:

NMC

It becomes a sport because of his behaviour that includes doing his utmost to probe people's anon status in defiance of the forum rules, and because he makes public statements on these forums about organisations and individuals.

Frankly, I don't give a tuppeny about exactly where Mike Taylor works - many organisations don't have their CEO headquartered in Canberra.

If we have some issues about Mike's handling of aviation, let's trot out some specifics to debate.Alternatively, perhaps we can look at someone else who will have a major impact on aviation in future as we output all these greenhouse emissions - another unknown - the Secretary of the Department of Climate Change that gobbles up $ based on pure fiction - Dr Martin Parkinson. As if naming either on here adds any value anyway.

I remain curious at Dick's spotlight on Taylor when there are so many issues in aviation that direct intervention or lobbying might assist. Just my thoughts ;)

[Vref+5]

Once in the APS the main aim is to move from position to position gaining promotions as you go. I saw people moving on after 6 months, promoted to new positions. Before I witnessed this I always thought you had to actually work and deliver results to get promoted. Nope you just spend you days surfing the intranet looking for new jobs. Unless it's Friday of course when you have morno's and you spend the morning having tea and sticky buns.

Saw this first hand

[Dick Smith]

Jim Irwin, in relation to Mike Taylor you say:

He is a very powerful man, and has the ATSB under his control.

If that is so, we want to know everything about the man – his experience, his training and his ability in relation to a visionary policy for aviation. He should be invited to (and appearing at) meetings of the industry, the unions, and everyone else who is affected by the aviation regulatory system.

My experience of the Department under Mike Taylor is one of complete resistance to change. That is, not really taking any notice of anyone other than the major airlines. For example, the ASIC card mentioned above has been a giant misallocation of resources. There is no equivalent in the US, and after all, that country is the home of September 11.

It was introduced here by a Department which obviously has no understanding of how such costs will further damage an industry. From what I can make out, every member of that Department has no interest in general aviation flying – they don’t fly, they don’t pay for an ASIC card or anything similar, and there is almost the philosophy that we saw in the Yes, Minister episode on the hospital that had no patients. That is, if you basically have a nil or very small GA industry, there are fewer problems. This is outrageously disloyal to Australia, however the bureaucrats in the Department seem to get away with it.

ACMS, I have no problems with people posting under a pseudonym if they need to do it. However if they do it to defame people with inaccurate statements it is quite different. For example, you state:

I can't get the degrading image of you wearing a Qantas Captains uniform greeting Price Charles out of my head.

I’ve checked the photo in my Solo Around the World book. It shows clearly that when I landed at Balmoral Castle (the only place where I met Prince Charles) I was wearing my Multifabs survival suit with a T-shirt underneath, as I’d just flown over the Atlantic Ocean. I wore that suit all that day until I arrived in London. A Multifabs survival suit is not a “Qantas Captain’s uniform.”

Kreugers, you state:

No one seems to understand or want to confront the fact that industry specific knowledge, skills and experience are vital when developing programs and legislation that affect the real world.

You are 100% correct. To have a bureaucrat from the Department of Agriculture in effect now responsible for aviation is a catastrophe in my view. No doubt Mike Taylor is a brilliant bureaucrat. However as stated above, he is immensely powerful, and history shows that there will be no meaningful reform.

My suggestion is that you look through the records and see if there has been one visionary statement in relation to the future of Australian aviation from Mike Taylor. I believe you will find nothing.

If the situation remains the same for the next five years, it wouldn’t matter if there were ten CASA Boards – they would be able to do nothing. When I was the Chairman of CASA, the Department ruled supreme, and simply stopped any reform that we wanted to do. The Department obviously has its direct contacts with the powerful – i.e. Qantas and the other major airlines – and constantly advises the Minister on what will keep him out of the media in their view.

During my involvement in aviation in Australia, I have never heard one bureaucrat (from the Secretary down) ever ask anyone about their views in relation to the general aviation industry in Australia, and how we could reverse the decline.

By the way, there is nothing in the PPRuNe rules which stops people from posting under their own name. As I have constantly said, if you want to have influence, use your own name – then there is a greater chance that people will listen.

James Michael, you state:

I remain curious at Dick's spotlight on Taylor when there are so many issues in aviation that direct intervention or lobbying might assist.

James, all the direct intervention and lobbying will be futile under the present system, where the Department operates supreme, and can (and does) stop any change which they do not support. Presumably they do a phone around to Qantas and a few of the other airlines, and then the decision is made behind the scenes.

[Dick Smith]

ACMS, you state:

Just like John F'ing Travolta you DIDN'T earn the right to wear that uniform. Amazing what money can buy isn't it mate.

I think you are implying that I somehow bought influence with Qantas. So everyone can know the facts (and they are very simple), here they are.

I was in my 30s when I planned to fly around the world solo by helicopter. Just as any young adventurer does, I wrote to various companies to see if I could get sponsorship. Companies such as Mobil (who had originally sponsored Bert Hinkler and Charles Kingsford Smith) came in with sponsorship for fuel, and Qantas came in with sponsorship for some airfares. This was in return for giving the organisations publicity.

That is exactly what happened. So rather than my money being able to buy something, it was actually the reverse – simple commercial sponsorship by companies hoping to get a return for the resources they put in.

ACMS, it is such a pity that you seem to have such a chip on your shoulder. I believe it is still important that you are accurate and stick to the facts.

[tail wheel]

Thread Title: Who is Mike Taylor? He should be famous.

It is not: Who is Dick Smith?

We all know that already!

If posts in this thread do not adhere to the thread title and remain objective, the posts, the users or possibly even the thread may disappear! :ugh: :ugh:

[RadioSaigon]

Good onya Dick.

Far too many 'tall-poppy slashers' in here that don't have the balls to either commit themselves one way or another on an issue or the spine to get off their arses and do something about it.

Whilst I don't always support all of your initiatives, I do admire your willingness to stand up and be counted. I and others could do far worse than to model ourselves on your example -for better or worse at least we would be achieving something, more than sniping from the sidelines, safe in the seclusion of our ivory towers and assumed professional gravitas.

With regard this issue: I wonder if the problem is not deeper -a systemic fault of centralised government to appoint career bureaucrats to positions of far-reaching power and influence light-years beyond their training, experience or ability? Certainly it appears to be the case in NZ where until relatively recently we (briefly) had a maritime administrator at the helm of CAA -and man, did he ever make some brave statements in the media!!! The current incumbent in that role, whilst on the face of it more suited by virtue of his background, still reeks of a merely 'politically expedient' appointee -one there merely to enact the desires of his political masters who, lets face it, bend with whichever way the perceived political wind is blowing today. Staying in the NZ context, it will take years for the country to rid itself of the malign influence and cronyism embedded throughout the halls of power by Helen Clark. Let's hope that process is given a good start in November.

Politicians, like a babies nappies, should be changed regularly -and for the same reason!

I agree that these bureaucrats must be publicly recognised and held publicly accountable for their actions and failures. This existing "Yes, Minister" ethos within the public service has survived far too long, through far too many changes of government and must be rooted out for the public to receive the government they deserve.

[50,000]

Radio Saigon:

http://www.gifs.net/Animation11/Hobbies_and_Entertainment/Theater/Hands_clap_2.gif

[Dick Smith]

So it is all agreed. We should stop whinging about Bruce Bryon and Greg Russell and concentrate on the person who is really calling the shots – Mike Taylor.

Let’s make him really famous and make sure that he is held publicly accountable for his actions. Who knows? We may find that he comes up to the bar and supports some really important change.

Whatever way it goes, we must make sure from now on that he is the person who is held accountable, as it is obvious that he is the person who is controlling the aviation regulatory system at this present time.

[Orangputi]

Hi Dick,

Whilst I have great respect for your achievments in business and aviation I would like to air my concerns as a young Licensed Aircraft Engineer whilst you were head of CASA.

Firstly, you set back many a young budding engineer by increasing basic exam costs from 5$ an exam to over 100$ an exam. Causing great financial hardship on young apprentices who were on bugger all!

Scondly, your single focus was on pilots with little regard for other avaition professionals. It still amazes me that the well rested flying hour limited pilot can have his primary flight controls rigged by an engineer who has been working a double shift and on way to another 80 hour week. Or the ATC langishes over some outdated equipment/ system also greatly fatigued over skill shortages.

Whilst I know this is the Pilot's rumour network, it surprises me that people at CASA do not look at the entire picture.

My 2 cents worth

[Dick Smith]

Here are some important things about Mike Taylor.

Mike Taylor knows that there are airline passenger carrying aircraft in Australia with between 10 and 30 passengers that would not legally be allowed to operate in any other country in the world. This is because there is a requirement for TCAS to be fitted to such aircraft in other countries. Not so in Australia. Mike Taylor could make a phone call that would get an NPRM instigated straight away so Australia harmonised with the rest of the world – he doesn’t.

Mike Taylor knows that the radar is not used correctly in Australia. We have already lost six people at Benalla and no doubt the next incident will be an airline accident, probably at Proserpine with possibly 100 passengers dead. Mike Taylor knows all about this because I have told him. It is a fact that the ATSB did not make a recommendation to better use the radar when finalising the report on the six needless deaths at Benalla.

I challenge the many media people who read this site, to get an interview with Mike Taylor about these important issues that are the very basis of aviation safety in Australia. I wish you luck.

[RadioSaigon]

Hahaha - Radio Saigon makes me laugh.
Telling people off for having a go at Dick? Hahaha, he's a big boy, he can look after himself.

I'm pleased you found at least some entertainment value in my previous post, for clearly you failed to understand the thrust of it.

I quite agree Dick needs no defence from me or anyone else. He is well capable of conducting his own. It strikes me there are many very vocal individuals here that are prepared to seemingly wage a war of vitriol against Dick for perceived past fouls... yet none of them offer viable solutions to the issues highlighted by Dick. Their posts are merely spleen-venting.

This industry is far from perfect, has been for many years... incumbents in the top regulatory role have come and gone, but only one cares sufficiently about the industry to raise concerns in this and other forae. That alone should tell you something about the man.

Do I know Dick? Yep, met him once at the fuel pumps in NZWF a few years ago when he was refuelling his C-208. I doubt very much that Dick remembers that. Do I care? Not even a little bit. As I said earlier, I do not support every issue that Dick espouses in relation our industry, but in this one I do believe he has the right of it. AND I'm sick of seeing his every utterance stomped on here by spineless twats that wouldn't have the guts to do what he does even if they could.

Have I done anything? No, I just fly a plane - nothing more nothing less. But at least I can admit it.

But you are quite prepared to snipe at those who do have a go???

Bravo.

[Dick Smith]

Orangputi,

Sorry about the exam costs. Unfortunately the Government decided to bring in more cost recovery in relation to aviation, actually there was nothing I could do about that.

In relation to your claim, that I was “single focussed” in relation to pilots that is simply not true. My reforms have always been based on an objective criteria in relation to where best to spend the finite safety dollar. I have made as many changes in airworthiness issues as I have with issues in relation to pilots. For example I introduced the “first of type” acceptance from five leading aviation countries saving our industry millions of dollars. It meant that each individual aircraft does not have to go through a “first of type” acceptance here in Australia.

Of course, many people who are earning money from this type of work objected to that. I think it can be said that the changes I introduced had a chance of just about offending everyone in the industry. This is of course what happens when decisions are made using an objective scientific criteria.

[Orangputi]

Hi Dick,

Thanks for your response. With respect to my previous comments about single pilot focus, I can only state that was the if I remember rightly the general opinion amongst my colleagues at the time in engineering.

Moving forward, CASA is in the worst shape than it has been for years and years and the lack of accountability is shameful, so yes why not ask these questions of the head string puller!

Being ex QF I am quite amazed how low the industry has sunk and how the regulators just sit back and let things occur. We are heading for a big one soon unless CASA start overseeing these operations a lot closer.

[Buster Hyman]

Following on from Orangputi's point, what would you do now Dick if you were running the show?

I have personally worked a few 22 & 24 hour shifts as a Load Controller & whilst I was well remunerated for it, I don't recall anyone suggesting there was anything wrong with it. I've also had my time in Crewing & know very well the hour limitations for Pilots & Seagulls but it seems that the Aviation regs are only interested in them. I presume the "lesser beings" of aviation are consigned to the annals of the local Worksafe conditions...

[Dick Smith]

Everyone, I have never complained on this site or anywhere else for being bashed as a tall poppy.

I understand why some people need to do this.

However the bashing should be accurate bashing- not inaccurate bashing.

What could be fairer.

And I reckon its better to be a tall poppy than a "never was at all' - to quote Slim Dusty.

[LeadSled]

Folks,

A few thoughts:
James Michael --- It does matter where a head of a Commonwealth department lives, the job is in Canberra, not Melbourne, and I will bet a plugged nickel that Mr. Taylor does not pay the cost of his commuting from Melbourne to Canberra --- our new Prime Minister has made much of moving into the Lodge, I am really quite surprised that Rudd tolerates the head of a major department being a commuter --- I wonder does he even know??

Mr. Taylor is immensely powerful, and all you posters here who support the independence of the ATSB ( a large % of respondents to the Miller report wanted ATSB to be independent of the "Department", wanted it to have the independence of the NTSB) should read the report and the submissions.

A major thrust of the terms of reference for Miller could be read as asking for a recommendation to reduce the independence of the ATSB, and increase the control of the Secretary, ie Mr. Taylor, on the totally (from and air safety perspective, but not from a Sir Humphrey) spurious grounds that the ATSB budget comes from "the Department", therefor ATSB should come under the virtually total control of the Secretary of "the Department."

I would think that the legislated independence of a relatively minor bureaucrat, the Director of ATSB, would really get up the nose of somebody like Mr. Taylor, to me that came through in the Miller proceedings.

Hands up all you aviation professionals who want to see the independence of ATSB circumscribed, and ATSB being forced to "share" accident investigations with CASA, particularly CASA compliance and enforcement. As Secretary of "the Department", Mr. Taylor must have been happy with that, he had to sign off on the legislation -- that the last Minister knocked back.

Did you all, or any of you, see the proposed amendments to the Transportation Safety Act, that would have effectively eliminated the ATSB right to hold information confidential --- ATSB would have had to "open the files" to CASA, on CASA demand.

Mr. Taylor was the head of "the Department" that put that legislation to the last Minister for Transport etc, but in this case the Minister's advisers understood the ramifications for air safety, the legislation was seriously amended, and the ICAO confidentiality SARPs were preserved in the legislative amendment.

Mr. Taylor should be a very public figure, because he has such a major role in air safety regulation, and air safety outcomes, and such a major role in the runaway costs being imposed in aviation ---- and is head of "the Department" that imposes "light handed" administration of airport regulation, allowing the price gouging and other airport disasters, that even airlines/AATA/BARA complain bitterly of!

Think what "the Department's" hands off (light handed) approach has permitted at Bankstown, Archerfield, Evans Head, Casino, to name just a few -- aviation activities come a poor last in priority, compared to "the developers", despite the airport Act and Regulations saying exactly the opposite --- this is what "light handed regulation really means --- ignoring what doesn't suit --- and legislation passed by "our" Parliament being ignored by "executive Government", to the very great benefit of powerful developers with no interest in aviation --- to the very great cost to all of the aviation sector.

The crazy airport security regulation (security lighting at Coconut Island ??), ASICs, the whole disaster --- but just look at the vast expansion of the bureaucrat to aeroplane ratio that has been achieved ----???

And in an era of cost recovery, we are paying directly for this mess.

In most countries that we would compare to Australia, GA has been doing relatively well in recent years---- except in Australia, where it is being driven into the ground --- and runaway bureaucracy has played a/the major role.

All very very sad.

Tootle pip !!

[Dick Smith]

Mike Taylor is clearly responsible for what is happening – and more to the point, what is not happening at Avalon airport. After all Mike Taylor is responsible for Airservices Australia and for CASA and he knows, just as anyone who is involved in aviation knows, that 1.5 million passenger movements without any form of local air traffic control is exceedingly risky. Just why he would be allowing this to go on is almost beyond imagination.

I understand Airservices want to put in a Class D tower at Avalon, similar to the type of towers they are operating in the United States. Of course, we all know Qantas doesn’t want to pay the 30 cents per passenger that it’s fully owned subsidiary Jetstar would have to charge for the tower to manned. Isn’t it amazing the power that Qantas has over the Department? Do we wait for the inevitable accident before this tower is manned?

I point out again that there is no other place in the world that I know of that has such a high number of passenger movements without a local air traffic control tower. The US criteria for a terminal radar facility comes in at 250,000 passenger enplanements i.e. 500,000 passenger movements. The irresponsibility is staggering. We must make sure that we hold the people responsible for this outrageous conduct accountable.

[james michael]

Dick

What's our fallback if Mike Taylor does not join us on this thread?

Avalon - who owns the airport and are they prepared to pay for the tower or is it solely an Airservices matter?

Your USA trigger supports Class C, not Class D, I believe?

[peuce]

Point 1:

I'm not too confident of timely and appropriate legislation coming out of "the Department", when Mr Taylor lauds thus:

" ... we have recently signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the NSW government to explore a wide range of options ... "

Yes, Sir Humphrey !

Point 2:

I don't think ASA has enough staff to man a fairy floss stand, let alone a new Tower at Avalon ... or anywhere else for that matter !

[Bob Murphie]

peuce;

This announcement makes me wonder at the logic of creating more jobs if there isn't the staff to fulfil them. As someone has already commented, why Olympic Dam???

Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08
The following instruments were registered on the Federal Register of Legislative Instruments on 22 September 2008: CASA EX40/08 and CASA EX65/08. Instrument CASA EX40/08 applies to the provision of a UNICOM service by Airservices Australia (AA) at Dubbo, Hervey Bay, Olympic Dam, Port Macquarie and Wagga Wagga Aerodromes. It exempts AA from compliance with subregulation 139.385 (2) and regulation 139.395 of the Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 1998 in respect of paragraph 14.4.1.3 of Part 139 of the Manual of Standards. It came into effect on 23 September 2008. Instrument CASA EX65/08 allows properly qualified and eligible Airservices Australia air traffic controllers at peak times of the year to perform air traffic control functions for up to 21 days without holding the relevant licence or rating for the function, pending its issue by CASA. It comes into effect on 1 October 2008.

This and other instruments are available on the CASA website:
Legislative instruments and exemptions – Miscellaneous Legislative Instruments

[Flamethrower]

What, 1.5 million passengers and no air traffic services! You can't be serious!

This is like having one of the busiest road intersections in Australia without a round about or traffic lights. With big trucks mixing it with mum, dad and the kids in cars.

Shame on QANTAS for refusing to charge 30 cents per passenger to recover the measly cost of air traffic management. Do the passengers know that QANTAS values the risk to their lives at less than 30 cents? Has anybody asked the passengers if they would be willing to fork out another 30 cents for the protection managed air traffic can give?

If you look at the maps, the air traffic management is a complete crock. At present, traffic passing across the airspace is channeled out to sea (too bad if an engine fails like the Williamtown accident) or directly through the ILS approaches - how safe and sensible is that?

For a small investment in safety, some traffic sensors and some sensible traffic management, with perhaps a change of airspace to something like E or D, matters could be greatly improved. The safest place is directly over an airfield, so if transit traffic tracks via the Avalon aids over the top, safety would be much improved.

And when it gets really busy, let's have a professional traffic manager or two in the Tower. Even it it costs 60 cents a passenger.

[Dick Smith]

The US figure is only a trigger to do the appropriate study.

In the USA the equivalent airspace would be class D and thats what AA want here

However CASA can't move on from the 1950's so thats why they are saying class C.

Of course Mike Taylor could fix the impass in a minute- He is clearly the person responsible because he well knows CASA won't make any decision which offends Qantas.

And it's not about who is prepared to pay for the manning of the tower-it's about what is necessary for safety.

[james michael]

I did not say 'manning', what I asked was - Avalon - who owns the airport and are they prepared to pay for the tower or is it solely an Airservices matter?

Are there not costs involved in setting up the tower - quite independent of the ATC staffing?

The USA figure is only a trigger? Where does what follows say 'trigger'? Avalon looks more like C than D to me (nice rhyme :))

3-2-4. Class C Airspace
a. Definition. Generally, that airspace from the surface to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation (charted in MSL) surrounding those airports that have an operational control tower, are serviced by a radar approach control, and that have a certain number of IFR operations or passenger enplanements. Although the configuration of each Class C airspace area is individually tailored, the airspace usually consists of a 5 NM radius core surface area that extends from the surface up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation, and a 10 NM radius shelf area that extends no lower than 1,200 feet up to 4,000 feet above the airport elevation.
FAA ORDER JO 7400.2G EFFECTIVE APRIL 10 2008 STATES: -

Section 2. Class C Airspace Standards

16-2-1. CRITERIA
a. The criteria for considering a given airport as a candidate for Class C designation must be based on factors which include the volume of aircraft or number of enplaned passengers, the traffic density, and the type or nature of operations being conducted.
b. For a site to be considered as a candidate for Class C airspace designation, it must meet the following criteria:
1. The airport must be serviced by an operational airport traffic control tower and a radar approach control; and
2. One of the following applies:
(a) An annual instrument operations count of 75,000 at the primary airport.
(b) An annual instrument operations count of 100,000 at the primary and secondary airports in the terminal area hub.
(c) An annual count of 250,000 enplaned passengers at the primary airport.

Dick, it is happening again - another thread drifting to your NAS. How about establishing that sticky NAS thread I suggested ("All the way with LBJ") and debating the NAS there to stop this constant thread drift to your passion.

It's OK for you, no smackies, but those of us who are unprotected species are reluctant to be penalised for thread drift and the drift warning has already been sounded earlier. The thread needs to be tailored to Taylor :D

[Dick Smith]

James, Once again your views are exactly the same as those of Brian Hannan , the AOPA committee member who is against manning the tower at Avalon because he believes it will delay AOPA members.

My attitude is simple- if the safety criteria is met the tower should be manned even if AOPA members are delayed.

If the tower airspace is class D as it would be for similar airspace in the USA there will be no measurable delays.

Under NAS class C requires a local terminal radar unit- not one 30 miles away as it is at Avalon.

[james michael]

Dick

Well that's certainly not my view - delaying members of an organisation is not an acceptable reason in its own right for not having Class C airspace. Any more than I would expect you to push for personal privileges like straight in approaches outside NAS guidelines to Gundaroo, or privileged clearances through Williamtown :p

My personal view is that the CASA OAR study was a crock and I know that view is shared elsewhere by people with much more experience than I. It was got up to give the answer you prodded the Minister for.

But, in somehow deducing what are my views - and I'm uncertain how you deduced that from what I posted except that you wanted to have a dip at some individual in some organisation as is your habit - you have again missed answering my question:

Avalon - who owns the airport and are they prepared to pay for the tower or is it solely an Airservices matter?To put it another way - is Mike Taylor in a position to direct Lindsay Fox to put several million dollars into setting up a working tower at Avalon? If not, then this thread has again diverted to your Nasdebation as anticipated.

[Dick Smith]

I have spoken to Lindsay personally about this and he is perfectly happy to pay for the cost of manning the tower if that is what is required te ensure an acceptable level of safety.

The cost is not in the millions of dollars. When Qantas or the military do training at Avalon the cost of manning the tower is about $380 per hour.

Airservices even man the tower when the Formula ! cars are airfreighted in.

And if the CASA safety study for Avalon is flawed why don't you do something constructive to get it corrected - or won't they take any notice of someone who isn't even game to put a name to the objection!

[james michael]

Obviously I am not making myself clear.

Is the existing tower at Avalon capable of use under normal OH&S guidelines or does it need work to become an 0600-2300 daily workplace?

If it is not 'ready use' what is the estimated cost of enabling the tower to enable occupation? Who pays - Mike Taylor or Linfox?

I am not concerned about the staffing - that is recoverable from the airlines.

Lindsay is prepared to pay? Organisational confusion reigns supreme it seems, or at least did in June:

"XXXX from Linfox/Avalon put the view that from the Aerodrome owner’s perspective the minimum necessary for compliance with the determination was preferred in order to minimize costs to the commercial users of the aerodrome.

They don’t want Avalon to loose its price advantage and potentially its airline customers to Tullamarine. This minimum service would be a Class C radar terminal service from Melbourne Centre (ML TMA) and no Tower (ADC) service."

Edited to add, despite my better judgement:
Your persistence in NASdebation, Dick, is second only to your persistence in wanting to flush out details of other posters.

I'll quite happily put my name on anything I write to CASA, likewise while I'm on this forum I'll post as myself. Learn to live with it, Dick - read the forum rules. By the way - I have written to CASA about the Avalon study - it's a crock and I suggested that my research showed that.

If you were not a protected species you'd have worn out your welcome for prodding other posters long ago. To (mis)quote a moderator rushing to your defence earlier in this thread, this thread is about Mike Taylor not about Dick Smith - and thus by association, other individual posters.

[Dick Smith]

And by the way , I do have special priviledges at Gundaroo and Williamtown.

I just believe it would be fairer if all pilots were treated equally. Thats what I have been working for for over two decades.

And all of the costs for avalon will be cost recoverable from the Airlines -thats how astute businessmen operate.

[james michael]

Dick

Still have not answered my question - you are very reticent when facts roll out.

Yes, I note your edit - businesses need to speculate to accumulate.

I wonder then why Linfox are pushing for no tower? Could it be because in your push for a tower, in the forlorn hope of D, Linfox is now committed to a big $ speculation to get the tower up to scratch but know that if C arrives Jetstar might as well use YMML at the price so the $ could be an investment at risk?

Didn't you take Linfox O/S to see D in operation? Why are they not pushing for D instead of NO tower?

[Dick Smith]

landof4x,

I’ll say it again, it doesn’t affect me being held at Williamtown as I can well afford the extra flying time. It is the people who are not wealthy who are affected and the commercial operators who end up with a non-viable aviation business because of unnecessary waste that I am concerned about.

It is also the safety implication, when two or three aircraft are held orbiting over a busy beach.

By the way I am not a ‘retired’ pilot. I fly virtually every day and use my CJ3 and Agusta 109E in my commercial businesses.

I believe I have taken more action in relation to Broome than anyone I know. For example, look here (see here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/the_book.php)) and go to chapter 19. It will become apparent to you that I have campaigned relentlessly to have a manned tower at Broome.

I have met the so-called safety people at Qantas and Virgin, all to completely no avail. All they want to do is keep the status quo so their profits can be maximised. Why else would Jetstar be against manning the tower at Avalon and why wouldn’t Qantas be prepared to pay a small amount extra to go from the certified air ground operator at Broome to a properly manned Class D tower?

I have had lots of publicity in the media, including the 7.30 Report, in relation to Broome, whereas there has been no similar coverage of holding at Williamtown.

[james michael]

Now where was I - shopping list, car keys, wallet - whoops, sorry, I got confused and lost track of what the thread is about. Seems endemic.

Dick, if we could briefly return to Mike Taylor, you keep dodging my question about the tower per se at AV, not the ATC bodies therein.

Does Mike Taylor have the clout to direct Linfox - a private enterprise organisation - to bring the tower up to scratch? Does Linfox have the clout to push for D not C rather than their last listed preference of NO tower? If not, what now?

[Dick Smith]

Mike Taylor has the power to direct CASA to comply with the law -and to stand up to Qantas.

[james michael]

So which one owns Linfox - CASA or QF?

[P51D]

Goodonya Landof4x you stick to your 36 seat fast turbo-prop, I'm aware of QF and other airline JET captains visiting the Broome Cagro's and thanking them for the service. You seem to be a whinger and one who seems to find the negative side and things will never be quite right will they Tosser!

[Dick Smith]

I would like to see a tower at Broome just like the towers that AsA operate in the USA. Both airline and GA pilots like them as there are no unnecessary delays or frequency congestion.

The US ATC's like them too because they can really move a lot of metal safely.

When I am back in a position of influence we will get one up and going quickly!

[Dick Smith]

I think it will most likely be at least 5 years away.

They unfortunately will do a lot more damage to our industry before the anger is so great that change will be allowed.

[P51D]

Landof4X

I respect constructive criticism, but your unwarranted comment drew my response ("with nothing other than a sh*t-house, hindrance of a CAGRO"). The Broome CAGROs actually put in serious time and aren't deserving of your personalised vitriole - play the ball mate, not the man, which regrettably this thread started out doing. And no I'm not QF.

[crisper]

Like P51D,

I was also offended by the comment made by lando4x about the Broome Cagro's. It seems everytime Cagro's are mentioned on Prune, 4X has to have some negative comment regarding Broome and the Ca/grs service there. I can only presume that he was once at Broome as a new pilot and obviously had some run-in with the Cagro there at the time and has forever held a grudge - real professional attitude eh?

As for Broome being dangerous, well show me the incident reports to justify your concerns ? CASA certainly don't think so. Broome does get busy, normally around the lunchtime RPT's, but the RELEVANT traffic information service given by the Cagro's greatly reduces the frequency congestion and is more than sufficient in the majority of circumstances - take away the Ca/grs and just think about all the unneccessary aircraft to aircraft transmissions and overtransmitting on the CTAF that would take place if everyone had to ask the positions of each other when its busy and then work out if they are relevant traffic or not? The cagro assesses the positions of every aircraft , against a set traffic criteria, and only gives the conflicting aircraft as traffic. Saves a lot of frequency congestion and pilot workload I would have thought ! This is pretty simple stuff, even for 4X.

And Dick,

I really find it hard to understand your about face at times. Wasn't it you when in charge of CASA, who instigated the development of the Cagro service? Wasn't it you who demanded that a Cagro service was introduced at AYE on safety grounds? I would have thought that you should be supporting the introduction of more Cagro services at many regional airports, given your previous involvement in its development and its cost effectiveness as a safety enhancement service. Yet in recent posts, you now support class D towers at both Broome and Ayers Rock. Whatever happened to "affordable safety" ? Have you thought about the huge increase in costs of providing a class D tower with at least 5 controllers, as opposed to only 2 cagro's at these locations, for the very few times throughout the year that the increase in saftey is warranted ? And then there is cost of constructing Control Towers, extra taxiways and various other infrastructure required before ATC would even consider providing class D tower. I have no doubt that in the future that this will be required, but current movements suggest that the need for an ATC service is still some years away. Maybe you should do a bit of research and ask a few of the local GA operators as well as Qantas/Virgin/Skywest/Air North pilots what they think of the Cagro service at these aerodromes and if they are willing to pay the extra cost of an ATC tower at these locations. After all, they are the pilots who actually USE the aerodromes everyday - and then maybe you would have a better appreciation of how well the Cagro service is supported at Broome and Ayers Rock.

[crisper]

G'day lando4x,

Let me address a few of your concerns regarding CAGRO's at Broome. I can only speak of my experience over the last couple of years at Broome and it seems that circumstances may have changed somewhat since you last flew into Broome.

Firstly, regarding schedules. Broome traffic can get busy at anytime during the day, but recent changes to schedules mean that the main traffic peak is around 11:30 am until 2pm. This is when the traffic mix of RPT's and GA aircraft is at it's peak now, and cagros were initially established to address this diverse traffic mix, At most other times the traffic is mainly GA aircraft only. If it wasn't for RPT's there would be no cagro service.

Secondly, Frequency congestion. CAAP no. airways-3(2) para 3.1 states "A CA/GRO responds to the first broadcast an aircraft makes when arriving,departing or transitting the CTAF. Thereafter, the CA/GRO does not normally respond unless and aircraft specifically calls the service" In other words, once a pilot makes and initial call on the CTAF , that aircraft will be given traffic which will conflict with his/her aircraft from the CA/GRO and from then on, the pilot is required to listen out and copy any additional traffic which conflicts and respond if need be. Their is NO requirement for the CA/GRO to address aircraft already on the CTAF and update them with traffic because, as you state, those aircraft should already be listening out. In this way, frequency congestion is greatly reduced. This is where CA/GRO procedures differ from the old AFIZ and current ATC procedures of recipricol traffic and it was designed this way to specifically reduce congestion. I cannot speak for the previous CA/GRO's and procedures you may have encounted at Broome , but I can assure you this is how the system works at Broome now, and works well.

Thirdly, regarding safety at Broome. CASA has recently conducted a study at Broome and were very impressed with the CA/GRO service and, I understand may be recommending that the service be expanded to other aerodromes as a result. These findings should be published soon in their present review of air traffic services at regional aerodromes. Given the amount of traffic at Broome, there are very few incident reports submitted and certainly a lot less than many other regional airports with no service at all.

And in reference to a ATC tower, local operators are not in favour of this as it would cause substantial delays in their operations. You would no doubt be aware of the lack of a southern taxyway and numerous traffic crossing north to south etc. With a tower there would be no more following each other down the runway, no crossing whilst backtracking, separation standards applied in the circuit, I could go on and on. And I very much doubt if ATC would want to establish at tower at Broome without a southern full length taxyway for RPT's and other improvements to assist traffic flow .

I hope next time you visit Broome, you experience how the CA/GRO service is of great assistance to local pilots and why we want it to stay for the immediate future.
P.S. I think the CA/GRO whom you refer to is looooong gone :ok:

[Pundit]

This post began with Dick asking "who is Mike Taylor?"

Well, every chance is he will be on the new CASA board together with the Chairman who most likely will be a former Labour state Premier.

Other members, CM, Hank, a "victim's representative",a leading aviation lawyer and the CEO.

And for CEO? The American headhunters Spencer Stuart are currently talking to. He is ex a major airline safety department.

Governance in this whole exercise is questionable, but not surprising, Mike is driving it. Both Mike and BB, that's right, Bruce, are on the CEO interview panel. Given that Bruce told us at the RAAA conference that he has done an outstanding job, will he support (select) a candidate who wants or proposes change because CASA is again in the 'hall of doom'?

Now Dick, forget towers for the moment, this is something to worry about! :(

[xinhua2]

Sure is something to worry about, Ex Labour Premier any one want money on John Brumby, and welcome back to CASA Peter Ilyk, god help us all.

[tipsy2]

welcome back to CASA Peter Ilyk

What a depressing thought:ugh:

tipsy:ok:

[Dog One]

What Broome needs before a tower is a full lenght taxy way parallel to 10/28 which will take rpt jets. With 10 departures, the runway is occupied for a considerable time while the jet enters and backtracks, the same with a landing on 28. It becomes necessary to space yourself out further to allow for the back track. This wider circuit then puts the GA aircraft out further etc etc. There has been numerous rpt aircraft carry out missed approaches through aircraft backtracking.

[xinhua2]

Sorry should have been Steve Bracks and Peter Ilyk

[Justin Grogan]

And for CEO? The American headhunters Spencer Stuart are currently talking to. He is ex a major airline safety department.

Wow!! A whole major airline safety department doing the CEO job!! :eek:

Other members, CM, Hank, a "victim's representative",a leading aviation lawyer and the CEO.

Sure is something to worry about, Ex Labour Premier any one want money on John Brumby, and welcome back to CASA Peter Ilyk, god help us all.

The all omnipotent Byron and his former legal counsel Peter Ilyk on the same board? Oh please! A good wind up. Or have you been living in a cave the last 12 months?:yuk: