Dick Smith
15th Dec 2008, 00:01
Is it any wonder how CASA managed to convince the members of the NSW RAPAC to support the Temporary Restricted Area for Williamtown? It was a very cunning and very dishonest process. Remember a Temporary Restricted Area is normally for an emergency or disaster area or for risky activities like air shows.
CASA had completed their Williamtown Review October 2008 (click here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_53.php) to see the Review) by the date of the NSW RAPAC meeting. This study clearly showed that only 6 of the 11 “safety mitigators” were completed.
Rather than give the attendees of the RAPAC meeting a copy of this important report, CASA very cunningly withheld it and only gave an executive summary which specifically excluded the fact that only six of the eleven safety mitigators were completed “to quote” (see here (http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/nsw081113.pdf) page 12 of the 13 November, 2008 NSW RAPAC meeting)
"The OAR has recently reviewed the 2007 Aeronautical study of Williamtown. The focus of this review is to ensure the safety of Passenger Transport Operations at Williamtown outside Defence ATC hours. While the report has a scope of the next 12 months, it is particularly focussed on the upcoming Defence Period of Operational Standby (POS), which will occur between mid December to mid January. Attached is an executive summary of the report, which has been endorsed by CEO CASA. The full report will be available on the OAR (Office of Airspace Regulation) website in due course."
Note that it says report is now available.
It is interesting that the Williamtown issue was only bought on as a “late agenda item”. Also note that the minutes state “Ideally, ATC should be provided at Williamtown, however Defence and Airservices have been unable to provide the service”. Note there is no mention by CASA why Defence or Airservices have been unable to provide the service. The answer is simple, Defence were going on holidays and Airservices knew that if they stonewalled and did nothing, CASA would give in, re write the safety case and say that ATC was not required.
It is interesting that the attendees of the meeting were not told that only six of the 11 safety mitigators had been completed. It is also interesting that the report stated that an article in the AOPA magazine educated pilots in relation to flying through the airspace when it was uncontrolled. This was a blatant lie. The actual article in the magazine was about flying through the airspace when the airspace was controlled.
It is interesting that Peter Fiegehen from the ATSB made no comment that was listed in the minutes in relation to the ATSB being totally opposed to such a risky plan. Or is there something we don’t understand?
It is also interesting to note that the AOPA representative Phillip Reiss agreed with the proposal – why would he do that? Obviously the prime reason is he was never shown the October 2008 Review. I know the man concerned and I feel sure if he had been shown the report there would have been no way that he would have agreed to the Newcastle Airport introducing such extraordinary requirements as a mandatory transponder for all aircraft when the airlines did not have to – and were not - all fitted with TCAS.
Also, understand that there has not been a notice of proposed rule making or cost benefit study in relation to this proposal.
Remember that the proposal to put in a TRA was not just for an hour or two as happens with TIBA but it was for a four week period during the December/January period.
CASA of course had been informed 12 months before that Airservices were not going to operate the service – it makes you wonder what is going on in the office of Airspace Regulation.
It is also interesting to note that Warwick Walesby the representative for Qantaslink agreed with the proposal to operate without Air Traffic control. Extraordinary!
It should be noted that Walesby is one of the greatest proponents for more and more mandatory calls with big fines for pilots operating in a CTAF. Rather than Walesby supporting Class D airspace when mandatory radio is required for VFR under ICAO he continually goes down a non ICAO route where the airlines can maximise their profits by not supporting Class D – i.e. saving money. This has now happened at Williamtown with Walesby’s support and it is well known by professionals that you cannot negate the safety reduction of a lack of Air Traffic control by writing more and more complex mandatory requirements.
I would be interested to hear the comments from those who attended the RAPAC meeting on why they believe they were not shown the October 2008 report. It can only be so the representatives were asked to vote without having all the information. What other reason could there be?
CASA had completed their Williamtown Review October 2008 (click here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/cat_index_53.php) to see the Review) by the date of the NSW RAPAC meeting. This study clearly showed that only 6 of the 11 “safety mitigators” were completed.
Rather than give the attendees of the RAPAC meeting a copy of this important report, CASA very cunningly withheld it and only gave an executive summary which specifically excluded the fact that only six of the eleven safety mitigators were completed “to quote” (see here (http://www.casa.gov.au/oar/rapac/minutes/nsw081113.pdf) page 12 of the 13 November, 2008 NSW RAPAC meeting)
"The OAR has recently reviewed the 2007 Aeronautical study of Williamtown. The focus of this review is to ensure the safety of Passenger Transport Operations at Williamtown outside Defence ATC hours. While the report has a scope of the next 12 months, it is particularly focussed on the upcoming Defence Period of Operational Standby (POS), which will occur between mid December to mid January. Attached is an executive summary of the report, which has been endorsed by CEO CASA. The full report will be available on the OAR (Office of Airspace Regulation) website in due course."
Note that it says report is now available.
It is interesting that the Williamtown issue was only bought on as a “late agenda item”. Also note that the minutes state “Ideally, ATC should be provided at Williamtown, however Defence and Airservices have been unable to provide the service”. Note there is no mention by CASA why Defence or Airservices have been unable to provide the service. The answer is simple, Defence were going on holidays and Airservices knew that if they stonewalled and did nothing, CASA would give in, re write the safety case and say that ATC was not required.
It is interesting that the attendees of the meeting were not told that only six of the 11 safety mitigators had been completed. It is also interesting that the report stated that an article in the AOPA magazine educated pilots in relation to flying through the airspace when it was uncontrolled. This was a blatant lie. The actual article in the magazine was about flying through the airspace when the airspace was controlled.
It is interesting that Peter Fiegehen from the ATSB made no comment that was listed in the minutes in relation to the ATSB being totally opposed to such a risky plan. Or is there something we don’t understand?
It is also interesting to note that the AOPA representative Phillip Reiss agreed with the proposal – why would he do that? Obviously the prime reason is he was never shown the October 2008 Review. I know the man concerned and I feel sure if he had been shown the report there would have been no way that he would have agreed to the Newcastle Airport introducing such extraordinary requirements as a mandatory transponder for all aircraft when the airlines did not have to – and were not - all fitted with TCAS.
Also, understand that there has not been a notice of proposed rule making or cost benefit study in relation to this proposal.
Remember that the proposal to put in a TRA was not just for an hour or two as happens with TIBA but it was for a four week period during the December/January period.
CASA of course had been informed 12 months before that Airservices were not going to operate the service – it makes you wonder what is going on in the office of Airspace Regulation.
It is also interesting to note that Warwick Walesby the representative for Qantaslink agreed with the proposal to operate without Air Traffic control. Extraordinary!
It should be noted that Walesby is one of the greatest proponents for more and more mandatory calls with big fines for pilots operating in a CTAF. Rather than Walesby supporting Class D airspace when mandatory radio is required for VFR under ICAO he continually goes down a non ICAO route where the airlines can maximise their profits by not supporting Class D – i.e. saving money. This has now happened at Williamtown with Walesby’s support and it is well known by professionals that you cannot negate the safety reduction of a lack of Air Traffic control by writing more and more complex mandatory requirements.
I would be interested to hear the comments from those who attended the RAPAC meeting on why they believe they were not shown the October 2008 report. It can only be so the representatives were asked to vote without having all the information. What other reason could there be?