CASA Board Member

[Al Timita]

WARNING! WARNING!

Has anyone noticed lately that Dick Smith appears to have taken up renewed interest in participating on PPrune? :suspect:

Last coupla of months he has been AWOL, but lately :hmm: hmmmm, well he has initiated 5 new threads and is also actively involved in 2 others. What does all this mean, I hear you ask? :confused:

Surely, he couldn't be trying to position himself for appointment to CASA's five-person expert board as proposed in the Government's recent Green Paper, could he? :{:{:{:{:{

Please, please, Minister, no more please! Please say its not true! :eek::eek::eek:

[Dick Smith]

Why are you so concerned Al ? Do you work for CASA?

Are you concerned that I have a vision for Australia to be the best in the World in this field?

Are you scared of change and copying the best from around the world?

Do you fear my vision where airlines fly in controlled airspace and the maximum use is made of our existing radar to help prevent CFIT accidents.

Or are you scared that someone may be involved on the board who actually flys and owns aircraft? Now that would be a change!

[Howabout]

Dick, is this a YES?

[Dick Smith]

Howabout, I havn't been asked and would only be involved if there was a clear commitment from Government that they supported a vision for Australia to be the best in the world in aviation.

This would require some pretty exciting reforms - things like telling the public that safety costs money- even employing enough Air Traffic Controllers to ensure safety.

[Howabout]

Dick,

Thanks for the candid reply. I can't argue with your second paragraph.

Regards

[maui]

This would require some pretty exciting reforms - things like telling the public that safety costs money- even employing enough Air Traffic Controllers to ensure safety.


This from the man who coined the phrase "affordable safety".

God help us.:eek:

Maui

[Dick Smith]

Maui, Would you prefer "unaffordable safety"? A bit like "perpetual motion" I fear.

By denying that everything in life, including the money spent on aviation safety, has to be affordable you are doing a great disservice to our industry.

It's one of the reasons we have a shortage of Air traffic Controllers and operate busy RPT airports without any ATC.

That is people in authority are not game to tell the public the truth- safety costs money and our society can afford high levels of safety as the cost per passenger is often quite small.

Keep denying this important truth if you want to- but you will have little credibility and little influence.

[gunshy67]

Now loosen up people. Mr Smith has many talents and like many of us, laments the state of our industry.

I have seen it decline to a level I thought could never happen. So what do you or I do? Sit back and whinge.

Do something, even if you don't get paid for it ..........to help and stop the whinge when someone attempt to better things.

Now let me ask you "affordable safety knockers"........if you wish to buy a security system for your home.........do you not consider cost? Are you one of those few that has unlimited funds and do not need to consider how you are to fund such a facility.

I think not.

Everything in our capitalistic society needs to be funded. The trick is...........decide what the task is; see what it will take to afford; ..........and then do it. That's what affordable "stuff", including safety, is about.

And on another pet subject of mine. "User Pays".........how about beneficiary pays..........there are many who benefit from the aviation industry who never fly........who are nowhere near an aircraft but benefit from aviation.

So why don't we spread the burden and have the industry funded, as it used to be, from consolidated revenue.

I will now get the flack jacket out ........but try to be nice and good people OK?

[VH-XXX]

Gunshy67, exactly! Who out there is actually more qualified than Dick to be on the board that actually wants to be on it? Why not? Why would he be worse than anyone else on there? - Not likely. Committee decisions are always interesting and someone with some drive and who is actuallly an aircraft operator in there fighting for us can't be a bad thing! Dick has had success in many areas prior because he is a go-getter and doesn't sit back whinging like 80% of posters on here so I'd be all for it.

[the wizard of auz]

I'm with XXX for pretty much the same reasons.
*runs for cover*

[flying-spike]

"Keep your friends close and your enemies even closer"

[gordonfvckingramsay]

Quite a typical attitude on display here (from some)!

Complain when there is proposed change,
Complain when nothing ever changes,
When something bad happens, complain the something wasn't done sooner,
Complain that the changes made after something bad happens are purely reactive,

Change for the sake of change or politics is never reason enough in it's self. However, if you fly around the world, you will see that Australia lags behind a large portion of the developed world when it comes to aviation standards and services. This is because not too many people have the guts to even suggest change for fear of being shot to pieces.

Case in point with Dick. :ouch:

[peuce]

I guess the reason that many are sceptical is that they see Dick as a lava lamp ...

his colours are always changing. You can't really pin him down to the one policy. Affordable safety is fine, but for Dick, sometimes we can't afford it ... sometimes we can ... depending on his personal opinion at the time.

I saw this great saying on another forum recently:


"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own
facts". .... Daniel Patrick Moynihan

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, your statement is untrue. My beliefs are well documented in writing and are as consistent as they can possibly be considering the change in technology in Aviation during the time I have been involved

I have been consistent in the belief that we must always allocate our resources where the best cost/benefit results using an objective criteria.

We must always remove requirements that only add to costs but not to safety in a cost beneficial way.

I challenge you to provide evidence that my "colours are always changing".

You state:

you can't really pin him down to one policy.

Why not look here (http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/the_book.php) where you will see my policy on airspace reform from 1990. What has changed?

[peuce]

Oh dear, I knew I shouldn't have opened my big mouth ..:{

Dick, let's just say I've got you all wrong for a moment ... there's an old saying along the lines of ... the law has not only got to be fair, but also it has to appear to be fair !

I'm sure a lot of people would say that you give the impression of being a moving target (back me up here boys)... just when we think we can pin you down and discuss some facts .. you're off on a different tangent or idea. It's knocking your head against a brick wall territory. And that's why so many people get frustrated with you.

For example ... you have always spruiked the advantages of Unicoms ... and you do in your Reform Paper. But now you are spruiling a Tower at every jet airport.

For example ...you justified the removal of Flight Service on a cost savings basis and yet now you are saying we can afford Controlled Airspace wherever we have surveillance ...

It's hard to keep up with.

However, there's nothing wrong in changing your mind... but you seem to be keeping all policies ... old and new .. running concurrently.

But, I say go for it. At least you'll have a go at doing SOMETHING ... no one in CASA seems to be.

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, I can see why you are not game to identify yourself and actually talk to me – even on the phone. For example you state:

For example ... you have always spruiked the advantages of Unicoms ... and you do in your Reform Paper. But now you are spruiling a Tower at every jet airport.

This is not true and you know it. I have never spruiked for a tower at every jet airport. I have pushed for a Class D tower where the Class D establishment and disestablishment formula shows that it is cost effective. At other airports where airlines “call in the blind” I have pushed the advantage of a UNICOM. The original AMATS paper of 1991, that I was involved in, shows this, and I have been consistent with this ever since.

I have been pushing for a minimum of a Class D Tower at Avalon and Williamtown. Both airports have over 1 million passengers per year and would comply with the FAA establishment and disestablishment formula.

On these issues I have not changed my mind. However if someone comes along with more information which is scientifically based, I would certainly consider doing this.

What gets you mad is that I’m not a person who simply resists change. I happen to believe that aviation safety comes from science – not from perception. Because of this, I want to use the science, using objective safety cases with proper validation, to allocate our resources.

Nothing has ever changed on this in relation to my views re science, nor will it.

[Dark Knight]

Puece
For example ...you justified the removal of Flight Service on a cost savings basis and yet now you are saying we can afford Controlled Airspace wherever we have surveillance ...DS
It's one of the reasons we have a shortage of Air traffic Controllers and operate busy RPT airports without any ATC.DS
This is not true and you know it. I have never spruiked for a tower at every jet airport.DK
Affordable Safety; RPT; Tower; Proserpine; Scrub??????

DS
I happen to believe that aviation safety comes from science – not from perception.Yeah; Like Global Warming?????

DK

[Gunda]

Incompetent? Ineffective yes!:)

[peuce]

Okay Dick, I've had a go at you ... and you're equally free to point out my foibles ... if you have the time.

But ... here is my free advice to you ... and it's going to be difficult (for you). As I said, from my point of view, you are flighty and jump from one issue to the next. You confuse everyone and, in the end, we all get nowhere.

Myself, I'm painfully methodical. To the point where some call me "rythym"... think about it !

My advice to you is, if you wish to work on the CASA Board , you have to work a bit smarter. Historically, once you have moved into a position of influence, you have charged like a bull in a china shop ... from issue to issue ... and made changes here and changes there. ... only to be kyboshed (sp?) by those up the approval and implementation chain ... to the extent that your changes have been implemented partially.... implemented with changes ... or never implemented at all. Frustrating eh?

I believe you have the process back to front. Here's my suggestion:


Get on the Board
Start working on the approval mechanisms within the Authority .. until they are to your liking
Work on the implementation processes .. until you have a comfortable and workable system in place ... with minimal roadblocks
Only then start working on the issues
If you've done the hard yards up above, then agreed changes should pass through the processes unhindered
If you've stuffed it up ... you'll run into the same old problems again


It might take longer and it might be different to all you have done before, but isn't it worth a try?

[Dick Smith]

Peuce, thanks for the advice however I am not sure if there is anyone in the Government who wants any change at the moment.

Unfortunately I do not see the slightest glimmer that there is a vision to improve aviation in Australia.

My biggest problem when I was Chairman of CASA was a Minister who was fearful of any change because of the media flak that may occur.

Not much use being on the board if you can't achieve any worthwhile reform- that's why a left last time!

I appear to be able to achieve more at the present time from the outside!

[mcgrath50]

Dick,

I don't agree with every issue you raise and agree with even less of your solutions BUT I have great respect for you. You are one of the few people of influence who are using their power to create change that they, if no one else, believe will make a positive change for the industry. This is highly needed.

Dick, you would gain my support, and i would imagine a lot more if you became more a man of the people, listening to what we have to say and applying it. Unfourtunatly I believe you will have to pursue a softly, softly approach with the government, particularly a labor government (who we have seen in NSW ditch a much needed rail project because the people who it would effect did not vote Labor). If you do this I believe you will have mine and many others vote.

As I said, I disagree with you on many counts but have great respect for you.

[the wizard of auz]

Unfortunately I do not see the slightest glimmer that there is a vision to improve aviation in Australia.
Never a truer statement spoken. :ok:

[poteroo]

Dick,

You can only effect real change by being on the inside, so get onto the Board, first and foremost. You should never have resigned from it the last time round...IMHO.

And when you are there, please remember that boards are there for strategic planning - not tactical matters. That's why you have an executive, and why the board needs to direct the executive.

There should be a very clear process for ensuring that board directions are followed - and this won't happen if a wishy-washy Minister doesn't have the intestinal fortitude to tell CASA that they willcomply with the Boards' directions. Without that certainty - you can forget this next CASA Board - it won't have any teeth, and the troops will just politely ignore you all.

Board members are not there to micro-manage. You're there to look at the bigger picture. Besides, it creates animosity....as you've found.

Board members also need to remember that everything goes thru' the chair. No leaking to your mates in the press and media, no hidden agendas, no kicking under the table.

Does anyone have a vision for aviation? Well, maybe one of the first items on the list would be to have the Commonwealth Government state it's support for aviation in all forms, and write it into 'law' along the lines that the US has with the FAA's charter.

I, for one, would like to hear your vision for aviation - not whether we should be playing with airspace and reporting points - but how will the infrastructure of aviation be promoted and funded.

A message to you whingeing, fair weather flyers. Forget whether Dick has $1 or $1b - your envy anger is obvious. He's a well credentialled pilot and aircraft owner who has demonstrated real 'balls' in aviation matters. We may not always agree with him, but let's play the ball - not the man.

happy days,

[mcgrath50]

Hear, Hear Poteroo! Well stated. I await Dick's, sure to be interesting, reply!

[flying-spike]

Unless I am mistaken, has a PPL!
Fair enough, the guy has done a lot but lets not get carried away with assuming he in anything more than an enthusiastic, experienced, vocal amateur

[the wizard of auz]

I believe he holds an IR and licenses in both rotary and planks with endorsements on turbine and jet aircraft and experiance flying in airspace all over the world. surely the extra couple of subjects you have to sit in the CPL exam don't negate that experiance. Also having already been in the bureaucracy would count towards the assumption of being a bit more than a vocal amateur. :ugh:

[cficare]

Dick,
You lost your credibility with me when you twice grabbed the bat and balls, threw your frock over your head and left the game.

When you are in the top job, you dont influence change by leaving the position.

[Walrus 7]

Sorry to sound a bit like a broken record, but I too disagree with a lot of what Dick says, but have great respect for the way he gets his point across, even when he's wrong. To that end, aviation probably needs Dick on the outside because on the inside he will have to abide by the majority decisions of the board. To not do so would wreck the board and its ability to function.

In the same way that the Labor Party found the perfect way to silence Peter Garrett, so CASA would effectively silence Dick by putting him on the board. We are always going to have a regulator that we don't agree with; that's part of Australian society and a big part of aviation culture. All we can do is make sure that the voices in the arguments balance out. The most valuable voice is the one that disagrees with the majority.

If The Lone Haranguer joins the palace, who is going to call the King a fink?

Walrus

[OZBUSDRIVER]

I am making a bet that Dick Smith is appointed to the board at CASA before the next parliamentary sitting in 2009.

[apache]

I predict that if he DOES get appointed.... within 6 months he will have a big dummy spit at the minister and threaten to sue someone.

well... sueing is what they do in the US!

[coke drinker]

I hazard a guess and say if he is, aviation will take a big step backwards. Its nothing personal, I just don't think he is the right man for the job.

[sms777]

Who is the right man for the job?

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Now I know why I wasn't offered the CEO's job!

They want me on the Board!

Dr :8

PS: I can feel the hand of Julia at work here!

[Ultralights]

my prediction is absolutely nothing will change.

[multime]

Clinton, the only thing that is guaranteed.
Is that no-one.!! will care.
Regards M:ok:

[Air Ace]

OZBUSDRIVER. You have a wild imagination, fueled by your prejudices perhaps?

[framer]

I can feel the hand of Julia at work here!

Ahhhhhh Doc, I too had a girlfriend named Julia (when I was much younger), you have brought back memories that will brighten my Christmas. Thankyou.

[Wally Mk2]

but 'framer' who's Julia 'flying' with these days? (The Dr perhaps?) Still feel all rosey about her now:E

I vote 1 for Dick, the way the aviation is handled now ya can't get it much worse:sad:

Wmk2

[Howabout]

FTDK,

The bit about Julia is somewhat ambiguous!

[Nkosi]

I have read with interest the discussions logged on this thread.

The argument for Dick Smith to be a CASA Board member is compelling, however, one can not usually offer changes to a structure/methods/requirements in a board situation unless a majority of those other board members are like minded.

Therefore, perhaps Dicks method of influencing those with aviation orientated political interests as well as CASA board members, from outside of the confines of the board, would be more effective.

I have been in the aviation industry for nearly 50 years now, both military and civil as a pilot and engineer, and have watched over a period of time the passing phases of regulatory changes, sometimes with pleasure but other times with a foreboding of doom.

However, I would suggest that things will get a little worse before getting a lot better, from the regulatory point of view as well as the world financial.

In the mean time have a pleasant and safe Christmas

[Howabout]

The sad fact is that Dick is a divisive influence, regardless of his talents. He polarises the constuency; some for and (in my opinion) many more against. With respect to the against brigade, some want nothing to do with some of his suggested reforms for practical reasons and others resist just because an initiative was sponsored by Dick.

As an example, under NAS the procedure called IFR pick-up (I think that was the one) was strongly resisted by the majority for no good reason, other than the fact that Dick was involved. In truth it was a startlingly logical procedure because it didn't really change anything, but provided flexibility.

For those that would argue, I'd point out that prior to the introduction of Class E where there used to be Class G, IFR operated exactly the same in Class G. That is, IFR would climb in G awaiting a clearance into overlying C. The traffic patterns hadn't changed, the density hadn't changed, but because Class E had been introduced, a procedure that let them do exactly the same as before was somehow 'dangerous'. Climbing in G awaiting a clearance was OK, but climbing through E and awaiting clearance in airspace with identical VFR traffic flows as before was somehow life threatening.

The logic defied belief.

That said, you can keep your E over D. I just don't buy the 'upside-down airspace' argument. I'd prefer to go back to what it was - all C. And IMHO the contention that you can't operate Class C without radar is disingenuous rubbish.