Sir Angus Houston Supports Government Policy

[Dick Smith]

In an interesting article by Paul Kelly headed, “Dick Smith is Wrong on Air Safety: Houston” in The Australian newspaper this morning, there is a fascinating statement by Angus Houston as follows:

When I was chief of the air force I supported the implementation of the NAS a full 100 per cent. That’s because it was government policy and it was my job to implement government policy.

I find this an extraordinary statement. I was completely fooled! I thought Sir Angus was, at the time, a strong supporter of moving to the US system. He mentioned a number of times how he had flown regularly in the system and I thought he really supported it. It appears that now he was only supporting it because it was Government policy.

I must also be mistaken – I thought it was the Aviation Reform Group who actually recommended the policy to the Minister, John Anderson and, of course, Angus Houston was a member of this Group. Once again, I thought Angus was a strong supporter.

I must admit that I believe that for general aviation and for airline traffic the North American airspace system as used in the USA and Canada is simply the best in the world. And why wouldn’t it be? These are wealthy societies which are also very litigious and which also have high mountain ranges and experience abysmal weather conditions. In this situation you end up evolving to a very safe and efficient system.

It’s interesting – a number of pilots disagreed with Sir Angus’ views in relation to ADS-B. Below is the complete article by Ean Higgins which appeared today next to the Paul Kelly article in The Australian referred to above.

Remember, the CASA Regulation Impact Statement talked about general aviation saving up to $20 million per year on fuel costs because it could do more direct tracking. Of course, what was forgotten was that 90% of GA flies in uncontrolled airspace and can go direct tracking anyway. In fact, the Regulation Impact Statement was a giant, fraudulent con in my view.

NEW NAVIGATION SYSTEM OF LIMITED SAFETY USE, SAY CRITICS
by Ean Higgins
The Australian Newspaper, Friday 26 June 2015
A new air navigation system promoted by Airservices Australia chairman Angus Houston is imposing crippling expenses on aviation but fails to address key airspace safety issues, according to industry figures.
Sir Angus yesterday issued a statement hailing the GPS navigation system known as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast as providing “enormous safety and service benefit”.
But aviators told The Australian — and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority confirmed — that ADS-B would not of its own lead to an extension of airspace under air traffic control, and would not provide any weather data, nor local air traffic information about the movements of smaller private aircraft that do not have to install it. Sir Angus’s statement was designed to counter attacks from businessman and aviator Dick Smith, who has renewed a campaign for reform of the nation’s airspace regulation along US lines.
Government-owned Airservices runs the nation’s air traffic control system as well as fire and rescue operations at bigger airports.
Mr Smith has called for an extension of controlled airspace along US lines, where all commercial aircraft are guided by air traffic controllers, compared Australia’s piecemeal system, where generally below 8500 feet, pilots are left to their own devices.
Mr Smith wants the Airservices firefighters to be trained to man the Unicom radio service to provide basic local air traffic and weather information to pilots at regional airports which do not have air traffic control towers such as Ballina in NSW, Newman in Western Australian, and Gladstone in Queensland.
In his statement, Sir Angus said “the technology and global thinking in relation to air traffic management has shifted dramatically in the past two decades.
“Where once our systems relied on radar and pilots reporting their positions to ground operators, there is now a global shift to implementing satellite-based systems, such as ADS-B.”
In ADS-B, aircraft are equipped with sophisticated satellite GPS systems which determine their position, direction, speed and altitude with great precision. That information is relayed in real time to air traffic controllers via ground stations. Commercial aircraft are progressively being compulsorily fitted with ADS-B. The program is to be completed by 2017. But it will not address either of the issues raised by Mr Smith, who described the system as “a complete waste of money”.
A CASA spokesman said the introduction of ADS-B would not of its own lead to an extension of controlled airspace, saying that for airports in uncontrolled airspace like Ballina, “it would not be the single deciding factor although it would be a consideration”.
The spokesman confirmed that since smaller, private recreational aircraft which follow visual flight rules are exempted from having to install ADS-B, there would be no change to the system in which at airports like Ballina, pilots have to talk to each other over the radio to relay their positions in a bid to avoid crashing into each other.
The fact such aircraft not equipped with ADS-B would not be picked up by that system, and it is not a weather tool, mean what many pilots say is a need for radio operators at airports like Ballina, Gladstone and Newman to provide local weather and traffic information, is not obviated by ADS-B. The technical director of the Australian Federation of Air Pilots, airline captain Peter Gardiner, said that while the GPS component of ADS-B operates everywhere via satellite, it is of no value without ground stations to relay the information to controllers.
The number of ground stations remained relatively few, Captain Gardiner said, and over the vast majority of Australia there is no relay of ADS-B data at all but the highest altitudes.
Brad Edwards, the principal and chief pilot of Edwards Aviation which operates seven charter aircraft out of Armidale in NSW, said none of the promised operational benefits Airservices had promoted of ADS-B had eventuated, and the additional safety element was “zero”.
“There has been no perceived benefit in that regard for us,” Mr Edwards said.
He said Airservices’ eagerness to bring in ADS-B ahead of other countries meant for his bigger jets he could not buy off the shelf products and had to have equipment specially designed, which cost $120,000 per plane.
“For me as an operator, this has cost me a lot of money, all because of the egos at Airservices wanting to have this implemented five years ahead of the rest of the world,” he said.

[Frank Arouet]

The military has an unambiguous duty to the elected government of the day. Huston is correct there. However his promotion into "general rank" is a consequence of the elected government of this day and is therefor subject to the scrutiny of those same electors if his policy is now at odds with the original and can make his title something of a fraud. When military officers leave "field rank" their promotions are at the behest of the government via their peers. It's then they loose objectivity and man management skills and become part of the "punch and judy show". They should be ignored as having any sensible input into any civilian problems. (Including looking for sunken aircraft).

[Minosavy Masta]

Here here ! Well said Frank :D

[CaptainMidnight]

The number of ground stations remained relatively few, Captain Gardiner said, and over the vast majority of Australia there is no relay of ADS-B data at all but the highest altitudes.The good Captain should check his facts.

ADS-B coverage | Airservices (http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/projects/ads-b/ads-b-coverage/)

[swh]

Sir As close connection to the head of ASA, who was his 2IC most of the way through the RAAF in my view means he has a personal conflict of interest on this matter.

In my view Sir A and his 2IC that now run ASA have a very poor understanding of air traffic management and technology. Not the right people to be driving national policy in the area.

[Dick Smith]

The good captain is clearly correct. Notice they are not game to show the coverage at 1500' agl as the FAA does.

[Pinky the pilot]

Well said Frank!:ok: I think you made a very persuasive comment in the following;

When military officers leave "field rank" their promotions are at the behest of the government via their peers. It's then they lose objectivity and man management skills and become part of the "punch and judy show". They should be ignored as having any sensible input into any civilian problems. (Including looking for sunken aircraft).

If I may be permitted a fairly blunt observation; Could someone tell me just WTF Angus Houston would know about Civil Aviation?:confused::*

[CaptainMidnight]

No, he's wrong. He claims:

and over the vast majority of Australia there is no relay of ADS-B data at all but the highest altitudes and the maps dispute that. There is quite extensive coverage from A100 up and not unexpected useful coverage at 5000.

Coverage at 1500FT would clearly only be close to each site, same as VHF coverage.

Brad Edwards, the principal and chief pilot of Edwards Aviation which operates seven charter aircraft out of Armidale in NSW, said none of the promised operational benefits Airservices had promoted of ADS-B had eventuated, and the additional safety element was “zero”.Those who operate in the in the W.A. goldfields and Pilbara, and the central region of S.A. would disagree.

[Capn Bloggs]

Here's the Paul Kelly article:

Dick Smith is wrong on air safety: Houston
The Australian, 26 June 2015

The chairman of Airservices Australia and former Defence Force Chief, Angus Houston. has repudiated the multiple attacks on him, his management and the nation's air control system mounted in a sustained campaign by prominent aviator and activist, Dick Smith.

This row is now on the desk of Tony Abbott.

In addition to calling for a range of air control changes. Mr Smith has lodged a series of unusual complaints about the way he has been treated stretching back to 2002. He admits to having a grudge against Sir Angus. In interviews with The Australian. Mr Smith says Sir Angus has failed to implement superior elements of the US system. that our air traffic control system is dangerously inadequate, that firefighters should be deployed to assist pilots by radio. that the aviation bureaucracy operates at cost to safety and that as chairman, Sir Angus must take part responsibility for excessive remuneration at his organisation.

Sir Angus told The Australian the decision to modify adoption of the US system arose from government policy beginning in 2006. It was not his decision. He said, contrary to Mr Smith's claims, Australia had a "state of the art" satellite-based control system that was the "envy" of other nations, that safety was the priority and that executive remuneration at Airservices Australia was restrained and closely monitored.

''This started when l was overseas and l am disappointed about it," Sir Angus said of the Smith campaign. "But at the end of the day this is not about me. I have full confidence in Airservices. We put safety first. We are more than comparable with world's best practice.

"Dick has strong views and his views have been around for many years. By his own admission to The Australian. Mr Smith carries some resentment towards me but I will let Mr Smith's words and actions speak for themselves. People can form their own views on those matters.

"The rest of the world looks on us as the leader in implementation of the global navigation system. Australia was actually the first to see the full potential of this system. Frankly, it is exciting stuff. We can now provide for 100 per cent surveillance coverage of the Australian continent but the system is more accurate than conventional radar. It means Airservices can now see every equipped aircraft at high altitude that is in our air space."

In response to Mr Smith's critique of safety in the system, Sir Angus said all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground".

In relation to lower classification airspace, he said "air traffic control provides pilots of instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft with known traffic information in relation to other IFR aircraft".

Instrument flight rules are used to guide aircraft when visibility is poor.

"The way the air space is kept safe is by the regulator, CASA, doing regular studies in each location," Sir Angus said. An imminent CASA report on Ballina airport is expected to lead to new arrangements there. A former C130 Hercules pilot, Sir Angus said the current air control system was "a significant safety enhancement on what was previously a very safe air traffic system".

In Mr Smith's campaign against defects in the air control system and Houston 11 stories and more than 8000 words have been published in The Australian over the past month.

Every story has mentioned Mr Smith and his views. He is still focused on events 13 years ago, telling this paper that in 2002 Sir Angus vetoed his participation in the implementation team for the new air control system, called the National Airspace System (NAS).

In reply, Sir Angus merely said: "Dick says that I vetoed him from the implementation committee. But I wasn't running this committee and I didn't have the power to veto him."

In an extraordinary assertion Mr Smith, thinking he was indispensable, said that without his involvement the new system would not be introduced.

Sir Angus rejects outright the repeated attacks on Airservices Australia chief executive Margaret Staib over her alleged excessive salary and excessive pay rises.

The chief executive is on a salary of $501,864 compared with $488,333 in late 2012. In addition, there is a $100,373 bonus compared with $97,667 in late 2012.

Sir Angus said: "What does the CEO do? The CEO runs an organisation of more than 4000 people most highly skilled and responsible for 11 per cent of air space over the globe.

The organisation has safety responsibility covering 4 million flights each year and 90 million passengers.

"In my view, $600,000 is reasonable for this task and the safety responsibility it involves.

"When I joined the board in late 2011, I was on the remuneration committee.
"We felt at that point the need to tighten up executive remuneration. Since then we have been all over the executive remuneration issue and ensuring it is benchmarked against appropriate standards."

Sir Angus said that in setting the salary, a number of public sector benchmarks were assessed. The decision was taken to align the CEO with the level 2, departmental NAS in favour of "the need for a global, seamless, safe and efficient system for air secretary salary".

"I don't believe any of those secretaries has an accountability for safety to the extent that our CEO does," Sir Angus said.

"It is important to remember that the CEO is an executive director with fiduciary responsibilities which are very different to the responsibilities of a departmental secretary."

Sir Angus issued a remuneration analysis showing that the CEO's total pay increase, including salary and performance bonus, was 2.77 per cent since late 2012. This was significantly below the benchmark comparison over the same time of a 13 per cent average increase for the level 2, departmental secretaries.

Given the extent of the criticism he said: "All executive remuneration goes through the board. I can assure you, there are no issues there. As an organisation we are audited each year by the Australian National Audit Office or one of its subcontractors. Our policy has been to constrain executive remuneration."

The average remuneration package for executives over 2012-13 to 2013-14 was 2.25 per cent. There is, in effect, an executive pay freeze over the 2014-15 to 2015-16 period.

Mr Smith seems to blame Sir Angus for the failure over the years to fully implement the NAS air traffic control system, to which he is deeply attached. It is a bizarre position.

Sir Angus says that in 2006, the Howard government made a policy decision outlined by transport minister Warren Truss that modified the commitment to navigation based upon global navigation satellite systems.

This was cognisant of revolutionary changes in aviation technology. Sir Angus said the basic policy decision to which Mr Smith seems to object was a government decision. It was not Sir Angus's decision.

"The Howard government policy statement acknowledged the world was changing and there was a need to modify the NAS implementation approach."

This has been a bipartisan position under Coalition and Labor.

Sir Angus said: "When I was chief of the air force I supported the implementation of the NAS a full 100 per cent. That's because it was government policy and it was my job to implement government policy.

"I was on a committee headed by Ken Matthews, the secretary of the department of infrastructure and transport at the time. The purpose of this committee was to work out the best way to implement the NAS and oversight its implementation."

Sir Angus said, in relation to the 2002 meeting that Mr Smith complains about, that he recollects the meeting and the discussion.

"My recall is that it was with other people involved in the NAS implementation," Sir Angus said. "My view and the view of others was that it was not appropriate for Dick to lead this implementation team. We felt he should be involved at a higher oversight level with the freedom to assist the implementation team when required. This is what happened."

Reviewing Dick Smith's media and political campaign, Houston said: "It's been 11 years since Mr Smith resigned from the Aviation Reform Group supervising the implementation of the NAS. The technology and global thinking in relation to air traffic management has shifted dramatically in the past decade.

"Where once our systems relied on radar and pilots reporting their positions to ground operators, there's now a global shift to implementing satellite-based systems, such as Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast. Australia is a world leader in the implementation of this technology because it provides enormous safety and service benefit in our environment. But there's no room to stand still on matters of safety- we're constantly working to improve the system and this approach is widely supported by the industry from our airline customers to recreational flyers, airports and the regulator.

"I note that 30 of the 47 characteristics of the NAS have been implemented. However, in some areas, government policy and regulations have moved on to reflect progress in aviation. I would welcome Dick making positive contribution to the public debate that recognises the technologies and capabilities of today and the future."

Dick Smith has created a huge fuss over the need for ground staff such as firefighters at regional airports to be trained to operate the Unicorn radio to provide pilots with weather conditions.

Sir Angus said: "This issue has been looked at over the years. The regulator (CASA) has decided that, if anybody is to provide air traffic information to pilots in a regional context, they must be suitably qualified people. Our firefighters are not trained in that way. Moreover, we want our firefighters ready to respond to any incident or rescue requirement, not handling the radio."

In relation to the accusation that he lacked the stomach to challenge the air traffic controllers union, Sir Angus said: "Our position had nothing whatsoever to do with the air traffic controllers union. It is the regulator that has put these arrangements in place."

An excellent article that puts a completely different light on the rantings and ravings of the recent articles in The Australian.

Re Capt Gardiner, I wonder if that's all he said?

It’s interesting – a number of pilots disagreed with Sir Angus’ views in relation to ADS-B.
A number? What, 2?

Sir Angus has more credibility that most of you put together.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. ADS-B is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

[gerry111]

"...trained to operate the Unicorn radio..." (My italics.)


Goodness! That could give a firefighter a horn in the head.. :O

[Capn Bloggs]

Oops! My transcribing mistake. But since a unicorn has a pointy thing sticking out of it's head, I will leave it as is! :}

[swh]

In response to Mr Smith's critique of safety in the system, Sir Angus said all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground".

That is not true for so many airports around Australia.

[Capn Bloggs]

Come on, SWH, read/quote the whole text:

In relation to lower classification airspace, he said "air traffic control provides pilots of instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft with known traffic information in relation to other IFR aircraft".

In my view Sir A and his 2IC that now run ASA have a very poor understanding of air traffic management and technology.
It seems that he has a very good understanding...

[Pinky the pilot]

Jeez, take it easy Frank! You are one voice of reason I do not wish to see banned from the forums because of personal abuse!!:=

[swh]

It seems that he has a very good understanding...

Everyone in industry knows that all of the FIFO passenger jets are not "controlled every inch to the ground", they leave controlled airspace well before landing in many cases. In a lot of cases are not controlled for departure.

The you have airports like Avalon that have had arrivals when its non controlled, when when ML radar could provide that ability.

I used to get traffic on other IFR aircraft well before ADSB, and even before alphabet airspace, nothing has changed.

[le Pingouin]

The good captain is clearly correct. Notice they are not game to show the coverage at 1500' agl as the FAA does.

Given the US has roughly 10 times the number of ADS-B ground stations it's hardly surprising their coverage is better.

Those Aus coverage charts are somewhat dated BTW - coverage is better than shown as there are more ground stations.

[layman]

If you wish to retain credibility don’t comment on things you obviously do not know anything about.

Y2K is an old story now, but to anyone who does know, it was a very serious threat that was (mostly) very well managed and dealt with so that most people didn’t need to know.

cheers
layman

[Arm out the window]

Could someone tell me just WTF Angus Houston would know about Civil Aviation?

This may come as a shock, but military aircraft use the vast majority of the AIP rules when flying in non-military airspace (except when exempted from certain provisions), and Angus certainly flew many hours out and about in such airspace.

The argument that military guys don't know anything about civil operations is wrong - same airspace, essentially same rules, working under the same broadcast obligations.

The differences with respect to actually getting the aeroplane or helicopter in the air and paying for it are obviously huge when it comes to comparison of the sectors, but there's a hell of a lot of GA pilots out there whose knowledge of the regs and procedures is lacking far worse than many military people who fly in Aussie airspace.

I don't say this to insult anyone, but to put the quoted comment in perspective.

[swh]

Being a pilot does not make you an expert in air traffic management or technology

[Arm out the window]

True, no argument from me there.

[CaptainMidnight]

Everyone in industry knows that all of the FIFO passenger jets are not "controlled every inch to the ground", they leave controlled airspace well before landing in many cases. In a lot of cases are not controlled for departure.You missed his preceding words (my bolding):

all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground"The FIFOs leave controlled airspace on descent and hence are not controlled all the way to the ground , and similarly at AVV after the TWR closes the controlled airspace stops @ 700AGL.

[Horatio Leafblower]

In response to Mr Smith's critique of safety in the system, Sir Angus said all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground".
That is not true for so many airports around Australia.

Aircraft operating in controlled airspace are controlled through every inch of that airspace.

Nowhere does he say, or even infer, that aircraft operate through controlled airspace at all times. :ugh:

So what if a Jet operates OCTA? If there was a legit safety concern, professional pilots would be lodging floods of SMS reports and if ignored by the company they would be taking it to the Union or the media.

I spent this morning at the kid's soccer games answering the concerns of other parents who have heard Dick's carry-on on through the media. They are left with the clear impression that all uncontrolled airports are unsafe; that pilots are uncontrolled cowboys and no more in control of the aircraft than the punters down the back; that operations at CTAFs/MTAFs/MBZs/WTF they are simply a chaotic free-for-all.

Yet again, Dick's histrionics and show-pony carry-on is simply making the general public think that ALL aviation is HUGELY unsafe.

Yet again, Dick is mounting his hobby horse and causing more collateral damage to the rest of us.

Let us remember that the majority of mid-air collisions in Australia have occurred at BK and YMMB, with a tower in operation. :mad:

Cue Hamilton, Murphie and Pike posting here about what a great Australian Dick is (I don't dispute it) what a great pilot he is (no opinion) and how I have tall poppy syndrome and/or a chip on my shoulder (perhaps). :rolleyes:

[Track Shortener]

I used to get traffic on other IFR aircraft well before ADSB, and even before alphabet airspace, nothing has changed.

Yes it has. The quality of traffic information available to ATC has improved significantly:

IFR traffic is ABC, a PC12, departed Smithville time 25, climbing FL150, estimates ANGUS at time 47

vs

IFR traffic is ABC, a PC12 just departed Smithville, ten miles in your eleven o'clock, opposite direction, passing six thousand eight hundred

Which gives you a better idea of where to look to find the other aeroplane?

Like someone said earlier in the thread, ADS-B is the greatest thing since sliced bread. It'll be even better once everyone has it.

[swh]

Nowhere does he say, or even infer, that aircraft operate through controlled airspace at all times.

Where did he say passenger aircraft including jets also operate outside controlled airspace into uncontrolled airports, and have had near misses with light aircraft ?

Not the NAS brochure he is trying to sell ?

The FIFOs leave controlled airspace on descent and hence are not controlled all the way to the ground , and similarly at AVV after the TWR closes the controlled airspace stops @ 700AGL.

I saw your post before you changed it as well. The original comment that I made is true, passenger aircraft in controlled airspace are not controlled all the way to the ground in Australia.

It was a misleading comment that the public will think exactly what he said "controlled every inch to the ground", they would not know that many aircraft have to leave controlled airpsace, or never even enter controlled airspace.

The general public would not know where controlled airpsace is.

Which gives you a better idea of where to look to find the other aeroplane?

If you have flown IFR, you would understand with or without ADSB, pilots cannot see through cloud. Traffic information is just that, information, there is no control

[TBM-Legend]

Sir Angus has been a "yes man" for all of his career. I'm not surprised that he strictly follows the "party" line to the last full-stop..

[Howabout]

From my perspective, Mr Higgins has been fed and he sounds like a stooge. I know not from where he has been fed, but my judgement is that this is 'sponsored' editorializing. As follows and my bolding:

Mr Smith has called for an extension of controlled airspace along US lines, where all commercial aircraft are guided by air traffic controllers, compared Australia’s piecemeal system, where generally below 8500 feet, pilots are left to their own devices.

Where has Mr Higgins gained the experience and authority to describe our system as 'piecemeal.' No aviation credibility, no history. Had Mr Higgins been more careful with language, he would have said something like....Mr Smith then described the Australian system as 'piecemeal.' Credible journalism, young fella - you are not qualified to editorialize on matters aviation.

Frank, you totally disappoint. Such a cheap, cheap shot at the altar of your messiah:

Rumor has it that Houston and Skidmore have outstanding mess bills and the taxpayer is funding their debts.

I happened to have worked with both gentlemen - yes gentlemen - and the idea of an outstanding bill would be anathema to both. Sick, crass, and dirty, Frank. You are really now down in the gutter.

As regards NAS, and Houston's commitment, source a copy of the original NAS handbook. Angus Houston committed with a couple of caveats and he was right upfront and totally transparent. Air Force would support reform as long as safety and operational capability were not compromised. And the government was well aware.

The suggestion that Houston somehow undermined the efforts of the exalted one is out there where I got abducted by aliens.

[Howabout]

TBM/Harry; just stick to the farm.

[Capn Bloggs]

SWH, are you serious?

The original comment that I made is true, passenger aircraft in controlled airspace are not controlled all the way to the ground in Australia.
Yes they are. A>C>D 0r A>E>C or A>E>D. Read my lips. Controlled Airspace ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND.

As for your
It was a misleading comment that the public will think exactly what he said "controlled every inch to the ground"
The very next paragraph in that article said this:

In relation to lower classification airspace, he said "air traffic control provides pilots of instrument flight rules (IFR) aircraft with known traffic information in relation to other IFR aircraft".

As for misleading comments, what about the weeks of tripe that has been printed by Mr Higgins? Not one word that almost every jet airport in the country has an automatic weather radio system, Directed Traffic in our Class F is far safer than the implied Septic Tank G airspace to "hopefully avoid a mid-air crash" and giving Joe Bloggs the baggage-chucker a mic with no training in traffic delivery is going to solve all the (non-existent) problems at uncontrolled airports. Keep posting; your credibility reduces every time.

[swh]

Yes they are. A>C>D 0r A>E>C or A>E>D. Read my lips. Controlled Airspace ALL THE WAY TO THE GROUND.

No, that is a misleading lie, eg a schedule Qantas RPT passenger jet from Perth to Newman does not meet the following statement

"all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground"

Everyone in the industry except Sir A seems to know a passenger jet from Perth to Newman has to leave controlled airspace.

They are a passenger jet, they are in controlled airspace from leaving Perth to top of descent, and then exit controlled airspace on descent well before the ground. It is a false statement designed to mislead the public to think there is controlled airspace all the way to the ground for every passenger jet.

Not one word that almost every jet airport in the country has an automatic weather radio system

That maybe the case, but METARs are not forecasts. CASA requires pilots to use forecast, which are few and far between now for night time away from the capital cities. Ask ASA for a forecast for a regional airport at night, not available. Ask the BOM, not available, have to ask ASA.

I used to be able to ring the BOM on the sat phone soon after departure on a MED 1, get them issue a forecast, and then request it from ASA, all legal. No longer possible.

[Dick Smith]

Clive Wilson at lord howe has been told by CASA that he must not use his existing Unicom to give known traffic or give any worthwhile WX information.

That was the prime reason that his frequency was removed from ERSA by AsA .

The two AWIS units at Lord Howe don't give the type of information you need to do safe landing in some WX conditions.

Clive gave a fantastic Unicom service for over 30 years.i would reckon he has probably saved a few lives.

If we harmonised with the non prescriptive Unicom guidelines of the USA and Canada Clive would be able to continue improving safety at this sometimes risky airport.

[Capn Bloggs]

No, that is a misleading lie, eg a schedule Qantas RPT passenger jet from Perth to Newman does not meet the following statement

"all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground"

Everyone in the industry except Sir A seems to know a passenger jet from Perth to Newman has to leave controlled airspace.

Sir Angus never said a jet from Perth to Newman remained in Controlled Airspace. Pull your head in.

That maybe the case, but METARs are not forecasts. CASA requires pilots to use forecast, which are few and far between now for night time away from the capital cities. Ask ASA for a forecast for a regional airport at night, not available. Ask the BOM, not available, have to ask ASA.

I used to be able to ring the BOM on the sat phone soon after departure on a MED 1, get them issue a forecast, and then request it from ASA, all legal. No longer possible.
Irrelevant to the issue at hand, which is provision of weather at the aerodrome, and the fact that neither Mr Smith nor Higgins has not once mentioned that comprehensive, instant and current automated weather info is now available.

As for lack of TAFs at O-dark hundred, if you want them, you pay. Simple as that.

If you have flown IFR, you would understand with or without ADSB, pilots cannot see through cloud. Traffic information is just that, information, there is no control
Encountered a VFR last week, Broome to Port Hedland, crossing our track. Tower still closed. Brisbane Centre gave us a traffic alert on the VFR, virtually opposite direction, below, climbing and then levelling at 4800ft. I'll give you one guess how ATC saw him... :=

[swh]

Sir Angus never said a jet from Perth to Newman remained in Controlled Airspace. Pull your head in.

I am sorry which aircraft was being referred to then with "all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground"

To me, the word all, would mean every, including a schedule RPT flight to Newman (or insert the name of any regional town).

As for lack of TAFs at O-dark hundred, if you want them, you pay. Simple as that.


I dont want the forecast, its the people who live there that want it. They are tax payers, and they already fund the BOM. They are the miners, they are the primary produces, they are the people generating export revenue.

Elitist city people thinking country people deserve second class services.

Encountered a VFR last week, Broome to Port Hedland, crossing our track. Tower still closed. Brisbane Centre gave us a traffic alert on the VFR, virtually opposite direction, below, climbing and then levelling at 4800ft. I'll give you one guess how ATC saw him...

TWR still closed, controlled all the way to the ground.

Back in the good ole days, VFR traffic were allowed to talk on the radio, and the amount of airspace each sector had was smaller. "Rationalization" into two ATC centers and "productivity" has made CASA tell VFR traffic to stop talking on the radio.

None of that helps a IFR aircraft in cloud.

[gerry111]

Imagine if the VFR aircraft Capn Bloggs encountered between Broome and Port Hedland had also been monitoring Area frequency? Perhaps he/she could have replied to Brisbane Centre that Capn Bloggs was indeed sighted and briefly convey his/her intent? A pretty good outcome, I'd think.


But Dick (within his ADSB crusade) doesn't want VFRs briefly talking to Centre lest the heavy metal starts falling out of the sky...

[tail wheel]

Why is it that a forum to debate matters of importance to all professional pilots, always descend into a repetitious serious of ludicrous personal attacks and bitchy comments more appropriate to a school yard full of pre-pubescent kids??

Play the ball, not the man. Or the Mod’s patience!!!

If you find you can not access this thread – or any other PPRuNe thread – give thanks you were only thread banned and not forum or site banned.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Sir Angus has been a "yes man" for all of his career. I'm not surprised that he strictly follows the "party" line to the last full-stop..

Because telling the truth about a highly controversial matter, even when it causes major public embarrassment to the Prime Minister, Defence Minister, and Chief of Defence, is exactly what a yes-man would do. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

Some of you blokes really are laying it on a bit thick.

[Capn Bloggs]

I am sorry which aircraft was being referred to then with "all passenger aircraft in controlled air space were "controlled every inch to the ground"

To me, the word all, would mean every, including a schedule RPT flight to Newman (or insert the name of any regional town).

A flight to Newman is not in controlled airspace the whole way, so it is not "controlled all the way to the ground". Sir Angus said as much in his "In relation to lower classification airspace..." quote a few posts back.

TWR still closed, controlled all the way to the ground.
No! We were in Class G ("F", for all intents and purposes) below 5500ft. We were NOT "controlled all the way to the ground"!

[aroa]

Interestingly there was an article in a recent Oz where the guy who used to work for CAsA and wrote the rules re CAGROs...NOW admits that he was wrong to limit the job to just retired ex ATC folk, and as in the US it should be used.
Rocket science it aint !!..its just an 'advisory' and pilots will use it as they will

Since it is something done, useful and deemed a safety enhancement in the US of A...for goodness sake why not here.?

As for for Houston's trite comment ' we want our firies to respond, not be on the radio' .... does it really make any difference if the firies are drying hoses, servicing the truck, playing volley ball or cards ...or monitoring a radio...because in the event of a call out they drop whatever they are doing and bolt for it.:ok:

This issue demonstrates that hidebound bureaucazy rules, the control freaks
will continue to call the shots because they think they know better and as usual enhanced safety comes a poor last :mad:

[swh]

A flight to Newman is not in controlled airspace the whole way, so it is not "controlled all the way to the ground". Sir Angus said as much in his "In relation to lower classification airspace..." quote a few posts back.

Which is my whole point, no one expect those in industry know that the aircraft would not be in controlled airspace all the way. The comment was designed to mislead the general public. Joe Public walking onto an RPT aircraft at a capital city for a regional area reading that line will think they are in controlled airspace all the way. It is simply not true.

What do you think Joe Public will think the " lower classification airspace" would mean if they are presented with the letters A, B, C, D, E, F, G ? They have no idea of what "In relation to lower classification airspace..." means, is A better than B, is C better than D, is G better than H ? The comments mislead the public.

If you look back at my posts I have been critical also of Dick Smith with his claims of how much it costs to get ADSB installing in an aircraft ($60,000 for a G1000 C172). I dont believe that side of the debate has been honest with the public either. I have posted that time and time again on threads relating to that. My aircraft cost under $5000 to get ADSB installed, the main cost was sending the GPS back to Garmin for a WAAS upgrade. There are boxes now on the market which are transponder and WAAS GPS in one package that would fit a normal KT76 slot, for under $5000.

Its not that expensive, but expensive enough after installation when you do a cost benefit analysis. The costs savings and benefits for the private, charter, and smaller RPT operators has been well overstated. I get zero operational improvement by having ADSB installed, I see zero cost savings. The people gaining all of the savings with ADSB are the big airlines and ASA, an in general all the newer jets you see have no additional equipment needed, zero cost, all gain with flex routing.

What is wrong with calling people out on both sides of the debate for overstating their relative positions, and put it in terms of what it is really costing or savings to the general public, in terms the general public will understand.

[junior.VH-LFA]

Maybe its just me, but does anyone else get the vibe that some people hate Sir Angus because he is of a military background?

Looking at his career objectively I can see a lot of evidence that would indicate he wasn't just a yes man...

[CaptainMidnight]

Joe Public walking onto an RPT aircraft at a capital city for a regional area reading that line will think they are in controlled airspace all the way.Joe would have NFI what controlled airspace was, possibly thinking at best if an ATC is responsible for them then the "Controller" word means they are being continuously controlled.

So the argument is just going around in circles.

In addition, both articles rely on a journalist interpreting what someone has said, without - dare I say it - NFI of the subject matter.

The people gaining all of the savings with ADSB are the big airlines If by "big airlines" you mean QF VA internationals etc. the benefits of continuous surveillance are benefiting far more than them e.g. the smaller airlines & charters in W.A. & S.A. etc. I recall seeing published somewhere a note from the RFDS expressing appreciation.

Granted, private and local charters in Class G see less benefit.

Strangely enough, I recall exactly the same grumbling when transponders became mandatory for operations in CTA :)

[The name is Porter]

Maybe its just me, but does anyone else get the vibe that some people hate Sir Angus because he is of a military background?

Looking at his career objectively I can see a lot of evidence that would indicate he wasn't just a yes man...

I don't doubt the integrity of the bloke. And I doubt anybody could justify calling him a 'yes man'

The Chairman of the ASA Board is ex RAAF, the CEO of ASA is ex RAAF, the EGM ATC is ex RAAF. The Director of Aviation Safety is ex RAAF. Have any of these people run small, medium or large businesses that run on small profit margins. Have they had the pressure of paying wages, bills, random checks on their compliance that carry strict liability. Plus the other stress & pressures that come with running businesses.

I'm not questioning the integrity of any of the above, running military budgets is a stack different to running a business that will live or die based on the decisions made by the above. Maybe that's why people in the industry slag the above people?

[Centaurus]

Maybe that's why people in the industry slag the above people?

Professional jealousy maybe, in conjunction with Tall Poppy syndrome.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Centaurus,

Surely you would concede that the business of operating a small GA operation is vastly different to operating the business of a sqn of Hercs, Sea furies, Lincolns?

Serving in the upper echelons of the ADF gives you a lot of political contacts and an understanding of the business of government. It places these men where they are most likely to win these roles at the top of public life.

Unfortunately those of us serving the smaller end of the industry are out of sight and out of mind; we have little political clout; we who are least able to afford ADSB (for example) are still forced to make the expenditure with little or no benefit and zero ability to recover it.

In government and defence the budgets come and budgets go but the "revenue" is always there.
In GA we are exposed to business conditions and events far beyond our control and often out of sight that make the difference between 5 charters or zero charters this week.

When GA is constantly squeezed between government on one side and "business reality" on the other, do you think accusations of "professional jealousy" and "tall poppy syndrome" might just be a little harsh???

[swh]

The Chairman of the ASA Board is ex RAAF, the CEO of ASA is ex RAAF, the EGM ATC is ex RAAF. The Director of Aviation Safety is ex RAAF. Have any of these people run small, medium or large businesses that run on small profit margins. Have they had the pressure of paying wages, bills, random checks on their compliance that carry strict liability. Plus the other stress & pressures that come with running businesses.

Without implying a direct hypothetical involvement, say these people were all from Melbourne Water rather than the RAAF, what experience would the general public want to see from a logistics manager in Melbourne Water with a role to repair rusty pipes to have to take over the management of the Australian civil airspace ?

Just a question from the pink field to encourage discussion. The RAAF is a highly professional organisation, with many, many trades and professions. Its task is not in the management of Australian Airspace, or mentoring future managers of the same, it is national defense. I do not see a "natural" progression from RAAF to ASA. ASA is a big data IT company, managing very small perturbations in a commercial landscape (use pays). I see more similarity with the rollout of the NBN with the rollout of ADSB than I do see with the RAAF.

I see a natural progression for those who were trained as military controllers and associated functions in the Australian military to ASA as controllers and flight service officers, that does not directly translate to management IMHO.

The RAAF missed MH370 for the 4+ hours it was within its over the horizon radar. Have we got a fundamental problem in government in what the RAAF and ASA are actually capable of ? We are not alone, MH370 went straight through the equivalence of SYD in Malaysia, Pine Gap in India, Towsnville in Singapore, and Learmoth in Indonesia before coming to Australasian Airspace.

One of the previous posters suggested we are dumping on RAAF officers, that is far from the truth. Myself and many like me see the RAAF as a very large encompassing organisation. Is the RAAF where the managers of one of the most dynamic IT organisations in Australia (ASA) should come from ?

Australia does not get the head of ASIS to run Telstra.

Just a question for those in industry to debate.

[Arm out the window]

Interesting points - raises the question of what is the ideal background (if it's possible to pin it down) for a high level CASA or ASA executive?

Have they had the pressure of paying wages, bills, random checks on their compliance that carry strict liability. Plus the other stress & pressures that come with running businesses.

I'm not questioning the integrity of any of the above, running military budgets is a stack different to running a business that will live or die based on the decisions made by the above. Maybe that's why people in the industry slag the above people?

One criticism of the above is that it seems to imply that someone who has run a business with slim margins and a lot of commercial pressure would be more suitable for the top regulatory jobs than these ex-RAAF (or other comparable background) people, which I don't think necessarily follows.

If those with lots of experience running GA or other similar businesses are the ones who should be at the helm, why aren't they? And don't tell me it's because there's a conspiracy keeping them out. Are they applying? Are they interested? Are they suitable?

These regulators are rule makers but also analogous to police; nobody's jumping up and down saying the top drug squad coppers should have had a strong background in ice production! I know that's a bit facetious, but the point is - where should the top regulators come from?

[Horatio Leafblower]

Good point, well made.

The problem as I see it is that these decisions are made while trumpeting the benefits to industry.

Those segments of Industry least able to afford the change are also least likely to benefit from it.

There was, at one stage, talk of compensation for the mandated upgrade to small aircraft but that disapeared. Would someone more conscious of small-aviation pressures be less likely to act in the big-businness-prefferred manner that we are dished out by government (of both flavours)?

[Lead Balloon]

These regulators are rule makers but also analogous to police;Regulators should not be rule makers. That's a fundamental flaw right there.where should the top regulators come from?From top regulators. That ain't the RAAF and it ain't the industry.

[Arm out the window]

From top regulators. That ain't the RAAF and it ain't the industry.

Righty oh then, who?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Almost 'ANYBODY', so it would seem - from the current job being done...on GA....anyway.....

Certainly, 'anybody' who can cause rules and regs to be described in CLEAR / CONCISE (short) ENGLISH sentences, using words of 1 syllable if necessary.....
e.g. PIC's must not start the aircraft in the (feckin') hangar! - It must be wheeled outside first!

Like, made so that us 'Mere Pilots' can read and understand / remember them.....(I'm not a (feckin) lawyer and don't unnerstand their 'lingo' / jargon...)

And 'anybody' who can see the commercial ramifications of decisions made 'in the interest of 'Public Safety' - noting first that there IS a direct cost benefit to the industry, which is now 'on its knees'.....

He / She will have my Vote..!!

Just WHO started this 'Legal Lingo' thing with CASA, the Rulemakers..??
IF I am expected to fly to rules. I fully expect those rules to be fully understood by the 'average educated person'....
(p.s. YEP I got an A in English and English Lit in my 'Leaving Cert.)

NO cheers :(

[sunnySA]

ASA is a big data IT company ... I see more similarity with the rollout of the NBN with the rollout of ADSB than I do see with the RAAF.

Agree. Stick an ADSB aerial on each mobile phone tower and bingo, we would have coverage at lower levels and multiple redundancies. OK, its not that simple (duplicated lines, back-up power) but lower level coverage costs more $.

[Pinky the pilot]

Just WHO started this 'Legal Lingo' thing with CASA, the Rulemakers..??
IF I am expected to fly to rules. I fully expect those rules to be fully understood by the 'average educated person'....
(p.s. YEP I got an A in English and English Lit in my 'Leaving Cert.)


Griffo; With all due respect, all the `legalese` crap and obsfucation is not a recent invention!:ooh:

Even way back in 1982 when I first started my flying training, Aviation laws and regulations were a legal minefield!:eek:

I have mentioned the following in some previous threads, but I consider it worth repeating.:ok:

I well remember somewhere around 1985 when I gained my CPL, a Lawyer acqaintance of mine mentioned to me that he had briefly perused a few of the ANR`s as they were at the time and stated that he could see rather large `holes` in them.:eek:

A long story shortened; After he spent a few evenings in his loungechair with a glass or three of red nearby, reading the ANO`s and ANR`s of the time (and Yes; he went through the entire lot!!:ooh: ) he contacted me and stated that he found `a rather alarming` number of direct contradictions in the orders and regulations!:eek:

His final opinion was that the whole lot (ANO`s and ANR`s) were a massive legal minefield and desperately needed attention!:eek::uhoh:

Fast Forward 30 years; So what`s new?:confused::}:*

[Horatio Leafblower]

I seem to rememeber the lecturer in my first ever Law lecture stating something along the lines that as soon as you define a rule in written word, you provide the means for someone to dispute it and work around it.

We have all seen instances where CASA has prosecuted and failed to secure the desired end result. We have also all seen a great number of flagrant breaches of the law, KNOWING breaches of the law, that CASA has been unwilling or unable to act upon because they KNOW they won't be able to make it stick.

The drafting of the CASRs is not CASA's idea but that of the A-G's department. Speak to your local member if you don't like it!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thanks Guys, but I still have the opinion that to comply with any rules, they need to be written simply so that the 'average' pilot sitting in his cockpit / flight deck may understand them....

And, please tell me why 'breaking' any of the multitude of them makes me a 'criminal'..???

A driving 'offence' does not make a 'criminal', am I not driving another type of vehicle..??

'Cranky, Old, but not these days, 'bold', pilot'.....

Cheers:}:yuk:

[triadic]

At a CASA conference some 12 years ago, the AG's Dept was noted as a hazard to aviation safety. Of course nothing ever came of that... Nothing has changed! They still are, even more so.