John Forsyth resigns, NAS where to from here?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When can we expect the ROLLBACK(Enhancements)
This is to roll several threds into one, with the obvious question.
WHEN ?
I have seen posts proporting the full reversal, back to pre 27 Nov and some by ****su (and others) with the be carefull, lets wait until its all over. Am I reading something into your posts ****su.
Personaly I am no NAS fan, but did see some uses for the VFR climb and descent procedure, which should be retained for certian areas or locations.
So the big question is WHEN will the Rollback or enhancements occur.
and
What will GO and what will STAY.
I suppose there is one more obvious question, but which is niether operationaly or safety based, but what the heck.
WHAT WILL DICK THINK ABOUT ALL THIS.
or has he been playing us all along.
WHEN ?
I have seen posts proporting the full reversal, back to pre 27 Nov and some by ****su (and others) with the be carefull, lets wait until its all over. Am I reading something into your posts ****su.
Personaly I am no NAS fan, but did see some uses for the VFR climb and descent procedure, which should be retained for certian areas or locations.
So the big question is WHEN will the Rollback or enhancements occur.
and
What will GO and what will STAY.
I suppose there is one more obvious question, but which is niether operationaly or safety based, but what the heck.
WHAT WILL DICK THINK ABOUT ALL THIS.
or has he been playing us all along.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: FNQ
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First casualty of NAS?
Could this be the first of many? Nothing on the AsA website.
"Air Services Australia (ASA) chairman John Forsyth has resigned.
Mr Forsyth has been in the position for the last eight years and has been in charge of the current review of Australia's air space rules.
Proposed changes to air space regulations are due to be presented to Transport Minister John Anderson within a week.
No explanation has so far been provided for Mr Forsyth's resignation."
abc.net.au/news
"Air Services Australia (ASA) chairman John Forsyth has resigned.
Mr Forsyth has been in the position for the last eight years and has been in charge of the current review of Australia's air space rules.
Proposed changes to air space regulations are due to be presented to Transport Minister John Anderson within a week.
No explanation has so far been provided for Mr Forsyth's resignation."
abc.net.au/news
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
John Forsyth resigns, NAS where to from here?
Just so we can keep it together please post your NAS political comments here and use the V of R Thread for technical issues.
At least give it a try.
W
At least give it a try.
W
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smart move leaving the sinking ship early. Hopefully he will be able to "SEE AND AVOID" all the prickly questions!!
Looks like the NAS will go the way of Tricky Dickys Class G debacle. When will these jokers ever learn. Professional pilots need profesional airspace!
Looks like the NAS will go the way of Tricky Dickys Class G debacle. When will these jokers ever learn. Professional pilots need profesional airspace!
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fri "The Australian"
Air traffic chief quits after reform bungle
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
February 13, 2004
AIRSERVICES Australia chairman John Forsyth has fallen on his sword in the wake of the air traffic control organisation's bungling of airspace reforms.
Transport Minister John Anderson announced the long-serving Airservices chairman's resignation yesterday after a week of controversy sparked by a proposal to wind back the reforms.
Mr Forsyth will be replaced by his deputy, Air Marshal Les Fisher, as the board meets today to decide whether to significantly reverse the airspace changes or make less dramatic modifications.
The resignation comes after a fiery meeting on Monday between Mr Anderson and the Airspace Reform Group charged with guiding the airspace changes. Mr Anderson has personally backed the reforms and is angry public confidence has been undermined by controversy about the proposal to reverse the changes.
Airservices admitted this week that it had botched the introduction of the airspace reforms by failing to meet "certain governance obligations".
It is understood Mr Anderson did not ask for Mr Forsyth's resignation.
"Given Mr Forysth's decision to resign, Mr Anderson felt it was appropriate that he accept that," a spokesman for the minister said. "The board and the (NAS) process needed immediate certainty and strong leadership which we believe Air Marshal Fisher will most certainly provide."
Mr Forsyth had been chairman since 1996 and presided over significant advances at Airservices.
"Airservices is vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," Mr Anderson said yesterday.
"The organisation is held in high regard both in Australia and internationally."
Airservices has refused to elaborate on the nature of its bungle but The Australian understands it relates to requirements that a decrease in safety standards be offset by a corresponding benefit. Industry sources believe the oversight left Airservices exposed legally.
The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes. Unions say the changes increase the risk of a mid-air collision but Airservices maintains the reforms are safe and says the recent problems have not changed that assessment.
At a hazard identification meeting last week, however, Airservices stunned industry representatives with a proposal to change significant sections of the new E-class airspace back to C-class.
That proposal remains the only one taken to industry, although Airservices earlier this week said it was still reviewing other options.
Canberra sources believe today's decision will involve some winding back of the November changes but not necessarily the dramatic reversal suggested to industry.
============================================
Fri "Melbourne Age"
Air space chief quits after review
By Mark Russell
February 13, 2004
The head of Airservices Australia has quit only two days after the organisation admitted to failings in its introduction of controversial new rules governing air safety.
The resignation of Airservices chairman John Forsyth was announced by Federal Transport Minister John Anderson. No reason was given.
On Tuesday, Airservices Australia chief executive Bernie Smith admitted that "certain governance obligations may not have been met" in moving over to the new system.
The new airspace rules, which allow light planes into areas used by commercial airliners largely based on "see and avoid" principles, have been widely criticised by pilots and the air traffic controllers' union, Civil Air.
The Federal Government ordered a review of the new system after the findings of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into a near miss between an airliner and a light plane over Launceston airport on Christmas Eve.
The bureau found the near miss occurred because of the new air space rules.
The Airservices Australia board is due to report back to Mr Anderson next Thursday on its review of the air space system.
A spokesman for Mr Anderson said the Government did not demand Mr Forsyth's resignation.
"John felt he should accept it because the board (of Airservices Australia) needs certainty and they're working through this process and they need strong leadership," the spokesman said.
Airservices deputy chairman, retired air marshal Les Fisher, will be acting chairman until a permanent replacement is named.
Federal Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said a full explanation was needed about the reasons behind Mr Forsyth's resignation.
"There are significant concerns about the new air space system that the minister must address immediately," Mr Ferguson said. "If Mr Forsyth's resignation is anything to do with the air space system, then those reasons need to be made public sooner rather than later."
Captain Richard Woodward, Australian International Pilots Association's technical and safety director, said he had heard rumours that heads were going to roll over the air space system and Mr Forsyth appeared to be the first victim.
"I suspect a few more heads will roll," Captain Woodward said.
Civil Air president Ted Lang said there was a lot of speculation over Mr Forsyth's resignation but he was reluctant to comment. "You're probably able to put two and two together but it's not for me to comment on that," he said.
Mr Anderson, in a statement last night, praised Mr Forsyth's contribution since he began the job in 1996. "Airservices Australia is a vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," he said.
=======================================
Air traffic chief quits after reform bungle
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
February 13, 2004
AIRSERVICES Australia chairman John Forsyth has fallen on his sword in the wake of the air traffic control organisation's bungling of airspace reforms.
Transport Minister John Anderson announced the long-serving Airservices chairman's resignation yesterday after a week of controversy sparked by a proposal to wind back the reforms.
Mr Forsyth will be replaced by his deputy, Air Marshal Les Fisher, as the board meets today to decide whether to significantly reverse the airspace changes or make less dramatic modifications.
The resignation comes after a fiery meeting on Monday between Mr Anderson and the Airspace Reform Group charged with guiding the airspace changes. Mr Anderson has personally backed the reforms and is angry public confidence has been undermined by controversy about the proposal to reverse the changes.
Airservices admitted this week that it had botched the introduction of the airspace reforms by failing to meet "certain governance obligations".
It is understood Mr Anderson did not ask for Mr Forsyth's resignation.
"Given Mr Forysth's decision to resign, Mr Anderson felt it was appropriate that he accept that," a spokesman for the minister said. "The board and the (NAS) process needed immediate certainty and strong leadership which we believe Air Marshal Fisher will most certainly provide."
Mr Forsyth had been chairman since 1996 and presided over significant advances at Airservices.
"Airservices is vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," Mr Anderson said yesterday.
"The organisation is held in high regard both in Australia and internationally."
Airservices has refused to elaborate on the nature of its bungle but The Australian understands it relates to requirements that a decrease in safety standards be offset by a corresponding benefit. Industry sources believe the oversight left Airservices exposed legally.
The November 27 airspace reforms replaced some class-C airspace, where air traffic controllers separate commercial aircraft from light aircraft, with class-E airspace, in which the onus is on pilots to look out for other planes. Unions say the changes increase the risk of a mid-air collision but Airservices maintains the reforms are safe and says the recent problems have not changed that assessment.
At a hazard identification meeting last week, however, Airservices stunned industry representatives with a proposal to change significant sections of the new E-class airspace back to C-class.
That proposal remains the only one taken to industry, although Airservices earlier this week said it was still reviewing other options.
Canberra sources believe today's decision will involve some winding back of the November changes but not necessarily the dramatic reversal suggested to industry.
============================================
Fri "Melbourne Age"
Air space chief quits after review
By Mark Russell
February 13, 2004
The head of Airservices Australia has quit only two days after the organisation admitted to failings in its introduction of controversial new rules governing air safety.
The resignation of Airservices chairman John Forsyth was announced by Federal Transport Minister John Anderson. No reason was given.
On Tuesday, Airservices Australia chief executive Bernie Smith admitted that "certain governance obligations may not have been met" in moving over to the new system.
The new airspace rules, which allow light planes into areas used by commercial airliners largely based on "see and avoid" principles, have been widely criticised by pilots and the air traffic controllers' union, Civil Air.
The Federal Government ordered a review of the new system after the findings of an Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigation into a near miss between an airliner and a light plane over Launceston airport on Christmas Eve.
The bureau found the near miss occurred because of the new air space rules.
The Airservices Australia board is due to report back to Mr Anderson next Thursday on its review of the air space system.
A spokesman for Mr Anderson said the Government did not demand Mr Forsyth's resignation.
"John felt he should accept it because the board (of Airservices Australia) needs certainty and they're working through this process and they need strong leadership," the spokesman said.
Airservices deputy chairman, retired air marshal Les Fisher, will be acting chairman until a permanent replacement is named.
Federal Opposition transport spokesman Martin Ferguson said a full explanation was needed about the reasons behind Mr Forsyth's resignation.
"There are significant concerns about the new air space system that the minister must address immediately," Mr Ferguson said. "If Mr Forsyth's resignation is anything to do with the air space system, then those reasons need to be made public sooner rather than later."
Captain Richard Woodward, Australian International Pilots Association's technical and safety director, said he had heard rumours that heads were going to roll over the air space system and Mr Forsyth appeared to be the first victim.
"I suspect a few more heads will roll," Captain Woodward said.
Civil Air president Ted Lang said there was a lot of speculation over Mr Forsyth's resignation but he was reluctant to comment. "You're probably able to put two and two together but it's not for me to comment on that," he said.
Mr Anderson, in a statement last night, praised Mr Forsyth's contribution since he began the job in 1996. "Airservices Australia is a vastly improved and more efficient organisation than when Mr Forsyth was first appointed," he said.
=======================================
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that John Forsyth will be the first of many scapegoats, although John was part of the ARG.
John Forsyth was after all doing the minister's bidding like a good dog, and now because it is all coming unstuck the dog gets a kick in the behind. Well looks like this dog decided to find a new master, one that didn't blame it for its master's mistakes.
I wonder how the CEO will fare.
John Forsyth was after all doing the minister's bidding like a good dog, and now because it is all coming unstuck the dog gets a kick in the behind. Well looks like this dog decided to find a new master, one that didn't blame it for its master's mistakes.
I wonder how the CEO will fare.
A river to my people
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: No fixed abode, No 29a
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The official Media Release from ASA.
Perhaps more significant for what it doesn't say, than for what it does.
sep
No. 4/04
CHAIRMAN LEAVES STRONG LEGACY
The outgoing Chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth, has overseen a period of major change and exceptional growth, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Bernie Smith said tonight.
“John Forsyth has been totally dedicated to the task of advancing the interests of the aviation industry in Australia since he took up the top position in July 1996, “ Mr Smith said.
“He will be a big loss to the organisation because of his unswerving dedication to safety, his business acumen and leadership and his drive and commitment to airspace reform.”
Mr Forsyth has been a tireless advocate of the importance of the primacy of safety to the organisation, Mr Smith said.
“He was instrumental in several major initiatives in the industry including the implementation of the world’s most advanced air traffic control system - the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS), pricing reform and the attainment of the high international reputation enjoyed by the corporation today,” he said.
“Under his stewardship, the corporation reduced its operating costs by over $140 million a year through real price reductions of over 25 percent, making the organisation more commercial and highly competitive against international air navigation service providers.”
“In addition, during his tenure, Airservices customers have harvested fuel savings from enhanced operational traffic flow procedures in excess of $80 million a year. This reduced fuel burn also has eliminated 890,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually”, Mr Smith said.
“The corporation and the aviation industry as a whole is greatly indebted for the reforms he has overseen.”
Mr Smith said Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret), who had been deputy chairman to John Forsyth for nearly three years and had joined the board in July 1999, will provide continuity for the organisation until a permanent replacement is appointed.
12 February 2004
Perhaps more significant for what it doesn't say, than for what it does.
sep
No. 4/04
CHAIRMAN LEAVES STRONG LEGACY
The outgoing Chairman of Airservices Australia, John Forsyth, has overseen a period of major change and exceptional growth, the Corporation’s Chief Executive Bernie Smith said tonight.
“John Forsyth has been totally dedicated to the task of advancing the interests of the aviation industry in Australia since he took up the top position in July 1996, “ Mr Smith said.
“He will be a big loss to the organisation because of his unswerving dedication to safety, his business acumen and leadership and his drive and commitment to airspace reform.”
Mr Forsyth has been a tireless advocate of the importance of the primacy of safety to the organisation, Mr Smith said.
“He was instrumental in several major initiatives in the industry including the implementation of the world’s most advanced air traffic control system - the Australian Advanced Air Traffic System (TAAATS), pricing reform and the attainment of the high international reputation enjoyed by the corporation today,” he said.
“Under his stewardship, the corporation reduced its operating costs by over $140 million a year through real price reductions of over 25 percent, making the organisation more commercial and highly competitive against international air navigation service providers.”
“In addition, during his tenure, Airservices customers have harvested fuel savings from enhanced operational traffic flow procedures in excess of $80 million a year. This reduced fuel burn also has eliminated 890,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions annually”, Mr Smith said.
“The corporation and the aviation industry as a whole is greatly indebted for the reforms he has overseen.”
Mr Smith said Air Marshal Les Fisher AO (ret), who had been deputy chairman to John Forsyth for nearly three years and had joined the board in July 1999, will provide continuity for the organisation until a permanent replacement is appointed.
12 February 2004
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with Dirty Pierre 100% here. It appears Anderson has moved the "Buck Stops Here" sign and put it on Forsyth's desk. A fine example of Ministerial accountability by this weasel.
I fail to see why the CEO should be under threat at all. He was instructed to implement policy formulated by the Board and did so.
The credibility of AirServices as an organisation has taken yet another hit, and the job of airspace reform has become more difficult after yet another cockup, but perhaps one benefit will come out of this in the long term. Surely, SURELY, the lesson has finally been learned now that Dick Smith must play no part in aviation reform in this country ever again?
I fail to see why the CEO should be under threat at all. He was instructed to implement policy formulated by the Board and did so.
The credibility of AirServices as an organisation has taken yet another hit, and the job of airspace reform has become more difficult after yet another cockup, but perhaps one benefit will come out of this in the long term. Surely, SURELY, the lesson has finally been learned now that Dick Smith must play no part in aviation reform in this country ever again?
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I fail to see why the CEO should be under threat at all. He was instructed to implement policy formulated by the Board and did so.
Bernie has continually abused his staff, their union and backed the safety credentials of the NAS, despite having clear advice that it was less safe and more costly.
Bernie must go, he has no credibility; he should have said no, he didn't because he might be sacked, now he'll be sacked (or resign) anyway.
Was it just me that saw Bernie getting his contract extension done whilst this project was at the pressure point; one wonders if he did a secret deal?
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Richo. G'Day big fella!
Politically, NAS change can occur only two ways:
1. "Fine Tuning" will be an acronym for a major re vamp – akin to changing a Ferguson tractor into an Aston Martin – if the politicians can get away with it.
2. “Public Service Suicide” will be if NAS is scrapped and replaced with yet another system and involve senior bureaucrats committing Hare Kari in order to preserve the politicians purity.
It seems number 2 above may have commenced!
Woomera
Politically, NAS change can occur only two ways:
1. "Fine Tuning" will be an acronym for a major re vamp – akin to changing a Ferguson tractor into an Aston Martin – if the politicians can get away with it.
2. “Public Service Suicide” will be if NAS is scrapped and replaced with yet another system and involve senior bureaucrats committing Hare Kari in order to preserve the politicians purity.
It seems number 2 above may have commenced!
Woomera
Bottums Up
Binos
It's hard to believe that Dick was given another chance (the current one) to stuff our airspace system. I fear that we can't presume that he won't be given another! 
The greatest threat to aviation safety known to mankind, IMHO and when I read Two Years in The Aviation Hall of Doom, I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air!
The greatest threat to aviation safety known to mankind, IMHO and when I read Two Years in The Aviation Hall of Doom, I thought he'd be a breath of fresh air!
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMHO I can't see a rollback to the good ole days.
Anderson has put his neck out a little too far in support of NAS and a total back flip will damage him politically (as we have seen, his lap dogs are bearing the brunt of this debacle).
I reckon 'fine tuning' (read major changes) will be the order of the day.
Anderson has put his neck out a little too far in support of NAS and a total back flip will damage him politically (as we have seen, his lap dogs are bearing the brunt of this debacle).
I reckon 'fine tuning' (read major changes) will be the order of the day.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The land down-under
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We live in interesting times
The stories have been around the ATC centres since mid-last week when the Haz Id process was conducted for possible "fine tuning" of the airspace.
What is clear is that Airservices feels it is exposed legally, the "NAS naysayers" of a fortnight ago are happily saying "I told you so" now and the Pro-NAS lobby voices seem to have all found a common lull in the conversational process (and haven't anything to fill it with - where's BIK 118.6 when you want him for 2000 quick words on this topic?) The model that's being touted at the moment not only rolls back the NAS carpet but appears to give us MORE class C than we had before. Given the amount the process has cost to get to this stage (bean-counters are already rattling abacus late into the night and keep coming up with figures in excess of A$50 000 000) it would appear that if a significant number of people don't fall on swords then the night of the long knives is not far off.
Leaving aside the airspace arrangements such that they might be, where to from here? The Minister has been a bit quietish, what with his super to think about and all, he probably isn't giving this too much thought. He was, you will recall, very vocal that NAS was the right way to go and the RA type incidents were simply the airspace working the way it should.
Has anyone else seen Minister Anderson standing in front of mirrors practicing cryptic phrases such as "simply another example of flexible government responding to the needs of the industry" while John Howard smiles fixedly in the background and edges quietly backwards?
What ever happened to that "Disgruntled employee" that said this was a joke and was effectively driven out of the position of Head Air Traffic Controller by a CEO and executive only too happy to throw him to the wolves for expressing his genuine concerns?
Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma?
What is clear is that Airservices feels it is exposed legally, the "NAS naysayers" of a fortnight ago are happily saying "I told you so" now and the Pro-NAS lobby voices seem to have all found a common lull in the conversational process (and haven't anything to fill it with - where's BIK 118.6 when you want him for 2000 quick words on this topic?) The model that's being touted at the moment not only rolls back the NAS carpet but appears to give us MORE class C than we had before. Given the amount the process has cost to get to this stage (bean-counters are already rattling abacus late into the night and keep coming up with figures in excess of A$50 000 000) it would appear that if a significant number of people don't fall on swords then the night of the long knives is not far off.
Leaving aside the airspace arrangements such that they might be, where to from here? The Minister has been a bit quietish, what with his super to think about and all, he probably isn't giving this too much thought. He was, you will recall, very vocal that NAS was the right way to go and the RA type incidents were simply the airspace working the way it should.
Has anyone else seen Minister Anderson standing in front of mirrors practicing cryptic phrases such as "simply another example of flexible government responding to the needs of the industry" while John Howard smiles fixedly in the background and edges quietly backwards?
What ever happened to that "Disgruntled employee" that said this was a joke and was effectively driven out of the position of Head Air Traffic Controller by a CEO and executive only too happy to throw him to the wolves for expressing his genuine concerns?
Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma?
Last edited by Dick N. Cider; 13th Feb 2004 at 17:06.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 244
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the costs of this bull$hit 'process' are anything NEAR rumoured costs, there should be a royal comission into the whole thing, and the blame should go right to the top.
A bloody disgrace
A bloody disgrace
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh the horror....
Has anyone else seen Minister Anderson standing in front of mirrors practicing cryptic phrases such as "simply another example of flexible government responding to the needs of the industry" while John Howard smiles fixedly in the background and edges quietly backwards?
What ever happened to that "Disgruntled employee" that said this was a joke and was effectively driven out of the position of Head Air Traffic Controller by a CEO and executive only too happy to throw him to the wolves for expressing his genuine concerns?
Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma?
Group think and yes men abound - dissenters will be shot. Perhaps it's Karma?
I guess P F might make himself available when the time comes, I dare say those responsible for this mess will be praying he stays OS?!
Come home mate and set the record straight, make these bastards accountable!
Report goes to Anderson on the 19th (Last sitting day). They (House of Reps) do not sit again until the 1st March. (Saucer of milk JA?)
Keep you eye on parliament first 2 weeks of March!
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS: What went wrong?
As NAS ‘enhancements’ are imminent and the various personalities involved scuttle about trying to make the best of a bad situation, it may be time to quietly reflect on why this attempt at aviation reform went so badly wrong. These are my views.
Firstly, aviation reform was propounded by an individual (Dick Smith) with no clearly defined goal or any cogent reasons offered for the change. The claims of costs as a reason for change were soundly refuted on two fronts. Firstly, the industry did not see cost as a major issue. In fact, an independent Eurocontrol study found that Australia’s costs weer already lower than both Europe and the US. Secondly, the claimed cost savings put forward were found (by the Airservices CEO in evidence to the Senate) to be based upon an erroneous analysis of the financial data provided by Airservices in the first place.
Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, NAS went wrong because of the manner in which the reform was attempted. A telling analogy is the case of the Ansett B743 nose-wheel up landing at Sydney some years ago. This could have been Australia’s first wide-body hull loss.
So, what led to the Ansett incident? Why, when the Boeing 747 has successfully been introduced into airline fleets around the world, did Ansett have an accident on their first revenue flight?
The “can do” culture
According to Ansett’s own analysis, the failure was in part due to the way in which the change (introduction of a new and very different type) was attempted. Captain Trevor Jensen attributed the failure in part to a “can do” culture within the Ansett group. Most airlines attempting the introduction of a Boeing 747 into a fleet like Ansett’s at the time would take approximately 12 months to complete the transition. Because of commercial pressures, Ansett attempted the change in the space of approximately 4 months. This led to serious deficiencies in the change management process, pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc.
Experience
Ansett found that the experience level of the crew in VH-ING was deficient, particularly in terms of the gradient of experience between the captain, FO and SO. The captain was very experienced on type, but not with Ansett, the FO (or SO) was on his first revenue flight for Ansett and also on type. The CRM aspects of such a steep experience and skills gradient became obvious when a relatively simple engine shut-down led to an approach that was too fast, without the correct flap setting and no nose-wheel. Despite all of this, the approach and landing was continued.
The similarities between this and NAS are startling. It is argued by some proponents that NAS works ‘safely’ in the United States, and they see no difficulty in introducing it into Australia. Leaving aside the issue of ‘how safe is safe?’, let us examine the parallels between the introduction of a new system (NAS) and the introduction of the 747 in Ansett.
”Can do” airspace reform
Airspace reform in the United States has taken many years. The culture and the system have developed in response to many competing pressures, including safety, commercial considerations, effective use of taxpayer funding and the influence of lobby groups such as AOPA (US).
In Australia, the attempted introduction NAS in a short space of time was akin to Ansett’s attempt to introduce a new type in about a third of the average time.
This led to deficiencies in pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc. Exactly the things that led to a near disaster at Sydney, led to a near disaster at Launceston and Melbourne.
Experience
Like the Ansett flight deck, Australian pilots and controllers have little experience of NAS. Where this situation occurs and cannot be avoided, it can be mitigated by a slow, careful and considered introduction of change. NAS is/was being introduced in stages, but it readily became apparent that the changes were not being absorbed in terms of experience and culture.
So, why did we rush into this? According to Dick Smith, the Minister was frustrated that no reform had occurred over the preceding two years and wanted something done quickly. Mr Smith has previously shown his feeling about safety cases/analyses, when he said:” Is it because you believe safety cases are to be used to stop reform, not support reform. What other reason could there be for your inconsistency? ie, if you or your colleagues personally want the reform there is no need for a safety case, but if you do not want the reform there is the need for such an involved and detailed safety case that it will never be completed.”
What we are left with is a situation where:
1. Public confidence in aviation has been eroded. This cannot have any positive affects on the financial viability of airline and other operators. How many more operators going bankrupt will it take before aviation reform is done properly, by the professionals and with broad consultation and agreement?
2. Further confusion will arise from any ‘rollback’ of NAS, leading to the possibility of further incidents.
3. The chairman of the Airservices’ board has resigned. His talents will no longer be available to benefit aviation reform and aviation safety in Australia.
4. An enormous amount of money has been wasted on now-defunct training, documentation, etc. A further amount of money will be expended undoing the mess.
The costs of NAS, in terms of economic loss, loss of reputation and time are considerable. The people who made these decisions should be held to account. It is incumbent upon all of us who have been affected to support attempts to determine the truth of how NAS was allowed to proceed in the way it did.
Firstly, aviation reform was propounded by an individual (Dick Smith) with no clearly defined goal or any cogent reasons offered for the change. The claims of costs as a reason for change were soundly refuted on two fronts. Firstly, the industry did not see cost as a major issue. In fact, an independent Eurocontrol study found that Australia’s costs weer already lower than both Europe and the US. Secondly, the claimed cost savings put forward were found (by the Airservices CEO in evidence to the Senate) to be based upon an erroneous analysis of the financial data provided by Airservices in the first place.
Secondly, but perhaps more importantly, NAS went wrong because of the manner in which the reform was attempted. A telling analogy is the case of the Ansett B743 nose-wheel up landing at Sydney some years ago. This could have been Australia’s first wide-body hull loss.
So, what led to the Ansett incident? Why, when the Boeing 747 has successfully been introduced into airline fleets around the world, did Ansett have an accident on their first revenue flight?
The “can do” culture
According to Ansett’s own analysis, the failure was in part due to the way in which the change (introduction of a new and very different type) was attempted. Captain Trevor Jensen attributed the failure in part to a “can do” culture within the Ansett group. Most airlines attempting the introduction of a Boeing 747 into a fleet like Ansett’s at the time would take approximately 12 months to complete the transition. Because of commercial pressures, Ansett attempted the change in the space of approximately 4 months. This led to serious deficiencies in the change management process, pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc.
Experience
Ansett found that the experience level of the crew in VH-ING was deficient, particularly in terms of the gradient of experience between the captain, FO and SO. The captain was very experienced on type, but not with Ansett, the FO (or SO) was on his first revenue flight for Ansett and also on type. The CRM aspects of such a steep experience and skills gradient became obvious when a relatively simple engine shut-down led to an approach that was too fast, without the correct flap setting and no nose-wheel. Despite all of this, the approach and landing was continued.
The similarities between this and NAS are startling. It is argued by some proponents that NAS works ‘safely’ in the United States, and they see no difficulty in introducing it into Australia. Leaving aside the issue of ‘how safe is safe?’, let us examine the parallels between the introduction of a new system (NAS) and the introduction of the 747 in Ansett.
”Can do” airspace reform
Airspace reform in the United States has taken many years. The culture and the system have developed in response to many competing pressures, including safety, commercial considerations, effective use of taxpayer funding and the influence of lobby groups such as AOPA (US).
In Australia, the attempted introduction NAS in a short space of time was akin to Ansett’s attempt to introduce a new type in about a third of the average time.
This led to deficiencies in pilot education, training materials, operational documentation etc. Exactly the things that led to a near disaster at Sydney, led to a near disaster at Launceston and Melbourne.
Experience
Like the Ansett flight deck, Australian pilots and controllers have little experience of NAS. Where this situation occurs and cannot be avoided, it can be mitigated by a slow, careful and considered introduction of change. NAS is/was being introduced in stages, but it readily became apparent that the changes were not being absorbed in terms of experience and culture.
So, why did we rush into this? According to Dick Smith, the Minister was frustrated that no reform had occurred over the preceding two years and wanted something done quickly. Mr Smith has previously shown his feeling about safety cases/analyses, when he said:” Is it because you believe safety cases are to be used to stop reform, not support reform. What other reason could there be for your inconsistency? ie, if you or your colleagues personally want the reform there is no need for a safety case, but if you do not want the reform there is the need for such an involved and detailed safety case that it will never be completed.”
What we are left with is a situation where:
1. Public confidence in aviation has been eroded. This cannot have any positive affects on the financial viability of airline and other operators. How many more operators going bankrupt will it take before aviation reform is done properly, by the professionals and with broad consultation and agreement?
2. Further confusion will arise from any ‘rollback’ of NAS, leading to the possibility of further incidents.
3. The chairman of the Airservices’ board has resigned. His talents will no longer be available to benefit aviation reform and aviation safety in Australia.
4. An enormous amount of money has been wasted on now-defunct training, documentation, etc. A further amount of money will be expended undoing the mess.
The costs of NAS, in terms of economic loss, loss of reputation and time are considerable. The people who made these decisions should be held to account. It is incumbent upon all of us who have been affected to support attempts to determine the truth of how NAS was allowed to proceed in the way it did.