DICKtator goes loco over new, new MAPS
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DICKtator goes loco over new, new MAPS
The poor fellow has lost it completely!
Weekend Oz
My UBB additions!
So?
Does that mean C is returning OR are they being brave and sticking with the E ****e’? 
Anyone seen the new maps yet?
Weekend Oz
New air charts dangerous: Smith
By Aviation writer Steve Creedy
13mar04
AVIATOR and former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has accused Airservices Australia of endangering the lives of pilots of small aircraft by distributing "dangerous" new aviation charts.
About 36,000 of the new charts were sent out to pilots this week, in response to Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations stemming from a near-collision between a Virgin Blue jet and a light aircraft over Launceston last year.
The charts detail air traffic control radio frequencies and airspace boundary changes, but critics claim pilots could mix these up with the frequencies small planes flying in low-level airspace use in emergencies.
Mr Smith said the charts had been rushed out to pilots without a proper education program or consultation. "It's the most dangerous map I have ever seen," he said.
Mr Smith accused Airservices of rushing out the charts to avoid legal action and to appease air traffic control and pilot unions opposed to the federal Government's airspace changes.
An Airservices spokesman said the charts were to help the safe and orderly flow of air traffic. He said Airservices had consulted the aviation industry, including CASA and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
By Aviation writer Steve Creedy
13mar04
AVIATOR and former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith has accused Airservices Australia of endangering the lives of pilots of small aircraft by distributing "dangerous" new aviation charts.
About 36,000 of the new charts were sent out to pilots this week, in response to Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommendations stemming from a near-collision between a Virgin Blue jet and a light aircraft over Launceston last year.
The charts detail air traffic control radio frequencies and airspace boundary changes, but critics claim pilots could mix these up with the frequencies small planes flying in low-level airspace use in emergencies.
Mr Smith said the charts had been rushed out to pilots without a proper education program or consultation. "It's the most dangerous map I have ever seen," he said.
Mr Smith accused Airservices of rushing out the charts to avoid legal action and to appease air traffic control and pilot unions opposed to the federal Government's airspace changes.
An Airservices spokesman said the charts were to help the safe and orderly flow of air traffic. He said Airservices had consulted the aviation industry, including CASA and the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association.
So?
The charts detail air traffic control radio frequencies and airspace boundary changes
Anyone seen the new maps yet?
Last edited by Capcom; 13th Mar 2004 at 14:39.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have seen the most likely model. It is not in stone yet. These maps are 'for the time being'.
I can draw a map for dick if he likes. It is called the roadmap to stuffing up airspace reform. It goes like this.
Airspace 2000
g Demo
NAS
oh and on the legend it states that as long as you believe that someting is so, then it must be. Ghosts and goblins and pots at the end of the rainbow etc.
I can draw a map for dick if he likes. It is called the roadmap to stuffing up airspace reform. It goes like this.
Airspace 2000
g Demo
NAS
oh and on the legend it states that as long as you believe that someting is so, then it must be. Ghosts and goblins and pots at the end of the rainbow etc.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Until all E airspace is redesignated to C, the travelling public are being exposed to unacceptable risks. This clown talks about lack of education on these new charts - it appears no worse or better than the NAS attempt at education. Perhaps AirServices should have got the famous King's out here to promote the new charts. Having been a Liberal supporter most of my life, my continued support for their party is waning very quickly.
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
tobzalp,
You left one out.
The infamous 11/11 of the early nineties, 1992, I think from memory.
If my fading memory is correct, it was another RHS "spectacular" that went down the gurgler about two weeks before it was due to be implemented.
Which was fortunate, because neither I or my fellow controllers at the time could make head nor tail of it.
From what I can recall it had certain similarities to NAS with VFR lighties able to wander about a few thousand feet above non-radar primary zones, not saying much at all, with IFR traffic launching up through them on a "Y'all take care now" basis.
When the airline pilots worked out how dodgy it was it was scratched.
One would think that by now, the handover from one Transport Minister to the next would include a suitably engraved plaque with "Beware the Biscuitmaker" in Gothic Script.
I suppose that they all fall for the same trap, trying to keep him inside the tent pi$$ing out, rather than outside the tent pi$$ing in.
Cheers
sep
You left one out.
The infamous 11/11 of the early nineties, 1992, I think from memory.
If my fading memory is correct, it was another RHS "spectacular" that went down the gurgler about two weeks before it was due to be implemented.
Which was fortunate, because neither I or my fellow controllers at the time could make head nor tail of it.
From what I can recall it had certain similarities to NAS with VFR lighties able to wander about a few thousand feet above non-radar primary zones, not saying much at all, with IFR traffic launching up through them on a "Y'all take care now" basis.
When the airline pilots worked out how dodgy it was it was scratched.
One would think that by now, the handover from one Transport Minister to the next would include a suitably engraved plaque with "Beware the Biscuitmaker" in Gothic Script.
I suppose that they all fall for the same trap, trying to keep him inside the tent pi$$ing out, rather than outside the tent pi$$ing in.
Cheers
sep
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If he loves the United States system, then do us all a favour and piss off to the states, and leave the Oz system as it was. I can't believe he could keep a straight face when saying:
I mean "without a proper education program and consultation", "rushed out to the pilots". They were the two prime concerns from pilots who actually supported the NAS changes. Even if they liked all the E airspace and the no talking policy, they admitted the education and lead in time to the change was a disgrace. And this little prat turns around and says the thing bought in to help fix his stuff up is dangerous because its been rushed.
Ok, it may be rushed but thats because we don't want a repeat of Launceston, but worse where they actually connect.
Mr Smith said the charts had been rushed out to pilots without a proper education program or consultation. "It's the most dangerous map I have ever seen
Ok, it may be rushed but thats because we don't want a repeat of Launceston, but worse where they actually connect.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's actually bankrupt rhetoric in the manner of "saying whatever it takes at the time"
There was, mid last year in your country, a hazard identification workshop conducted by the NASIG and attended by aviation industry representatives at large including your airlines, on the imminent implementation of the NAS Part 2b .
I understand the aim and intention was to ensure, as it should be, that its implementation could be performed as safely as advertised and that the NASIG themselves had not overlooked any of the myriad possibilities of system failure.
Hazards were identified and mitigators developed in a process I understand took twice as long as originally programmed.
An outsider therefore could draw considerable comfort, that the hazard identification and mitigation process was extremely thorough.
A perusal of the roll call of organizations and the cross section of professional expertise contained within them, would also give cause to believe, if you will excuse the pun, no turn was left unstoned.
I am told it was clear to all then, that an implementation timetable developed some years before could not be met if the appropriate education and training in the new system felt to be necessary was to be properly effected for all users, given the size of some of the airline organisations and the isolation of many Australian GA pilots from aero club and training schools.
I believe that as the proposed training and educational material with the accompanying charts were not yet and could not be made available in an appropriate time, it was agreed an appropriate mitigator would be the retention of "area frequencies and boundaries" on the "new" charts for the first edition only.
This would have provided a sufficient period of training during the transition, leading to their ultimate removal.
I understand that Qantas and your Australian AOPA had also agreed to support the implementation process and development of the training and educational material on that basis and that there had been an agreement in place that would allow their individual corporate logos’ to appear as an ‘endorsement’ on the material. An very influential "tick" from your countries main airline and the peak GA industry body on what was becoming a controversial subject.
I am not privy to the details but it seems that it was only a few days before the release of the actual training material, that it was discovered by both of these organizations that neither frequencies nor boundaries were to appear as the training mitigators agreed by the industry workshop.
They not suprisingly reacted strongly and I believe threatened to withdraw their support due to the apparent shambles being made of the 2b implementation .
In reply, I believe it was transmitted to them as a ‘not negotiable’ decision by your Aviation Reform Group coming directly from your Mr. Smith, his rationale being that it not being in the US NAS it would not therefore be in the Australian NAS.
It is noteworthy that neither of these organisations logos ultimately appeared, although there was a reference to their assistance and I am given to understand their was some very straight talking about what gives the appearance of a being very deliberate attempt to mislead both organisations on the issue until it was too late.
There are some confusing signals coming out of your AOPA of late and a ringing silence from Qantas on it.
I am fascinated that in your country it seems possible for a single individual to dictate aviation policy in the face of and against the combined professional advice of the industry and then label as dangerous the very thing that he unilaterally decided not to allow against their advice.
Your media has much to answer for; they seem to treat Mr. Smith, who at the best in real world terms is albeit well meaning, a wealthy amateur aviation adventurer, as an oracle and seem reluctant to seek a countervailing professional view without the demonizing of the seemingly universal disaprobation of the Australian NAS by professional Australian pilots as some kind of union propaganda.
As is the way in these matters the truth eventually prevails and now we have the unedifying sight of your Mr Smith to quote
Mr AirNoServicesAustralia
It is also fascinating that Mr Smith now appears to be claiming some kinship with the inestimable contribution by the Voices of Reason to the debate.
From where I sit and I do not impute it as a motive to them, they are as politely as they are able, pointing out to the Govt., Smith and his cohort, the very many fundamental flaws in the arguments used to justify the Australian NAS and the means of fixing them and the very real perils of not doing so.
Kinship, I think not.
In the meantime I'll postpone any ideas of holidaying there for the moment, at least until it's clear the industry professionals are back in charge.
There was, mid last year in your country, a hazard identification workshop conducted by the NASIG and attended by aviation industry representatives at large including your airlines, on the imminent implementation of the NAS Part 2b .
I understand the aim and intention was to ensure, as it should be, that its implementation could be performed as safely as advertised and that the NASIG themselves had not overlooked any of the myriad possibilities of system failure.
Hazards were identified and mitigators developed in a process I understand took twice as long as originally programmed.
An outsider therefore could draw considerable comfort, that the hazard identification and mitigation process was extremely thorough.
A perusal of the roll call of organizations and the cross section of professional expertise contained within them, would also give cause to believe, if you will excuse the pun, no turn was left unstoned.
I am told it was clear to all then, that an implementation timetable developed some years before could not be met if the appropriate education and training in the new system felt to be necessary was to be properly effected for all users, given the size of some of the airline organisations and the isolation of many Australian GA pilots from aero club and training schools.
I believe that as the proposed training and educational material with the accompanying charts were not yet and could not be made available in an appropriate time, it was agreed an appropriate mitigator would be the retention of "area frequencies and boundaries" on the "new" charts for the first edition only.
This would have provided a sufficient period of training during the transition, leading to their ultimate removal.
I understand that Qantas and your Australian AOPA had also agreed to support the implementation process and development of the training and educational material on that basis and that there had been an agreement in place that would allow their individual corporate logos’ to appear as an ‘endorsement’ on the material. An very influential "tick" from your countries main airline and the peak GA industry body on what was becoming a controversial subject.
I am not privy to the details but it seems that it was only a few days before the release of the actual training material, that it was discovered by both of these organizations that neither frequencies nor boundaries were to appear as the training mitigators agreed by the industry workshop.
They not suprisingly reacted strongly and I believe threatened to withdraw their support due to the apparent shambles being made of the 2b implementation .
In reply, I believe it was transmitted to them as a ‘not negotiable’ decision by your Aviation Reform Group coming directly from your Mr. Smith, his rationale being that it not being in the US NAS it would not therefore be in the Australian NAS.
It is noteworthy that neither of these organisations logos ultimately appeared, although there was a reference to their assistance and I am given to understand their was some very straight talking about what gives the appearance of a being very deliberate attempt to mislead both organisations on the issue until it was too late.
There are some confusing signals coming out of your AOPA of late and a ringing silence from Qantas on it.
I am fascinated that in your country it seems possible for a single individual to dictate aviation policy in the face of and against the combined professional advice of the industry and then label as dangerous the very thing that he unilaterally decided not to allow against their advice.
Your media has much to answer for; they seem to treat Mr. Smith, who at the best in real world terms is albeit well meaning, a wealthy amateur aviation adventurer, as an oracle and seem reluctant to seek a countervailing professional view without the demonizing of the seemingly universal disaprobation of the Australian NAS by professional Australian pilots as some kind of union propaganda.
As is the way in these matters the truth eventually prevails and now we have the unedifying sight of your Mr Smith to quote
Mr AirNoServicesAustralia
I mean "without a proper education program and consultation", "rushed out to the pilots". They were the two prime concerns from pilots who actually supported the NAS changes. Even if they liked all the E airspace and the no talking policy, they admitted the education and lead in time to the change was a disgrace. And this little prat turns around and says the thing bought in to help fix his stuff up is dangerous because its been rushed.
From where I sit and I do not impute it as a motive to them, they are as politely as they are able, pointing out to the Govt., Smith and his cohort, the very many fundamental flaws in the arguments used to justify the Australian NAS and the means of fixing them and the very real perils of not doing so.
Kinship, I think not.
In the meantime I'll postpone any ideas of holidaying there for the moment, at least until it's clear the industry professionals are back in charge.
Mostly Harmless
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Oz (cold & wet bit)
Posts: 457
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Parrhresiastes (latin for prolix), realities of the HAZID process is just because a room full of professionals wishes something doesn't mean this will automatically be implemented. Either the mitigators are included, or the sponsor sticks his own neck out and decides the mitigator is not required to achieve a safe situation. It wasn't a matter of somebody saying "We can't do this in time so we'll just ignore it so save the project", they said "We don't need to do this." The HAZID process is not in particular a way of achieving consensus, even if that was the feeling in the room at the time.
Also, the HAZID to which you refer was put in as a stopgap. Up 'til then the NAS DESIGN was considered SAFE as we were just implementing what the goobers do so we only have to consider the hazards associated with implementing it not the actual design, but CASA had finally noticed there were differences between what the goobers do and what the ARG was implementing.
I don't think many players realise how much has changed now. The ARG, DOTARS and NASIG have been all been neutered and chained up. The Bikkie Maker knows he is now irrelevant, that's why he's bleating here and in the newspapers. CASA's role is to keep rubber-stamping licences and stop dreaming about taking over the world. Airservices is the team in control now, Papa Smurf has the ball, we are all waiting with interest to see which way he runs with it
Previous iterations of reform have tried design by experts, design by interested parties, design by consensus and design by zealot amateurs who have scuttled previous designs. Implementaion has been by a normal process of publishing the new stuff, by a consensus of intereted parties or by a big stick. Don't know what the current plan is
"Parrhesia" is ordinarily translated into English by "free speech" (in French by "franc-parler", and in German by "Freimüthigkeit"). "Parrhesiazomai" is to use parrhesia, and the parrhesiastes is the one who uses parrhesia, i.e., is the one who speaks the truth.
Isn't Google wonderful?
Woomera
Also, the HAZID to which you refer was put in as a stopgap. Up 'til then the NAS DESIGN was considered SAFE as we were just implementing what the goobers do so we only have to consider the hazards associated with implementing it not the actual design, but CASA had finally noticed there were differences between what the goobers do and what the ARG was implementing.
I don't think many players realise how much has changed now. The ARG, DOTARS and NASIG have been all been neutered and chained up. The Bikkie Maker knows he is now irrelevant, that's why he's bleating here and in the newspapers. CASA's role is to keep rubber-stamping licences and stop dreaming about taking over the world. Airservices is the team in control now, Papa Smurf has the ball, we are all waiting with interest to see which way he runs with it
Previous iterations of reform have tried design by experts, design by interested parties, design by consensus and design by zealot amateurs who have scuttled previous designs. Implementaion has been by a normal process of publishing the new stuff, by a consensus of intereted parties or by a big stick. Don't know what the current plan is
"Parrhesia" is ordinarily translated into English by "free speech" (in French by "franc-parler", and in German by "Freimüthigkeit"). "Parrhesiazomai" is to use parrhesia, and the parrhesiastes is the one who uses parrhesia, i.e., is the one who speaks the truth.
Isn't Google wonderful?
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 15th Mar 2004 at 21:52.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Karrank
Apart from my user name not being from the latin prolixus (pouring forth), we appear to be in heated agreement.
Where indeed to from there?
Apart from my user name not being from the latin prolixus (pouring forth), we appear to be in heated agreement.
Where indeed to from there?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone seen the new maps yet?
Is it going to make me a safer pilot? Well, it makes it mildly easier to pick the right ATS frequency (because of the boundaries), but there is still no requirement for everyone to be on that frequency.
Anyway, with each cm of the chart approximating about 50nm, it's hard to be precise.
critics claim pilots could mix these up with the frequencies small planes flying in low-level airspace use in emergencies.
Overall: dangerous? No. Useful? Not particularly. Interesting if only to see how the airspace is sectorised on the other side of the radar.
WW
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
WW, you make a good point on the emergency low level frequency. I don't know what (the) Dick was getting at there. The options as I see them if you have an emergency, would be to call on 121.5 or on the appropriate ATC frequency. Since ATC in oz doesn't monitor and doesn't have the ability to monitor 121.5, that would be a waste of a call. So as I see it having the ATC frequencies on the charts would actually be a good thing when it comes to having an emergency as that is the freq. you would as a pilot in distress want to call.
Grandpa Aerotart
AS,
I don't
I just hope nobody dies while we're giving this moron enough rope.
WW clearly, given that ATC don't monitor 121.5, the first call should be made on the appropriate ATC freq and then, when directed, change to 121.5.
If out in the GAFA down low all/most airline pilots (are supposed) to be monitoring 121.5 so a reasonable chance you'll be heard by someone.
Chuck
I don't
I just hope nobody dies while we're giving this moron enough rope.
WW clearly, given that ATC don't monitor 121.5, the first call should be made on the appropriate ATC freq and then, when directed, change to 121.5.
If out in the GAFA down low all/most airline pilots (are supposed) to be monitoring 121.5 so a reasonable chance you'll be heard by someone.
Chuck
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeh right chuck, whenever we had a sattelite pick up a supposed beacon, we would ask the aircraft between Alice and Adelaide if they were monitoring 121.5 and invariably the answer was no. The internationals do, but I used to find most domestics didn't. Maybe thats all changed in the year and a half since i worked in Oz but don't think so.
Join Date: Jan 1998
Location: somewhere in the nth of Oz, where it isn't really cold
Posts: 884
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am fascinated that in your country it seems possible for a single individual to dictate aviation policy in the face of and against the combined professional advice of the industry and then label as dangerous the very thing that he unilaterally decided not to allow against their advice.
The chart is well... interesting! 
Why it couldn't have just remained on the VTC/VNC is beyond me.
We now have another PCA type chart, this time much larger and with a million boundaries and frequencies on it. I hope they convert the PCA and 'class e/g frequency planning chart' together!
GA Driver
Why it couldn't have just remained on the VTC/VNC is beyond me.
We now have another PCA type chart, this time much larger and with a million boundaries and frequencies on it. I hope they convert the PCA and 'class e/g frequency planning chart' together!
GA Driver
It is my understanding that the frequency chart is an interim thing until the frequencies and boundaries are (if the industry insists) published on the charts again i.e. ERC VTC VNC TAC etc. like before 27 November. Also there will be an August chart release I hear, instead of June).
I don't know if RAPAC reps. are currently pushing for the frequencies and boundaries to be back on the charts, but an email to the following would register your wishes:
[email protected]
and your state rep. at
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...APAC/RAPAC.htm
I don't know if RAPAC reps. are currently pushing for the frequencies and boundaries to be back on the charts, but an email to the following would register your wishes:
[email protected]
and your state rep. at
http://www.airservicesaustralia.com/...APAC/RAPAC.htm
yes, well ... says it all really doesn't it. I want it my way or no way!
AS