Slanderous Smith Comments
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Here
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tobzalp, perhaps BM could start a thread called "Some Truth about the MC incident" and tell you what actually happened.
BM,
It failed because regardless of what the VFR pilot did, the Virgin aircraft still had to avoid without seeing because of the RA it received.
Whether it was 400ft or 800ft (I personally don't know - surely it's not the old "I'm 400ft from him and he's 400ft from me therefore 800ft"! ; ) - it doesn't matter. The point is that evasive action was required on the part of one aircraft, even though the other aircraft had it in sight.
If you think that RA's are fine then I guess for you the system works fine.
BM, do you think that RA's like this should be a commonplace event for Class E airspace?
BM,
Get it. He saw, and he avoided. How did that fail????
Whether it was 400ft or 800ft (I personally don't know - surely it's not the old "I'm 400ft from him and he's 400ft from me therefore 800ft"! ; ) - it doesn't matter. The point is that evasive action was required on the part of one aircraft, even though the other aircraft had it in sight.
If you think that RA's are fine then I guess for you the system works fine.
BM, do you think that RA's like this should be a commonplace event for Class E airspace?
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Stralia
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Here to Help,
Please don't get me wrong, I think it was probably a nervous few seconds for the VB crew, however they were both given traffic 3 times. Why,(and I'm not a 737 pilot) wouldn't the 737 reduce ROD to ensure he/she would have no conflict at all? I understand that ATC are reluctant to give advice to an operating crew, but this was a known conflict after the GA pilot gave his/her departure report to MC TWR.
I certainly do not endorse RA's as a commonplace thing as it would be like the speed limits where there are roadworks. Everyone ignores them to the danger of the roadworkers. Try taking a G-IV into Bankstown. The plurry TCAS goes mental at all the RA's.
BM
Please don't get me wrong, I think it was probably a nervous few seconds for the VB crew, however they were both given traffic 3 times. Why,(and I'm not a 737 pilot) wouldn't the 737 reduce ROD to ensure he/she would have no conflict at all? I understand that ATC are reluctant to give advice to an operating crew, but this was a known conflict after the GA pilot gave his/her departure report to MC TWR.
I certainly do not endorse RA's as a commonplace thing as it would be like the speed limits where there are roadworks. Everyone ignores them to the danger of the roadworkers. Try taking a G-IV into Bankstown. The plurry TCAS goes mental at all the RA's.
BM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: On a Ship Near You
Posts: 787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BM,
Perhaps it came from the replay; ESIR is a report of known facts, at the time it was submitted?
The Lancair 4 was known to MC Tower, not BN Enroute.
BN Enroute or the pilot of the Virgin aircraft had no idea the Lancair was to level off at FL165, as it turns out it did; when traffic was given (first time), the lancair wass passing FL152, I've been told, why didn't the lancair do something else (about rate of climb, heading etc) is as equally valid about making assumptions about ATCs (initiating avoidance through headings) role or the Virgin (adjusting ROD) crew.
I take your point about the Lancair doing everything right, seeing and avoiding, one call from him would have eased everyone's "Sphincters".
The TCAS RA is based on a 400 foot intrusion, so for it to go off, it 400 feet must have come into it (or so I believe).
Fact, Dick is just wrong, today especially. Training is now the issue, hello... hello...
Bottle of Rum
Perhaps it came from the replay; ESIR is a report of known facts, at the time it was submitted?
The Lancair 4 was known to MC Tower, not BN Enroute.
BN Enroute or the pilot of the Virgin aircraft had no idea the Lancair was to level off at FL165, as it turns out it did; when traffic was given (first time), the lancair wass passing FL152, I've been told, why didn't the lancair do something else (about rate of climb, heading etc) is as equally valid about making assumptions about ATCs (initiating avoidance through headings) role or the Virgin (adjusting ROD) crew.
I take your point about the Lancair doing everything right, seeing and avoiding, one call from him would have eased everyone's "Sphincters".
The TCAS RA is based on a 400 foot intrusion, so for it to go off, it 400 feet must have come into it (or so I believe).
Fact, Dick is just wrong, today especially. Training is now the issue, hello... hello...
Bottle of Rum
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: bris
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The lancair departed MC when the tower was closed. He reported his departure on area freq and it was at this point a potential conflict was recognised. It is interesting to note that he is not required to make this broadcast and if he did not the situation would have been far worse as the traffic would have been passed as a unidentified ac with no knowledge of the lancairs route or level. The 800 feet was reported in the esir, the 400 feet was the actual difference as derived from playing back the radar tapes.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baldricks Mum:
Whilst I don't get the gist of most of your posts in this place, when you ask what went wrong, perhaps you should ask Dick Smith himself - he is the one who is saying the controller didn't do their job. The way I see it Dick's airspace master plan left the controller with no job to do apart from pass traffic. There is no separation service - that is what we were all screaming about remember (or am I confusing that with an industrial campaign?).
Good to see that AirServices Australia have issued a media release to refute this nonsense.
It must be approaching the point where medical assistance is sought to work this guy out.
Whilst I don't get the gist of most of your posts in this place, when you ask what went wrong, perhaps you should ask Dick Smith himself - he is the one who is saying the controller didn't do their job. The way I see it Dick's airspace master plan left the controller with no job to do apart from pass traffic. There is no separation service - that is what we were all screaming about remember (or am I confusing that with an industrial campaign?).
Good to see that AirServices Australia have issued a media release to refute this nonsense.
It must be approaching the point where medical assistance is sought to work this guy out.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: OZstrayliya
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
SMITH: "No, but what's been shown throughout the world, and throughout Australia, small planes and large planes can mix perfectly safely, as long as you have the right rules. At the moment Qantas have sixteen jet movements a day into Ayers Rock, it's in class G air space, the lowest safety level, and it works perfectly safely."
Firstly Dick, it embarrasses me to say it, but you were once a child-hood aviation hero to me. Your adventures around the world by helicopter and later by Twin Otter were very exciting and had stimulated my interest in aviation when I was growing up. Later, you made bold attempts with balloons and have had quite a remarkable life in business.
However, reading the comments you made on air about our Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots, your stubborn and foolish persistance with a system that is deficient in safety against the advice of those who are forced daily to make best use of your sub-standard system (we the aviation fraternity) convinces me you are not the man to be leading Australia's aviation policy making.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to take a look at your own regulations and an example of airspace in Australia to gain some understanding of why your comment above is fundamentally flawed?
Class E Airspace:
IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are subject to ATC clearance. [Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 1.1.4 (table)]
IFR flights are provided with an air traffic control service, are separated from other IFR flights, and receive traffic information on VFR flights as far as is practicable. VFR flights receive a Radar Information Service (RIS) on request.
[Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 2.1.4]
Class G Airspace:
In Class G Airspace, IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights receive traffic information and a flight information service. VFR flights receive a flight information service if requested.
[Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 2.1.6]
From the table in Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 7.1 we can ascertain the following:
Subject to ATC Clearance? IFR; no. VFR; no.
Radio requirements? IFR; continuous 2 way. VFR: VHF radio above 5000' MSL and for MBZ operations. If carried must be used for CTAF are operations. VHF radio required for operations in reduced VMC.
Class D Airspace:
Also from the same table [Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 7.1] we see:
Separation provided? IFR; IFR from IFR and IFR from Special IFR. VFR; Nil.
Subject to ATC Clearance? IFR; yes. VFR; yes.
Radio Requirements? IFR and VFR; continuous 2 way.
Let's look at Mackay, Dick.
CTR GND - 4500' to 6 DME with steps to the NW and SE at 11DME 1000' - 4500', 16 DME 2500 - 4500', 22 DME 3500' - 4500' all Class D.
CTA 4500' - FL180 (overhead the CTR) and 8500' - FL180 to the NE and SW all Class E. From 4500' (above the aforementioned steps) to FL180 it is also Class E.
From the legislation above, it can be seen that you can have a VFR aircraft operating above 4500' overhead YBMK with no clearance. IF the VFR is below 5000', the pilot does not require a radio either!
You compare Qantas jets flying in and out of YAYE in G airspace with the Virgin incident recently. Well, both IFR and VFR aircraft are on a level playing field in G Airspace. Neither require a clearance. Both expect to separate themselves by radio. On the other hand, in E Airspace IFR aircraft require a clearance and must communicate with ATC for separation. A VFR aircraft doesn't. He's just got to have that transponder on squawking away merrily.
Isn't it human nature for people to relax when nothing much is needed to be done? A VFR aircraft in these circumstances could easily be out of the loop (situational awareness I mean), creating a hazard for any IFR traffic unfortunate enough to be in his immediate vicinity.
How can you then Dick, argue that your new system is safer than before, when that same VFR could conceivably transit YBMK or its IFR approaches with no communication to ATC or clearance, merely blipping away with his transponder?
Yes, I hear you say, ATC would be aware of the VFR in a radar environment from his transponder return and hopefully his radio calls.
Great! What about if the pilot forgot to turn it on or it failed without his or ATC's awareness due to distractions from other tasks. What about if his radio failed also? He could happily be flying along as a ghost and potentially conflicting with other aircraft operating in and around YBMK. Just to complete the scenario, the weather could be drizzly or hazy or the lighting poor due to the time of day or clouds to the west.
Forget TCAS to save the day here (which only turbine transport category aircraft above 15 tonnes or 30 passengers have anyway) because it won't detect the VFR with no transponder signal no matter how good it is.
What do we have left? Only our eyeballs.
Hopefully (as I am on descent MK in my turboprop, grounding 300 kts and 2000 fpm rate of descent, popping in and out of cloud and drizzle on an IFR arrival, carrying out my checks, following the IFR approach, communicating on the radio to ATC and to ALL STATIONS, separating myself from known traffic and so on) that silent VFR is not going to be in my way because I'd rate myself a good chance of not seeing him (especially approaching him from behind because no doubt the guy has his lights on below A100!) in the abovementioned conditions.
What about if you were at Alice Springs, with no radar coverage? Even a functioning transponder in the VFR aircraft is going to be no help to ATC or the other non-TCAS equipped aircraft operating nearby.
All the above paranoid and unlikely you say?
Well, perhaps ALL VFR pilots are faultlessly meticulous in their aviating (using their radios effectively at all times, know exactly where they are at any moment and always have servicable transponders that are switched on with landing lights on full bore) and perhaps you ARE a superior pilot to me Dick, charging across the world in your Twin Otter / Citation / Balloon / Helicopter, boldly going where no man has gone before, leaping tall buildings in a single bound, but mate, I reckon your system and your attitude as a leader, an individual and as a role model SUCKS.
What price of safety do you put on lives of people?
Sure, you've got bean-counters calculating the mathematical probability of my example happening. Sure, you may have determined it to be 1 chance in 1 million.
Let me just say to you that I don't want to be that 1 in the million or whatever you have calculated it to be. Remember, not everything in life follows a mathematical probability. It might be you in this situation one day.
Alternatively, it might be a jet full of paying passengers. How would you sleep at night if we had a mid-air in circumstances similar to these? How would you deal with the blood that would be on YOUR hands?
Listen to people for God's sake Dick. Rules in Australia have been written in blood. They have been formulated over many years of experience through many tragic events. Is that what is required here to prove you wrong? Would you admit it even then?
We might have a whizz-bang-ducks-nuts TAAATs system of air traffic control nowadays that has much more versatility than the equipment of 1950 but remember also, the equipment that is floating around out there in most aircraft dates back commonly 20 plus years (and even further).
Be honest with the Australian public Dick.
Isn't it just possible that something will not operate EXACTLY as planned in the perfectly mathematical world of those cloisetered away in Airservices Australia's ivory tower?
Sincerely,
Turbinejunkie.
SMITH: "No, but what's been shown throughout the world, and throughout Australia, small planes and large planes can mix perfectly safely, as long as you have the right rules. At the moment Qantas have sixteen jet movements a day into Ayers Rock, it's in class G air space, the lowest safety level, and it works perfectly safely."
Firstly Dick, it embarrasses me to say it, but you were once a child-hood aviation hero to me. Your adventures around the world by helicopter and later by Twin Otter were very exciting and had stimulated my interest in aviation when I was growing up. Later, you made bold attempts with balloons and have had quite a remarkable life in business.
However, reading the comments you made on air about our Air Traffic Controllers and Pilots, your stubborn and foolish persistance with a system that is deficient in safety against the advice of those who are forced daily to make best use of your sub-standard system (we the aviation fraternity) convinces me you are not the man to be leading Australia's aviation policy making.
Perhaps it would be worthwhile for you to take a look at your own regulations and an example of airspace in Australia to gain some understanding of why your comment above is fundamentally flawed?
Class E Airspace:
IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights are subject to ATC clearance. [Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 1.1.4 (table)]
IFR flights are provided with an air traffic control service, are separated from other IFR flights, and receive traffic information on VFR flights as far as is practicable. VFR flights receive a Radar Information Service (RIS) on request.
[Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 2.1.4]
Class G Airspace:
In Class G Airspace, IFR and VFR flights are permitted. IFR flights receive traffic information and a flight information service. VFR flights receive a flight information service if requested.
[Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 2.1.6]
From the table in Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 7.1 we can ascertain the following:
Subject to ATC Clearance? IFR; no. VFR; no.
Radio requirements? IFR; continuous 2 way. VFR: VHF radio above 5000' MSL and for MBZ operations. If carried must be used for CTAF are operations. VHF radio required for operations in reduced VMC.
Class D Airspace:
Also from the same table [Jepp. ATC 200 Series: 7.1] we see:
Separation provided? IFR; IFR from IFR and IFR from Special IFR. VFR; Nil.
Subject to ATC Clearance? IFR; yes. VFR; yes.
Radio Requirements? IFR and VFR; continuous 2 way.
Let's look at Mackay, Dick.
CTR GND - 4500' to 6 DME with steps to the NW and SE at 11DME 1000' - 4500', 16 DME 2500 - 4500', 22 DME 3500' - 4500' all Class D.
CTA 4500' - FL180 (overhead the CTR) and 8500' - FL180 to the NE and SW all Class E. From 4500' (above the aforementioned steps) to FL180 it is also Class E.
From the legislation above, it can be seen that you can have a VFR aircraft operating above 4500' overhead YBMK with no clearance. IF the VFR is below 5000', the pilot does not require a radio either!
You compare Qantas jets flying in and out of YAYE in G airspace with the Virgin incident recently. Well, both IFR and VFR aircraft are on a level playing field in G Airspace. Neither require a clearance. Both expect to separate themselves by radio. On the other hand, in E Airspace IFR aircraft require a clearance and must communicate with ATC for separation. A VFR aircraft doesn't. He's just got to have that transponder on squawking away merrily.
Isn't it human nature for people to relax when nothing much is needed to be done? A VFR aircraft in these circumstances could easily be out of the loop (situational awareness I mean), creating a hazard for any IFR traffic unfortunate enough to be in his immediate vicinity.
How can you then Dick, argue that your new system is safer than before, when that same VFR could conceivably transit YBMK or its IFR approaches with no communication to ATC or clearance, merely blipping away with his transponder?
Yes, I hear you say, ATC would be aware of the VFR in a radar environment from his transponder return and hopefully his radio calls.
Great! What about if the pilot forgot to turn it on or it failed without his or ATC's awareness due to distractions from other tasks. What about if his radio failed also? He could happily be flying along as a ghost and potentially conflicting with other aircraft operating in and around YBMK. Just to complete the scenario, the weather could be drizzly or hazy or the lighting poor due to the time of day or clouds to the west.
Forget TCAS to save the day here (which only turbine transport category aircraft above 15 tonnes or 30 passengers have anyway) because it won't detect the VFR with no transponder signal no matter how good it is.
What do we have left? Only our eyeballs.
Hopefully (as I am on descent MK in my turboprop, grounding 300 kts and 2000 fpm rate of descent, popping in and out of cloud and drizzle on an IFR arrival, carrying out my checks, following the IFR approach, communicating on the radio to ATC and to ALL STATIONS, separating myself from known traffic and so on) that silent VFR is not going to be in my way because I'd rate myself a good chance of not seeing him (especially approaching him from behind because no doubt the guy has his lights on below A100!) in the abovementioned conditions.
What about if you were at Alice Springs, with no radar coverage? Even a functioning transponder in the VFR aircraft is going to be no help to ATC or the other non-TCAS equipped aircraft operating nearby.
All the above paranoid and unlikely you say?
Well, perhaps ALL VFR pilots are faultlessly meticulous in their aviating (using their radios effectively at all times, know exactly where they are at any moment and always have servicable transponders that are switched on with landing lights on full bore) and perhaps you ARE a superior pilot to me Dick, charging across the world in your Twin Otter / Citation / Balloon / Helicopter, boldly going where no man has gone before, leaping tall buildings in a single bound, but mate, I reckon your system and your attitude as a leader, an individual and as a role model SUCKS.
What price of safety do you put on lives of people?
Sure, you've got bean-counters calculating the mathematical probability of my example happening. Sure, you may have determined it to be 1 chance in 1 million.
Let me just say to you that I don't want to be that 1 in the million or whatever you have calculated it to be. Remember, not everything in life follows a mathematical probability. It might be you in this situation one day.
Alternatively, it might be a jet full of paying passengers. How would you sleep at night if we had a mid-air in circumstances similar to these? How would you deal with the blood that would be on YOUR hands?
Listen to people for God's sake Dick. Rules in Australia have been written in blood. They have been formulated over many years of experience through many tragic events. Is that what is required here to prove you wrong? Would you admit it even then?
We might have a whizz-bang-ducks-nuts TAAATs system of air traffic control nowadays that has much more versatility than the equipment of 1950 but remember also, the equipment that is floating around out there in most aircraft dates back commonly 20 plus years (and even further).
Be honest with the Australian public Dick.
Isn't it just possible that something will not operate EXACTLY as planned in the perfectly mathematical world of those cloisetered away in Airservices Australia's ivory tower? Sincerely,
Turbinejunkie.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A principal fact has been completely overlooked in the entire NAS debate.
Dick Smith was appointed by Minister for Transport John Anderson.
Parliament approved NAS on the Minister's recommendation.
The Minister - not Dick Smith - was elected by the people and is accountable to all Australians.
Ultimate and sole responsibility rests with the Minister.
Dick Smith was appointed by Minister for Transport John Anderson.
Parliament approved NAS on the Minister's recommendation.
The Minister - not Dick Smith - was elected by the people and is accountable to all Australians.
Ultimate and sole responsibility rests with the Minister.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My question in all this is, had the mode C of the lightie been verified since his departure, cos if it hadn't, it would have been criminally negligent for the ATC to have even tried to separate these two aircraft based on unverified information. The thing Dick needs to understand is that in E airspace ATC does not separate VFR from IFR. ATC gives traffic information to IFR's on known VFR's, which is pretty clear. In this case from all reports, the ATC'er went above the call of duty and gave traffic 3 times, yet still the 737 could not get the traffic visual. The holes in the swiss cheese almost lined up again and TCAS saved the day. Dick needs to blame the system not the controller. If he went out on a limb and tried to separate these aircraft, and he was separating based on incorrect information, and they hit, he would be hung out to dry.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ANSA: well said.
A brave person indeed who would radar vector in Class E. It is a legal nightmare which among many other aspects of this debacle has not been calrified.
AirServices Australia have released the following on their website:
Attacks on Airservices Australia staff reprehensible
No. 10/04
Airservices Australia , the national air traffic control corporation, cannot stand by and allow statements made in media broadcasts today to denigrate the professionalism of its staff.
CEO Bernie Smith said that statements made on radio contained gross inaccuracies, were untrue and unfairly damaged the reputation of the organisation and its staff.
‘I am particularly concerned about some comments made in relation to the manner in which Airservices Australia responded to two events, one north of Melbourne on 3 December 2003 and another north of Brisbane on 7 April 2004,” Bernie Smith said
‘Normally we would not be drawn into a public debate on these events, particularly as the Brisbane matter is still under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), but the allegations are so absurd and reprehensible that they must be addressed.
‘Statements were broadcast that described the actions of air traffic controllers on duty in relation to the Brisbane event, as ‘basically criminal'. Statements also implied that air traffic controllers did the same thing in Melbourne a few weeks ago.
In the broadcast it was further alleged that staff are prepared to ‘risk people's lives for an industrial agenda'.
These allegations are without substance. Our controllers are highly trained professionals whose primary role is ensuring the safe provision of air traffic services. The suggestion that they would risk lives is ludicrous,” Bernie Smith said.
‘The ATSB has concluded its investigation into the Melbourne event and there were no findings or recommendations which back these assertions.
‘It is inappropriate to make further detailed comment on the Brisbane event while the matter is still under investigation by the ATSB. However I will not allow such attacks to go unchallenged.
‘I wilI continue to stand by the professionalism and dedication of staff and management. It should be remembered that contrary to these allegations, Airservices Australia and its employees have a responsibility in law to act safely, and meet statutory responsibilities and accountabilities,' Bernie Smith said.
For further information contact: Richard Dudley
+61 2 6268 4479 (bh) 0412 146 828 (24hrs)
Date: 15 April 2004
Airservices Australia is a Government owned organisation responsible for the safe and efficient management of air traffic across 11 per cent of the world's air space. Services include air traffic control, airspace management, aeronautical information, radar communications, radio navigation aids, aviation maintenance and engineering, environmental management and aviation rescue and firefighting. Airservices website:
www.airservicesaustralia.com
Dick is fast running out of supporters in all places - at least he still has John.
A brave person indeed who would radar vector in Class E. It is a legal nightmare which among many other aspects of this debacle has not been calrified.
AirServices Australia have released the following on their website:
Attacks on Airservices Australia staff reprehensible
No. 10/04
Airservices Australia , the national air traffic control corporation, cannot stand by and allow statements made in media broadcasts today to denigrate the professionalism of its staff.
CEO Bernie Smith said that statements made on radio contained gross inaccuracies, were untrue and unfairly damaged the reputation of the organisation and its staff.
‘I am particularly concerned about some comments made in relation to the manner in which Airservices Australia responded to two events, one north of Melbourne on 3 December 2003 and another north of Brisbane on 7 April 2004,” Bernie Smith said
‘Normally we would not be drawn into a public debate on these events, particularly as the Brisbane matter is still under investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), but the allegations are so absurd and reprehensible that they must be addressed.
‘Statements were broadcast that described the actions of air traffic controllers on duty in relation to the Brisbane event, as ‘basically criminal'. Statements also implied that air traffic controllers did the same thing in Melbourne a few weeks ago.
In the broadcast it was further alleged that staff are prepared to ‘risk people's lives for an industrial agenda'.
These allegations are without substance. Our controllers are highly trained professionals whose primary role is ensuring the safe provision of air traffic services. The suggestion that they would risk lives is ludicrous,” Bernie Smith said.
‘The ATSB has concluded its investigation into the Melbourne event and there were no findings or recommendations which back these assertions.
‘It is inappropriate to make further detailed comment on the Brisbane event while the matter is still under investigation by the ATSB. However I will not allow such attacks to go unchallenged.
‘I wilI continue to stand by the professionalism and dedication of staff and management. It should be remembered that contrary to these allegations, Airservices Australia and its employees have a responsibility in law to act safely, and meet statutory responsibilities and accountabilities,' Bernie Smith said.
For further information contact: Richard Dudley
+61 2 6268 4479 (bh) 0412 146 828 (24hrs)
Date: 15 April 2004
Airservices Australia is a Government owned organisation responsible for the safe and efficient management of air traffic across 11 per cent of the world's air space. Services include air traffic control, airspace management, aeronautical information, radar communications, radio navigation aids, aviation maintenance and engineering, environmental management and aviation rescue and firefighting. Airservices website:
www.airservicesaustralia.com
Dick is fast running out of supporters in all places - at least he still has John.
I've always had respect for Dick albeit over the past few years it has been taking a real battering.
I happened to hear the 4BC interview.
He was mind blowing in his enthusiastic pursuit of stupidity. He couldn't help himself.
Dick, I have zero respect left for you.
I happened to hear the 4BC interview.
He was mind blowing in his enthusiastic pursuit of stupidity. He couldn't help himself.
Dick, I have zero respect left for you.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Second interview
Second interview Transcript when Ted Lang was contacted to respond:
CO-COMPERE: Earlier this morning - in fact, just before the seven o'clock News, we spoke at some length with Dick Smith, who is the man who was the foundation member of the committee set up to oversee the introduction of a United States-style air space arrangement in this country, subject of a lot of controversy, a lot of claims that it is a disaster waiting to happen.
And in fact there have been near disasters as a result of its implementation, the Government backing away a little bit - but Dick Smith stoutly defending it, saying it was all a ploy by air traffic controllers to simply get more air traffic controllers, save their jobs and go back to the 1950s.
We'll suspend normal proceedings here because on the line we have Ted Lang, the National President of the Civil Air Traffic Controllers Association. Also on the other line listening in is Dick Smith himself, Ted. So, Ted, what say you to what Mr Smith has had to say this morning?
TED LANG: Good morning, John and Ross. You might notice there's a bit of timbre in my voice because I am so angry at the comments that Mr Smith made on your radio station this morning, actually questioning the integrity of air traffic controllers. It's a downright absolute disgrace. I guess it's come to panic modes for the Government that - well, the Minister's not out there talking but we've got a private individual defending the government policy.
I can't believe it. And what are they doing? They're actually now going the man, they're not even trying to defend a system that absolutely is not working. They're just going up against the people that are having the job of working it, the air traffic controllers. And I did note a hint there, reference to Air Services and he's actually bagging the people who have got the responsibility of bringing it in.
CO-COMPERE: Ted, he does back his comments with research. He says that there's been a 21% reduction in incidents from 1 January 2003 to 12 March 2003, there were 24 reported occurrences. From 1 January 2004 to 12 March 2004, corresponding period, one year later, 19 occurrences under the new system, a reduction of 21%.
TED LANG: He didn't see the intervening months - but, look, you can make damn lies and statistics, isn't it? I can give you figures that in the last month in all of our air safety incident reports that are reported electronically through our Air Services safety system, the 360 last month.
It was 330 the month before - 360's the highest number we've had since March last year. Since the implementation of this system, you would expect air safety incidents to be going down, and unfortunately there's a very disturbing trend that they're going up.
CO-COMPERE: All right, Ted, I must admit that I was a little astonished when I asked Dick Smith if there were any representatives of professional air traffic controllers or professional serving commercial airline pilots on the committee to talk about the introduction of this system. He said, "No." He said there was an Air Force representative there who has apparently had some commercial airline flying experience. He said the reason that they didn't do that was, well, basically they didn't want any argument.
TED LANG: Well, I think what he was also alluding to is that air traffic controllers are completely and utterly resistant to change. I think he's also forgetting that the TAAATS system we have in Australia now was a world first. Our air traffic controllers went where no other controller in the world has been. We've now got what's lauded as the best air traffic control system in the world.
And what's this man want to do? He wants to break it down. Fancy even suggesting that an air traffic controller could sit and watch two aircraft come together. But unfortunately the situation that happened at Maroochydore, that is exactly what they have to do. There is no way in the wide world that an air traffic controller can intervene in that circumstance. That Virgin aircraft, it was the pilot's responsibility to see the other aircraft. I know I'm going at a million miles an hour, I'm just so angry.
CO-COMPERE: All right, well, look, joining us on the other line now- -
TED LANG: Oh, by the way, I flatly refuse to be on the same program as him. I'm not answering any of his questions- -
CO-COMPERE: Why not, Ted?
TED LANG: - -the interview is over. I refuse to even talk to a bloke that could possibly suggest that a professional organisation such as Air Traffic Controllers, could do what he has suggested. It's obscene.
CO-COMPERE: All right, Ted, we'll respect that- -
TED LANG: Good on you, mate, cheers.
CO-COMPERE: - -no problems at all. We certainly weren't planning to ambush you, as I made- -
(Ted Lang terminates interview.)
CO-COMPERE: He's a very angry man.
CO-COMPERE: There goes Ted. Dick Smith's on the line. Good day, Dick.
DICK SMITH: Hi there, John and Ross, how are things?
CO-COMPERE: Well, fine for us, not for Ted Lang. He's a very very angry man.
DICK SMITH: No, one of the problems is, first of all, he said quite clearly there that there was nothing the air traffic controller could do. Well, that just simply means the air traffic controller hasn't been trained correctly. I believe we have the best air traffic controllers in the world, there's no doubt about that.
I do believe their association is running a campaign to undermine this system. Look, the sad thing for me is that in the United States the whole of that country benefits from this very efficient air space system. And what basically air traffic controllers are saying- -
CO-COMPERE: Yes, but it's chalk and cheese to compare Australia to the United States, for all sorts of reasons.
DICK SMITH: No- -
CO-COMPERE: Traffic density, weather conditions, topography.
CO-COMPERE: Not to mention the huge radar back-up system that operates in- -
DICK SMITH: - -the air space around Brisbane is identical to the air space around Los Angeles, but as Ted mentioned, our radar is better. We have the best radar of the lot, we have the best controllers. But what he's saying is that the air space which is used in LA, in JFK Airport, Washington DC, everywhere, cannot be used here. Now- -
CO-COMPERE: With respect, Dick, I know where I feel a hell of a lot safer flying.
DICK SMITH: The only thing is that if you look- -
CO-COMPERE: Until now.
DICK SMITH: - -at statistics, the US system is extremely safe. By the way, it's the same as the system - Qantas fly into Germany every day and they fly through what we call class C air space there. But the main point that he said, and it's interesting that he won't even discuss it with me - I find that that's what happens, they just won't discuss it, they are fundamentalists, that- -
CO-COMPERE: Well, because fundamentally if there's a prang they carry the can.
DICK SMITH: Absolutely, so the air space system has reduced the number of reportable incidents without any doubt. But let me just explain so everyone can understand this - because I think you did at the start, and that was that that Virgin plane is talking by law to air traffic controllers under the control of air traffic control.
The small plane is flying across, he has a radar transponder on, he was talking to an air traffic controller and he'd said he was climbing to 16,500 feet. Now the air traffic controller has an obligation to the Virgin plane not to descend it into the small plane.
And even though, I think they've been trained incorrectly because I rang the United States again and spoke to the Federal Aviation Authority and they said, "Dick, in those circumstances, we do it with Qantas every day, we do it with Virgin Atlantic every day, you just limit the descent of the airline until it's past the small plane." It is just commonsense. Now Ted Lang is saying they can't do that, so they've obviously been trained incorrectly.
CO-COMPERE: Somewhere, Dick, you have to get together, you blokes, because this is just a stalemate now.
DICK SMITH: Well, no it isn't because the air space is working excellently well but they're running a very busy- -
CO-COMPERE: You're saying it's not a stalemate because you've got your way?
DICK SMITH: No, because the air space is in and it's safer. The sad thing is what they're basically saying is the advantages which are used in America, which gets their costs down so they can compete with us - as you know I'm a very proud Australian - air traffic controllers are saying, "We can't use those advantages here." In other words, there's something different about our pilots, or something like that. That's not true.
Now let me just explain very quickly too - the reason the pilots and the air traffic controllers were not on that panel is there'd been 13 years of meetings and they say at these meetings, they just say, "We don't want the small planes in our air space. Rack off, we don't want you." It's utter selfishness. And when we say to the- -
CO-COMPERE: But surely intelligent people sitting around a table can come to a resolution - excluding people who are at the coalface is not a solution, Dick.
DICK SMITH: No, because- -
CO-COMPERE: I would suggest that's a public service ploy to push something through.
DICK SMITH: No, but there's no advantage, if you're an air traffic controller to have the small planes which don't pay. Now, there's a very big significance here. Air Services Australia, the air traffic control mob, is just a profit-making arm of the Government. It's whole aim is to make a profit. The small planes don't pay in the USA, they don't pay in Australia.
CO-COMPERE: So now you're saying the air traffic controllers are opposed to this because they want to help the Government make money. Come on, pull the other way, it yodels.
DICK SMITH: No, no, no, no, the bosses, all their bosses are on a percentage of the - can you imagine this - Air Services Australia is in charge of air space, but their bosses are all on a percentage of the profit they make. And so there's a total incentive on your pay at the end of every week not to have small planes getting a free service, to keep them out of the system or to make them file an instrument flight plan and pay. And so it's very much driven by money, not by the air traffic controllers, but by the bosses.
CO-COMPERE: Well, that's crook as well, and then the Government should intervene to stop that and there should be no money involved incentives in that regard because- -
DICK SMITH: - -absolutely agree. Once we do that, and by the way, the only way we can do that is by you at least covering it on air because the air traffic controllers - I fly regularly in the system - they are the best in the world. Obviously their training is deficient and the system of allowing the bosses to get a profit would mean that they don't want any small planes to be flying in their system at all because they lose money on small planes. And so they're basically trying to have an air space that keeps them out of giving us- -
CO-COMPERE: May I politely - and I say politely - make the suggestion that everyone get back around the table and have a talk about this because if there is an airline disaster in this country, heaven forbid, there's going to be a lot of people who are going to want the lot of 'youse goolies', if you pardon the very common expression.
DICK SMITH: I agree with you. OK, bye bye.
CO-COMPERE: Dick Smith, thank you, good on you
Always willing to see the other mans view aren't you Dick?
Media Release - Criminal claim angers controllers
Criminal claim angers controllers
Brisbane air traffic controllers today demanded Dick Smith apologise for describing two of their colleagues as “criminals” over the incident between a Virgin 737 and light aircraft on the Sunshine Coast last week.
The two controllers, one with more than 30 years’ experience, are shocked that they had been singled out in Dick Smith’s tirade of criticism on a Brisbane radio station earlier today.
Both controllers were monitoring the Virgin flight, however under the new rules could do nothing to prevent both aircraft closing to 400 feet when the Virgin pilots were unable to “see and avoid” the other plane. Light aircraft sharing commercial airspace no longer come under air traffic control.
Civil Air President Ted Lang, who spoke with controllers this morning, challenged Dick Smith to produce any evidence to substantiate his claims that controllers had deliberately “allowed” the Sunshine Coast incident to happen and were “risking people’s lives for an industrial agenda”.
“This is about airspace safety. There is absolutely no threat whatsoever to jobs in any shape or form and in fact, assessments have demonstrated the likelihood of a need for more controllers.
Dick Smith’s assertions are totally without foundation or evidence.”
Mr Lang said the controllers had taken the accusations “very personally” particularly because they did not have the right of reply, except through Civil Air, which had also been subject to Dick Smith’s outburst.
“Dick Smith is a former member of the Airspace Reform Group and in that role, there is a level of responsibility attached and a requirement to demonstrate measured reasoning.
“It would appear Dick Smith has become very frustrated that his airspace regime is facing mounting opposition from the professional aviation industry. If he can produce any valid data to show that NAS is safe for Australia, then we’ll be happy to listen.”
Mr Lang said controllers were not surprised Federal Transport Minister John Anderson had refused to break his holiday to sort out the wrangle.
Further information: Hamish McLean 0409 840823
CO-COMPERE: Earlier this morning - in fact, just before the seven o'clock News, we spoke at some length with Dick Smith, who is the man who was the foundation member of the committee set up to oversee the introduction of a United States-style air space arrangement in this country, subject of a lot of controversy, a lot of claims that it is a disaster waiting to happen.
And in fact there have been near disasters as a result of its implementation, the Government backing away a little bit - but Dick Smith stoutly defending it, saying it was all a ploy by air traffic controllers to simply get more air traffic controllers, save their jobs and go back to the 1950s.
We'll suspend normal proceedings here because on the line we have Ted Lang, the National President of the Civil Air Traffic Controllers Association. Also on the other line listening in is Dick Smith himself, Ted. So, Ted, what say you to what Mr Smith has had to say this morning?
TED LANG: Good morning, John and Ross. You might notice there's a bit of timbre in my voice because I am so angry at the comments that Mr Smith made on your radio station this morning, actually questioning the integrity of air traffic controllers. It's a downright absolute disgrace. I guess it's come to panic modes for the Government that - well, the Minister's not out there talking but we've got a private individual defending the government policy.
I can't believe it. And what are they doing? They're actually now going the man, they're not even trying to defend a system that absolutely is not working. They're just going up against the people that are having the job of working it, the air traffic controllers. And I did note a hint there, reference to Air Services and he's actually bagging the people who have got the responsibility of bringing it in.
CO-COMPERE: Ted, he does back his comments with research. He says that there's been a 21% reduction in incidents from 1 January 2003 to 12 March 2003, there were 24 reported occurrences. From 1 January 2004 to 12 March 2004, corresponding period, one year later, 19 occurrences under the new system, a reduction of 21%.
TED LANG: He didn't see the intervening months - but, look, you can make damn lies and statistics, isn't it? I can give you figures that in the last month in all of our air safety incident reports that are reported electronically through our Air Services safety system, the 360 last month.
It was 330 the month before - 360's the highest number we've had since March last year. Since the implementation of this system, you would expect air safety incidents to be going down, and unfortunately there's a very disturbing trend that they're going up.
CO-COMPERE: All right, Ted, I must admit that I was a little astonished when I asked Dick Smith if there were any representatives of professional air traffic controllers or professional serving commercial airline pilots on the committee to talk about the introduction of this system. He said, "No." He said there was an Air Force representative there who has apparently had some commercial airline flying experience. He said the reason that they didn't do that was, well, basically they didn't want any argument.
TED LANG: Well, I think what he was also alluding to is that air traffic controllers are completely and utterly resistant to change. I think he's also forgetting that the TAAATS system we have in Australia now was a world first. Our air traffic controllers went where no other controller in the world has been. We've now got what's lauded as the best air traffic control system in the world.
And what's this man want to do? He wants to break it down. Fancy even suggesting that an air traffic controller could sit and watch two aircraft come together. But unfortunately the situation that happened at Maroochydore, that is exactly what they have to do. There is no way in the wide world that an air traffic controller can intervene in that circumstance. That Virgin aircraft, it was the pilot's responsibility to see the other aircraft. I know I'm going at a million miles an hour, I'm just so angry.
CO-COMPERE: All right, well, look, joining us on the other line now- -
TED LANG: Oh, by the way, I flatly refuse to be on the same program as him. I'm not answering any of his questions- -
CO-COMPERE: Why not, Ted?
TED LANG: - -the interview is over. I refuse to even talk to a bloke that could possibly suggest that a professional organisation such as Air Traffic Controllers, could do what he has suggested. It's obscene.
CO-COMPERE: All right, Ted, we'll respect that- -
TED LANG: Good on you, mate, cheers.
CO-COMPERE: - -no problems at all. We certainly weren't planning to ambush you, as I made- -
(Ted Lang terminates interview.)
CO-COMPERE: He's a very angry man.
CO-COMPERE: There goes Ted. Dick Smith's on the line. Good day, Dick.
DICK SMITH: Hi there, John and Ross, how are things?
CO-COMPERE: Well, fine for us, not for Ted Lang. He's a very very angry man.
DICK SMITH: No, one of the problems is, first of all, he said quite clearly there that there was nothing the air traffic controller could do. Well, that just simply means the air traffic controller hasn't been trained correctly. I believe we have the best air traffic controllers in the world, there's no doubt about that.
I do believe their association is running a campaign to undermine this system. Look, the sad thing for me is that in the United States the whole of that country benefits from this very efficient air space system. And what basically air traffic controllers are saying- -
CO-COMPERE: Yes, but it's chalk and cheese to compare Australia to the United States, for all sorts of reasons.
DICK SMITH: No- -
CO-COMPERE: Traffic density, weather conditions, topography.
CO-COMPERE: Not to mention the huge radar back-up system that operates in- -
DICK SMITH: - -the air space around Brisbane is identical to the air space around Los Angeles, but as Ted mentioned, our radar is better. We have the best radar of the lot, we have the best controllers. But what he's saying is that the air space which is used in LA, in JFK Airport, Washington DC, everywhere, cannot be used here. Now- -
CO-COMPERE: With respect, Dick, I know where I feel a hell of a lot safer flying.
DICK SMITH: The only thing is that if you look- -
CO-COMPERE: Until now.
DICK SMITH: - -at statistics, the US system is extremely safe. By the way, it's the same as the system - Qantas fly into Germany every day and they fly through what we call class C air space there. But the main point that he said, and it's interesting that he won't even discuss it with me - I find that that's what happens, they just won't discuss it, they are fundamentalists, that- -
CO-COMPERE: Well, because fundamentally if there's a prang they carry the can.
DICK SMITH: Absolutely, so the air space system has reduced the number of reportable incidents without any doubt. But let me just explain so everyone can understand this - because I think you did at the start, and that was that that Virgin plane is talking by law to air traffic controllers under the control of air traffic control.
The small plane is flying across, he has a radar transponder on, he was talking to an air traffic controller and he'd said he was climbing to 16,500 feet. Now the air traffic controller has an obligation to the Virgin plane not to descend it into the small plane.
And even though, I think they've been trained incorrectly because I rang the United States again and spoke to the Federal Aviation Authority and they said, "Dick, in those circumstances, we do it with Qantas every day, we do it with Virgin Atlantic every day, you just limit the descent of the airline until it's past the small plane." It is just commonsense. Now Ted Lang is saying they can't do that, so they've obviously been trained incorrectly.
CO-COMPERE: Somewhere, Dick, you have to get together, you blokes, because this is just a stalemate now.
DICK SMITH: Well, no it isn't because the air space is working excellently well but they're running a very busy- -
CO-COMPERE: You're saying it's not a stalemate because you've got your way?
DICK SMITH: No, because the air space is in and it's safer. The sad thing is what they're basically saying is the advantages which are used in America, which gets their costs down so they can compete with us - as you know I'm a very proud Australian - air traffic controllers are saying, "We can't use those advantages here." In other words, there's something different about our pilots, or something like that. That's not true.
Now let me just explain very quickly too - the reason the pilots and the air traffic controllers were not on that panel is there'd been 13 years of meetings and they say at these meetings, they just say, "We don't want the small planes in our air space. Rack off, we don't want you." It's utter selfishness. And when we say to the- -
CO-COMPERE: But surely intelligent people sitting around a table can come to a resolution - excluding people who are at the coalface is not a solution, Dick.
DICK SMITH: No, because- -
CO-COMPERE: I would suggest that's a public service ploy to push something through.
DICK SMITH: No, but there's no advantage, if you're an air traffic controller to have the small planes which don't pay. Now, there's a very big significance here. Air Services Australia, the air traffic control mob, is just a profit-making arm of the Government. It's whole aim is to make a profit. The small planes don't pay in the USA, they don't pay in Australia.
CO-COMPERE: So now you're saying the air traffic controllers are opposed to this because they want to help the Government make money. Come on, pull the other way, it yodels.
DICK SMITH: No, no, no, no, the bosses, all their bosses are on a percentage of the - can you imagine this - Air Services Australia is in charge of air space, but their bosses are all on a percentage of the profit they make. And so there's a total incentive on your pay at the end of every week not to have small planes getting a free service, to keep them out of the system or to make them file an instrument flight plan and pay. And so it's very much driven by money, not by the air traffic controllers, but by the bosses.
CO-COMPERE: Well, that's crook as well, and then the Government should intervene to stop that and there should be no money involved incentives in that regard because- -
DICK SMITH: - -absolutely agree. Once we do that, and by the way, the only way we can do that is by you at least covering it on air because the air traffic controllers - I fly regularly in the system - they are the best in the world. Obviously their training is deficient and the system of allowing the bosses to get a profit would mean that they don't want any small planes to be flying in their system at all because they lose money on small planes. And so they're basically trying to have an air space that keeps them out of giving us- -
CO-COMPERE: May I politely - and I say politely - make the suggestion that everyone get back around the table and have a talk about this because if there is an airline disaster in this country, heaven forbid, there's going to be a lot of people who are going to want the lot of 'youse goolies', if you pardon the very common expression.
DICK SMITH: I agree with you. OK, bye bye.
CO-COMPERE: Dick Smith, thank you, good on you
Always willing to see the other mans view aren't you Dick?
Media Release - Criminal claim angers controllers
Criminal claim angers controllers
Brisbane air traffic controllers today demanded Dick Smith apologise for describing two of their colleagues as “criminals” over the incident between a Virgin 737 and light aircraft on the Sunshine Coast last week.
The two controllers, one with more than 30 years’ experience, are shocked that they had been singled out in Dick Smith’s tirade of criticism on a Brisbane radio station earlier today.
Both controllers were monitoring the Virgin flight, however under the new rules could do nothing to prevent both aircraft closing to 400 feet when the Virgin pilots were unable to “see and avoid” the other plane. Light aircraft sharing commercial airspace no longer come under air traffic control.
Civil Air President Ted Lang, who spoke with controllers this morning, challenged Dick Smith to produce any evidence to substantiate his claims that controllers had deliberately “allowed” the Sunshine Coast incident to happen and were “risking people’s lives for an industrial agenda”.
“This is about airspace safety. There is absolutely no threat whatsoever to jobs in any shape or form and in fact, assessments have demonstrated the likelihood of a need for more controllers.
Dick Smith’s assertions are totally without foundation or evidence.”
Mr Lang said the controllers had taken the accusations “very personally” particularly because they did not have the right of reply, except through Civil Air, which had also been subject to Dick Smith’s outburst.
“Dick Smith is a former member of the Airspace Reform Group and in that role, there is a level of responsibility attached and a requirement to demonstrate measured reasoning.
“It would appear Dick Smith has become very frustrated that his airspace regime is facing mounting opposition from the professional aviation industry. If he can produce any valid data to show that NAS is safe for Australia, then we’ll be happy to listen.”
Mr Lang said controllers were not surprised Federal Transport Minister John Anderson had refused to break his holiday to sort out the wrangle.
Further information: Hamish McLean 0409 840823
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: no fixed abode
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Truly Criminal
Quote: "I've sat in the Qantas flight deck going into LA, that's exactly what they do, it works in perfect safety. Here they are stirring this up and risking people's lives for an industrial agenda."
The Dick is some kind of megalomaniac. He truly believes that sitting in the jump seat has given him the knowledge of thousands upon thousands of hours of experience and that he doesn't need the experience that the professional pilot and ATC world could give him. He reckons, in the distorted views of his brain, that he truly knows it all and is not wrong. In other words, he’s a lost cause.
Air Ace is right, it’s the government that is accountable in this case. Trying to talk sense into Dick is futile.
The Dick and his cronies are simply yes men, the unbelievable ridiculousness of not working with professional pilots and ATCer’s to effect NAS reform is the only TRUE criminality.
PS Jumping on the “bash the unions” bandwagon is a typical ploy these days, blokes like the Dick and other management failures love hiding their ineptitude behind this pathetic rhetoric. I’m so bloody sick of it.
The Dick is some kind of megalomaniac. He truly believes that sitting in the jump seat has given him the knowledge of thousands upon thousands of hours of experience and that he doesn't need the experience that the professional pilot and ATC world could give him. He reckons, in the distorted views of his brain, that he truly knows it all and is not wrong. In other words, he’s a lost cause.
Air Ace is right, it’s the government that is accountable in this case. Trying to talk sense into Dick is futile.
The Dick and his cronies are simply yes men, the unbelievable ridiculousness of not working with professional pilots and ATCer’s to effect NAS reform is the only TRUE criminality.
PS Jumping on the “bash the unions” bandwagon is a typical ploy these days, blokes like the Dick and other management failures love hiding their ineptitude behind this pathetic rhetoric. I’m so bloody sick of it.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Sydney
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sand dune.. I am not having a go at Angus Houston,but Dick Smith 's claim that the NAS panel was fully swept up because of Angus Houston's flying experience would be risible if it wasn't a blatant attempt to distort the facts.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Third Barstool on the left
Posts: 449
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clarification
Air Ace
you are correct that the minister is responsible BUT
When was the last time you saw this government wear the blame for anything? Kids Overboard, the pre-war Intel scandals, and on and on and on.
If there is a mid-air it will be ATC and Pilot error, not systemic failure.
John Anderson is not a fan of Dick's. One of Andersons staffers told me prior to the last election that Dick gets his way for one reason- he theatens to run in Gwydir against Anderson.
Anderson was rumoured to be contemplating resignation last year - if only it were true. What a sh!tfight.
you are correct that the minister is responsible BUT
When was the last time you saw this government wear the blame for anything? Kids Overboard, the pre-war Intel scandals, and on and on and on.
If there is a mid-air it will be ATC and Pilot error, not systemic failure.
John Anderson is not a fan of Dick's. One of Andersons staffers told me prior to the last election that Dick gets his way for one reason- he theatens to run in Gwydir against Anderson.
Anderson was rumoured to be contemplating resignation last year - if only it were true. What a sh!tfight.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Orstralia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith Answers Critics
Chance would be a fine thing…
Breath-taking in his scope for undermining a profession which has as its primary aim safety, a profession of whom Dick accuses each and every member of sticking too closely to the rules, Dick has trumped us all with his statements of the past 24 hours. Rarely have I seen such skilled twisting of facts to push an argument. Dick accuses controllers of deliberately and recklessly applying the rules he forced upon us, in accordance with the approved procedures, and thereby endangering the lives of the travelling public. Not satisfied with impugning the controller involved in the Maroochydore incident of the 7th of this month, he then asserts that the same thing was deliberately done in Melbourne. Does Dick really mean to imply that this is industrial action in some way being targeted at Virgin by asserting that “…QANTAS does about 70% of the flying, but they’ve had none of these near miss records.” (from his interview on 4BC today, 15 April)
Here we have experienced controllers performing their duties not as they wish but in accordance with the reforms that Mr. Smith is adamant Australia must have. Traffic (in the Maroochydore case) was passed not once but three times. It would have been much easier to separate but this is “over-servicing” and “restricting” traffic that can “safely self separate” according to the level of activity in accordance with “world’s best practice”. The fact of the matter is that the controllers involved were gravely concerned and did significantly more than Dick would have us do if the model was followed to the letter. Dick blatantly asserts that we could have restricted the Virgin jet until safely past – this is what they would have done in the US. Yes Dick, this does happen in the US because they don’t comply with the procedures you insist we must follow. This is just what we would do as well if you allowed it. It’s exactly what we did do before November 27 2003. What we’re supposed to do is advise the IFR aircraft of known VFR traffic and let it go – whilst giving updates – just what we did.
Dick levels his attack at an individual controller implying criminal behaviour, and at the Air Traffic Controller’s Association (Civilair) because of their apparent anti-progress stance. Dick asserts that the reticence of the industry to support the reforms is about protectionism and union militancy. Us arguing about who was on the ARG with Dick is like worrying about what the source of the Titanic iceberg was. It’s largely irrelevant. The ship is sinking and one name keeps coming up.
Dick argues the make-up of the ARG specifically excluded representation of professional Air Traffic Controllers and Commercial Pilots because they are resistant to change. Does anyone recall the origin of the term “group think” and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. We’re going to reform airspace so we’d better get a group together and exclude representation of commercial pilots and all the Air Traffic controllers. We’ll leave it to the military and private pilots. (Note: I personally believe that Angus Houston is a “professional” pilot but certainly not commercial)
Dick has been driving this reform for the past 13 years by his own admission. You may recall the phrase “affordable safety”, or perhaps remember the “…Halls of Doom” tome penned by our beloved patron Saint of adventure. I’m not an admirer of Dick’s aviation management skills but realise that the carefully crafted, lovable larrikin, sometimes eccentric millionaire adventurer thing does get you a lot of airplay and (apparently) the ear of the government. Dick plays the “one man against the machine of bureaucracy” card on a regular basis and wields a significant amount of power whether he’s willing to admit it or not. The great unwashed public will get a huge media spray because if nothing else, Dick is always controversial. The response from the Airservices puppets and the very reasoned press releases from the unions won’t get diddly squat unless they are prepared to get into a slanging match with Dick. Dick as a media manipulator is unsurpassed.
So what are WE going to do? We have one individual who seems to be able to constantly garner unwarranted media attention to push his personal barrow against the tide of reason from all corners of the industry. Time and time again he ends up in positions of considerable influence and every time it goes belly up it’s everyone else’s fault for not “getting” his personal vision. The time has come to stop the madness. Please stop the world; I want Dick to get off.
PS 400' and 0.4nm from radar tape replay
Breath-taking in his scope for undermining a profession which has as its primary aim safety, a profession of whom Dick accuses each and every member of sticking too closely to the rules, Dick has trumped us all with his statements of the past 24 hours. Rarely have I seen such skilled twisting of facts to push an argument. Dick accuses controllers of deliberately and recklessly applying the rules he forced upon us, in accordance with the approved procedures, and thereby endangering the lives of the travelling public. Not satisfied with impugning the controller involved in the Maroochydore incident of the 7th of this month, he then asserts that the same thing was deliberately done in Melbourne. Does Dick really mean to imply that this is industrial action in some way being targeted at Virgin by asserting that “…QANTAS does about 70% of the flying, but they’ve had none of these near miss records.” (from his interview on 4BC today, 15 April)
Here we have experienced controllers performing their duties not as they wish but in accordance with the reforms that Mr. Smith is adamant Australia must have. Traffic (in the Maroochydore case) was passed not once but three times. It would have been much easier to separate but this is “over-servicing” and “restricting” traffic that can “safely self separate” according to the level of activity in accordance with “world’s best practice”. The fact of the matter is that the controllers involved were gravely concerned and did significantly more than Dick would have us do if the model was followed to the letter. Dick blatantly asserts that we could have restricted the Virgin jet until safely past – this is what they would have done in the US. Yes Dick, this does happen in the US because they don’t comply with the procedures you insist we must follow. This is just what we would do as well if you allowed it. It’s exactly what we did do before November 27 2003. What we’re supposed to do is advise the IFR aircraft of known VFR traffic and let it go – whilst giving updates – just what we did.
Dick levels his attack at an individual controller implying criminal behaviour, and at the Air Traffic Controller’s Association (Civilair) because of their apparent anti-progress stance. Dick asserts that the reticence of the industry to support the reforms is about protectionism and union militancy. Us arguing about who was on the ARG with Dick is like worrying about what the source of the Titanic iceberg was. It’s largely irrelevant. The ship is sinking and one name keeps coming up.
Dick argues the make-up of the ARG specifically excluded representation of professional Air Traffic Controllers and Commercial Pilots because they are resistant to change. Does anyone recall the origin of the term “group think” and the Bay of Pigs fiasco. We’re going to reform airspace so we’d better get a group together and exclude representation of commercial pilots and all the Air Traffic controllers. We’ll leave it to the military and private pilots. (Note: I personally believe that Angus Houston is a “professional” pilot but certainly not commercial)
Dick has been driving this reform for the past 13 years by his own admission. You may recall the phrase “affordable safety”, or perhaps remember the “…Halls of Doom” tome penned by our beloved patron Saint of adventure. I’m not an admirer of Dick’s aviation management skills but realise that the carefully crafted, lovable larrikin, sometimes eccentric millionaire adventurer thing does get you a lot of airplay and (apparently) the ear of the government. Dick plays the “one man against the machine of bureaucracy” card on a regular basis and wields a significant amount of power whether he’s willing to admit it or not. The great unwashed public will get a huge media spray because if nothing else, Dick is always controversial. The response from the Airservices puppets and the very reasoned press releases from the unions won’t get diddly squat unless they are prepared to get into a slanging match with Dick. Dick as a media manipulator is unsurpassed.
So what are WE going to do? We have one individual who seems to be able to constantly garner unwarranted media attention to push his personal barrow against the tide of reason from all corners of the industry. Time and time again he ends up in positions of considerable influence and every time it goes belly up it’s everyone else’s fault for not “getting” his personal vision. The time has come to stop the madness. Please stop the world; I want Dick to get off.
PS 400' and 0.4nm from radar tape replay
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The last straw.......
I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it any more!!!!
Steady mate, steady...... We all understand your sentiments and frustrations.......
Woomera
If Anderson won't listen then maybe we need to seriously discuss taking action as a group (ATC's and PILOTS) to force immediate corrective safety action. Anderson will have to act when the "suits" winge about losing money.........!
Last edited by Woomera; 15th Apr 2004 at 21:34.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's difficult to attempt a reasoned response to this latest, and surely the final outrage. I sincerely hope the controller involved in this incident is investigating the possibility of legal action, though the system rarely produces results against somebody with unlimited funds.
The whole agenda of air safety in this country appears to have been placed in the hands of a man who fits all the criteria for megalomania. It is time we lifted the emphasis from Smith, for he is clearly not a well man.
John Anderson, you are a national disgrace. Please, admit you know nothing about aviation or airspace, loosen the squirrel grip this fool has on you, and attempt to finish your career (which is most certainly finished) with at least some modicum of integrity.
Surely even the pro-NAS supporters, whom I have long suspected of being in the grip of anti-public sector ideology and little else, are a little embarrassed at their hero's latest outburst?
P.S. Capcom, it's late I know. Perhaps in the cold light of day you will see that your last post was, err, not entirely productive?
The whole agenda of air safety in this country appears to have been placed in the hands of a man who fits all the criteria for megalomania. It is time we lifted the emphasis from Smith, for he is clearly not a well man.
John Anderson, you are a national disgrace. Please, admit you know nothing about aviation or airspace, loosen the squirrel grip this fool has on you, and attempt to finish your career (which is most certainly finished) with at least some modicum of integrity.
Surely even the pro-NAS supporters, whom I have long suspected of being in the grip of anti-public sector ideology and little else, are a little embarrassed at their hero's latest outburst?
P.S. Capcom, it's late I know. Perhaps in the cold light of day you will see that your last post was, err, not entirely productive?