Slanderous Smith Comments

[Capn Bloggs]

Binos,
I think Capcom's post is entirely appropriate. The sooner we all get mad and get down in the gutter with this @#$%^& the quicker he will get the boot. Besides, caps was not a spur-of-the-moment post: it would have taken him hours to do those flash fonts!
Dick Smith before he dicks you!

[Chimbu chuckles]

I'm with Capcom....this ......... must be stopped.

******** has lost the plot completely!!!!

Chuck.

Steady Chuck, steady on......

Woomera

[RTB RFN]

Dick - promise us that you will "open the front door and take the knife".

Because that is the bottom line for air traffic controllers, regardless of the looney fringe that caused and accepted the risk.

The bottom line for others will be so much more immediate.

50 cents a ticket! WHAT would you get for a BUCK?

I agree this is a poilitical issue - what permitted this situation to happen:

John..........hello John - time to arc up and do that decision thingy. The right one this time.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

For the information of CivilAir members - login to the members area of the CivilAir website for an update on legal action underway.

[DirectAnywhere]

Two points for mine:

the air space system has reduced the number of reportable incidents without any doubt

Yeah, well no kidding Dick!! An airprox in Class E is no longer a reportable incident as there are NO required seperation standards!

Now the air traffic controller has an obligation to the Virgin plane not to descend it into the small plane.

Don't know which version of MATS or the AIP you're reading Dick but my AIP quite clearly states that in Class E
(AIP ENR 1.4-9):
* IFR is seperated from IFR
* IFR Receives ATC service and INFO ON VFR FLIGHTS AS FAR AS IS PRACTICABLE
Of course we all know that VFR receives:
* NIL Seperation, and
* RIS on request

Tell me where it says the ATCer is obliged to provide seperation in our Brave New World?

For the ATCers involved the best of luck in whatever action you choose to take. I'm sure you have the support of your professional industry colleagues, from both sides of the mike, against these libellous claims. A disgrace.

[Shitsu-Tonka]

AFR Article

http://afr.com/articles/2004/04/15/1081998295596.html

(Mike Smith speaks up for the first time in ages ..... about galley fires!)

Prominent aviator and businessman Dick Smith has accused air traffic controllers of risking lives to make an industrial point amid an escalating dogfight with reformers over a new safety system.

Mr Smith is a member of the reform group that oversaw the introduction of the New Airspace System, under which light aircraft and jets can fly in the same airspace without communicating with air traffic control.

He said an incident last month, when a Virgin Blue 737 jet took evasive action over Queensland's Sunshine Coast hinterland when its pilots were alerted to a light aircraft by the airliner's automatic collision avoidance system, showed air traffic controllers were risking people's lives for an industrial agenda.

"The air traffic controller allowed the Virgin plane to descend right into the smaller plane ... the air traffic controller allowed this to happen," Mr Smith said.

Civil Air, the union representing controllers, has received support from the Australian Democrats for an inquiry into the system.

Union president Ted Lang said Mr Smith should apologise to air traffic controllers over his comments.

"It would appear Dick Smith has become very frustrated that his airspace regime is facing mounting opposition from the professional aviation industry," Mr Lang said.

The federal government stripped Airservices Australia of its regulatory powers over airspace this month after mishaps and legal doubts marred the introduction of the new airspace rules. A new directorate within the Transport Department will be created to take over the regulation.

Mr Lang said there were a record 360 air safety incidents in February under the new American-developed system, despite a reduction in the area covering reportable incidents.

But Mr Smith said in a statement that it was now safer than ever to fly in Australia, with emergency action to prevent mid-air collisions falling by 21per cent when comparing January to March 2003 with the same period in 2004 under the new system.

"Safety incidents are now reducing - congratulations to everyone, especially [federal Transport] Minister John Anderson," Mr Smith said.

National Airspace System Implementation Group director Mike Smith also dismissed the union's figures, saying the union was scaremongering to make an industrial point. "What you are looking at are figures that include bird strikes, when birds run into aeroplanes, or a fire in a galley," he said.

Democrats transport spokeswoman Lyn Allison said yesterday the party supported a public inquiry into the system, but had yet to work out how to secure it.

"The travelling public must have confidence in the safety of any new system," Senator Allison said.

Dick, when you say congratulations to everyone, you forgot to say except the Air traffic controllers who are "risking lives and their jobs to mek Dick Smith look like an idiot" - Dick, you don't need their help.

Courier Mail: Air controllers blamed for close calls

http://www.thecouriermail.news.com.a...5E3102,00.html

(Hate to admit this is our premier city broadsheet)

[wyverns]

now it's clear

"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."

I see it now. We have been trained incorrectly. We were actually trying to apply Class E rules in Class E when we whould have been using Class C rules in Class E.

NAS is suddenly making sense. When Dick says we should use the American system, he just fails to mention that the Americans don't...............

Good to see Mike Smith has studied the problem

Wyvern

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Yes - is Dick actually admitting the training program was a crock as well?

Anyhow - here is his press release for those who missed it - note the manipulation of statistics to get the result wanted.

The Good News According to Dick

Note also the credible sources:

1. Anonymous

2. A Qantas Pilot


Wide consultation once again....

[triadic]

TCAS R/A's in GAAP...!

I really don't believe this.. GAAP: 1 incident reduces to zero = 100% reduction!

And it is in the GAAP zones that operation of transponders is not required if my memory serves me correctly.

Class G: ditto...BIG DEAL! What I suggest this may mean is that class G with DTI and MBZ/CTAFs is safer than Class E - at least the conflicting traffic get to talk to one another.

None of the numbers quoted by Dick serve any meaning whatsoever as the sample is too small and there has been insufficient time for any trending to take place.

But can we afford to wait another year just to get the numbers up. (and risk the big number we don't want?)

(Edited after second read of Dick's propaganda)

[SM4 Pirate]

From the Courier Mail 'article'

But an experienced Qantas international pilot who regularly flies through E airspace in the US said it was the safest system he knew

I wonder who that was (Bill Hamilton)?, 1 for 2000 against? What is the ledger? AIPA is against it, does it not represent the International pilots?

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Australian Democrats Press Release

http://www.democrats.org.au/news/ind...?press_id=3486


Democrats back air safety


The Australian Democrats today backed calls by the Air Traffic Controllers Union 'Civil Air' for a public inquiry into the New Airspace System (NAS) currently being implemented by the Government and Airservices Australia.

Democrats transport spokesperson Senator Lyn Allison said, "Any inquiry must be open and public, unlike the reviews to date conducted behind closed doors in the Department of Transport. The travelling public must have confidence in the safety of any new system.

"The inquiry should take evidence from both pilots and air traffic controllers as these industry experts have been completely ignored by the Government to date. And the inquiry should also examine implementation schedules and the adequacy of radar infrastructure.

"The inquiry could also consider which authority is the most appropriate for regulating airspace following the Minister's proposal to establish an Airspace Directorate, run out of the Department.

"Even now, during this reform process, Mr. Anderson appears to be making unexplained decisions

"The Democrats believe airspace management decisions should be transparent and, first and foremost, about safety rather than ideological imperatives known only to the Minister."

[Air Ace]

Bendo. Your response raises more questions than it answers!

You are suggesting that Dick Smith was appointed to his position, by the Minister, as consideration for not running against the Minister in the seat of Gwydir????

The Minister has sponsored and approved the squandering of millions of dollars in public funds, just to protect his own seat in Parliament???

I know Dick Smith considers Anderson an appalling Minister for Transport – that is probably the only point most people would agree, 100% with Dick Smith - but that has no effect on the fact that, as the elected representative, the Minister must accept total responsibility for the NAS fiasco.

Now we have private citizen Dick Smith publicly defending the Minister’s decision – whilst the Minister says nothing?

Any honourable person of integrity would do the right thing and immediately resign.

We’ll wait and see if the Minister is an “honourable person of integrity”! Somehow, I doubt it!

How many more fiascos, outrageous costs, charges and rules is this industry going to be burdened with before Anderson quietly disappears back into the woodwork, where he belongs?

[Tail_Wheel]

..... Mike Smith also dismissed the union's figures, saying ..... "What you are looking at are figures that include bird strikes, when birds run into aeroplanes, or a fire in a galley," he said.

Excuse me?????

Surely that can't be what that Smith said????

If so, I'm gob-smacked!!!!

[Shitsu-Tonka]

...next Dick Smith will be accussing the Air Traffic Controllers of intentionally running the 'birds into airplanes' as part of an industrial campaign.

[Blue Sky Baron]

Now here's a thought

If NAS is really that good, and saves us all so much money why don't we impliment a similar system on the roads.

Think of the money we could save, it could go like this:

1. We don't paint lines on the road anymore - saves money

2. All private vehicles have headlights removed (saves money for the private owner and the police don't have to book you for having an unroadworthy vehicle - saves money), and only commercial vehicles retain headlights and it is their responsibility to see and avoid all other vehicles. Good fun at night and in "IFR".

3. Blame the tow truck drivers for the increase in accidents as they are only serving their own interests.

4. Make comparisons with the blackout conditions during WW2 and claim that it worked then so it should work now.

How about it Dick (head) why not make that your next agenda. The current system has not changed for ages, maybe its time to f%#* with that now.

I am also as mad as hell with this fiasco and its about time we all stood up together and put an end to this most dangerous situation.

Where do we start?

BSB

[Torres]

With your local Federal Member, regardless of his political persuasion!

[Col. Walter E. Kurtz]

See the problem is that especially the professional air traffic controllers, they are specifically trained to follow rules and not to ever change rules.

Just a bunch of automatons - why bother asking them for their opinions on a new system they are to work with.

You can have your beliefs and convictions - it's a free country - but it's the utter contempt for others., especially those that disagree, that really gets me.


PS. BINOCULARS , How on Earth did you rack up 32150 posts ????????????

[bush pelican]

I would be interested to read informed comment on the following.

I commonly hear RPT heavies on climb, or descent and approach requesting diversions right and left of track due WX. It appears that STARS or SIDS or on-board NMS can be easily changed and this doesn’t seem to cause much of a problem to the crew or ATC. In the NAS context and considering the rules of the air is it a greater problem to make a heading change, or pause the climb/descent to ensure adequate seperation from another aircraft, than it is for WX?

Having regard to the above; this morning I listened to BN Center (121.2) on more than one occasion giving detailed ‘advisories’ to IFR A/C re conflicting unverified VFR traffic in ‘E’ airspace. The advisories were quite comprehensive including distance, height and O’clock position. The controller updated the information three times in one case with the final call being that the traffic should pass behind the IFR A/C by 3 miles. This information flowed freely and seemed sensible and plain commonsense considering the situation.
Is this an unauthorised proceedure for the controller?
Are controllers mostly unwilling to give this sort of assistance?

In the case of the MCY incident disscussed on this thread why could not the above taken place with similar results?
Why is it unreasonable to think this could be a prima facie case of ‘working to rules’ or ‘going down to the wire’ by the controller/s in this case for some other agenda? (Not for one moment thinking the controllers would actually allow an accident to occur)
Is there a new system of control emerging... free style control!
WHO DARES WINS
BP

[Chronic Snoozer]

BSB

Where do we start?

Coordinated campaign using the media against DS as he apparently does so well himself. Has to be cleverly done though, not just a mudsling. A thorough weekend article in the Australian over two pages of broadsheet would be a start.

CS

[Shitsu-Tonka]

Bush Pelican: I am glad you asked the question because it appears you may have been sucked in by Dicks Spin; either that or you are trying to wind me up: if the latter - mission accomplished.

The traffic information as you say flows freely, because everyone is trained, able and complicit in providing it : just like it WAS provided on the day of the SMOKA incident. The controller provided more information than was required (read the entire thread). Dicks remarks are defamatory and plain false. (I understand he is about to be served with papers to that effect.)

Under E airspace ATC can not separate an IFR aircraft from a VFR aircraft in Class E airspace - despite what Dick thinks. Frankly he doesnt even know the system he promotes. What he says about how it is done in the US is crap - I would say some poor American has just told him what he wants to hear to get the ignorant prick off the phone. ATC will provide traffic information, and when requested a suggested heading - remember ATC have no idea what the unidentified aircraft is going to do: it may well turn back in the opposite direction, climb, descend, who knows whatfequency it is on. Picture this: a controller turns or adjusts the altitude of the IFR aircraft in E airspace for separation, only to then have the VFR aircraft manouevre and impact the IFR aircraft: who is now at fault? Pretty obviously the lawyers and coroner are going to have a field day with the controller: THIS course of action is what Dick is saying the controller should have done - Dick says by not doing this the controller is a criminal! Do you get why the controlers are so angry now? (That scenario by the way doesn't even account for other VFR aircraft not showing on Radar who can well be there - thats already been proven time and time again in since November)

Traffic can be passed as many times as neccessary : ironically this takes many times more effort and frequency time than just separating the bloody planes like ATC used to in Class C: but oh, no, that was too restrictive for the masses of VFR aircraft wanting to transit without calling ATC.

ATC cannot separate aircraft using levels when the levels are not verified : this requires identification and radio contact, E airspace demands neither of those prerequisites. BTW, the old system did.


There is no work to rule: ATC are professionally applying the correct procedures Dick wanted: ATC didnt want these downgraded rules: frankly ATC would rather separate you all properly: but Dick doesnt want it.... or does he? Frankly I don't know what he wants - and I am not sure he does. Welcome to the tangled mess of the Dick Smith vision.

And for the record there is no industrial agenda . This is such a furphy even AirServices (ATC employer : remember Dick?) has issued a press release denying it.

Dick you reap what you sow you complete fool : if only the rest of us in Aviation didn't have to share in this ill crop you planted.

(As for you Anderson : if one of your cronies is reading these threads I hope they let you know that a lot of angry next of kin are going to hunt your sorry arse down when this goes pear shaped - for god sakes man come out of your bunker and admit you were wrong - you are ultimately responsible - you will be held accountable - it is time to ditch your mate Dick Smith: the personal implications of that, whatever it may have been alleged about a 'deal', will pale into comparison of where this is otherwise heading)

[Edited several times to reduce my passionate language]