Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific
Reload this Page >

Why do we need to be more restrictive than the USA?

Australia, New Zealand & the Pacific Airline and RPT Rumours & News in Australia, enZed and the Pacific

Why do we need to be more restrictive than the USA?

Old 19th Apr 2004, 14:28
  #21 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Big Southern Sky
Posts: 233


- You advocate NIL VFR TX in E
- You advocate “Un-alerted see and avoid” by supporting E and US CTAF’s; and at the same time:-
- You advocate RPT having “Alerted see and avoid” (Remember the paper you signed in the tower cab in January!) yet NAS delivers the opposite
- You advocate ATC providing class C services in class E airspace when it is illegal and fraught to do so
- You advocate VFR and IFR pilots taking on pseudo ATC self separation responsibilities
- You advocate “cost savings” that do NOT exist
- You advocate VFR diverting away from direct tracking to avoid IFR routes/terminal areas “Cost increases”
- You advocate the removal of a (free for VFR) safety separation service ( C ) to IFR and VFR in terminal areas
- You advocate a self belief that you know the above is what the industry needs despite vast opposition from the wider industry, who have pointed out time and time again that NAS is dangerous bollocks

And still you pretend to not understand why we are SERIOUSLY PISSED OFF!

Oh, I get it!……….. building a brief of evidence…………….

Double edge sword really!…

……………… licence holders must be of sound mind!

Good day
Capcom is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 20:16
  #22 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 70
Posts: 4,275

I believe the purpose of this thread has been served. A number of very professional people have responded to each of your questions in some detail and whilst their words may vary, there is an element of commonality to all their responses.

I think your remaining question commences with "Many air traffic controllers that I know take holidays in the United States." We all accept an element of risk, often in sublime ignorance, very occasionally after assessing and accepting the odds. How often have you traversed a freign soverign state's air space, either in your own aircraft or in airline aircraft, knowing and accepting their air space model significantly lacks system and safety? How often have we travelled as a passenger in an airline aircraft registered in a country which we know has safety standards significantly below those standards we expect in Australia? I know I have. And I accepted the risk.

The purpose of this thread has been served. I think you have your answers. Time to unsticky.


Last edited by Woomera; 19th Apr 2004 at 20:33.
Woomera is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 21:11
  #23 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Boldly going where no split infinitive has gone before..
Posts: 4,316
I used to spend my holidays jumping out of a Twin Otter (and once a 727).

I was prepared to take the risk, personally.

I am not prepared to take similar risks with my passengers lives.

A more fatuous argument from a suposed "Expert" I've never heard.
Wizofoz is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 22:23
  #24 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 21
OK I'll play the game...


I know I'm flogging a dead horse (sorry Woomera) but I'd be interested in your source(s) for the information on these incidents. Notwithstanding the free posting of information in these forums, you seem to be able to read the minds of the controllers, the pilots and the ATSB and Airservices investigators, sometimes before they've finished asking the questions much less written and released their reports.

Are you clairvoyent?
DickyBaby is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 22:38
  #25 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: planit
Posts: 240
Mr Smith
The answers to your questions here are evidence itself. Where else have you see so much written about so little? Where else do you witness such excessive indulgence in mutual masturbation than on this forum? They are the vocal minorities that waste their recreational lives in trivial banter and wallow in the bureaucracy and extent of Australian government and stagnation. It is an embarrassment now to see my country become the most litigious in the world (per capita). Mr Smith, you are right to expose their bizarre infatuation, lest we next end up with flight engineers on all airline jets in Australia. Not prepared to “risk their passengers lives in class E airspace”, but quite content to expose their kiddies backsides to the appalling Australian road system on a daily basis. Friggin bone please!
Winstun is offline  
Old 19th Apr 2004, 22:40
  #26 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
The air traffic controller allowed the Virgin plane to descend right into the smaller plane. By the way, both planes were on radar, both planes were talking to air traffic control. The air traffic controller allowed this to happen. It's basically criminal…
They never have a problem. But we've had three. And the one last week was so horrific I cannot believe it……..
Given that:
• The controllers were applying Australian Class E airspace procedures exactly as prescribed in your NAS implementation documentation.
• The US apply significantly different procedures to mitigate against the same risks in Class E airspace.
• Nearly every professional aviation organisation in Australia warned you that the unique Class E airspace procedures you were implementing were a potential diaster.
You deliberately ignored this advice.
• A series of ‘horrific’ incidents have occurred (your characterisation).
• The results were, in your words, ‘basically criminal’.
• People have been at risk of death as a result of your Class E airspace procedures.

Will you now admit that the implementation of NAS by you has been flawed to the extent that is it ‘basically criminal’, and that it is time for professional expertise to be applied in order to avoid the near inevitable disaster that you have imposed upon Australia?

What they're saying is, we won't... we don't want small planes in commercial air space. Now, there's no such thing as commercial air space.
Name one reputable pilot organisation who has ever said this. Are you lying about this statement to cover up for your incompetence in the implementation of AusNAS? Are you making up stories because you know that the facts do not support anything you have said and that your system is inherently dangerous?

Why did you not implement NAS in the same, safe way it was implemented in the United States? I find it hard to believe that the Australian environment is so different to the US that any competent person would believe that the same safety protocols should not be applied here. What makes us so different? I believe that Australia should have the same safety advantages as the USA – especially in aviation. Don’t you?

Could it not be that the US airspace system could operate successfully here and substantial numbers of lives could be saved by the aviation industry in the same way that Boeing 767s now operate in Australia using standard US certification without unique Australian safety short cuts and bowing to vested sectional interests?

This is so, however the incidents in Melbourne and Brisbane were in airspace similar to US radar covered Class E airspace, and the incident in Launceston was in airspace similar to US non-radar covered Class E airspace.
You are deliberately telling only half of the story. Why will you not admit that the Class E procedures you introduced in Australia are dangerously different to those in the US, leading to these serious near-misses and the endangerment of Australian lives.

Given that you are now acutely aware of the continuing danger in your airspace, will you do the only honourable thing left and ensure that safety is restored immediately and that a professional organisation is able to re-start the airspace reform program in a safe and orderly way, without the sort of amateurish and dangerous errors which led us to this low point in Australia’s aviation history.

The mid-air collision caused by your reform program could be three months, three years or even thirty years away. It could also be three minutes away. That is the nature of unmitigated risk. Any deliberate failure to mitigate against that known risk will weigh heavily upon you.

Already, GA training has suffered a downturn. How much more harm are you willing to do to the industry? Public confidence in air safety is shattered.
Four Seven Eleven is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 01:08
  #27 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 325
King Dick even brought the Court Jester!!

Who turned over your stone, Winny!
Air Ace is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 03:24
  #28 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,211

Woomera, you state:

If it ain’t broke, won’t save money and diminishes safety, why change?
I thought you might like to look at the very latest figures from the Bureau of Transport Economics. Note that general aviation is continuing to drop in flying hours and the airline industry is continuing to boom.

Airservices makes all its profits from the airline industry and actually loses money by providing a service to general aviation. Despite what is said in other threads, Class C airspace (especially non-radar) often results in VFR aircraft being held or vectored extra distances.

Remember, the difference between success and failure in a small business is quite often small amounts of money. The extra costs of flying in the airspace can have a substantive difference on the success of the general aviation industry.

I believe now the hours are getting so low that we will possibly get into a situation where the whole industry becomes non-viable. This would be a great pity for Australia.

I have heard aircraft attempting to get a VFR clearance across a place like Sydney and the clearance is simply not available. However if the same aircraft files IFR and pays the enroute charge, the clearance is most often immediately available with no delays. Of course, Airservices earns money from IFR flight plans – even in CAVOK conditions – whereas they make no money from VFR enroute flights.

There is obviously a conflict of interest with the organisation that is responsible for the design and allocation of airspace also being responsible for making a profit out of that airspace – especially when the top executives are paid a share of that profit. They have incentives not to provide cost savings to general aviation when they lose money from this.

To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.

If used correctly, the NAS system has the potential to be very safe and to save general aviation large amounts of money – this will assist the industry to be viable again and employ many more people.
Dick Smith is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 04:15
  #29 (permalink)  
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: 24 27 45.66N 54 22 42.28E
Posts: 987
This guy does not answer anyones questions or concerns yet again. Why does he bother to even post. Thier has been post after post with legitimate concerns and what do we all get in response. The sob story about Private hard done by pilots being given the short end of the stick. As has been mentioned here by other pilots, as a VFR it is rare to be stuffed around and generally if you are a bit flexible, so is ATC and it all works out. But of course we all have to bow down to Dicks sources of proof, those being "I believe" and "I have heard".

General Aviation is important in Australia, BUT the majority of airspace users, those being RPT operations, should not be put at risk, to serve the minority. The odd delay, usually due to having no flight details by the way, is not a reason to turn a system on its head and risk the travelling public. But then again why am I wasting my breath, because you have proven yourself to be a spineless bully, who believes the only opinion that matters is his own.
AirNoServicesAustralia is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 04:32
  #30 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 70
Posts: 4,275

Now you may be onto something – a reduction in cost by stealth! But not at the expense of safety.

That would require a fundamental change in Government policy, something a man of your influence in the Canberra halls of doom should be able to advance?

In the mid 1980’s aviation became the big Government cash cow – the introduction of en route navigation charges, introduction and escallation of airport landing fees, ALOP disposal of regional and rural airports, “corporateisation” of DCA into CASA and AsA (with - as someone quoted - a disproportionate increase in fat cats and shiney bums on fatter salaries and bonuses), DCA/CASA user pays charges and the best of all – “selling” city major and secondary airports, first to the Federal Airports Corporation recovering the total airport market value (not cost) plus interest, and now, re selling again – albeit on extended leases – to the highest bidder at inflated rates.

In time the Government will "sell" the airports again, at which time most secondary airports will finally be sold off for other development.

Aviation policy in Australia is dictated by the fiscal policies of the Federal Treasurer. Ned Kelly is alive and well and on the Government payroll! The Minister for Transport has little say and even less comprehension.

But government imposed costs are not the sole or singular reason for the decline in general aviation. Other more prominent reasons include: significantly reduced airline fares (in real seat/mile terms), improved communications methods including telephone services, internet and audio visual conferencing, improved road structures, more economical and efficient motor vehicles and surface transport services, old general aviation aircraft with high operating costs which have long since passed their used by date, a plethora of new regulations which have failed to deliver improved safety outcomes, the regulator's legal fraternity which has systematically decimated aviation and failure to develop and acquire more efficient, cost effective general aviation aircraft.

Since the good old days of "The Department", the ANR's and ANO's, how many attempts have their been to re-write the regulations - and the job still isn't done! How many millions of dollars has that cost? And in the end - who pays? You guessed it - the aviation industry!!

The general aviation industry in Europe is dead. It also appears to be dying in the USA – despite the FAA having a diametrically opposed philosophy to CASA with regard to promotion of aviation.

Your aspirations to bring aviation and in particularly private flying to the masses has been idealist's objective since Richard Peace beat the Wright bothers into the air in 1903. But it will always be just that, a dream. Private flying never was and never will be avialable to all Australians - only to the financial elite.

Here endeth the lesson.............

My comment which you quoted were a summation of the comments posted generally to this thread. These comments too are simply personal observations.

I’m here to moderate without bias – not to participate in the debate. If I have a personal opinion on any matter I post under my own user name.

In this thread I - personally - have been unusually quiet!


Last edited by Woomera; 20th Apr 2004 at 04:46.
Woomera is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 04:34
  #31 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Gee Dick, nice graph. How do you conclude from that graph that the drop in GA hours is because of 'use of airspace' charges?

There is no correlation.

What will your conclusions be if the downturn continues despite the introduction of NAS?

To put it simply, the airspace system before 27 November 2003 added millions of dollars to the cost of general aviation.
Again you pull out this old chestnut, without proof of the facts and figures. Please advise of your source for this alleged cost savings.

Another pointless posting from Dick.
NAMPS is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 04:42
  #32 (permalink)  
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Oz
Posts: 159
Dick, in your last post you are using statistics to support a withering argument. But statistics, as we all know are quite malleable.

Is the real reason for GA's reduction in hours the airspace system? Or is it really because RPT has become much cheaper, and far more accessible to everyone? Is it because the route structure has become far wider, thereby negating the need for much of GA's prior activity?

Your statistics don't support your argument, sir.
Cactus Jack is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 04:48
  #33 (permalink)  
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,839

Mr. Smith- you do realise there have been 20-odd posts answering your questions? Not a word in response? Instead you are off an irrelevent tangent? Hopefully, members of the public reading this thread will begin to see where you are coming from. You will not acknowledge you might have made a mistake, and deflect dissent in an almost child-like manner.

Regarding your graph.
You have spent untold man-hours trying to change the airspace- WHICH HAS IN ITSELF COST THE INDUSTRY MANY MANY MILLIONS OF DOLLARS then have the gall to post here bleating about how clearance delays cost GA "millions of dollars ".
What costs has NAS saved?????? NAS HAS COSTS TENS OF MILLIONS, AND IT'S NOT OVER YET!!!!!!!!!
ferris is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 04:52
  #34 (permalink)  
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: By the Bay
Posts: 98

Would you happily ride your Kawasaki through the middle of Sydney in peak hour, after the RTA removed all the traffic lights and told you to rely on a "see and avoid" technique to avoid colliding with all other road users, be they private cars and bikes or commercial buses and trucks??

You could of course still wear your helmet,boots and gloves as a primary defence ala TCAS!

Dick, give it away mate. You used to be a highly respected Australian, but I am sorry to say that you are doing yourself great harm by continuing with this NAS rot.

I'm gone!
I'm gone! is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 05:08
  #35 (permalink)  
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Salt Lake City Utah
Posts: 3,052
Your logic has me perplexed, Dick.

The only conclusion that may reasonably drawn from the squiggly lines and numbers is that there is no causal link between airways charges and hours flown. One sector is “continuing to boom” whereas another is “continuing to drop in hours”, irrespective of the airways charging regime. One could just as easily (but just as mistakenly) interpret the squiggly lines and numbers to mean that paying airways charges must be good for business.

Indeed, the decline in GA hours in Australia started at exactly the point that you, as Chairman of the CAA, introduced fees for “regulatory services” and aeronautical information that had previously been provided free of charge.

The squiggly lines and numbers therefore “prove” that Dick Smith’s bright ideas are bad for GA.
Creampuff is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 05:52
  #36 (permalink)  

Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 3,408
Creampuff old chap, you took the words right out of my mouth.

But we were never ever talking logic or rational process here.

"I know coz I was there" with apologies to Maxie Boyce.

It's been a pretty good diversionary tactic though.
gaunty is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 06:51
  #37 (permalink)  
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: bRISBANE
Posts: 5
Red face Come back to the topic Dick

Dick - has your question been answered or not? If you don't think its been answered - then tell us specifically, what hasn't been answered.

Can you refute any of the claims or answers given?

I'm interested in documented fact, not opinion or rhetoric.

If the question(s) have been answered then admit it and then tell us what you'll do to fix the already expensive disaster you've inflicted on GA and the rest of us by your "politicing" outside normal change managment processes.
10%boredom is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 06:56
  #38 (permalink)  
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
As a pilot I have benefited from the ''US" system in both general aviation and and at an airline. Now after converting my US ATP to an OZ lic, I have experienced the OZ system. As a USER, the US system is both cheaper and significantly more user friendly.

I cant help but agree with Dick in principle. Why cant we indeed!

I wonder how many Australian pilots opposed to Dick have actually used the US system and seen how good it actually is, either as an operator or a pilot?

This is actually the first posts by Dick I have ever read and have no knowledge of how Dick became so alienated within these pages. So for what its worth Dick, I fully support in principle, a change to the US system, especially if it brings down the cost to the GA guys.

mjbow2 is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 07:37
  #39 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
I hope you're wearing a hard hat, mjbow2...I hear incoming!!
NAMPS is offline  
Old 20th Apr 2004, 08:19
  #40 (permalink)  
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 957
Costs and charges are NOT the issue or the prime cause of the flying hours for private/business falling.

For the first time in my 40 years in this business, many pilots are packing up and going to do something else in their spare time and it not the costs that are driving that change.

Certainly the cost increases brought about by "user pays" does not help, but the main reason for pilots leaving these days is the never ending changes to rules and procedures (14 years of airspace changes is just too much for some!), the increased complexity of the rules (not simplification), changes that make no sense, like the new pilot licences, the increased profile of the punitive measures and the attitude that many see CASA now as the jack-booted policeman, not as an organisation that is here to help. Flying once upon a time was fun. Those days are gone and it is going to get worse under the new security proposals.

It would really help if we had a government that supported an aviation industry and infrastructure. We don't so don't' hold your breath for any improvements anytime soon!

Can you really blame those that now go and fly a U/L or sail a boat?

Dick's graph is interesting, but only tells part of the story. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with NAS.

NAS is driving people out of the industry, not keeping them in or making it attractive to stay.
triadic is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.