NAS on the 730 report Tonight (Wed)
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 246
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, it was interesting.
Dick seems to think by pilots being fined $5,000 for forgeting to turn on the transponder will fix everything.
I can see it now - 737 and C-172 collide, relatives obviously not too happen and Dicks reponse will be "you don't understand, if a pilot does not operate his/her transponder it is a $5,000 fine".
Peoples, believe me, this mans attitude is scary.
Dick, in your 6 million flying hours, have you EVER accidentally forgotten to turn on your transponder, for example after a code change - yeah thought so.
Boney
Dick seems to think by pilots being fined $5,000 for forgeting to turn on the transponder will fix everything.
I can see it now - 737 and C-172 collide, relatives obviously not too happen and Dicks reponse will be "you don't understand, if a pilot does not operate his/her transponder it is a $5,000 fine".
Peoples, believe me, this mans attitude is scary.
Dick, in your 6 million flying hours, have you EVER accidentally forgotten to turn on your transponder, for example after a code change - yeah thought so.
Boney
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Dodgy Statistics Dick
More dodgy statistics from Dick for the gullible Oz public:
From Page 8 of the ATSB Aviation Safety Research Report "Airspace-Related Occurrences Involving Regular Public Transport and Charter Aircraft within Mandatory Broadcast Zones":
ATSB did go on to say that due to a level of under-reporting of incidents, the 573 figure should be considered as "conservative" however, if the actual number of incidents was, in fact, double 573 - that still hardly qualifies as "thousands".
Cat 4 occurrences generally are not considered a serious safety deficiency, although they are of interest to investigators for safety trend analysis purposes. Cat 5 occurrences are generally not investigated.
So, on one hand, we have ATSB saying there was only 573 occurences which had no significant safety impact; while Dick, on the other hand, says we need to get rid of MBZs because of the "thousands" of unsafe incidents that have occured over the last 10 years! Que?
We've had mandatory broadcast zones for over 10 years. There has been thousands of incidents where pilots are not on radio in mandatory broadcast zones, including airlines.
"A search of the OASIS database identified a total of 573 airspace-related occurrences in MBZs during the calendar years 1994 to 2001. For this period, there were no accidents within MBZs where airspace related issues were found to be a contributing factor. All 573 occurrences were classified as being either a Category 4 or Category 5 occurrences.
Cat 4 occurrences generally are not considered a serious safety deficiency, although they are of interest to investigators for safety trend analysis purposes. Cat 5 occurrences are generally not investigated.
So, on one hand, we have ATSB saying there was only 573 occurences which had no significant safety impact; while Dick, on the other hand, says we need to get rid of MBZs because of the "thousands" of unsafe incidents that have occured over the last 10 years! Que?
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: downunder
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When will Dick and the minister for Qantas wake up and realise just how dangerous Class E is for those of us operating high performance regional aircraft that are not fitted with TCAS. It's hard to 'see and avoid' when you are doing 300kts on descent. By the time that little C172 comes into view it's to late.
Ushuaia, QSK? and others, thanks for your posting in relation to The 7.30 Report. You state that most professional pilots in the country have a low opinion of me. If this is so it is probably because they are not informed correctly in relation to what I am doing. After all, I constantly post my phone numbers on this site and don’t receive any calls.
I liken the present situation, with its resistance to moving to modern international airspace practices, as almost identical to what happened to Ansett. I constantly communicated with Ken Cowley – Rupert Murdoch’s man on the Ansett Board – advising that if the airline did not follow modern international practices that it would go broke. Ken Cowley once even flew me at airline expense (the only time it has ever happened in my life) to Melbourne to address the Ansett technical group. Despite this, just about everyone resisted change and stuck their heads in the sand.
Isn’t it amazing that Sir Richard Branson can bring his money to Australia, then use Australians to copy the latest international practices, make hundreds of millions of dollars and be declared a hero?
I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.
No one on this site ever comes up with a valid reason why we cannot accept the advantages of the US system. Of course the excuse most often used is that America has more radar coverage. Yes, I agree. However our plan is to copy what the US does in radar coverage, and to copy what the US does outside radar coverage. After all, the US airspace system has evolved like a Boeing 747 – it is the best of its type in the world.
I find it fascinating that most of my critics are all flying around in US FAR certified aircraft. People may remember that before 1991 all overseas certified aircraft had to be re-certified and modified to operate in Australia. As Chairman of CAA, the regulator, I changed this so aircraft from five proven aviation countries could operate here without modification. At the time bureaucrats within the airworthiness department of the CAA predicted death and doom. Of course this hasn’t happened and our industry has been able to save tens of millions of dollars, which has obviously helped to keep more people employed.
Ushuaia, it is amazing that you want to keep a system that focuses airline and VFR aircraft at one point within 300 metres of each other. In the Aussie system small aircraft flying from south to north in Sydney descend below the steps, find their way to Parramatta, and then (yes, I kid you not) look for flashing lights on the ground to track to Hornsby.
In the United States lights on the ground were used in the 1920s for the mail planes. Just last year I went to an Airservices meeting in the office below Bankstown Tower where they proposed a new and better flashing light for the light aircraft lane.
As I’ve stated, all small aircraft flying north track via the recommended reporting point of Hornsby. Where do we put the airline aircraft? Yes, you’ve got it – we direct them to Hornsby with about 300 metres of vertical separation. US experts have advised me that nowhere in the USA would they ever do such a thing. To focus airline aircraft and VFR aircraft to the same location, where a simple altimeter setting error could cause a collision, would not be acceptable.
The American expert said, “Dick, you must get lots of incidents in this airspace.” I checked up and found that it is the airspace in Australia that has the highest number of problems in relation to breakdowns of separation and inadvertent entry into controlled airspace.
Now let’s look at the US system that I (and others) are trying to move to. At a place like Los Angeles, where Qantas flies every day, VFR aircraft are not encouraged to fly by any low level topographic feature or town which is overflown by airline aircraft. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The airline routes are shown on the Los Angeles VFR chart and VFR aircraft flying from south to north (or vice versa) are encouraged to overfly the centre of the LA field at altitudes where there are no airline aircraft. Where VFR and IFR aircraft could potentially collide in the LA system (i.e. when they pass through the same level) they are typically 20 to 30 miles from the airport where the risk of collision is far lower.
The ARG and the Government is planning to move to this safer US system. Many pilots who have not been informed probably think that the Aussie system (where no transponder or radio is required for aircraft 300 metres away from an airline aircraft at Hornsby) is the ideal and should not be changed. Commonsense alone shows that this is wrong.
More flashing lights in the light aircraft lane – the Airservices proposal – will never bring us into the 21st century of modern air traffic control movements. I, and many others, would much prefer light aircraft be encouraged to overfly Sydney Airport at say, 7,500’ or 8,500’, following a route which kept the aircraft the maximum distance away from approaching and departing airline traffic.
In relation to Mandatory Broadcast Zones, the ATSB have said that reported incidents are probably less than 5% of what actually happens. This means that there are indeed many thousands of incidents.
The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.
For example, when a Qantas 737 departed Ayers Rock without giving any radio calls on the MBZ and to the Certified Air/Ground Operator, no action was taken in any way by CASA. If you check with the FAA you will find the reason they get such high compliance rates in CTAFs is that firm action is taken against the small number of pilots who do not follow the recommended practices and therefore endanger the life or property of another. American pilots are so aware that enforcement action will be taken that they discipline themselves to operate so that this does not happen. Imagine if in Australia 5% of cars could drive through a stop sign and we all knew that in a 10 year period no one had ever been prosecuted.
In relation to Broome Airport my claim has been consistent. In following the NAS, Broome will have a Class D tower. The Broome Airport report shows that this will increase safety by 20% and this is a classic example of moving resources to where the risk is highest. Mike Caplehorn constantly fights against the tower because his profits will be affected. He knows that safety will be improved by at least 20%, so for what other reason could he be against a Class D tower at Broome?
I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there. At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.
In relation to see and avoid, with the new system there will be less need for collision avoidance by unalerted see and avoid. This is because the US procedures are designed to concentrate everyone’s attention to where the collision risk is highest and to keep IFR and VFR aircraft away from pressure points.
I post the diagram of the US airspace again. As you will see, the airspace is Class G at low density traffic and then moves in a totally scientific way to Class A. As risk and traffic density increases a higher category of airspace is allocated where necessary.
I liken the present situation, with its resistance to moving to modern international airspace practices, as almost identical to what happened to Ansett. I constantly communicated with Ken Cowley – Rupert Murdoch’s man on the Ansett Board – advising that if the airline did not follow modern international practices that it would go broke. Ken Cowley once even flew me at airline expense (the only time it has ever happened in my life) to Melbourne to address the Ansett technical group. Despite this, just about everyone resisted change and stuck their heads in the sand.
Isn’t it amazing that Sir Richard Branson can bring his money to Australia, then use Australians to copy the latest international practices, make hundreds of millions of dollars and be declared a hero?
I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.
No one on this site ever comes up with a valid reason why we cannot accept the advantages of the US system. Of course the excuse most often used is that America has more radar coverage. Yes, I agree. However our plan is to copy what the US does in radar coverage, and to copy what the US does outside radar coverage. After all, the US airspace system has evolved like a Boeing 747 – it is the best of its type in the world.
I find it fascinating that most of my critics are all flying around in US FAR certified aircraft. People may remember that before 1991 all overseas certified aircraft had to be re-certified and modified to operate in Australia. As Chairman of CAA, the regulator, I changed this so aircraft from five proven aviation countries could operate here without modification. At the time bureaucrats within the airworthiness department of the CAA predicted death and doom. Of course this hasn’t happened and our industry has been able to save tens of millions of dollars, which has obviously helped to keep more people employed.
Ushuaia, it is amazing that you want to keep a system that focuses airline and VFR aircraft at one point within 300 metres of each other. In the Aussie system small aircraft flying from south to north in Sydney descend below the steps, find their way to Parramatta, and then (yes, I kid you not) look for flashing lights on the ground to track to Hornsby.
In the United States lights on the ground were used in the 1920s for the mail planes. Just last year I went to an Airservices meeting in the office below Bankstown Tower where they proposed a new and better flashing light for the light aircraft lane.
As I’ve stated, all small aircraft flying north track via the recommended reporting point of Hornsby. Where do we put the airline aircraft? Yes, you’ve got it – we direct them to Hornsby with about 300 metres of vertical separation. US experts have advised me that nowhere in the USA would they ever do such a thing. To focus airline aircraft and VFR aircraft to the same location, where a simple altimeter setting error could cause a collision, would not be acceptable.
The American expert said, “Dick, you must get lots of incidents in this airspace.” I checked up and found that it is the airspace in Australia that has the highest number of problems in relation to breakdowns of separation and inadvertent entry into controlled airspace.
Now let’s look at the US system that I (and others) are trying to move to. At a place like Los Angeles, where Qantas flies every day, VFR aircraft are not encouraged to fly by any low level topographic feature or town which is overflown by airline aircraft. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The airline routes are shown on the Los Angeles VFR chart and VFR aircraft flying from south to north (or vice versa) are encouraged to overfly the centre of the LA field at altitudes where there are no airline aircraft. Where VFR and IFR aircraft could potentially collide in the LA system (i.e. when they pass through the same level) they are typically 20 to 30 miles from the airport where the risk of collision is far lower.
The ARG and the Government is planning to move to this safer US system. Many pilots who have not been informed probably think that the Aussie system (where no transponder or radio is required for aircraft 300 metres away from an airline aircraft at Hornsby) is the ideal and should not be changed. Commonsense alone shows that this is wrong.
More flashing lights in the light aircraft lane – the Airservices proposal – will never bring us into the 21st century of modern air traffic control movements. I, and many others, would much prefer light aircraft be encouraged to overfly Sydney Airport at say, 7,500’ or 8,500’, following a route which kept the aircraft the maximum distance away from approaching and departing airline traffic.
In relation to Mandatory Broadcast Zones, the ATSB have said that reported incidents are probably less than 5% of what actually happens. This means that there are indeed many thousands of incidents.
The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.
For example, when a Qantas 737 departed Ayers Rock without giving any radio calls on the MBZ and to the Certified Air/Ground Operator, no action was taken in any way by CASA. If you check with the FAA you will find the reason they get such high compliance rates in CTAFs is that firm action is taken against the small number of pilots who do not follow the recommended practices and therefore endanger the life or property of another. American pilots are so aware that enforcement action will be taken that they discipline themselves to operate so that this does not happen. Imagine if in Australia 5% of cars could drive through a stop sign and we all knew that in a 10 year period no one had ever been prosecuted.
In relation to Broome Airport my claim has been consistent. In following the NAS, Broome will have a Class D tower. The Broome Airport report shows that this will increase safety by 20% and this is a classic example of moving resources to where the risk is highest. Mike Caplehorn constantly fights against the tower because his profits will be affected. He knows that safety will be improved by at least 20%, so for what other reason could he be against a Class D tower at Broome?
I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there. At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.
In relation to see and avoid, with the new system there will be less need for collision avoidance by unalerted see and avoid. This is because the US procedures are designed to concentrate everyone’s attention to where the collision risk is highest and to keep IFR and VFR aircraft away from pressure points.
I post the diagram of the US airspace again. As you will see, the airspace is Class G at low density traffic and then moves in a totally scientific way to Class A. As risk and traffic density increases a higher category of airspace is allocated where necessary.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 28th May 2004 at 02:31.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there. At the present time Airservices is not instigating the correct establishment formula study because they know that the loss they will make will be reflected in their figures and the take home pay of their top management group.
Dick, thanks for your reply. There is a lot in it, so let me get to the heart of the problems.
First, I'm sorry, but people have a low opinion of you, and others, because of the total lack of consultation, collaboration, involvement and input into changes. We are not against change but it must be for the better. When we end up with a less safe system and haven't been involved, then that is what people end up thinking.
You now have Class E airspace in Australia where IFR RPT jets doing groundspeeds of up to 450kt are charging down into the paths of un-notified, uncontrolled, non-speaking VFR lighties. We are expected to see these things or hope their transponders are on or hope that ATC's advise us, ON A WORKLOAD PERMITTING BASIS, of their presence, for US to take avoiding action. That, Dick, is crap. Completely and utterly. The 95% of people flying in Aust skies deserve better. Please explain to me why the other 5% cannot get a clearance, be on the radio like the first 95% and be separated properly? Why cannot the 5% integrate with us instead of being unknown targets?
Ok, we keep going on about the US system. I've been to LAX many times. Let's look at what Class E is the States REALLY MEANS. From Jeppesen, US-8, Enroute: in Class E airspace IFR aircraft are separated from ALL, repeat ALL, aircraft. Yes, ALL. Here IFR is separated from IFR only and just get traffic advisories on VFR, workload permitting. THe latter is the ICAO system which the Americans ARE NOT USING. Now, if I am mistaken, well, tell me so. But that is the info that my airline provides me. That's all I can go on, that's my understanding of the US system. And that's not what we have here in Australia now.
I have no problem with your ideas such as flying lighties over the tops of airports as per the States. Yes, they do that extremely well. But don't forget things like Sydney, for instance, where we have way too much controlled airspace purely so we can share the noise around!! Ok, deal with lanes for lighties better. No problem with that. Great idea. However, do not think I am advocating staying with a system that focuses lighties and jets within 300m of each other. I never suggested that or think that. What I DO have a problem with is a system that puts unknown lighties into the paths of jets and requires TCAS RA's to sort the mess out. TCAS is meant to sort out human mistakes, NOT system design flaws.
I won't comment on other areas of your post - not my area of expertise and it's been ages since I've been to places such as Broome. But Dick, can you not hear us? Work WITH us! We are the one of the major stakeholders. We fly the 95% of airspace users around. We have good ideas. We can see the good aspects of proposed changes and also the problems. Where is the commercial airline input in this latest body - the Aviation Council? Where is such input in the current airspace review team? You keep saying AM Angus Houston is the CPL rep - well, he's a top bloke but he's not a commercial airline pilot. Not good enough.
You should well know - thoughout the operational side of my company people are very concerned about the changes to date and about the further proposed changes. The worry goes right up the chain. However you won't hear them being officially vocal - due to commercial and other strategic reasons. I'll leave that for you to figure out..... But don't delude yourself by thinking the airlines support what we have in Aust now and what is proposed. This is one of the reasons why there has got to be better collaboration amongst ALL parties from the outset, more involvement, a process whereby the stakeholders own the result.
Thanks for reading and listening - I appreciate it.
First, I'm sorry, but people have a low opinion of you, and others, because of the total lack of consultation, collaboration, involvement and input into changes. We are not against change but it must be for the better. When we end up with a less safe system and haven't been involved, then that is what people end up thinking.
You now have Class E airspace in Australia where IFR RPT jets doing groundspeeds of up to 450kt are charging down into the paths of un-notified, uncontrolled, non-speaking VFR lighties. We are expected to see these things or hope their transponders are on or hope that ATC's advise us, ON A WORKLOAD PERMITTING BASIS, of their presence, for US to take avoiding action. That, Dick, is crap. Completely and utterly. The 95% of people flying in Aust skies deserve better. Please explain to me why the other 5% cannot get a clearance, be on the radio like the first 95% and be separated properly? Why cannot the 5% integrate with us instead of being unknown targets?
Ok, we keep going on about the US system. I've been to LAX many times. Let's look at what Class E is the States REALLY MEANS. From Jeppesen, US-8, Enroute: in Class E airspace IFR aircraft are separated from ALL, repeat ALL, aircraft. Yes, ALL. Here IFR is separated from IFR only and just get traffic advisories on VFR, workload permitting. THe latter is the ICAO system which the Americans ARE NOT USING. Now, if I am mistaken, well, tell me so. But that is the info that my airline provides me. That's all I can go on, that's my understanding of the US system. And that's not what we have here in Australia now.
I have no problem with your ideas such as flying lighties over the tops of airports as per the States. Yes, they do that extremely well. But don't forget things like Sydney, for instance, where we have way too much controlled airspace purely so we can share the noise around!! Ok, deal with lanes for lighties better. No problem with that. Great idea. However, do not think I am advocating staying with a system that focuses lighties and jets within 300m of each other. I never suggested that or think that. What I DO have a problem with is a system that puts unknown lighties into the paths of jets and requires TCAS RA's to sort the mess out. TCAS is meant to sort out human mistakes, NOT system design flaws.
I won't comment on other areas of your post - not my area of expertise and it's been ages since I've been to places such as Broome. But Dick, can you not hear us? Work WITH us! We are the one of the major stakeholders. We fly the 95% of airspace users around. We have good ideas. We can see the good aspects of proposed changes and also the problems. Where is the commercial airline input in this latest body - the Aviation Council? Where is such input in the current airspace review team? You keep saying AM Angus Houston is the CPL rep - well, he's a top bloke but he's not a commercial airline pilot. Not good enough.
You should well know - thoughout the operational side of my company people are very concerned about the changes to date and about the further proposed changes. The worry goes right up the chain. However you won't hear them being officially vocal - due to commercial and other strategic reasons. I'll leave that for you to figure out..... But don't delude yourself by thinking the airlines support what we have in Aust now and what is proposed. This is one of the reasons why there has got to be better collaboration amongst ALL parties from the outset, more involvement, a process whereby the stakeholders own the result.
Thanks for reading and listening - I appreciate it.
Last edited by Ushuaia; 28th May 2004 at 04:31.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MBZ Stats
Dick:
Show me the EXACT reference for this statement.
In relation to Mandatory Broadcast Zones, the ATSB have said that reported incidents are probably less than 5% of what actually happens. This means that there are indeed many thousands of incidents.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety cases get done every day of the week. The only time they are not completed is when they are not actually started
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Read your post and saw the 7:30 report.
You are aware of the time and effort that went into the DAS and the very high standard of the Panel and CSIRO audit.
What I do not underatand is why you think it is acceptable to cherry pick a scientific report which has its conclusions confirmed by Pilot survey and Stakeholder interviews and audited by the CSIRO.
The reports conclusions from all these sources says CAGRS procedures are all that is necessary at Bme for the present.
We make no money from the CAGRS infact it costs us $60,000per year.
Why do I not support a D class tower? It is not necessary and will cost GA and Pax heaps, you estimate $20 per head we feel around $16 unless we do it as a sub-contractor to AA(I am aware you support the subcontract method, so do I) On our short haul routes this is a heavy impost as unlike the USA towers Aust. towers do not get funded from central revenue.
The DAS study team looked at the need for a tower at BME using the USA FAA model. BME if in the USA would not get an FAA D class tower!!!! as it is in G class airspace a LAA where flight service personnel advise traffic would be warrented.
Yes in the USA it would have a CAGRS(USA) not a tower. Dick please read the whole of the DAS as these questions you raise are analysed and answered in detail.
You agree that CAGRS is NAS(USA) compliant and you were a great proponent of affordable safety. With some very important cost savings achieved as mentioned in your post.
The DAS proved the following:
CTAF(USA) vs CAGRS 500% increase in safety $1:00 per Pax cost.
CAGRS vs D class Tower 20% increase in safety $16 per pax cost
Finally if Bme gets a tower what about Ayr Kal Kta? Each tower is around 4million p/a. I thought NAS was to reduce costs not impose a further burden on Pax and GA.
We still disagree on this one!! cheers Mike
Read your post and saw the 7:30 report.
You are aware of the time and effort that went into the DAS and the very high standard of the Panel and CSIRO audit.
What I do not underatand is why you think it is acceptable to cherry pick a scientific report which has its conclusions confirmed by Pilot survey and Stakeholder interviews and audited by the CSIRO.
The reports conclusions from all these sources says CAGRS procedures are all that is necessary at Bme for the present.
We make no money from the CAGRS infact it costs us $60,000per year.
Why do I not support a D class tower? It is not necessary and will cost GA and Pax heaps, you estimate $20 per head we feel around $16 unless we do it as a sub-contractor to AA(I am aware you support the subcontract method, so do I) On our short haul routes this is a heavy impost as unlike the USA towers Aust. towers do not get funded from central revenue.
The DAS study team looked at the need for a tower at BME using the USA FAA model. BME if in the USA would not get an FAA D class tower!!!! as it is in G class airspace a LAA where flight service personnel advise traffic would be warrented.
Yes in the USA it would have a CAGRS(USA) not a tower. Dick please read the whole of the DAS as these questions you raise are analysed and answered in detail.
You agree that CAGRS is NAS(USA) compliant and you were a great proponent of affordable safety. With some very important cost savings achieved as mentioned in your post.
The DAS proved the following:
CTAF(USA) vs CAGRS 500% increase in safety $1:00 per Pax cost.
CAGRS vs D class Tower 20% increase in safety $16 per pax cost
Finally if Bme gets a tower what about Ayr Kal Kta? Each tower is around 4million p/a. I thought NAS was to reduce costs not impose a further burden on Pax and GA.
We still disagree on this one!! cheers Mike
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Townsville, QLD
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DICK
Isn’t it amazing that Sir Richard Branson can bring his money to Australia, then use Australians to copy the latest international practices, make hundreds of millions of dollars and be declared a hero?
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Mae Sai
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now let me get this straight, Dick...
1) You are upset that CASA doesn't follow through on its obligations to penalise non-complying and negligent pilots (something that I happen to agree with).
2) You spent a considerable period as head of CASA (or its antecedent).
3) During that time you also did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it.
You, my dear man, are a first class prat.
1) You are upset that CASA doesn't follow through on its obligations to penalise non-complying and negligent pilots (something that I happen to agree with).
2) You spent a considerable period as head of CASA (or its antecedent).
3) During that time you also did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about it.
You, my dear man, are a first class prat.
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
It is always good to see you contribute here… especially since nobody else in the NAS IG is prepared to talk in open forum. No wonder there continues to be a credibility problem?
Dick, the problem here is you are not able to communicate on the same level of those that you wish to sell this project to. And those of us that have called you or spoken to you, often find that we don’t get much to say or you don’t want to listen. Can you blame people for not calling if they don’t think it is worth it??
I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.
Could not agree more!
Perhaps this is because it has not been “sold” to those that have to make it work. As the major proponent of this change, you have to “sell” the changes and convince everyone that we will all be better off. To date, neither you nor the NAS IG have done that in any shape or form.
I think you will find that the light thing relates to the attitude of those in CASA and ASA that don’t want change and don’t have the ability to do it. If some of the CASA attitudes back in the ‘80’s were a bit more practical, much of this would have been done by now. I think it was a “power” thing! Maybe still is?
What you don’t realise here Dick, is that the Australian culture is not the same as the US culture. You use the word “encouraged” and in other places “recommended”. The problem is this means a very different thing in Australia vs US. That is why we had to have MBZs because it was the only way we could achieve the level of compliance that is required. You ought to know as you were the one that introduced MBZs…!
Dick, you don’t seem to realise that the NAS education to date has been a total failure and it does not matter if it is “commonsense” or not. It all depends on what is common and what is sense.. no?
The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.
Dick, this is really where you have gone off the rails. Whilst I agree there needs to be some form of penalty for transgression, You don’t achieve compliance by introducing huge fines, YOU ACHIEVE IT BY EDUCATION AND TRAINING in the first instance, not by making threats. Of course you know that you can be safe and not compliant, and being 100% compliant does not mean you are SAFE. You have to change your approach to this or you will fail big time.
Does this mean you are telling the Minister and CASA what to do?
Dick, this only applies if you introduce the US culture in conjunction with the US procedures. To date, neither you nor the NAS IG have addressed the culture differences. When you do that, in conjunction with (and part of) a serious education program which is based on selling the changes and justifying the results then we might see some progress in airspace reform, which one way or the other many of us would like to see - just not the way you are doing it!
"no known traffic"
It is always good to see you contribute here… especially since nobody else in the NAS IG is prepared to talk in open forum. No wonder there continues to be a credibility problem?
If this is so it is probably because they are not informed correctly in relation to what I am doing. After all, I constantly post my phone numbers on this site and don’t receive any calls.
I can assure you that in a modern globalised world, whether we like it or not, we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas.
No one on this site ever comes up with a valid reason why we cannot accept the advantages of the US system. Of course the excuse most often used is that America has more radar coverage.
In the United States lights on the ground were used in the 1920s for the mail planes. Just last year I went to an Airservices meeting in the office below Bankstown Tower where they proposed a new and better flashing light for the light aircraft lane.
Now let’s look at the US system that I (and others) are trying to move to. At a place like Los Angeles, where Qantas flies every day, VFR aircraft are not encouraged to fly by any low level topographic feature or town which is overflown by airline aircraft. In fact, it is the exact opposite. The airline routes are shown on the Los Angeles VFR chart and VFR aircraft flying from south to north (or vice versa) are encouraged to overfly the centre of the LA field at altitudes where there are no airline aircraft. Where VFR and IFR aircraft could potentially collide in the LA system (i.e. when they pass through the same level) they are typically 20 to 30 miles from the airport where the risk of collision is far lower.
The ARG and the Government is planning to move to this safer US system. Many pilots who have not been informed probably think that the Aussie system (where no transponder or radio is required for aircraft 300 metres away from an airline aircraft at Hornsby) is the ideal and should not be changed. Commonsense alone shows that this is wrong.
The key to the problem is that the rule is a sham because no enforcement action is ever taken. In the history of Mandatory Broadcast Zones in this country, with over 500 written reports to the ATSB, there has never been any enforcement action – indeed I have not been able to find even evidence of a letter being written to a pilot.
I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there.
In relation to see and avoid, with the new system there will be less need for collision avoidance by unalerted see and avoid. This is because the US procedures are designed to concentrate everyone’s attention to where the collision risk is highest and to keep IFR and VFR aircraft away from pressure points.
"no known traffic"
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
... we in Australia have to be as smart or smarter than anyone overseas....
... maybe its because we are smarter and have the only environment in the world where sophisticated integrated systems can work and be evaluated ...
Boeing wouldn't be here if they do could do the same in USA ... and Airbus wouldn't be here if they could do the same in Europe ...
... and they take what they learn here back to develop what will become international practice ...
... of course Boeing and Airbus don't make planes for GA ... so I guess they don't count and we're not really that good after all.
Dick,
I had a look at the US airspace model you posted Dick and noted that Australian NAS has different levels of service with different volumes of airspace. For instance, why do the US only have Class G up to either 700' or 1200' AGL and we are looking at more than ten times this upper level? And so on. Call me simple, call me stupid, but we do appear to be replicating the system but morphing it to suit some arbitrary design rules. Not against reform but either we implement it the same or do the full Monty on it.
I had a look at the US airspace model you posted Dick and noted that Australian NAS has different levels of service with different volumes of airspace. For instance, why do the US only have Class G up to either 700' or 1200' AGL and we are looking at more than ten times this upper level? And so on. Call me simple, call me stupid, but we do appear to be replicating the system but morphing it to suit some arbitrary design rules. Not against reform but either we implement it the same or do the full Monty on it.
WALLEY2, Mike, you state in relation to your study
Mike, I must admit I can’t quite agree. I will soon post on my website www.dicksmithflyer.com.au a copy of an independent review of the “Design Aeronautical Study for Broome Airport Terminal Airspace” by Dr S J Roberts. Whilst I cannot say that I know Dr Roberts personally (it appears that I have met him at two public functions in relation to the Eureka Awards), he is a life member of the Australian Skeptics – a group of which I am patron.
I should point out that Dr Roberts, quite unlike the authors of your report, has no financial link or benefit whichever way the decision is resolved. I particularly point out some of the comments from his report.
You are aware of the time and effort that went into the DAS and the very high standard of the panel and CSIRO audit.
I should point out that Dr Roberts, quite unlike the authors of your report, has no financial link or benefit whichever way the decision is resolved. I particularly point out some of the comments from his report.
Page 6: The audit made complimentary remarks about the original report, which are then quoted by yet again the same authors in the target document. This conduct shows a deliberate self-delusion that is quite alien to the scientific process. One is forced to conclude that the persons involved have an “axe to grind” and therefore cannot be trusted to conduct an objective study.
Page 14: It is highly unlikely that Capt Bollard, or anyone else, would have been included in the study group unless their opinions happened to match the pre-formed social thinking of the existing group.
Page 42: With the authors of the report being self-appointed and self-auditing, it is clear to me that an arbitrary and illogical decision to omit ground collisions must have been taken precisely because their inclusion would have weakened some of the preconceived logic already beloved of the authors. Such willingness to discard unwelcome facts is another characteristic of cultic pseudoscience and of dogmatic thought.
Page 64/65: Tables 14 and 15 contain egregious examples of illogical – I would say bizarre – calculation. Once cannot simply add rankings in this way, and to do so demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of statistics. Some authors were said (on page 14) to be qualified in statistics; either this is untrue, or they cannot have seen this part of the report. These tables (and the data that will follow from them, including assertions in the principal conclusion) represent either a spectacular degree of incompetence, or an attempt to deliberately mislead the casual reader.
Page 77: The figure of “88%” comes from table 17 on page 73, which in turn takes it from Figure 9 on page 66. Above I have shown that the data involved is fatally misconceived, so that this figure of 88% must be rejected.
Based on my professional experience I hold the opinion that this report must be ignored, on the grounds of –
· Deliberate non-independence of authors and of persons surveyed;
· Unjustified arbitrary decision to focus on mid-air collisions while dismissing ground-based collisions;
· Obvious lack of mathematical and statistical knowledge;
· Deception in presentation of results, tantamount to scientific fraud;
· Reliance on deliberately unstated, arbitrary methodology.
Indeed I would recommend that any scientific work done by the authors involved must now be called into question. As some authors appear to be associated with public bodies such as CSIRO, I strongly suggest that higher management should invite them to explain their conduct or to dissociate themselves from the report.
S J Roberts, BSc ARCS DIP PhD JP
24 May 2004
Page 14: It is highly unlikely that Capt Bollard, or anyone else, would have been included in the study group unless their opinions happened to match the pre-formed social thinking of the existing group.
Page 42: With the authors of the report being self-appointed and self-auditing, it is clear to me that an arbitrary and illogical decision to omit ground collisions must have been taken precisely because their inclusion would have weakened some of the preconceived logic already beloved of the authors. Such willingness to discard unwelcome facts is another characteristic of cultic pseudoscience and of dogmatic thought.
Page 64/65: Tables 14 and 15 contain egregious examples of illogical – I would say bizarre – calculation. Once cannot simply add rankings in this way, and to do so demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of statistics. Some authors were said (on page 14) to be qualified in statistics; either this is untrue, or they cannot have seen this part of the report. These tables (and the data that will follow from them, including assertions in the principal conclusion) represent either a spectacular degree of incompetence, or an attempt to deliberately mislead the casual reader.
Page 77: The figure of “88%” comes from table 17 on page 73, which in turn takes it from Figure 9 on page 66. Above I have shown that the data involved is fatally misconceived, so that this figure of 88% must be rejected.
Based on my professional experience I hold the opinion that this report must be ignored, on the grounds of –
· Deliberate non-independence of authors and of persons surveyed;
· Unjustified arbitrary decision to focus on mid-air collisions while dismissing ground-based collisions;
· Obvious lack of mathematical and statistical knowledge;
· Deception in presentation of results, tantamount to scientific fraud;
· Reliance on deliberately unstated, arbitrary methodology.
Indeed I would recommend that any scientific work done by the authors involved must now be called into question. As some authors appear to be associated with public bodies such as CSIRO, I strongly suggest that higher management should invite them to explain their conduct or to dissociate themselves from the report.
S J Roberts, BSc ARCS DIP PhD JP
24 May 2004
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Sand Pit
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank Burden...
I suggest you do further research on the US class G airspace. Class G goes up to 14500ft. Class E 'airways' aprx 8nm wide, start at 1200ft agl. Class E associated with an instrument approach- 700 agl.
I suggest you do further research on the US class G airspace. Class G goes up to 14500ft. Class E 'airways' aprx 8nm wide, start at 1200ft agl. Class E associated with an instrument approach- 700 agl.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Planet Plazbot
Posts: 1,003
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ahahaha dick. You should get a tarot card reader as well. And that guy who does that 'crossing over' thing as well. Just when I thought you could be any more irrelvant to this airspace problem you bring forward a guy like this.
Hey, did you know that the WTC attack was actually from the CIA? I have a web site that I can direct you to that proves it! Conspiracy theorists like your mate here are a laughing stock and I can not believe that you actually think that anyone would take this seriously.
Hey, did you know that the WTC attack was actually from the CIA? I have a web site that I can direct you to that proves it! Conspiracy theorists like your mate here are a laughing stock and I can not believe that you actually think that anyone would take this seriously.
Thread Starter
Dick,
After reading the spiel by your lacky, you now have only one option: do a complete design safety case on commercial operations at uncontrolled airports to sort out the truth once and for all. I don't give a stuff how long it takes. If it "delays implementation", too bad.
Reference the "lack of inclusion of ground collisions" and how that has alledgedly contributed to the invalidity of the BME DAS, doesn't your expert appreciate that ANY type of third party, starting at a CAGRS, would significantly increase the safety of commercial operations by maintaining a visual lookout from his "tower", thereby further strenthening the conclusions of the DAS? This one point severely calls into question the credibility of Dr Roberts. Perhaps that is the problem: "experts" such as him (and yourself?), commenting on things about which they know little or nothing.
mjbow2,
Could you please explain how much of the Class G airspace you claim goes up to FL145 is used by commercial operations? You may also like to mention how much FL145 Class G is filled up with the Rocky and other mountain ranges. Der.
After reading the spiel by your lacky, you now have only one option: do a complete design safety case on commercial operations at uncontrolled airports to sort out the truth once and for all. I don't give a stuff how long it takes. If it "delays implementation", too bad.
Reference the "lack of inclusion of ground collisions" and how that has alledgedly contributed to the invalidity of the BME DAS, doesn't your expert appreciate that ANY type of third party, starting at a CAGRS, would significantly increase the safety of commercial operations by maintaining a visual lookout from his "tower", thereby further strenthening the conclusions of the DAS? This one point severely calls into question the credibility of Dr Roberts. Perhaps that is the problem: "experts" such as him (and yourself?), commenting on things about which they know little or nothing.
mjbow2,
Could you please explain how much of the Class G airspace you claim goes up to FL145 is used by commercial operations? You may also like to mention how much FL145 Class G is filled up with the Rocky and other mountain ranges. Der.
Frank Burden, if you look at the US airspace model you will see that the United States has Class G airspace to 14,500’ – just as our NAS design shows should be introduced by November this year! The US Class G airspace to 14,500’ covers large areas of low traffic density airspace – areas in Arizona, Nevada and Wyoming of many thousands of square kilometres.
Ushuaia, I can assure you that in the United States they follow ICAO compliant Class E airspace just as we have introduced – that is, they separate IFR from IFR and give traffic where practical on others. Are you sure you have interpreted the Jeppesen documents correctly? If you have, they are obviously in error and need to be changed.
Adamastor, you are accusing me of not being tough with enforcement. If you check with the Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, or possibly with Creampuff, you will find that when I was Chairman of CAA in 1991 I introduced the administrative fines legislation. After I finished my term no one acted on this legislation. When I came back in 1998 I worked again with the Office of Legal Counsel to actually put a system in place so the administrative fines were used – and they were.
FarCu, yes, I am jealous of Richard Branson - not because of the Sir but because of the fact that he has been able to very successfully introduce reform into Australia and many Australians have benefited, including lots of jobs created. That is what I am about. Just as Richard Branson does, I like the idea of copying the best practices from around the world and introducing them into Australia so we employ more people and create more wealth for all Australians.
Ushuaia, I can assure you that in the United States they follow ICAO compliant Class E airspace just as we have introduced – that is, they separate IFR from IFR and give traffic where practical on others. Are you sure you have interpreted the Jeppesen documents correctly? If you have, they are obviously in error and need to be changed.
Adamastor, you are accusing me of not being tough with enforcement. If you check with the Office of Legal Counsel at CASA, or possibly with Creampuff, you will find that when I was Chairman of CAA in 1991 I introduced the administrative fines legislation. After I finished my term no one acted on this legislation. When I came back in 1998 I worked again with the Office of Legal Counsel to actually put a system in place so the administrative fines were used – and they were.
FarCu, yes, I am jealous of Richard Branson - not because of the Sir but because of the fact that he has been able to very successfully introduce reform into Australia and many Australians have benefited, including lots of jobs created. That is what I am about. Just as Richard Branson does, I like the idea of copying the best practices from around the world and introducing them into Australia so we employ more people and create more wealth for all Australians.