NAS on the 730 report Tonight (Wed)
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
We agree on another thing, no secrecy in aviation safety matters,
I look forward to Professional pilots and ATC experts being given copies of ARG and NASIG reports and minutes.
My post was not a threat just a warning to Dr Roberts to be careful in his comments on other experts who did the DAS as certainly if it had been me I would have taken offence.
Normally these matters are thrashed out by examining the same data and reaching a different analysed position, a growth of knowledge approach, even if the different findings mean the matter is contentious. This is the prefered approach of many researchers rather than a direct attack on a report page by page as Dr Roberts wants to do.
With Dr Roberts approach even if you prove the other guy wrong you have not advanced the matter under consideration.
Scientifically you are back to status quo.
Probably this is the fate of skeptics or how bankers ask their risk managers like Dr Roberts to tackle problems.
Cheers Mike
We agree on another thing, no secrecy in aviation safety matters,
I look forward to Professional pilots and ATC experts being given copies of ARG and NASIG reports and minutes.
My post was not a threat just a warning to Dr Roberts to be careful in his comments on other experts who did the DAS as certainly if it had been me I would have taken offence.
Normally these matters are thrashed out by examining the same data and reaching a different analysed position, a growth of knowledge approach, even if the different findings mean the matter is contentious. This is the prefered approach of many researchers rather than a direct attack on a report page by page as Dr Roberts wants to do.
With Dr Roberts approach even if you prove the other guy wrong you have not advanced the matter under consideration.
Scientifically you are back to status quo.
Probably this is the fate of skeptics or how bankers ask their risk managers like Dr Roberts to tackle problems.
Cheers Mike
Last edited by WALLEY2; 1st Jun 2004 at 14:16.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Bear Lake, Canada
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu chuckles
Bob Hall, Gliding Federation? Not unqualified at all. His PhD "Hall, Robert James" in 1970 is from University of New South Wales in, as I recall, "Microbial Dynamics".
His publication list shows just the one academic publication. This was the field of modelling anaerobic digesters. He did peer-acknowledged work with the Biotechnology School at UNSW from 1986, with Linklater on cheese.
This would presumably make him a cheese expert. Does this make Dick Smith the Big Cheese?
Bob Hall, Gliding Federation? Not unqualified at all. His PhD "Hall, Robert James" in 1970 is from University of New South Wales in, as I recall, "Microbial Dynamics".
His publication list shows just the one academic publication. This was the field of modelling anaerobic digesters. He did peer-acknowledged work with the Biotechnology School at UNSW from 1986, with Linklater on cheese.
This would presumably make him a cheese expert. Does this make Dick Smith the Big Cheese?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MJBOW2
Ok USA airspace heaps of G class and RPT Jets and GA mixing in together??
Find an airport like Broome, Ayers, KTA,KAL say 20-30,000 aircraft movements p/a, RPT upto 737-800 around4-5,000 movements p/a.
G class airspace no radar below 20,000ft above airport reference point ground level. Uncontrolled terminal airspace no Local Airport Advisory by FSS stationed at the airport.
In short: Find a USA CTAF Airport with this kind of traffic, in this kind of area and terminal airspace.
Ok USA airspace heaps of G class and RPT Jets and GA mixing in together??
Find an airport like Broome, Ayers, KTA,KAL say 20-30,000 aircraft movements p/a, RPT upto 737-800 around4-5,000 movements p/a.
G class airspace no radar below 20,000ft above airport reference point ground level. Uncontrolled terminal airspace no Local Airport Advisory by FSS stationed at the airport.
In short: Find a USA CTAF Airport with this kind of traffic, in this kind of area and terminal airspace.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Black stump
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with Dr Roberts ....
... 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.
... It is highly unlikely that ...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.
... 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.
... demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of statistics ... represent either a spectacular degree of incompetence, or an attempt to deliberately mislead the casual reader.
... the data involved is fatally misconceived ...
... must be ignored, on the grounds of –
· Deliberate non-independence of authors and of persons surveyed;
· Unjustified arbitrary decision ...;
· Obvious lack of mathematical and statistical knowledge;
· Deception in presentation of results, tantamount to scientific fraud;
· Reliance on deliberately unstated, arbitrary methodology.
... would recommend that any ... work done by the authors involved must now be called into question.
He was referring to Dick wasn't he ???
... 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.
... It is highly unlikely that ...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.
... 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.
... demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of statistics ... represent either a spectacular degree of incompetence, or an attempt to deliberately mislead the casual reader.
... the data involved is fatally misconceived ...
... must be ignored, on the grounds of –
· Deliberate non-independence of authors and of persons surveyed;
· Unjustified arbitrary decision ...;
· Obvious lack of mathematical and statistical knowledge;
· Deception in presentation of results, tantamount to scientific fraud;
· Reliance on deliberately unstated, arbitrary methodology.
... would recommend that any ... work done by the authors involved must now be called into question.
He was referring to Dick wasn't he ???
Thread Starter
mjbow2,
Who is the one who doesn't know what goes on in the US? I quote from a report by one of the members of the Airservices fact-finding visit last year, the so-called Class G airspace you claim to know all about:
Class G airspace.
In the US NAS IFR aircraft receive an IFR/IFR separation service in Class G airspace. This Service is not dependent on radar coverage, and indeed most Class G airspace lies beyond radar coverage. This is in stark contrast to the proposal in AUSNAS to have IFR aircraft operate without an en-route traffic information service in Class G.
When the question of IFR in Class G airspace was raised at the FAA headquarters in Washington, Mr Reggie Matthews, Manager Airspace and Rules Division, who is the FAA executive with policy authority to make an interpretation on ATC regulations, stated that FAA policy requires IFR aircraft in Class G airspace to operate on a clearance. This policy is not documented, however Mr Matthews advised that it is current custom and practice, both for industry and FAA, to function in this manner, and that if an interpretation was required it would come to him for decision.
Just because the regulations are not specific in prohibiting a particular activity, does not mean that particular activity will be tolerated by the FAA. The FAA will not tolerate aircraft intentionally operating in IMC in any airspace without a clearance.
The FAA acknowledged that they are providing a de-facto Class E service to IFR aircraft in Class G, and they have no intention to change. The Continental USA has remnant areas of Class G airspace. Much of the higher altitude Class G has such high grid lowest safe altitudes, that en-route IFR is not practicable in the airspace. The low altitude Class G is considered to exist to permit VFR operations in conditions of one mile visibility, and clear of cloud..
I don't believe I'm deceiving anyone, sport. It's the Dick Smith camp that is attempting (increasingly unsuccesfully) to pull the wool over our eyes.
Actually, it's funny you should mention all those aircraft that are registered in the Rockies: that demonstrates that the Smiths' assertions that "the US has 20 times the traffic" is a total furphy. Their "20 times the traffic" is actually spread over a much larger area (probably about twenty times the size?), and so the RATE of activity per square whatever is about the same.
Who is the one who doesn't know what goes on in the US? I quote from a report by one of the members of the Airservices fact-finding visit last year, the so-called Class G airspace you claim to know all about:
Class G airspace.
In the US NAS IFR aircraft receive an IFR/IFR separation service in Class G airspace. This Service is not dependent on radar coverage, and indeed most Class G airspace lies beyond radar coverage. This is in stark contrast to the proposal in AUSNAS to have IFR aircraft operate without an en-route traffic information service in Class G.
When the question of IFR in Class G airspace was raised at the FAA headquarters in Washington, Mr Reggie Matthews, Manager Airspace and Rules Division, who is the FAA executive with policy authority to make an interpretation on ATC regulations, stated that FAA policy requires IFR aircraft in Class G airspace to operate on a clearance. This policy is not documented, however Mr Matthews advised that it is current custom and practice, both for industry and FAA, to function in this manner, and that if an interpretation was required it would come to him for decision.
Just because the regulations are not specific in prohibiting a particular activity, does not mean that particular activity will be tolerated by the FAA. The FAA will not tolerate aircraft intentionally operating in IMC in any airspace without a clearance.
The FAA acknowledged that they are providing a de-facto Class E service to IFR aircraft in Class G, and they have no intention to change. The Continental USA has remnant areas of Class G airspace. Much of the higher altitude Class G has such high grid lowest safe altitudes, that en-route IFR is not practicable in the airspace. The low altitude Class G is considered to exist to permit VFR operations in conditions of one mile visibility, and clear of cloud..
I don't believe I'm deceiving anyone, sport. It's the Dick Smith camp that is attempting (increasingly unsuccesfully) to pull the wool over our eyes.
Actually, it's funny you should mention all those aircraft that are registered in the Rockies: that demonstrates that the Smiths' assertions that "the US has 20 times the traffic" is a total furphy. Their "20 times the traffic" is actually spread over a much larger area (probably about twenty times the size?), and so the RATE of activity per square whatever is about the same.
Grandpa Aerotart
Cannuck76....pertinant/compelling qualifications
To the chap playing devils advocate on the seperation at Hornsby I suggest you pull out the Sydney VTC and take a closer look.
LL CTA at Hornsby 2500' until 12 DME straight in on rwy 17 when it becomes 700' and then 500' over the harbour.
Given Hornsby is 15 odd nm from YSSY any inbound transport cat jet will be passing overhead at 5000' +/- a bit. At 12 DME, the closest a lighty can get to the threshold of 17 and still be at 2500', the jet aircraft will be at 4000' +/- a bit.
Even if not following a 3 X profile, rare in large jets, and conducting a visual approach the lowest they can be is 500' above the lower limit of CTA...and to actually be that low with that many track miles to run would be highly inefficient and against virtually every SOP in the book...whomever's book.
At 8.5 DME, the closest said lighty can be to the threshold of 17 and maintain 700', the jet would be approximately 2500'.
So how close were they going to be in your opinion?
Every time ******** opens his mouth he spouts forward with lies and half truths...anything that will convince Ma & Pa public that he is the aviation messiah and we a bunch of overpaid whingers.
With widespread industry consultation NAS could have been introduced seemlessly...******** has stated very clearly that excluding industry input was a deliberate act....and imho negligence/arrogance of monumental proportions.
So few things need tweaking to make NAS workable that it beggars belief that ******** and his political puppets have taken such a untenable position.
NAS only needs tweaking because we have it in place...any truly knowledgeable industry professional could compare the system in place pre Nov 2003 to what we have now and see that the change was unwarranted financial waste for no significant gains.
Rather than wasted, late, 'educational material' to support NAS2b why didn't AsA just spend some money on educating ******** and AOPA in how they could achieve virtually everything their little hearts desired while remaining part of the existing system?
Chuck
To the chap playing devils advocate on the seperation at Hornsby I suggest you pull out the Sydney VTC and take a closer look.
LL CTA at Hornsby 2500' until 12 DME straight in on rwy 17 when it becomes 700' and then 500' over the harbour.
Given Hornsby is 15 odd nm from YSSY any inbound transport cat jet will be passing overhead at 5000' +/- a bit. At 12 DME, the closest a lighty can get to the threshold of 17 and still be at 2500', the jet aircraft will be at 4000' +/- a bit.
Even if not following a 3 X profile, rare in large jets, and conducting a visual approach the lowest they can be is 500' above the lower limit of CTA...and to actually be that low with that many track miles to run would be highly inefficient and against virtually every SOP in the book...whomever's book.
At 8.5 DME, the closest said lighty can be to the threshold of 17 and maintain 700', the jet would be approximately 2500'.
So how close were they going to be in your opinion?
Every time ******** opens his mouth he spouts forward with lies and half truths...anything that will convince Ma & Pa public that he is the aviation messiah and we a bunch of overpaid whingers.
With widespread industry consultation NAS could have been introduced seemlessly...******** has stated very clearly that excluding industry input was a deliberate act....and imho negligence/arrogance of monumental proportions.
So few things need tweaking to make NAS workable that it beggars belief that ******** and his political puppets have taken such a untenable position.
NAS only needs tweaking because we have it in place...any truly knowledgeable industry professional could compare the system in place pre Nov 2003 to what we have now and see that the change was unwarranted financial waste for no significant gains.
Rather than wasted, late, 'educational material' to support NAS2b why didn't AsA just spend some money on educating ******** and AOPA in how they could achieve virtually everything their little hearts desired while remaining part of the existing system?
Chuck
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 1st Jun 2004 at 15:57.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu, I'm not here to fight Dick's argument (note that he never replied to my comments). Needless to say the bulk of Dick's knowledge of terminal airspace comes from his house in Terry Hills, right in the LOE we've been talking about. The few times that he or other people have been refused zone clearances WE get to hear about it after he goes into print via the Airservices CEO. I'm sure he listens intently ever time we get a VFR stray out of that lane into the path of aircraft on final 16R. He's fully aware of the problems in the LOE. Regarding the separation at Hornsby vv traffic on 16R, may I suggest you pay attention next time you fly IFR into YSSY? Jets are routinely forced to fly well below profile (A030 on base at 15NM) to accommodate IVA and PRM standards. This isn't the place to explain boring details - feel free to call the SY traffic manager and ask for a visit to the TCU. The comment about the 700 ft step is that it is close to a corner in the LOE and IF the VFR misjudges and flys east of the tracking point, that step is infringed and they can be horribly close (alt+pos'n) to the IAF for 16R.
Grandpa Aerotart
Fair enough Duff man...I don't fly jets into YSSY at the moment, although my company will be starting Asia direct in a few months.
I have flown over a big chunk of the world and it's always nice hearing an Aussie ATCO on the other end of the line
Chuck
I have flown over a big chunk of the world and it's always nice hearing an Aussie ATCO on the other end of the line
Chuck
Join Date: Jan 1999
Location: Abeam Alice Springs
Posts: 1,109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Back on May 30, I posted here some comment on your earlier posts which concluded:
To date you have chosen to ignore my comments.
NOWHERE to date have you even attempted to address the culture or training issues associated with NAS or airspace reform in general. You cannot put your head in the sand on these issues which are critical to the success of any change management project (which NAS is) and expect a smooth passage. I note with interest both culture and training is mentioned by others, both on this thread and others, yet you choose to ignore or not to comment on them. Why?
Back on May 30, I posted here some comment on your earlier posts which concluded:
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!
NOWHERE to date have you even attempted to address the culture or training issues associated with NAS or airspace reform in general. You cannot put your head in the sand on these issues which are critical to the success of any change management project (which NAS is) and expect a smooth passage. I note with interest both culture and training is mentioned by others, both on this thread and others, yet you choose to ignore or not to comment on them. Why?
triadic, I couldn’t agree with you more in relation to the US culture compared to the Australian culture. I’ve been talking about it for over 10 years. When I was Chairman of CAA I arranged a program where Australian controllers regularly visited the USA and many came back to Australia and wrote positive reports. I’ve still got copies of those reports – they are excellent. Virtually every controller came up with ideas on how we could make improvements in Australia. I don’t believe any of these ideas have ever been introduced.
You do not seem to understand that I am not in a position of authority. The only people who have this ability to bring in cultural change are the people who are in positions of authority. Unfortunately there seem to be none who have the courage and leadership abilities to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.
The management of both Airservices and CASA have done everything they can to undermine the Government’s decision to move to the NAS.
I point out that I was in a position of authority when we introduced the AMATS changes. There was resistance to change, however I made sure competent experts were employed. When you consider it is the airspace we have been flying in for the last 13 years with very high levels of safety, and it has now been generally accepted. It shows it was a competent process.
It is simple. You can’t blame me as I have no position of authority and most advice I give to those who do have a position of authority is ignored. From my experience, the management in Airservices and CASA are so insecure with their leadership abilities they are simply not prepared to copy the world’s best practice.
For example, you may know that I have worked for three years to attempt to get US experts out to help with the cultural and training issues. Both CASA and Airservices have done everything they can to make sure this does not happen. Basically the management’s view is “it wasn’t built here”.
A good example of not asking advice is the most ridiculous “design safety cases” which are now taking place at Airservices. They are all based on subjective opinion from people who have made up their minds – just like the Broome study. Andrew Fleming, General Manager Air Traffic Management, was surprised that the USA could not supply a design safety case for their Class E airspace. The facts are simple. The airspace in the USA, including Class E, has evolved over 100 years of experience. You only need a design safety case if you are inventing something. The reason I have always pushed for copying proven systems is that you can readily obtain objective evidence on the safety result you will achieve.
At Airservices, the management gives no leadership at all in relation to the change process. Of course, in a vacuum, you end up with a situation where the least informed “fundamentalists” communicate their fears of change and dictate the agenda.
You do not seem to understand that I am not in a position of authority. The only people who have this ability to bring in cultural change are the people who are in positions of authority. Unfortunately there seem to be none who have the courage and leadership abilities to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.
The management of both Airservices and CASA have done everything they can to undermine the Government’s decision to move to the NAS.
I point out that I was in a position of authority when we introduced the AMATS changes. There was resistance to change, however I made sure competent experts were employed. When you consider it is the airspace we have been flying in for the last 13 years with very high levels of safety, and it has now been generally accepted. It shows it was a competent process.
It is simple. You can’t blame me as I have no position of authority and most advice I give to those who do have a position of authority is ignored. From my experience, the management in Airservices and CASA are so insecure with their leadership abilities they are simply not prepared to copy the world’s best practice.
For example, you may know that I have worked for three years to attempt to get US experts out to help with the cultural and training issues. Both CASA and Airservices have done everything they can to make sure this does not happen. Basically the management’s view is “it wasn’t built here”.
A good example of not asking advice is the most ridiculous “design safety cases” which are now taking place at Airservices. They are all based on subjective opinion from people who have made up their minds – just like the Broome study. Andrew Fleming, General Manager Air Traffic Management, was surprised that the USA could not supply a design safety case for their Class E airspace. The facts are simple. The airspace in the USA, including Class E, has evolved over 100 years of experience. You only need a design safety case if you are inventing something. The reason I have always pushed for copying proven systems is that you can readily obtain objective evidence on the safety result you will achieve.
At Airservices, the management gives no leadership at all in relation to the change process. Of course, in a vacuum, you end up with a situation where the least informed “fundamentalists” communicate their fears of change and dictate the agenda.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So you have enough authority to change the airspace, but not the culture ???????
Hahahahahaha.
(Adopt a child's voice) it's all them, it's not my fault, it's all a conspiracy, a cultural conspiracy etc.
Yeah, imagine employing basic change management processes
I look forward to the re-introduction of flight service, the US charging regime (all world's best practice) etc etc at your earliest convenience.......
Hahahahahaha.
(Adopt a child's voice) it's all them, it's not my fault, it's all a conspiracy, a cultural conspiracy etc.
most ridiculous “design safety cases” which are now taking place at Airservices.
From my experience, the management in Airservices and CASA are so insecure with their leadership abilities they are simply not prepared to copy the world’s best practice
Hey Dick good see you engaging on these forums again.
Surely something you are skirting around above is that ...
Okay I accept the right of an elected government to do that. I also accept that what they may do may be personally not beneficial but may benefit the community as a whole.
The question remains how did the government ie John Anderson and DOTARS come to this policy decision? That has not been answered. Clearly they think NAS will be better than what you introduced with AMATS but why. Who told them it would be better? Where is the advice without fear or favour from the bureacracy?
Surely something you are skirting around above is that ...
to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.
The question remains how did the government ie John Anderson and DOTARS come to this policy decision? That has not been answered. Clearly they think NAS will be better than what you introduced with AMATS but why. Who told them it would be better? Where is the advice without fear or favour from the bureacracy?
ανώνυμος
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You've just got to love that phrase "World best practice"
So it begs the question how can you call a system which has seen mid air collisions involving RPT, "worlds best practice", when justifying replacing a system that has had none? Add to that the total lack of any saving financially to date and the looming prospect of the need for greater expense.
This may make the Guiness book of records for the most spent by a government to stroke the ego of one man.
So it begs the question how can you call a system which has seen mid air collisions involving RPT, "worlds best practice", when justifying replacing a system that has had none? Add to that the total lack of any saving financially to date and the looming prospect of the need for greater expense.
This may make the Guiness book of records for the most spent by a government to stroke the ego of one man.
I can assure everyone that I will eventually get a Class D tower there (Brrome). 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.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The land of Oz
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His publication list shows just the one academic publication. This was the field of modelling anaerobic digesters. He did peer-acknowledged work with the Biotechnology School at UNSW from 1986, with Linklater on cheese. This would presumably make him a cheese expert. Does this make Dick Smith the Big Cheese?
Dick
In this thread you said on 0405310549, in response to Adamastor:
I confirm that you were instrumental in and at the forefront of the introduction of the administrative fines legislation. I also confirm that during your stint as Chairman of CASA, you pressed for strong and fearless enforcement of the rules. However, I think it is also worth remembering that CASA was built on the blood of Seaview and Monarch: both products of the ‘group hug’ regulatory approach of the CAA. The US had long since learned the dangers of the ‘dual mandate’, but then, as now, Australia seemed unable to learn an obvious lesson without replicating the US’s mistakes.
In this thread at 0406040448 you said, in response to triadic:
Here we get to the crux of the issue. The “Government” has to comply with law, just like everybody else. Unless and until a Government “policy” is reflected in or supported by the law, it has no force or legitimacy.
The policy as to the process to be followed, and as to the relevant considerations to be taken into account, in the decisions as to what classes of airspace will be declared where, and by whom, is clear. That policy is the product of legislation passed and endorsed by the Parliament – note, not the “Government” – to give effect to the policy decided by the the Parliament.
Among the policy underpinnings of the law relating to airspace design and management, is the concept of objective decision-making, isolated from political interference. It’s a fairly simple concept to grasp: politicians tend to focus on their short term political interests, which interests may not be consistent with the long term interests of the public. If Ministers were given power with respect to airspace, they might be tempted to exercise those powers so as to protect their political hides. Next thing you know, airspace design and management is being run radio talkback hosts and anyone else with clout to swing voters.
You expect that people “in positions of authority” should give effect to “Government policy”. An entirely reasonable expectation. The trouble Dick, is that what you describe as “Government policy” with respect to airspace, isn’t.
NAS is merely the pound of flesh that one politician paid for your stay on his political execution. The ARG (or whatever it is called this week) never had and never will have any legal power with respect to airspace – it’s merely an expensive exercise in Dick diversion. The real “Government policy” – the one reflected in the legislative framework – is that airspace design and management is to be carried out independently of you and the politicians.
A while ago I put a simple question to you in this forum. I asked: if the legal power with respect to declarations of airspace and the services to be provided therein could be delegated to you personally, would you accept the delegation and make the decisions necessary to create the airspace model you wanted? To your credit, you answered, and you answered honestly. You said: no.
Therein lies the problem Dick: You expect someone else to make and take responsibility for decisions which you are not prepared to make and take responsibility for yourself.
But two can play at that game Dick. The politician you saved is playing it too. There’s no way he’s stupid enough ever to put himself into a position of authority with respect to airspace design and management. In the Parliament, he’s repeatedly and pointedly drawn distinctions between himself and the people he describes as “those responsible” for air safety and airspace design and management.
That said, some of the people “in positions of authority” haven’t showered themselves in glory on this one. Some of them played politics for a while, hoping to crash through and give you what you wanted and earn Brownie points with the Minister. However, the cold chill of an airprox, and the certain knowledge that you and the Minister would deny all responsibility for a mid-air, put paid to that. They’ve ‘fessed up and acknowledged that they didn’t make their decisions properly. They’re now doing what they should have done in the first place: they’re following the real “Government policy”.
In this thread you said on 0405310549, in response to Adamastor:
you [Adamastor] 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.
In this thread at 0406040448 you said, in response to triadic:
:You [triadic] do not seem to understand that I am not in a position of authority. The only people who have this ability to bring in cultural change are the people who are in positions of authority. Unfortunately there seem to be none who have the courage and leadership abilities to accept that a Government has the right to set policy and then expect that the policy will be followed.
The policy as to the process to be followed, and as to the relevant considerations to be taken into account, in the decisions as to what classes of airspace will be declared where, and by whom, is clear. That policy is the product of legislation passed and endorsed by the Parliament – note, not the “Government” – to give effect to the policy decided by the the Parliament.
Among the policy underpinnings of the law relating to airspace design and management, is the concept of objective decision-making, isolated from political interference. It’s a fairly simple concept to grasp: politicians tend to focus on their short term political interests, which interests may not be consistent with the long term interests of the public. If Ministers were given power with respect to airspace, they might be tempted to exercise those powers so as to protect their political hides. Next thing you know, airspace design and management is being run radio talkback hosts and anyone else with clout to swing voters.
You expect that people “in positions of authority” should give effect to “Government policy”. An entirely reasonable expectation. The trouble Dick, is that what you describe as “Government policy” with respect to airspace, isn’t.
NAS is merely the pound of flesh that one politician paid for your stay on his political execution. The ARG (or whatever it is called this week) never had and never will have any legal power with respect to airspace – it’s merely an expensive exercise in Dick diversion. The real “Government policy” – the one reflected in the legislative framework – is that airspace design and management is to be carried out independently of you and the politicians.
A while ago I put a simple question to you in this forum. I asked: if the legal power with respect to declarations of airspace and the services to be provided therein could be delegated to you personally, would you accept the delegation and make the decisions necessary to create the airspace model you wanted? To your credit, you answered, and you answered honestly. You said: no.
Therein lies the problem Dick: You expect someone else to make and take responsibility for decisions which you are not prepared to make and take responsibility for yourself.
But two can play at that game Dick. The politician you saved is playing it too. There’s no way he’s stupid enough ever to put himself into a position of authority with respect to airspace design and management. In the Parliament, he’s repeatedly and pointedly drawn distinctions between himself and the people he describes as “those responsible” for air safety and airspace design and management.
That said, some of the people “in positions of authority” haven’t showered themselves in glory on this one. Some of them played politics for a while, hoping to crash through and give you what you wanted and earn Brownie points with the Minister. However, the cold chill of an airprox, and the certain knowledge that you and the Minister would deny all responsibility for a mid-air, put paid to that. They’ve ‘fessed up and acknowledged that they didn’t make their decisions properly. They’re now doing what they should have done in the first place: they’re following the real “Government policy”.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Back again.
Posts: 1,140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spot on Creampuff.
Anderson must be smiling to himself. He's managed to get through another three years with Dick off his back.
Anderson must be smiling to himself. He's managed to get through another three years with Dick off his back.
Last edited by Lodown; 7th Jun 2004 at 13:46.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Creampuff
Phew.
You'd better be careful lest you are found to be of sound mind.
And Mr Smith expects us to take him seriously when he makes public statements thus
Phew.
You'd better be careful lest you are found to be of sound mind.
And Mr Smith expects us to take him seriously when he makes public statements thus
At Airservices, the management gives no leadership at all in relation to the change process. Of course, in a vacuum, you end up with a situation where the least informed “fundamentalists” communicate their fears of change and dictate the agenda.