NAS on the 730 report Tonight (Wed)
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Oz
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If Broome AC were solely interested in profit, taking the matter as far as they can in the courts is hardly a profit growth move (unless you're one of the lawyers of course). I wonder if there's any chance that a copy of the safety study could fall, accidentally, into a copier, say 50 or so times? 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the more interesting outcomes of tonights reporting was the threat made by Dick Smith to the Director of Broome airport. I wonder if similar threats have been made to other people?
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Get on with your life !
Now ****su and all the other Dick Smith bashers.........enough is enough.
YOU'VE GOT TO GET OVER IT, anyone would think that Dick and ONLY Dick was the sole architect of the NAS the way you carry on.
But I'm sure it is only a personal vendetta against him and some vested interests thrown in as well.
You know, there is also an Airservices and a CASA involved comprising many industry experts with lots of aviation experience. Are they all "wrong" as well ?
It just happens that Dick has a media profile and they love to talk to him. But where are the silent majority who believe the system can work ?
If you really think that aircraft are going to fall out of the sky, go to the media as well, contact your local member, go to the senior bureaucrats in AS and CASA with your concerns.
Just continually whingeing about Dick won't improve the system.
He may be of some influence in certain areas but really, he doesn't run the bureacracy, the government or the country for that matter !
(Incidentally, the Broome Airport Manager made a serious blunder on the ABC TV tonight when he said that safety will be compromised because there would be no radio communication at Regional Airports, but you and I know very well that every aircraft must have radio communication within MBZ's and any tower controlled airport.
Pity he didn't tell the viewing public that fact)
YOU'VE GOT TO GET OVER IT, anyone would think that Dick and ONLY Dick was the sole architect of the NAS the way you carry on.
But I'm sure it is only a personal vendetta against him and some vested interests thrown in as well.
You know, there is also an Airservices and a CASA involved comprising many industry experts with lots of aviation experience. Are they all "wrong" as well ?
It just happens that Dick has a media profile and they love to talk to him. But where are the silent majority who believe the system can work ?
If you really think that aircraft are going to fall out of the sky, go to the media as well, contact your local member, go to the senior bureaucrats in AS and CASA with your concerns.
Just continually whingeing about Dick won't improve the system.
He may be of some influence in certain areas but really, he doesn't run the bureacracy, the government or the country for that matter !
(Incidentally, the Broome Airport Manager made a serious blunder on the ABC TV tonight when he said that safety will be compromised because there would be no radio communication at Regional Airports, but you and I know very well that every aircraft must have radio communication within MBZ's and any tower controlled airport.
Pity he didn't tell the viewing public that fact)
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a (little) bit of truth there
Just a bit of truth, Hadgutfull.
but don't forget to mention that many of the aviation pros from CASA and AsA were told to play along by the apointing Minister.
You may need to do a quick review of NAS 2c HG, as you will see it calls for CTAF's to replace MBZ's. So no radio required.
So the manager of Broome AP did tell the public something they do need to know, and so maybe do you.
Bits of NAS are fine, but as an overall package it is a reduction in safety, as AsA have concluded and have made/are making changes.
but don't forget to mention that many of the aviation pros from CASA and AsA were told to play along by the apointing Minister.
You may need to do a quick review of NAS 2c HG, as you will see it calls for CTAF's to replace MBZ's. So no radio required.
So the manager of Broome AP did tell the public something they do need to know, and so maybe do you.
Bits of NAS are fine, but as an overall package it is a reduction in safety, as AsA have concluded and have made/are making changes.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To save ya a bit of time with your review HG
Pulled from the NAS website: http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/I_Timetable.htm
Class G
Stage 1 (first phase)
Introduce CTAF on multicom of 126.7 MHZ at all aerodromes that are not currently CTAFs or MBZs.
Stage 2 (third phase)
North American CTAF procedures will apply at all aerodromes in Class G airspace. (This includes MBZs reclassified as CTAFs).
Pulled from the NAS website: http://www.dotars.gov.au/airspacereform/I_Timetable.htm
Class G
Stage 1 (first phase)
Introduce CTAF on multicom of 126.7 MHZ at all aerodromes that are not currently CTAFs or MBZs.
Stage 2 (third phase)
North American CTAF procedures will apply at all aerodromes in Class G airspace. (This includes MBZs reclassified as CTAFs).
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The story was very revealing, and threats should never be made when it involves people's safety. NAS is being rolled back for the right reasons. Dick, think about it, there are fines now for pilots flying into MBZ's ... it's not for the first time. You said in the story that this was new, come on, dick, seriously. You are dealing with professionals, you can't bluff us.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Hadagutful of ignorant fools
Dear Hadagutful, your ignorance is the very thing that is helping to drive the whole NAS issue. Under stage 2C of the NAS all mbz's will become CTAF's with NO MANDATORY requirement to carry a radio. Straight-in approaches will be allowed by no radio aircraft, so light aircraft and heavy jets will be sharing a tiny amount of airspace with no guarantee of communication at all. It is all very well for Dick to bandy about figures of $5000 for non compliance, however the thing he neglects to add is that fining people is a moot point as they are not required to carry a radio anyway.
Unfortunately the people you mention from CASA and Airservices do not concur with the NAS, however they are not permitted to voice their concerns due to the political pressure placed upon them from Anderson's office and his proxy Dick Smith. Why on earth did they place a moritorium on 2b if they all believed it to be a beneficial move.
The only group of people to delight in the changes are AOPA and that in itself is an indictment of the system.
Check your facts mate, you should at least do us all the courtesy of that before posting.
Unfortunately the people you mention from CASA and Airservices do not concur with the NAS, however they are not permitted to voice their concerns due to the political pressure placed upon them from Anderson's office and his proxy Dick Smith. Why on earth did they place a moritorium on 2b if they all believed it to be a beneficial move.
The only group of people to delight in the changes are AOPA and that in itself is an indictment of the system.
Check your facts mate, you should at least do us all the courtesy of that before posting.
Dick Smith as usual came across as the consumate know-all but stunned me when he suggested that Broome airport was only doing this to safeguard their profits - what a despicable comment from a desperate man trying all avenues to sidetrack the issues. It's a pity DS wasn't taken to task by the investigative journo. Congrats to Mike Caplehorn for standing up and showing a duty of care as an airport owner against what has been a snow-job on the pollies and the unknowledgable. The public has a right to know the implications in a fair and impartial way. One can but hope that CASA will fulfill its duty to consider this in a rational manner with the safety of the travelling public at the head of the list.
Hadagutful - you need to do some serious reading to get yourself up to speed. Previous writers have corrected you but if you are the level of support for Dick on this one, no wonder we're all grimacing.
Hadagutful - you need to do some serious reading to get yourself up to speed. Previous writers have corrected you but if you are the level of support for Dick on this one, no wonder we're all grimacing.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done Mich Capelhorne and the pilot who told us the truth. Not only a credible guy but you fly, and you fly now.
Ten points to you too... now I want change. I cant keep on flying into these MBZ's knowing that they are going to change to a system that's not guaranteed and untested, what do we do. why is it that... the people of authority cant see what we see?
Ten points to you too... now I want change. I cant keep on flying into these MBZ's knowing that they are going to change to a system that's not guaranteed and untested, what do we do. why is it that... the people of authority cant see what we see?
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7:30 Report
I think I need to make a few points re my 7:30 interview.
Firstly the segment was a cutdown from a 40min interview. My comment on Mr Dick Smith threatening me was in relation to how it perverted the CASA and AA system.
I once was an engineer in the public service. To have a mate of the P.M. phone me up and threaten me would have been very disturbing. Even in my early airport consulting years I would have been troubled on the effect such a prominant person could have on my business.
I also stated on the interview that I met with CASA and AA staff in homes and hotels and always off the record as they were scared to be on the record and in the open.
We are talking about an aviation safety why threaten anyone unless you are demented enough to leave the issue and play the man when dealing with safety.
Hadagutfull, this is what you do not realise the 2c NAS changes would not be even considered if Dick was not pushing for them, and he will and does play the man, this has been going on for years. READ our letter to CASA on the below web site.
Unfortunately I do not have a boss or a career and our corporate group within which the Airport is only one part (the Boards and our CEOs favourite part) pays its taxes and acts within and according to the corporate lagal fremework.(threats don't wash with us, try scientific evaluation and Data, those push our buttons)
Infact we like a common saying, which Dick could learn "In God we trust all others must have data!!"
INFORMATION The Design Aeronautical Analysis is on the BIA(Broome a/p) web site www.broomeair.com.au clic on the NAS button.
We took a digital video of the 7:30 report and will also post it there, already we have posted some of the relevant letters.
Finally to Pprune moderators and contributers, this forum has been invaluable in advising us of documents, incidents and arguments from both sides.
Thank you for your concerns in trying to get the system right and some of your complements about our efforts.
Regards Mike Caplehorn Chairman BIA Group
Firstly the segment was a cutdown from a 40min interview. My comment on Mr Dick Smith threatening me was in relation to how it perverted the CASA and AA system.
I once was an engineer in the public service. To have a mate of the P.M. phone me up and threaten me would have been very disturbing. Even in my early airport consulting years I would have been troubled on the effect such a prominant person could have on my business.
I also stated on the interview that I met with CASA and AA staff in homes and hotels and always off the record as they were scared to be on the record and in the open.
We are talking about an aviation safety why threaten anyone unless you are demented enough to leave the issue and play the man when dealing with safety.
Hadagutfull, this is what you do not realise the 2c NAS changes would not be even considered if Dick was not pushing for them, and he will and does play the man, this has been going on for years. READ our letter to CASA on the below web site.
Unfortunately I do not have a boss or a career and our corporate group within which the Airport is only one part (the Boards and our CEOs favourite part) pays its taxes and acts within and according to the corporate lagal fremework.(threats don't wash with us, try scientific evaluation and Data, those push our buttons)
Infact we like a common saying, which Dick could learn "In God we trust all others must have data!!"
INFORMATION The Design Aeronautical Analysis is on the BIA(Broome a/p) web site www.broomeair.com.au clic on the NAS button.
We took a digital video of the 7:30 report and will also post it there, already we have posted some of the relevant letters.
Finally to Pprune moderators and contributers, this forum has been invaluable in advising us of documents, incidents and arguments from both sides.
Thank you for your concerns in trying to get the system right and some of your complements about our efforts.
Regards Mike Caplehorn Chairman BIA Group
Last edited by WALLEY2; 26th May 2004 at 15:20.
Prof. Airport Engineer
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Australia (mostly)
Posts: 726
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7:30 report
When you strip away Dick's excellent and smooth presentation, and look at the facts in the 7:30 report, it makes for a pretty damning story. I would be surprised if the government lawyers would want this one to get to court because once the judge saw a replay of the 7:30 report and then read up his colleague's dictum on negligence, the verdict might be quickly within reach.
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More Garbage from Dick
I'm so angry and frustrated with this whole process so, Pruners, please excuse my ramblings but this is the only place I can vent my feelings.
Against a range of solid opinion from a range of qualified aviation professionals, all we get from Dick is his usual smooth media-savvy presentation and mouthfuls of unsubstantiated garbage.
AS ALWAYS DICK - YOU CONTINUE TO GET IT WRONG. YOU DON'T HAVE WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FROM THE PROFESSIONAL AVIATION INDUSTRY WHICH IS WHY TRUE AIRSPACE REFORM WILL NEVER OCCUR (OR BE ACCEPTED) WHILE YOU REMAIN INVOLVED. FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATION, DICK, STAY OUT OF THE AIRSPACE DEBATED AND THEN MAYBE SOMETHING POSITIVE MAY OCCUR FOR ALL OF US. (Sorry for shouting!).
Why can't the Government (DOTARS/CASA) see him for what he really is and accept the fact that airspace reform will not proceed satisfactorily while he remains involved? The fact is the industry no longer has confidence in DS so, even if he was right on an issue (can't see that happening), the chances are the industry would still ignore him. HE HAS TO GO IF AIRSPACE REFORM IS TO PROCEED! Maybe this should be our collective motto on our signature blocks!
I thought there was one positive though and that related to the (previously undisclosed) internal comments re DS's resistance to the safety case. Pressure must surely come on DOTARS, CASA and ASA to investigate this aspect further and remedy any shortfalls in process.
QSK?
SACK DICK SMITH TO ADVANCE AIRSPACE REFORM!
Against a range of solid opinion from a range of qualified aviation professionals, all we get from Dick is his usual smooth media-savvy presentation and mouthfuls of unsubstantiated garbage.
AS ALWAYS DICK - YOU CONTINUE TO GET IT WRONG. YOU DON'T HAVE WIDESPREAD SUPPORT FROM THE PROFESSIONAL AVIATION INDUSTRY WHICH IS WHY TRUE AIRSPACE REFORM WILL NEVER OCCUR (OR BE ACCEPTED) WHILE YOU REMAIN INVOLVED. FOR THE SAKE OF THE NATION, DICK, STAY OUT OF THE AIRSPACE DEBATED AND THEN MAYBE SOMETHING POSITIVE MAY OCCUR FOR ALL OF US. (Sorry for shouting!).
Why can't the Government (DOTARS/CASA) see him for what he really is and accept the fact that airspace reform will not proceed satisfactorily while he remains involved? The fact is the industry no longer has confidence in DS so, even if he was right on an issue (can't see that happening), the chances are the industry would still ignore him. HE HAS TO GO IF AIRSPACE REFORM IS TO PROCEED! Maybe this should be our collective motto on our signature blocks!
I thought there was one positive though and that related to the (previously undisclosed) internal comments re DS's resistance to the safety case. Pressure must surely come on DOTARS, CASA and ASA to investigate this aspect further and remedy any shortfalls in process.
QSK?
SACK DICK SMITH TO ADVANCE AIRSPACE REFORM!
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Springfield
Posts: 248
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1116709.htm
Broadcast: 26/05/2004
Close calls place airspace system under close scrutiny
Reporter: Sarah Clarke
KERRY O'BRIEN: It's been controversial from the outset -- the introduction of the new national airspace system over Australian skies.
Just six months after it started there have been three major midair incidents.
Tonight we reveal details of a subsequent close encounter.
As a result of the three earlier incidents, the aviator regulator has this week been forced to dilute some of its key initial reforms affecting major airports and restore controlled airspace for passenger jets.
But the battle over the contentious new system, which allows light aircraft to share airspace with commercial planes, isn't over yet.
As the Government winds back some of the new rules, some regional airports are already gearing up to fight the next wave of airspace reform, which will be imposed across Australia in coming months.
This report from Sarah Clarke of the ABC's investigative unit.
SARAH CLARKE: Just two weeks ago, three aircraft came within seconds of a midair collision at one of Australia's busiest regional airports.
The ABC has obtained details of the close encounter at Coffs Harbour on May 13.
A Virgin 737 and an Eastern Airlines passenger plane were coming into land when a light aircraft was observed 1,000 feet below heading directly into their flight path.
The Cessna did not show up on air traffic control radar because its identification transponder was not switched on.
TED LANG, CIVIL AIR: In this case, the aircraft was completely invisible to us.
It's a bit like a car driving at night without its lights.
SARAH CLARKE: Fortunately, the Eastern Airlines crew was able to take evasive action.
The Virgin Blue 737 followed suit.
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS, COMMERCIAL PILOT: We now have a situation where there's large airlines, up to 737-A320 standard carrying up to 170 passengers who are having to take avoiding action on light aircraft who are not announcing their position.
SARAH CLARKE: For the past six months Coffs Harbour, like many other major airports across the country, has been operating under a controversial new system, which allows light aircraft to have uncontrolled access to airspace also used by commercial services.
Light aircraft no longer have to identify themselves or their intentions to other pilots or air traffic controllers.
DICK SMITH, NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION GROUP: We've made it simpler because if you look at Europe and the United States if you make it simpler you get greater compliance and high levels of safety.
SARAH CLARKE: But after investigations into three earlier midair incidents above Brisbane, Launceston and Melbourne, Air Services Australia, the body responsible for air traffic control, has decided to reintroduce controlled airspace around the nation's busiest airports.
Despite this setback, the Government is pressing ahead with plans to extend airspace reform to more than 80 regional airports later this year.
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: The same type of incidents, in our opinion, are going to occur but the severity of them will be even more, we believe, because there's no radar coverage at a lot of the regional airports we fly to and also transponders, which help us pick up other light aircraft, are not mandated either.
SARAH CLARKE: Captain Al Adkins is a former fighter pilot who now flies 737s for a commercial airline.
He warns that pilots will be forced to rely on what was once considered a last resort procedure -- see and avoid.
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: The only time we'll pick them up is when they appear in our windscreens at close range and we have to take avoiding action, if, indeed, we see them at all before we collide with them.
DICK SMITH: The commercial pilot, every pilot has always had to look out because people make errors.
Air traffic controllers make errors.
You've always had to look out.
There is now less need to do that because we will have more people complying with radio procedures, more people complying with transponder procedures because it is all simpler.
SARAH CLARKE: But it's not only pilots who are speaking out against the new airspace system.
Mike Caplehorn is chairman of Broome International Airport.
MIKE CAPLEHORN, BROOME INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT GROUP: They're going way back to the square one.
The aircraft don't even need a radio and you can come into an airport any time you want.
Now, if that happens at the same time that a large jet is going down and coming into that airport, then you have a very, very serious chance of a major crash.
It's not just Broome -- we're talking about Karratha, we're talking about Kalgoorlie, we talking about Ayres Rock, we're talking about a lot of our major regional airports and, quite frankly, it's crazy.
SARAH CLARKE: With 250,000 air passengers travelling to this popular holiday destination in north-western Australia each year, Broome Airport's private owners commissioned an expert panel to perform an independent safety study and one that could have implications for 80 other airports.
It concluded that the new system would significantly raise the risk of midair collision, in return for a saving to passengers of just over $1 per return ticket.
MIKE CAPLEHORN: It's a 500 per cent jump in risk.
500 per cent, and that costs you $1.
For $1 that we charge a passenger, we can increase their safety by 500 per cent and Dick wants us to unwind it and that's why we will fight all the way to the courts.
We will not unwind it.
DICK SMITH: 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.
If we go to this new system, which the plan is in November, it will be safer because people will have to comply with the law for the first time or be fined $5,000.
That's got to be an improvement.
SARAH CLARKE: Broome Airport's management is now clashing head-to-head with former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith, a key member of the Government advisory board pushing for change.
MIKE CAPLEHORN: Now, Dick is a very good, intuitive businessman.
He's a famous adventurer and, personally, I quite like him but unfortunately when it comes to this area, he appears to be obsessed and last week my CEO, Kim Maisey, received a call from Dick Smith and he said, "Tell Mike that whatever he does to me, "I'm going to do 10 times worse to him."
DICK SMITH: He's worried about the profits of his airport.
Good on him, right -- and he tries to make out that he's driven by safety.
He owns the airport.
He has to get a return.
He makes a profit out of the airport.
He doesn't want change.
SARAH CLARKE: A suggestion Broome International Airport Group denies.
The ABC has obtained a letter from Transport Minister John Anderson to Dick Smith, which suggests Mr Smith was keen to avoid an official study of the safety implications of the new airspace regulations, also known in the industry as a design safety case.
The letter said: "I have noted your concerns that if a design safety case is performed "it will not be accepted by CASA."
Then a brief from the Transport Department to Minister, which said: "Dick Smith will oppose any finding "that a design safety case is required "as it has the potential to delay the current implementation timetable."
DICK SMITH: They say, "Oh, we need to do a design safety case," and then they never finish it.
It's a classic bureaucratic ploy.
Now I'm not going to be into that.
SARAH CLARKE: With just six months until the changes come into effect, the battle over regional airport safety appears destined for the courts.
MIKE CAPLEHORN: Let me make myself very, very clear on this point.
If anyone tries to force us to do a negligent act, we will take it to the High Court.
As far as we can take it, that is where we'll go.
We are not going to be there realising that we allowed something to happen that has now killed women, children and men because we didn't have the guts to take it as far as we could.
DICK SMITH: People resist change -- it's very human -- but once they've been able to use a new system, especially if it's proven around the world, you suddenly find they start to say, "Oh, this is actually working, it actually is better."
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: In the long run, in, say, 5 or 10 years time, the safety levels will be so low that there'll be a good chance of us having midair collisions with light aircraft in regional airports especially.
KERRY O'BRIEN: That report from Sarah Clarke.
TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT
LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1116709.htm
Broadcast: 26/05/2004
Close calls place airspace system under close scrutiny
Reporter: Sarah Clarke
KERRY O'BRIEN: It's been controversial from the outset -- the introduction of the new national airspace system over Australian skies.
Just six months after it started there have been three major midair incidents.
Tonight we reveal details of a subsequent close encounter.
As a result of the three earlier incidents, the aviator regulator has this week been forced to dilute some of its key initial reforms affecting major airports and restore controlled airspace for passenger jets.
But the battle over the contentious new system, which allows light aircraft to share airspace with commercial planes, isn't over yet.
As the Government winds back some of the new rules, some regional airports are already gearing up to fight the next wave of airspace reform, which will be imposed across Australia in coming months.
This report from Sarah Clarke of the ABC's investigative unit.
SARAH CLARKE: Just two weeks ago, three aircraft came within seconds of a midair collision at one of Australia's busiest regional airports.
The ABC has obtained details of the close encounter at Coffs Harbour on May 13.
A Virgin 737 and an Eastern Airlines passenger plane were coming into land when a light aircraft was observed 1,000 feet below heading directly into their flight path.
The Cessna did not show up on air traffic control radar because its identification transponder was not switched on.
TED LANG, CIVIL AIR: In this case, the aircraft was completely invisible to us.
It's a bit like a car driving at night without its lights.
SARAH CLARKE: Fortunately, the Eastern Airlines crew was able to take evasive action.
The Virgin Blue 737 followed suit.
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS, COMMERCIAL PILOT: We now have a situation where there's large airlines, up to 737-A320 standard carrying up to 170 passengers who are having to take avoiding action on light aircraft who are not announcing their position.
SARAH CLARKE: For the past six months Coffs Harbour, like many other major airports across the country, has been operating under a controversial new system, which allows light aircraft to have uncontrolled access to airspace also used by commercial services.
Light aircraft no longer have to identify themselves or their intentions to other pilots or air traffic controllers.
DICK SMITH, NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION GROUP: We've made it simpler because if you look at Europe and the United States if you make it simpler you get greater compliance and high levels of safety.
SARAH CLARKE: But after investigations into three earlier midair incidents above Brisbane, Launceston and Melbourne, Air Services Australia, the body responsible for air traffic control, has decided to reintroduce controlled airspace around the nation's busiest airports.
Despite this setback, the Government is pressing ahead with plans to extend airspace reform to more than 80 regional airports later this year.
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: The same type of incidents, in our opinion, are going to occur but the severity of them will be even more, we believe, because there's no radar coverage at a lot of the regional airports we fly to and also transponders, which help us pick up other light aircraft, are not mandated either.
SARAH CLARKE: Captain Al Adkins is a former fighter pilot who now flies 737s for a commercial airline.
He warns that pilots will be forced to rely on what was once considered a last resort procedure -- see and avoid.
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: The only time we'll pick them up is when they appear in our windscreens at close range and we have to take avoiding action, if, indeed, we see them at all before we collide with them.
DICK SMITH: The commercial pilot, every pilot has always had to look out because people make errors.
Air traffic controllers make errors.
You've always had to look out.
There is now less need to do that because we will have more people complying with radio procedures, more people complying with transponder procedures because it is all simpler.
SARAH CLARKE: But it's not only pilots who are speaking out against the new airspace system.
Mike Caplehorn is chairman of Broome International Airport.
MIKE CAPLEHORN, BROOME INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT GROUP: They're going way back to the square one.
The aircraft don't even need a radio and you can come into an airport any time you want.
Now, if that happens at the same time that a large jet is going down and coming into that airport, then you have a very, very serious chance of a major crash.
It's not just Broome -- we're talking about Karratha, we're talking about Kalgoorlie, we talking about Ayres Rock, we're talking about a lot of our major regional airports and, quite frankly, it's crazy.
SARAH CLARKE: With 250,000 air passengers travelling to this popular holiday destination in north-western Australia each year, Broome Airport's private owners commissioned an expert panel to perform an independent safety study and one that could have implications for 80 other airports.
It concluded that the new system would significantly raise the risk of midair collision, in return for a saving to passengers of just over $1 per return ticket.
MIKE CAPLEHORN: It's a 500 per cent jump in risk.
500 per cent, and that costs you $1.
For $1 that we charge a passenger, we can increase their safety by 500 per cent and Dick wants us to unwind it and that's why we will fight all the way to the courts.
We will not unwind it.
DICK SMITH: 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.
If we go to this new system, which the plan is in November, it will be safer because people will have to comply with the law for the first time or be fined $5,000.
That's got to be an improvement.
SARAH CLARKE: Broome Airport's management is now clashing head-to-head with former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman Dick Smith, a key member of the Government advisory board pushing for change.
MIKE CAPLEHORN: Now, Dick is a very good, intuitive businessman.
He's a famous adventurer and, personally, I quite like him but unfortunately when it comes to this area, he appears to be obsessed and last week my CEO, Kim Maisey, received a call from Dick Smith and he said, "Tell Mike that whatever he does to me, "I'm going to do 10 times worse to him."
DICK SMITH: He's worried about the profits of his airport.
Good on him, right -- and he tries to make out that he's driven by safety.
He owns the airport.
He has to get a return.
He makes a profit out of the airport.
He doesn't want change.
SARAH CLARKE: A suggestion Broome International Airport Group denies.
The ABC has obtained a letter from Transport Minister John Anderson to Dick Smith, which suggests Mr Smith was keen to avoid an official study of the safety implications of the new airspace regulations, also known in the industry as a design safety case.
The letter said: "I have noted your concerns that if a design safety case is performed "it will not be accepted by CASA."
Then a brief from the Transport Department to Minister, which said: "Dick Smith will oppose any finding "that a design safety case is required "as it has the potential to delay the current implementation timetable."
DICK SMITH: They say, "Oh, we need to do a design safety case," and then they never finish it.
It's a classic bureaucratic ploy.
Now I'm not going to be into that.
SARAH CLARKE: With just six months until the changes come into effect, the battle over regional airport safety appears destined for the courts.
MIKE CAPLEHORN: Let me make myself very, very clear on this point.
If anyone tries to force us to do a negligent act, we will take it to the High Court.
As far as we can take it, that is where we'll go.
We are not going to be there realising that we allowed something to happen that has now killed women, children and men because we didn't have the guts to take it as far as we could.
DICK SMITH: People resist change -- it's very human -- but once they've been able to use a new system, especially if it's proven around the world, you suddenly find they start to say, "Oh, this is actually working, it actually is better."
CAPTAIN AL ADKINS: In the long run, in, say, 5 or 10 years time, the safety levels will be so low that there'll be a good chance of us having midair collisions with light aircraft in regional airports especially.
KERRY O'BRIEN: That report from Sarah Clarke.
Schedule before safety, eh, Mr Smith?
That philosophy comes across in your views last night on conducting a design safety case. Rather than consulting and involving ALL stakeholders to design a new modern airspace system, ensuring the new system works properly and is safe, you just want it, something, implemented on schedule. Doesn't matter if the stakeholders have problems with it, just implement it. This succinctly sums up why most professional pilots in this country have such a low opinion of you. As a 7000 hr RPT pilot I have sat alongside a LOT of other professional pilots. Not one of them has had a good word for you. I have tried to keep an open mind towards you but you have continually destroyed any good will, usually with attitudes like this one.
I am all for change, but structured, properly managed change, where stakeholders participate, are empowered and own the outcome. That is how you produce quality outcomes. It's basic, modern management stuff. The NAS management process has been a disgrace and belongs in the 19th century. 95% of people flying in Australia do so as passengers on RPT or charter aircraft (source: Aust Bureau of Stats). The NAS outcome is that flying for the 95% is less safe then pre Nov 27. There is simply NO argument about it - from my 7000hr RPT viewpoint, that is FACT. How on earth did the 5% private flyers achieve THAT? Now that's an empowered, quality outcome involving all stakeholders.... NOT.
Final thought: Professional pilots think SAFETY BEFORE SCHEDULE, you think SCHEDULE BEFORE SAFETY. Therein lies a serious disconnect between you and the professional aviation industry, Mr Smith.
That philosophy comes across in your views last night on conducting a design safety case. Rather than consulting and involving ALL stakeholders to design a new modern airspace system, ensuring the new system works properly and is safe, you just want it, something, implemented on schedule. Doesn't matter if the stakeholders have problems with it, just implement it. This succinctly sums up why most professional pilots in this country have such a low opinion of you. As a 7000 hr RPT pilot I have sat alongside a LOT of other professional pilots. Not one of them has had a good word for you. I have tried to keep an open mind towards you but you have continually destroyed any good will, usually with attitudes like this one.
I am all for change, but structured, properly managed change, where stakeholders participate, are empowered and own the outcome. That is how you produce quality outcomes. It's basic, modern management stuff. The NAS management process has been a disgrace and belongs in the 19th century. 95% of people flying in Australia do so as passengers on RPT or charter aircraft (source: Aust Bureau of Stats). The NAS outcome is that flying for the 95% is less safe then pre Nov 27. There is simply NO argument about it - from my 7000hr RPT viewpoint, that is FACT. How on earth did the 5% private flyers achieve THAT? Now that's an empowered, quality outcome involving all stakeholders.... NOT.
Final thought: Professional pilots think SAFETY BEFORE SCHEDULE, you think SCHEDULE BEFORE SAFETY. Therein lies a serious disconnect between you and the professional aviation industry, Mr Smith.
Last edited by Ushuaia; 27th May 2004 at 04:12.