"AUTHORITY" versus "INFLUENCE"
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"AUTHORITY" versus "INFLUENCE"
Authority versus Influence
On his web site – DickSmithFlyer - Mr Richard Smith asserts in relation to his role in the current National Airspace System debate that he is not in a position of authority and therefore has no responsibility for the apparent failings of the current implementation. Specifically he states:
“…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…”.
There is a real question here of the term authority (in its legal sense), and the ability to assert influence. There can be no doubt that Mr Richard Smith has been appointed by your government to a position of influence. That is, he has been appointed to a body established by your Minister for Transport, not once, but three times in relation to NAS (first on the review of options group, then to the airspace reform group, then to its successor). He was in fact the architect of one of the two competing airspace models.
There is public evidence of the level of overt pressure that he has exerted on various individuals and organisations – more worrying is the vast array of information that we have been shown that indicates just how much covert influence he has applied on senior management and Board members in both Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to influence the direction of the airspace reform efforts to his end. Unfortunately we cannot directly reference this material without compromising its sources.
What we can show is evidence collected by your transport investigation authority in relation to the 1998 Class G Airspace Demonstration, which is freely available on the internet. We believe that this more than adequately shows the levels of influence that were exerted by Mr Richard Smith – effectively acknowledged in the report as inappropriate for a man in his position. The extract is quite lengthy – for that we apologize – however, it may prompt comparisons with the current change program, and might prompt a similar investigation.
The following is a verbatim extract from the Report of the “Systemic Investigation into the Class G Airspace Demonstration” (B98/166) compiled by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau [then the Bureau of Air safety Investigation].
1.8.4 The role of the Chairman of the CASA Board in Airspace 2000
The Chairman was originally appointed to the CASA Board in May 1997 as Deputy Chairman. He was appointed as Chairman in December 1997. Prior to joining the Board, the Chairman had a long history of involvement in airspace reform activities. As a previous Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority (1990–1992), he oversaw the introduction of airspace changes in 1991.
Later, as the President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), he was involved in developing the Australian Aviation Industry Association policy on airspace reform in 1995. He was a member of the Airspace Steering Group in 1996, and became leader of the design team for Airspace 2000 during that year.
During the investigation, senior CASA personnel reported that the CASA Chairman had a significant interest and experience in airspace issues, together with a strong desire to ensure that those issues were developed along particular lines. Evidence obtained during the course of the investigation showed that the Chairman had assumed direct executive control over Airspace 2000 issues.
Interviews were conducted with the members of staff within the Airways and Airspace Standards Branch involved in the Class G airspace demonstration, including the General Manager and the program manager.
They reported that for most of the demonstration project, the program manager and other staff reported to the General Manager, who reported directly to the Chairman.
Except for the involvement of the Director towards the latter stages of the program, the Chairman made or approved most of the decisions regarding the demonstration. Staff members stated that all documents and agreements were sent to the Chairman for checking and clearance, and that the Chairman was heavily involved in the writing of many documents, including AIP SUPP H48/98, the draft final rule, and training material.
Moreover, the Chairman had almost daily telephone contact with the General Manager and individual team members, providing suggestions, directions or requirements for aspects of the demonstration. Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff stated that, in effect, the Chairman acted as the Airspace 2000 program manager.
A review of CASA documentation associated with the demonstration found that minutes from the Chairman were sent to team members on a frequent basis, providing suggestions or instructions regarding the demonstration and other Airspace 2000 program issues. The Chairman was not involved in project meetings with the industry, Airservices personnel, Defence force personnel, or the program control group. On 11 June 1998, the General Manager Airways and Airspace Standards Branch sent a minute to the Acting Director about the chain of command on airspace issues. The minute stated:
“…..Given that you will soon be handing over control of the organisation to the incoming Director, I suggest that he be made aware of the Chairman’s ‘ownership’ of the Airspace 2000 program and the fact that he is heavily and directly involved in management of the program and development of the procedures on a day-to-day basis. This very direct working relationship between a general manager and a Board Chairman could be viewed as unusual and open to misinterpretation. I would also appreciate advice if the new Director wishes to vary the current arrangements….”
No response to that minute was found on files made available to BASI. Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff stated that the Chairman maintained his close involvement with the demonstration after the arrival of the new Director on 1 July 1998.
With regard to the direct and frequent contact that the Chairman had with Airways and Airspace Branch personnel, the branch staff commented that they found this disruptive, indicating that such contact distracted them at times from their branch priorities, and could be intimidating.
A number of staff noted that receiving instructions or suggestions from such a senior person in the organisation, and the manner in which those communications were sometimes delivered, also made them uncertain of their position. A number of Airways and Airspace Standards Branch and other CASA staff believed that such close involvement by the Chairman was a safety issue because of the potential weight which would be given to a directive or comment made by the Chairman to an individual.
If staff did disagree with his instructions or suggestions, then the means for recourse were not clear. Branch staff commented that the Chairman discouraged any decisions that he did not agree with, and also discouraged activities which may have delayed the implementation process.
Moreover, staff commented that the Chairman was also reluctant to change his mind on many issues. Due to concerns about the direct contact between the Chairman and Branch staff, the Assistant Director Aviation Safety Standards raised the issue with the Chairman during a general discussion on 27 October 1998. He advised the Chairman that he would prefer that all contact with Branch staff came through his position.
The Assistant Director made that same request a few days later, requesting a response in writing. Subsequently, the Chairman generally notified by the Assistant Director prior to contacting any Branch staff. On 26 November 1998, the Chairman wrote to the Director concerning his (the Chairman’s) involvement with airspace matters. The memorandum stated in part:
“….Following discussions with [Assistant Director Aviation Safety Standards], I thought I should confirm my involvement with airspace and other issues. Firstly, I do not wish to be involved in any detail at all in relation to airspace or other issues. As Chairman I should be involved with the Board in setting policy and strategic direction. Having said this, until we have a person who has the knowledge and time to understand the full airspace package and be able to prepare material promptly without errors, and to communicate the need for change to stakeholders, it is absolutely imperative that I, and other Board members, and anyone else with any added skills, are involved with the detail of the issues – especially before they are sent out for public comment or for action…..”
In correspondence from the Chairman to the Director on 25 and 26 November, the Chairman noted that he did not support the changes that had been made to the airspace model on 3 November. The Chairman was concerned that the changes did not conform to proven international procedures and ICAO recommendations. He also stated a concern that AIP SUPP H66/98 contained errors which could have been identified if he had seen the document beforehand.
Part 2/2
1.8.5 Involvement of senior management
Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff commented that senior management in CASA appeared to be reluctant to be involved in the program until the later phases. Although the Acting Director was present at key meetings with external agencies, and was involved in administrative and financial approvals, he was not closely involved in making any decisions regarding the direction or scope of the Airspace 2000 program or the Class G airspace demonstration.
A review of CASA documentation associated with the demonstration noted that the new Director first attended the program control group meeting on 23 July 1998. After that, he began to be involved in activities to address the concerns of the regional airlines. He then made certain key decisions before and during the demonstration.
The Director later stated that he would probably have postponed the demonstration in July, had he been more aware at that time of all the associated problems. He questioned the suitability of conducting the demonstration prior to the implementation of TAAATS, but also commented that, had he made a recommendation to defer the demonstration, it would not in his opinion have been viewed favourably by the Board.
CASA has advised that there were significant problems in CASA’s leadership and management structures during the period in which the Class G airspace demonstration was being planned and developed. CASA suggested that the problems were so endemic that they had an adverse impact on its capacity to deal with a substantial project such as the demonstration.
1.8.6 Decision-making processes
Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff were asked about how decisions were made during the planning and implementation of the Class G airspace demonstration. The majority of the staff believed that many decisions were made in an ad hoc, reactive manner, stating that the project appeared to be rushed, and that issues were not always fully addressed. Particular decisions or actions which staff commented upon included:
• the limited industry consultation before the procedures were scheduled to be finalised on 1 July 1998;
• the level of safety analysis and preparatory work, such as risk modelling, pro-active testing of the national advisory frequency, testing of operational procedures, and full analysis of pilot workload; and
• the late changes which occurred after procedures should have been finalised.
In terms of factors contributing to those decisions or actions, Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff reported the following issues:
• an apparent unwillingness by some parts of the airline industry to approach the demonstration in an objective, constructive manner, and to modify their operational procedures for the demonstration;
• the firm deadlines for the demonstration, which occurred due to TAAATS implementation issues;
• the unwillingness of the CASA Chairman to deviate from a pre-determined position on many issues; and
• a lack of appropriate review mechanisms.
With regard to review mechanisms, many staff members from CASA and Airservices who were interviewed commented that had Airservices been the lead agency in the demonstration, CASA would have required a safety case and a more documented process than CASA appeared to require of itself. They stated that because CASA was so closely involved in implementation, it had lost the impartiality it would have applied, had Airservices been the lead agency. In addition, they noted that CASA’s direct involvement also removed the ability of affected parties to appeal to an agency to resolve safety issues and disputes.
On the other hand, some CASA personnel commented that CASA had to make decisions, and that things could not be reviewed endlessly. They stated that the Airspace 2000 program had previously been reviewed by CASA, and that it was now being implemented. Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff stated that there was a problem with CASA’s internal review mechanisms due to the Chairman’s close and direct involvement in the demonstration.
They noted that the Chairman’s involvement effectively removed the intermediate management levels, and the normal checks and balances which helped ensure that issues were fully considered. The normal evolutionary process for the development and implementation of projects was circumvented all the way up to the Board of the organisation. Airservices personnel involved in the planning and implementation of the demonstration expressed concerns regarding the failure of CASA to meet its agreed obligation to undertake effective industry consultation and finalise procedures by 1 July 1998.
They also expressed concerns about the difficulty in obtaining agreements from CASA on certain issues, stating that although details may have been agreed upon with CASA staff, the CASA Chairman would often amend them soon after. Both CASA and Airservices personnel reported that their organisations were committed to the demonstration to the extent that there appeared to be no intention of reverting to the previous system once the demonstration started. As a result, some suggested that both organisations had lost the ability to be objective.
1.8.7 Involvement of the CASA Board
As a normal part of the investigation, Board minutes and associated documents were reviewed to examine the degree of Board involvement in the Airspace 2000 program, and the Class G demonstration in particular. Board members indicated to the investigation team that the minutes were a comprehensive record of all Board discussions, including any debate on an issue as important to CASA as Airspace 2000. However, the investigation team noted that the Board minutes generally contained less detailed discussions after September 1997, and that reasons for certain key Board decisions were generally not documented.
As discussed in section 1.5.5, the Board was asked to note the 7 April version of the Airspace 2000 Program Definition Plan during the Board meeting on 17 April 1998. The Board subsequently decided that a new program management structure should be prepared to more clearly illustrate how industry was to be involved. In addition, the Board decided that the CASA Chairman, and Chairman of the Safety Committee, while acting as advisors, should not be members of the control group, nor should the Board Chairman be the program sponsor.
No reasons were provided in the minutes for the Board’s decisions. Interviews were conducted with several of the Board members who were at that meeting. One Board member stated that he had made it clear during the meeting that it was inappropriate for Board members to be involved in implementing an airspace change or any other project. He stated that this was the role of the Director, who should set up the appropriate team to conduct the task.
Another Board member could not recall the actual discussion, but noted that the decision was appropriate in terms of ‘corporate governance’. The member also stated that the Board should set strategies and policies to be followed, and that the Director should ensure they were carried out. He also stated that the Board should not get involved in the implementation of those strategies and policies. Another Board member who was at the meeting shared that view. Despite those views, CASA management reported that the Board was aware of the Chairman’s ongoing, direct involvement in airspace projects.
In addition, CASA management stated its view that the Board was entitled to rely on the Chairman to draw to its attention any issues requiring more detailed consideration on its part.
There was no discussion regarding Airspace 2000 or the Class G demonstration recorded in the minutes of the June and July 1998 Board meetings. During the August meeting of the Board, the Director reported that a meeting had been arranged to discuss airline concerns.
The Director also noted that he had arranged for a team from the UK Civil Aviation Authority to provide an independent assessment of the safety case. During the meeting, one Board member asked the Chairman why CASA was proceeding with the demonstration. The Chairman’s explanation related to the issue of radar coverage being available but unused in the demonstration area. Board members provided various suggestions for promoting the demonstration.
There were only brief comments recorded in the minutes of the September and October meetings of the Board regarding the Class G demonstration. The 27 November 1998 Board meeting lasted approximately 8 hours and exclusively discussed the Class G demonstration and Airspace 2000 issues.
The minutes of that meeting contained a number of resolutions, but little discussion of the reasons why such resolutions were made. The minutes recorded a discussion about data which suggested that higher risk existed around a terminal area than in the Class G demonstration. The Board also discussed issues associated with the relationship between Airservices and CASA regarding the designation of airspace, and that there were issues to be resolved on that matter. When interviewed, Board members stated they had been satisfied that the demonstration should proceed.
They reported that they were under the impression that consultation, education and safety analysis activities had been appropriately conducted. The Board had no concerns collectively about the demonstration. One Board member commented that, while the Board was aware that not all industry supported the changes, they believed that most of the industry generally supported the demonstration.
Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff expressed concern that they had wanted the Board to ‘approve’ the Program Definition Plan, but it was only passed to the Board to ‘note’. The General Manager Airways and Airspace Standards Branch was never asked to attend a Board meeting. Except for the draft concept plan and draft Program Definition Plan, no other documents were submitted to the Board by Airways and Airspace Standards Branch personnel regarding the demonstration.
On his web site – DickSmithFlyer - Mr Richard Smith asserts in relation to his role in the current National Airspace System debate that he is not in a position of authority and therefore has no responsibility for the apparent failings of the current implementation. Specifically he states:
“…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…”.
There is a real question here of the term authority (in its legal sense), and the ability to assert influence. There can be no doubt that Mr Richard Smith has been appointed by your government to a position of influence. That is, he has been appointed to a body established by your Minister for Transport, not once, but three times in relation to NAS (first on the review of options group, then to the airspace reform group, then to its successor). He was in fact the architect of one of the two competing airspace models.
There is public evidence of the level of overt pressure that he has exerted on various individuals and organisations – more worrying is the vast array of information that we have been shown that indicates just how much covert influence he has applied on senior management and Board members in both Airservices Australia and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to influence the direction of the airspace reform efforts to his end. Unfortunately we cannot directly reference this material without compromising its sources.
What we can show is evidence collected by your transport investigation authority in relation to the 1998 Class G Airspace Demonstration, which is freely available on the internet. We believe that this more than adequately shows the levels of influence that were exerted by Mr Richard Smith – effectively acknowledged in the report as inappropriate for a man in his position. The extract is quite lengthy – for that we apologize – however, it may prompt comparisons with the current change program, and might prompt a similar investigation.
The following is a verbatim extract from the Report of the “Systemic Investigation into the Class G Airspace Demonstration” (B98/166) compiled by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau [then the Bureau of Air safety Investigation].
1.8.4 The role of the Chairman of the CASA Board in Airspace 2000
The Chairman was originally appointed to the CASA Board in May 1997 as Deputy Chairman. He was appointed as Chairman in December 1997. Prior to joining the Board, the Chairman had a long history of involvement in airspace reform activities. As a previous Chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority (1990–1992), he oversaw the introduction of airspace changes in 1991.
Later, as the President of the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), he was involved in developing the Australian Aviation Industry Association policy on airspace reform in 1995. He was a member of the Airspace Steering Group in 1996, and became leader of the design team for Airspace 2000 during that year.
During the investigation, senior CASA personnel reported that the CASA Chairman had a significant interest and experience in airspace issues, together with a strong desire to ensure that those issues were developed along particular lines. Evidence obtained during the course of the investigation showed that the Chairman had assumed direct executive control over Airspace 2000 issues.
Interviews were conducted with the members of staff within the Airways and Airspace Standards Branch involved in the Class G airspace demonstration, including the General Manager and the program manager.
They reported that for most of the demonstration project, the program manager and other staff reported to the General Manager, who reported directly to the Chairman.
Except for the involvement of the Director towards the latter stages of the program, the Chairman made or approved most of the decisions regarding the demonstration. Staff members stated that all documents and agreements were sent to the Chairman for checking and clearance, and that the Chairman was heavily involved in the writing of many documents, including AIP SUPP H48/98, the draft final rule, and training material.
Moreover, the Chairman had almost daily telephone contact with the General Manager and individual team members, providing suggestions, directions or requirements for aspects of the demonstration. Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff stated that, in effect, the Chairman acted as the Airspace 2000 program manager.
A review of CASA documentation associated with the demonstration found that minutes from the Chairman were sent to team members on a frequent basis, providing suggestions or instructions regarding the demonstration and other Airspace 2000 program issues. The Chairman was not involved in project meetings with the industry, Airservices personnel, Defence force personnel, or the program control group. On 11 June 1998, the General Manager Airways and Airspace Standards Branch sent a minute to the Acting Director about the chain of command on airspace issues. The minute stated:
“…..Given that you will soon be handing over control of the organisation to the incoming Director, I suggest that he be made aware of the Chairman’s ‘ownership’ of the Airspace 2000 program and the fact that he is heavily and directly involved in management of the program and development of the procedures on a day-to-day basis. This very direct working relationship between a general manager and a Board Chairman could be viewed as unusual and open to misinterpretation. I would also appreciate advice if the new Director wishes to vary the current arrangements….”
No response to that minute was found on files made available to BASI. Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff stated that the Chairman maintained his close involvement with the demonstration after the arrival of the new Director on 1 July 1998.
With regard to the direct and frequent contact that the Chairman had with Airways and Airspace Branch personnel, the branch staff commented that they found this disruptive, indicating that such contact distracted them at times from their branch priorities, and could be intimidating.
A number of staff noted that receiving instructions or suggestions from such a senior person in the organisation, and the manner in which those communications were sometimes delivered, also made them uncertain of their position. A number of Airways and Airspace Standards Branch and other CASA staff believed that such close involvement by the Chairman was a safety issue because of the potential weight which would be given to a directive or comment made by the Chairman to an individual.
If staff did disagree with his instructions or suggestions, then the means for recourse were not clear. Branch staff commented that the Chairman discouraged any decisions that he did not agree with, and also discouraged activities which may have delayed the implementation process.
Moreover, staff commented that the Chairman was also reluctant to change his mind on many issues. Due to concerns about the direct contact between the Chairman and Branch staff, the Assistant Director Aviation Safety Standards raised the issue with the Chairman during a general discussion on 27 October 1998. He advised the Chairman that he would prefer that all contact with Branch staff came through his position.
The Assistant Director made that same request a few days later, requesting a response in writing. Subsequently, the Chairman generally notified by the Assistant Director prior to contacting any Branch staff. On 26 November 1998, the Chairman wrote to the Director concerning his (the Chairman’s) involvement with airspace matters. The memorandum stated in part:
“….Following discussions with [Assistant Director Aviation Safety Standards], I thought I should confirm my involvement with airspace and other issues. Firstly, I do not wish to be involved in any detail at all in relation to airspace or other issues. As Chairman I should be involved with the Board in setting policy and strategic direction. Having said this, until we have a person who has the knowledge and time to understand the full airspace package and be able to prepare material promptly without errors, and to communicate the need for change to stakeholders, it is absolutely imperative that I, and other Board members, and anyone else with any added skills, are involved with the detail of the issues – especially before they are sent out for public comment or for action…..”
In correspondence from the Chairman to the Director on 25 and 26 November, the Chairman noted that he did not support the changes that had been made to the airspace model on 3 November. The Chairman was concerned that the changes did not conform to proven international procedures and ICAO recommendations. He also stated a concern that AIP SUPP H66/98 contained errors which could have been identified if he had seen the document beforehand.
Part 2/2
1.8.5 Involvement of senior management
Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff commented that senior management in CASA appeared to be reluctant to be involved in the program until the later phases. Although the Acting Director was present at key meetings with external agencies, and was involved in administrative and financial approvals, he was not closely involved in making any decisions regarding the direction or scope of the Airspace 2000 program or the Class G airspace demonstration.
A review of CASA documentation associated with the demonstration noted that the new Director first attended the program control group meeting on 23 July 1998. After that, he began to be involved in activities to address the concerns of the regional airlines. He then made certain key decisions before and during the demonstration.
The Director later stated that he would probably have postponed the demonstration in July, had he been more aware at that time of all the associated problems. He questioned the suitability of conducting the demonstration prior to the implementation of TAAATS, but also commented that, had he made a recommendation to defer the demonstration, it would not in his opinion have been viewed favourably by the Board.
CASA has advised that there were significant problems in CASA’s leadership and management structures during the period in which the Class G airspace demonstration was being planned and developed. CASA suggested that the problems were so endemic that they had an adverse impact on its capacity to deal with a substantial project such as the demonstration.
1.8.6 Decision-making processes
Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff were asked about how decisions were made during the planning and implementation of the Class G airspace demonstration. The majority of the staff believed that many decisions were made in an ad hoc, reactive manner, stating that the project appeared to be rushed, and that issues were not always fully addressed. Particular decisions or actions which staff commented upon included:
• the limited industry consultation before the procedures were scheduled to be finalised on 1 July 1998;
• the level of safety analysis and preparatory work, such as risk modelling, pro-active testing of the national advisory frequency, testing of operational procedures, and full analysis of pilot workload; and
• the late changes which occurred after procedures should have been finalised.
In terms of factors contributing to those decisions or actions, Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff reported the following issues:
• an apparent unwillingness by some parts of the airline industry to approach the demonstration in an objective, constructive manner, and to modify their operational procedures for the demonstration;
• the firm deadlines for the demonstration, which occurred due to TAAATS implementation issues;
• the unwillingness of the CASA Chairman to deviate from a pre-determined position on many issues; and
• a lack of appropriate review mechanisms.
With regard to review mechanisms, many staff members from CASA and Airservices who were interviewed commented that had Airservices been the lead agency in the demonstration, CASA would have required a safety case and a more documented process than CASA appeared to require of itself. They stated that because CASA was so closely involved in implementation, it had lost the impartiality it would have applied, had Airservices been the lead agency. In addition, they noted that CASA’s direct involvement also removed the ability of affected parties to appeal to an agency to resolve safety issues and disputes.
On the other hand, some CASA personnel commented that CASA had to make decisions, and that things could not be reviewed endlessly. They stated that the Airspace 2000 program had previously been reviewed by CASA, and that it was now being implemented. Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff stated that there was a problem with CASA’s internal review mechanisms due to the Chairman’s close and direct involvement in the demonstration.
They noted that the Chairman’s involvement effectively removed the intermediate management levels, and the normal checks and balances which helped ensure that issues were fully considered. The normal evolutionary process for the development and implementation of projects was circumvented all the way up to the Board of the organisation. Airservices personnel involved in the planning and implementation of the demonstration expressed concerns regarding the failure of CASA to meet its agreed obligation to undertake effective industry consultation and finalise procedures by 1 July 1998.
They also expressed concerns about the difficulty in obtaining agreements from CASA on certain issues, stating that although details may have been agreed upon with CASA staff, the CASA Chairman would often amend them soon after. Both CASA and Airservices personnel reported that their organisations were committed to the demonstration to the extent that there appeared to be no intention of reverting to the previous system once the demonstration started. As a result, some suggested that both organisations had lost the ability to be objective.
1.8.7 Involvement of the CASA Board
As a normal part of the investigation, Board minutes and associated documents were reviewed to examine the degree of Board involvement in the Airspace 2000 program, and the Class G demonstration in particular. Board members indicated to the investigation team that the minutes were a comprehensive record of all Board discussions, including any debate on an issue as important to CASA as Airspace 2000. However, the investigation team noted that the Board minutes generally contained less detailed discussions after September 1997, and that reasons for certain key Board decisions were generally not documented.
As discussed in section 1.5.5, the Board was asked to note the 7 April version of the Airspace 2000 Program Definition Plan during the Board meeting on 17 April 1998. The Board subsequently decided that a new program management structure should be prepared to more clearly illustrate how industry was to be involved. In addition, the Board decided that the CASA Chairman, and Chairman of the Safety Committee, while acting as advisors, should not be members of the control group, nor should the Board Chairman be the program sponsor.
No reasons were provided in the minutes for the Board’s decisions. Interviews were conducted with several of the Board members who were at that meeting. One Board member stated that he had made it clear during the meeting that it was inappropriate for Board members to be involved in implementing an airspace change or any other project. He stated that this was the role of the Director, who should set up the appropriate team to conduct the task.
Another Board member could not recall the actual discussion, but noted that the decision was appropriate in terms of ‘corporate governance’. The member also stated that the Board should set strategies and policies to be followed, and that the Director should ensure they were carried out. He also stated that the Board should not get involved in the implementation of those strategies and policies. Another Board member who was at the meeting shared that view. Despite those views, CASA management reported that the Board was aware of the Chairman’s ongoing, direct involvement in airspace projects.
In addition, CASA management stated its view that the Board was entitled to rely on the Chairman to draw to its attention any issues requiring more detailed consideration on its part.
There was no discussion regarding Airspace 2000 or the Class G demonstration recorded in the minutes of the June and July 1998 Board meetings. During the August meeting of the Board, the Director reported that a meeting had been arranged to discuss airline concerns.
The Director also noted that he had arranged for a team from the UK Civil Aviation Authority to provide an independent assessment of the safety case. During the meeting, one Board member asked the Chairman why CASA was proceeding with the demonstration. The Chairman’s explanation related to the issue of radar coverage being available but unused in the demonstration area. Board members provided various suggestions for promoting the demonstration.
There were only brief comments recorded in the minutes of the September and October meetings of the Board regarding the Class G demonstration. The 27 November 1998 Board meeting lasted approximately 8 hours and exclusively discussed the Class G demonstration and Airspace 2000 issues.
The minutes of that meeting contained a number of resolutions, but little discussion of the reasons why such resolutions were made. The minutes recorded a discussion about data which suggested that higher risk existed around a terminal area than in the Class G demonstration. The Board also discussed issues associated with the relationship between Airservices and CASA regarding the designation of airspace, and that there were issues to be resolved on that matter. When interviewed, Board members stated they had been satisfied that the demonstration should proceed.
They reported that they were under the impression that consultation, education and safety analysis activities had been appropriately conducted. The Board had no concerns collectively about the demonstration. One Board member commented that, while the Board was aware that not all industry supported the changes, they believed that most of the industry generally supported the demonstration.
Airways and Airspace Standards Branch staff expressed concern that they had wanted the Board to ‘approve’ the Program Definition Plan, but it was only passed to the Board to ‘note’. The General Manager Airways and Airspace Standards Branch was never asked to attend a Board meeting. Except for the draft concept plan and draft Program Definition Plan, no other documents were submitted to the Board by Airways and Airspace Standards Branch personnel regarding the demonstration.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why not just title this thread "Dick, you have now become a liability".
As a friend of mine said, once labelled a liability your political friends (no matter how close or influencial) will drop you like a ton of bricks.
Dick, that time is long gone and now you have become just a plain embarrassment.
As a friend of mine said, once labelled a liability your political friends (no matter how close or influencial) will drop you like a ton of bricks.
Dick, that time is long gone and now you have become just a plain embarrassment.
I also note with interest how are friend Richard has, after initialy praising VOR as a clear thinking expert, studiosly avoided addressing any of the well reasoned are well stated points they have raised....
"..can't blame me"... Yes we can Dick, and we do...
"..can't blame me"... Yes we can Dick, and we do...
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ON-LINE DEBATE
We would be perfectly willing to debate Mr Richard Smith directly, via a dedicated D&G Reporting Points thread - only two participants - Mr Richard Smith, and one of our members. Your moderator, Woomera, could ensure that the debate is open only to the two participants.
In that way, a written record of the debate would be available to anyone that wished to see it.
We would, of course, be at a disadvantage, not being aware of the nuances of Australian airspace management - however we would be able to put strong arguments in relation to best international practice.
This would provide an opportunity for Mr Richard Smith to state and defend his case for reform, and the manner of that reform program.
In that way, a written record of the debate would be available to anyone that wished to see it.
We would, of course, be at a disadvantage, not being aware of the nuances of Australian airspace management - however we would be able to put strong arguments in relation to best international practice.
This would provide an opportunity for Mr Richard Smith to state and defend his case for reform, and the manner of that reform program.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Voices of Reason
I believe there is merit in your suggestion that yourself and Dick Smith debate the NAS issue. Healthy debate can only contribute to greater understanding of NAS.
I am unable to lock out other PPRuNe users, therefore the following rules would apply:
1. I have opened a thread entitled: The NAS Debate: Voices of Reason & Dick Smith.
2. Only "Voices of Reason" and "Dick Smith" are permitted to post to that debate thread.
3. I have opened a similar and parallel thread to which other users may post The NAS Debate: Other Opinions. I would appreciate Voices or Reason and Dick Smith referring to the parallel thread and responding to any questions in the primary debate thread.
4. Any user who posts in the original debate thread will have their post moved to the parallel thread. Their right to post will not be limited in the parallel thread.
5. All posts in both threads must be in accordance with PPRuNe posting rules.
6. Both threads will be "Stickied" for the duration of the debate.
I will "sticky" this thread only until the two other threads become active.
Let the debate begin!
Woomera
I believe there is merit in your suggestion that yourself and Dick Smith debate the NAS issue. Healthy debate can only contribute to greater understanding of NAS.
I am unable to lock out other PPRuNe users, therefore the following rules would apply:
1. I have opened a thread entitled: The NAS Debate: Voices of Reason & Dick Smith.
2. Only "Voices of Reason" and "Dick Smith" are permitted to post to that debate thread.
3. I have opened a similar and parallel thread to which other users may post The NAS Debate: Other Opinions. I would appreciate Voices or Reason and Dick Smith referring to the parallel thread and responding to any questions in the primary debate thread.
4. Any user who posts in the original debate thread will have their post moved to the parallel thread. Their right to post will not be limited in the parallel thread.
5. All posts in both threads must be in accordance with PPRuNe posting rules.
6. Both threads will be "Stickied" for the duration of the debate.
I will "sticky" this thread only until the two other threads become active.
Let the debate begin!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 12th Jun 2004 at 00:02.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VoR
I have just posted on the NAS debate Others. A recent absolute case of undue influence by Dick that I only just found out about.
I am ashamed that a decision by me has resulted in two CSIRO Scientist being attacked via correspondence to the Chairman of the CSIRO because they audited our preliminary DAS for BME and their work was used in the final DAS.
My comment and questions are in the other thread.
Cheers
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
I have just posted on the NAS debate Others. A recent absolute case of undue influence by Dick that I only just found out about.
I am ashamed that a decision by me has resulted in two CSIRO Scientist being attacked via correspondence to the Chairman of the CSIRO because they audited our preliminary DAS for BME and their work was used in the final DAS.
My comment and questions are in the other thread.
Cheers
Mike Caplehorn
Chairman BIA Group
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's a very good idea to have the smiling, benevolent image of Dick Smith shown in true colors.
Maybe people will now see why he is desperate for posters here to lose their anonymity, and why some of us are keen to keep it.
Keep at it, Dick. The TRUTH is spreading!
Maybe people will now see why he is desperate for posters here to lose their anonymity, and why some of us are keen to keep it.
Keep at it, Dick. The TRUTH is spreading!
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: S37.54 E145.11
Posts: 639
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry to say this Wally, but I think you now have seen the real DS emerge. DS is the sort of person who must always be seen to be winning, regardless of the cost or means. When he can't win by convincing people through sound logic, he resorts to behind the scenes interference and "foul" play in order to get his way.
Chris Higgins and others contemplating the meeting in Sydney, take note! You can hold as many conferences as you like but, in the end the result will be the same. DS will walk away from the meeting and still do what he wants to do!
Australian of the Year? Not in my books, in fact probably the most un-Australian guy I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
Chris Higgins and others contemplating the meeting in Sydney, take note! You can hold as many conferences as you like but, in the end the result will be the same. DS will walk away from the meeting and still do what he wants to do!
Australian of the Year? Not in my books, in fact probably the most un-Australian guy I've ever had the displeasure of meeting.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree on some points...
****su Tonka I agree with your concerns regarding Dick Smith's opening remarks to VOR, but we have to look past that. Dick's posts about NAS rollback do hold quite a measure of good argument.
On the Sydney route from Port Macquarie, there were numerous near-miss events on the switch over between area frequency boundaries. People do not remember these occurrences, but they were plentiful, particuarly just North of Taree, perhaps as a reaction to the high workload of the Sydney airspace.
Back in the days of Oxley Airlines, two IFR Chieftains nearly came together at an angle just North of Coffs Harbour, still OCTA. One was not switched over by the old Flight Service method of changing at the boundary.
We may be looking into our past and remembering only the "good" of the "good old days". Pilots tend to be conservative to change, although many have raised legitimate arguments that recent ideas about airspace may have been changes for the worse.
I would still like to offer my services as a mediator in August, most likely at The Airport Hilton, in Sydney Australia. I know that such a meeting may be seen as futile by many, but the debate on these pages will have run out by then. It will be time to interface.
I am on vacation here now Stateside and would entertain any potential ideas, guests, papers or suggestions on how to make a very informal meeting that I envision, worthwhile in August.
On the Sydney route from Port Macquarie, there were numerous near-miss events on the switch over between area frequency boundaries. People do not remember these occurrences, but they were plentiful, particuarly just North of Taree, perhaps as a reaction to the high workload of the Sydney airspace.
Back in the days of Oxley Airlines, two IFR Chieftains nearly came together at an angle just North of Coffs Harbour, still OCTA. One was not switched over by the old Flight Service method of changing at the boundary.
We may be looking into our past and remembering only the "good" of the "good old days". Pilots tend to be conservative to change, although many have raised legitimate arguments that recent ideas about airspace may have been changes for the worse.
I would still like to offer my services as a mediator in August, most likely at The Airport Hilton, in Sydney Australia. I know that such a meeting may be seen as futile by many, but the debate on these pages will have run out by then. It will be time to interface.
I am on vacation here now Stateside and would entertain any potential ideas, guests, papers or suggestions on how to make a very informal meeting that I envision, worthwhile in August.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 19th Jun 2004 at 16:21.
Chris Higgins, I will certainly be there at the Airport Hilton if you can organise the date. Perhaps we can all put in a few dollars when we get there to cover the cost of the room and some coffee and bikkies.
I point out that the more that come, the less chance there is of anyone being identified – I know there are some participants on PPRuNe who are quite paranoid about being identified.
I believe your idea is good. People will be able to give me their views and I will be able to ask the views of everyone present.
I point out that the more that come, the less chance there is of anyone being identified – I know there are some participants on PPRuNe who are quite paranoid about being identified.
I believe your idea is good. People will be able to give me their views and I will be able to ask the views of everyone present.
