The NAS Debate: Other Opinions

[Dog One]

After reading the final pages of the debate, I cannot believe how childish Mr Smith is becoming in his responses.

[SM4 Pirate]

Dog One, how true...

Dick your even starting to annoy your supporters, just use VOR not all the other variations you're posting, what's the point?

As an ATC I am very disturbed at the suggestion that my commercial concerns mirror those of the company for which I work. Whilst I like my pay packet, I like my job more... Ultimately I suspect your messing with both.

My job used to be incredibly satisfying; it has become less so since you have meddled, again.

I'm not change resistant, I just like knowing that changes represent good value, I'm very unconvinced. Yes I've read the Willoughby report; it's a joke, like many safety cases.

I'm convinced that 'end state' we need more ATCs (and transitional points), so we have not saved a cracker... Yet we have increased risk in more areas than we have reduced it.

As for the LT radar debacle; why are you not out there saying deploy it where it is needed. I wrote to my CEO in February saying don't do it there, I wrote to my Minister and said don't do it there... Use it where it is worthy, I've had no reply from either...

Why are we even entertaining the "Industry Option"; it doesn't comply with very much ICAO or International practice...

Dick you claimed you have no knowledge of this option earlier, I have heard you "discussing it loudly" through a speakerphone, I'm sure it was you. S.A. was calling the other party Dick etc... I also note the AOPA and Sports aviation group positions, post Dick Smith discussions...

Chris Manning, why are you still interested in this ("Industry Option"), what's in it for Qantas? By the sounds of things Qantas is now the only 'supporter' of the Industry option, although no other group will oppose it, because that will result in much more C airspace... Does Qantas believe that there are savings in the extra recruitment of ATCs to manage all the extra E… The more pop ups the more ATCs… They are just harder to manage, due to the very unpredictable nature of their operations, mostly lack of pre planning due to lack of plans, and the heads down time feeding the beast.

Dick can we concentrate on changing the charging regime and get rid of "Stretch bonuses" to all contract managers, to remove the alleged reason for keeping ASA profitable.

[Feather #3]

Wommera/s,

In the DS' post of 22Jun/0551 [DS/VoR debate], you missed an edit just above your own note.

G'day

Thank you W

[Kaptin M]

OBJECTION, Woomera - as much as you are the adjudicator of the debate between Messrs Smith and VoR, I object to you your censuring of their replies!

Object away "W" is NOT adjudicating nor are we censoring, the debate is and will remain strictly between VOR and Mr Smith

Dick Smith has chosen to respond to "VoR edited by Woomera", as his introduction.
Are you, Woomera ASSUMING that Mr Smith is grouping VoR with "edited by Woomera"?
I was NOT!
I was assuming that he (Dick Smith) was addressing ALL interested parties in this debate.

My understanding was that Woomera was involved in THIS particular thread as a filter to keep non-essential parties out - NOT to go vetting replies in such a way as might influence opinions!!

Cute but no cigar. Admin have also been watching this thread very closely, they are NOT amused, amongst other things, at the attempts to involve an individual by name, we wish to keep it on thread, on issue and on topic.
A debate = discuss or dispute about an issue, ... consider different sides of a question. It is about the issues not about the person.
We are trying to keep the thread open notwithstanding the rules transgressions and thereby preserve Mr Smiths right of reply, believe me, it would be it would be much easier to do otherwise. W

Please return the ORIGINAL replies from Dick Smith to their ORIGINAL format!!

[Capcom]

WALLEY2

G'day Mike,

I'll put together some thoughts for you all to shoot to ****e over the next day or so!

Thanks

Cap

[Chris Higgins]

More than a cheerleader of Australian Patriotism.

****su Tonka, 4711, VOR and everyone else for that matter...

Somewhere along the line the responses are still getting lost in translation. By my estimates VOR has invested at least 70 hours of work into research and response on the PPrune forums in the last week. I think that Dick Smith could easily have spent more...I am guessing that he has fewer assistants, but I don't know that for sure.

The debate is becoming more logical and indeed, more educational now that we are starting to graduate beyond name calling, but once in a while we seem to be going back to our "kick the dog methods".

I am still not sure about the incentives being offered to/for VOR. Having fed my family out of the American System for the last fourteen years, I can think of no better airspace system to reform than the American one. In fact, Dick Smith's ammendments to, "the American System", seem to be worthy Stateside as well.

These major differences are:

1. Australia requires mandatory transponder usage in Class E airspace.

In America, we are only required to carry transponder above 10,000 feet AMSL or inside the 30 nm perimeter of a Class B airport.

and;

2. Clearances are required for entry into Class D Airspace.

In America, they are not, meaning the concerns that many PPruners have raised about midair collisions at common entry points is very real.

Icarus 2001 raises some very valid points about the welfare of the industry and an aging fleet of training aircraft. Whilst I agree that it is harder to maintain dispatch reliability on an older fleet, Northwest airlines has a fleet of DC-9s that date back to the early 1970s, their safety record is at least as good as any major airline. The ability to use cockpit retrofit technology should make any transponder installed today as reliable on a used aircraft as one that is brand new.

To Dick Smith. On a seperate post, you felt that it was unfair that I ask you to stop threatening people that piss you off. Well, I think it's perfectly fair that I ask you to stop that. Your opening remarks in you first response to Mr Williamson were about your perceptions of his making a defammatory remarks about you. You have used the media as a conduit in very disparaging terms towards the Virgin Blue crew and ATC, with regards to the Smoka incident and have made remarks that you will take to task the QF Chief Pilot. This may seem "aggressive negotiating" or "fair game" to you. But, the truth is, most people, (not me) might find your fame and fortune intimidating to begin with. You can have a strong opinion, we all do. It's all in the presentation!

Dick, I will also tell you this. Apart from being a pilot, I am also a business man with ownership in two small companies. My wife has a company that exports all over the world, and we have benefitted from the fruits of our labour. We have to be careful though, on our same street we see families that are over extended. The other day I used swimming pool glue to put the soles back on my nine year old's sneaker. It's important that we remain humble, or risk the wrath of the tall poppy syndrome that you are suffering from.

What has happened now is that we have come about as far as we can with this debate on an open forum.

I am not going to give up on it, I think August would make a great meeting time.

We need to think about this some more as the debate continues.


Sincerely,

Chris

[WALLEY2]

Dick,

One of the last written correspondence from Mr Mick Toller about 1 week before his sudden departure was that he was forming an opinion that some aspects of the NAS needed a Design Analysis. I am not implying that because of this opinion he was pushed. I spoke to Mick 1 week before he left and he did not indicate either this or his intention to resign, we were again discussing our decision to do a DAS and generally if CASA had any objections or comment.

Other ppruners, though might not be aware of Mr Tollers opinion at that time and his advise of that opinion to the ARG.

You will recall your memos to Mr Ken Matthews Sec DOTaRS and letter to Mr Langhorne Dep PM Cheif of staff stating that a DAS showing an unfavourable finding on the NAS would force CASA to stop the NAS and do a DAS on the whole system and that this would be a disaster. As I recall you wanted the ARM( AIRSPACE RISK MODEL) by AsA and CASA changed to show a CTAF was as safe as an MBZ.

Yet the imput to the ARM was done based on actual surveys of traffic calls at 5 CTAF A/Ps and 5 MBZ A/ps and revealed noncalls as CTAF 5% and MBZ 1%

I recall you berated Ken for not getting this done when you first raised it with him. It was one of those influence versus authority things, that has been raised on pprune.

Just wanted to correct the advise and state Mr Mick Toller was of the opininion a DAS on the NAS was probably necessary and this was 5 months before 2b implementation .

[DirtyPierre]

Chris,

I think your Hilton discussion forum proposal is a wonderful idea, particularly if you are present to chair it.

I don't always agree with your views of USA airspace. I still think that we should have airspace and procedures that suit Australian conditions, environment and culture. I'm sure this is possible while still being ICAO compliant.

Best of luck with your Hilton seminar, sorry I can't attend. With some balanced, logical thinking some real, safe, expeditous and meaningful airspace reform might be achieved.

DP

[tobzalp]

Chris Higgins US D requires a clearance to enter. Review your procedures.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Dick Smith said:

Four Seven Eleven, whether you like it or not, you work for a commercial organisation. As an air traffic controller your income comes from the commercial sale of your services to a customer. You will benefit if your organisation produces higher profits as your union will be astute enough to make sure you get a share – that is good. Don’t kid yourself, you are not some type of charitable safety regulator – you are just as commercial as when I stood behind the counter selling products. You sit behind a radar screen selling air traffic services. Don’t be holier than thou, everyone knows that your interests are commercial and that is in total conflict with having Government regulatory powers for airspace – which your organisation has.

And your point is? Whilst my organisation has a commercial focus, that in no way stops it or its employees from having safety as a major (in fact primary) focus. Are you suggesting that someone selling electronics, or food for that matter, is unable to do so safely just because they do so commercially?

Are you suggesting that, as an entrepreneur, you totally ignored public safety, because you wanted to make personal profits?

I know that I have never let safety be diluted as the primary motivator behind every decision I make in my work. I can also tell you that I have never let profits influence any operational decision I have made. My only motivators are the provision of a safe, orderly and expeditious flow of air traffic – in that order. Whether the aircraft is IFR (and therefore paying) or VFR (and receiving the services for free) plays absolutely no part in my operational decisions. Beyond safety, the only priorities I apply are those in AIP and MATS, which make no mention of flight rules.

Money is not everything.

The Brisbane Incident – what are the facts?

I note that you have not yet provided any answers (as you said you would do) to your own question about the Brisbane SMOKA (Virgin) incident. I note also that you have a history of lying about providing answers, but I had hoped that in this case, you would be true to your word.

It certainly appears that you have no intention of any sort of truthful discussion about safety in Australian aviation. I would have thought that you had some vestige of interest in aviation safety left, but it seems that you are proving this to be a false belief. It seems that you will deliberately ignore safety, to the extent of lying, just to achieve your political ends.

Your tactic, when the truth does not suit your selfish political agenda, is to make up lies about those who have asked you legitimate questions, or to make up lies about ‘basically criminal’ acts, when you know these to be false and defamatory.

[Woomera]

I wish to clarify an important aspect of the NAS debate.

The debate is entirely about safety aspects of NAS and the cost or cost effectiveness of NAS.

Whether or not certain PPRuNe users derive an income (in any form) from Australian airspace management is totally and entirely irrelevant. This debate is about factual and faultless safety or cost arguments.

Whilst Mr Smith suggests Voices of Reason has a commercial interest in the debate, so do many other PPRuNe users by virtue of their various employment. Indeed, it could be said that I, as an Australian, have a vested interest in AsA profitability.

Whether or not VoR, Mr Smith or other PPRuNe user derives income or benefit from airspace management is totally irrelevant when the debate is solely on issues of safety, efficiency and cost.

Play the ball, not the man.

On another issue, anonymity is a fundamental principal of PPRuNe. Had the user attempted to "out" another individual on any other forum or thread, exclusion from this forum would have been the inevitable and immediate outcome. Period! PPRuNe Administration have not given a dispensation for a free for all!!!

Another Woomera

[Dick Smith]

SM4 Pirate, I hope I haven’t misled you. I was previously asked about a “VRA proposition in E areas above terminal areas.” I stated correctly that I did not know what this was referring to. I now understand that VRA stands for “VHF Reporting Area” which is a unique Airservices/Qantas proposal that brings back full position reporting from the 1950s as a mandatory requirement in the Class E airspace to FL180 above Class D towers.

If this is what you refer to as the “Industry Option”, I can assure you that I do not support it. I have had no involvement at all other than a number of incredulous people telling me what was proposed and allegedly supported by Chris Manning of Qantas.

SM4 Pirate, I simply cannot believe that such an extraordinary proposal will go ahead. This is nearly as bad as the DAFs (Designated Area Frequencies) that were designed for the LAMP proposal. It is simply beyond me why people can’t accept that the US Class E airspace above D works with very high safety levels. In the USA in this airspace there is no mandatory transponder requirement, no mandatory radio requirement, and not even a recommendation for VFR aircraft to monitor the tower or ATC.

I had certainly heard about an industry proposal and have discussed it with a number of people however at no stage did I realise that this was a “VRA proposition”. I’m sorry if I’ve misled you.

I can understand how frustrated you must be. The problem is that there is simply no one who is showing any leadership in relation to the NAS system at Airservices. A good leader would be able to explain to air traffic controllers and pilots that there are advantages in moving to the proven US system and there is no need for unique modifications.

It must be frustrating for you as a professional to see the ridiculous unique changes that are being proposed. I can understand your view on the radar in Tasmania. Once again, it is obvious that there is a total lack of leadership. It is very sad for Australia and for our aviation industry.

[Woomera]

Planespeaker, Xxx, GaggedAgain, Bindook.com et al:

Thank you for the plethora of email you sent me regarding your problems accessing PPRuNe.

I contact PPRuNe Administration who advise (in part) as follows:

“…..quite simply a quid pro quo. If ATCers (who are also valued and respected PPRuNe users) are prevented from contributing to his site the same goes for us. His site is private - our site is private. It is a piece of house training.”

Strange, but I can’t fault their argument!!! And I suspect the vast majority of PPRuNe users will totally support their decision.

Remove your silly and childish access restriction for our users from your site and I’m sure we can facilitate your access to our site.

Woomera

[Four Seven Eleven]

Tobzalp and Chris Higgins

You are both right…. and both wrong.

FAA AIM states that:

Two-way radio communication must be established with the ATC facility providing ATC services prior to entry and thereafter maintain those communications while in the Class D airspace. Pilots of arriving aircraft should contact the control tower on the publicized frequency and give their position, altitude, destination, and any request(s). Radio contact should be initiated far enough from the Class D airspace boundary to preclude entering the Class D airspace before two-way radio communications are established.

And also…..

2. If workload or traffic conditions prevent immediate entry into Class D airspace, the controller will inform the pilot to remain outside the Class D airspace until conditions permit entry.

Effectively, establishment of two-way communications is an implied clearance, but a clearance can be denied for reasons which are not limited to IMC.

[Chris Higgins]

4711

Yeah I'll buy that! But I just called Allegheny Tower and they don't recall ever using that caveat.

Denying entry, (if it ever actually happens), is different from issuing a clearance on contact though, like when we enter Class B.

[Four Seven Eleven]

Very well and swiftly edited/deleted, Mr Higgins.

Like your friends at Allegheny Tower, I have never ever denied anyone a clearance in my entire career.

I have often used the phrase "clearance not available, remain outside control area", followed by some sort of expectation, as a means of ensuring:

• That the pilot understands that they do not have a clearance yet.
• That they have a positive instruction as to what to do in the event that no cleraance is issued (e.g. radio fail etc.)
• They understand that a clearance will become available.

Whilst some pilots - of the less than professional variety - seem to take this as evidence of obstructionism, the smarter ones understand it for what it is.

It is akin to the procedural/non-radar device of issuing a clearance limit. I have used this technique on occasion when it will afford the most expeditious means of providing separation without delaying either aircraft. It assures that if, for example, vertical separation does not exist at the time you reach your clearance limit, then you will hold to ensure separation, but I do not expect you to have to do so. As with denying a clearance , I have never had an aircraft hold at their clearance limit point.

[Time Bomb Ted]

Woomera,

How many Woomeri are Air Traffic Controllers, and how many are pilots?

Thanks in advance

TBT

[Woomera]

Time Bomb Ted

I could tell you the answer to that but then I'd have to have you killed

All pilots, some ex senior management, some airline, some GA, flying training, a seriously respected technical consultant, no ATCers.

PPRuNe started out for Professional Pilots, but like Topsy has just growed.
Check out the "Forums Home" list, not bad since the mid nineties, I can recall pre D & G days on Reporting points when we were having bets as to how long it would take to get to 10,000 members, I think circa 2003 was the best guess then

It was/is not our intention to exclude them.

There is even an ATC Forum which is heavily trafficed about half the main Reporting Points volume

ATC Forum

Enjoy

[Icarus2001]

One bureacracy to rule them all...

Dick you are putting so much energy and time towards NAS why not also attack the real problems facing GA in Australia such as the charging regime and the many headed beast that the CAA has become?

For such a small population we now have these government organisations to administer less than 15,000 aircraft and 30,000 pilots...

CASA one half of the CAA
AsA the other half of CAA now made in to a GBE
DOTARS - New airspace directorate
AMSA - AusSAR running SAR in Australia post CAA.

Surely the cost of all the highly paid CEOs and executive management of each organisation is huge? Why not adopt the US model of the FAA, one bureacracy to rule them all?

One organisation to run avaition is good enough for the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Thailand and New Zealand and probably many others. Why are we special?

[Time Bomb Ted]

Thanks for that Woomera.

TBT