Smith defends his air reforms
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Townsville,Nth Queensland
Posts: 2,717
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Smith defends his air reforms
Fri "The Australian"
Smith defends his air reforms
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
August 13, 2004
AVIATOR Dick Smith has come out swinging to protect his airspace reforms, promising to pay his "fair share" of the $2million cost of winding back the changes if they are proved unsafe.
But the former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman is betting he hasn't done his dough.
Mr Smith is targeting an Airservices Australia study that found the reforms produced an "intolerable risk" over some regional airports.
Mr Smith believes the risk assessments are wrong and the study is flawed because it does not take into account factors such as the mandatory use of transponders.
He said yesterday that figures showing Hobart could expect five fatalities every 100 years would show that the US should have 535 fatalities above similar airports over 30 years.
"Despite this, my limited research shows that there have been no fatalities in this airspace in the 30-year period in the USA," he said.
"This clearly shows that there is most likely a major inaccuracy in the Airservices calculations."
Airservices yesterday questioned Mr Smith's calculations and said he was comparing "apples with oranges".
But it appears the entrepreneur will be given a chance to pull the report apart in detail.
Federal Transport Minister John Anderson wrote to Mr Smith on Wednesday, saying he saw no reason why the aviator should not have access to the study and subject it to his own experts.
Mr Smith was the founding member of Mr Anderson's Aviation Reform Group and chief engineer of the airspace reforms.
Airservices is due to make a final decision on a proposal to reverse part of the reforms at the end of the month.
The issue has sparked a bitter and divisive debate in the aviation community, with private and sports pilots opposed to the reversal now mounting an 11th-hour campaign against the proposal.
The authority is planning to change class E airspace above certain regional airports to class C.
In class E airspace, the onus is on pilots of larger planes to look out for small planes. In class C they are separated from them by air traffic control.
The Airservices decision was prompted by hazard and cost-benefit analyses of low-level airspace that found the system posed an unacceptable risk that was not sufficiently offset by benefits.
A similar study of en route E class airspace also found modest benefits but said there was little difference in the risk.
Airservices has had the studies reviewed by an outside party and also sent them to CASA.
===========================================
Smith defends his air reforms
By Steve Creedy, Aviation writer
August 13, 2004
AVIATOR Dick Smith has come out swinging to protect his airspace reforms, promising to pay his "fair share" of the $2million cost of winding back the changes if they are proved unsafe.
But the former Civil Aviation Safety Authority chairman is betting he hasn't done his dough.
Mr Smith is targeting an Airservices Australia study that found the reforms produced an "intolerable risk" over some regional airports.
Mr Smith believes the risk assessments are wrong and the study is flawed because it does not take into account factors such as the mandatory use of transponders.
He said yesterday that figures showing Hobart could expect five fatalities every 100 years would show that the US should have 535 fatalities above similar airports over 30 years.
"Despite this, my limited research shows that there have been no fatalities in this airspace in the 30-year period in the USA," he said.
"This clearly shows that there is most likely a major inaccuracy in the Airservices calculations."
Airservices yesterday questioned Mr Smith's calculations and said he was comparing "apples with oranges".
But it appears the entrepreneur will be given a chance to pull the report apart in detail.
Federal Transport Minister John Anderson wrote to Mr Smith on Wednesday, saying he saw no reason why the aviator should not have access to the study and subject it to his own experts.
Mr Smith was the founding member of Mr Anderson's Aviation Reform Group and chief engineer of the airspace reforms.
Airservices is due to make a final decision on a proposal to reverse part of the reforms at the end of the month.
The issue has sparked a bitter and divisive debate in the aviation community, with private and sports pilots opposed to the reversal now mounting an 11th-hour campaign against the proposal.
The authority is planning to change class E airspace above certain regional airports to class C.
In class E airspace, the onus is on pilots of larger planes to look out for small planes. In class C they are separated from them by air traffic control.
The Airservices decision was prompted by hazard and cost-benefit analyses of low-level airspace that found the system posed an unacceptable risk that was not sufficiently offset by benefits.
A similar study of en route E class airspace also found modest benefits but said there was little difference in the risk.
Airservices has had the studies reviewed by an outside party and also sent them to CASA.
===========================================
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith should have a listen to the PSA accident in the states. Late 70s or early 80s I think. 727 vrs 172. Not a happy ending.
Above 185 youll stay alive. When you go below, shut your eyes and dont go slow!
The NAS is a joke.
DM
Above 185 youll stay alive. When you go below, shut your eyes and dont go slow!
The NAS is a joke.
DM
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: SerrrSyddddddddney
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would like to clear up a few myths and urban legends
I have never started my citation up in the hangar and taxied out like somthing out of thunderbirds.
I have never flown my chopper chopper dangerously close to a couple whom I thought were trespassing on my property only to find they were on a neighbouring property, and yes one of them may of fallen off their horse.
I have never attempted to fix the mach meter on my citation armed only with a ds screwdiver set $14.99 and my vast knowledge of component overhaul.
I have never repeatedly asked Pratts to keep adjusting my tgt compensators in my citation so all the needles line up and look really cool.
And no I do not have ten computer cameras aimed at myself when ever I am posting on pprune.
(dont know about the other bloke)
I have never started my citation up in the hangar and taxied out like somthing out of thunderbirds.
I have never flown my chopper chopper dangerously close to a couple whom I thought were trespassing on my property only to find they were on a neighbouring property, and yes one of them may of fallen off their horse.
I have never attempted to fix the mach meter on my citation armed only with a ds screwdiver set $14.99 and my vast knowledge of component overhaul.
I have never repeatedly asked Pratts to keep adjusting my tgt compensators in my citation so all the needles line up and look really cool.
And no I do not have ten computer cameras aimed at myself when ever I am posting on pprune.
(dont know about the other bloke)
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The dark corner of the bar
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This man has been shown up for the fool that he really is.
You are not popular Mr Smith. Your reforms have taken us back 50 years. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Stay alive above 185 DM
You are not popular Mr Smith. Your reforms have taken us back 50 years. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Stay alive above 185 DM
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
D-M
If I recall correctly, the prang you refer to occurred in the circuit area of 2 abutting control zones. It was not an en-route collision - thus class E not applicable. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
If I recall correctly, the prang you refer to occurred in the circuit area of 2 abutting control zones. It was not an en-route collision - thus class E not applicable. Do correct me if I'm wrong.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: posts: 666
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think dick smith rocks. I like his home-made torches and stuff he sells.
and his shiite-bag walkmans and stuff. they are the best. I buy his stuff all the time,
and that's why I think he;s the best to decide how airspace reform should take place in our great country.
who are all you others? did you invent your own spaghetti sauce???? well did you???
and what about your own walkie-talkie sets???
what makes you think you'd know anymore about NAS than a guy who knows f*** all but sells radios and shiite and owns his own jet and helio-copter???
and his shiite-bag walkmans and stuff. they are the best. I buy his stuff all the time,
and that's why I think he;s the best to decide how airspace reform should take place in our great country.
who are all you others? did you invent your own spaghetti sauce???? well did you???
and what about your own walkie-talkie sets???
what makes you think you'd know anymore about NAS than a guy who knows f*** all but sells radios and shiite and owns his own jet and helio-copter???
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NoTimTams.
OK.
If you are running some sort of twist-the-facts agenda to support NAS, then you may well be correct. If, however, you are concerned about air safety, then you would realise that the PSA accident happened because a jet DIDN'T see a lighty, in exactly the manner you are supposed to in Class E airspace. Does it really matter what you CALL the airspace? I would've thought the method of operating it was what was important. In fact, you may even conclude that the pilot was better informed because he was receiving a radar advisory, something not available in most of oz's Class E.
By all means, continue to use PSA as a positive advert for Class E.
Do correct me if I'm wrong.
It was not an en-route collision - thus class E not applicable
By all means, continue to use PSA as a positive advert for Class E.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Qld
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Schmidt,
Were you the one that reportly removed all the CA 225 reports from your file at CAA, when you got the key to the door.
In particular, the one regarding the young kid on the horse.
Were you the one that reportly removed all the CA 225 reports from your file at CAA, when you got the key to the door.
In particular, the one regarding the young kid on the horse.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris
Settle down, wipe the flecks of foaming spittle off your jowls, have a good lie down and a Bex.
The PSA prang is a good example of failure of alerted see and avoid in or near the circuit or other high density traffic area. It is not a good illustration of an en-route collision in low density airspace.
I'm not pro-NAS, but I have been happy with the previous (pre-NAS) class E airspace.
Big breaths now.....
Settle down, wipe the flecks of foaming spittle off your jowls, have a good lie down and a Bex.
The PSA prang is a good example of failure of alerted see and avoid in or near the circuit or other high density traffic area. It is not a good illustration of an en-route collision in low density airspace.
I'm not pro-NAS, but I have been happy with the previous (pre-NAS) class E airspace.
Big breaths now.....
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ergo, unalerted see and avoid in a radar or non-radar environment is inherently more dangerous regardless of traffic density.
Join Date: Oct 1998
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
here is some light reading:
1. Cockpit voice transcript from the B-727 flight deck
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/psa182tr.shtml
2. NTSB Report
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=40593&key=0#
3. The Audio tape of the same:
http://www.airdisaster.com/download2/psa182.shtml
And more:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~asapilot/182.html
perhaps the most telling bit is:
"Meanwhile, the 172 had unexpectedly taken up an easterly heading and continued to climb".
If anyone can consider see and avoid to be an acceptable method of routinely separating high capacity aircraft with other traffic then they are SICK.
PS. Here is a happy snap of the last seconds of 144 lives.
http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum1.htm#instincts
1. Cockpit voice transcript from the B-727 flight deck
http://www.airdisaster.com/cvr/psa182tr.shtml
2. NTSB Report
http://www2.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=40593&key=0#
3. The Audio tape of the same:
http://www.airdisaster.com/download2/psa182.shtml
And more:
http://pw2.netcom.com/~asapilot/182.html
perhaps the most telling bit is:
"Meanwhile, the 172 had unexpectedly taken up an easterly heading and continued to climb".
If anyone can consider see and avoid to be an acceptable method of routinely separating high capacity aircraft with other traffic then they are SICK.
PS. Here is a happy snap of the last seconds of 144 lives.
http://www.airborne.org/flying/forum1.htm#instincts
Last edited by alidad; 17th Aug 2004 at 11:12.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey, I'm as relaxed as can be (now that the ROLL-BACK is within sight).
I think we all know who is the 'lunatic fringe' involved in this debacle.
You just crack me up with all the 'but it wasn't Class E' crap.
Big breaths now.....
You just crack me up with all the 'but it wasn't Class E' crap.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Awstraya
Posts: 197
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alibaba
..and there's a good account in one of the "Air Disaster" books. Read the reports, your link http://pw2.netcom.com/~asapilot/182.html
says it clearly - they were operating under radar surveillance and control, and the jet had reported having the 172 visual.....but they still collided.
Uh, visual separation is used in Oz airspace around towers....frequently heard it used, say, around Gold Coast between lighties and heavies. I'll grant that this is definitely not pure "see and avoid", but neither was the PSA accident.
Ferris
But it wasn't class E. BTW, does Ozemite keep lunatic fringes in place?
NAMPS
So, would you then argue that all airspace, regardless of traffic density, should be subject at least to alerted see and avoid? Would you then agree that RPTs should not venture into CTAFs (as they have done for at least a few years)? If not, why not? Just curious.
Safe flying (or safer still, safe controlling.....)
..and there's a good account in one of the "Air Disaster" books. Read the reports, your link http://pw2.netcom.com/~asapilot/182.html
says it clearly - they were operating under radar surveillance and control, and the jet had reported having the 172 visual.....but they still collided.
If anyone can consider see and avoid to be an acceptable method of routinely separating high capacity aircraft with other traffic then they are SICK.
Ferris
But it wasn't class E. BTW, does Ozemite keep lunatic fringes in place?
NAMPS
unalerted see and avoid in a radar or non-radar environment is inherently more dangerous regardless of traffic density.
Safe flying (or safer still, safe controlling.....)
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Qld
Posts: 176
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having been in G/A in the 60's, and seen this idiot , somehow get to where he is.
I would like to know, how we can inspect, the d.s, file and ca225 reports etc. In particular the one re, the kid on the horse.
To whom, do we make an approach.
Met him many times, still a d.h.
robroy
I would like to know, how we can inspect, the d.s, file and ca225 reports etc. In particular the one re, the kid on the horse.
To whom, do we make an approach.
Met him many times, still a d.h.
robroy
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: WX at our destination is 32 deg with some bkn cld, but we'll try to have them fixed before we arrive
Posts: 302
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NOtimTAMS
Yes. I would love to see all of Australia's airspace be classified as C Class with 100% radar coverage down to the ground.
Is this safer? Yes.
Is this practical and affordable? Of course not.
The statement that you quoted cannot be controverted vis a vis unalerted see and avoid.
It is all about safety vs costs. NAS, as originally proposed, reduces safety disproportionately with the consequent cost savings. That is why it is being canned.
The present system, where 'all stations' calls are made, is an important part of alerted see and avoid. Being advised of aircraft location and intentions gives situational awareness.
Information need not come from ATC.
Therefore, I'm not sure what you are getting at with your question.
Under the present system, I don't have any problems with RPT venturing into CTAFs. However, under the proposed NAS2C, my answer is different.
So, would you then argue that all airspace, regardless of traffic density, should be subject at least to alerted see and avoid?
Is this safer? Yes.
Is this practical and affordable? Of course not.
The statement that you quoted cannot be controverted vis a vis unalerted see and avoid.
It is all about safety vs costs. NAS, as originally proposed, reduces safety disproportionately with the consequent cost savings. That is why it is being canned.
Would you then agree that RPTs should not venture into CTAFs (as they have done for at least a few years)?
Information need not come from ATC.
Therefore, I'm not sure what you are getting at with your question.
Under the present system, I don't have any problems with RPT venturing into CTAFs. However, under the proposed NAS2C, my answer is different.
