NAS and Dick Smith
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS and Dick Smith
Over the last few months Airservices have been running Hazard workshops regarding the 2b changes. In Brisbane a friend of mine was asked to participate as an average pilot (PPL and instrument rating). After attending these and contributing along with other industry people the rollback has been announced.
Airservices assured the participants their participation would be confidential. Last night he received a phone call, to his suprise the caller was Dick Smith, he was aggresive and wanted to know details of the Hazard workshops. My friend was non commitall and terminated the call asap. He was very concerned about how his name was leaked to Dick, and how Dick thinks it acceptable to try and bully other people in the industry to get his own way.
He now informs me he has a message on his mobile from Bob Hall who is something to do with Gliding and a opponent of the rollback who wants to discuss the Hazard workshops as well. He wont be returning the call.
Is this how low our industry has stooped?? and how can the Dick be stopped?
Airservices assured the participants their participation would be confidential. Last night he received a phone call, to his suprise the caller was Dick Smith, he was aggresive and wanted to know details of the Hazard workshops. My friend was non commitall and terminated the call asap. He was very concerned about how his name was leaked to Dick, and how Dick thinks it acceptable to try and bully other people in the industry to get his own way.
He now informs me he has a message on his mobile from Bob Hall who is something to do with Gliding and a opponent of the rollback who wants to discuss the Hazard workshops as well. He wont be returning the call.
Is this how low our industry has stooped?? and how can the Dick be stopped?
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
Also, a complaint ought to be made to the Commonwealth Ombudsman and perhaps the Privacy Commissioner.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why am I surprised?
And all the time I thought I was suffering from severe paranoia, right glad am I to hear that in the spirit of democracy, and "Australianess" we all get persecuted.
equally 
Now about the witch burning they have planned for the weekend I hear they have some really good heretics lined up.
ferris
And all the time I thought I was suffering from severe paranoia, right glad am I to hear that in the spirit of democracy, and "Australianess" we all get persecuted.
equally Now about the witch burning they have planned for the weekend I hear they have some really good heretics lined up.
ferris
If it's true, then I'm absolutely disgusted, although not in the least surprised!
Try contacting the Australian Communications Authority. Their web address is:
www.aca.gov.au
A
Try contacting the Australian Communications Authority. Their web address is:
www.aca.gov.au
A
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On the assumption your friend's allegations are correct:
Australian Federal Police, Spring Hill, 4000 phone (07) 3222 1222.
AirServices Australia, Canberra, 1300 301 120
Commonwealth Ombudsman, Canberra, 1300 362 072
Australian Federal Police, Spring Hill, 4000 phone (07) 3222 1222.
AirServices Australia, Canberra, 1300 301 120
Commonwealth Ombudsman, Canberra, 1300 362 072
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libelle,
Given that your friend was part of a group that participated in the workshops, Dick and Bob Hall may have got your details from a number of sources:
1. Any other member of the workshops attended by your friend who obtained his/her details.
2. From the records kept by Airservices. If so, the AcA and AFP may indeed be interested.
3. From friends of your friend who told someone else about it.
Libelle, is your friend listed in the phone book? Easy to find if so.
Your personal details are never really kept confidential at these meetings.
Mind you, I think Dick is well out of order if his actions are as you describe.
DP
Given that your friend was part of a group that participated in the workshops, Dick and Bob Hall may have got your details from a number of sources:
1. Any other member of the workshops attended by your friend who obtained his/her details.
2. From the records kept by Airservices. If so, the AcA and AFP may indeed be interested.
3. From friends of your friend who told someone else about it.
Libelle, is your friend listed in the phone book? Easy to find if so.
Your personal details are never really kept confidential at these meetings.
Mind you, I think Dick is well out of order if his actions are as you describe.
DP
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pretty desparate stuff from Dick Smith isn't it? I have no reason to doubt the story - most of the facts so far would lead me to draw the conclusion it is more likely true than not. I certainly don't see any denials from Smith or his proxies here - and we all know he and they scour the place as if it is some decision making process.
Generally I have bought out of the whole thing lately as it seems apparent that most of those charged with the real responsibility of the system working seem to be getting the hands back on or at least near the tiller. That fraud Anderson can't even bring himself to answer questions about it - 'a spokesman said:'. Pathetic.
One thing that nags me - and I really can not get my head around it. I have followed the whole airspace thing closely since 1990, all the iterations, all the senate estimates, the Smith incarnations in CASA, ARG, NASPAG etc. , the Ansett 'letter in the drawer' affair, etc etc etc. But what I absolutely can not figure out for the life of me: What exactly does Dick Smith want (in quantative terms - aims / goals / objectives in dot points. What?!
Frankly I really don't think he knows himself. Does he just love a fight? A rebel without a cause? And the casualties along the way be damned!
Generally I have bought out of the whole thing lately as it seems apparent that most of those charged with the real responsibility of the system working seem to be getting the hands back on or at least near the tiller. That fraud Anderson can't even bring himself to answer questions about it - 'a spokesman said:'. Pathetic.
One thing that nags me - and I really can not get my head around it. I have followed the whole airspace thing closely since 1990, all the iterations, all the senate estimates, the Smith incarnations in CASA, ARG, NASPAG etc. , the Ansett 'letter in the drawer' affair, etc etc etc. But what I absolutely can not figure out for the life of me: What exactly does Dick Smith want (in quantative terms - aims / goals / objectives in dot points. What?!
Frankly I really don't think he knows himself. Does he just love a fight? A rebel without a cause? And the casualties along the way be damned!
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What clearly exists here is an ego run completely rampant.
Behind the cute nerdy glasses and the gee-whiz public persona which was supposed to get him elected Australia's first president is a paranoid bully, a right wing ideologue of the most dangerous sort who genuinely believes that every normal Australian supports him against the dreaded Big Government.
As usual, Dickie will appear here all hurt and offended that anybody could think such terrible things of him. Perhaps it's time you got the message, Dick; apart from your little band of GA sycophants and a few fellow right wing fanatics, EVERYBODY in Australian aviation hates your guts.
Sorry, I can't make it any clearer than that.
Behind the cute nerdy glasses and the gee-whiz public persona which was supposed to get him elected Australia's first president is a paranoid bully, a right wing ideologue of the most dangerous sort who genuinely believes that every normal Australian supports him against the dreaded Big Government.
As usual, Dickie will appear here all hurt and offended that anybody could think such terrible things of him. Perhaps it's time you got the message, Dick; apart from your little band of GA sycophants and a few fellow right wing fanatics, EVERYBODY in Australian aviation hates your guts.
Sorry, I can't make it any clearer than that.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I missing something here?
I don't think the issue is that Dick called him, rather how he got the information. If it was via Airservices, why, and by whom?
Airservices assured the participants their participation would be confidential. Last night he received a phone call.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Queensland
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLURRED VISION???
Gee binoculars, how's your spleen going ??
Your offensive language re "GA sycophants" makes me wonder how you are able to carry out your daily duties, (tower controller ??)
You and all the other Dick Smith haters need to go and take the cold shower and chill out a bit.
The personal villification is really becoming just a bit pathetic. Despite what you and others might think, the last time I checked, Mr. Smith does not run the Aviation bureacracy.
He may have some input as he is entitled to like all other individuals and lobby/interest groups but I think you credit him with more influence than he actually has.
At least he has made some great achievements in aviation and is entitled to some respect.
From: A GA sycophant.
Your offensive language re "GA sycophants" makes me wonder how you are able to carry out your daily duties, (tower controller ??)
You and all the other Dick Smith haters need to go and take the cold shower and chill out a bit.
The personal villification is really becoming just a bit pathetic. Despite what you and others might think, the last time I checked, Mr. Smith does not run the Aviation bureacracy.
He may have some input as he is entitled to like all other individuals and lobby/interest groups but I think you credit him with more influence than he actually has.
At least he has made some great achievements in aviation and is entitled to some respect.
From: A GA sycophant.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Sydney
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shame on you, Mr Smith, Shame on you, Mr Hall
We have just been alerted to this thread.
First, we have to say that any safety case process that promises anonymity is flawed.
It is incumbent on the proponents of a safety case to clearly identify ALL sources of input, including the qualifications of a participant in a hazard jury. There must be absolutely no anonymity.
This is to ensure that the inputs to a safety case can be appropriately justified.
At the same time, there can be absolutely NO comeback against any participant in a safety case process or hazard jury. If the person is appropriately qualified, their inputs, together with those of others in the process, are deemed to be those of the reasonable person.
Now that does not excuse Airservices from the release of the names of those persons in a manner whereby they can be harassed or intimidated. Indeed, if these people are intimidated in public, to the point where “reasonable people” will no longer participate in a safety case or hazard jury process, the architect of that intimidation has effectively denigrated safety in your country. This is absolutely and totally inexcusable.
The general public needs to have confidence that the persons making safety judgments in a safety process are qualified – that should not and cannot be usurped by the vested interest of one person.
If Mr Smith has attempted to influence and call into question the inputs of reasonable people, he deserves to lose any credibility he retains as an aviation reform proponent, and should be publicly exposed for the hypocrite he is. If the chemist, Dr Hall has done similarly, any standing and credibility he holds in the scientific community should be ignored.
Shame on you, Mr Smith.
Shame on you, Mr Hall.
First, we have to say that any safety case process that promises anonymity is flawed.
It is incumbent on the proponents of a safety case to clearly identify ALL sources of input, including the qualifications of a participant in a hazard jury. There must be absolutely no anonymity.
This is to ensure that the inputs to a safety case can be appropriately justified.
At the same time, there can be absolutely NO comeback against any participant in a safety case process or hazard jury. If the person is appropriately qualified, their inputs, together with those of others in the process, are deemed to be those of the reasonable person.
Now that does not excuse Airservices from the release of the names of those persons in a manner whereby they can be harassed or intimidated. Indeed, if these people are intimidated in public, to the point where “reasonable people” will no longer participate in a safety case or hazard jury process, the architect of that intimidation has effectively denigrated safety in your country. This is absolutely and totally inexcusable.
The general public needs to have confidence that the persons making safety judgments in a safety process are qualified – that should not and cannot be usurped by the vested interest of one person.
If Mr Smith has attempted to influence and call into question the inputs of reasonable people, he deserves to lose any credibility he retains as an aviation reform proponent, and should be publicly exposed for the hypocrite he is. If the chemist, Dr Hall has done similarly, any standing and credibility he holds in the scientific community should be ignored.
Shame on you, Mr Smith.
Shame on you, Mr Hall.
libelle, you can tell your friend to relax, he is mistaken. I have not made a phone call as you have described – just as I have not run my Citation off a runway or removed my “CAA225 reports from my file when I retired from CAA”.
PPRuNers can make up as many stories as they want to attack my personal credibility. However the decisions on airspace should be decided objectively and scientifically. That’s all I want. That is, to allocate the ICAO airspace category on a scientific basis where the risk lies. This would logically mean that if you have Class G airspace at Ayers Rock (with up to 19 jet movements per day and lots of VFR traffic), Class C airspace may not be required above Albury.
PPRuNers can make up as many stories as they want to attack my personal credibility. However the decisions on airspace should be decided objectively and scientifically. That’s all I want. That is, to allocate the ICAO airspace category on a scientific basis where the risk lies. This would logically mean that if you have Class G airspace at Ayers Rock (with up to 19 jet movements per day and lots of VFR traffic), Class C airspace may not be required above Albury.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick, thanks for the reply, it either proves your are the biggest liar in Australia or someone is impersonating you.
I stand by the original post, my friend has no reason to lie, he has no agenda's with the airspace . His view on NAS was non commitial either way and he offered to particpate because he believes that is the correct thing to do.
He will be taking the matter up with Airservices regarding how his name was given out without his permission.
Their answer will be interesting.
I stand by the original post, my friend has no reason to lie, he has no agenda's with the airspace . His view on NAS was non commitial either way and he offered to particpate because he believes that is the correct thing to do.
He will be taking the matter up with Airservices regarding how his name was given out without his permission.
Their answer will be interesting.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Libelle. In the absence of your friend providing first hand conclusive proof, the claim can not be substantiated beyond all reasonable doubt - hence the first line of my previous post.
VoR. I suspected it may be the case that input to a safety assessment could not be anonymous as qualifications would need to be assessed and presumably, weighted.
My concern was not related to breach of anonymity, rather alleged harassment.
Dick. In the absence of conclusive proof, one must accept your explanation.
Matter closed.
Woomera
VoR. I suspected it may be the case that input to a safety assessment could not be anonymous as qualifications would need to be assessed and presumably, weighted.
My concern was not related to breach of anonymity, rather alleged harassment.
Dick. In the absence of conclusive proof, one must accept your explanation.
Matter closed.
Woomera
