NAS and Dick 2; warning
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NAS and Dick 2; warning
I would just like to clarify something on the now closed thread "NAS and Dick Smith". On that thread, it is claimed that Dick made a phone call
. Later in the thread, Dick Smith states
It then appears everyone (woomera) accepts Dick at his word.
I would like to know:
Dick, have you made ANY phone calls of ANY nature to ANYONE involved in Hazard workshops?
I don't care if you thought you were aggressive or not, or harrassing or not, but did you make the call? I don't care if the call was '"as you described" or not, just- did you make it? Very clever use of language doesn't cut it. If we are going to take Dick at his word, I just want everyone to be clear exactly what his word is.
Last night he received a phone call, to his suprise the caller was Dick Smith, he was aggresive
I have not made a phone call as you have described
I would like to know:
Dick, have you made ANY phone calls of ANY nature to ANYONE involved in Hazard workshops?
I don't care if you thought you were aggressive or not, or harrassing or not, but did you make the call? I don't care if the call was '"as you described" or not, just- did you make it? Very clever use of language doesn't cut it. If we are going to take Dick at his word, I just want everyone to be clear exactly what his word is.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"It then appears everyone (woomera) accepts Dick at his word"
That is not what I said!
I indicated neither advocate had proven a case beyond all reasonable doubt, thus the matter was "dismissed" due to lack of conclusive evidence by either party.
The thread had no where to go and was locked.
Woomera
That is not what I said!
I indicated neither advocate had proven a case beyond all reasonable doubt, thus the matter was "dismissed" due to lack of conclusive evidence by either party.
The thread had no where to go and was locked.
Woomera
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hell...where angels ride harleys
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I believe that Dick has TRIED to pull the wool over everybodies eyes with the tack on ....
*** MY bolding***
Let's face it, he has the track record for it!
I have not made a phone call as you have described
Let's face it, he has the track record for it!
Yep - I picked up the same vibe. He did not state categorically that he didn't telephone the gent.
Also it doesn't explain the alleged call from the glider johnny either, but that is a separate issue.
Also it doesn't explain the alleged call from the glider johnny either, but that is a separate issue.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ferris,
Two nights ago I emailed Woomera with the same concerns.
But let's be clear about the process we are referring to so that Dick can give an "accurate" answer. The people referred to were members of the Risk Assessment panel not the Haz Id workshops. They did not represent any particular group or agenda. They (particularly the GA and private operators) gave freely of their time, sometimes at personal cost, because they thought it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately anyone who has been involved in airspace over the years knows that this is "par for the course" with Dick. What constitutes harassment in his mind would appear completely different to the average person. To me being rung up at night at ten o'clock at home is harassment. To me being rung up 5, 10, 15, times in a day with demands for answers would also constitute harassment. Many I know have experienced this over the years.
So, for the record Dick;
Have you (or Marilyn) rung or attempted to contact members of the risk assessment panel?
If so was this in an official capacity and with who's authority?
If so what was the nature/purpose of the enquiry?
If so why do you believe you have the right to do so?
How did you obtain their names and contact information (eg from members of the CASA/Airservices Board or ARG)?
No more half truths!
Not much fun being harassed for answers is it?
Two nights ago I emailed Woomera with the same concerns.
But let's be clear about the process we are referring to so that Dick can give an "accurate" answer. The people referred to were members of the Risk Assessment panel not the Haz Id workshops. They did not represent any particular group or agenda. They (particularly the GA and private operators) gave freely of their time, sometimes at personal cost, because they thought it was the right thing to do.
Unfortunately anyone who has been involved in airspace over the years knows that this is "par for the course" with Dick. What constitutes harassment in his mind would appear completely different to the average person. To me being rung up at night at ten o'clock at home is harassment. To me being rung up 5, 10, 15, times in a day with demands for answers would also constitute harassment. Many I know have experienced this over the years.
So, for the record Dick;
Have you (or Marilyn) rung or attempted to contact members of the risk assessment panel?
If so was this in an official capacity and with who's authority?
If so what was the nature/purpose of the enquiry?
If so why do you believe you have the right to do so?
How did you obtain their names and contact information (eg from members of the CASA/Airservices Board or ARG)?
No more half truths!
Not much fun being harassed for answers is it?
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think I have discovered how my friends details were given to Dick, my friend is also a glider pilot and the President of gliding in Queensland received a call from Bob Hall (gliding federation of Australia president) wanting the personal details of my friend. These were given out, no reason for this was given by Bob Hall, it was assumed it was some gliding business.
The next day my friend get calls from both Dick and Bob Hall about the airspace issues. Some coincidence.
Bob Hall has been asked if he passed on the details to Dick, he has denied it. He did however admit that he knew that Dick had called my friend but said it was totally appropriate for him to do so!!!!
The final question to ask is how and when were names published by Airservices, and was it appropriate.
I await the response from Airservices (not holding my breath)
The next day my friend get calls from both Dick and Bob Hall about the airspace issues. Some coincidence.
Bob Hall has been asked if he passed on the details to Dick, he has denied it. He did however admit that he knew that Dick had called my friend but said it was totally appropriate for him to do so!!!!
The final question to ask is how and when were names published by Airservices, and was it appropriate.
I await the response from Airservices (not holding my breath)
Neddy
You and your fellow participants have now been lead into the trap and it now closes. Information you do not want to come out will now come out.
Readers will now fathom out why Airservices Australia are so desperately trying to keep the risk assessment process secret. By the way, I have never phoned a person at 10 at night, unless it was pre-arranged, nor have I harassed people with 5, 10 or 15 phone calls a day. I note you post anonymously and provide no evidence. Rational PPRuNe readers will know what credence they can put on such claims.
In relation to the risk assessment panel. It was well known around the industry that David Eyre, a very capable CFI of an aero club at Bundaberg, had been a participant in the risk assessment panel that looked at the risk of Class E above D. About a week ago, I phoned David and left a message on his mobile asking if I could talk about the risk assessment panel. He phoned me back the next day and said he would be delighted to explain what happened, as he believed in relation to aviation safety there should be no secrets. What he told me was extraordinary and I can well see why the people at Airservices are desperately trying to keep this information secret.
The Risk Assessment Panel which was held on 24 & 25 June at Brisbane Airport was to compile a study using the “Shang Process”, which is a modification of the “Delphi Method”. It is claimed that the Shang Process is used so that group opinion exerts less pressure on the final result, ie there is less bias.
In relation to the “Delphi Method” I quote the following from a paper about the “Delphi Method” which was written on 27 January 2000 by Professor Paloma Sanchez and Ms Carmen Gloria Escobar, which states:
Note: It is my underlining.
Voices of Reason and Creampuff will be interested to know that this most important point, ie anonymity to avoid bias, was not followed. David tells me there were about 16 members of the panel and most where airline pilots, many of whom had strong views about the E airspace above D.
David tells me that rather than following a system where the answers are confidentially written down on a piece of paper which are then keyed into a computer without any member knowing what the other member was voting, that the process was quite different. David says that after participants wrote down their answers they were then made to read them out publicly in front of the full panel and only then were the results keyed into the computer. He said that some of the airline pilots where very persuasive but they never persuaded him to change any of the numbers on the paper, however, he understands some other participants were persuaded to change their figures.
Most importantly, David tells me that some of the answers from the airline people in relation to the inability of private pilots to undertake certain tasks like selecting a transponder where so preposterous that he then adjusted his figures to “mitigate the problem” (David’s actual words).
Voices of Reason and others who know about due process would know that this is a complete corruption of the “Shang” and “Delphi” process. In other words, even though David was trying to “mitigate” his answers to compensate for the exaggeration of others, there were only possibly one or two people on the panel who had a “VFR view” whereas the vast majority of the data entered into the computer that came from the participants clearly had a very different view.
Because the participants knew beforehand that all of their answers had to be read out in front of everyone else, it is obvious that the confidential “Delphi” and “Shang” process was not followed. More importantly, I understand the facilitator is a person who posts under the pseudonym 4711 on this website. It is interesting that in an “Education Reporter” article (Nov1998) covering manipulation of the Delphi technique it states:
Once again I point that David was delighted to talk to me about the process and about how he did everything he could to try and balance up what he considered to be completely over the top answers by others. He of course knew, he was in the minority. I should point out that David has no criticism of Airservices, in fact he is the recipient of a $15,000 ADSB unit from Airservices which improves the safety of his own aircraft and he is very pleased that he has been provided this by Airservices at no charge. .
So there you have it PPRuNe readers, the safety case for the roll back is most likely flawed. My suggestion, for those who are interested, they contact David and have a discussion about the quite extraordinary way the process was manipulated by Airservices Management to give a desired answer. His phone numbers are 0427 553 355 or 07 4155 3355.
You and your fellow participants have now been lead into the trap and it now closes. Information you do not want to come out will now come out.
Readers will now fathom out why Airservices Australia are so desperately trying to keep the risk assessment process secret. By the way, I have never phoned a person at 10 at night, unless it was pre-arranged, nor have I harassed people with 5, 10 or 15 phone calls a day. I note you post anonymously and provide no evidence. Rational PPRuNe readers will know what credence they can put on such claims.
In relation to the risk assessment panel. It was well known around the industry that David Eyre, a very capable CFI of an aero club at Bundaberg, had been a participant in the risk assessment panel that looked at the risk of Class E above D. About a week ago, I phoned David and left a message on his mobile asking if I could talk about the risk assessment panel. He phoned me back the next day and said he would be delighted to explain what happened, as he believed in relation to aviation safety there should be no secrets. What he told me was extraordinary and I can well see why the people at Airservices are desperately trying to keep this information secret.
The Risk Assessment Panel which was held on 24 & 25 June at Brisbane Airport was to compile a study using the “Shang Process”, which is a modification of the “Delphi Method”. It is claimed that the Shang Process is used so that group opinion exerts less pressure on the final result, ie there is less bias.
In relation to the “Delphi Method” I quote the following from a paper about the “Delphi Method” which was written on 27 January 2000 by Professor Paloma Sanchez and Ms Carmen Gloria Escobar, which states:
“The main features of the technique are anonymity, numeric response and feedback.”
“The first feature, anonymity, refers to the fact that each expert is unaware of the opinions and individual responses of the rest of the group thereby avoiding biased answers.”
“ – ideas and proposals always respecting the anonymous feature of the procedure.”
“The first feature, anonymity, refers to the fact that each expert is unaware of the opinions and individual responses of the rest of the group thereby avoiding biased answers.”
“ – ideas and proposals always respecting the anonymous feature of the procedure.”
Voices of Reason and Creampuff will be interested to know that this most important point, ie anonymity to avoid bias, was not followed. David tells me there were about 16 members of the panel and most where airline pilots, many of whom had strong views about the E airspace above D.
David tells me that rather than following a system where the answers are confidentially written down on a piece of paper which are then keyed into a computer without any member knowing what the other member was voting, that the process was quite different. David says that after participants wrote down their answers they were then made to read them out publicly in front of the full panel and only then were the results keyed into the computer. He said that some of the airline pilots where very persuasive but they never persuaded him to change any of the numbers on the paper, however, he understands some other participants were persuaded to change their figures.
Most importantly, David tells me that some of the answers from the airline people in relation to the inability of private pilots to undertake certain tasks like selecting a transponder where so preposterous that he then adjusted his figures to “mitigate the problem” (David’s actual words).
Voices of Reason and others who know about due process would know that this is a complete corruption of the “Shang” and “Delphi” process. In other words, even though David was trying to “mitigate” his answers to compensate for the exaggeration of others, there were only possibly one or two people on the panel who had a “VFR view” whereas the vast majority of the data entered into the computer that came from the participants clearly had a very different view.
Because the participants knew beforehand that all of their answers had to be read out in front of everyone else, it is obvious that the confidential “Delphi” and “Shang” process was not followed. More importantly, I understand the facilitator is a person who posts under the pseudonym 4711 on this website. It is interesting that in an “Education Reporter” article (Nov1998) covering manipulation of the Delphi technique it states:
“First, a facilitator is hired. While his job is supposedly neutral and non-judgemental, the opposite is actually true. The facilitator is there to direct the meeting to a preset conclusion.”
So there you have it PPRuNe readers, the safety case for the roll back is most likely flawed. My suggestion, for those who are interested, they contact David and have a discussion about the quite extraordinary way the process was manipulated by Airservices Management to give a desired answer. His phone numbers are 0427 553 355 or 07 4155 3355.
Last edited by Dick Smith; 20th Aug 2004 at 05:44.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More importantly, I understand the facilitator is a person who posts under the pseudonym 4711 on this website.
I have absolutely no knowledge of any of the workings of the risk assessment process you describe. I was not involved.
Once again, in the interests of truth and accuracy:
1. I am a line controller
2. I am not a manager
3. I was not the ‘facilitator’ you describe above.
Also in the interests of truth and accuracy, I should mention that I have never heard of the “Shang Process” or the “Delphi Method” before reading your post, so am unqualified to even reply to your other assertions.
All I want to point out is that your assertion as to my identity is yet another lie, for reasons known only to yourself, but which can easily be surmised by observers of your tactics of misinformation. Try to stick to the truth, as even small lies leave you exposed as one who does not want the truth to be known.
4711
You say:
How can any PPRuNe participants know what is true when you post anonymously. You could be anyone. In fact, you could be a number of people posting with one pseudonym – as some do. It sounds to me like the Mandy Rice-Davies defence – “she would say that wouldn’t she”.
You say:
“Once again in the interests of truth and accuracy….”
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aren't the statements
and
mutually exclusive.
You make a very serious allegation in regards to "mitigation".
Is the roll back flawed because of that personal intervention, or because of the process.
We need some more information on the Shang (modified "Delphi") process.
Isn't the asserted "fact" that he "adjusted his figures to 'mitigate the problem' evidence of serious corruption of the process in itself.
Airservices and all of us should be seriously p!ssed off, having spent all that time and money to have an important process "corrupted" by any individual. But that seems to have been endemic to the whole process from day 1.
Royal Commission material here.
I do not know Mr Eyre and neither do I doubt that he is a very capable CFI, but if he has done as you have alleged, I am equally sure that he does not have the suite of qualifications necessary to "second guess" the results of a process by unilaterally "adjusting his figures" to produce his idea of a "reasonable" (there is that concept again) result.
You refer to the Shang method as a modification of the Delphi process and quote from the Delphi process without revealing the modifications of the Shang method.
Be that as it may, it may be no more or less flawed than the "consultative" process NASIG accompanied by all of the shenanigans surrounding, but at least it is now where it belongs and where, should they not follow proper and accountable methods and process, they can actually be brought to account and will not be able to avoid responsibility. Throw away lines reffering to "executive swine" and union thugs" just don't cut it.
Oh really, is this the same sort of research and process involved in making the decision that NAS was not flawed.
Cuppla phone calls and around 900 words did it here.
We are also asked to assume that Mr Eyre is the same person to whom libelle refers. You got Mr 4711 wrong.
Either he is, in which case Mr libelle owes us at the least an explanation and/or an apology .
If he isn't then it's over to you.
Mr Eyre, BTW, is entitled to his privacy, can we assume that he has agreed to be identified on this site and for his telephone numbers to be provided. I would suggest that you get him to email Woomera with some confirmation of same as it is a banning offence otherwise.
He said that some of the airline pilots where very persuasive but they never persuaded him to change any of the numbers on the paper, however, he understands some other participants were persuaded to change their figures.
Most importantly, David tells me that some of the answers from the airline people in relation to the inability of private pilots to undertake certain tasks like selecting a transponder where so preposterous that he then adjusted his figures to “mitigate the problem” (David’s actual words).
You make a very serious allegation in regards to "mitigation".
Is the roll back flawed because of that personal intervention, or because of the process.
We need some more information on the Shang (modified "Delphi") process.
Isn't the asserted "fact" that he "adjusted his figures to 'mitigate the problem' evidence of serious corruption of the process in itself.
Airservices and all of us should be seriously p!ssed off, having spent all that time and money to have an important process "corrupted" by any individual. But that seems to have been endemic to the whole process from day 1.
Royal Commission material here.
I do not know Mr Eyre and neither do I doubt that he is a very capable CFI, but if he has done as you have alleged, I am equally sure that he does not have the suite of qualifications necessary to "second guess" the results of a process by unilaterally "adjusting his figures" to produce his idea of a "reasonable" (there is that concept again) result.
You refer to the Shang method as a modification of the Delphi process and quote from the Delphi process without revealing the modifications of the Shang method.
Be that as it may, it may be no more or less flawed than the "consultative" process NASIG accompanied by all of the shenanigans surrounding, but at least it is now where it belongs and where, should they not follow proper and accountable methods and process, they can actually be brought to account and will not be able to avoid responsibility. Throw away lines reffering to "executive swine" and union thugs" just don't cut it.
So there you have it PPRuNe readers, the safety case for the roll back is most likely flawed.
Cuppla phone calls and around 900 words did it here.
We are also asked to assume that Mr Eyre is the same person to whom libelle refers. You got Mr 4711 wrong.
Either he is, in which case Mr libelle owes us at the least an explanation and/or an apology .
If he isn't then it's over to you.
Mr Eyre, BTW, is entitled to his privacy, can we assume that he has agreed to be identified on this site and for his telephone numbers to be provided. I would suggest that you get him to email Woomera with some confirmation of same as it is a banning offence otherwise.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Eyre is not the person who I was refering to. I do not know him.
It seems there has been a conspiracy by Dick and his Risk expert (self proclaimed) Bob Hall to contact the members who participated to try and discredit the rollback of NAS.
I guess Dick believes that he has the right to get NAS implemented at any cost.
It seems there has been a conspiracy by Dick and his Risk expert (self proclaimed) Bob Hall to contact the members who participated to try and discredit the rollback of NAS.
I guess Dick believes that he has the right to get NAS implemented at any cost.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Infinity.... and beyond.
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How can any PPRuNe participants know what is true when you post anonymously. You could be anyone. In fact, you could be a number of people posting with one pseudonym – as some do. It sounds to me like the Mandy Rice-Davies defence – “she would say that wouldn’t she”.
For the record, I remain anonymous. That is patently true.
You pretend to know that:
1) I am a manager
2) I was a facilitator at a meeting.
Both of these statements are lies. By lying about these matters (important matters according to you) you call into question your other statements. By selectively lying, you make even your true statements that much harder to believe.
Try telling the truth. It may help your cause. Trying to confuse the issue with lies does you no good at all.
And THIS
Is clearly shown as at the least a half truth.
Dick,
A caual observer taking you at face value would have taken the above to mean you didn't make ANY phone calls regarding the risk assesment panel. You now admit you did.
Interestingly, you single out a single person you say you contacted, without saying he was the ONLY person you contacted.
SO, were there other people, specifically a private pilot who's details were provided to you by Bob Hall, who you contacted over their participation in the risk assesment? If the answer is yes, you have been deliberatley evasive and economical with the truth.
Yes, I think so...
I have not made a phone call as you have described
Dick,
A caual observer taking you at face value would have taken the above to mean you didn't make ANY phone calls regarding the risk assesment panel. You now admit you did.
Interestingly, you single out a single person you say you contacted, without saying he was the ONLY person you contacted.
SO, were there other people, specifically a private pilot who's details were provided to you by Bob Hall, who you contacted over their participation in the risk assesment? If the answer is yes, you have been deliberatley evasive and economical with the truth.
been lead into the trap and it now closes
Last edited by Wizofoz; 20th Aug 2004 at 11:36.
Bottums Up
Dick, you said,
I know that statement to be incorrect, as the political adviser who answered your repeated calls, hourly for days, when trying to promote youself into the top job at CAA (or what ever the incarnation was at the time) was a friend of mine until she died last year.
She went onto say that The Minister eventually appointed you because it was the only way to get some peace & quiet in the office.
.... nor have I harassed people with 5, 10 or 15 phone calls a day.
She went onto say that The Minister eventually appointed you because it was the only way to get some peace & quiet in the office.
If what you say is true, Dick, it only means that Airservices’ process to clean up your mess is about as half-assed as the half-assed process you used to create the mess. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
All this is typical of Australian aviation regulation since about the mid 1980 - politics dressed up as safety.
All this is typical of Australian aviation regulation since about the mid 1980 - politics dressed up as safety.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Please don't ban Dick.
His participation here is the best way (short of buying full-page newspaper ads) to show him up for the liar and political thug that he is. Every time he posts, it drives another nail into the NAS coffin. There can't be many people left in aviation that he hasn't blamed/accused/taken a swipe at.
You really crack me up, Dick, raging against the safety process you considered so 'unhelpful' in implementing NAS. If they are such a waste of time- why are you trying to discredit this one? Why not just ignore it and move on, like you did with the implementation?
You are still being very economical with the truth regarding the reason for this thread. But by all means drag it out. Liar.
His participation here is the best way (short of buying full-page newspaper ads) to show him up for the liar and political thug that he is. Every time he posts, it drives another nail into the NAS coffin. There can't be many people left in aviation that he hasn't blamed/accused/taken a swipe at.
You really crack me up, Dick, raging against the safety process you considered so 'unhelpful' in implementing NAS. If they are such a waste of time- why are you trying to discredit this one? Why not just ignore it and move on, like you did with the implementation?
You are still being very economical with the truth regarding the reason for this thread. But by all means drag it out. Liar.
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Australia
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Given that the VAST majority of airspace users sit in the back of aircraft operating under the IFR, and that Australia is a democracy (last time I looked anyway), 1 or 2 VFR reps in a sample of 16 seems about right .
David tells me there were about 16 members of the panel
only possibly one or two people on the panel who had a “VFR view”
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Perth
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
> We need some more information on the Shang (modified "Delphi") >process.
The Delphi Method was developed at Rand I think. Google is your friend.
The only possible link for the Shang Method is a Dr Shang at Cranfield. Getting his e-mail address and asking him for details and an opinion should be easy. He has published related stuff, so he is probably the one refered to.
The Delphi Method was developed at Rand I think. Google is your friend.
The only possible link for the Shang Method is a Dr Shang at Cranfield. Getting his e-mail address and asking him for details and an opinion should be easy. He has published related stuff, so he is probably the one refered to.