Dick Smith's Media Release for Monday 20 Sep 04
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 331
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick Smith's Media Release for Monday 20 Sep 04
Lifted in entirety from http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au The breathtaking arrogance of this man whilst an investigation into the Benalla accident is underway is absolutely shameful...............
Direct link here: http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=311
Benalla airspace upgrade delayed
MEDIA RELEASE MONDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2004
BENALLA AIRSPACE UPGRADE DELAYED
DICK SMITH TAKES AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA TO COURT
Aviation reformer and former Civil Aviation Safety Authority Chairman Dick Smith will be in the Federal Court at 10.15am on the morning of Tuesday 21 September (at the Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney) in a legal action aimed at preventing Airservices Australia from reversing Government policy on airspace reform.
Dick Smith says, “The Airservices Board intends to reverse the NAS (National Airspace System) reforms on 25 November 2004 and return to a 1930s system where air traffic controllers operate as if blindfolded without radar.
Dick Smith says, “If ever there has been an example of the conflict between a profit making body also regulating air safety, this is it.
“This reversal of the NAS policy will delay for many years the introduction of the airspace upgrades at smaller airports. Under the NAS system, airports with instrument approaches, such as Benalla, will be upgraded from Class G airspace to Class E controlled airspace.
“This is the safer US based NAS system, however because of a lack of leadership its introduction has been resisted and frustrated,” Dick Smith says.
“The pilot at Benalla was forced to operate in “do it yourself”, “dirt road” Class G uncontrolled airspace, whereas with the Government policy, NAS, the pilot would have operated in higher safety Class E airspace and would be “cleared” and “directed” by air traffic control instructions using radar to the instrument approach point.
“Even if the pilot had keyed the incorrect approach point into the navigation system, the air traffic controller would be required by law to advise the pilot and direct the aircraft by radar to the correct location,” Dick Smith says.
“If the Class E upgrade had gone ahead at the original planned date (June 1993) air safety would be clearly improved,” Dick Smith says.
Dick Smith says, “I understand the present attitude by Airservices management is that if an aircraft is in Class G airspace, it is not their responsibility. In effect, “If radar shows the pilot is off course it’s his problem, not ours.” This is supported by the fact that Airservices do not even have all of the Class G approach waypoints installed in their $350 million advanced air traffic control system.
Dick Smith says, “This is extraordinarily slack and irresponsible. A current Jeppesen database for the whole of Australia would cost less than $300.
“The mentality with Airservices management is still back in the 1950s when Flight Service Officers operated Class G airspace without radar.
Dick Smith says, “In the USA with the NAS, radar is used to the maximum extent. Wherever Instrument Flight Rules aircraft fly approaches they have controlled airspace and pilots follow air traffic control instructions.
“Our controllers are as good as any in the world,” Dick Smith says, “it is the training and procedures that are 50 years out of date. If the NAS reforms are reversed on the 25th November, more lives will undoubtedly be lost.
Direct link here: http://www.dicksmithflyer.com.au/Con...?ContentID=311
Benalla airspace upgrade delayed
MEDIA RELEASE MONDAY 20 SEPTEMBER 2004
BENALLA AIRSPACE UPGRADE DELAYED
DICK SMITH TAKES AIRSERVICES AUSTRALIA TO COURT
Aviation reformer and former Civil Aviation Safety Authority Chairman Dick Smith will be in the Federal Court at 10.15am on the morning of Tuesday 21 September (at the Law Courts Building, Queens Square, Sydney) in a legal action aimed at preventing Airservices Australia from reversing Government policy on airspace reform.
Dick Smith says, “The Airservices Board intends to reverse the NAS (National Airspace System) reforms on 25 November 2004 and return to a 1930s system where air traffic controllers operate as if blindfolded without radar.
Dick Smith says, “If ever there has been an example of the conflict between a profit making body also regulating air safety, this is it.
“This reversal of the NAS policy will delay for many years the introduction of the airspace upgrades at smaller airports. Under the NAS system, airports with instrument approaches, such as Benalla, will be upgraded from Class G airspace to Class E controlled airspace.
“This is the safer US based NAS system, however because of a lack of leadership its introduction has been resisted and frustrated,” Dick Smith says.
“The pilot at Benalla was forced to operate in “do it yourself”, “dirt road” Class G uncontrolled airspace, whereas with the Government policy, NAS, the pilot would have operated in higher safety Class E airspace and would be “cleared” and “directed” by air traffic control instructions using radar to the instrument approach point.
“Even if the pilot had keyed the incorrect approach point into the navigation system, the air traffic controller would be required by law to advise the pilot and direct the aircraft by radar to the correct location,” Dick Smith says.
“If the Class E upgrade had gone ahead at the original planned date (June 1993) air safety would be clearly improved,” Dick Smith says.
Dick Smith says, “I understand the present attitude by Airservices management is that if an aircraft is in Class G airspace, it is not their responsibility. In effect, “If radar shows the pilot is off course it’s his problem, not ours.” This is supported by the fact that Airservices do not even have all of the Class G approach waypoints installed in their $350 million advanced air traffic control system.
Dick Smith says, “This is extraordinarily slack and irresponsible. A current Jeppesen database for the whole of Australia would cost less than $300.
“The mentality with Airservices management is still back in the 1950s when Flight Service Officers operated Class G airspace without radar.
Dick Smith says, “In the USA with the NAS, radar is used to the maximum extent. Wherever Instrument Flight Rules aircraft fly approaches they have controlled airspace and pilots follow air traffic control instructions.
“Our controllers are as good as any in the world,” Dick Smith says, “it is the training and procedures that are 50 years out of date. If the NAS reforms are reversed on the 25th November, more lives will undoubtedly be lost.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
Won't this look a little suspicious when you become the Director of the new Airspace Directorate after the election (proxied by a certain current ASA board member of course)? Assuming calamity John's party is returned.
Perhaps, considering your rumoured arrangement to dismiss the ASA board, it would be best if you kept a somewhat lower profile?
If that is at all possible!
Of course - it is all rumour - I may be waaay off the mark.
Won't this look a little suspicious when you become the Director of the new Airspace Directorate after the election (proxied by a certain current ASA board member of course)? Assuming calamity John's party is returned.
Perhaps, considering your rumoured arrangement to dismiss the ASA board, it would be best if you kept a somewhat lower profile?
If that is at all possible!
Of course - it is all rumour - I may be waaay off the mark.
“Even if the pilot had keyed the incorrect approach point into the navigation system, the air traffic controller would be required by law to advise the pilot and direct the aircraft by radar to the correct location,” Dick Smith says.
whereas with the Government policy, NAS, the pilot would have operated in higher safety Class E airspace and would be “cleared” and “directed” by air traffic control instructions using radar to the instrument approach point.
However to those of who earn our living in this industry everyday! they are complete and utter rubbish.
Your PR savvy is fantastic, your understanding of airspace procedures is tenuous to say the least!
whereas with the Government policy, NAS, the pilot would have operated in higher safety Class E airspace
I suggest everyone hold back from countering his arguments on this one - let him sink himself.
He uses the expertise here instead of having to pay someone to do the research, and so unwittingly we've probably helped him on many occasions.
He uses the expertise here instead of having to pay someone to do the research, and so unwittingly we've probably helped him on many occasions.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton Vic
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gee whizzz
This little club of six, plus "all things to all people" gaunty do get upset when the other side fires a shot back.
Since coming on here a few weeks ago I have found that ONLY TWO of you are prepared to listen and respond to reasoned debate, but you get soooo upset when the other side 'aka Dick' does the same.
Wake up to yourselves!!!
Shirl
This little club of six, plus "all things to all people" gaunty do get upset when the other side fires a shot back.
Since coming on here a few weeks ago I have found that ONLY TWO of you are prepared to listen and respond to reasoned debate, but you get soooo upset when the other side 'aka Dick' does the same.
Wake up to yourselves!!!
Shirl
flichik
You need to do some research on PPRuNe - search for "NAS" titles over at least the past year, grab a coffee and have a read. This one is probably a good place to start - it's the thread involving a one-on-one debate between Voices of Reason and Dick. Take the time to do the research.
This "debate" isn't a new thing - it's been going on here for at least the last two years.
I can assure you Shirl is well versed on the NAS debate in PPRuNe!
Woomera
You need to do some research on PPRuNe - search for "NAS" titles over at least the past year, grab a coffee and have a read. This one is probably a good place to start - it's the thread involving a one-on-one debate between Voices of Reason and Dick. Take the time to do the research.
This "debate" isn't a new thing - it's been going on here for at least the last two years.
I can assure you Shirl is well versed on the NAS debate in PPRuNe!
Woomera
Last edited by Woomera; 18th Sep 2004 at 07:13.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 590
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And just whom, prey tell is paying for this expensive little extravaganza???
Jamming the courts unncessarily is one thing, but Dick has now taken his arrogance to the next level.
Thank Christ this deranged person doesnt run for parliament !!
Jamming the courts unncessarily is one thing, but Dick has now taken his arrogance to the next level.
Thank Christ this deranged person doesnt run for parliament !!
Timmeeee,
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hamilton Vic
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like Mr Gaunt says, I am well versed in NAS, just not overly interested anymore.
What I do see is two sides locked in an intractible debate with neither giving ground.
I suggest you (your 'side') and Dick (and his 'side') go read a book called "Getting to Yes, the Art of Negotiation"
Shirl
What I do see is two sides locked in an intractible debate with neither giving ground.
I suggest you (your 'side') and Dick (and his 'side') go read a book called "Getting to Yes, the Art of Negotiation"
Shirl
Dick. 
BSB
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 156
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
This legal action does not sit well coming from one who originally proposed a 10nm CTAF(USA) in G class for Broome and Ayers Rock. Remember you said "not one pilot would fail to make a recommended call or you would have failed and you have never failed!" and that by having a CAGRS at Broome "I had just become a retirement home for ex ATC and FSS operators."
You unlike us have never financed a study of G class terminal airspace, infact you have continually in recent private life and when in position of influence always resisted such studies with regards to NAS.
You are now seeking injunctive releif from AsA after they have done extensive industry consultations and studies of NAS 2b. I am sure you will quickly reteat or fail to get relief as you would have been advised that any cost incurred would be payable by the plaintiff if the injunction was later shown to be incorrect or spurious.
If this action in anyway adversely effects Broome International Airport we will seek to join AsA or act seperately to recover all costs.
AsA executives pleased be advised that the statements I make above were witnessed and I will sign a declaration to that effect.
Minister Anderson, I and others expect that Mr Smiths action makes his position as an adviser to you untenable, this conflict, your last minute direction for RADAR in Class C Airspace and your duty in this matter will be raised in the public domain Australia wide.
This is the least we can do to support the AsA executives who now have to divert their attention and efforts on yet another attack on their integrity.
Mike Caplehorn
This legal action does not sit well coming from one who originally proposed a 10nm CTAF(USA) in G class for Broome and Ayers Rock. Remember you said "not one pilot would fail to make a recommended call or you would have failed and you have never failed!" and that by having a CAGRS at Broome "I had just become a retirement home for ex ATC and FSS operators."
You unlike us have never financed a study of G class terminal airspace, infact you have continually in recent private life and when in position of influence always resisted such studies with regards to NAS.
You are now seeking injunctive releif from AsA after they have done extensive industry consultations and studies of NAS 2b. I am sure you will quickly reteat or fail to get relief as you would have been advised that any cost incurred would be payable by the plaintiff if the injunction was later shown to be incorrect or spurious.
If this action in anyway adversely effects Broome International Airport we will seek to join AsA or act seperately to recover all costs.
AsA executives pleased be advised that the statements I make above were witnessed and I will sign a declaration to that effect.
Minister Anderson, I and others expect that Mr Smiths action makes his position as an adviser to you untenable, this conflict, your last minute direction for RADAR in Class C Airspace and your duty in this matter will be raised in the public domain Australia wide.
This is the least we can do to support the AsA executives who now have to divert their attention and efforts on yet another attack on their integrity.
Mike Caplehorn
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Somebody should submit to the court hearing the latest copy of “Flight safety Australia” magazine.
The story about the mid air collision between the Tupolev TU 154M and the Boeing 757 freighter provides an example of why we need an acceptable level of safety within our airspace system. Although this accident happened entirely inside controlled airspace, this article would provide food for thought for anybody whose job was to make a decision regarding the validity of Dick’s little protest.
I especially like the comments regarding the use of GPWS as a last line of defence and the requirement that “any significant safety related change to the ATC system………… should only be affected after a safety assessment has demonstrated that an acceptable level of safety will be met and all users have been consulted……….”
A tragic story on many levels
The story about the mid air collision between the Tupolev TU 154M and the Boeing 757 freighter provides an example of why we need an acceptable level of safety within our airspace system. Although this accident happened entirely inside controlled airspace, this article would provide food for thought for anybody whose job was to make a decision regarding the validity of Dick’s little protest.
I especially like the comments regarding the use of GPWS as a last line of defence and the requirement that “any significant safety related change to the ATC system………… should only be affected after a safety assessment has demonstrated that an acceptable level of safety will be met and all users have been consulted……….”
A tragic story on many levels