Dick Smith sightings and other atmospheric phenomena
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Darraweit Guim, Victoria
Age: 64
Posts: 508
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I doubt it's a delaying tactic Lodown. There will a minister again (of whatever variety) after 09OCT, which is well before implementation on 25NOV, and well before the next bit of court action on 01NOV.
Another factor is education material is already going out. Charts are being printed and distributed. At what point will it be a safety issue to rollback Rollback?
The cardinal rule of first aid is to do no harm. It should be the same for airspace reform. One idiot has locked into the idea that you can improve safety by removing services and has convinced some opportunistic others. 25NOV04 restores safety levels to what was there before NAS S2B degraded them. S2B took far more away than it gave, and because ARG got it wrong we have to go back a step. S3 would have been much worse with our current equipment.
I, personally, am looking forward to more reforms. But (ban me if you like Wooms) if dick smith is involved I'll assume he's trying more flim-flams and will argue and fight them all the way.
Another factor is education material is already going out. Charts are being printed and distributed. At what point will it be a safety issue to rollback Rollback?
The cardinal rule of first aid is to do no harm. It should be the same for airspace reform. One idiot has locked into the idea that you can improve safety by removing services and has convinced some opportunistic others. 25NOV04 restores safety levels to what was there before NAS S2B degraded them. S2B took far more away than it gave, and because ARG got it wrong we have to go back a step. S3 would have been much worse with our current equipment.
I, personally, am looking forward to more reforms. But (ban me if you like Wooms) if dick smith is involved I'll assume he's trying more flim-flams and will argue and fight them all the way.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Dunnunda & Godzone
Age: 74
Posts: 4,275
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mr Smith, in the interest of balance around here and fairness to our PPRuNers I need to make several comments.
That post is extremely offensive to PPRuNe and our PPRuNers, you have chosen to post here, an internationally recognised and respected Forum, why else would you feel it necessary to use it to support your arguments or impugn its motives, to further your personal "vision" or agenda when it suits you.
Neither do you leave PPruNers anywhere to go; they are either “cowards” or “dissemblers” with a “hidden agenda against change.”
If you knew to whom you were addressing those remarks you may or may not be embarrassed beyond belief.
You have chosen to use your real name as is your right, but you, by registering here also agreed to respect the "rights" of the others who as is their right have chosen anonymity.
To call them
shows a total lack of understanding of what PPRuNe does or has achieved, internationally since its inception and total disrespect for the sensibilities and rights of the others on our/their Forum .
People post here and are respected on the merit, cogency and relevance of their argument. Whether they are identified or not is beside the point.
Here, speech is truly free of the bounds of personality, politics, ideology and cant.
It is here, an article of faith, that a well constructed and rational argument or position on any subject, stands on its own, the “who” that is proposing it or what, is of absolutely no consequence or relevance whatsoever.
The argument or position will be very thoroughly and rigorously tested by their peers.
You will find it hard to find any rational person who could disagree with that notion.
Whether you and your supporters like it or not, PPRuNe is at the vanguard of aviation reform and safety worldwide and that includes Australia. You cannot choose to pick the “bits” with which you agree or not and “use” them to further your agenda without taking the whole of the “other lot” as well.
Believe me the people to whom you send these “bits” have already been here and seen the rest, before they get it from yourself.
PPRuNe moderators and users are on many of the highest level industry forums around the world. We also host and moderate airline crew and ATC Bulletin Boards for the worlds leading airlines and service providers.
There is very little, including your NAS that doesn't get picked over and debated and found useful or wanting as the case may be and that by real aviation professionals at ALL levels of Government, regulation, airline, the media and GA.
It is top of mind required reading in places you could not begin to imagine.
And we really don’t care if you believe it to be so or not.
Do we take ourselves too seriously, not really, PPRuNe in and of itself cannot change anything, but it does provide the opportunity for free and unfettered discussion and an independent point of reference for matters aviation. It is a free research laboratory in which to float and develop ideas amongst the world leaders in aviation, you should try it one day.
What we do take seriously, is that our readers are treated with normal civilized respect.
Bye the bye and whilst I am at it, the fact that you refer to Australia’s Airspace Reform as being yours, my, mine is very telling indeed and if you stop to think about that for a minute, it might give you just a tiny clue as to why most people find it necessary to remain anonymous.
I had an odd feeling that Australian Airspace belongs to the ordinary Australians who use, travel in and administer it.
We too receive many emails and some evidence that;
could be just a little disingenuous.
Several of our moderators have received telephone calls from you complaining about this and that and another has had direct enquiries made by you through his company superiors.
I am sure your motives were well meant and to “correct” what you might have considered to be an ill conceived perception and were not in any way meant to influence the way we conduct ourselves.
Why you should have this access not available to regular PPruNers escapes us for the moment.
Further a NAS supporter has been banned from here, not for being pro NAS, otherwise you would not be here either, but for making illegal attempts to identify PPRuNers by hacking their IPs in order to send threatening emails to them and their employer for holding a view contrary to yours.
We have also banned a large number of your supporters from here recently, not for being pro NAS, otherwise you would not be here either, but for what could only be described as an orchestrated attempt to derail a serious debate of which you were a participant, by their disruptive and possibly libelous behaviour.
They have been by your definition “cowardly anonymous” but easily and clearly identified as to whom and as your supporters.
Should you be at all embarrassed by their behaviour on your behalf, then you should tax them directly with it and insist that they post in their real names.
One of our number has been banned from the Members Only website of and invited to resign from an organisation of which he is a paid up member for suggesting there, that it is entirely inappropriate for members of their committee to be posting drivel attacking others when they can be clearly identified by us and others by the style and object of their posts. They do not enhance the reputation of the organisation they purport to represent to their members by calling others “cowards” for “hiding” behind a user name whilst they themselves remain anonymous behind a user name. Doh??
Might we suggest that you should be careful of your choice of supporters lest they by their intemperate actions here, bring your cause into disrepute and their own unto terminal irrelevancy?
I digress; we have allowed you some latitude not normally available to “ordinary” PPRuNers.
We have been privately chastised for doing so.
We have defended our actions both locally and with the owners of the site, sincerely on the basis of the national interest.
We have hosted an unprecedented and unmoderated “one on one” debate with the Voices of Reason on the pro and con of the NAS, in which you chose to participate. Nothing could be fairer.
This is not the first time you have called PPRuNers cowards, that is now at an end.
You may remain here, provided you offer an unreserved apology to the PPRuNers at large for impugning their convictions and otherwise calling them cowards.
They are entitled to their beliefs as are you, anonymous or not, here, within the bounds of decency and civility, they carry equal weight.
If you do not believe in their conviction or that their bona fides are not relevant, then you will have lost nothing and the time you have spent here has been of no consequence.
The choice, as always on PPRuNe, is yours
Sincerely Woomera.
They are all either cowards, or do not have a belief in their conviction. Look at the people who post on PPRuNe who are pushing for the wind back. Not one will put their name to their “beliefs”. Any objective reader would surmise that there is a hidden agenda here – it’s against change.
Neither do you leave PPruNers anywhere to go; they are either “cowards” or “dissemblers” with a “hidden agenda against change.”
If you knew to whom you were addressing those remarks you may or may not be embarrassed beyond belief.
You have chosen to use your real name as is your right, but you, by registering here also agreed to respect the "rights" of the others who as is their right have chosen anonymity.
To call them
either cowards, or do not have a belief in their conviction
People post here and are respected on the merit, cogency and relevance of their argument. Whether they are identified or not is beside the point.
Here, speech is truly free of the bounds of personality, politics, ideology and cant.
It is here, an article of faith, that a well constructed and rational argument or position on any subject, stands on its own, the “who” that is proposing it or what, is of absolutely no consequence or relevance whatsoever.
The argument or position will be very thoroughly and rigorously tested by their peers.
You will find it hard to find any rational person who could disagree with that notion.
Whether you and your supporters like it or not, PPRuNe is at the vanguard of aviation reform and safety worldwide and that includes Australia. You cannot choose to pick the “bits” with which you agree or not and “use” them to further your agenda without taking the whole of the “other lot” as well.
Believe me the people to whom you send these “bits” have already been here and seen the rest, before they get it from yourself.
PPRuNe moderators and users are on many of the highest level industry forums around the world. We also host and moderate airline crew and ATC Bulletin Boards for the worlds leading airlines and service providers.
There is very little, including your NAS that doesn't get picked over and debated and found useful or wanting as the case may be and that by real aviation professionals at ALL levels of Government, regulation, airline, the media and GA.
It is top of mind required reading in places you could not begin to imagine.
And we really don’t care if you believe it to be so or not.
Do we take ourselves too seriously, not really, PPRuNe in and of itself cannot change anything, but it does provide the opportunity for free and unfettered discussion and an independent point of reference for matters aviation. It is a free research laboratory in which to float and develop ideas amongst the world leaders in aviation, you should try it one day.
What we do take seriously, is that our readers are treated with normal civilized respect.
Bye the bye and whilst I am at it, the fact that you refer to Australia’s Airspace Reform as being yours, my, mine is very telling indeed and if you stop to think about that for a minute, it might give you just a tiny clue as to why most people find it necessary to remain anonymous.
I had an odd feeling that Australian Airspace belongs to the ordinary Australians who use, travel in and administer it.
We too receive many emails and some evidence that;
From time to time faxes are sent to me regarding a particular issue which appears on www.PPRuNe.com. I am also sent, from time to time, lists of the false names with their real name decodes – including the names of their employers. I’m not sure what I am supposed to do with this information, however I would like to make the following comment.
Several of our moderators have received telephone calls from you complaining about this and that and another has had direct enquiries made by you through his company superiors.
I am sure your motives were well meant and to “correct” what you might have considered to be an ill conceived perception and were not in any way meant to influence the way we conduct ourselves.
Why you should have this access not available to regular PPruNers escapes us for the moment.
Further a NAS supporter has been banned from here, not for being pro NAS, otherwise you would not be here either, but for making illegal attempts to identify PPRuNers by hacking their IPs in order to send threatening emails to them and their employer for holding a view contrary to yours.
We have also banned a large number of your supporters from here recently, not for being pro NAS, otherwise you would not be here either, but for what could only be described as an orchestrated attempt to derail a serious debate of which you were a participant, by their disruptive and possibly libelous behaviour.
They have been by your definition “cowardly anonymous” but easily and clearly identified as to whom and as your supporters.
Should you be at all embarrassed by their behaviour on your behalf, then you should tax them directly with it and insist that they post in their real names.
One of our number has been banned from the Members Only website of and invited to resign from an organisation of which he is a paid up member for suggesting there, that it is entirely inappropriate for members of their committee to be posting drivel attacking others when they can be clearly identified by us and others by the style and object of their posts. They do not enhance the reputation of the organisation they purport to represent to their members by calling others “cowards” for “hiding” behind a user name whilst they themselves remain anonymous behind a user name. Doh??
Might we suggest that you should be careful of your choice of supporters lest they by their intemperate actions here, bring your cause into disrepute and their own unto terminal irrelevancy?
I digress; we have allowed you some latitude not normally available to “ordinary” PPRuNers.
We have been privately chastised for doing so.
We have defended our actions both locally and with the owners of the site, sincerely on the basis of the national interest.
We have hosted an unprecedented and unmoderated “one on one” debate with the Voices of Reason on the pro and con of the NAS, in which you chose to participate. Nothing could be fairer.
This is not the first time you have called PPRuNers cowards, that is now at an end.
You may remain here, provided you offer an unreserved apology to the PPRuNers at large for impugning their convictions and otherwise calling them cowards.
They are entitled to their beliefs as are you, anonymous or not, here, within the bounds of decency and civility, they carry equal weight.
If you do not believe in their conviction or that their bona fides are not relevant, then you will have lost nothing and the time you have spent here has been of no consequence.
The choice, as always on PPRuNe, is yours
Sincerely Woomera.
Last edited by Woomera; 24th Sep 2004 at 10:58.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I presume then that a Ministerial Directive to install RADAR before upgrading any airspace to C was simply intended to make it too expensive to do???
OK, let's take him up on it, everybody. Let's all agree that Albury, Coffs, Mackay, Hamilton Island, Maroochydore etc should all become full radar approach units. Oh, and let's not forget Proserpine! And a new installation at AYE of course. Next, let's release the costing for the installation and tripling of staff levels, and see how many of his AOPA bum buddies are still supporting him outside the court when their share of the cost is made known. Or is this full Class C radar airspace going to be an entirely new version which allows AOPA members to fly anywhere free?
Well, Dwarf? Sultanas? No, I didn't think so. This is just an ideological bluff from the government haters who want to do what they like when they like.
As for anonymity Dick, if you insist on making that a weapon for yourself, I'll fill in a few gaps. Given that I work in a tower of five nominal staff it shouldn't be too hard even for you to work out who I am, especially since I've made no secret of it to anyone who asks locally. I also stand by my earlier assertion that should you ever turn up at the base of the tower whem I am working and ask for entry I will tell you to piss off.
But I don't have your resources or your access to the media, so if you think that after thirty years in aviation I'm going to put my retirement on the line for you, you're wrong.
My immediate superior has already been quizzed rather sternly from the hallowed halls of Canberra as to whether he was Binoculars. While admitting that he knew who Binos was, he gallantly refused to confirm my identity.
That threat is now becoming of lesser importance to me, because the close- knit industry I used to be proud to be a part of, (and I go back to DCA days, Richard, long before you ever thought of getting your feet in the air -- there's another hint for your sleuths), is deeply divided because of YOUR policies, and I'm not sure I want to be a part of it anymore. It goes all the way back to your profound little whinge when you got knocked back for landing at your harbourside helipad. The hall of doom, I think it was.
I'll tell you what Dick, you call me cowardly, you big brave multimillionaire, and I'll call you a megalomaniac. Let's call it even.
No, actually, let's not. I'll also suggest you are the most dangerously self-important menace to public safety who has ever had any input into aviation, and it's a grave pity that you have had a puppet in power whose strings you could pull so easily.
I will now exit with a line made famous by Olivier as he expired in the classic Old Vic production of Macbeth; "**** off, you horrible little worm".
(I think I have just blown what little chance I ever had of becoming a moderator.)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Brisbane, Queensland
Posts: 618
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most succint Bino's.
It seems that, not unlike our sin-binned friend ****su-Tonka, you have also succumbed to the overwhelming frustrations of dealing with a certain meglomaniac.
Your observations on the divisions within aviation is sadly so accurate - and its perpetuation appears to be a 'tool' of those 'managers' who rely on divide and conquer tactics to play off the competing tribes they create. Esprit de corps, cameraderie and not least a predominant culture of safety become immediate or eventual casualties on the artificial battlefield.
Meanwhile the meglomaniac throws stones at these people, some times rightly so, but then seems all too willing to embrace their same strategies close to his own bosom - with a skill that would suggest he authored the original script for such schemes.
I wish I knew the solution to quell his tunnel vision. Many contributors here who are far far more intimate with the technical minuteae than I could ever hope for have failed to penetrate the veil of self-righteous belief that fuels him.
How many people along the way have probably said, '"Just give him what he wants and shut him up", because it becomes the only solution to get the monkey of your back? We can certainly immediately tally up one transport minister.
Is it really going to take a major midair to wake people up? Then again when or if such a thing happens, it won't be because of anything that the megomanic has said, done, argued or proposed - at least not in his mind.
If I were a religious person, my initial prayer would be for a court judiciary that see through this folly and throw this idiot out on his ear in a very public manner.
It seems that, not unlike our sin-binned friend ****su-Tonka, you have also succumbed to the overwhelming frustrations of dealing with a certain meglomaniac.
Your observations on the divisions within aviation is sadly so accurate - and its perpetuation appears to be a 'tool' of those 'managers' who rely on divide and conquer tactics to play off the competing tribes they create. Esprit de corps, cameraderie and not least a predominant culture of safety become immediate or eventual casualties on the artificial battlefield.
Meanwhile the meglomaniac throws stones at these people, some times rightly so, but then seems all too willing to embrace their same strategies close to his own bosom - with a skill that would suggest he authored the original script for such schemes.
I wish I knew the solution to quell his tunnel vision. Many contributors here who are far far more intimate with the technical minuteae than I could ever hope for have failed to penetrate the veil of self-righteous belief that fuels him.
How many people along the way have probably said, '"Just give him what he wants and shut him up", because it becomes the only solution to get the monkey of your back? We can certainly immediately tally up one transport minister.
Is it really going to take a major midair to wake people up? Then again when or if such a thing happens, it won't be because of anything that the megomanic has said, done, argued or proposed - at least not in his mind.
If I were a religious person, my initial prayer would be for a court judiciary that see through this folly and throw this idiot out on his ear in a very public manner.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't despair chaps
Bino's and Uncommon Sense.....do not despair.
The more the circle turns the more desparate individuals become.
The safety of aviation...GA....RPT....Ultralights...Gliders...and every other support industry and service provider is too important for it to remain the political plaything of millionaires and would be (if they could be) politicans.
The single biggest threat to aviation in Oz (and I can tell you no where else in the world including here in mother) is the way politics has become more important than safety and safety is now political. (For example a fellow countryman from here who masqurades over there under the banner Air Safety Australia).
Don't despair.... the majority always will win.. particularly as those without support perish under the weight of their own stupidity and illconceived ideas and unproven claims.
Lovin it, Laurasia
The more the circle turns the more desparate individuals become.
The safety of aviation...GA....RPT....Ultralights...Gliders...and every other support industry and service provider is too important for it to remain the political plaything of millionaires and would be (if they could be) politicans.
The single biggest threat to aviation in Oz (and I can tell you no where else in the world including here in mother) is the way politics has become more important than safety and safety is now political. (For example a fellow countryman from here who masqurades over there under the banner Air Safety Australia).
Don't despair.... the majority always will win.. particularly as those without support perish under the weight of their own stupidity and illconceived ideas and unproven claims.
Lovin it, Laurasia
Moderate, Modest & Mild.
It is my opinion, that Dick Smith has provided a prima facie example of proof that it is more important WHAT is said, then WHO said it.
Your arguments here on the Professional Pilots forum, Dick, have not been given any more weight just because YOU made them.
They have been judged on their FACTUAL content (or lack thereof), their VERACITY (or lack thereof), and their PRACTICALITY here in Australia (or lack thereof).
They have NOT been judged on the basis that it was Dick Smith (and whatever connotations you believe your name carries) who wrote them.
Your arguments here on the Professional Pilots forum, Dick, have not been given any more weight just because YOU made them.
They have been judged on their FACTUAL content (or lack thereof), their VERACITY (or lack thereof), and their PRACTICALITY here in Australia (or lack thereof).
They have NOT been judged on the basis that it was Dick Smith (and whatever connotations you believe your name carries) who wrote them.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: effenq
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Binoculars
Why would the lighties pay anything, the airspace and associated RADAR isn't for them???
Isn't that a bit like charging boaties who use a boat ramp a share of the costs of the container terminal???
Why the animosity towards the lighties anyway, wouldn't you be better served getting them onside, and thus not supporting Mr Smith, rather than insulting them and appearing to be arrogant and superior???
Edited after some thought.
You know, aircraft don't pay a rego fee like cars or boats?? In the boating world this pays for the boatramps and the safety stuff. A per tonne rego fee of say $100 a tonne would provide a good funding base for most of the infrstructure needed to support NAS or whatever. Perhaps that is the answer, get rid of 'user pays' charges and charge a rego fee????
Why would the lighties pay anything, the airspace and associated RADAR isn't for them???
Isn't that a bit like charging boaties who use a boat ramp a share of the costs of the container terminal???
Why the animosity towards the lighties anyway, wouldn't you be better served getting them onside, and thus not supporting Mr Smith, rather than insulting them and appearing to be arrogant and superior???
Edited after some thought.
You know, aircraft don't pay a rego fee like cars or boats?? In the boating world this pays for the boatramps and the safety stuff. A per tonne rego fee of say $100 a tonne would provide a good funding base for most of the infrstructure needed to support NAS or whatever. Perhaps that is the answer, get rid of 'user pays' charges and charge a rego fee????
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 241
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YCKT,
Seems you'd like us to go full circle. You're probably not old enought to know, but that is the way it used to be before the bean counters got involved and decided 'user pays' was the way to go. We all paid an 'air nav' charge for the privilage of owning our aircraft, but we could fly anywhere we liked without charge, and that was also without the dreaded 'fuel levy' which was supposed to solve all our problems.
Binos,
My hero, I could not have put it better myself.
Dick,
You just don't get it.
PPRuNers voted 10 to 1 for you to P1ss off but you insist on bleating like a stuck pig, continuing with the 'I believe' statements again, while calling us all cowards for using psudonyms. Spend some quality time researching here and you'll find I've not made any big secret of who I am. All the same I do look forward to receiving my apology!
Please leave AVIATION and its related SAFETY ISSUES to the professionals who live and breath it every day.
I'm sure a job application for such a position would not list 'millionaire, amateur megalomaniac' within its job description.
BSB
Seems you'd like us to go full circle. You're probably not old enought to know, but that is the way it used to be before the bean counters got involved and decided 'user pays' was the way to go. We all paid an 'air nav' charge for the privilage of owning our aircraft, but we could fly anywhere we liked without charge, and that was also without the dreaded 'fuel levy' which was supposed to solve all our problems.
Binos,
My hero, I could not have put it better myself.
Dick,
You just don't get it.
PPRuNers voted 10 to 1 for you to P1ss off but you insist on bleating like a stuck pig, continuing with the 'I believe' statements again, while calling us all cowards for using psudonyms. Spend some quality time researching here and you'll find I've not made any big secret of who I am. All the same I do look forward to receiving my apology!
Please leave AVIATION and its related SAFETY ISSUES to the professionals who live and breath it every day.
I'm sure a job application for such a position would not list 'millionaire, amateur megalomaniac' within its job description.
BSB
Grandpa Aerotart
YCKT you are absolutely correct in your analogy of the container terminal...however in the harbour you would not be allowed to waterski within the container terminal waterways...this is what dick- head wants.
Unfortunately a small group of AOPA members and recreational flyers feel that it is their right to waterski in the terminal area.
All the professionals have ever said was;
1/. NAS has been ill conceived and badly implemented.
2/. Aspects of NAS2b impact safety adversely for no corresponding financial gain.
3/. It is, to put it mildly, a bit silly to have a class of airspace that is uncontrolled for one group while controlled for another...airspace MUST be either one or the other....IMHO.
4/. It is unreasonable to have the national airspace system, a system that evolved for the safe regulation of commerce, to be slanted in this way towards the recreational flyers, who contribute nothing towards its maintenance.
While I don't want to draw a line between 'professionals' and 'amatuers' for simplicities sake I will. I fully accept that many recreational flyers have standards equal to those of us who spend our working hours off the ground or in a control tower/ATC center. When professionals come on pprune and post their opinions, based usually on an adult life spent working within the various systems we have had over the last 20+ yrs, we talk of our concerns for aviation safety and our responsibility to;
1/. The travelling public
2/. Our families, careers and ourselves
3/. Recreational flying...many of us, including myself, still do fly for fun/own aircraft.
Among others.
When our resident millionaire comes on here he talks about ME, Mine, I want...and then slams anyone who dissents.
I, as perhaps are you, am old enough to have experience going back to the 'pre DS era'. Back when aircraft owners paid air nav charges once a year and everyone was required to participate within the system. When participation within that system cost nothing over and above the air nav charges and fuel taxes.
When those charges, according to DS in his Halls of Doom (or was it the AOPA Mag...when I was a member) writings 20 odd years ago, were contributing in the region of double what it cost to run the entire system!!!
Yes WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD USER PAYS!!!!! The surplus just dissappeared into consolidated revenue.
Then we got the last 20+ years of Beancounter gaol post shifting and DS tampering.
These days aircraft owners don't pay air nav charges and, despite what many think, there is virtually no tax, except GST, on Avgas. Aircraft owners and VFR recreational/commercial flyers contribute very little to the airspace system costs....we do get hammered by the privatisation of airports with the attendant raising of landing/parking fees that the new owners impose in an attempt to drive aviation away so they can redevelope the land...and the Govts of whatever persuasion could care less.
Before DS we had Controlled Airspace and Uncontrolled Airspace....effectively C and G. ALL pilots were REQUIRED to put in a flightplan if going more than 50nm...hence clearances were never a problem. If we went to a primarly airport we paid a landing fee commensurate with the aircraft type...how much wear and tear does a Bonanza cause at Sydney? When we refuelled we paid some tax. Once a year we paid a 'rego fee' i.e. ANCs...and that was IT!!!
A lovely simple system that everyone understood that worked well for our levels of traffic....who the **** cares what happens in the US/EU? Class C (CTA) already closely complies with what the rest of the world do so foriegn crews already can happily operate here.
And guess what? Our levels of 'traffic' are now a fraction of what they were in the 70s and early 80s...that system would and could still work as well today as it did then.
Better in fact given modern technology...it would be the simplest and most cost effective system for Australia.
It would of course mean that DS has wasted a large chunk of his energy over the last 20+ years...but that is a given anyway.
Technology has overtaken the old fashioned FS Officer (they were GREAT) in the same way it overtook Flight Engineers and Navigators...everything, save sage advice, is now available via the internet. You can even get the sage advice via one phone call to our excellent ATCOs pre departure...can save a little embarassment if not significant money by needless flying around.
AOPA and SAA need to get with the system...and ditch DS. The members of those organisations need to ensure their elected representatives are representing the majority views of the membership and NOT their personal adjendas.
The system can work for all. When I fly my own aeroplane for fun or travel I fly within the system. When I fly a 767 I don't want to have to be worried about the possibility of a mid air caused by unknown aircraft, on an unknown frequency, wandering in front of me....I almost certainly will not see you in time!!! To say that jets in G therefore is unsafe is an oversimplyfication...they are on the same area frequency that was read from the chart...or bloody well should be!!!
Chuck.
Unfortunately a small group of AOPA members and recreational flyers feel that it is their right to waterski in the terminal area.
All the professionals have ever said was;
1/. NAS has been ill conceived and badly implemented.
2/. Aspects of NAS2b impact safety adversely for no corresponding financial gain.
3/. It is, to put it mildly, a bit silly to have a class of airspace that is uncontrolled for one group while controlled for another...airspace MUST be either one or the other....IMHO.
4/. It is unreasonable to have the national airspace system, a system that evolved for the safe regulation of commerce, to be slanted in this way towards the recreational flyers, who contribute nothing towards its maintenance.
While I don't want to draw a line between 'professionals' and 'amatuers' for simplicities sake I will. I fully accept that many recreational flyers have standards equal to those of us who spend our working hours off the ground or in a control tower/ATC center. When professionals come on pprune and post their opinions, based usually on an adult life spent working within the various systems we have had over the last 20+ yrs, we talk of our concerns for aviation safety and our responsibility to;
1/. The travelling public
2/. Our families, careers and ourselves
3/. Recreational flying...many of us, including myself, still do fly for fun/own aircraft.
Among others.
When our resident millionaire comes on here he talks about ME, Mine, I want...and then slams anyone who dissents.
I, as perhaps are you, am old enough to have experience going back to the 'pre DS era'. Back when aircraft owners paid air nav charges once a year and everyone was required to participate within the system. When participation within that system cost nothing over and above the air nav charges and fuel taxes.
When those charges, according to DS in his Halls of Doom (or was it the AOPA Mag...when I was a member) writings 20 odd years ago, were contributing in the region of double what it cost to run the entire system!!!
Yes WE HAVE ALWAYS HAD USER PAYS!!!!! The surplus just dissappeared into consolidated revenue.
Then we got the last 20+ years of Beancounter gaol post shifting and DS tampering.
These days aircraft owners don't pay air nav charges and, despite what many think, there is virtually no tax, except GST, on Avgas. Aircraft owners and VFR recreational/commercial flyers contribute very little to the airspace system costs....we do get hammered by the privatisation of airports with the attendant raising of landing/parking fees that the new owners impose in an attempt to drive aviation away so they can redevelope the land...and the Govts of whatever persuasion could care less.
Before DS we had Controlled Airspace and Uncontrolled Airspace....effectively C and G. ALL pilots were REQUIRED to put in a flightplan if going more than 50nm...hence clearances were never a problem. If we went to a primarly airport we paid a landing fee commensurate with the aircraft type...how much wear and tear does a Bonanza cause at Sydney? When we refuelled we paid some tax. Once a year we paid a 'rego fee' i.e. ANCs...and that was IT!!!
A lovely simple system that everyone understood that worked well for our levels of traffic....who the **** cares what happens in the US/EU? Class C (CTA) already closely complies with what the rest of the world do so foriegn crews already can happily operate here.
And guess what? Our levels of 'traffic' are now a fraction of what they were in the 70s and early 80s...that system would and could still work as well today as it did then.
Better in fact given modern technology...it would be the simplest and most cost effective system for Australia.
It would of course mean that DS has wasted a large chunk of his energy over the last 20+ years...but that is a given anyway.
Technology has overtaken the old fashioned FS Officer (they were GREAT) in the same way it overtook Flight Engineers and Navigators...everything, save sage advice, is now available via the internet. You can even get the sage advice via one phone call to our excellent ATCOs pre departure...can save a little embarassment if not significant money by needless flying around.
AOPA and SAA need to get with the system...and ditch DS. The members of those organisations need to ensure their elected representatives are representing the majority views of the membership and NOT their personal adjendas.
The system can work for all. When I fly my own aeroplane for fun or travel I fly within the system. When I fly a 767 I don't want to have to be worried about the possibility of a mid air caused by unknown aircraft, on an unknown frequency, wandering in front of me....I almost certainly will not see you in time!!! To say that jets in G therefore is unsafe is an oversimplyfication...they are on the same area frequency that was read from the chart...or bloody well should be!!!
Chuck.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 25th Sep 2004 at 09:00.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Woomera ravings
I started off with a generally negative and cynical attitude to the NAS changes and wrote early on in PP to that effect. Over the months I have continued to operate, (a PA-31) and now find my attitude has changed from the fairly rigid ideas I had at that time. This change has been brought about by having to operate in the new environment and gaining experience with it. Some of the things I felt were deficiencies have been addressed such as frequencies on charts, clarification (more training) on use of radio in potential conflict situations and a greater awareness on my part to look out. Some things I thought could be problems have turned out not to be and I realise now that this was because they put me outside of my traditional aviation ‘comfort zone’. I had flown a small amount in the USA and thought that whilst the procedures there worked OK I was more comfortable with the arrangements in Australia. Having now flown with some of the elements of the US system here now, I realise it is a good system that works well here. I appreciate the flexibility it gives and hope more of it comes. The IFR pickup and VFR on top continues this aspect of flexibility and the opposition to it is regrettable. I think the Class E over Class D has proven to be safe in practise and I hope it is not rolled back. In my experience, and in the incidents publicised that have occurred peculiar to the new procedures, safety has not been reduced, accept in the perceptions of those unwilling to accept a change that is a commonplace procedure in the most aviation orientated and experienced nation on earth. I have read this forum regularly and the respondent’s arguments and the FACT is that IN PRACTISE the new system has worked well, is working well, and will continue to work well. The statements that have been made that it is ATTITUDES that have to change, is the key to whether the system will work for you or not.
In all the reported incidents the GA pilots have all strongly felt that there was never any risk of ANY sort, and these were not inexperienced low hour pilots. The drivel that has been written on this site about a GA pilot not being able to avoid an airliner he has seen and is aware of beggars belief. It simply demonstrates the mind set of some of the objectors to the NAS.
I’ve re read Woomera’s 10 thingies and then on this thread his comments to Dick Smith re an apology.
Woomera, YOU ARE A MISERABLE HYPOCRITE and a disgrace as a moderator. You obviously favour a certain position which concurs with those anti Dick Smith contributors. I, and other pilots who frequent this forum are completely sick of this bias and YOUR failure to take timely action to prevent the vitriolic, crude, slanderous and personal remarks on this site pertaining to those pro NAS contributors and Dick Smith imparticularly. I stopped reading for a while in disgust and now back I see….
Karrank: “the scaly f*wit says”
Ferris “You liar”
Binoculars “I will tell you to piss off”
“feck off, you horrible little worm”
Uncommon Sense “megalomaniac”
“throw this idiot out”
ChimbuChuckles “dick-head”
Etc. etc.
And then you have the gall to say that because Dick Smith says someone is either a coward or do not have a belief in their convictions he has extremely offended PPRUNer’s.
GIVE US A BREAK MATE. Save your ravings and moralising for someone else who has not read the slander you have permitted on this site.
It is YOU and your degenerate mates who have offended me and other PPRUNer’s on this site.
It is YOU who owe PPRUNer’s an apology.
Now so you all know, I do not personally know Dick Smith or any of the (pro NAS) AOPA contributors or supporters. I AM a professional pilot with upwards of 20 000 hours in GA. I have held an AOC for over 24years, and operate on the eastern seaboard. I have experienced all you speak of from the cosy flight service days to the do it yourself we have now. I have adapted, learnt from experience, paid my own way and read what you have all had to say on this site and contributed a little bit of my own.
My message to you Woomera and those who choose to personalise, belittle and slander individuals is that you don’t have any credibility. Keep going as you are, pissing in each others pockets, and people like me who may want to expand your tiny minds with a different experience will not come back, but maybe that’s what you want?
GOOD RIDDANCE
BP
In all the reported incidents the GA pilots have all strongly felt that there was never any risk of ANY sort, and these were not inexperienced low hour pilots. The drivel that has been written on this site about a GA pilot not being able to avoid an airliner he has seen and is aware of beggars belief. It simply demonstrates the mind set of some of the objectors to the NAS.
I’ve re read Woomera’s 10 thingies and then on this thread his comments to Dick Smith re an apology.
Woomera, YOU ARE A MISERABLE HYPOCRITE and a disgrace as a moderator. You obviously favour a certain position which concurs with those anti Dick Smith contributors. I, and other pilots who frequent this forum are completely sick of this bias and YOUR failure to take timely action to prevent the vitriolic, crude, slanderous and personal remarks on this site pertaining to those pro NAS contributors and Dick Smith imparticularly. I stopped reading for a while in disgust and now back I see….
Karrank: “the scaly f*wit says”
Ferris “You liar”
Binoculars “I will tell you to piss off”
“feck off, you horrible little worm”
Uncommon Sense “megalomaniac”
“throw this idiot out”
ChimbuChuckles “dick-head”
Etc. etc.
And then you have the gall to say that because Dick Smith says someone is either a coward or do not have a belief in their convictions he has extremely offended PPRUNer’s.
GIVE US A BREAK MATE. Save your ravings and moralising for someone else who has not read the slander you have permitted on this site.
It is YOU and your degenerate mates who have offended me and other PPRUNer’s on this site.
It is YOU who owe PPRUNer’s an apology.
Now so you all know, I do not personally know Dick Smith or any of the (pro NAS) AOPA contributors or supporters. I AM a professional pilot with upwards of 20 000 hours in GA. I have held an AOC for over 24years, and operate on the eastern seaboard. I have experienced all you speak of from the cosy flight service days to the do it yourself we have now. I have adapted, learnt from experience, paid my own way and read what you have all had to say on this site and contributed a little bit of my own.
My message to you Woomera and those who choose to personalise, belittle and slander individuals is that you don’t have any credibility. Keep going as you are, pissing in each others pockets, and people like me who may want to expand your tiny minds with a different experience will not come back, but maybe that’s what you want?
GOOD RIDDANCE
BP
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bush Pelican you said,
The reason Class E over D is being replaced with Class C is the opposite to what "you believe". Lets deal in facts BP, not what you or Dick believe.
Not drivel, BP, but actual fact. Your Chieftain doing 180 knots does not have the speed to get out of the way of a DHC8 doing 300 knots, or a big red jet doing 420 knots. About 40 - 60 seconds is the time it would take you to see the jet, determine if there is a conflict (collision risk), and then take avoiding action. Hence, the jet or dash 8 has to avoid you.
I find it hard to believe that somone with"upwards of 20,000 hours in GA" would think that his Chieftain would be able to avoid a jet, and that the incidents in Class E over D towers is merely a matter of ATTITUDES. You claim to have held an AOC for 24 years. Maybe we should have CASA investigate whether you should continue to hold an AOC given your display of ignorance on aircraft velocities, Safety Management Systems, and airspace procedures.
I think the Class E over Class D has proven to be safe in practise
The drivel that has been written on this site about a GA pilot not being able to avoid an airliner he has seen and is aware of beggars belief.
I find it hard to believe that somone with"upwards of 20,000 hours in GA" would think that his Chieftain would be able to avoid a jet, and that the incidents in Class E over D towers is merely a matter of ATTITUDES. You claim to have held an AOC for 24 years. Maybe we should have CASA investigate whether you should continue to hold an AOC given your display of ignorance on aircraft velocities, Safety Management Systems, and airspace procedures.
Just Binos
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Mackay, Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have a certain regard for Bush Pelican's post. Anybody who has survived 20,000 hours in GA, especially if he has his own business, is worthy of respect.
It's interesting that after his reasonable start he eventually falls prey to the same frustration that has been the downfall of several of us here in regards to turning personal.
Conditions and time constraints don't permit me to answer him now, but I'll do my best tomorrow.
It's interesting that after his reasonable start he eventually falls prey to the same frustration that has been the downfall of several of us here in regards to turning personal.
Conditions and time constraints don't permit me to answer him now, but I'll do my best tomorrow.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Adrift upon the tides of fate
Posts: 1,840
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BP. You normally have sensible things to say, but were you on the turps when you wrote that?
You mean, except when it didn't? Like, when there have been UNNECESSARY near misses between light aircraft and jets? Now, granted, if the introduction of these changes had any tangible benefit for the decrease in safety, people here would have a hard time denying the change. If the only benefit seems to be that VFRs don't have to file a flight plan, then expect the result we got.
Have you missed all the debate about the danger of getting some parts of the US system, then thinking you have the same level of safety as the US?
Well, that's just utter BS. If you think TCAS RAs in jet airliners are ops normal, and not 'a reduction in safety', think long and hard about a different line of work.
The launy incident happened in a non-radar environment. There is lots of that in oz. We've developed a lot of commonplace procedures to cope with a situation the yanks just don't find themselves in. The "US SYSTEM" cannot, and will never, exist in oz.
Re-read the launy incident. The pilot thought the jet was going to miss him down one side, and was 'surprised' when it actually passed down the other. How is he going to avoid an aircraft that he can't even judge the trajectory of? Relative speed arguments aside.
The man is a liar. He lies in the media almost daily, he has lied repeatedly to this forum, has no trouble dishing it out (cowards, criminally negligent etc etc) yet you feel the need to defend him?
and what do you call that? Hypocracy is a poor motivator.
Having now flown with some of the elements of the US system here now, I realise it is a good system that works well here
Have you missed all the debate about the danger of getting some parts of the US system, then thinking you have the same level of safety as the US?
In my experience, and in the incidents publicised that have occurred peculiar to the new procedures, safety has not been reduced,
unwilling to accept a change that is a commonplace procedure in the most aviation orientated and experienced nation on earth
The drivel that has been written on this site about a GA pilot not being able to avoid an airliner he has seen and is aware of beggars belief.
Ferris “You liar”
people like me who may want to expand your tiny minds
Grandpa Aerotart
BP I only spent 10+ years and 7000 odd hrs in GA...with the greatest respect, and I mean that, perhaps walk a mile in my shoes, before you decide NAS is all good from your perspective. Parts of NAS are pallitable...but really what huge benefit does E airspace bring us?
Is it REALLY that unpallitable that a jet carrying anywhere from 80 to 400 pax, and who's owner pays huge money for the 'service' be given a bit of a clear run at YSSY or YBBN? I mean really how often will you be, in your east coast op, truly effected in any meaningfull way?
I would suggest to you it's a rare thing.
This is not fascism, as someone put it recently, it's economic reality.
Do you personally prefer what we have now to the airspace we had when you were learning to fly?
Do you think it's good that while the industry they 'service' has contracted over the last 25 years the beaurocracy that 'services' it has got bigger?
Do you think that perhaps the two are connected?
'Dick- head'???
Man I've been reading and listening to DS for over 20 years...I come to this conclusion the long way...believe me.
Honestly the individual in question is ENFURIATING to those of us who have actually seen the way aviation functions outside of Oz.
As an ex GA pilot who still owns a light aeroplane (and is an inveterate aeroplane/flying enthusiast...even after24 yrs) I want desperately for GA and the various forms of recreational flying to be vibrant and fullfilling. I want you to be able to make a good living and offer newbies a healthy, well paid start in aviation and to be able to afford to look at young pilots on their way to whatever their fate decrees is their final career destination, and say "hey good kid...gave me a year or two, looked after my aeroplane, learned heaps (from me) and he's off up the greasy pole...best of luck lad...buy me a beer sometime!!!"
Dick Smith and his NAS are NOT going to help the situation one iota.
Before DS and beancounters/polliticians interceded it was a great industry. Australia invented DME, T-Vasis (I think) and the Victa Airtourer (lets just forget the Nomad
)...now what?
There are lots of things that are broken and need fixing desperately...airspace was NOT one of them!!!!
Chuck.
Edited due to too much redwine in the first edition
Is it REALLY that unpallitable that a jet carrying anywhere from 80 to 400 pax, and who's owner pays huge money for the 'service' be given a bit of a clear run at YSSY or YBBN? I mean really how often will you be, in your east coast op, truly effected in any meaningfull way?
I would suggest to you it's a rare thing.
This is not fascism, as someone put it recently, it's economic reality.
Do you personally prefer what we have now to the airspace we had when you were learning to fly?
Do you think it's good that while the industry they 'service' has contracted over the last 25 years the beaurocracy that 'services' it has got bigger?
Do you think that perhaps the two are connected?
'Dick- head'???
Man I've been reading and listening to DS for over 20 years...I come to this conclusion the long way...believe me.
Honestly the individual in question is ENFURIATING to those of us who have actually seen the way aviation functions outside of Oz.
As an ex GA pilot who still owns a light aeroplane (and is an inveterate aeroplane/flying enthusiast...even after24 yrs) I want desperately for GA and the various forms of recreational flying to be vibrant and fullfilling. I want you to be able to make a good living and offer newbies a healthy, well paid start in aviation and to be able to afford to look at young pilots on their way to whatever their fate decrees is their final career destination, and say "hey good kid...gave me a year or two, looked after my aeroplane, learned heaps (from me) and he's off up the greasy pole...best of luck lad...buy me a beer sometime!!!"
Dick Smith and his NAS are NOT going to help the situation one iota.
Before DS and beancounters/polliticians interceded it was a great industry. Australia invented DME, T-Vasis (I think) and the Victa Airtourer (lets just forget the Nomad
)...now what?There are lots of things that are broken and need fixing desperately...airspace was NOT one of them!!!!
Chuck.
Edited due to too much redwine in the first edition
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 25th Sep 2004 at 18:13.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I apologise to all for my lapse.
Dirty Pierre,
In my Chieftain below A10000 I have not come across any DHC8 or big red jets doing up to 420knts, have you?
The reason class E is being replaced over class D is because of lobbying and political pressure, not in my opinion because it is unsafe, but if that view prevails, OK.
The whole question of this and most other aviation related conflicts related to safety rests on the degree of danger or risk you think exists and you are prepared to accept. As I said, my operational experience is that it’s not a problem. I have a no of times been conscious of an RPT arrival or departure and now I feel it’s normal to handle that in a straight forward and commonsense way. I always make sure the jet crew feels comfortable and informed about where I am and what I’m doing and I keep a good lookout. The only problem is head on or closing from behind in which case some altitude liaison will be required. I have avoided jets EASILY and angles and velocities in these cases are not rocket science….make sure the dot is moving on the windscreen!
The early concerns to E over D incidents have been addressed with radar and a better understanding of responsibilities and commonsense by pilots and ATC. The educational and consultation process prior to the introduction was appalling and the fact that no formal risk assessment study was done was incredible.
I spoke at length with the pilot in the MCY incident. He said that he felt there was No possibility of any dangerous situation developing or eventuating in that incident. He said he was fully aware and able to make any changes necessary to avoid a conflict. Why this is such a good example is that everything that could happen to prevent an incident DID happen. Ie, flight plans in system. Very experienced crews. Both crews aware. ATC aware and both aircraft identified and in contact. Advisories given. One pilot visually observing the other aircraft. Good weather. Crossing trajectories.
So, why did a TCAS RA occur?
Simply because the L.A. or Virgin pilots didn’t do something to prevent the RA before it occurred. This is where the education process demonstrated its total failure. The L.A. pilot thought passing within a mile or so of the V.B. was fine and not dangerous. The VB pilots couldn’t see the LA and didn’t do anything. The ATC guys didn’t make any appropriate suggestions. All anyone had to do was talk and make a positive separation suggestion and it wouldn’t have happened, THAT SIMPLE.
ferris.
I have answered you in what I said to DP. My operational experience has made me feel more comfortable with the NAS, whatever the ‘bits and pieces’ of the US system we have or don’t have. In the MCY incident, the elements were identical to the US system. Even though our system is not identical the RA still occurred. This tells me that all that went wrong was that the participants didn’t know their roles. If they had it wouldn’t have happened.
This has been a change of attitude on my part and as I said I think I had a mindset before which said what we had was the only way. I don’t mind C over D and have always been well treated by ATC flight planed or not. However the NAS is more flexible (and gives me more responsibility). I’m just saying that I haven’t found it more dangerous in my operation.
BP
Dirty Pierre,
In my Chieftain below A10000 I have not come across any DHC8 or big red jets doing up to 420knts, have you?
The reason class E is being replaced over class D is because of lobbying and political pressure, not in my opinion because it is unsafe, but if that view prevails, OK.
The whole question of this and most other aviation related conflicts related to safety rests on the degree of danger or risk you think exists and you are prepared to accept. As I said, my operational experience is that it’s not a problem. I have a no of times been conscious of an RPT arrival or departure and now I feel it’s normal to handle that in a straight forward and commonsense way. I always make sure the jet crew feels comfortable and informed about where I am and what I’m doing and I keep a good lookout. The only problem is head on or closing from behind in which case some altitude liaison will be required. I have avoided jets EASILY and angles and velocities in these cases are not rocket science….make sure the dot is moving on the windscreen!
The early concerns to E over D incidents have been addressed with radar and a better understanding of responsibilities and commonsense by pilots and ATC. The educational and consultation process prior to the introduction was appalling and the fact that no formal risk assessment study was done was incredible.
I spoke at length with the pilot in the MCY incident. He said that he felt there was No possibility of any dangerous situation developing or eventuating in that incident. He said he was fully aware and able to make any changes necessary to avoid a conflict. Why this is such a good example is that everything that could happen to prevent an incident DID happen. Ie, flight plans in system. Very experienced crews. Both crews aware. ATC aware and both aircraft identified and in contact. Advisories given. One pilot visually observing the other aircraft. Good weather. Crossing trajectories.
So, why did a TCAS RA occur?
Simply because the L.A. or Virgin pilots didn’t do something to prevent the RA before it occurred. This is where the education process demonstrated its total failure. The L.A. pilot thought passing within a mile or so of the V.B. was fine and not dangerous. The VB pilots couldn’t see the LA and didn’t do anything. The ATC guys didn’t make any appropriate suggestions. All anyone had to do was talk and make a positive separation suggestion and it wouldn’t have happened, THAT SIMPLE.
ferris.
I have answered you in what I said to DP. My operational experience has made me feel more comfortable with the NAS, whatever the ‘bits and pieces’ of the US system we have or don’t have. In the MCY incident, the elements were identical to the US system. Even though our system is not identical the RA still occurred. This tells me that all that went wrong was that the participants didn’t know their roles. If they had it wouldn’t have happened.
This has been a change of attitude on my part and as I said I think I had a mindset before which said what we had was the only way. I don’t mind C over D and have always been well treated by ATC flight planed or not. However the NAS is more flexible (and gives me more responsibility). I’m just saying that I haven’t found it more dangerous in my operation.
BP