Now is your chance to remove unnecessary rules and costs/VOR airspace thread merged
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Earth
Age: 52
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Torres
what town are you in, you don't get to the big smoke much. No More PH restaurants anymore. Take away is the rage.....apparently
SQ
PS I second your post though, well said.
what town are you in, you don't get to the big smoke much. No More PH restaurants anymore. Take away is the rage.....apparently
SQ
PS I second your post though, well said.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A warning about the exams...
Dear Dick,
Having coming up through the frustration of the Australian examination process from 1984 through 1987 and obtaining the Australian ATPL in 1989, it's only now I'm really seeing the benefits.
What I'm seeing in the "Pavlovian School of Aeronautics", graduates is a failure in three specific areas.
1. A failure in cognitative reasoning:
- Lack of mechanical aptitude.
- No "cause and effect" logic.
2. Lower levels of IQ:
- Inability to "keep the plates spinning".
- Poor thought processes in converting problems like weather, mountain airports, runway calculations..right down to loading bags so they fit in a baggage compartment.
- A huge reliance on rote learning.
3. "Arrogant" Ignorance:
-Some newer candidates believe that they should know the bare minimum to get through life. No striving for excellence in performance..no pursuing of a higher level of knowledge.
By dumbing down the exams and allowing any old ATO to hand out certificates, you will dumb down the Australian system even further than it is now. We all know that in the early 1990's it already saw one major "dumbing" down.
Personally, I think it's time to make the exams tougher again.
Having coming up through the frustration of the Australian examination process from 1984 through 1987 and obtaining the Australian ATPL in 1989, it's only now I'm really seeing the benefits.
What I'm seeing in the "Pavlovian School of Aeronautics", graduates is a failure in three specific areas.
1. A failure in cognitative reasoning:
- Lack of mechanical aptitude.
- No "cause and effect" logic.
2. Lower levels of IQ:
- Inability to "keep the plates spinning".
- Poor thought processes in converting problems like weather, mountain airports, runway calculations..right down to loading bags so they fit in a baggage compartment.
- A huge reliance on rote learning.
3. "Arrogant" Ignorance:
-Some newer candidates believe that they should know the bare minimum to get through life. No striving for excellence in performance..no pursuing of a higher level of knowledge.
By dumbing down the exams and allowing any old ATO to hand out certificates, you will dumb down the Australian system even further than it is now. We all know that in the early 1990's it already saw one major "dumbing" down.
Personally, I think it's time to make the exams tougher again.
Last edited by Chris Higgins; 30th Jun 2007 at 03:58.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Posts: 601
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Squawk,
The problem with a passing generation of mediocrity is that it is very difficult to raise standards to what they once were, when the people doing the teaching were never exposed to it in the first place.
The problem with a passing generation of mediocrity is that it is very difficult to raise standards to what they once were, when the people doing the teaching were never exposed to it in the first place.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Security -
Get rid of screening for GA aircraft. It achieves NOTHING! I suspect if we don't the next thing will be that when screeing is brought into regional airports, the screening will also include baggage being loaded onto a GA aircraft from an apron shared with an RPT service. This no doubt will come at a cost. "Oh you want us to x-ray your bags sir / madam - no worries that will be $10.00 per piece thanks".
Stop screening aircrews period. If they are going to cause carnage with an aircraft, nothing found by the security at a screening point is going to stop it happening. THis would have had to been the most il conceived part of the regulations.
Extend the screening exemption to all aeromedical flights and police aircraft departing from an RPT apron. By the legislation at the moment they are not exempt so it is left, on advice from DOTARS, to the ad operators to use "discretion" in these cases. In fact advice has even been given by these clowns on how to screen patients boarding an RFDS flight during the operational period. Buggered if I can find a definition for discretion in ATSRs though
Surely it's time for consultation with industry (now there's a novel concept for DOTARS) and a review of this mess.
Get rid of screening for GA aircraft. It achieves NOTHING! I suspect if we don't the next thing will be that when screeing is brought into regional airports, the screening will also include baggage being loaded onto a GA aircraft from an apron shared with an RPT service. This no doubt will come at a cost. "Oh you want us to x-ray your bags sir / madam - no worries that will be $10.00 per piece thanks".
Stop screening aircrews period. If they are going to cause carnage with an aircraft, nothing found by the security at a screening point is going to stop it happening. THis would have had to been the most il conceived part of the regulations.
Extend the screening exemption to all aeromedical flights and police aircraft departing from an RPT apron. By the legislation at the moment they are not exempt so it is left, on advice from DOTARS, to the ad operators to use "discretion" in these cases. In fact advice has even been given by these clowns on how to screen patients boarding an RFDS flight during the operational period. Buggered if I can find a definition for discretion in ATSRs though
Surely it's time for consultation with industry (now there's a novel concept for DOTARS) and a review of this mess.
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: E116
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Three Things,
Infrastructure -
Parallel runway for Perth - Even a 1800m one that will ease the burdon for charter operators and RPT flights! I know other airports could use a bit more black stuff too! Greater Radar coverage at lower levels in busy areas and around busy capital city airports. More AWIS units too could really help.
Contractors -
The grey dark cloud that many CPL's have to deal with. Put something in the CARs that the holder of an air operators certificate must not use contractors and staff must be classified as an employee. Obviously exceptions are made for ATO's and Check and training etc. Give someone the power to enforce it, because nobody will at the moment!
Security -
An ASIC renewal should be valid 2 years from the issue date, not the day the security check was done! Most pilots will not suddenly become a terrorist between their AFP check and the day their ASIC expires.
The sooner the government realises pilots are professional people and not terrorists the better we will all be! Prehaps we should have security checks for politicians seeing they are in charge of our country after all!
Infrastructure -
Parallel runway for Perth - Even a 1800m one that will ease the burdon for charter operators and RPT flights! I know other airports could use a bit more black stuff too! Greater Radar coverage at lower levels in busy areas and around busy capital city airports. More AWIS units too could really help.
Contractors -
The grey dark cloud that many CPL's have to deal with. Put something in the CARs that the holder of an air operators certificate must not use contractors and staff must be classified as an employee. Obviously exceptions are made for ATO's and Check and training etc. Give someone the power to enforce it, because nobody will at the moment!
Security -
An ASIC renewal should be valid 2 years from the issue date, not the day the security check was done! Most pilots will not suddenly become a terrorist between their AFP check and the day their ASIC expires.
The sooner the government realises pilots are professional people and not terrorists the better we will all be! Prehaps we should have security checks for politicians seeing they are in charge of our country after all!
Thread Starter
Thanks everyone for all of the work you have put into this thread. I have made up a list of all of the changes that could reduce costs and assist Australian aviation in competing in a global environment. I’ve handed this list on to the powers that be.
I find it fascinating that as well as the savings we can make, we seem to get as many individuals who want more onerous rules with extra costs compared to other leading aviation countries.
This is always the problem I have found. If you ask a large group of aviators about regulatory reform, you find that you actually get no reform at all if you want consensus – because just about every individual has a different view on what should be changed. Many want simpler rules with cost reductions on some issues, and just as many want more prescriptive rules which will increase costs on the same issues.
Thanks again to everyone who assisted.
I find it fascinating that as well as the savings we can make, we seem to get as many individuals who want more onerous rules with extra costs compared to other leading aviation countries.
This is always the problem I have found. If you ask a large group of aviators about regulatory reform, you find that you actually get no reform at all if you want consensus – because just about every individual has a different view on what should be changed. Many want simpler rules with cost reductions on some issues, and just as many want more prescriptive rules which will increase costs on the same issues.
Thanks again to everyone who assisted.
I'm in one of those moods
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: SFC to A085
Posts: 759
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dick,
.
In the interests of transparency and good faith (seeing as you formulated the 'list' from here), how bout posting it here for readers
.
In the interests of transparency and good faith (seeing as you formulated the 'list' from here), how bout posting it here for readers
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chad
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fat chance!
As we have seen before, Richard's idea of consulting is to ask you want you want - then tell you what you're going to get - usually a day or so before you get it!
I suspect he's already made his mind up about our priorities, and was just looking for a few loose quotes that he could attach to his proposals and say "there you go, they asked for this".
Sorry to be cynical, but haven't we all been bitten too many times before?
As we have seen before, Richard's idea of consulting is to ask you want you want - then tell you what you're going to get - usually a day or so before you get it!
I suspect he's already made his mind up about our priorities, and was just looking for a few loose quotes that he could attach to his proposals and say "there you go, they asked for this".
Sorry to be cynical, but haven't we all been bitten too many times before?
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Luny Tunes
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
[QUOTE]This is always the problem I have found. If you ask a large group of aviators about regulatory reform, you find that you actually get no reform at all if you want consensus – because just about every individual has a different view on what should be changed./QUOTE]
Here lies the major problem in airspace reform in recent years. Instead of consulting the majority of users and stake-holders, decisions are made by the politically driven influential minority with personal agendas.
This statement reeks of arrogance; all major players are entitled to provide detailed input on any change proposal and the discussions prior to implementation should last as long as necessary. Forced change within minimal timeframes has been a major contributing factor to poor implementation and industry education in previous NAS reforms.
It would appear that the influential minority have learnt nothing.
Here lies the major problem in airspace reform in recent years. Instead of consulting the majority of users and stake-holders, decisions are made by the politically driven influential minority with personal agendas.
This statement reeks of arrogance; all major players are entitled to provide detailed input on any change proposal and the discussions prior to implementation should last as long as necessary. Forced change within minimal timeframes has been a major contributing factor to poor implementation and industry education in previous NAS reforms.
It would appear that the influential minority have learnt nothing.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Luny Tunes
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
1. Vote 1 - Kevin Rudd
2. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms and ensure that the risks are identified correctly and thoroughly. Ensure that identified risks have documented mitigators and safety requirements that must be met prior to implementation where necessary.
3. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms to be included in any cost benefit analysis that must be completed by the change proponent. Ensure that these issues are costed correctly and ensure that the change proponents are required to provide detailed information on any CBA to the workshop participants post the event. Ensure that the participants are periodically advised of any amendments to this analysis right through to implementation.
Request information from the change proponent up front regarding exactly what level of CBA would be acceptable for a change to be approved and progressed.
4. Ensure points 2 and 3 are included in the PIR. Ensure that the PIR is firmly programmed into the initial project timeline. Ensure that the same participants will be involved all the way through the process to the PIR stage.
5. Analyse the project plan and timelines to ensure that the appropriate methods of promulgation are planned to be used (unlike CTAFs where a 52 page AIP SUP was used to hand amend AIP book).
6. Ensure that the same participants are fully involved in the creation of the relevant training and education package, and ensure that the content is adequate for the level / type of change.
7. Ask as many questions as necessary regarding the compliance with ICAO of any change proposal.
8. Ensure that the participants sight and approve the required changes to the relevant AIS documentation prior to printing and distribution.
9. Resist at all costs the attempts to use TCAS as a risk mitigator (refer point 7).
There's a starting point, but let's hope the ALP has other ideas and agendas more important than these insignificant reforms that will not add anything to the Aus aviation industry.
2. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms and ensure that the risks are identified correctly and thoroughly. Ensure that identified risks have documented mitigators and safety requirements that must be met prior to implementation where necessary.
3. Raise every issue however insignificant at every industry hazard identification workshop forum run on NAS reforms to be included in any cost benefit analysis that must be completed by the change proponent. Ensure that these issues are costed correctly and ensure that the change proponents are required to provide detailed information on any CBA to the workshop participants post the event. Ensure that the participants are periodically advised of any amendments to this analysis right through to implementation.
Request information from the change proponent up front regarding exactly what level of CBA would be acceptable for a change to be approved and progressed.
4. Ensure points 2 and 3 are included in the PIR. Ensure that the PIR is firmly programmed into the initial project timeline. Ensure that the same participants will be involved all the way through the process to the PIR stage.
5. Analyse the project plan and timelines to ensure that the appropriate methods of promulgation are planned to be used (unlike CTAFs where a 52 page AIP SUP was used to hand amend AIP book).
6. Ensure that the same participants are fully involved in the creation of the relevant training and education package, and ensure that the content is adequate for the level / type of change.
7. Ask as many questions as necessary regarding the compliance with ICAO of any change proposal.
8. Ensure that the participants sight and approve the required changes to the relevant AIS documentation prior to printing and distribution.
9. Resist at all costs the attempts to use TCAS as a risk mitigator (refer point 7).
There's a starting point, but let's hope the ALP has other ideas and agendas more important than these insignificant reforms that will not add anything to the Aus aviation industry.
Grandpa Aerotart
I have an idea...lets only change 1 thing every 12 mths instead of confusing the crap out of everybody with great rafts of ill thought out change for change sake.
I think we could all concentrate on just one thing and thrash it out properly...if it is good and most people think it is good it is implemented...if not no other ideas are introduced until next year and the dick-head
who thought of it is sinbinned for 5 years.
Each January 15 one idea is floated...it is then discussed and thrashed out...by September 15 it is either approved and implemented or thrown in the dustbin....implmentation date is the following January 15.
Now here is the great bit...if it is a REALLY good idea and everyone thinks so and it is implemented in say July nothing else happens until the following January....no more stress and everybody enjoys their xmass break without worrying about a NAS2b style pressy.
I would also suggest that if it also just so happens to be not ICAO compliant we just tell ICAO the news and get on with life...every country has differences from ICAO...live with it Dick
Based on a 1 change per year schedule I reckon we can have our airspace tweaked to near perfection in 7-10 years...and with non of the angst we have seen in the last 20...where I might point out Dick we have achieved way less than 20 good changes...or even just 20 changes
My vote for first change is;
Transition altitude moved up to 13000' and the transition level to FL150.
Reason?
It gets it the **** out of everybody's way...high enough to never be a concern for GA/Private ops and low enough so it is never a concern for a pressurised aeroplane.
We can forget losing levels due low pressure...it's is 2000' thick and in a piece of sky no one uses...who cares about 997mb?
Added bonus in that it brings us in line with our immediate neighbours to the north west and east...PNG we REALLY don't care about.
Safety case?
Demonstably a non issue.
Cost benefit annalysis?
At the rate those nice people at AsA send out ammendments it can simply be incorporated in the next one...or the one after that...cost $0...oh yeah I forgot...$130 for some 3rd grade secretary to send an email to ICAO
I think you will all agree that it could save industry at least $30 million over the next 3 years...or thereabouts
ICAO compliant?
Who really cares?...the Brits have theirs at FL060..really dumb...but you don't see them losing sleep over it.
Ok...done and dusted...we don't talk about anything else until January 15 2008. On that date...and not one fecking nanosecond earlier I propose we nut out scurvy's CTA/OCTA airspace idea with the emphasis on KISS.
I think we could all concentrate on just one thing and thrash it out properly...if it is good and most people think it is good it is implemented...if not no other ideas are introduced until next year and the dick-head
who thought of it is sinbinned for 5 years. Each January 15 one idea is floated...it is then discussed and thrashed out...by September 15 it is either approved and implemented or thrown in the dustbin....implmentation date is the following January 15.
Now here is the great bit...if it is a REALLY good idea and everyone thinks so and it is implemented in say July nothing else happens until the following January....no more stress and everybody enjoys their xmass break without worrying about a NAS2b style pressy.
I would also suggest that if it also just so happens to be not ICAO compliant we just tell ICAO the news and get on with life...every country has differences from ICAO...live with it Dick
Based on a 1 change per year schedule I reckon we can have our airspace tweaked to near perfection in 7-10 years...and with non of the angst we have seen in the last 20...where I might point out Dick we have achieved way less than 20 good changes...or even just 20 changes
My vote for first change is;
Transition altitude moved up to 13000' and the transition level to FL150.
Reason?
It gets it the **** out of everybody's way...high enough to never be a concern for GA/Private ops and low enough so it is never a concern for a pressurised aeroplane.
We can forget losing levels due low pressure...it's is 2000' thick and in a piece of sky no one uses...who cares about 997mb?
Added bonus in that it brings us in line with our immediate neighbours to the north west and east...PNG we REALLY don't care about.
Safety case?
Demonstably a non issue.
Cost benefit annalysis?
At the rate those nice people
at AsA send out ammendments it can simply be incorporated in the next one...or the one after that...cost $0...oh yeah I forgot...$130 for some 3rd grade secretary to send an email to ICAOI think you will all agree that it could save industry at least $30 million over the next 3 years...or thereabouts
ICAO compliant?
Who really cares?...the Brits have theirs at FL060..really dumb...but you don't see them losing sleep over it.
Ok...done and dusted...we don't talk about anything else until January 15 2008. On that date...and not one fecking nanosecond earlier I propose we nut out scurvy's CTA/OCTA airspace idea with the emphasis on KISS.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 3rd Jul 2007 at 15:42.
Aus Security
As a seppo visiting BN: Sign at GA area gate says, "Unauthorized weapons are prohibited" Are there locations allowing unauthorized weapons on the apron? Considering weapons are damn near banned everywhere in Oz, what is an "unauthorized weapon" or an authorized one, for that matter.
GF, who notes the US isn't alone in stupid signs and security ideas
Excellent idea Chimbu: why do we continue to deal with widely varying tranisition levels? I suspect it is because some inspector flunked meteo and their exams and are punishing us for their idiocy.
GF, who notes the US isn't alone in stupid signs and security ideas
Excellent idea Chimbu: why do we continue to deal with widely varying tranisition levels? I suspect it is because some inspector flunked meteo and their exams and are punishing us for their idiocy.
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
G'day Galaxy Flyer, Welcome to Oz and our wonderful aviation security system. Regarding the "Unauthorised Weapons" signs. You will, or should, find them at every gate, door or other entrance to the airside area of a security controlled airport.
Now here's a thought. I wonder if a GA pilot with his shotgun or .22 in the back of his aeroplane can be prosecuted for not obeying the warnings? I know, I know - ignorance is no excuse blah blah blah. But that was the whole reason for the signs going up in the first place.
Now here's a thought. I wonder if a GA pilot with his shotgun or .22 in the back of his aeroplane can be prosecuted for not obeying the warnings? I know, I know - ignorance is no excuse blah blah blah. But that was the whole reason for the signs going up in the first place.